Form 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 001-34263
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
65-0403311 |
|
|
|
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|
|
|
30831 Huntwood Avenue, Hayward, CA
|
|
94544 |
|
|
|
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(510)- 476-2000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Not Applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes o No 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 o
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
Non-accelerated filer þ
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
|
Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
As of
November 2, 2009, there were 61,874,568 shares of the registrants common stock outstanding.
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
INDEX
Page 2 of 92
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
47,577 |
|
|
$ |
69,275 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
52,950 |
|
|
|
50,710 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
61,543 |
|
|
|
43,306 |
|
Inventory, net |
|
|
38,911 |
|
|
|
32,305 |
|
Current portion of deferred product manufacturing costs-alliance agreements |
|
|
14,750 |
|
|
|
13,578 |
|
Current portion of deferred income taxes |
|
|
18,611 |
|
|
|
17,900 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
2,654 |
|
|
|
9,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
236,996 |
|
|
|
236,372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
96,457 |
|
|
|
95,629 |
|
Deferred product manufacturing costs-alliance agreements |
|
|
93,075 |
|
|
|
93,144 |
|
Deferred income taxes, net |
|
|
61,270 |
|
|
|
52,551 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
14,521 |
|
|
|
9,017 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
27,574 |
|
|
|
27,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
529,893 |
|
|
$ |
514,287 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt, net |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
14,416 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
13,245 |
|
|
|
12,797 |
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
55,799 |
|
|
|
41,360 |
|
Current portion of deferred revenue-alliance agreements |
|
|
39,925 |
|
|
|
35,015 |
|
Current portion of accrued exclusivity period fee payments due |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
108,969 |
|
|
|
109,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,990 |
|
Deferred revenue-alliance agreements |
|
|
223,439 |
|
|
|
225,804 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
16,739 |
|
|
|
13,255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
349,147 |
|
|
$ |
354,637 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 18) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock, $0.01 par value, 2,000,000 shares authorized,
0 shares outstanding at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 90,000,000 shares authorized and
61,833,440 and 60,135,686 shares issued at September 30, 2009
and December 31, 2008, respectively |
|
|
618 |
|
|
|
602 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
219,960 |
|
|
|
211,128 |
|
Treasury stock-acquired as a result of achievement of milestone under
the Teva Agreement, 243,729 shares |
|
|
(2,157 |
) |
|
|
(2,157 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(615 |
) |
|
|
(995 |
) |
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(37,316 |
) |
|
|
(49,233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180,490 |
|
|
|
159,345 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
180,746 |
|
|
|
159,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
529,893 |
|
|
$ |
514,287 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these interim consolidated financial statements.
Page 3 of 92
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, net |
|
$ |
46,636 |
|
|
$ |
20,080 |
|
|
$ |
123,144 |
|
|
$ |
69,044 |
|
Private Label product sales |
|
|
1,752 |
|
|
|
629 |
|
|
|
5,269 |
|
|
|
1,747 |
|
Rx Partner |
|
|
8,328 |
|
|
|
9,424 |
|
|
|
30,183 |
|
|
|
72,099 |
|
OTC Partner |
|
|
1,769 |
|
|
|
3,398 |
|
|
|
5,255 |
|
|
|
12,739 |
|
Research Partner |
|
|
2,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
Promotional Partner |
|
|
3,499 |
|
|
|
3,238 |
|
|
|
10,007 |
|
|
|
9,728 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
64,946 |
|
|
|
36,774 |
|
|
|
182,275 |
|
|
|
165,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
28,055 |
|
|
|
22,296 |
|
|
|
81,589 |
|
|
|
66,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
36,891 |
|
|
|
14,478 |
|
|
|
100,686 |
|
|
|
98,998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
15,243 |
|
|
|
16,188 |
|
|
|
46,744 |
|
|
|
43,275 |
|
Patent litigation |
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
4,058 |
|
|
|
4,827 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
9,838 |
|
|
|
14,542 |
|
|
|
31,600 |
|
|
|
37,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
26,728 |
|
|
|
32,606 |
|
|
|
82,402 |
|
|
|
85,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations |
|
|
10,163 |
|
|
|
(18,128 |
) |
|
|
18,284 |
|
|
|
13,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of common stock
purchase warrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
Other income (expense), net |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
723 |
|
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
3,282 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(971 |
) |
|
|
(735 |
) |
|
|
(4,447 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
10,180 |
|
|
|
(18,380 |
) |
|
|
18,290 |
|
|
|
12,779 |
|
Provision (benefit) for income taxes |
|
|
3,495 |
|
|
|
(7,850 |
) |
|
|
6,373 |
|
|
|
5,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
6,685 |
|
|
$ |
(10,530 |
) |
|
$ |
11,917 |
|
|
$ |
7,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
60,559,064 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
60,130,608 |
|
|
|
58,993,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
61,247,700 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
60,667,227 |
|
|
|
60,813,707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited interim consolidated financial
statements.
Page 4 of 92
Impax Laboratories, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
Cash flows from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
11,917 |
|
|
$ |
7,018 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash (used in) provided by
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
7,806 |
|
|
|
6,791 |
|
Amortization of 3.5% Debentures discount and deferred financing costs |
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
1,946 |
|
Amortization of Wachovia Credit Agreement deferred financing costs |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
287 |
|
Bad debt expense |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
Deferred income taxes (benefit) |
|
|
(9,430 |
) |
|
|
1,997 |
|
Provision for uncertain tax positions |
|
|
695 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loss, net on repurchase of 3.5% Debentures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
|
Deferred revenue Rx Partners |
|
|
34,601 |
|
|
|
82,774 |
|
Deferred product manufacturing costs Rx Partners |
|
|
(19,053 |
) |
|
|
(25,405 |
) |
Deferred revenue recognized Rx Partners |
|
|
(30,183 |
) |
|
|
(72,099 |
) |
Amortization deferred product manufacturing costs Rx Partners |
|
|
15,044 |
|
|
|
17,153 |
|
Deferred revenue OTC Partners |
|
|
1,787 |
|
|
|
13,901 |
|
Deferred product manufacturing costs OTC Partners |
|
|
(1,800 |
) |
|
|
(13,760 |
) |
Deferred revenue recognized OTC Partners |
|
|
(5,255 |
) |
|
|
(12,739 |
) |
Amortization deferred product manufacturing costs OTC Partners |
|
|
4,706 |
|
|
|
12,059 |
|
Deferred revenue Research Partners |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue recognized Research Partners |
|
|
(8,406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Payments on exclusivity period fee |
|
|
(6,000 |
) |
|
|
(9,000 |
) |
Payments on accrued litigation settlements |
|
|
(8,037 |
) |
|
|
(1,648 |
) |
Share-based compensation expense |
|
|
5,179 |
|
|
|
4,458 |
|
Fair value of shares issued under severance arrangement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
561 |
|
Accretion of interest income on short-term investments |
|
|
(424 |
) |
|
|
(2,160 |
) |
Change in fair value of stock purchase warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
Changes in assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
(18,368 |
) |
|
|
13,379 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
(6,606 |
) |
|
|
(3,060 |
) |
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
|
1,346 |
|
|
|
(6,102 |
) |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses |
|
|
14,892 |
|
|
|
753 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
2,740 |
|
|
|
3,051 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
(2,367 |
) |
|
$ |
20,488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of short-term investments |
|
|
(49,563 |
) |
|
|
(195,218 |
) |
Maturities of short-term investments |
|
|
47,748 |
|
|
|
248,143 |
|
Purchases of property, plant and equipment |
|
|
(8,405 |
) |
|
|
(20,873 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities |
|
$ |
(10,220 |
) |
|
$ |
32,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of long-term debt |
|
|
(12,887 |
) |
|
|
(65,198 |
) |
Proceeds from exercise of stock options and purchases under the ESPP |
|
|
3,776 |
|
|
|
1,079 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
$ |
(9,111 |
) |
|
$ |
(64,119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
(21,698 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,579 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
$ |
69,275 |
|
|
$ |
37,462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
47,577 |
|
|
$ |
25,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 5 of 92
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Cash paid for interest |
|
$ |
597 |
|
|
$ |
2,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes |
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
5,387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unpaid vendor invoices of approximately $1,391,000 and $1,691,000 which were accrued as of
September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, are excluded from the purchase of property, plant, and
equipment and the change in accounts payable and accrued expenses.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited interim consolidated financial
statements.
Page 6 of 92
NOTES TO UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Impax Laboratories,
Inc. (Impax or the Company), have been prepared based upon United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) rules permitting reduced disclosure for interim periods, and include
all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of statements of operations, statements of cash
flows, and financial condition for the interim periods shown, including normal recurring accruals
and other items. While certain information and disclosures normally included in financial
statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America (GAAP) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to SEC rules and regulations, the
Company believes the disclosures are adequate to make the information presented not misleading. In
preparing the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements, the Company has evaluated
subsequent events occurring through November 4 2009; the date on which the Company filed this
Quarterly Report on Form 10Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification TM
(ASC or Codification), and, for SEC registrants, including the Company, SEC rules and
interpretive releases, promulgated under authority of federal securities laws, are the
authoritative source of GAAP. The FASB Codification is effective for financial statements issued
for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009.
The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of the Company include the accounts of
the operating parent company, Impax Laboratories, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiary, Impax
Laboratories (Taiwan) Inc., and an equity investment in Prohealth Biotech, Inc. (Prohealth), in
which the Company held a 58.11% majority ownership interest at September 30, 2009. All significant
intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
The unaudited results of operations and cash flows for the interim period are not necessarily
indicative of the results of the Companys operations for any other interim period or for the full
year ending December 31, 2009.
The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements and footnotes should be read in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and footnotes included in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the SEC, wherein a
more complete discussion of significant accounting policies and certain other information can be
found.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates
and assumptions, based on complex judgments considered reasonable, and affect the reported amounts
of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and contingent liabilities at the
date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses
during the reporting period. The most significant judgments are employed in estimates used in
determining values of tangible and intangible assets, legal contingencies, tax assets and tax
liabilities, fair value of share-based compensation awards issued to employees, and estimates used
in applying the Companys revenue recognition policy including those related to sales rebates,
chargebacks, shelf stock adjustments, Medicare and Medicaid rebate programs, sales returns and
recognition periods related to alliance agreements. Actual results may differ from estimated
results. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year
presentation.
In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to loss contingencies, such as legal
proceedings and claims arising out of its business, covering a wide range of matters, including,
among others, patent litigation, shareholder lawsuits, and product liability. In accordance with
FASB ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, the Company records accruals for such loss contingencies when
it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.
The Company, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, does not recognize gain contingencies until
realized.
Page 7 of 92
1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION (continued)
As required, FASB ASC Topic 470, the amended accounting standard for debt with conversion and
other options, was applied on a retrospective basis beginning with the year ended December 31,
2007. The adoption of FASB ASC Topic 470 resulted in an increase to accumulated deficit of $
4,931,000 to $65,220,000 at January 1, 2008. The following table presents the effect of the
adoption of FASB ASC Topic 470 on net income and net income per share for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended: |
|
|
Nine Months Ended: |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(in $000s except per share amounts) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional interest expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
487 |
|
|
$ |
253 |
|
|
$ |
2,045 |
|
Reduction in gain on
extinguishment of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,432 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,432 |
) |
Provision (benefit) for income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(853 |
) |
Decrease in net income |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1,616 |
) |
|
$ |
(164 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,624 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Net income per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
Diluted |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
As of December 31, 2008, additional paid-in capital increased $7,591,000 to $211,128,000,
and deferred income taxes, net decreased $144,000 to $70,451,000 as a result of the adoption of
FASB ASC Topic 470. The Long-Term Debt footnote herein contains additional information about the
adoption of FASB ASC Topic 470.
Page 8 of 92
2. REVENUE RECOGNITION
The Company recognizes revenue when the earnings process is complete, which under SEC Staff
Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Topic No. 13, Revenue Recognition (SAB 104), is when revenue is
realized or realizable and earned, and: there is persuasive evidence a revenue arrangement exists;
delivery of goods or services has occurred; the sales price is fixed or determinable; and,
collectibility is reasonably assured.
The Company accounts for revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables in accordance with
FASB ASC Topic 605, revenue recognition for arrangements with multiple elements, which addresses
the determination of whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one
unit of accounting. A delivered item within an arrangement is considered a separate unit of
accounting only if all of the following criteria are met:
|
|
|
the delivered item has value to the customer on a stand alone basis; |
|
|
|
|
there is objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of the undelivered item; and |
|
|
|
|
if the arrangement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the
undelivered item is considered probable and substantially in the control of the vendor. |
Under FASB ASC Topic 605, if the fair value of any undelivered element cannot be objectively
or reliably determined, then separate accounting for the individual deliverables is not
appropriate. Revenue recognition for arrangements with multiple deliverables constituting a single
unit of accounting is recognizable generally over the greater of the term of the arrangement or the
expected period of performance, either on a straight-line basis or on a proportional performance
method.
Global product sales, net:
The Global product sales, net line item of the statement of operations includes revenue
recognized related to shipments of generic pharmaceutical products to the Companys customers,
primarily drug wholesalers and retail chains. Gross sales revenue is recognized at the time title
and risk of loss passes to the customer generally when product is received by the customer.
Included in Global product revenue are deductions from the gross sales price, including deductions
related to estimates for chargebacks, rebates, returns, shelf-stock, and other pricing adjustments.
The Company records an estimate for these deductions in the same period when revenue is
recognized.
Private Label product sales:
The Private Label product sales line item of the statement of operations includes revenue
recognized related to shipments of generic pharmaceutical products to customers who sell the
product to third parties under their own label (i.e. these products are not sold under the
Companys label). Sales revenue is recognized at the time title and risk of loss passes to the
customer generally when product is received by the customer. Revenue received from Private Label
product sales is not subject to deductions for chargebacks, rebates, returns, shelf-stock
adjustments, and other pricing adjustments. Additionally, Private Label product sales do not have
upfront, milestone, or lump-sum payments and do not contain multiple deliverables under FASB ASC
Topic 605.
Page 9 of 92
2. REVENUE RECOGNITION (continued)
Rx Partner and OTC Partner:
The Rx Partner and OTC Partner line items of the statement of operations include revenue
recognized under alliance agreements between the Company and other pharmaceutical companies. The
Company has entered into these alliance agreements to develop marketing and/or distribution
relationships with its partners to fully leverage its technology platform.
The Rx Partners and OTC Partners alliance agreements obligate the Company to deliver multiple
goods and /or services over extended periods. Such deliverables include manufactured pharmaceutical
products, exclusive and semi-exclusive marketing rights, distribution licenses, and research and
development services. In exchange for these multiple deliverables, the Company receives payments
from its alliance agreement partners for product shipments, and may also receive royalty, profit
sharing, and /or upfront or periodic milestone payments. Revenue received from the alliance
agreement partners under these agreements is not subject to deductions for chargebacks, rebates,
returns, shelf-stock adjustments, and other pricing adjustments.
The Company initially defers all revenue earned under its Rx Partners and OTC Partners
alliance agreements. The deferred revenue is recorded as a liability captioned Deferred
revenue-alliance agreements. The Company also defers its direct product manufacturing costs to
the extent such costs are reimbursable by the Rx Partners and OTC Partners. These deferred product
manufacturing costs are recorded as an asset captioned Deferred product manufacturing
costs-alliance agreements. The Company recognizes such deferred revenue as either Rx Partner
revenue or OTC Partner revenue under the respective alliance agreement, and amortizes deferred
product manufacturing costs as cost of revenues-as the Company fulfills its contractual
obligations. Revenue is recognized over the respective alliance agreements term of the
arrangement or the Companys expected period of performance, using a modified proportional
performance method, which results in a greater portion of the revenue being recognized in the
period of initial recognition and the remaining balance being recognized ratably over either the
remaining life of the arrangement or the Companys expected period of performance of each
respective alliance agreements.
Under the modified proportional performance method of revenue recognition utilized by the
Company, the amount recognized in the period of initial recognition is based upon the number of
years elapsed under the respective alliance agreement relative to the estimated total length of the
recognition period. Under this method, the amount of revenue recognized in the year of initial
recognition is determined by multiplying the total amount realized by a fraction, the numerator of
which is the then current year of the alliance agreement and the denominator of which is the total
estimated life of the alliance agreement. The amount recognized during each remaining year is an
equal pro rata amount. Finally, cumulative revenue is recognized only to the extent of cash
collected and /or the fair value received. The Companys judgment is this modified proportional
performance method better aligns revenue recognition with performance under a long-term arrangement
as compared to a straight-line method.
Page 10 of 92
2. REVENUE RECOGNITION (continued)
Research Partner:
The Research Partner line item of the statement of operations includes revenue recognized
under a Joint Development Agreement with another pharmaceutical company. The Joint Development
Agreement obligates the Company to provide research and development services over multiple periods.
In exchange for this service, the Company received an upfront payment upon signing of the Joint
Development Agreement and is eligible to receive contingent milestone payments, based upon the
achievement of specified events. Additionally, the Company may also receive royalty payments from
the sale, if any, of a successfully developed and commercialized product under the Joint
Development Agreement.
Revenue received from the provision of research and development services, including the
upfront payment and the contingent milestone payments, if any, will be deferred and recognized on a
straight line basis over the expected period of performance of the research and development
services. The Company estimates its expected period of performance to provide research and
development services is 48 months starting in December 2008 and ending in November 2012. Royalty
fee income, if any, will be recognized by the Company as current period revenue when earned. The
Company determined this agreement does not include multiple deliverables under FASB ASC Topic 605.
Promotional Partner:
The Promotional Partner line item of the statement of operations includes revenue recognized
under promotional services agreements with other pharmaceutical companies. The promotional
services agreements obligate the Company to provide physician detailing sales calls to promote its
partners branded drug products over multiple periods. In exchange for this service, the Company
receives a fixed fee generally based on either the number of sales force representatives utilized
in providing the services, or the number of sales calls made (up to contractual maximums). The
Company may also be eligible to receive contingent payments based upon the number of prescriptions
filled for one of its partners product above a contractual minimum threshold. Additionally, the
Company may be required to refund portions of the fees it receives if it fails to perform a minimum
number of physician detail calls during specified periods.
The Company recognizes revenue from providing physician detailing services as those services
are provided and the performance obligations are met; and contingent payments, if any, at the time
when they are earned. The Company would record a charge, as a reduction to Promotional Partner
revenue, for periods in which a refund liability had been incurred. The Company determined these
agreements do not include multiple deliverables under FASB ASC Topic 605.
Page 11 of 92
3. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In November 2007, the EITF reached a final consensus on accounting standards related to
collaborative arrangements, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 808. The FASB ASC Topic 808 is focused on
how the parties to a collaborative agreement should account for costs incurred and revenue
generated on sales to third parties, how sharing payments pursuant to a collaborative agreement
should be presented in the income statement and certain related disclosure questions. The FASB ASC
Topic 808 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008 and interim periods
within those fiscal years. The Companys adoption of FASB ASC Topic 808 was on a retrospective
basis to all prior periods presented for all collaborative arrangements existing as of the
effective date. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 808 did not have a material impact on the
Companys consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB revised previously issued accounting standards related to business
combinations, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 805. The revised accounting standards retained the
purchase method of accounting for acquisitions, but required a number of other changes, including
changes in the way assets and liabilities are recognized in purchase accounting, and also changed
the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contingencies, requires the
capitalization of in-process research and development at fair value, and requires the expensing of
acquisition related costs as incurred. The FASB ASC Topic 805, as amended, became effective for the
Company beginning January 1, 2009 and applies prospectively to business combinations completed on
or after such date. The FASB ASC Topic 805 effect on the Companys consolidated financial
statements will be dependent on the nature and terms of any business combinations to occur after
the effective date.
In December 2007, the FASB issued an accounting standard which clarified a non-controlling
(minority) interest in a subsidiary is an ownership interest in the consolidated entity which
should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements, and established a single
method of accounting for changes in a parents ownership interest in a subsidiary which does not
result in deconsolidation, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 810. The FASB ASC Topic 810 requires
retroactive adoption of the presentation and disclosure requirements for existing minority
interests. All other requirements of FASB ASC Topic 810 are applied prospectively. The Company
adopted the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 810 on January 1, 2009. The adoption of FASB ASC Topic
810 did not have a significant impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In April 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard which amended the factors to be
considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 350. The intent of the accounting
standard was to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset
under FASB ASC Topic 350 and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
the asset under FASB ASC Topic 805 and other GAAP. The FASB ASC Topic 350 is effective for
financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2008.
Upon becoming effective the FASB ASC Topic 350 did not have a material impact on the Companys
consolidated financial statements.
Page 12 of 92
3. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS (continued)
In May 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard related to convertible debt instruments
which may be settled in cash upon conversion (including partial cash settlement), referred to as
FASB ASC Topic 470. The FASB ASC Topic 470 requires the issuing entity of such instruments to
separately account for the liability and equity components to represent the issuing entitys
nonconvertible debt borrowing interest rate when interest charges are recognized in subsequent
periods. The provisions of FASB ASC Topic 470 must be applied retrospectively for all periods
presented even if the instrument has matured, has been extinguished, or has been converted as of
the effective date. The application of FASB ASC Topic 470 to the Companys $75 million, 3.5%
convertible senior subordinated debentures (3.5% Debentures) required the retrospective
restatement of all reporting periods beginning January 1, 2007. The Basis of Presentation and the
Long-Term Debt footnotes herein contain additional details about the Companys adoption of FASB ASC
Topic 470.
In June 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard which provides for unvested share-based
payment awards containing non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents, whether paid
or unpaid, are participating securities and shall be included in the computation of earnings per
share pursuant to the two-class method, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 260. The FASB ASC Topic 260,
as amended, is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December
15, 2008, and interim periods within those years. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 260 did
not have a material impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend previously issued accounting
standards related to the determination of fair value, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 820. As
amended, FASB ASC Topic 820 provides additional guidance for estimating fair value when the volume
and level of activity for an asset or liability has significantly decreased, and also includes
guidance on identifying circumstances to indicate a transaction is not orderly. The FASB ASC Topic
820, as amended, is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009,
and is applied prospectively, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15,
2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 820, as amended, did not have a material impact on
the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend FASB ASC Topic 825 to require
publicly traded companies disclose information about fair value of financial instruments in interim
financial statements, as well as in annual financial statements. The FASB ASC Topic 825 is
effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted
for periods ending after March 15, 2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 825, as amended,
did not have an impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend the accounting standards for
investments in debt and equity securities, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 320. The accounting
standard amendment clarified the factors considered in determining if a decline in the fair value
of a debt security is not temporary. Generally, if the fair value of a debt security is less than
its amortized cost, and it is more-likely-than-not the debt security will be sold or be required to
be sold, then an other-than-temporary impairment shall be considered to have occurred. An
other-than-temporary impairment is recognized equal to the entire difference between the debt
securitys amortized cost and its fair value as of the balance sheet date. The FASB ASC Topic
320, as amended, is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early
adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC
Topic 320, as amended, did not have an impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In May 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard establishing the general rules of
accounting for and disclosure of events occurring after the balance sheet date but before the
financial statements are issued, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 855. The FASB ASC Topic 855
requires the disclosure of the date through which an entity has evaluated subsequent events and
whether such date represents the date the financial statements were issued, or were available to be
issued. The FASB ASC Topic 855 is effective for interim or annual reporting periods ending after
June 15, 2009, and is applied prospectively. The Companys adoption of FASB ASC Topic 855 did not
have a material impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements.
Page 13 of 92
3. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS (continued)
In September 2009, the FASB approved an update to the accounting standard related to
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements currently within the scope of FASB ASC Topic 605. The
updated accounting standard provides principles and guidance to be used to determine whether a
revenue arrangement has multiple deliverables, and if so, how those deliverables should be
separated. If multiple deliverables exist, the updated standard requires revenue received under
the arrangement to be allocated using the estimated selling price of the deliverables if
vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence of selling price is not available. The
updated accounting standard is effective for revenue arrangements entered into or materially
modified in fiscal years beginning on, or after June 15, 2010, with early application permitted.
The Company will determine the impact of the updated accounting standard as it enters into new
revenue arrangements, or materially modifies any of its existing revenue arrangements.
Page 14 of 92
4. INVESTMENTS
Investments consist of commercial paper, corporate bonds, and medium-term notes, government
agency obligations and certificates of deposit. The Companys policy is to invest in only high
quality AAA-rated or investment-grade securities. Investments in debt securities are accounted
for as held-to-maturity and are recorded at amortized cost, which approximates fair value, based
upon observable market values. The Company has historically held all investments in debt
securities until maturity, and has the ability and intent to continue to do so. All of the
Companys investments have remaining contractual maturities of less than 12 months and are
classified as short-term. Upon maturity the Company uses a specific identification method.
A summary of Short-term investments as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrecognized |
|
|
Unrecognized |
|
|
Fair |
|
September 30, 2009 |
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
Commercial paper |
|
$ |
1,797 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
1,796 |
|
Government agency obligations |
|
|
47,898 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,982 |
|
Corporate bonds |
|
|
3,019 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
3,020 |
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit |
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term investments |
|
$ |
52,950 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
53,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrecognized |
|
|
Unrecognized |
|
|
Fair |
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
Commercial paper |
|
$ |
6,194 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,194 |
|
Government agency obligations |
|
|
35,948 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
35,994 |
|
Corporate bonds |
|
|
7,856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
7,802 |
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
450 |
|
Certificates of deposit |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term investments |
|
$ |
50,710 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
(91 |
) |
|
$ |
50,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 15 of 92
5. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
The composition of accounts receivable, net is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Gross accounts receivable |
|
$ |
78,843 |
|
|
$ |
54,591 |
|
Less: Rebate reserve |
|
|
(8,421 |
) |
|
|
(4,800 |
) |
Less: Chargeback reserve |
|
|
(6,022 |
) |
|
|
(4,056 |
) |
Less: Other deductions |
|
|
(2,857 |
) |
|
|
(2,429 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
$ |
61,543 |
|
|
$ |
43,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A roll forward of the chargeback and rebate reserves activity for the nine months ended September
30, 2009 and the year ended December 31, 2008 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Rebate reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
4,800 |
|
|
$ |
3,603 |
|
Provision recorded during the period |
|
|
33,655 |
|
|
|
20,361 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(30,034 |
) |
|
|
(19,164 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
8,421 |
|
|
$ |
4,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Chargeback reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
4,056 |
|
|
$ |
2,977 |
|
Provision recorded during the period |
|
|
68,747 |
|
|
|
50,144 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(66,781 |
) |
|
|
(49,065 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
6,022 |
|
|
$ |
4,056 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other deductions include allowance for uncollectible amounts and cash discounts. The Company
maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from amounts deemed to
be uncollectible from its customers, with such allowances for specific amounts on certain accounts.
The Company recorded an allowance for uncollectible amounts of $301,000 and $828,000 at
September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
Page 16 of 92
6. INVENTORY
Inventory, net at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Raw materials |
|
$ |
23,818 |
|
|
$ |
16,940 |
|
Work in process |
|
|
2,028 |
|
|
|
1,397 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
16,229 |
|
|
|
16,504 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventory, net |
|
$ |
42,075 |
|
|
$ |
34,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Non-current inventory, net |
|
|
(3,164 |
) |
|
|
(2,536 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventory-current, net |
|
$ |
38,911 |
|
|
$ |
32,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recorded inventory reserves of $4,643,000 and $4,405,000 at September 30, 2009
and December 31, 2008, respectively.
To the extent inventory is not scheduled to be utilized in the manufacturing process and /or
sold within twelve months of the balance sheet date, it is included as a component of other
non-current assets. Amounts classified as non-current inventory consist of raw materials, net of
valuation reserves. Raw materials generally have a shelf life of approximately three to five
years, while finished goods generally have a shelf life of approximately two years.
When the Company concludes Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval is expected within
approximately six months, the Company will generally begin to schedule manufacturing process
validation studies as required by the FDA to demonstrate the production process can be scaled up to
manufacture commercial batches. Consistent with industry practice, the Company may build quantities
of pre-launch inventories of certain products pending required final FDA approval and /or
resolution of patent infringement litigation, when, in the Companys assessment, such action is
appropriate to increase the commercial opportunity, FDA approval is expected in the near term, and
/or the litigation will be resolved in the Companys favor.
The Company recognizes pre-launch inventories at the lower of its cost or the expected net
selling price. Cost is determined using a standard cost method, which approximates actual cost, and
assumes a FIFO flow of goods. Costs of unapproved products are the same as approved products and
include materials, labor, quality control, and production overhead. The carrying value of
unapproved inventory, less reserves, was approximately $2,260,000 and $1,368,000 at September 30,
2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
The capitalization of unapproved pre-launch inventory involves risks, including, among other
items, FDA approval of product may not occur; approvals may require additional or different testing
and /or specifications than used for unapproved inventory, and, in cases where the unapproved
inventory is for a product subject to litigation, the litigation may not be resolved or settled in
favor of the Company. If any of these risks were to materialize and the launch of the unapproved
product delayed or prevented, then the net carrying value of unapproved inventory may be partially
or fully reserved. Generally, the selling price of a generic pharmaceutical product is at discount
from the corresponding brand product selling price. Typically, a generic drug is easily substituted
for the corresponding brand product, and once a generic product is approved, the pre-launch
inventory is typically sold within the next three months. If the market prices become lower than
the product inventory carrying costs, then the pre-launch inventory value is reduced to such lower
market value. If the inventory produced exceeds the estimated market acceptance of the generic
product and becomes short-dated, a carrying value reserve will be recorded. In all cases, the
carrying value of the Companys pre-launch product inventory, is lower than the respective
estimated net selling prices.
Page 17 of 92
7. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
Property, plant and equipment, net consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Land |
|
$ |
2,270 |
|
|
$ |
2,270 |
|
Buildings and improvements |
|
|
58,103 |
|
|
|
55,310 |
|
Equipment |
|
|
54,872 |
|
|
|
49,983 |
|
Office furniture and equipment |
|
|
7,320 |
|
|
|
6,733 |
|
Construction-in-progress |
|
|
20,912 |
|
|
|
21,019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, gross |
|
$ |
143,477 |
|
|
$ |
135,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(47,020 |
) |
|
|
(39,686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
$ |
96,457 |
|
|
$ |
95,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense was $2,614,000 and $2,350,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2009
and 2008, respectively, and $7,806,000 and $6,791,000 for the nine months ended September 30,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
Page 18 of 92
8. ACCRUED EXPENSES
The following table sets forth the Companys accrued expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Payroll-related expenses |
|
$ |
13,835 |
|
|
$ |
15,147 |
|
Product returns |
|
|
19,290 |
|
|
|
13,675 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
9,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
Shelf stock price protection |
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
572 |
|
Medicaid rebates |
|
|
857 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
Royalty expense |
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
Physician detailing sales force fees |
|
|
1,864 |
|
|
|
2,279 |
|
Legal and professional fees |
|
|
5,979 |
|
|
|
2,087 |
|
Litigation settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,526 |
|
Other |
|
|
3,702 |
|
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued expenses |
|
$ |
55,799 |
|
|
$ |
41,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On January 28, 2009, the Company entered into an agreement settling the securities class
actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Under the
terms of the settlement, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the actions with prejudice, and defendants,
including the Company, without admitting the allegations or any liability, agreed to pay the
plaintiff class $9.0 million, of which the Company paid approximately $3.4 million in January
2009, with the balance paid by the Companys directors and officers liability insurance carriers.
The Company recorded an accrued expense for its portion of the settlement payment, in the year
ended December 31, 2008.
The Company maintains a return policy to allow customers to return product within specified
guidelines. The Company estimates a provision for product returns as a percentage of gross sales
based upon historical experience for sales made through its Global Products sales channel. Sales
of product under the Private Label, the Rx Partner, and the OTC Partners alliance agreements
generally are not subject to returns. A roll forward of the return reserve activity for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and the year ended December 31, 2008 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Returns Reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
(in $000s) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
13,675 |
|
|
$ |
14,261 |
|
Provision related to sales recorded in the period |
|
|
8,386 |
|
|
|
5,719 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(2,771 |
) |
|
|
(6,305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
19,290 |
|
|
$ |
13,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 19 of 92
9. INCOME TAXES
The Company calculates its interim income tax provision in accordance with FASB ASC Topics 270
and 740. At the end of each interim period, the Company makes an estimate of the annual expected
effective tax rate and applies the estimated effective rate to its ordinary year-to-date earnings
or loss. In addition, the effect of changes in enacted tax laws, rates, or tax status is
recognized in the interim period in which the change occurs.
The computation of the annual estimated effective tax rate at each interim period requires
certain estimates and assumptions including, but not limited to, the expected operating income for
the year, projections of the proportion of income (or loss) earned and taxed in foreign
jurisdictions, permanent and temporary differences, and the likelihood of recovering deferred tax
assets generated in the current year. The accounting estimates used to compute the provision for
income taxes may change as new events occur, more experience is acquired or additional information
is obtained. The computation of the annual estimated effective tax rate includes modifications,
which were projected for the year, for share based compensation, the domestic manufacturing
deduction, and state research and development credits, among others. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, we recorded a valuation allowance related to the net operating losses generated
by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Impax Laboratories (Taiwan), Inc. In the nine months ended
September 30, 2009, we reversed the valuation allowance related to these net operating losses as a
result of retroactive changes in Taiwan tax law published in the second quarter of 2009. Based
upon the changes in Taiwan tax law, we determined it was more likely than not the results of future
operations of the wholly-owned subsidiary will generate sufficient taxable income to realize the
deferred tax assets related to its net operating loss carry forward.
The Company recorded a tax provision of $6,373,000 and $5,761,000, during the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, for federal and state income taxes and foreign
taxes, which includes an accrual for uncertain tax positions of $676,000 and $0, respectively.
The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits was $8,522,000 at September 30, 2009.
Page 20 of 92
10. REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT
The Company has a $35,000,000 revolving credit facility under a credit agreement with
Wachovia Bank, N.A. (a Wells Fargo subsidiary) (Credit Agreement), with a March 31, 2010
expiration date. The revolving credit facility, intended for working capital and general corporate
purposes, is collateralized by eligible accounts receivable, inventory, and machinery and
equipment, subject to limitations and other terms. There were no amounts outstanding under the
revolving credit facility as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
Effective March 31, 2009, the Company entered into a third amendment to the Credit Agreement,
which, among other matters, extended for one year the termination date to March 31, 2010; set the
interest rate for the revolving credit facility at either the prime rate plus a margin ranging from
0.25% to 0.75% or LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 2.25% to 3.0% based upon certain terms and
conditions; limited capital expenditures to no more than $25.0 million for the period from January
1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and for each calendar year thereafter; (iv) eliminated the servicing
fee during any month in which no revolver loans were outstanding; and (v) required the fixed charge
coverage ratio be tested only for certain fiscal periods during which the Companys net cash
position was less than $50.0 million. In connection with the execution of the third amendment,
the Company paid Wachovia Bank a commitment fee of $100,000. All other material terms of the
Credit Agreement remained in full force and effect. During the nine months ended September 30,
2009 and 2008, the Company paid to Wachovia Bank unused line fees of $128,000 and $68,000,
respectively.
The Credit Agreement had a three year term upon its initial execution in December 2005. In
October 2008, the Company entered into a first amendment to the Credit Agreement in which Wachovia
Bank waived the Companys failure to (i) timely deliver annual financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2007 and interim financial statements for each period
ending on or after December 31, 2005, and (ii) comply with the fixed charge coverage ratio at June
30, 2006. In addition, the Company agreed to an increase in the unused line fee from 25 basis
points per annum to 50 basis points per annum. On December 31, 2008, the Company entered into a
second amendment to the Credit Agreement, which extended the termination date from December 31,
2008 to March 31, 2009.
The Credit Agreement contains various financial covenants, the most significant of which
include a fixed charge coverage ratio and a capital expenditure limitation. The fixed charge
coverage ratio, applicable only for periods during which the Companys net cash position is less
than $50.0 million, requires EBITDA less cash paid for taxes, dividends, and certain capital
expenditures, to be not less than 1.25 to 1.00 as compared to scheduled principal payments coming
due in the next 12 months plus cash interest paid during the applicable period. The Company was
limited to capital expenditures of no more than $25.0 million for the period from January 1, 2007
to December 31, 2007 and $34.0 million for the period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
The Credit Agreement also provides for certain information reporting covenants, including a
requirement to provide certain periodic financial information. At September 30, 2009, the Company
was in compliance with the various financial and information reporting covenants contained in the
Credit Agreement.
Page 21 of 92
11. LONG-TERM DEBT
3.5% Convertible Senior Subordinated Debentures
On June 27, 2005, the Company sold $75,000,000 of 3.5% convertible senior subordinated
debentures due 2012 (3.5% Debentures) to a qualified institutional buyer. The net proceeds from
the sale of the 3.5% Debentures, together with additional funds, were used to repay the Companys $
95,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its 1.25% convertible senior subordinated debentures
due 2024.
Each 3.5% Debenture was issued at a price of $1,000 and was convertible into Company common
stock at an initial conversion price of $20.69 per share. The 3.5% Debentures were senior
subordinated, unsecured obligations of the Company and ranked pari passu with the Companys
accounts payable and other liabilities, and were subordinate to certain senior indebtedness,
including the Companys credit agreement with Wachovia Bank. The 3.5% Debentures bore interest at
the rate of 3.5% per annum. Interest on the 3.5% Debentures was payable on June 15 and December 15
of each year, beginning December 15, 2005.
While the 3.5% Debentures had a contractual maturity date of June 15, 2012 and could not be
redeemed by the Company prior to maturity, holders of the 3.5% Debentures had the right to require
the Company to repurchase all or any part of their 3.5% Debentures on June 15, 2009 at a repurchase
price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures, plus accrued and unpaid
interest and liquidated damages, if any, up to but excluding the repurchase date.
In August and September 2008, the Company repurchased at a discount an aggregate of $
62,250,000 face value principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures at the request of the holders. The
Company paid $59,916,000, plus $433,000 of accrued interest expense. Proceeds to fund the
repurchase of the 3.5% Debentures were generated from the liquidation of the Companys short-term
investments.
On June 15, 2009, at the request of the holders, the Company repurchased the remaining $
12,750,000 principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures at 100% of face value plus accrued interest.
Accordingly, as all of the 3.5% Debentures had been repurchased by the Company, there was no amount
outstanding as of September 30, 2009.
Page 22 of 92
11. LONG-TERM DEBT (continued)
Adoption of FASB ASC Topic 470
In May 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard related to convertible debt instruments
which may be settled in cash upon conversion (including partial cash settlement), referred to as
FASB ASC Topic 470. The FASB ASC Topic 470 requires the issuing entity of such instruments to
separately account for the liability and equity components to represent the issuing entitys
nonconvertible debt borrowing interest rate when interest charges are recognized in subsequent
periods. The provisions of FASB ASC Topic 470 must be applied retrospectively for all periods
presented even if the instrument has matured, has been extinguished, or has been converted as of
its effective date.
Under FASB ASC Topic 470, interest expense is computed on the basis of the Companys borrowing
rate on debt without the conversion feature. The provisions of FASB ASC Topic 470 are applicable
to the Companys 3.5% Debentures as they have a cash settlement feature. The Company adopted FASB
ASC Topic 470 on January 1, 2009, and applied its provisions to the consolidated financial
statements on a retrospective basis, with the restatement of all reporting periods beginning
January 1, 2007.
As noted above, the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 470 require issuers of debt securities to
separate affected securities into two accounting components, including (i) the debt component,
representing the issuers contractual obligation to pay principal and interest, and (ii) the equity
component, representing the holders option to convert the debt security into equity of the issuer
or, if the issuer elects, an equivalent amount of cash.
Upon initial recognition, the proceeds received from the issuance of the 3.5% Debentures were
allocated between the debt component and the equity component, with such allocation based upon an
estimate of the fair value of a debt instrument containing all embedded features of the debt being
evaluated, except for the conversion option. Under FASB ASC Topic 470, the difference between the
face value of the debt and the estimated fair value is deemed to be the accounting value of the
conversion option and is recorded as the equity component, with the offset recorded as a
(contra-liability) debt discount. The debt discount is amortized as interest expense over the
estimated life of the debt instrument using the effective interest method.
The Company estimated the fair value of the 3.5% Debentures, excluding the conversion option,
to be $63,487,000 on June 27, 2005, the date the 3.5% Debentures were sold, using a credit rating
analysis. The difference of $11,513,000 between the $75,000,000 face value of the 3.5%
Debentures and the estimated fair value is the value of the conversion option, which resulted in a
debt discount reduction to the net carrying value of the debt and the establishment of the value of
the conversion option as a component of stockholders equity. Aggregate transaction costs of $
2,238,000 were incurred by the Company in relation to the issuance of the 3.5% Debentures, of which
$344,000 was allocated to the conversion option. The total value allocated to the conversion
option as a component of stockholders equity was $11,170,000.
Notwithstanding their stated June 2012 maturity date, at their June 2005 issuance date, the
Company had expected the 3.5% Debentures to actually mature on the June 2009 prepayment date.
Accordingly, as the Company concluded it was probable the prepayment option would be exercised by
the holders of the 3.5% Debentures, the fair value of the 3.5% Debentures was computed using a 48
month discount period i.e. representing the time from their issue date to the June 15, 2009
prepayment date discussed above.
Page 23 of 92
11. LONG-TERM DEBT (continued)
The Company amortized the $11,513,000 discount on the 3.5% Debentures over the expected life
of 48 months using the effective interest method; accordingly, the discount was fully amortized as
of June 15, 2009. The following table summarizes the amount of interest cost recognized for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended: |
|
|
Nine Months Ended: |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Contractual interest |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
456 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
$ |
1,956 |
|
Discount amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
1,946 |
|
Deferred financing cost amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest cost |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,003 |
|
|
$ |
504 |
|
|
$ |
4,221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective interest rate on 3.5% Debentures |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
8.4 |
% |
|
|
8.6 |
% |
|
|
8.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes the net carrying value of the Companys long-term debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
3.5% Debentures face value |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12,750 |
|
Unamortized discount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(241 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5% Debentures net carrying amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated promissory note (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,760 |
|
Vendor financing agreement (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Debt |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
20,406 |
|
Less: Current portion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,416 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term portion |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In August 2009, the Company repaid-in-full the remaining outstanding balance of a
subordinated promissory note, paying $6,888,000 of principal and $51,000 of accrued
interest expense. Initially, the subordinated promissory note was issued in June 2006 in the
amount of $11.0 million, with an interest rate of 6.0% per annum, and 24 quarterly
installment payments of $549,165, commencing in March 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Vendor financing agreement at 3.10% payable in two monthly installments of $0 and
34 monthly installments of $12,871 commencing December 2006. |
Page 24 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS
Strategic Alliance Agreement with Teva
The following tables show the additions to and deductions from the deferred revenue and
deferred product manufacturing costs under the Teva Agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
Inception |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
Through |
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
Dec 31, |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
200,608 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost-sharing |
|
|
525 |
|
|
|
5,953 |
|
Product-related deferrals |
|
|
34,026 |
|
|
|
376,071 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-total |
|
|
34,551 |
|
|
|
382,024 |
|
Exclusivity charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50,600 |
) |
Forgiveness of advance deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
Forgiveness of interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,370 |
|
Stock repurchase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions |
|
$ |
34,551 |
|
|
$ |
343,951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: amounts recognized: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgiveness of advance deposit |
|
$ |
(249 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,499 |
) |
Forgiveness of interest |
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
(1,823 |
) |
Stock repurchase |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
(899 |
) |
Cost-sharing |
|
|
(489 |
) |
|
|
(2,481 |
) |
Product-related revenue |
|
|
(29,159 |
) |
|
|
(135,641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognized |
|
|
(30,170 |
) |
|
|
(143,343 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred revenue |
|
$ |
204,989 |
|
|
$ |
200,608 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
Inception |
|
(in $000s) |
|
Ended |
|
|
Through |
|
Deferred product |
|
September 30, |
|
|
Dec 31, |
|
manufacturing costs |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
88,361 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions |
|
|
19,053 |
|
|
|
151,476 |
|
Less amounts amortized |
|
|
(15,044 |
) |
|
|
(63,115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred product
manufacturing costs |
|
$ |
92,370 |
|
|
$ |
88,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 25 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
OTC Partners Alliance Agreements
The following table shows the additions to and deductions from deferred revenue and deferred
product manufacturing costs under the OTC Agreements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
Inception |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
Through |
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
Dec 31, |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
21,044 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,436 |
|
Cost-sharing and other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,642 |
|
Product-related deferrals |
|
|
1,787 |
|
|
|
81,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions |
|
$ |
1,787 |
|
|
$ |
91,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: amount recognized: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
(7,469 |
) |
Cost-sharing and other |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(1,438 |
) |
Product-related revenue |
|
|
(4,964 |
) |
|
|
(61,993 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognized |
|
|
(5,255 |
) |
|
|
(70,900 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred revenue |
|
$ |
17,576 |
|
|
$ |
21,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
Inception |
|
(in $000s) |
|
Ended |
|
|
Through |
|
Deferred product |
|
September 30, |
|
|
Dec 31, |
|
manufacturing costs |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
18,361 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
75,941 |
|
Less: amount amortized: |
|
|
(4,706 |
) |
|
|
(57,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred product
manufacturing costs |
|
$ |
15,455 |
|
|
$ |
18,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 26 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
Supply and Distribution Agreement with DAVA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On March 30, 2007, the Company entered into an agreement settling Purdues patent infringement
suit against the Company. Under this Purdue settlement agreement, the Company agreed to withdraw
its generic product from the market by January 2008, and Purdue granted the Company a license
permitting it to manufacture and sell its product during specified periods between March 2007 and
January 2008, and, additionally, authorized the Company to grant a sublicense to DAVA allowing DAVA
to distribute the product during the same periods. While the Company continued to manufacture and
sell the product during the authorized periods, the Purdue settlement agreement precludes the
Company from re-entering the market after January 2008 until expiration of the last Purdue patents
in 2013, or earlier under certain circumstances.
While the amended DAVA Agreement will remain effective through November 3, 2015, the Company
concluded if any of the contingent events occur to permit the Company to resume sales of the
generic product under the Purdue settlement agreement, the same events will result in such a highly
competitive generic market to make it unlikely the Company will find it economically favorable to
devote manufacturing resources to the resumption of sales of this product. As a result, the
Company concluded the economic life of the DAVA Agreement, and therefore the Companys expected
period of performance, ended in January 2008.
The following table shows the additions to and deductions from deferred revenue and deferred
product manufacturing costs under the DAVA Supply and Distribution Agreement during the period over
which revenue was recognized beginning with the inception of the contract in November 2005 and
ending in April 2008, when final cash payment was received for product shipped to DAVA, and for
profit share earned, in January 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inception |
|
|
|
Through |
|
(in $000s) |
|
April |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
10,000 |
|
Product-related deferrals |
|
|
152,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions |
|
$ |
162,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: amounts recognized: |
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
(10,000 |
) |
Product-related revenue |
|
|
(152,447 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognized |
|
|
(162,447 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total deferred revenue |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inception |
|
(in $000s) |
|
Through |
|
Deferred product |
|
April |
|
manufacturing costs |
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
29,044 |
|
Less: amount amortized: |
|
|
(29,044 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total deferred product
manufacturing costs |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 27 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
Joint Development Agreement with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
The Joint Development Agreement provides for the Company and Medicis to collaborate in the
development of a total of five dermatological products. The Company received a $40,000,000
upfront payment, paid by Medicis in December 2008. The Company has also received two $5,000,000
milestone payments, paid by Medicis in March 2009 and September 2009, and has the potential to
receive up to $13,000,000 of contingent additional payments upon achievement of certain specified
clinical and regulatory milestones.
The following table shows the additions to and deductions from deferred revenue and deferred
product manufacturing costs under the Joint Development Agreement with Medicis:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
Inception |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
Through |
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
Dec 31, |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
39,167 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
Product-related deferrals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions |
|
$ |
10,000 |
|
|
$ |
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: amounts recognized: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upfront fees and milestone payments |
|
|
(8,406 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
Product-related revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount recognized |
|
|
(8,406 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred revenue |
|
$ |
40,761 |
|
|
$ |
39,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 28 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
Shire Laboratories Promotional Services Agreement
In January 2006, the Company entered into a Promotional Services Agreement with an affiliate
of Shire Laboratories, Inc. (Shire Agreement), under which the Company was engaged to perform
physician detailing sales calls in support of Shires Carbatrol product. The Company was obligated
to perform the detailing sales calls for a period of three years which began on July 1, 2006 and
ended on June 30, 2009. The Shire Agreement required Shire to pay the Company a sales force fee of
up to $200,000 annually for each of as many as 66 sales force members. The Company recognized $
6,508,000 and $9,728,000 in sales force fee revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2009
and 2008, respectively, under the Shire Agreement, with such amounts presented in the captioned
line item Promotional Partner under revenues on the statement of operations.
Page 29 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
Agreements with Wyeth
Co-Promotion Agreement
The Company entered into a three year Co-Promotion Agreement with Wyeth, under which the
Company will perform physician detailing sales calls for a Wyeth product to neurologists, which
commenced on July 1, 2009. Wyeth will pay the Company a service fee, subject to an annual cost
adjustment, during the life of the Co-Promotion Agreement for each physician detailing sales call,
and an incentive fee for each prescription by neurologists in excess of a certain minimum
threshold. During the term of the Co-Promotion Agreement, the Company is required to complete a
minimum and maximum number of physician detailing sales calls. Wyeth is responsible for providing
sales training to the Companys sales force. Wyeth owns the product and is responsible for all
pricing and marketing literature as well as product manufacture and fulfillment. The Company
recognizes the sales force fee revenue as the related services are performed and the performance
obligations are met. The incentive fee revenue, if any, will be recognized if and when such fees
are earned. The Company recognized $3,499,000 and $0 in sales force fee revenue for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, under the Co-Promotion Agreement, with such
amounts presented in the captioned line item Promotional Partner under revenues on the statement
of operations.
Settlement and Release Agreement
In June 2008, the Company entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (Settlement
Agreement) with Wyeth. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and Wyeth: (i) resolved
outstanding claims and counter-claims between the Company and Wyeth asserted in the patent
infringement lawsuit related to the Companys ANDA for generic venlafaxine hydrochloride capsules,
(ii) provided a date certain for the manufacture and launch of its generic venlafaxine product, and
(iii) provided for a $1,000,000 payment by Wyeth to the Company as reimbursement for legal fees
associated with the patent infringement lawsuit. The Company recorded the $1,000,000 legal fee
reimbursement received from Wyeth as a reduction of its patent litigation operating expense on the
consolidated statement of operations during the fourth quarter of 2008.
License Agreement
In June 2008, the Company and Wyeth also entered into a License Agreement whereby Wyeth
granted to the Company a non-exclusive license, allowing the Company the right (but not the
obligation) to manufacture and market the Companys generic venlafaxine product in the United
States of America. The license effective date is expected to be on or about June 1, 2011. The
Company will pay Wyeth a royalty fee on the sale of its generic venlafaxine product under the
license, computed as a percentage of gross profits, as defined in the License Agreement. The
license royalty fee term begins with the license effective date and ends on the expiration of the
Wyeth patents covered by the License Agreement. The Company is solely responsible for
manufacturing and marketing its generic venlafaxine product. If the Company chooses to manufacture
its generic product, sales of such generic venlafaxine product will be to unrelated third-party
customers in the ordinary course of business through its Global Division Global Products sales
channel. The Company will account for the sale of its generic venlafaxine product as current
period revenue according to the Companys revenue recognition policy applicable to its Global
Division Global Products. The license royalty payments to Wyeth will be accounted for as current
period cost of goods sold. Through September 30, 2009, the Company had not commenced sales of its
generic venlafaxine product.
Page 30 of 92
12. ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS (continued)
Exclusive License, Development and Supply Agreement with Putney
On July 31, 2007, the Company, and Putney Inc. (Putney), entered into an Exclusive License,
Development and Supply Agreement (Agreement). Under the Agreement, the Company and Putney agreed
to collaborate on the development and commercialization of a generic equivalent of the Rimadyl®.
chewable tablets in 25mg, 75mg, and/or 100mg dosage strengths.
In May 2009, the Company received a $50,000 milestone payment from Putney upon completion of
successful pivotal bioequivalence studies. The Company has the potential to receive a $50,000
contingent additional milestone payment upon final FDA approval of an Abbreviated New Animal Drug
Application (ANADA). To the extent the ANADA is approved by the FDA, the Company will be the
exclusive manufacturer of the product, while Putney will have exclusive rights to market and sell
the product in the United States. Putney will pay the Company a profit share on any
sales of the new product.
The term of the Agreement is a period of six years from the date of first commercial sale. At
this time, the Company estimates a June 2010 FDA ANADA approval and product launch. Accordingly,
the life of the Agreement with Putney is currently estimated to be a period of 107 months beginning
on the July 31, 2007 signing date, and ending on June 30, 2016.
Page 31 of 92
13. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
The Company recognizes the fair value of each option and restricted share over its vesting
period. Options and restricted shares granted under the Companys Amended and Restated 2002 Equity
Incentive Plan (2002 Plan) vest over a three or four year period and have a term of ten years.
Total share-based compensation expense recognized in the consolidated statement of operations
was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended: |
|
|
Nine Months Ended: |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing expenses |
|
$ |
409 |
|
|
$ |
352 |
|
|
$ |
1,145 |
|
|
$ |
1,202 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
655 |
|
|
|
541 |
|
|
|
1,906 |
|
|
|
1,713 |
|
Selling, general & administrative |
|
|
922 |
|
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
2,128 |
|
|
|
1,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
$ |
5,179 |
|
|
$ |
4,458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes stock option activity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
|
Under Option |
|
|
per Share |
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
8,280,240 |
|
|
$ |
10.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options granted |
|
|
1,803,196 |
|
|
$ |
6.06 |
|
Options exercised |
|
|
(1,068,177 |
) |
|
$ |
3.32 |
|
Options forfeited |
|
|
(1,337,827 |
) |
|
$ |
13.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at September 30, 2009 |
|
|
7,677,432 |
|
|
$ |
9.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at September 30, 2009 |
|
|
7,659,816 |
|
|
$ |
10.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at September 30, 2009 |
|
|
4,456,968 |
|
|
$ |
11.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company estimated the fair value of each stock option award on the grant date using the
Black-Scholes Merton option-pricing model, wherein: expected volatility is based solely on
historical volatility of the Companys common stock over the period commensurate with the expected
term of the stock options. The expected term calculation is based on the simplified method
described in SAB No. 107, Share-Based Payment and SAB No. 110, Share-Based Payment. The risk-free
interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield in effect at the time of grant for an instrument
with a maturity that is commensurate with the expected term of the stock options. The dividend
yield of zero is based on the fact that the Company has never paid cash dividends on its common
stock, and has no present intention to pay cash dividends.
A summary of the Companys non-vested restricted stock awards is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
Restricted |
|
Number of Restricted |
|
|
Grant-Date |
|
Stock Awards |
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Non-vested at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
399,716 |
|
|
$ |
10.30 |
|
Granted |
|
|
629,152 |
|
|
$ |
6.03 |
|
Vested |
|
|
(42,800 |
) |
|
$ |
9.08 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(18,598 |
) |
|
$ |
7.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested at September 30, 2009 |
|
|
967,470 |
|
|
$ |
7.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 32 of 92
13. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION (continued)
The Company grants restricted stock to certain eligible employees as a component of its
long-term incentive compensation program. The restricted stock award grants are made in accordance
with the Companys 2002 Plan, and typically specify the shares of restricted stock are not issued
until they vest. The restricted stock awards vest ratably over a three or four year period from
the date of grant.
As of September 30, 2009, the Company had total unrecognized share-based compensation expense,
net of estimated forfeitures, of $18,830,000 related to all of its share-based awards, which will
be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.4 years. The intrinsic value of options
exercised during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 was $2,970,000 and $1,742,000,
respectively. The total fair value of restricted shares which vested during the nine months ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008 was $389,000 and $0, respectively. In May 2009, the Companys
stockholders approved an increase of 1,900,000 in the number of shares available for issuance of
equity incentive awards including, stock options, restricted stock awards, and stock appreciation
rights under the Companys 2002 Plan. As of September 30, 2009, the Company had 2,279,954 shares
available for issuance of equity incentive awards.
Page 33 of 92
14. STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY (DEFICIT)
Preferred Stock
Pursuant to its certificate of incorporation, the Company is authorized to issue 2,000,000
shares, $0.01 par value per share, blank check preferred stock, which enables the Board of
Directors, from time to time, to create one or more new series of preferred stock. Each series of
preferred stock issued can have the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions designated by
the Board of Directors. The issuance of any new series of preferred stock could affect, among
other things, the dividend, voting, and liquidation rights of the Companys common stock. During
the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, the Company did not issue any preferred stock.
Common Stock
The Companys Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, authorizes the Company to issue
90,000,000 shares of common stock with $0.01 par value.
Shareholders Rights Plan
On January 20, 2009, the Board of Directors approved the adoption of a shareholder rights plan
and declared a dividend of one preferred share purchase right for each outstanding share of common
stock of the Company. Under certain circumstances, if a person or group acquires, or announces its
intention to acquire, beneficial ownership of 20% or more of the Companys outstanding common
stock, each holder of such right (other than the third party triggering such exercise), would be
able to purchase, upon exercise of the right at a $15 exercise price, subject to adjustment, the
number of shares of the Companys common stock having a market value of two times the exercise
price of the right. Subject to certain exceptions, if the Company is consolidated with, or merged
into, another entity and the Company is not the surviving entity in such transaction or shares of
the Companys outstanding common stock are exchanged for securities of any other person, cash or
any other property, or more than 50% of the Companys assets or earning power is sold or
transferred, then each holder of the rights would be able to purchase, upon the exercise of the
right at a $15 exercise price, subject to adjustment, the number of shares of common stock of the
third party acquirer having a market value of two times the exercise price of the right. The rights
expire on January 20, 2012, unless extended by the Board of Directors.
In connection with the shareholder rights plan, the Board of Directors designated 100,000
shares of series A junior participating preferred stock.
Page 34 of 92
15. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted-average number
of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing
net income by the weighted-average number of common shares adjusted for the dilutive effect of
common stock equivalents outstanding during the period.
A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per common share for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended: |
|
|
Nine Months Ended: |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(in $000s except per share amounts) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
6,685 |
|
|
$ |
(10,530 |
) |
|
$ |
11,917 |
|
|
$ |
7,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common
shares outstanding |
|
|
60,559,064 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
60,130,608 |
|
|
|
58,993,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of dilutive options and common
stock purchase warrants |
|
|
688,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
536,619 |
|
|
|
1,820,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average
common shares outstanding |
|
|
61,247,700 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
60,667,227 |
|
|
|
60,813,707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per share |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted net income per share |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, the Company excluded 5,859,308 and
5,544,901, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, the Company
excluded 7,133,607 and 5,440,101, respectively, of stock options from the computation of diluted
net income per common share as the effect of these options would have been anti-dilutive.
FASB ASC Topic 260 provides accounting guidance on the treatment of contingently convertible
instruments in the calculation of diluted earnings per share. The guidance indicates contingently
convertible instruments should be included in diluted earnings per share, regardless of whether the
market price trigger (i.e. the contingency) has been met. With respect to the Companys 3.5%
Debentures, however, as the principal portion must be paid in cash, FASB ASC Topic 260 prohibits
the use of the if-converted method, but rather proscribes a treasury stock method approach to
computing potential common shares issuable, wherein the conversion spread value functions as the
proceeds to be used to determine the number of potential common shares issuable given an average
share price during the period. With respect to a conversion premium which may be settled in either
cash or stock, under FASB ASC Topic 260, diluted earnings per share is computed wherein the diluted
earnings per share denominator is adjusted for the conversion premium potential common shares
issuable, provided however, such adjustment to the diluted earnings per share denominator has a
more dilutive effect compared to adjustment to the corresponding numerator (i.e. income available
to common shareholders). Such determination of the greater dilutive effect is required to be
performed for each reporting period. With respect to the Companys 3.5% Debentures potential
conversion premium, the adjustment has been to the numerator i.e. the inclusion of the 3.5%
Debentures interest expense in the computation of income available to common shareholders, as it
has a more dilutive effect than adjustment to the diluted earnings per share denominator, as the
conversion spread value of the Companys 3.5% Debentures has been negative i.e. the average share
price has been less than the conversion price. Accordingly, adjustment to the diluted earnings per
share denominator is not necessary.
Page 35 of 92
16. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended: |
|
|
Nine Months Ended: |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
6,685 |
|
|
$ |
(10,530 |
) |
|
$ |
11,917 |
|
|
$ |
7,018 |
|
Currency translation adjustments |
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
(905 |
) |
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
(659 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income |
|
|
7,036 |
|
|
|
(11,435 |
) |
|
|
12,297 |
|
|
|
6,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income attributable to
the noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income attributable
to Impax Laboratories, Inc. |
|
$ |
7,036 |
|
|
$ |
(11,435 |
) |
|
$ |
12,297 |
|
|
$ |
6,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 36 of 92
17. SEGMENT INFORMATION
The Company has two reportable segments, the Global Pharmaceuticals Division (Global
Division) and the Impax Pharmaceuticals Division (Impax Division). The Company currently
markets and sells product within the continental United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Global Division develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes generic pharmaceutical
products, primarily through the following sales channels: the Global Products sales channel, for
sales of generic Rx products, directly to wholesalers, large retail drug chains, and others; the
Private Label product sales channel, for generic pharmaceutical over-the-counter and prescription
products sold to unrelated third-party customers, who in-turn sell the products to third-parties
under their own label; the Rx Partner sales channel, for generic prescription products sold
through unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities under their own label pursuant to alliance
agreements; and the OTC Partner sales channel, for over-the-counter products sold through unrelated
third-party pharmaceutical entities under their own label pursuant to alliance agreements. The
Company also generates revenue from research and development services provided under a joint
development agreement with another pharmaceutical company, and reports such revenue under the
caption Research partner revenue on the consolidated statement of operations. The Company
provides theses services through the research and development group in its Global Division.
The Impax Division is engaged in the development of proprietary brand pharmaceutical products
through improvements to already-approved pharmaceutical products to address central nervous system
(CNS) disorders. The Impax Division is also engaged in co-promotion through a direct sales force
focused on marketing to physicians, primarily in the CNS community, pharmaceutical products
developed by other unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities.
The Companys chief operating decision maker evaluates the financial performance of the
Companys segments based upon segment Income (loss) before income taxes. Items below Income (loss)
from operations are not reported by segment, except litigation settlements, since they are excluded
from the measure of segment profitability reviewed by the Companys chief operating decision maker.
Additionally, general and administrative expenses, certain selling expenses, certain litigation
settlements, and non-operating income and expenses are included in Corporate and Other. The
Company does not report balance sheet information by segment since it is not reviewed by the
Companys chief operating decision maker. Accounting policies for the Companys segments are the
same as those described above in the discussion of Revenue Recognition and in the Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies in the Companys Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
The Company has no inter-segment revenue.
Page 37 of 92
17. SEGMENT INFORMATION (continued)
The tables below present segment information reconciled to total Company financial results,
with segment operating income or loss including gross profit less direct research and development
expenses, and direct selling expenses as well as any litigation settlements, to the extent
specifically identified by segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Global |
|
|
Impax |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Total |
|
Three Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
Division |
|
|
Division |
|
|
and Other |
|
|
Company |
|
Revenue, net |
|
$ |
61,447 |
|
|
$ |
3,499 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
64,946 |
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
25,098 |
|
|
|
2,957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,055 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
8,909 |
|
|
|
6,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,243 |
|
Patent Litigation |
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,647 |
|
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
23,232 |
|
|
$ |
(6,553 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,499 |
) |
|
$ |
10,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Global |
|
|
Impax |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Total |
|
Three Months Ended September 30, 2008 |
|
Division |
|
|
Division |
|
|
and Other |
|
|
Company |
|
Revenue, net |
|
$ |
33,536 |
|
|
$ |
3,238 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
36,774 |
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
19,296 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,296 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
12,253 |
|
|
|
3,935 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,188 |
|
Patent Litigation |
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
(4,246 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,235 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,899 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,380 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Global |
|
|
Impax |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Total |
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
Division |
|
|
Division |
|
|
and Other |
|
|
Company |
|
Revenue, net |
|
$ |
172,268 |
|
|
$ |
10,007 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
182,275 |
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
72,339 |
|
|
|
9,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81,589 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
28,761 |
|
|
|
17,983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,744 |
|
Patent Litigation |
|
|
4,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,058 |
|
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
59,482 |
|
|
$ |
(19,754 |
) |
|
$ |
(21,438 |
) |
|
$ |
18,290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
Global |
|
|
Impax |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Total |
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008 |
|
Division |
|
|
Division |
|
|
and Other |
|
|
Company |
|
Revenue, net |
|
$ |
155,648 |
|
|
$ |
9,728 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
165,376 |
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
58,046 |
|
|
|
8,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,378 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
31,745 |
|
|
|
11,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,275 |
|
Patent Litigation |
|
|
4,827 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,827 |
|
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
51,754 |
|
|
$ |
(12,013 |
) |
|
$ |
(26,962 |
) |
|
$ |
12,779 |
|
Page 38 of 92
18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Purchase Order Commitments
As of September 30, 2009, the Company had approximately $26,034,000 of open purchase order
commitments, primarily for raw materials. The terms of these purchase order commitments are less
than one year in duration.
Taiwan Facility Construction
The Company currently has under construction a facility in Taiwan to be utilized for
manufacturing, research and development, warehouse, and administrative space, from which the
Company plans to begin product shipments in 2010. In conjunction with the construction of the
Companys Taiwan facility, as of September 30, 2009, the Company has entered into several contracts
aggregating approximately $16,600,000, of which approximately $1,400,000 of commitments remain
outstanding. Through September 30, 2009, the Company has cumulatively capitalized interest expense
of $596,000 in conjunction with the construction of the Companys Taiwan facility.
Page 39 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS
Patent Litigation
There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical, biological, and biotechnology
industries with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of
conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. One or more patents typically cover most of
the brand name products for which the Company is developing generic versions.
Under federal law, when a drug developer files an ANDA for a generic drug, seeking approval
before expiration of a patent, which has been listed with the FDA as covering the brand name
product, the developer must certify its product will not infringe the listed patent(s) and /or the
listed patent is invalid or unenforceable (commonly referred to as a Paragraph IV certification).
Notices of such certification must be provided to the patent holder, who may file a suit for
patent infringement within 45 days of the patent holders receipt of such notice. If the patent
holder files suit within the 45 day period, the FDA can review and tentatively approve the ANDA,
but is prevented from granting final marketing approval of the product until a final judgment in
the action has been rendered in favor of the generic, or 30 months from the date the notice was
received, whichever is sooner. Lawsuits have been filed against the Company in connection the
Companys Paragraph IV certifications.
Should a patent holder commence a lawsuit with respect to an alleged patent infringement by
the Company, the uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation
difficult to predict. The delay in obtaining FDA approval to market the Companys product
candidates as a result of litigation, as well as the expense of such litigation, whether or not the
Company is ultimately successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Companys results of
operations and financial position. In addition, there can be no assurance any patent litigation
will be resolved prior to the end of the 30-month period. As a result, even if the FDA were to
approve a product upon expiration of the 30-month period, the Company may elect to not commence
marketing the product if patent litigation is still pending.
Further, under the Teva Agreement, the Company and Teva have agreed to share in fees and costs
related to patent infringement litigation associated with the 12 products covered by the Teva
Agreement. For the six products with ANDAs already filed with the FDA at the time the Teva
Agreement was signed, Teva is required to pay 50% of the fees and costs in excess of $7,000,000;
for three of the products with ANDAs filed since the Teva Agreement was signed, Teva is required to
pay 45% of the fees and costs; and for the remaining three products, Teva is required to pay 50% of
the fees and costs. The Company is responsible for the remaining fees and costs relating to these
12 products.
The Company is responsible for all of the patent litigation fees and costs associated with
current and future products not covered by the Teva Agreement. The Company records as expense the
costs of patent litigation as incurred.
Although the outcome and costs of the asserted and unasserted claims is difficult to predict,
the Company does not expect the ultimate liability, if any, for such matters to have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Page 40 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Patent Infringement Litigation
AstraZeneca AD et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Omeprazole)
In litigation commenced against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware in May 2000, AstraZeneca AB alleged the Companys submission of an ANDA seeking FDA
permission to market Omeprazole Delayed Release Capsules, 10mg, 20mg and 40mg, constituted
infringement of AstraZenecas U.S. patents relating to its Prilosec® product and sought an order
enjoining the Company from marketing its product until expiration of the patents. The case, along
with several similar suits against other manufacturers of generic versions of Prilosec®, was
subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
September 2004, following expiration of the 30-month stay, the FDA approved the Companys ANDA, and
the Company and its alliance agreement partner, Teva, commenced commercial sales of the Companys
product. In January 2005, AstraZeneca added claims of willful infringement, for damages, and for
enhanced damages on the basis of this commercial launch. Claims for damages were subsequently
dropped from the suit against the Company, but were included in a separate suit filed against Teva.
In May 2007, the court found the product infringed two of AstraZenecas patents and these patents
were not invalid. The court ordered FDA approval of the Companys ANDA be converted to a tentative
approval, with a final approval date not before October 20, 2007, the expiration date of the
relevant pediatric exclusivity period. In August 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit affirmed the lower courts decision of infringement and validity. If Teva is not ultimately
successful in establishing invalidity or non-infringement in the separate suit against Teva, the
court may award monetary damages associated with Tevas commercial sale of the Companys omeprazole
products. Under the Teva Agreement, the Company would be responsible for monetary damages awarded
against Teva up to a specified level, beyond which, monetary damages would be Tevas
responsibility.
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Fexofenadine/Pseudoephedrine)
The Company is a defendant in an action brought in March 2002 by Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the Companys
proposed Fexofenadine and Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride tablets, generic to Allegra-D®, infringe
seven Aventis patents and seeking an injunction preventing the Company from marketing the products
until expiration of the patents. The case has since been consolidated with similar actions brought
by Aventis against five other manufacturers (including generics to both Allegra® and Allegra-D®).
In March 2004, Aventis and AMR Technology, Inc. filed a complaint and first amended complaint
against the Company and one of the other defendants alleging infringement of two additional
patents, owned by AMR and licensed to Aventis, relating to a synthetic process for making the
active pharmaceutical ingredient, Fexofenadine Hydrochloride and intermediates in the synthetic
process. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims based on non-infringement and
invalidity.
In June 2004, the court granted the Companys motion for summary judgment of non-infringement
with respect to two of the patents and, in May 2005, granted summary judgment of invalidity with
respect to a third patent. The Company will have the opportunity to file additional summary
judgment motions in the future and to assert both non-infringement and invalidity of the remaining
patents (if necessary) at trial. No trial date has yet been set. In September 2005, Teva launched
its Fexofenadine tablet products (generic to Allegra®), and Aventis and AMR moved for a preliminary
injunction to bar Tevas sales based on four of the patents in suit, which patents are common to
the Allegra® and Allegra-D® litigations. The district court denied Aventiss motion in January
2006, finding Aventis did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits, which decision was
affirmed on appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set.
Page 41 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Abbott Laboratories v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Fenofibrate)
The Company was a defendant in patent-infringement litigation commenced in January 2003 by
Abbott Laboratories and Fournier Industrie et Sante in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware relating to Company ANDAs for Fenofibrate Tablets, 160mg and 54mg, generic to TriCor®. In
March 2005 the Company asserted antitrust counterclaims. By agreement between the parties, in July
2005 the court entered an order dismissing the patent-infringement claims, leaving the Companys
antitrust counterclaim intact, and in May 2006 the court denied Abbotts and Fourniers motion to
dismiss the counterclaim.
On April 3, 2008, the Court issued an order bifurcating and staying damages issues, and
setting a schedule for trial of liability issues to begin the week of November 3, 2008. On November
13, 2008, the parties reached agreement to settle the case and the case was dismissed with
prejudice on December 12, 2008.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Riluzole)
In June 2002, the Company filed a suit against Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking a declaration the Companys filing of an ANDA
for Riluzole 50mg tablets, generic to Rilutek®, for treatment of patients with amyotrophic lateral
scleroses (ALS) did not infringe claims of Aventiss patent relating to the drug and a declaration
its patent is invalid. Aventis filed counterclaims for infringement, and, in December 2002, the
district court granted Aventis motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Company from
marketing any pharmaceutical product or compound containing Riluzole for the treatment of ALS. In
September 2004, the district court found Aventiss patent not invalid and infringed by the
Companys proposed product. In November 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated
the district courts finding of the patent not invalid and remanded for further findings on this
issue, and, in June 2007, the district court again found Aventiss patent is not invalid. In
October 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision.
The district court has entered a permanent injunction enjoining the Company from marketing Riluzole
50mg tablets for the treatment of ALS until the expiration of Aventiss patent in June 2013.
Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Venlafaxine)
In April 2006, Wyeth filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA relating to
Venlafaxine HCl Extended Release 37.5mg, 75mg and 150mg capsules, generic to Effexor XR®. In June
2008, the Company entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement with Wyeth settling all pending
claims and counter-claims related to the Companys generic Effexor XR® products. Pursuant to the
Settlement and Release Agreement, the Company obtained a license allowing launch of its generic
Effexor XR® products no later than June 2011, and Wyeth agreed to pay the Company $1,000,000 as
reimbursement for legal fees associated with this lawsuit.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Oxymorphone)
In November 2007, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (together, Endo)
filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, requesting
a declaration the Companys Paragraph IV Notices with respect to the Companys ANDA for Oxymorphone
Hydrochloride Extended Release Tablets 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg, generic to Opana® ER, are null
and void and, in the alternative, alleging patent infringement in connection with the filing of
such ANDA. Endo subsequently dismissed its request for declaratory relief and in December 2007
filed another patent infringement suit relating to the same ANDA. In July 2008, Endo asserted
additional infringement claims with respect to the Companys amended ANDA, which added 7.5mg, 15mg
and 30mg strengths of the product. The cases have subsequently been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has filed an answer and counterclaims.
Discovery is proceeding, and a Markman hearing is scheduled for December 21, 2009. Although no
trial date has been set, a final pretrial conference is scheduled for March 8, 2010.
Page 42 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. (Minocycline)
In January 2008, the Company filed a complaint against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment of the
Companys filing of its ANDA relating to Minocycline Hydrochloride Extended Release Tablets 45 mg,
90 mg, and 135 mg, generic to Solodyn®, did not infringe any valid claim of U.S. Patent No.
5,908,838. Medicis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On April 16, 2008, the District Court granted Medicis motion to dismiss, and judgment was entered
on April 22, 2008. The Company appealed the dismissal decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While on appeal in December 2008, the parties announced they had
settled the case by entering into the Settlement and License Agreement, which allows Impax to
launch its products no later than November 2011. The appeal was dismissed by stipulation in
accordance with the Settlement and License Agreement.
Pfizer Inc., et aI. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Tolterodine)
In March 2008, Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, and Pfizer Health AB
(collectively, Pfizer) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging the Companys filing of an ANDA relating to Tolterodine
Tartrate Extended Release Capsules, 4 mg, generic to Detrol® LA, infringes three Pfizer patents.
The Company filed an answer and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement,
invalidity, or unenforceability with respect to the patents in suit. In April 2008, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 3, 2008, an
amended complaint was filed alleging infringement based on the Companys ANDA amendment adding a
2mg strength. Discovery is proceeding, and no trial date has been set.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Tamsulosin)
In July 2008, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc. (together,
Astellas) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging patent infringement in connection with the filing of the Company
ANDA relating to Tamsulosin Hydrochloride Capsules, 0.4 mg, generic to Flomax®. After filing its
answer and counterclaim, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity. The
District Court conducted hearings on claim construction in May 2009, and summary judgment in June
2009. In October 2009, the parties announced they had entered a settlement agreement allowing the
Company to launch its product no later than March 2, 2010. A stipulated consent judgment was
entered by the Court and the case was dismissed.
Purdue Pharma Products L.P., et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Tramadol)
In August 2008, Purdue Pharma Products L.P., Napp Pharmaceutical Group LTD., Biovail
Laboratories International, SRL, and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively,
Purdue) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA relating to Tramadol
Hydrochloride Extended Release Tablets, 100 mg, generic to 100mg Ultram® ER. In November 2008,
Purdue asserted additional infringement claims with respect to the Companys amended ANDA, which
added 200 mg and 300 mg strengths of the product. The Company has filed answers and counterclaims
to those complaints. No trial date has been set.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Duloxetine)
In November 2008, Eli Lilly and Company filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the
Companys ANDA relating to Duloxetine Hydrochloride Delayed Release Capsules, 20 mg, 30 mg, and 60
mg, generic to Cymbalta®. In February 2009, the parties agreed to be bound by the final judgment
concerning infringement, validity and enforceability of the patent at issue in cases brought by Eli
Lilly and Company against other generic drug manufacturers that have filed ANDAs relating to this
product and proceedings in this case were stayed.
Page 43 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Warner Chilcott, Ltd. et.al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Doxycycline Hyclate)
In December 2008, Warner Chilcott Limited and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. (together,
Warner Chilcott) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA relating to
Doxycycline Hyclate Delayed Release Tablets, 75 mg and 100 mg, generic to Doryx®. The Company has
filed an answer and counterclaim. Thereafter, in March 2009, Warner Chilcott filed another lawsuit
in the same jurisdiction, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA for the
150 mg strength. Discovery is proceeding, and no trial date has been set.
Eurand, Inc., et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Cyclobenzaprine)
In January 2009, Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., and Anesta AG (collectively, Cephalon) filed
suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent
infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA relating to Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride
Extended Release Capsules, 15 mg and 30 mg, generic to Amrix®. The Company has filed an answer and
counterclaim. Discovery is proceeding, and the trial is scheduled to begin on September 27, 2010.
Genzyme Corp. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Sevelamer Hydrochloride)
In March 2009, Genzyme Corporation filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA
relating to Sevelamer Hydrochloride Tablets, 400 mg and 800 mg, generic to Renagel®. The Company
has filed an answer and counterclaim. Discovery is in the early stages, and no trial date has been
set.
Genzyme Corp. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Sevelamer Carbonate)
In April 2009, Genzyme Corporation filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, alleging patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA
relating to Sevelamer Carbonate Tablets, 800 mg, generic to Renvela®. The Company has filed an
answer and counterclaim. Discovery is in the early stages, and no trial date has been set.
The Research Foundation of State University of New York et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Doxycycline Monohydrate)
In September 2009, The Research Foundation of State University of New York; New York
University; Galderma Laboratories Inc.; and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. (collectively, Galderma)
filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging
patent infringement for the filing of the Companys ANDA relating to Doxycycline Monohydrate
Delayed-Release Capsules, 40 mg, generic to Oracea®. The Company has filed an answer and
counterclaim. In October 2009, the parties agreed to be bound by the final judgment concerning
infringement, validity and enforceability of the patent at issue in cases brought by Galderma
against another generic drug manufacturer that has filed an ANDA relating to this product and
proceedings in this case were stayed.
Elan Pharma International Ltd. and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Impax Laboratories,
Inc. Abbott Laboratories and Laboratoires Fournier S.A. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Fenofibrate)
In October 2009, Elan Pharma International Ltd. with Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. and
Abbott Laboratories with Laboratoires Fournier S.A. filed separate suits against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement for the filing of
the Companys ANDA relating to Fenofibrate Tablets, 48 mg and 145 mg, generic to Tricor®. The
Company has not yet filed its answer in either suit.
Page 44 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Other Litigation Related to Our Business
Axcan Scandipharm Inc. v. Ethex Corp, et al. (Lipram UL)
In May 2007, Axcan Scandipharm Inc., a manufacturer of the Ultrase® line of pancreatic enzyme
products, brought suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging the Company engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, and unfair trade
practices under federal and Minnesota law in connection with the marketing and sale of the
Companys now-discontinued Lipram UL products. The suit seeks actual and consequential damages,
including lost profits, treble damages, attorneys fees, injunctive relief and declaratory
judgments to prohibit the substitution of Lipram UL for prescriptions of Ultrase®. The District
Court granted in part and denied in part the Companys motion to dismiss the complaint, as well as
the motion of co-defendants Ethex Corp. and KV Pharmaceutical Co., holding any claim of false
advertising pre-dating June 1, 2001, is barred by the statute of limitations. The Company has
answered the complaint, and discovery is proceeding. A trial ready date is set for July 1, 2010.
Securities Litigation
The Company, its Chief Executive Officer and several former officers and directors were
defendants in several class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, all of which were consolidated into a single action. These actions,
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Companys common stock between May 5 and November 3,
2004, sought unspecified damages and alleged that the Company and the individual defendants, in
violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, had artificially inflated the
market price of the Companys common stock during that period by filing false financial statements
for the first and second quarters of 2004, based upon the subsequent restatement of its results for
those periods. On January 28, 2009, the parties entered into an agreement settling the securities
class actions. Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs agreed to dismissal of the actions
with prejudice, and defendants, without admitting the allegations or any liability, agreed to pay
the plaintiff class $9,000,000, of which the Company paid approximately $3,400,000, with the
remaining balance paid by the Companys directors and officers liability insurance policy.
Page 45 of 92
19. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
Budeprion XL Litigation
In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action lawsuits filed in
California state court in an action titled Kelly v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No.
BC414812 (Calif. Superior Crt. L.A. County). Subsequently, additional class action lawsuits were
filed in Louisiana and North Carolina styled, respectively, Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus.
Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish, LA.), and Weber v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C Superior Crt., Hanover County), and in
federal courts in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas styled, respectively, Rosenfeld v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. et al., No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.), Henchenski and Vogel v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-29SPC (M.D. Fla.), Anderson v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.) , Brown et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK), and Latvala et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH). All of the complaints involve
Budeprion XL, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL® that is manufactured by the Company and marketed
by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in
treating depression, and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL. The
actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL and assert claims such as unfair
competition, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law. Each lawsuit
seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of the cost of Budeprion XL paid by class
members, as well as any applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages for
personal injury. The cases have been removed to federal court, and a petition for multidistrict
litigation to consolidate the cases has been filed. The Company believes the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Page 46 of 92
20. SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (unaudited)
Selected
(unaudited) financial information for the quarterly
period noted
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Quarters Ended: |
|
(in $000s except per share amounts) |
|
March 31 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, gross |
|
$ |
78,696 |
|
|
$ |
81,764 |
|
|
$ |
82,514 |
|
Less: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chargebacks |
|
|
22,638 |
|
|
|
24,844 |
|
|
|
21,265 |
|
Rebates |
|
|
10,819 |
|
|
|
13,425 |
|
|
|
9,411 |
|
Returns |
|
|
3,256 |
|
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
Other credits |
|
|
2,862 |
|
|
|
3,008 |
|
|
|
3,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, net |
|
|
39,121 |
|
|
|
37,387 |
|
|
|
46,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label product sales |
|
|
1,297 |
|
|
|
2,220 |
|
|
|
1,752 |
|
Rx Partner |
|
|
10,736 |
|
|
|
11,119 |
|
|
|
8,328 |
|
OTC Partner |
|
|
1,858 |
|
|
|
1,628 |
|
|
|
1,769 |
|
Research Partner |
|
|
2,611 |
|
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
|
2,962 |
|
Promotional Partner |
|
|
3,284 |
|
|
|
3,224 |
|
|
|
3,499 |
|
Other |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
58,913 |
|
|
|
58,416 |
|
|
|
64,946 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
32,663 |
|
|
|
31,132 |
|
|
|
36,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
2,219 |
|
|
$ |
3,013 |
|
|
|
6,685 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share (basic) |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share (diluted) |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average: common shares outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
59,711,133 |
|
|
|
60,112,308 |
|
|
|
60,559,064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
60,222,215 |
|
|
|
60,552,344 |
|
|
|
61,247,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly computations of (unaudited) net income per share amounts are made independently for
each quarterly reporting period, and the sum of the per share amounts for the quarterly reporting
periods may not equal the per share amounts for the year-to-date reporting period.
Page 47 of 92
20. SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (unaudited) (continued)
Selected
(unaudited) financial information for the quarterly
periods noted
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 Quarters Ended: |
|
(in $000s except per share amounts) |
|
March 31 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, gross |
|
$ |
38,401 |
|
|
$ |
45,064 |
|
|
$ |
41,714 |
|
Less: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chargebacks |
|
|
9,233 |
|
|
|
11,033 |
|
|
|
13,770 |
|
Rebates |
|
|
4,191 |
|
|
|
5,190 |
|
|
|
4,173 |
|
Returns |
|
|
946 |
|
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,478 |
|
Other credits |
|
|
1,052 |
|
|
|
1,474 |
|
|
|
2,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, net |
|
|
22,979 |
|
|
|
25,986 |
|
|
|
20,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label product sales |
|
|
478 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
629 |
|
Rx Partner |
|
|
18,805 |
|
|
|
43,870 |
|
|
|
9,424 |
|
OTC Partner |
|
|
4,409 |
|
|
|
4,932 |
|
|
|
3,398 |
|
Research Partner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promotional Partner |
|
|
3,252 |
|
|
|
3,238 |
|
|
|
3,238 |
|
Other |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
49,930 |
|
|
|
78,672 |
|
|
|
36,774 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
26,552 |
|
|
|
57,968 |
|
|
|
14,478 |
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
460 |
|
|
$ |
17,088 |
|
|
|
(10,530 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share (basic) |
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share (diluted) |
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average
common shares outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
58,833,979 |
|
|
|
58,978,703 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
61,126,768 |
|
|
|
60,584,709 |
|
|
|
59,166,319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly computations of (unaudited) net income (loss) per share amounts are made
independently for each quarterly reporting period, and the sum of the per share amounts for the
quarterly reporting periods may not equal the per share amounts for the year-to-date reporting
period.
Page 48 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 2. |
|
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND
FINANCIAL CONDITION |
The following discussion and analysis, as well as other sections in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, should be read in conjunction with the unaudited interim consolidated financial
statements and related notes to the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere herein.
Statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that do not relate to present or
historical conditions are forward-looking statements. Additional oral or written forward-looking
statements may be made by us from time to time. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and
uncertainties that could cause results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in the
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may include statements relating to our
plans, strategies, objectives, expectations and intentions. Words such as believes, forecasts,
intends, possible, estimates, anticipates, and plans and similar expressions are intended
to identify forward-looking statements. Our ability to predict results or the effect of events on
our operating results is inherently uncertain. Forward-looking statements involve a number of
risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from
those discussed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Such risks and uncertainties include the
effect of current economic conditions on our industry, business, financial position, results of
operations and market value of our common stock, our ability to timely file periodic reports
required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, our ability to maintain an effective
system of internal control over financial reporting, our ability to sustain profitability and
positive cash flows, our ability to maintain sufficient capital to fund our operations, any delays
or unanticipated expenses in connection with the construction of our Taiwan facility, our ability
to successfully develop and commercialize pharmaceutical products, the uncertainty of patent
litigation, consumer acceptance and demand for new pharmaceutical products, the impact of
competitive products and pricing, the difficulty of predicting Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
filings and approvals, our inexperience in conducting clinical trials and submitting new drug
applications, our reliance on key alliance agreements, the availability of raw materials, the
regulatory environment, exposure to product liability claims, fluctuations in operating results and
other risks described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Such statements speak only
as to the date on which they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise
any forward-looking statement, regardless of future developments or availability of new
information.
Page 49 of 92
Overview
We are a technology based, specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation and
development expertise, as well as our drug delivery technology, to the development, manufacture and
marketing of controlled-release and niche generics, in addition to the development of branded
products. As of October 27, 2009, we manufactured and marketed 81 generic pharmaceuticals, which
represent dosage variations of 27 different pharmaceutical compounds through our own Global
Pharmaceuticals division; another 16 of our generic pharmaceuticals representing dosage variations
of four different pharmaceutical compounds are marketed by our alliance agreement partners. We have
27 applications pending at the FDA, including 5 tentatively approved by FDA, and 48 other products
in various stages of development for which applications have not yet been filed.
In the generic pharmaceuticals market, we focus our efforts on controlled-release generic
versions of selected brand-name pharmaceuticals covering a broad range of therapeutic areas and
having technically challenging drug-delivery mechanisms or limited competition. We employ our
technologies and formulation expertise to develop generic products that will reproduce the
brand-name products physiological characteristics but not infringe any valid patents relating to
the brand-name product. We generally focus on brand-name products as to which the patents covering
the active pharmaceutical ingredient have expired or are near expiration, and we employ our
proprietary formulation expertise to develop controlled-release technologies that do not infringe
patents covering the brand-name products controlled-release technologies.
We are also developing specialty generic pharmaceuticals we believe present one or more
barriers to entry by competitors, such as difficulty in raw materials sourcing, complex formulation
or development characteristics or special handling requirements. In the brand-name pharmaceuticals
market, we are developing products for the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disorders.
Our brand-name product portfolio consists of development-stage projects to which we are applying
our formulation and development expertise to develop differentiated, modified, or
controlled-release versions of currently marketed (either in the U.S. or outside the U.S.) drug
substances. We intend to expand our brand-name products portfolio primarily through internal
development and also through licensing and acquisition.
Page 50 of 92
We operate in two segments, referred to as the Global Pharmaceuticals Division (Global
Division) and the Impax Pharmaceuticals Division (Impax Division).
The Global Division develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes generic pharmaceutical
products through four sales channels: the Global Products sales channel, for generic
pharmaceutical prescription (Rx) products we sell directly to wholesalers, large retail drug
chains, and others; the Private Label sales channel, for generic pharmaceutical and
over-the-counter (OTC) prescription products we sell to unrelated third-party customers who
in-turn sell the product to third parties under their own label, the Rx Partner sales channel,
for generic prescription products sold through unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities under
their own label pursuant to alliance agreements; and the OTC Partner sales channel, for sales of
generic pharmaceutical OTC products sold through unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities
under their own label pursuant to alliance agreements.
The Impax Division is engaged in the development of proprietary brand pharmaceutical products
through improvements to already approved pharmaceutical products to address central nervous system
CNS disorders. The Impax Division is also engaged in the co-promotion of products developed by
unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities through our direct sales force focused on marketing
to physicians (referred to as physician detailing sales calls) in the CNS community.
Our total revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were
predominantly derived from our Global Division. See Part I: Financial Information Item 1:
Financial Statements Note 17 to the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements for
financial information about our segments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 and
2008. We sell our products within the continental United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. We have no sales in foreign countries.
Global Product Sales, net. We recognize revenue from direct sales in accordance with SEC
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Topic 13, Revenue Recognition (SAB 104). Revenue from direct
product sales is recognized at the time title and risk of loss pass to customers. Provisions for
estimated discounts, rebates, chargebacks, returns and other adjustments are provided for in the
period the related sales are recorded.
Private Label Sales. We recognize revenue from direct sales in accordance with SAB 104.
Revenue from direct product sales is recognized at the time title and risk of loss pass to
customers. Revenue received from Private Label product sales is not subject to deductions for
chargebacks, rebates, returns, shelf-stock adjustments, and other pricing adjustments.
Additionally, Private Label product sales do not have upfront, milestone, or lump-sum payments and
do not contain multiple deliverables under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting
Standards Codification TM (ASC or the Codification) Topic 605.
Rx Partner and OTC Partner. Each of our alliance agreements involves multiple deliverables in
the form of products, services or licenses over extended periods. FASB ASC Topic 605 supplemented
SAB 104 for accounting for such multiple deliverable arrangements. With respect to our multiple
deliverable arrangements, we determine whether any or all of the elements of the arrangement should
be separated into individual units of accounting under FASB ASC Topic 605. If separation into
individual units of accounting is appropriate, we recognize revenue for each deliverable when the
revenue recognition criteria specified by SAB 104 are achieved for the deliverable. If separation
is not appropriate, we recognize revenue (and related direct manufacturing costs) over the
estimated life of the agreement utilizing a modified proportional performance method. Under this
method the amount recognized in the period of initial recognition is based upon the number of years
elapsed under the agreement relative to the estimated life of the particular agreement. The amount
of revenue recognized in the year of initial recognition is thus determined by multiplying the
total amount realized by a fraction, the numerator of which is the then current year of the
agreement and the denominator of which is the total number of estimated agreement years. The
balance of the amount realized is recognized in equal amounts in each of the remaining years.
Thus, for example, with respect to profit share or royalty payment reported by a strategic partner
during the third year of an agreement with an estimated life of 18 years, 3 / 18 of the amount
reported is recognized in the year reported and 1/18 of the amount is recognized during each of the
remaining 15 years. A fuller description of our analysis under FASB ASC Topic 605 and the modified
proportional performance method is set forth in Part I: Financial Information Item 1: Financial
Statements Note 2 to Unaudited Interim Consolidated Financial Statements.
Page 51 of 92
Research Partner. We have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with another
pharmaceutical company under which we are collaborating in the development of five dermatological
products, including four generic products and one brand product. Under this agreement, we received
an upfront fee with the potential to receive additional milestone payments upon completion of
specified clinical and regulatory milestones. To the extent the products are commercialized, we
are eligible for royalties and profit sharing based on sales of the one brand product. We recognize
revenue from the upfront fee over a 48 month period on a straight-line basis. To the extent
milestone payments are earned, they will be recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the
remaining revenue recognition period. We estimate our expected period of performance to provide
research and development services to be 48 months, beginning in December 2008 when we received the
upfront payment and ending in November 2012.
Promotional Partner. We have entered into promotional services agreements with other
pharmaceutical companies under which we provide physician detailing sales calls to promote certain
of those companies branded drug products. In exchange for our services we receive fixed sales
force fees and are eligible for contingent payments based upon the number of prescriptions filled
for the product. We recognize revenue from sales force fees as the services are provided and the
performance obligations are met and from contingent payments at the time they are earned.
The global economy is currently undergoing a period of significant volatility, and the future
economic environment may continue to be less favorable as compared to recent years. It is
uncertain how long the U.S. economic recession will last. This has resulted in, and could lead to
further, reduced consumer spending related to healthcare in general and pharmaceutical products in
particular. While generic pharmaceutical products present a cost-effective alternative to
generally relatively higher-priced branded pharmaceutical products, our sales and those of our
alliance agreement partners could nonetheless be negatively affected if patients forego obtaining
healthcare. In addition, reduced consumer spending may force our competitors and us to decrease
prices.
In addition, we have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, including our
partners under our alliance, research, and promotional services agreements, suppliers of raw
chemical and packaging materials, drug wholesalers and other customers who may be or become
financially unstable in the current economic environment. Any such instability may affect these
parties ability to fulfill their respective contractual obligations to us or cause them to limit
or place burdensome conditions upon future transactions with us.
Page 52 of 92
Critical Accounting Estimates
The preparation of our financial statements requires the use of estimates and assumptions,
based on complex judgments considered reasonable when made, affecting the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and contingent liabilities at the date
of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. The most significant judgments are employed in estimates used in determining values of
tangible and intangible assets, legal contingencies, tax assets and tax liabilities, fair value of
common stock purchase warrants, fair value of share-based compensation expense, estimates used in
applying our revenue recognition policy, particularly those related to deductions from gross Global
Product Sales for chargebacks, rebates, returns, shelf-stock adjustments and Medicaid payments, and
those related to the recognition periods under our alliance agreements.
Although we believe our estimates and assumptions are reasonable when made, they are based
upon information available to us at the time they are made. We periodically review the factors
having an influence on our estimates and, if necessary, adjust such estimates. Although
historically our estimates have generally been reasonably accurate, due to the risks and
uncertainties involved in our business and evolving market conditions, and given the subjective
element of the estimates made, actual results may differ from estimated results. This possibility
may be greater than normal during times of pronounced market volatility or turmoil.
Consistent with industry practice, we record estimated deductions for chargebacks, rebates,
returns, shelf-stock, and other pricing adjustments in the same period when revenue is recognized.
The objective of recording provisions for such deductions at the time of sale is to provide a
reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount we expect to credit our customers. Since arrangements
giving rise to the various sales credits are typically time driven (i.e. particular promotions
entitling customers who make purchases of our products during a specific period of time, to certain
levels of rebates or chargebacks), these deductions represent important reductions of the amounts
those customers would otherwise owe us for their purchases of those products. Customers typically
process their claims for deductions promptly, usually within the established payment terms. We
monitor actual credit memos issued to our customers and compare such actual amounts to the
estimated provisions, in the aggregate, for each deduction category to assess the reasonableness of
the various reserves at each quarterly balance sheet date. Differences between our estimated
provisions and actual credits issued have not been significant, and are accounted for in the
current period as a change in estimate in accordance with GAAP. We do not have the ability to
specifically link any particular sales credit to an exact sales transaction and since there have
been no material differences, we believe our systems and procedures are adequate for managing our
business. An event such as the failure to report a particular promotion could result in a
significant difference between the amount accrued and the amount claimed by the customer, and,
while there have been none to date, we would evaluate the particular events and factors giving rise
to any such significant difference in determining the appropriate accounting.
Page 53 of 92
Chargebacks. We have agreements establishing contract prices for certain products with
certain indirect customers, such as managed care organizations, hospitals and government agencies
that purchase our products from drug wholesalers. The contract prices are lower than the prices
the customer would otherwise pay to the wholesaler, and the difference is referred to as a
chargeback, which generally takes the form of a credit issued by us to reduce the gross sales
amount we invoiced to our wholesaler. A provision for chargeback deductions is estimated and
recorded at the time we ship the products to the wholesalers. The primary factors we consider when
estimating the provision for chargebacks are the average historical chargeback credits given, the
mix of products shipped, and the amount of inventory on hand at the three major drug wholesalers
with which we do business. We monitor aggregate actual chargebacks granted and compare them to the
estimated provision for chargebacks to assess the reasonableness of the chargeback reserve at each
quarterly balance sheet date.
The following table is a roll-forward of the activity in the chargeback reserve for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and the year ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Chargeback reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
4,056 |
|
|
$ |
2,977 |
|
Provision recorded during the period |
|
|
68,747 |
|
|
|
50,144 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(66,781 |
) |
|
|
(49,065 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
6,022 |
|
|
$ |
4,056 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision as a percent of Global product sales, gross |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The provision for chargebacks, as a percent of Global product sales, gross was consistent
period-over-period.
Page 54 of 92
Rebates. We maintain various rebate programs with our Global Division Global Products sales
channel customers in an effort to maintain a competitive position in the marketplace and to promote
sales and customer loyalty. The rebates generally take the form of a credit memo to reduce the
invoiced gross sales amount charged to a customer for products shipped. A provision for rebate
deductions is estimated and recorded at the time of product shipment. The provision for rebates is
based upon historical experience of aggregate credits issued compared with payments made, the
historical relationship of rebates as a percentage of total Global product sales, gross, and the
contract terms and conditions of the various rebate programs in effect at the time of shipment. We
monitor aggregate actual rebates granted and compare them to the estimated provision for rebates to
assess the reasonableness of the rebate reserve at each quarterly balance sheet date.
The following table is a roll-forward of the activity in the rebate reserve for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and the year December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Rebate reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
4,800 |
|
|
$ |
3,603 |
|
Provision recorded during the period |
|
|
33,655 |
|
|
|
20,361 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(30,034 |
) |
|
|
(19,164 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
8,421 |
|
|
$ |
4,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision as a percent of Global product sales, gross |
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in the provision for rebates, as a percent of Global product sales, gross was the
result of increasing price competition for generic drugs sold through our Global Divisions Global
Products sales channel. Reductions in the selling prices of our generic products sold through this
channel frequently take the form of larger rebate credits issued to drug-store chains as well as
other customers who are not wholesalers. In addition, during the current period one of our
customers earned a special rebate which totaled $2.6 million, and excluding such amount, the
provision for rebates as a percent of Global product sales, gross would have been approximately 13%
for the nine months ended September 30, 2009.
Page 55 of 92
Returns. We allow our customers to return product (i) if approved by authorized personnel in
writing or by telephone with the lot number and expiration date accompanying any request and (ii)
if such products are returned within six months prior to, or until 12 months following, the
products expiration date. We estimate a provision for product returns as a percentage of gross
sales based upon historical experience of Global Division Global Product sales. The sales return
reserve is estimated using a historical lag period (the time between the month of sale and the
month of return) and return rates, adjusted by estimates of the future return rates based on
various assumptions, which may include changes to internal policies and procedures, changes in
business practices, and commercial terms with customers, competitive position of each product,
amount of inventory in the wholesaler supply chain, and the introduction of new products. We also
consider other factors, including levels of inventory in the distribution channel, significant
market changes which may impact future expected returns, and actual product returns and may record
additional provisions for specific returns we believe are not covered by the historical rates. We
monitor aggregate actual returns on a quarterly basis and may record specific provisions for
returns we believe are not covered by historical percentages.
The following table is a roll-forward of the activity in the accrued product returns for the
nine months ended September 30, 2009 and the year ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
Returns Reserve |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
13,675 |
|
|
$ |
14,261 |
|
Provision related to
sales recorded in the period |
|
|
8,386 |
|
|
|
5,719 |
|
Credits issued during the period |
|
|
(2,771 |
) |
|
|
(6,305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
19,290 |
|
|
$ |
13,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision as a percent of Global product sales, gross |
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The change in the provision for returns, as a percent of Global product sales, gross, was de
minimis period over period.
Page 56 of 92
Medicaid. As required by law, we provide a rebate payment on drugs dispensed under the
Medicaid program. We determine our estimate of Medicaid rebate accrual primarily based on
historical experience of claims submitted by the various states and any new information regarding
changes in the Medicaid program which may impact our estimate of Medicaid rebates. In determining
the appropriate accrual amount, we consider historical payment rates and processing lag for
outstanding claims and payments. We record estimates for Medicaid payments as a deduction from
gross sales, with corresponding adjustments to accrued liabilities. The accrual for Medicaid
payments totaled $857,000 and $584,000 as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. Medicaid payments have been less than 0.5% of Global product sales, gross.
Differences between our estimated and actual payments made have been de minimis.
Shelf-Stock Adjustments. When, based on market conditions, we reduce the selling price of a
product; we may choose to issue a shelf-stock adjustment credit to customers, the amount of which
is typically derived from the level of a specific product held by the customer, who agrees to
continue to purchase the product from us. Such a credit is referred to as a shelf-stock adjustment,
which is the difference between the invoiced gross sales price and the revised lower gross sales
price, multiplied by an estimate of the number of product units in the customers inventory. The
primary factors we consider when estimating a reserve for a shelf-stock adjustment include the
per-unit credit amount and an estimate of the level of inventory held by the customer. The accrued
reserve for shelf-stock adjustments totaled $187,000 and $572,000 as of September 30, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, respectively. Differences between our estimated and actual credits issued for
shelf stock adjustments have been de minimis.
Allowance for Uncollectible Amounts. We maintain allowances for uncollectible amounts for
estimated losses resulting from amounts deemed to be uncollectible from our customers; these
allowances are for specific amounts on certain accounts. The allowance for uncollectible amounts
totaled $301,000 and $828,000 at September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
Page 57 of 92
Estimated Lives of Alliance Agreements. The revenue we receive under our alliance agreements
is not subject to adjustment for estimated discounts, rebates, chargebacks, returns and similar
adjustments, as such adjustments have already been reflected in the amounts we receive from our
alliance partners. However, because we recognize the revenue we receive under our alliance
agreements over the estimated life of the related agreement or our expected performance utilizing a
modified proportional performance method, we are required to estimate the recognition period under
each such agreement in order to determine the amount of revenue to be recognized in the current
period. Sometimes this estimate is based solely on the fixed term of the particular alliance
agreement. In other cases the estimate may be based on more subjective factors as noted in the
following paragraphs. While changes to the estimated recognition periods have been infrequent, such
changes, should they occur, may have a significant impact on our financial statements.
The term of the Teva Agreement, for example, is 10 years following the launch of the last
product subject to the agreement. Since product launch is dependent upon FDA approval of the
product, we are required to estimate when that approval is likely to occur in order to estimate the
life of the Teva Agreement. We currently estimate its life to be 18 years, based upon the June
2001 inception of the agreement and our estimate that the last product will be approved by the FDA
in 2009. If the timing of FDA approval for the last product is different from our estimate, the
revenue recognition and product manufacturing amortization period will change on a prospective
basis at the time such event occurs. While no such change in the estimated life of the Teva
Agreement has occurred to date, if we were to conclude that significantly more time will be
required to obtain such approval, then we would increase our estimate of the recognition period
under the agreement, resulting in a lesser amount of revenue and related costs in current and
future periods.
We estimate our expected period of performance to provide research and development services
under the Joint Development Agreement with Medicis is 48 months starting in December 2008 (i.e.
when the $40,000,000 upfront payment was received) and ending in November 2012 (i.e. upon FDA
approval of the fifth and final submission). The FDA approval of the final submission under the
Joint Development Agreement represents the end of our expected period of performance, as we will
have no further contractual obligation to perform research and development services under the Joint
Development Agreement, and therefore the earnings process will be complete. If the timing of FDA
approval for the final submission under the Joint Development Agreement is different from our
estimate, the revenue recognition period will change on a prospective basis at the time such event
occurs. While no such change in the estimated life of the Medicis Joint Development Agreement has
occurred to date, if we were to conclude that significantly more time will be required to obtain
FDA approval, then we would increase our estimate of the recognition period under the agreement,
resulting in a lesser amount of revenue and related costs in current and future periods.
We have changed our estimate of the life of the DAVA Agreement, resulting in the recognition
of a substantially greater portion of the revenue thereunder in 2007 and 2008 than we would have
recognized under our original estimate. When we entered into the DAVA Agreement in November 2005,
we estimated its life at 10 years, which was the fixed term of the agreement, and began recognizing
revenue thereunder over 10 years. In March 2007, in connection with the settlement of a patent
infringement lawsuit against us, we agreed to stop manufacturing and selling the product covered by
the DAVA Agreement in January 2008. While the settlement permits us to resume manufacture and sale
of the product in 2013 or earlier under certain circumstances and the DAVA Agreement will remain
effective through November 2015, we concluded that if any of the contingent events occur to permit
us to resume sales of the product, the same events will result in such a highly competitive generic
marketplace to make it unlikely we will find it economically favorable to devote manufacturing
resources to the resumption of sales of our product. As a result, we concluded the economic life
of the DAVA Agreement, and therefore our expected period of performance, ended in January 2008.
Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, the effective date of the patent litigation settlement, we adjusted
the period of revenue recognition and product manufacturing costs amortization under the DAVA
Agreement from 10 years to 27 months (i.e. November 2005 through January 2008). As the terms of
the patent litigation settlement did not exist and could not have been known when the life of the
DAVA Agreement was originally estimated, the change in the recognition period was applied
prospectively as an adjustment in the period of change.
Page 58 of 92
Third-Party Research and Development Agreements. We use vendors, including universities and
independent research companies, to assist in our research and development activities. These
vendors provide a range of research and development services to us, including clinical and
bioequivalency studies. We generally sign agreements with these vendors which establish the terms
of each study performed by them, including, among other things, the technical specifications of the
study, the payment schedule, and timing of work to be performed. Payments are generally earned by
third-party researchers either upon the achievement of a milestone, or on a pre-determined date, as
specified in each study agreement. We account for third-party research and development expenses as
they are incurred according to the terms and conditions of the respective agreement for each study
performed, with an accrual provided for operating expense incurred but not yet billed to us at each
balance sheet date. We monitor aggregate actual payments and compare them to the estimated
provisions to assess the reasonableness of the accrued expense balance at each quarterly balance
sheet date. Differences between our estimated and actual payments made have been de minims.
Share-Based Compensation. We recognize the fair value of each option and restricted share
over its vesting period. Options and restricted shares granted under the Amended and Restated 2002
Equity Incentive Plan vest over a three or four year period and have a term of ten years. We
estimate the fair value of each stock option award on the grant date using the Black-Scholes Merton
option-pricing model, wherein: expected volatility is based solely on historical volatility of our
common stock over the period commensurate with the expected term of the stock options. The
expected term calculation is based on the simplified method described in SAB No. 107, Share-Based
Payment and SAB No. 110, Share-Based Payment. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S.
Treasury yield in effect at the time of grant for an instrument with a maturity that is
commensurate with the expected term of the stock options. The dividend yield is zero as we have
never paid cash dividends on our common stock, and have no present intention to pay cash dividends.
Income Taxes. We are subject to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes and Taiwan income
taxes. We create a deferred tax asset, or a deferred tax liability, when we have temporary
differences between the results for GAAP financial reporting purposes and tax reporting purposes.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded a valuation allowance related to the net
operating losses generated by our wholly-owned subsidiary. In the nine months ended September 30,
2009, we reversed the valuation allowance related to these net operating losses as a result of
retroactive changes in Taiwan tax law published in the second quarter of 2009. Based upon the
changes in Taiwan tax law, we determined it was more likely than not the results of future
operations of the wholly-owned subsidiary will generate sufficient taxable income to realize the
deferred tax assets related to its net operating loss carryforward.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments. Our cash and cash equivalents include a portfolio of
high-quality credit securities, including U.S. Government securities, treasury bills, corporate
bonds, short-term commercial paper, and high rated money market funds. Our entire portfolio
matures in less than one year. The carrying value of the portfolio approximated the market value
at September 30, 2009. We had no debt outstanding as of September 30, 2009. Our only remaining
debt instrument at September 30, 2009 was the Wachovia revolving credit facility, which would be
subject to variable interest rates and principal payments should we decide to borrow against it.
Contingencies. In the normal course of business, we are subject to loss contingencies, such
as legal proceedings and claims arising out of our business, covering a wide range of matters,
including, among others, patent litigation, shareholder lawsuits, and product liability. In
accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450 Contingencies, we record accruals for such loss contingencies
when it is probable a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably
estimated. We, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450, do not recognize gain contingencies until
realized.
Page 59 of 92
Goodwill In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 350, Goodwill and Other Intangibles, rather
than recording periodic amortization of goodwill, goodwill is subject to an annual assessment for
impairment by applying a fair-value-based test. Under FASB ASC Topic 350, if the fair value of the
reporting unit exceeds the reporting units carrying value, including goodwill, then goodwill is
considered not impaired, making further analysis not required. We consider each of our Global
Division and Impax Division operating segments to be a reporting unit, as this is the lowest level
for each of which discrete financial information is available. We attribute the entire carrying
amount of goodwill to the Global Division. We concluded the carrying value of goodwill was not
impaired as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, as the fair value of the Global Division exceeded its
carrying value at each date. We perform our annual goodwill impairment test in the fourth quarter
of each year. We estimate the fair value of the Global Division using a discounted cash flow model
for both the reporting unit and the enterprise, as well as earnings and revenue multiples per
common share outstanding for enterprise fair value. In addition, on a quarterly basis, we perform a
review of our business operations to determine whether events or changes in circumstances have
occurred that could have a material adverse effect on the estimated fair value of the reporting
unit, and thus indicate a potential impairment of the goodwill carrying value. If such events or
changes in circumstances were deemed to have occurred, we would perform an interim impairment
analysis, which may include the preparation of a discounted cash flow model, or consultation with
one or more valuation specialists, to analyze the impact, if any, on our assessment of the
reporting units fair value. We have not to date deemed there to be any significant adverse changes
in the legal, regulatory or business environment in which we conduct our operations.
Page 60 of 92
Results of Operations
Three Months Ended September 30, 2009 Compared to the Three Months Ended September 30, 2008
Overview:
The following table sets forth summarized, consolidated total Company results of operations
for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
64,946 |
|
|
$ |
36,774 |
|
|
$ |
28,172 |
|
|
|
77 |
% |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
36,891 |
|
|
|
14,478 |
|
|
|
22,413 |
|
|
|
155 |
% |
|
Income (loss) from operations |
|
|
10,163 |
|
|
|
(18,128 |
) |
|
|
28,291 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
10,180 |
|
|
|
(18,380 |
) |
|
|
28,560 |
|
|
nm |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
3,495 |
|
|
|
(7,850 |
) |
|
|
11,345 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
6,685 |
|
|
$ |
(10,530 |
) |
|
$ |
17,215 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2009 was $6.7 million, an increase of $
17.2 million as compared to a loss of $10.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2008,
resulting principally from increased Global product sales, net, lower selling, general and
administrative expenses, and lower interest expense, net; partially offset by lower Rx Partner and
OTC Partner revenue. As discussed throughout this section, we earned
significant revenues and gross profit from sales of fenofibrate
products during the three months ended September 30, 2009.
Accordingly, any significant diminution of such product sales revenue
and gross profit due to the resumption of competition or any other
competitive reasons in future periods may materially and adversely affect our results of operations in such periods.
Page 61 of 92
We have two operating divisions, the Global Division and the Impax Division, and we currently
market and sell product within the continental United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Global Division develops, manufactures, sells, and distributes generic pharmaceutical
products, primarily through the following sales channels: the Global Products sales channel, for
sales of generic Rx products, directly to wholesalers, large retail drug chains, and others; the
Private Label product sales channel, for generic pharmaceutical over-the-counter and prescription
products sold to unrelated third-party customers, who in-turn sell the products to third-parties
under their own label; the Rx Partner sales channel, for generic prescription products sold
through unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities under their own label pursuant to alliance
agreements; and the OTC Partner sales channel, for over-the-counter products sold through
unrelated third-party pharmaceutical entities under their own label pursuant to alliance
agreements. We also generate revenue from research and development services provided under a joint
development agreement with another pharmaceutical company, and report such revenue under the
caption Research Partner revenue on the consolidated statement of operations. We provide these
services through the research and development group in our Global Division.
The Impax Division is engaged in the development of proprietary brand pharmaceutical products
through improvements to already-approved pharmaceutical products to address CNS disorders. The
Impax Division is also engaged in co-promotion through a direct sales force focused on marketing to
physicians, primarily in the CNS community, pharmaceutical products developed by other unrelated
third-party pharmaceutical entities.
Global Division
The following table sets forth results of operations for the Global Division for the three
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, net |
|
$ |
46,636 |
|
|
$ |
20,080 |
|
|
$ |
26,556 |
|
|
|
132 |
% |
Private Label product sales |
|
|
1,752 |
|
|
|
629 |
|
|
|
1,123 |
|
|
|
179 |
% |
Rx Partner |
|
|
8,328 |
|
|
|
9,424 |
|
|
|
(1,096 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
)% |
OTC Partner |
|
|
1,769 |
|
|
|
3,398 |
|
|
|
(1,629 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
)% |
Research Partner |
|
|
2,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
61,447 |
|
|
|
33,536 |
|
|
|
27,911 |
|
|
|
83 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
25,098 |
|
|
|
19,296 |
|
|
|
5,802 |
|
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
36,349 |
|
|
|
14,240 |
|
|
|
22,109 |
|
|
|
155 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
8,909 |
|
|
|
12,253 |
|
|
|
(3,344 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
)% |
Patent litigation |
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
)% |
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
2,561 |
|
|
|
4,357 |
|
|
|
(1,796 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
13,117 |
|
|
|
18,486 |
|
|
|
(5,369 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations |
|
$ |
23,232 |
|
|
$ |
(4,246 |
) |
|
$ |
27,478 |
|
|
nm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 62 of 92
Revenues
Total revenues for the Global Division for the three months ended September 30, 2009, were $
61.4 million, an increase of 83% over the same period in 2008. Global product sales, net, were $
46.6 million, an increase of 132% over the same period in 2008 primarily due to sales of our
fenofibrate products, a cholesterol-lowering drug. Our increased sales of this product in 2009
resulted from a general increase in demand for generic versions of cholesterol-lowering drugs
combined with the September 2008 cessation of U.S. sales of fenofibrate products by another
unrelated pharmaceutical company. At this time, we have no knowledge
of if or when the unrelated pharmaceutical company, or other
potential competitors, may enter the market to offer competing
fenofibrate products. Such a development could result in lower sales
of our fenofibrate products in such future period. If and when such a
development were to occur, our results of operations may be
materially and adversely affected including the Global
Divisions (and thus the total companys) Global product
sales, net revenue, total revenue, and gross profit. Private label
product sales were $1.8 million, an increase of
179% primarily due to sales of generic loratadine /pseudoephedrine as a result of a new supply
agreement. Rx Partner revenues were $8.3 million, down 12%, primarily attributable to reduced
sales of our generic Wellbutrin® XL 300mg. The reduction of revenue for generic Wellbutrin® XL
300mg resulted from increased marketplace competition. OTC Partner revenues were $1.8 million, a
decrease of 48%, primarily attributable to the expiration of our obligation to supply
Schering-Plough with product on December 31, 2008. The loss of this revenue for the three months
ended September 30, 2009, was only partially offset by revenue from Private Label product sales.
Research Partner revenues were $3.0 million, and we had no such revenues during the same period in
2008, as the underlying agreement was entered into during the fourth quarter of 2008.
Cost of Revenues
Cost of revenues was $25.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2009, an increase
of 30% primarily related to the higher sales of our generic fenofibrate.
Gross Profit
Gross profit for the three months ended September 30, 2009 was $36.3 million or approximately
59% of total revenues, as compared to 42% of total revenue in the prior period. Gross profit in
our Global Division was up $22.1 million primarily due to increases in sales of our generic
fenofibrate products and to Research Partner profits of $3.0 million as we had no such profits
during the prior year period.
Research and Development Expenses
Total research and development expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2009 were $
8.9 million, a decrease of 27%. Generic project activity decreased $3.3 million primarily due to
lower spending on bio-studies expenses of $1.2 million and bio-analytical expenses of $0.5
million, along with a $1.0 million decrease in expenses related to active pharmaceutical
ingredient used in research activities.
Patent Litigation Expenses
Patent litigation expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were $1.7
million and $1.9 million, respectively, a decrease of $0.2 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2009
were $2.6 million, a 41% decrease attributable principally to executive level severance paid in
the prior period of $1.4 million, in addition to prior period strategic management consulting fees
of $0.3 million which was not present in the current period.
Page 63 of 92
Impax Division
The following table sets forth results of operations for the Impax Division for the three
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promotional Partner revenue |
|
$ |
3,499 |
|
|
$ |
3,238 |
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
Cost of revenues |
|
|
2,957 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
542 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
128 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
6,334 |
|
|
|
3,935 |
|
|
|
2,399 |
|
|
|
61 |
% |
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
761 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
41 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
7,095 |
|
|
|
4,473 |
|
|
|
2,622 |
|
|
|
59 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
$ |
(6,553 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,235 |
) |
|
|
(2,318 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
Promotional Partner revenues were $3.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2009,
an increase of 8% compared to the same period in 2008. The change from the prior year period is
primarily the result of the commencement of physician detailing services under our Co-Promotion
Agreement with Wyeth on July 1, 2009, while the Promotional Services Agreement with Shire ended on
June 30, 2009.
Cost of Revenues
Cost of revenues was $3.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2009, with nominal
change from the same period in 2008.
Gross Profit
Gross profit for the three months ended September 30, 2009 was $0.5 million, an increase of
128% attributed to the higher Promotional Partner revenues noted above.
Research and Development Expenses
Total research and development expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2009 were
$6.3 million, an increase of 61%. Expenses related to our brand-product pipeline increased $2.4
million including an increase of $1.6 million on clinical studies and $0.8 million on additional
research personnel.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $0.8 million, an increase of $0.2 million
over the prior year period. There were no significant changes period-over-period.
Page 64 of 92
Corporate and other
The following table sets forth Corporate general and administrative expenses, as well as other
items of income and expense presented below Income from operations for the three months ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
$ |
6,516 |
|
|
$ |
9,647 |
|
|
|
(3,131 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(6,516 |
) |
|
|
(9,647 |
) |
|
|
3,131 |
|
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense), net |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
nm |
|
Interest income |
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
723 |
|
|
|
(543 |
) |
|
|
(75 |
)% |
Interest expense |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(971 |
) |
|
|
(786 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
)% |
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
$ |
3,495 |
|
|
$ |
(7,850 |
) |
|
|
11,345 |
|
|
nm |
|
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2009 were $6.5
million, a 32% decrease attributable principally to a decrease in professional fees of $1.7
million, $0.7 million related to the adjustment of accrued settlement-related charges in
conjunction with the August 2009 repayment-in-full of a subordinated promissory note, and $0.7
million lower employment-related expenses. The professional fee decrease included $2.5 million
related to the completion of the examination and review of our financial statements in conjunction
with the filing of our registration statement on Form 10 with the SEC in the prior period,
partially offset by an increase in general corporate legal expenses of $0.8 million, primarily
attributable to an ongoing litigation defense.
Other income (expense), net
Other income (expense), net was minimal for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and
2008.
Interest Income
Interest income in the third quarter of 2009 declined $0.5 million to $0.2 million, compared
to the prior year period due to lower overall interest rates and lower average cash and short-term
investment balances. The lower average cash and short-term investment balances in the three months
ended September 30, 2009 resulted primarily from the use of cash
and short-term investments to repurchase, on the holders June 15, 2009 prepayment option date, the $12.75 million remaining outstanding balance of our 3.5%
convertible senior subordinated debentures, otherwise due in June
2012 (3.5% Debentures) and the August 2009
$6.9 million repayment-in-full of a subordinated
promissory note.
Interest Expense
Interest expense in the third quarter of 2009 declined $0.8 million to $0.2 million,
compared to the prior year period due to reduced amounts of average debt outstanding as a result of
the June 2009 repurchase of the remaining balance of the 3.5% Debentures and the August 2009
repayment-in-full of a subordinated promissory note, as noted above in the discussion of Interest Income for the three months ended September 30, 2009.
Page 65 of 92
Income Taxes
During the three months ended September 30, 2009, we recorded a tax provision of $3.3 million
for federal and state income taxes, and an accrual for uncertain tax positions of $0.2 million.
In the three months ended September 30, 2008, we recorded a tax benefit of $7.9 million, which did
not include an accrual for uncertain tax positions. The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits
was $8.5 million as of September 30, 2009. The tax provision for the three months ended September
30, 2009 included the effect of the research and development tax credit, which was reinstated on
October 3, 2008, for a two year period retroactive to January 1, 2008. The tax provision for the
three months ended September 30, 2008 did not include the effect of the research and development
tax credit. A tax benefit was recorded for the three months ended September 30, 2008, resulting
from such periods loss before taxes. The effective tax rate of 34% for the three months ended
September 30, 2009 was lower than the effective tax rate of 43% for the three months ended
September 30, 2008, resulting principally from the research and development credit related to
increased levels of qualified research expenditures in both our generic and brand research and
development activities.
Page 66 of 92
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 Compared to the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008
Overview:
The following table sets forth summarized, consolidated total Company results of operations
for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
182,275 |
|
|
$ |
165,376 |
|
|
$ |
16,899 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
Gross profit |
|
|
100,686 |
|
|
|
98,998 |
|
|
|
1,688 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations |
|
|
18,284 |
|
|
|
13,849 |
|
|
|
4,435 |
|
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes |
|
|
18,290 |
|
|
|
12,779 |
|
|
|
5,511 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
6,373 |
|
|
|
5,761 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
11,917 |
|
|
$ |
7,018 |
|
|
$ |
4,899 |
|
|
|
70 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
Net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $11.9 million, an increase of $
4.9 million, or 70%, as compared to net income of $7.0 million for the nine months ended September
30, 2008, resulting principally from increased Global product sales, net, lower selling, general
and administrative expenses and a reduced overall effective tax rate, partially offset by a
decrease in Rx Partner revenue and OTC Partner revenue, and higher research and development
expenses. As discussed throughout this section, we earned significant
revenues and gross profit from sales of fenofibrate products during
the nine months ended September 30, 2009. Accordingly, any
significant diminution of such product sales revenue and gross profit
due to the resumption of competition or any other competitive reasons
in future periods may materially and adversely affect our results of
operations in such periods. Additionally, as discussed below, the decrease in Rx Partner revenue was the result of the cessation
of the sale of our generic version of
OxyContin®
pursuant to a litigation settlement agreement in 2008.
The cessation of the sale of our generic version of OxyContin®, and no revenue in the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008, has materially affected the Rx
Partner revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, and the loss of this revenue may
materially affect our Rx Partner revenue in the future.
Page 67 of 92
Global Division
The following table sets forth results of operations for the Global Division for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global product sales, net |
|
$ |
123,144 |
|
|
$ |
69,044 |
|
|
$ |
54,100 |
|
|
|
78 |
% |
Private Label product sales |
|
|
5,269 |
|
|
|
1,747 |
|
|
|
3,522 |
|
|
|
202 |
% |
Rx Partner |
|
|
30,183 |
|
|
|
72,099 |
|
|
|
(41,916 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
)% |
OTC Partner |
|
|
5,255 |
|
|
|
12,739 |
|
|
|
(7,484 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
)% |
Research Partner |
|
|
8,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
172,268 |
|
|
|
155,648 |
|
|
|
16,620 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
72,339 |
|
|
|
58,046 |
|
|
|
14,293 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
99,929 |
|
|
|
97,602 |
|
|
|
2,327 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
28,761 |
|
|
|
31,745 |
|
|
|
(2,984 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
)% |
Patent litigation |
|
|
4,058 |
|
|
|
4,827 |
|
|
|
(769 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
)% |
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
7,628 |
|
|
|
9,276 |
|
|
|
(1,648 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
40,447 |
|
|
|
45,848 |
|
|
|
(5,401 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations |
|
$ |
59,482 |
|
|
$ |
51,754 |
|
|
|
7,728 |
|
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
Total Global Division revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, were $172.3
million, an increase of 11% over the same period in 2008. Global product sales, net, were $123.1
million, an increase of 78% primarily due to sales of our fenofibrate products, a
cholesterol-lowering drug. Our increased sales of this product in 2009 resulted from a general
increase in demand for generic versions of cholesterol-lowering drugs combined with the September
2008 cessation of U.S. sales of fenofibrate products by another
unrelated pharmaceutical company. At this time, we have no knowledge
of if or when the unrelated pharmaceutical company, or other
potential competitors, may enter the market to offer competing
fenofibrate products. Such a development could result in lower sales
of our fenofibrate products in such future period. If and when such a
development were to occur, our results of operations may be
materially and adversely affected including the Global Divisions (and thus the total companys)
Global product sales, net revenue, total revenue, and gross profit.
Private label product sales were $5.3 million, an increase of 202% primarily due to sales of
generic loratadine /pseudoephedrine as a result of a new supply agreement. Rx Partner revenues
were $30.2 million, down 58%, primarily attributable to reduced sales of generic OxyContin® and
our generic Wellbutrin® XL 300mg. While the reduction of revenue for generic Wellbutrin® XL 300mg
resulted from increased marketplace competition, the decrease in our sales of generic OxyContin®
resulted from a litigation settlement agreement. In this regard, our generic OxyContin® product
was one of only two generic versions of OxyContin® in the marketplace during the second and fourth
quarters of 2007 and in January 2008, when we ceased further sales of this product. The
period-over-period comparison of Rx Partner revenue was principally impacted by the absence in the
nine months ended September 30, 2009 of revenue recognized from sales of generic OxyContin® under
the DAVA Agreement which ended in January 2008. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009
and 2008, revenue recognized from the sale of generic OxyContin® under the DAVA Agreement was $0
and $40.8 million, respectively. The cessation of the sale of our generic version of OxyContin®,
and no revenue in the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008,
materially affected the Rx Partner revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 (as
discussed above), and the loss of this revenue may materially affect our Rx Partner revenue (and
therefore our total revenue) and resulting gross profit in the future. OTC Partner revenues were $
5.3 million, a decrease of 59%, primarily attributable to the expiration of our obligation to
supply Schering-Plough with product on December 31, 2008. The loss of this revenue for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009, was only partially offset by revenue from Private Label product
sales. Research Partner revenues were $8.4 million, and we had no such revenues during the same
period in 2008, as the underlying agreement was entered into during the fourth quarter of 2008.
Page 68 of 92
Cost of Revenues
Cost of revenues was $ 72.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, an increase
of 25% primarily related to the higher sales of our generic fenofibrate.
Gross Profit
Gross profit for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $ 99.9 million or approximately
58% of total revenues, as compared to 63% of total revenue in the prior period. Gross profit in
our Global Division increased primarily due to an increase in our generic fenofibrate product line
margins offset by lower Rx Partner revenue due to the cessation, in the prior year period, of sales
of our generic version of OxyContin®, as well as lower manufacturing efficiencies, and an increase
in inventory carrying-value reserves.
Research and Development Expenses
Total research and development expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were $
28.8 million, a decrease of 9%. Generic project activity decreased $ 3.0 million primarily due to
decreased spending on bioequivalence studies and outside development of $ 1.3 million, and a $ 1.7
million decrease in legal fees related to patent expenses.
Patent Litigation Expenses
Patent litigation expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were $ 4.1
million and $ 4.8 million, respectively, a decrease of $ 0.7 million, principally resulting from
lower overall expenses as a result of the settlement of one litigation matter which was active
during the first nine months of 2008 and two other litigation matters which were active during the
first half of 2008.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were
$ 7.6 million, an 18% decrease attributable principally to a $ 1.4 million charge for severance
expenses related to the separation of an executive-level employee in the prior year period, and
lower donated product expenses of $ 0.4 million.
Page 69 of 92
Impax Division
The following table sets forth results of operations for the Impax Division for the nine
months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promotional Partner revenue |
|
$ |
10,007 |
|
|
$ |
9,728 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
Cost of revenues |
|
|
9,250 |
|
|
|
8,332 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
757 |
|
|
|
1,396 |
|
|
|
(639 |
) |
|
|
(46 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
17,983 |
|
|
|
11,530 |
|
|
|
6,453 |
|
|
|
56 |
% |
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
2,528 |
|
|
|
1,879 |
|
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
35 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
20,511 |
|
|
|
13,409 |
|
|
|
7,102 |
|
|
|
53 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
$ |
(19,754 |
) |
|
$ |
(12,013 |
) |
|
|
(7,741 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
Promotional Partner revenues were $ 10.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009
an increase of 3% compared to $9.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2008. The
change from the prior year period is primarily the result of the commencement of physician
detailing services under our Co-Promotion Agreement with Wyeth on July 1, 2009, while the
Promotional Services Agreement with Shire ended on June 30, 2009.
Cost of Revenues
Cost of revenues was $ 9.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 an increase of
11% from the same period in the prior year related to higher sales force expenses. The increase
was primarily the result of credits in the prior period results for incentive compensation payments
which were not earned; these credits are not present in the current period results.
Gross Profit
Gross profit for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $ 0.8 million a decrease of 46%
attributed to the higher sales force compensation expenses noted above.
Research and Development Expenses
Total research and development expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were $
18.0 million, an increase of 56%. Expenses related to our brand-product pipeline increased $ 6.5
million including an increase of $ 3.0 million on clinical studies, $ 2.2 related to higher
spending on additional research personnel, $ 0.4 million on consulting services and $ 0.3 million
on research supplies.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were
$ 2.5 million, a 35% increase attributable principally to the addition of executive level
personnel.
Page 70 of 92
Corporate and other
The following table sets forth Corporate general and administrative expenses, as well as other
items of income and expense presented below Income from operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/ |
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
|
(in $000s) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(as adjusted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
$ |
21,444 |
|
|
$ |
25,892 |
|
|
|
(4,448 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(21,444 |
) |
|
|
(25,892 |
) |
|
|
4,448 |
|
|
|
17 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of common stock purchase warrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
)% |
Other income, net |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
192 |
% |
Interest income |
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
3,282 |
|
|
|
(2,646 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
)% |
Interest expense |
|
|
(735 |
) |
|
|
(4,447 |
) |
|
|
(3,712 |
) |
|
|
(83 |
)% |
Provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
6,373 |
|
|
$ |
5,761 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
11 |
% |
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were $ 21.4
million, a 17% decrease attributable principally to a decrease in professional fees of $ 2.3
million related to the examination and review of our financial statements in conjunction with the
filing of our registration statement on Form 10 with the SEC, lower management consulting fees of $
1.0 million, and $ 0.7 million related to the adjustment of accrued settlement-related charges in
conjunction with the August 2009 repayment-in-full of a subordinated promissory note.
Other income (expense), net
Other income (expense), net was $ 0.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, a
nominal change from the same period in 2008.
Interest Income
Interest income for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 declined $ 2.6 million to $ 0.6
million, compared to the prior year period due to lower overall
interest rates and lower average cash
and short-term investment balances. The lower average cash and short-term investment balances in
the nine months ended September 30, 2009 resulted from the use
of cash and short-term investments to repurchase, on the
holders June 15, 2009 prepayment option date, the
$12.75 million remaining outstanding balance of our 3.5%
Debentures and the August 2009 $6.9 million repayment-in-full of a subordinated promissory note.
Interest Expense
Interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 declined $ 3.7 million to $ 0.7
million, compared to the prior year period due to reduced amounts of average debt outstanding as a
result of the June 2009 repurchase of our 3.5% Debentures and the August 2009 repayment-in-full of a subordinated promissory note, as noted above in the discussion of Interest Income for the nine months ended September 30, 2009.
Page 71 of 92
Income Taxes
During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, we recorded a tax provision of $ 5.7 million
for federal and state income taxes, and an accrual for uncertain tax positions of $ 0.7 million.
In the nine months ended September 30, 2008, we recorded a tax provision of $ 5.8 million, which
did not include an accrual for uncertain tax positions. The tax provision for the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 included the effect of the reversal of a valuation allowance on the
deferred tax asset related to net operating losses at our wholly owned subsidiary Impax
Laboratories (Taiwan), Inc. We reversed the valuation allowance related to these net operating
losses as a result of retroactive changes in Taiwan tax law published in the second quarter of
2009. The tax provision for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 also included the effect of
the research and development tax credit, which was reinstated on October 3, 2008, for a two year
period retroactive to January 1, 2008. The tax provision for the nine months ended September 30,
2008 did not include the effect of the research and development tax credit. The effective tax rate
of 35% for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was lower than the effective tax rate of 45%
for the nine months ended September 30, 2008, resulting principally from the research and
development credit related to increased levels of qualified research expenditures in both our
generic and brand research and development activities, as well as the reversal of the deferred tax
valuation allowance at our wholly-owned subsidiary, as discussed above.
Page 72 of 92
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We have historically funded our operations with the proceeds from the sale of debt and equity
securities, and more recently, with cash from operations. Currently, our primary source of
liquidity is cash from operations, consisting of the proceeds from the sales of our products and
provision of services.
We expect to incur significant operating expenses, including expanded
research and development activities and patent litigation expenses, for the foreseeable future. We
estimate research and development expenses will be approximately $ 64.0 million and patent
litigation expenses will be approximately $ 6.0 million to $ 7.0 million for the 12 months ending
December 31, 2009. In addition, we are generally required to
make cash expenditures to manufacture and/or acquire finished product
inventory in advance of selling the finished product to our customers
and collecting payment for such product sales, which may result in a
significant use of cash. We also anticipate incurring capital
expenditures of approximately $ 15.0 million during the
12 months ending December 31, 2009, of which $ 7.0 million relates to our
capacity expansion in our Taiwan facility, with the balance principally for continued improvements
and expansion of our research and development and manufacturing facilities in the State of
California and our packaging and distribution facilities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We
believe our existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term investment balances, together with
cash expected to be generated from operations, and our bank revolving line of credit, will be
sufficient to meet our financing requirements through the next 12 months. We may, however, seek
additional financing through alliance, collaboration, and /or licensing agreements, as well as the
equity and /or debt capital markets to fund the planned capital expenditures, our research and
development plans, and potential revenue shortfalls due to delays in new product introductions.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
At September 30, 2009, we had $ 47.6 million in cash and cash equivalents, a decrease of $
21.7 million as compared to December 31, 2008. As more fully discussed below, the decrease in cash
and cash equivalents during the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was primarily driven by $ 2.4
million of cash used in operations, which included the payment of $ 3.4 million related to the
settlement of the securities class action, as well as the payment of $ 6.9 million to repay-in-full
the remaining outstanding balance of a subordinated promissory note. The decrease in cash was also
driven by $ 12.75 million used to repurchase, at the option of holders, the remaining outstanding
balance of our 3.5% Debentures, and $ 8.4 million invested in property, plant and equipment.
Cash Flows
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 Compared to the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008.
Net cash used in operating activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $ 2.4
million, a decrease of $ 22.9 million from net cash provided by operating activities in the prior
year period.
The period-over-period decrease in net cash provided by operating activities resulted
principally from a higher accounts receivable balance and the change in deferred income taxes.
Accounts receivable increased to $ 61.5 million at September 30, 2009, resulting in a $ 18.4
million use of cash flows, compared to the same period in the prior year when accounts receivable
provided a $ 13.4 million source of cash flows. The increased level of accounts receivable at
September 30, 2009 was primarily the result of higher product sales. In addition, accounts
receivable decreased during the nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily as the result of
lower profit share amounts receivable from our Rx Partners. A $ 11.4 million change in deferred
income taxes, resulting principally from a lower deferred tax benefit corresponding to the lower
net deferrals related to our alliance agreements, also contributed to the period-over-period
change. The decrease in cash flows resulting from increases in accounts receivable and deferred
income taxes was partially offset by both higher levels of accounts payable and accrued expenses,
resulting in a $ 13.8 million period-over-period increase in cash flows, as well as lower levels of
prepaid and other assets, resulting in a period-over-period increase of $ 7.5 million in cash
flows.
Page 73 of 92
Net cash used in investing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, amounted
to $ 10.2 million, an increase of $ 42.3 million in net cash used in investing activities, as
compared to the $ 32.1 million source of cash flows from investing activities in the prior year
period, with the change primarily due to a period-over-period $ 54.8 million net decrease in the
sale of short-term investments, partially offset by $ 12.5 million in lower expenditures on
property, plant and equipment. Net purchases of short-term investments during the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 resulted in a $ 1.8 million use of cash flows, as compared to a $ 53.0
million source of cash flows provided by net maturities of short-term investments during the same
period in the prior year. Purchases of property, plant and equipment for the nine months ended
September 30, 2009 amounted to $ 8.4 million as compared to $ 20.9 million for the prior year
period. The 2009 purchases of property, plant and equipment, included capital expenditures of
approximately $ 1.8 million (of a total estimated investment of $ 25.0 million) for our Taiwan
facility, of which construction is substantially completed. In addition, we expect continued
investment in facilities, equipment, and information technology projects supporting our quality
initiatives to ensure we have appropriate levels of technology infrastructure to manage and grow
our global business.
Net cash used in financing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was
approximately $ 9.1 million, representing a decrease of $ 55.0 million in net cash used in
financing activities, as compared to $ 64.1 million net cash used in financing activities for the
prior year period. The period-over-period decrease in net cash used in financing activities was
primarily due to repurchases of the 3.5% Debentures in August 2008 and September 2008, and in June
2009. During August 2008 and September 2008, at the request of the holders, we made aggregate cash
payments of $ 59.9 million to repurchase, at a discount, an aggregate of $ 62.25 million in
principal face value of our 3.5% Debentures. Additionally, during the prior year period, we
made aggregate payments of $ 5.2 million on our Cathay Bank term loans, resulting in the
repayment-in-full of both loans. The decrease in the amount of debt repaid from the prior-year
period compared to the current-year period was partially offset by repayments of debt in the
current-year period of $ 12.75 million to repurchase, at the request of the holders, the remaining
3.5% Debentures at face value plus accrued interest, in June 2009, as well as $ 6.9 million to
repay-in-full the remaining outstanding balance of a subordinated promissory note. Finally, we
received cash from the exercise of employee stock options of approximately $ 3.8 million and $ 1.1
million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Page 74 of 92
Outstanding Debt Obligations
Senior Lenders; Wachovia Bank
We have a $ 35,000,000 revolving credit facility under a credit agreement with Wachovia Bank,
N.A. (a Wells Fargo subsidiary) (Credit Agreement), with a March 31, 2010 expiration date. The
revolving credit facility, intended for working capital and general corporate purposes, is
collateralized by eligible accounts receivable, inventory, and machinery and equipment, subject to
limitations and other terms. There were no amounts outstanding under the revolving credit facility
as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008.
The Credit Agreement had a three year term upon its initial execution in December 2005. In
October 2008, we entered into a first amendment to the Credit Agreement in which Wachovia Bank
waived our failure to (i) timely deliver annual financial statements for the years ended December
31, 2004 to December 31, 2007 and interim financial statements for each period ending on or after
December 31, 2005, and (ii) comply with the fixed charge coverage ratio at June 30, 2006. In
addition, we agreed to an increase in the unused line fee from 25 basis points per annum to 50
basis points per annum. On December 31, 2008, we entered into a second amendment to the Credit
Agreement, which extended the termination date from December 31, 2008 to March 31, 2009. Effective
March 31, 2009, we entered into a third amendment to the Credit Agreement, which, among other
matters: (i) extended the termination date from March 31, 2009 to March 31, 2010; (ii) set the
interest rate for the revolving credit facility at either the prime rate plus a margin ranging from
0.25% to 0.75% or LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 2.25% to 3.0% based upon certain terms and
conditions; (iii) limited capital expenditures to no more than $ 25.0 million for the period from
January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and for each calendar year thereafter; (iv) eliminated the
servicing fee during any month in which no revolver loans were outstanding; and (v) required the
fixed charge coverage ratio be tested only for certain fiscal periods during which our net cash
position was less than $ 50.0 million. In connection with the execution of the third amendment, we
were obligated to pay to Wachovia Bank a commitment fee of $ 100,000. All other material terms of
the Credit Agreement remained in full force and effect. During the nine months ended September 30,
2009 and 2008, we paid to Wachovia Bank unused line fees of $128,000 and $ 68,000, respectively.
The Credit Agreement contains various financial covenants, the most significant of which
include a fixed charge coverage ratio and a capital expenditure limitation. The fixed charge
coverage ratio requires EBITDA less cash paid for taxes, dividends, and certain capital
expenditures, to be not less than 1.25 to 1.00 as compared to scheduled principal payments coming
due in the next 12 months plus cash interest paid during the applicable period. We were limited to
capital expenditures of no more than $ 25.0 million for the period from January 1, 2007 to December
31, 2007 and $ 34.0 million for the period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. The Credit
Agreement also provides for certain information reporting covenants, including a requirement to
provide certain periodic financial information. At September 30, 2009, we were in compliance with
the various financial and information reporting covenants contained in the Credit Agreement.
Page 75 of 92
3.5% Debentures
On June 27, 2005, we sold $ 75,000,000 of our 3.5% Debentures to a qualified institutional
buyer. The net proceeds from the sale of the 3.5% Debentures, together with additional funds, were
used to repay our $ 95,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of the 1.25% convertible senior
subordinated debentures due 2024.
Each 3.5% Debenture was issued at a price of $ 1,000 and was convertible into our common stock
at an initial conversion price of $ 20.69 per share. The 3.5% Debentures were our senior
subordinated, unsecured obligations and ranked pari passu with our accounts payable and other
liabilities, and were subordinate to certain senior indebtedness, including our credit agreement
with Wachovia Bank. The 3.5% Debentures bore interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum. Interest on
the 3.5% Debentures was payable on June 15 and December 15 of each year, beginning December 15,
2005.
While the 3.5% Debentures had a contractual maturity date of June 15, 2012 and could not be
redeemed by us prior to maturity, holders of the 3.5% Debentures had the right to require us to
repurchase all or any part of their 3.5% Debentures on June 15, 2009 at a repurchase price equal to
100% of the principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures, plus accrued and unpaid interest and
liquidated damages, if any, up to but excluding the repurchase date.
In August and September 2008, we repurchased at a discount an aggregate of $ 62,250,000 face
value principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures at the request of the holders. We paid $ 59,916,000,
plus $ 433,000 of accrued interest expense. Proceeds to fund the repurchase of the 3.5% Debentures
were generated from the liquidation of our short-term investments.
On June 15, 2009, at the request of the holders, we repurchased the remaining $ 12,750,000
principal amount of the 3.5% Debentures at 100% of face value plus accrued interest. Accordingly,
as all of the 3.5% Debentures had been repurchased by us, there was no amount outstanding as of
September 30, 2009.
Page 76 of 92
Subordinated Promissory Note
In August 2009, the Company repaid-in-full the remaining outstanding balance of a subordinated
promissory note, paying $ 6,888,000 of principal and $ 51,000 of accrued interest expense.
Initially, the subordinated promissory note was issued in June 2006 in the amount of $ 11.0
million, with an interest rate of 6.0% per annum, and 24 quarterly installment payments of $
549,165, commencing in March 2007.
Page 77 of 92
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In November 2007, the EITF reached a final consensus on accounting standards related to
collaborative arrangements, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 808. The FASB ASC Topic 808 is focused on
how the parties to a collaborative agreement should account for costs incurred and revenue
generated on sales to third parties, how sharing payments pursuant to a collaborative agreement
should be presented in the income statement and certain related disclosure questions. The FASB ASC
Topic 808 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008 and interim periods
within those fiscal years. Our adoption of FASB ASC Topic 808 was on a retrospective basis to all
prior periods presented for all collaborative arrangements existing as of the effective date. Upon
becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 808 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
In December 2007, the FASB revised previously issued accounting standards related to business
combinations, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 805. The revised accounting standards retained the
purchase method of accounting for acquisitions, but required a number of other changes, including
changes in the way assets and liabilities are recognized in purchase accounting, and also changed
the recognition of assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contingencies, requires the
capitalization of in-process research and development at fair value, and requires the expensing of
acquisition related costs as incurred. The FASB ASC Topic 805, as amended, became effective for us
beginning January 1, 2009 and applies prospectively to business combinations completed on or after
such date. The FASB ASC Topic 805 effect on our consolidated financial statements will be
dependent on the nature and terms of any business combinations to occur after the effective date.
In December 2007, the FASB issued an accounting standard which clarified a non-controlling
(minority) interest in a subsidiary is an ownership interest in the consolidated entity which
should be reported as equity in the consolidated financial statements, and established a single
method of accounting for changes in a parents ownership interest in a subsidiary which does not
result in deconsolidation, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 810. The FASB ASC Topic 810 requires
retroactive adoption of the presentation and disclosure requirements for existing minority
interests. All other requirements of FASB ASC Topic 810 are applied prospectively. We adopted the
provisions of FASB ASC Topic 810 on January 1, 2009. The adoption of FASB ASC Topic 810 did not
have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard which amended the factors to be
considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a
recognized intangible asset, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 350. The intent of the accounting
standard was to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset
under FASB ASC Topic 350 and the period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
the asset under FASB ASC Topic 805 and other GAAP. The FASB ASC Topic 350 is effective for
financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2008.
Upon becoming effective the FASB ASC Topic 350 did not have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
Page 78 of 92
In May 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard related to convertible debt instruments
which may be settled in cash upon conversion (including partial cash settlement), referred to as
FASB ASC Topic 470. The FASB ASC Topic 470 requires the issuing entity of such instruments to
separately account for the liability and equity components to represent the issuing entitys
nonconvertible debt borrowing interest rate when interest charges are recognized in subsequent
periods. The provisions of FASB ASC Topic 470 must be applied retrospectively for all periods
presented even if the instrument has matured, has been extinguished, or has been converted as of
the effective date. The application of FASB ASC Topic 470 to our $ 75 million, 3.5% convertible
senior subordinated debentures (3.5% Debentures) required the retrospective restatement of all
reporting periods beginning January 1, 2007. The Basis of Presentation and the Long-Term Debt
footnotes herein contain additional details about our adoption of FASB ASC Topic 470.
In June 2008, the FASB issued an accounting standard which provides for unvested share-based
payment awards containing non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents, whether paid
or unpaid, are participating securities and shall be included in the computation of earnings per
share pursuant to the two-class method, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 260. The FASB ASC Topic 260,
as amended, is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December
15, 2008, and interim periods within those years. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 260 did
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend previously issued accounting
standards related to the determination of fair value, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 820. As
amended, FASB ASC Topic 820 provides additional guidance for estimating fair value when the volume
and level of activity for an asset or liability has significantly decreased, and also includes
guidance on identifying circumstances to indicate a transaction is not orderly. The FASB ASC Topic
820, as amended, is effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009,
and is applied prospectively, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15,
2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 820, as amended, did not have an impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend FASB ASC Topic 825 to require
publicly traded companies disclose information about fair value of financial instruments in interim
financial statements, as well as in annual financial statements. The FASB ASC Topic 825 is
effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted
for periods ending after March 15, 2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC Topic 825, as amended,
did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard to amend the accounting standards for
investments in debt and equity securities, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 320. The accounting
standard amendment clarified the factors considered in determining if a decline in the fair value
of a debt security is not temporary. Generally, if the fair value of a debt security is less than
its amortized cost, and it is more-likely-than-not the debt security will be sold or be required to
be sold, then an other-than-temporary impairment shall be considered to have occurred. An
other-than-temporary impairment is recognized equal to the entire difference between the debt
securitys amortized cost and its fair value as of the balance sheet date. The FASB ASC Topic
320, as amended, is effective for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early
adoption permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. Upon becoming effective, FASB ASC
Topic 320, as amended, did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Page 79 of 92
In May 2009, the FASB issued an accounting standard establishing the general rules of
accounting for and disclosure of events occurring after the balance sheet date but before the
financial statements are issued, referred to as FASB ASC Topic 855. The FASB ASC Topic 855
requires the disclosure of the date through which an entity has evaluated subsequent events and
whether such date represents the date the financial statements were issued, or were available to be
issued. The FASB ASC Topic 855 is effective for interim or annual reporting periods ending after
June 15, 2009, and is applied prospectively. Our adoption of FASB ASC Topic 855 did not have a
material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In September 2009, the FASB approved an update to the accounting standard related to
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements currently within the scope of FASB ASC Topic 605. The
updated accounting standard provides principles and guidance to be used to determine whether a
revenue arrangement has multiple deliverables, and if so, how those deliverables should be
separated. If multiple deliverables exist, the updated standard requires revenue received under
the arrangement to be allocated using the estimated selling price of the deliverables if
vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence of selling price is not available. The
updated accounting standard is effective for revenue arrangements entered into or materially
modified in fiscal years beginning on, or after June 15, 2010, with early application permitted.
We will determine the impact of the updated accounting standard as it enters into new revenue
arrangements, or materially modifies any of its existing revenue arrangements.
Page 80 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 3. |
|
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
There were no material changes to the quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market
risk set forth in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Page 81 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 4T. |
|
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the
Exchange Act) that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company
in reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act 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 the Companys management, including its principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure.
The Companys management, with the participation of the Companys Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based upon
that evaluation, the Companys Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that
the Companys disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Exchange Act,
were effective as of September 30, 2009.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
During the quarter ended September 30, 2009, there were no changes in the Companys internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act) that materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
Page 82 of 92
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
|
ITEM 1. |
|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
Patent Infringement Litigation
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Impax Laboratoires, Inc. (Oxymorphone)
In November 2007, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (together, Endo)
filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, requesting a
declaration that our Paragraph IV Notices with respect to our ANDA for Oxymorphone Hydrochloride
Extended Release Tablets 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg, generic to Opana® ER, are null and void and,
in the alternative, alleging patent infringement in connection with the filing of such ANDA. Endo
subsequently dismissed its request for declaratory relief and in December 2007 filed another patent
infringement suit relating to the same ANDA. In July 2008, Endo asserted additional infringement
claims with respect to our amended ANDA, which added 7.5mg, 15mg and 30mg strengths of the product.
The cases have subsequently been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. We have filed an answer and counterclaims. Discovery is proceeding, and a Markman hearing
is scheduled for December 21, 2009. Although no trial date has been set, a final pretrial
conference is scheduled for March 8, 2010.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Tamsulosin)
In July 2008, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc. (together,
Astellas) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging patent infringement in connection with the filing of our ANDA relating to
Tamsulosin Hydrochloride Capsules, 0.4 mg, generic to Flomax®. After filing an answer and
counterclaim, we filed a motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity. The District Court
conducted hearings on claim construction in May 2009, and summary judgment in June 2009. In
October 2009, the parties announced they had entered a settlement agreement allowing us to launch
our product no later than March 2, 2010. A stipulated consent judgment was entered by the Court
and the case was dismissed.
The Research Foundation of State University of New York et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Doxycycline Monohydrate)
In September 2009, The Research Foundation of State University of New York; New York
University; Galderma Laboratories Inc.; and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. (collectively, Galderma)
filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent
infringement for the filing of our ANDA relating to Doxycycline Monohydrate Delayed-Release
Capsules, 40 mg, generic to Oracea®. We have filed an answer and counterclaim. In October 2009,
the parties agreed to be bound by the final judgment concerning infringement, validity and
enforceability of the patent at issue in cases brought by Galderma against another generic drug
manufacturer that has filed an ANDA relating to this product and proceedings in this case were
stayed.
Elan Pharma International Ltd. and Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Impax Laboratories,
Inc. Abbott Laboratories and Laboratoires Fournier S.A. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Fenofibrate)
In October 2009, Elan Pharma International Ltd. with Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd. and
Abbott Laboratories with Laboratoires Fournier S.A. filed separate suits against us in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement for the filing of our
ANDA relating to Fenofibrate Tablets, 48 mg and 145 mg, generic to Tricor®. We have not yet filed
our answer to either suit.
Page 83 of 92
Other Litigation Related to Our Business
Budeprion XL Litigation
In June 2009, we were named a co-defendant in class action lawsuits filed in California state
court in an action titled Kelly v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt., L.A. County). Subsequently, additional class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana and North Carolina styled, respectively, Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et
al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish, LA.), and Weber v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C Superior Crt., Hanover County), and in
federal courts in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas styled, respectively, Rosenfeld v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. et al., No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.), Henchenski and Vogel v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-29SPC (M.D. Fla.), Anderson v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.), Brown et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK), and Latvala et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH). All of the complaints involve
Budeprion XL, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL® that is manufactured by us and marketed by Teva,
and allege that, contrary to representations of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in treating
depression, and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL. The actions are
brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL and assert claims such as unfair competition,
unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law. Each lawsuit seeks damages
in an unspecified amount consisting of the cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as
any applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims
damages for personal injury. The cases have been removed to federal court, and a petition for
multidistrict litigation to consolidate the cases has been filed. We believe the lawsuits are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.
Page 84 of 92
In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you
should carefully consider the risk factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, which could materially affect our
business, financial condition or future results. The risk factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
have not materially changed. The risks described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K are not the only
risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently
deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or
operating results.
Page 85 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 2. |
|
UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS |
The following table provides information regarding the purchases of our equity securities by
us during the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares (or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased |
|
|
Maximum Number (or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as Part of |
|
|
Approximate Dollar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Publicly |
|
|
Value) of Shares (or |
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
|
Price Paid |
|
|
Announced |
|
|
Units) that May Yet |
|
|
|
Shares (or Units) |
|
|
Per Share |
|
|
Plans or |
|
|
Be Purchased Under |
|
Period |
|
Purchased |
|
|
(or Unit) |
|
|
Programs |
|
|
the Plans or Programs |
|
July 1, 2009 to July 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 1, 2009 to August 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009 |
|
4,557 shares of
common stock (1) |
|
$ |
7.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
During the indicated periods, we accepted 4,557 shares of our common stock as a tax
withholding from certain of our employees in connection with the vesting of shares of
restricted stock pursuant to the terms of our 2002 Plan. |
Page 86 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 3. |
|
DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES |
Not Applicable.
Page 87 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 4. |
|
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
Not Applicable.
Page 88 of 92
|
|
|
ITEM 5. |
|
OTHER INFORMATION |
Not Applicable.
Page 89 of 92
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Description of Document |
|
10.1 |
|
|
Joint Development Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2008,
between the Company and Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation.* |
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
Statement re computation of per share earnings (incorporated
by reference to Note 15 to the Notes to the unaudited interim
Consolidated Financial Statements in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q). |
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32.2 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Company is re-filing the Joint Development Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2008 (the
Joint Development Agreement), with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation to disclose a
milestone payment that was previously omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment
pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Exchange Act. Certain portions of the Joint Development
Agreement remain confidential pursuant to an order granting confidential treatment under the
Exchange Act, which portions are omitted and filed separately with the SEC. |
Page 90 of 92
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: November 4, 2009 |
|
Impax Laboratories, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By: |
|
/s/ Larry Hsu, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
Larry Hsu, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By: |
|
/s/ Arthur A. Koch, Jr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
Arthur A. Koch Jr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
|
Senior Vice President, Finance and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
|
Page 91 of 92
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Description of Document |
|
10.1 |
|
|
Joint Development Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2008,
between the Company and Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation.* |
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
Statement re computation of per share earnings (incorporated
by reference to Note 15 to the Notes to the unaudited interim
Consolidated Financial Statements in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q). |
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32.1 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32.2 |
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Company is re-filing the Joint Development Agreement, dated as of November 26, 2008 (the
Joint Development Agreement), with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation to disclose a
milestone payment that was previously omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment
pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Exchange Act. Certain portions of the Joint Development
Agreement remain confidential pursuant to an order granting confidential treatment under the
Exchange Act, which portions are omitted and filed separately with the SEC. |
Page 92 of 92