e10vq
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 June 30, 2006
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
Commission File No. 0-25826
HARMONIC INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
|
|
77-0201147 |
|
|
|
|
|
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
|
|
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |
organization) |
|
|
|
|
549 Baltic Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
(408) 542-2500
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of Registrants principal executive offices)
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 shorter period that the Registrant was required to file
such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.
See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). (Check one):
Large accelerated filer o Accelerated filer þ Non-accelerated filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
The number of shares outstanding of the Registrants Common Stock, $.001 par value, was 74,583,450 on July 28, 2006.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
HARMONIC INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(UNAUDITED)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except par value amounts) |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
49,970 |
|
|
$ |
37,818 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
63,564 |
|
|
|
73,010 |
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowances of $3,491 and $3,230 |
|
|
35,493 |
|
|
|
43,433 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
30,961 |
|
|
|
38,552 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
11,932 |
|
|
|
8,335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
191,920 |
|
|
|
201,148 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
15,431 |
|
|
|
17,040 |
|
Intangibles and other assets |
|
|
7,322 |
|
|
|
8,109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
214,673 |
|
|
$ |
226,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt |
|
$ |
693 |
|
|
$ |
812 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
16,249 |
|
|
|
19,378 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
6,856 |
|
|
|
6,480 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
16,518 |
|
|
|
18,932 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
37,281 |
|
|
|
37,438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
77,597 |
|
|
|
83,040 |
|
Long-term debt, less current portion |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
460 |
|
Accrued excess facilities costs, long-term |
|
|
16,536 |
|
|
|
18,357 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
9,937 |
|
|
|
11,458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
104,231 |
|
|
|
113,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Notes 15 and 16) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value, 5,000 shares authorized; no shares issued or outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.001 par value, 150,000 shares authorized; 74,171 and 73,636 shares issued and outstanding |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
Capital in excess of par value |
|
|
2,053,404 |
|
|
|
2,048,090 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(1,942,766 |
) |
|
|
(1,934,715 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
(467 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
110,442 |
|
|
|
112,982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
214,673 |
|
|
$ |
226,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
2
HARMONIC INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
53,270 |
|
|
$ |
59,762 |
|
|
$ |
109,491 |
|
|
$ |
132,678 |
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
31,664 |
|
|
|
36,365 |
|
|
|
68,005 |
|
|
|
82,233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
21,606 |
|
|
|
23,397 |
|
|
|
41,486 |
|
|
|
50,445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
9,585 |
|
|
|
9,519 |
|
|
|
19,533 |
|
|
|
18,977 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
15,979 |
|
|
|
16,611 |
|
|
|
31,692 |
|
|
|
31,937 |
|
Amortization of intangibles |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
1,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
25,607 |
|
|
|
26,295 |
|
|
|
51,360 |
|
|
|
52,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(4,001 |
) |
|
|
(2,898 |
) |
|
|
(9,874 |
) |
|
|
(1,592 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income, net |
|
|
1,175 |
|
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
2,167 |
|
|
|
1,157 |
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(353 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes |
|
|
(2,698 |
) |
|
|
(2,566 |
) |
|
|
(7,671 |
) |
|
|
(788 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(2,903 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,530 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,051 |
) |
|
$ |
(824 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss per share
basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares
basic and diluted |
|
|
74,167 |
|
|
|
73,112 |
|
|
|
74,134 |
|
|
|
72,976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
3
HARMONIC INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(UNAUDITED)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
(In thousands) |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Cash flows from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(8,051 |
) |
|
$ |
(824 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of intangibles |
|
|
458 |
|
|
|
2,065 |
|
Depreciation |
|
|
3,993 |
|
|
|
4,033 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
3,130 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Loss on disposal of fixed assets |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
Changes in assets and liabilities, net of effect of acquisition: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
7,630 |
|
|
|
16,875 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
7,564 |
|
|
|
514 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
|
(3,731 |
) |
|
|
1,705 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(3,129 |
) |
|
|
(9,139 |
) |
Deferred revenue |
|
|
(3,248 |
) |
|
|
4,144 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
(583 |
) |
Accrued excess facilities costs |
|
|
(2,335 |
) |
|
|
(2,372 |
) |
Accrued and other liabilities |
|
|
698 |
|
|
|
(15,516 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
3,318 |
|
|
|
787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of investments |
|
|
(39,431 |
) |
|
|
(30,388 |
) |
Proceeds from sales of investments |
|
|
49,024 |
|
|
|
27,950 |
|
Acquisition of property and equipment |
|
|
(2,404 |
) |
|
|
(2,929 |
) |
Acquisition of BTL, net of cash received |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,955 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
7,189 |
|
|
|
(11,322 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
2,145 |
|
|
|
6,106 |
|
Repayments under bank line and term loan |
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
(662 |
) |
Repayments of capital lease obligations |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities |
|
|
1,686 |
|
|
|
5,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
12,152 |
|
|
|
(4,864 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
37,818 |
|
|
|
26,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
49,970 |
|
|
$ |
21,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax payments, net |
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
90 |
|
Interest paid during the period |
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of restricted common stock for BTL acquisition |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,831 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
4
HARMONIC INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 1: Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments
(consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) which Harmonic Inc. (the Company) considers
necessary for a fair statement of the results of operations for the interim periods covered and the
consolidated financial condition of the Company at the date of the balance sheets. This Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Companys audited consolidated financial
statements contained in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K and Form 10-K/A, which were filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2006 and April 26, 2006, respectively. The
interim results presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that
may be expected for the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, or any other future period. The
Companys fiscal quarters end on the Friday nearest the calendar quarter end, except for the fourth
quarter which ends on December 31.
The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its
subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in
consolidation.
Certain amounts in the prior years financial statements and related notes have been reclassified
to conform to the 2006 presentation. These reclassifications have no material impact on previously
reported net loss or cash flows.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent
assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue
and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Note 2: Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48). FIN 48 prescribes a comprehensive
model for how a company should recognize, measure, present, and disclose in its financial
statements uncertain tax positions that the company has taken or expects to take on a tax return.
FIN 48 will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. We are currently in
the process of evaluating the effect, if any, FIN 48 will have on our consolidated financial
statements.
Note 3: Stock-based Compensation
On January 1, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment, (SFAS 123(R)) which requires the measurement and recognition of
compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors, including
employee stock options and employee stock purchases related to our Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(ESPP) based upon the grant-date fair value of those awards. SFAS 123(R) supersedes the Companys
previous accounting under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued
to Employees (APB 25) and related interpretations, and provided the required pro forma
disclosures prescribed by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation, (SFAS 123) as amended. In addition, we have applied the provisions of
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (SAB 107), issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).
5
The Company adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified-prospective transition method, which requires
the application of the accounting standard as of January 1, 2006, the first day of the Companys
fiscal year 2006. The Companys Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2006 reflect the impact of SFAS 123(R). In accordance with the
modified prospective transition method, the Companys Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
for prior periods have not been restated to reflect, and do not include, the impact of SFAS 123(R).
Stock-based compensation expense recognized under SFAS 123(R) for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2006 was $1.5 million and $3.1 million, respectively, which consisted of stock-based
compensation expense related to employee equity awards and employee stock purchases. There was no
stock-based compensation expense related to employee equity awards and employee stock purchases
recognized during the three and six months ended July 1, 2005.
SFAS 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value of share-based payment awards on the date
of grant using an option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately
expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service period in the Companys
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. Prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), the Company
accounted for employee equity awards and employee stock purchases using the intrinsic value method
in accordance with APB 25 as allowed under SFAS 123. Under the intrinsic value method, no
stock-based compensation expense had been recognized in the Companys Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Operations because the exercise price of the Companys stock options granted to
employees and directors equaled the fair market value of the underlying stock at the date of grant.
Stock-based compensation expense recognized during the period is based on the value of the portion
of share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period. Stock-based
compensation expense recognized in the Companys Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 included compensation expense for share-based payment
awards granted prior to, but not yet vested as of December 31, 2005 based on the grant date fair
value estimated in accordance with the pro forma provisions of SFAS 123 and compensation expense
for the share-based payment awards granted subsequent to December 31, 2005 based on the grant date
fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123(R). In conjunction with the
adoption of SFAS 123(R), the Company changed its method of attributing the value of stock-based
compensation costs to expense from the accelerated multiple-option method to the straight-line
single-option method. Compensation expense for all share-based payment awards granted on or prior
to December 31, 2005 will continue to be recognized using the accelerated approach while
compensation expense for all share-based payment awards related to stock options and employee stock
purchase rights granted subsequent to December 31, 2005 are recognized using the straight-line
method.
As stock-based compensation expense recognized in our results for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2006 is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for estimated
forfeitures. SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if
necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Prior to fiscal
year 2006, we accounted for forfeitures as they occurred for the purposes of pro forma information
under SFAS 123, as disclosed in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the related
periods.
The fair value of share-based payment awards is estimated at grant date using a
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model. The Companys determination of fair value of share-based
payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model is affected by the Companys
stock price as well as the assumptions regarding a number of highly complex and subjective
variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, the Companys expected stock price
volatility over the term of the awards, and actual and projected employee stock option exercise
behaviors.
Harmonic currently does not expect to receive any tax benefits in fiscal 2006 for any expense
deductions resulting from expensing of stock options or shares issued under its ESPP plan. On
November 10, 2005 the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FSP FAS 123(R)-3, Transition Election
Related to Accounting for Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards. Harmonic currently provides a
valuation allowance for most of its deferred tax assets, and a valuation allowance has also been
provided for deferred tax assets related to nonqualified stock options.
6
Note 4: BTL Acquisition
On February 25, 2005, Harmonic purchased all of the issued and outstanding shares of Broadcast
Technology Limited, or BTL, a private UK company, for a purchase consideration of £4.0 million, or
approximately $7.6 million. The purchase consideration consisted of a payment of £3.0 million in
cash and the issuance of 169,112 shares of Harmonic common stock. In addition, Harmonic paid
approximately $0.3 million in transaction costs for a total transaction price of approximately $7.9
million. The addition of BTL has expanded Harmonics product line to include professional
video/audio receivers and decoders. This enabled us to expand the scope of solutions we provide for
existing and emerging cable, satellite, terrestrial broadcast and telecom applications. These
factors contributed to a purchase price exceeding the fair value of BTLs net tangible and
intangible assets acquired; as a result, we have recorded goodwill in connection with this
transaction.
The BTL acquisition was accounted for under SFAS No. 141 and certain specified provisions of SFAS
No. 142. The results of operations of BTL are included in Harmonics Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations from February 25, 2005, the date of acquisition. The following table
summarizes the allocation of the purchase price based on the estimated fair value of the tangible
assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Cash acquired |
|
$ |
149 |
|
Other tangible assets acquired |
|
|
2,508 |
|
Amortizable intangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
Existing technology |
|
|
2,050 |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
540 |
|
Tradenames/trademarks |
|
|
320 |
|
Order backlog |
|
|
60 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
3,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
|
9,372 |
|
Liabilities assumed |
|
|
(568 |
) |
Deferred tax liability for acquired intangibles |
|
|
(891 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net assets acquired |
|
$ |
7,913 |
|
|
|
|
|
Identified intangible assets, including existing technology and customer relationships are
being amortized over their useful lives of three years; tradename/trademarks are being amortized
over their useful lives of two years; and order backlog is being amortized over its useful life of
three months.
The residual purchase price of $3.7 million has been recorded as goodwill. The goodwill as a result
of this acquisition is not expected to be deductible for tax purposes. In accordance with SFAS No.
142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, goodwill relating to the acquisition of BTL is not
being amortized and will be tested for impairment annually or whenever events indicate that an
impairment may have occurred.
Supplemental pro forma information is not provided because the acquisition of BTL was not material
to the Companys financial statements for all periods presented.
7
Note 5: Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
At June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments are
summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
49,970 |
|
|
$ |
37,818 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than one year |
|
|
62,831 |
|
|
|
56,605 |
|
Due in 1-2 years |
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
16,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term investments |
|
|
63,564 |
|
|
|
73,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments |
|
$ |
113,534 |
|
|
$ |
110,828 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a summary of available-for-sale securities (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated Fair |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
25,951 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
|
$ |
25,807 |
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
34,243 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
34,182 |
|
Other debt securities |
|
|
3,575 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
3,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
63,769 |
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
(292 |
) |
|
$ |
63,564 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
20,264 |
|
|
$ |
¾ |
|
|
$ |
(146 |
) |
|
$ |
20,118 |
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
46,873 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
46,667 |
|
Other debt securities |
|
|
6,225 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
6,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
73,362 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(355 |
) |
|
$ |
73,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of Investments
We monitor our investment portfolio for impairment on a periodic basis. In the event that the
carrying value of an investment exceeds its fair value and the decline in value is determined to be
other-than-temporary, an impairment charge is recorded and a new cost basis for the investment is
established. In order to determine whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary, we evaluate,
among other factors: the duration and extent to which the fair value has been less than the
carrying value; our financial condition and business outlook, including key operational and cash
flow metrics, current market conditions and future trends in the companys industry; our relative
competitive position within the industry; and our intent and ability to retain the investment for a
period of time sufficient to allow any anticipated recovery in fair value.
In accordance with FASB Staff Position Nos. 115-1 and FAS 124-1, The Meaning of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments (FSP FAS 115-1), the
following table summarizes the fair value and gross unrealized losses related to available-for-sale
securities, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have
been in a continuous unrealized loss position, as of June 30, 2006 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 months |
|
|
Greater than 12 months |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
U.S. Government debt securities |
|
$ |
11,985 |
|
|
$ |
(103 |
) |
|
$ |
8,998 |
|
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
|
$ |
20,983 |
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
22,052 |
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
5,929 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
27,981 |
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
34,037 |
|
|
$ |
(210 |
) |
|
$ |
14,927 |
|
|
$ |
(82 |
) |
|
$ |
48,964 |
|
|
$ |
(292 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
The decline in the estimated fair value of these investments relative to amortized cost is
primarily related to changes in interest rates and is considered to be temporary in nature.
Note 6: Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
Raw materials |
|
$ |
9,369 |
|
|
$ |
14,392 |
|
Work-in-process |
|
|
1,928 |
|
|
|
4,131 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
19,664 |
|
|
|
20,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
30,961 |
|
|
$ |
38,552 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 7: Goodwill and Identified Intangibles
The following is a summary of goodwill and intangible assets as of June 30, 2006 and December 31,
2005 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Net Carrying |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
|
Amount * |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amount * |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
Identified intangibles: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed core technology |
|
$ |
29,767 |
|
|
$ |
(28,673 |
) |
|
$ |
1,094 |
|
|
$ |
29,663 |
|
|
$ |
(28,315 |
) |
|
$ |
1,348 |
|
Customer base |
|
|
31,907 |
|
|
|
(31,907 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,904 |
|
|
|
(31,904 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Trademark and tradename |
|
|
4,207 |
|
|
|
(4,207 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,190 |
|
|
|
(4,142 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
Supply agreement |
|
|
3,491 |
|
|
|
(3,203 |
) |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
3,464 |
|
|
|
(3,109 |
) |
|
|
355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal of identified intangibles |
|
|
69,372 |
|
|
|
(67,990 |
) |
|
|
1,382 |
|
|
|
69,221 |
|
|
|
(67,470 |
) |
|
|
1,751 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
4,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,514 |
|
|
|
4,896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total goodwill and other intangibles |
|
$ |
73,886 |
|
|
$ |
(67,990 |
) |
|
$ |
5,896 |
|
|
$ |
74,117 |
|
|
$ |
(67,470 |
) |
|
$ |
6,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments, reflecting movement in the currencies of the
underlying entities, totaled approximately $0.1 and $0.3 million for intangible assets and
approximately $0.1 and $0.3 million for goodwill as of June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005,
respectively. |
The acquisition of BTL resulted in an increase in goodwill and intangible assets of $3.5
million and $2.7 million, respectively, during 2005. In addition, intangible assets decreased by
$3.0 million in 2005 from the reversal of a reserve for a DiviCom pre-acquisition uncertain tax
provision.
The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended June 30, 2006 are as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2006 |
|
$ |
4,896 |
|
Purchase price adjustments* |
|
|
(531 |
) |
Foreign currency translation adjustments |
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2006 |
|
$ |
4,514 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Purchase price adjustments that affect existing goodwill were due to deferred taxes. |
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded a total of $0.2 million
and $0.5 million, of
9
amortization expense for identified intangibles, of which $0.2 million and $0.3 million, was
included in cost of sales, respectively. For the three and six months ended July 1, 2005, the
Company recorded a total of $0.3 and $2.1 million of amortization expense for identified
intangibles, of which $0.2 million and $0.9 million was included in cost of sales, respectively.
The estimated future amortization expense of purchased intangible assets with definite lives for
the next three years is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ending December 31, |
|
Amounts |
|
2006 (remaining 6 months) |
|
$ |
415 |
|
2007 |
|
|
829 |
|
2008 |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note 8: Restructuring and Excess Facilities
During 2001, Harmonic recorded a charge for excess facilities costs of $21.8 million. As a result
of uncertain market conditions and lower sales during the second half of 2002, the Company changed
its estimates related to accrued excess facilities with regard to the expected timing and amount of
sublease income due to the substantial surplus of vacant commercial space in the San Francisco Bay
Area. In connection with these actions, Harmonic recorded an additional excess facilities charge of
$22.5 million, net of sublease income, to selling, general and administrative expenses during the
second half of 2002.
As of June 30, 2006, accrued excess facilities cost totaled $21.2 million of which $4.7 million was
included in current accrued liabilities and $16.5 million in other non-current liabilities. The
Company incurred cash outlays of $2.3 million during the first six months of 2006 principally for
lease payments, property taxes, insurance and other maintenance fees related to vacated facilities.
Harmonic expects to pay approximately $2.3 million of excess facility lease costs, net of estimated
sublease income, for the remainder of 2006 and to pay the remaining $18.9 million, net of estimated
sublease income, over the remaining lease terms through September 2010.
Harmonic reassesses this liability quarterly and adjusts as necessary based on changes in the
timing and amounts of expected sublease rental income. In the fourth quarter of 2005 the excess
facilities liability was decreased by $1.1 million due to subleasing a portion of an unoccupied
building for the remainder of the lease.
During the fourth quarter of 2005, in response to the consolidation of the Companys two operating
segments into a single segment as of January 1, 2006, the Company implemented workforce reductions
of approximately 40 full-time employees across all functions and primarily in our U.S. operations
and recorded severance and other costs of approximately $1.1 million. No liability remains as of
June 30, 2006.
During the second quarter of 2006, the Company streamlined its senior management team primarily in
the U.S. operations and recorded severance and other costs of approximately $1.0 million. We expect
the remaining payments related to these actions to be paid by the end of the third quarter of 2006.
The following table summarizes restructuring activities (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workforce |
|
|
Management |
|
|
Excess |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction |
|
|
Reduction |
|
|
Facilities |
|
|
Total |
|
Balance at December 31, 2005 |
|
$ |
635 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23,576 |
|
|
$ |
24,211 |
|
Provisions/(recoveries) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
937 |
|
Cash payments, net of sublease income |
|
|
(610 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
(2,337 |
) |
|
|
(3,119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at June 30, 2006 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
790 |
|
|
$ |
21,239 |
|
|
$ |
22,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 9: Credit Facilities and Long-Term Debt
Harmonic has a bank line of credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, which provides for borrowings
of up to $23.7 million, including $3.7 million for equipment under a secured term loan. This
facility, which was amended and restated in December 2005, expires in December 2006, and contains
financial and other covenants including the requirement for Harmonic to maintain cash, cash
equivalents and short-term investments, net of credit extensions, of
10
not less than $30.0 million. If Harmonic is unable to maintain this cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments balance or satisfy the additional affirmative covenant requirements,
Harmonic would be in noncompliance with the facility. In the event of noncompliance by Harmonic
with the covenants under the facility, Silicon Valley Bank would be entitled to exercise its
remedies under the facility which include declaring all obligations immediately due and payable and
disposing of the collateral if obligations were not repaid. At June 30, 2006, Harmonic was in
compliance with the covenants under this line of credit facility. The December 2005 amendment
resulted in the company paying a fee of approximately $33,000 and requiring payment of
approximately $43,000 of additional fees if the company does not maintain an unrestricted deposit
of $20.0 million with the bank. Future borrowings pursuant to the line bear interest at the banks
prime rate (8.25% at June 30, 2006) or prime plus 0.5% for equipment borrowings. Borrowings are
payable monthly and are collateralized by all of Harmonics assets except intellectual property. As
of June 30, 2006, $0.9 million was outstanding under the equipment term loan portion of this
facility and there were no borrowings in 2005 or 2006. The term loan is repayable monthly,
including principal and interest at 8.75% per annum on outstanding borrowings as of June 30, 2006
and matures at various dates through December 2007. Other than standby letters of credit and
guarantees (Note 15), there were no other outstanding borrowings or commitments under the line of
credit facility as of June 30, 2006.
Note 10: Benefit Plans
Stock Option Plans. Harmonic has reserved 12,450,000 shares of Common Stock for issuance under
various employee stock option plans. The options are granted for periods not exceeding ten years
and generally vest 25% at one year from date of grant, and an additional 1/48 per month thereafter.
Stock options are granted at the fair market value of the stock at the date of grant. Beginning on
February 27, 2006, option grants had a term of seven years.
Director Option Plans. In May 2002, Harmonics stockholders approved the 2002 Director Option Plan
(the Plan), replacing the 1995 Director Option Plan. In June 2006, Harmonics stockholders
approved an amendment to the Plan and increased the maximum number of shares of common stock
authorized for issuance over the term of the Plan by an additional 300,000 shares to 700,000 shares
and reduced the term of future options granted under the Plan to seven years. Harmonic has a total
of 728,000 shares of Common Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan. The Plan provides for the
grant of non-statutory stock options to certain non-employee directors of Harmonic pursuant to an
automatic, non-discretionary grant mechanism. Options are granted at the fair market value of the
stock at the date of grant for periods not exceeding ten years. Initial grants generally vest
monthly over three years, and subsequent grants generally vest monthly over one year.
The following table summarizes activities under the Plans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Available for |
|
|
Stock Options |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
Grant |
|
|
Outstanding |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
|
(In thousands except exercise price) |
|
Balance at December 31, 2005 |
|
|
3,984 |
|
|
|
9,064 |
|
|
$ |
13.05 |
|
Shares authorized |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options granted |
|
|
(1,735 |
) |
|
|
1,735 |
|
|
|
5.72 |
|
Options exercised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
3.46 |
|
Options canceled |
|
|
917 |
|
|
|
(917 |
) |
|
|
11.46 |
|
Options expired |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
34.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at June 30, 2006 |
|
|
3,466 |
|
|
|
9,709 |
|
|
|
11.90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
vested and exercisable as of June 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,572 |
|
|
$ |
12.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
expected-to-vest as of June 30, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,240 |
|
|
$ |
14.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted-average fair value of options granted for the six months ended June 30, 2006 was
$3.64.
11
The following table summarizes information regarding stock options outstanding at June 30, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options Outstanding |
|
|
Stock Options Exercisable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
|
|
Range of Exercise |
|
Outstanding at |
|
|
Contractual Life |
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
Exercisable |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
Prices |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
(Years) |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
at June 30, 2006 |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except exercise price and life) |
|
$ 1.75 5.82 |
|
|
1,444 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
$ |
3.97 |
|
|
|
914 |
|
|
$ |
3.64 |
|
5.84 5.87 |
|
|
2,322 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
|
5.87 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
5.86 |
|
5.88 8.93 |
|
|
1,543 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
8.05 |
|
|
|
1,168 |
|
|
|
7.96 |
|
9.00 9.29 |
|
|
1,221 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
9.17 |
|
|
|
1,083 |
|
|
|
9.16 |
|
9.37 11.50 |
|
|
1,241 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
10.45 |
|
|
|
1,214 |
|
|
|
10.45 |
|
11.53 24.73 |
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
21.98 |
|
|
|
1,181 |
|
|
|
22.05 |
|
25.16 121.68 |
|
|
748 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
44.76 |
|
|
|
748 |
|
|
|
44.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,709 |
|
|
|
5.8 |
|
|
$ |
11.90 |
|
|
|
6,572 |
|
|
$ |
14.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
weighted-average remaining contractual life for all exercisable stock
options at June 30, 2006 was 5.0 years. The
weighted-average remaining contractual life of all vested and
expected-to-vest stock options at June 30, 2006 was
5.7 years.
Aggregate pre-tax intrinsic value of options outstanding and exercisable at June 30, 2006 was $1.1
million and $0.9 million, respectively. The aggregate intrinsic
value of stock options vested and expected-to-vest net of estimated
forfeitures was $1.0 million at June 30, 2006. Aggregate pre-tax intrinsic value represents the difference
between our closing price on the last trading day of the fiscal period, which was $4.48 as of June
30, 2006, and the exercise price multiplied by the number of options outstanding or exercisable.
Total pre-tax intrinsic value of options exercised was de minimis for the three and six months
periods ended June 30, 2006.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan. In May 2002, Harmonics stockholders approved the 2002 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (the 2002 Purchase Plan) replacing the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan effective
for the offering period beginning on July 1, 2002. In May 2004, Harmonics stockholders approved an
amendment to the 2002 Purchase Plan and increased the maximum number of shares of common stock
authorized for issuance over the term of the 2002 Purchase Plan by an additional 2,000,000 shares
to 3,500,000 shares. In June 2006, Harmonics stockholders approved an amendment to the 2002
Purchase Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of common stock available for issuance under
the 2002 Purchase Plan by an additional 2,000,000 shares and reduce the term of future offering
periods to six months. The 2002 Purchase Plan enables employees to purchase shares at 85% of the
fair market value of the Common Stock at the beginning of the offering period or end of the
purchase period, whichever is lower. Prior to the approval of the June 2006 amendment, each
offering period had a maximum duration of two years and consisted of four six-month purchase
periods. Offering periods and purchase periods generally began on the first trading day on or after
January 1 and July 1 of each year. The 2002 Purchase Plan is intended to qualify as an employee
stock purchase plan under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. During the first six months of
2006 and the years 2005 and 2004, the number of shares of stock issued under the purchase plans
were 411,324, 705,171 and 774,683 shares at weighted average prices of $4.18, $5.05 and $2.32,
respectively. The weighted-average fair value of each right to purchase shares of common stock
granted under the purchase plans were $1.70, $1.82 and $2.68 for the first six months of 2006 and
the years 2005 and 2004, respectively. At June 30, 2006, there were 2,884,017 shares reserved for
future issuances under the 2002 Purchase Plan.
Retirement/Savings Plan. Harmonic has a retirement/savings plan which qualifies as a thrift plan
under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. This plan allows participants to contribute up
to 20% of total compensation, subject to applicable Internal Revenue Service limitations. Harmonic
makes discretionary contributions to the plan of 25% of the first 4% contributed by eligible
participants up to a maximum contribution per participant of $750 per year. This amount has been
increased to $1,000 effective January 1, 2006. Such amounts totaled $0.1 million and $0.2 million
in the first three and six months of 2006, respectively.
12
Stock-based Compensation
The following table summarizes the impact of options from SFAS 123(R) on stock-based compensation
costs for employees on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
(In thousands) |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
Employee stock-based compensation in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
$ |
542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense |
|
|
451 |
|
|
|
973 |
|
Sales, general and administrative expense |
|
|
783 |
|
|
|
1,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total employee stock-based compensation in operating expense |
|
|
1,234 |
|
|
|
2,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total employee stock-based compensation |
|
|
1,502 |
|
|
|
3,128 |
|
Amount capitalized in inventory |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other stock-based compensation (1) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation |
|
$ |
1,541 |
|
|
$ |
3,168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Other stock-based compensation represents charges related to non-employee stock options. |
As of
June 30, 2006, total unamortized stock-based compensation cost
related to unvested stock options was $7.6 million, with the
weighted average recognition period of 1.5 years.
The table below reflects net income (loss) and net income (loss) per share for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2006, compared with pro forma information for the three and six months ended
July 1, 2005 (in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(pro forma) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(pro forma) |
|
Net income (loss), before
stock-based compensation for employees,
prior period |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(2,530 |
) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(824 |
) |
Less: Stock-based compensation expense
previously determined under fair value
based method, net of related tax
effects |
|
$ |
(1,502 |
) |
|
|
(1,964 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,128 |
) |
|
|
(4,146 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss, after effect of stock-based
compensation for employees |
|
$ |
(2,903 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,494 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,051 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,970 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic as reported for prior period |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic after effect of stock-based
compensation for employees |
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.07 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted as reported for prior period |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted after effect of stock-based
compensation for employees |
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.07 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes-Merton multiple option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Stock Options |
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
July 1, 2005 |
Expected life (years) |
|
|
4.75 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
4.75 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
Volatility |
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
96 |
% |
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
96 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
4.9 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
4.6 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Stock Purchase Plan |
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
July 1, 2005 |
Expected life (years) |
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
Volatility |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
The expected term for employee stock options and the ESPP represents the weighted-average period
that the stock options are expected to remain outstanding. We derived the expected term using the
SAB 107 simplified method. As alternative sources of data become available in order to determine
the expected term we will incorporate these data into our assumption.
We use the historical volatility over the expected term of the options and the ESPP offering period
to estimate the expected volatility. We believe that the historical volatility, at this time,
represents fairly the future volatility of its common stock. We will continue to monitor relevant
information to measure expected volatility for future option grants and ESPP offering periods.
The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon observed interest rates appropriate for the
term of our employee stock options. The dividend yield assumption is based on our history and
expectation of dividend payouts.
Note 11: Net Income (Loss) Per Share
Basic net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) attributable to
common stockholders for the period by the weighted average number of the common shares outstanding
during the period. The diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2006 because potential common shares, such as common shares
issuable upon the exercise of stock options, are only considered when their effect would be
dilutive. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, 9.9 million and 10.8 million,
respectively, of potentially dilutive shares, consisting of options, were excluded from the net
income (loss) per share computations, because their effect was antidilutive. During the three and
six months ended July 1, 2005, 9.8 million and 10.3 million, respectively, of potentially dilutive
shares, consisting of options, were excluded from the net income (loss) per share computations,
because their effect was antidilutive.
Following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted net loss
per share computations (in thousands, except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Net income (loss) (numerator) |
|
$ |
(2,903 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,530 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,051 |
) |
|
$ |
(824 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares calculation (denominator): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares
outstanding basic |
|
|
74,167 |
|
|
|
73,112 |
|
|
|
74,134 |
|
|
|
72,976 |
|
Effect of dilutive securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential common stock relating to
stock options |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average shares outstanding diluted |
|
|
74,167 |
|
|
|
73,112 |
|
|
|
74,134 |
|
|
|
72,976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share basic |
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share diluted |
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
Note 12: Comprehensive Income (Loss)
The Companys total comprehensive income (loss) was as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(2,903 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,530 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,051 |
) |
|
$ |
(824 |
) |
Change in unrealized gain (loss)
on investments, net |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Foreign currency translation |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss) |
|
$ |
(2,778 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,343 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,854 |
) |
|
$ |
(712 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 13: Segment Information
Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise that engage in business activities
for which separate financial information is available and evaluated by the chief operating decision
maker. Previously, the Company was organized into two operating segments: BAN, for fiber optic
systems, and CS, for digital headend systems. Each segment had its own management team directing
its product development, marketing strategies and its customer service requirements. A separate
sales force generally supported both segments with appropriate product and market specialization as
required.
The Company restructured its CS and BAN segments into one consolidated group in the fourth quarter
of 2005 and effective as of January 1, 2006 no longer has two operating segments. The restructuring
involved merging the manufacturing operations, research and development, and marketing departments
into one segment.
Geographic Information (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Net sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
$ |
26,949 |
|
|
$ |
35,196 |
|
|
$ |
52,602 |
|
|
$ |
81,570 |
|
International |
|
|
26,321 |
|
|
|
24,566 |
|
|
|
56,889 |
|
|
|
51,108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
53,270 |
|
|
$ |
59,762 |
|
|
$ |
109,491 |
|
|
$ |
132,678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 14: Related Party
A director of Harmonic is also a director of Terayon Communications, with whom the Company
purchases products for resale. Product purchases from Terayon were approximately $0.9 million and
$1.6 million, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, respectively. Product purchases
from Terayon were approximately $7.2 million and
$17.0 million, for the three and six months ended July
1, 2005, respectively. As of June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, Harmonic had liabilities to
Terayon of approximately $0.4 million and $0.7 million, respectively, for inventory purchases.
15
Note 15: Guarantees
Warranties. The Company accrues for estimated warranty costs at the time of product shipment.
Management periodically reviews the estimated fair value of its warranty liability and adjusts
based on the terms of warranties provided to customers, historical and anticipated warranty claims
experience, and estimates of the timing and cost of specified warranty claims. Activity for the
Companys warranty accrual, which is included in accrued liabilities is summarized below (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
|
July 1, 2005 |
|
Balance at beginning of the period |
|
$ |
6,058 |
|
|
$ |
5,608 |
|
|
$ |
6,166 |
|
|
$ |
5,429 |
|
Accrual for warranties |
|
|
979 |
|
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
|
2,021 |
|
|
|
2,525 |
|
Warranty costs incurred |
|
|
(1,019 |
) |
|
|
(1,308 |
) |
|
|
(2,169 |
) |
|
|
(2,550 |
) |
BTL acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of the period |
|
$ |
6,018 |
|
|
$ |
5,425 |
|
|
$ |
6,018 |
|
|
$ |
5,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standby Letters of Credit. As of June 30, 2006 the Companys financial guarantees consisted of
standby letters of credit outstanding, which were principally related to customs bond requirements,
performance bonds and state requirements imposed on employers. The maximum amount of potential
future payments under these arrangements was $1.0 million.
Indemnification Obligations. Harmonic is obligated to indemnify its officers and the members of its
Board of Directors pursuant to its bylaws and contractual indemnity agreements. Harmonic also
indemnifies some of its suppliers and customers for specified intellectual property matters
pursuant to certain contractual arrangements, subject to certain limitations. The scope of these
indemnities varies, but in some instances, includes indemnification for damages and expenses
(including reasonable attorneys fees). There have been no claims against us for indemnification
pursuant to any of these arrangements and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in respect of
the indemnifications provisions through June 30, 2006.
Guarantees. As of June 30, 2006, Harmonic had no other guarantees outstanding.
Note 16: Legal Proceedings
Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by Harmonic and certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no longer with
Harmonic) were filed in or removed to the United States District Court (the District Court) for
the Northern District of California. The actions subsequently were consolidated.
A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased Harmonics publicly traded securities between January 19 and June 26, 2000.
The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube
securities between January 19 and May 3, 2000. In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers
and directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants. The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonics prospects and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) by filing a
false or misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the
C-Cube acquisition.
On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. An
amended complaint alleging the same claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13,
2001. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 24, 2001. On November 13,
2002, the District Court issued an opinion granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint
without leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December 2, 2002. On December 12,
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 6, 2003, the
District Court denied plaintiffs motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003. The appeal was heard by a panel of
three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit) on
February 17, 2005.
On November 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
further proceedings the decision of the District Court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Courts dismissal of the
16
plaintiffs fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act with prejudice,
finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their allegations of fraud. The Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs claims under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did not allege fraud and
therefore were subject to only minimal pleading standards. Regarding the secondary liability claim
under Section 15 of the Securities Act, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of that claim
against Anthony J. Ley, Harmonics Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and affirmed the dismissal
of that claim against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit remanded the
surviving claims to the District Court for further proceedings.
On November 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit
for a rehearing of the appeal. On February 16, 2006 the Ninth Circuit denied both petitions. On May
17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the issues remanded for further proceedings
by the Ninth Circuit, to which the Harmonic defendants responded on June 23, 2006 with a Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiffs opposition was filed on July 24, 2006, and the defendants are due to reply
by August 11, 2006. There will be no hearing unless the Court requests one.
A derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed against its then-current
directors in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on September 5, 2000. Harmonic also
was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint is based on allegations similar to those found in
the securities class action and claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, causing Harmonic to violate federal securities laws. The derivative action was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September
20, 2000. All deadlines in this action were stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss the
securities class action. On July 29, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to dismiss
this derivative action without prejudice and to toll the applicable limitations period pending the
Ninth Circuits decision in the securities action. Pursuant to the stipulation, defendants have
provided plaintiff with a copy of the mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit in the securities action.
A second derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Santa Clara on May 15, 2003. It alleges facts similar to those previously alleged
in the securities class action and the federal derivative action. The complaint names as defendants
former and current Harmonic officers and directors, along with former officers and directors of
C-Cube Microsystems, Inc., who were named in the securities class action. The complaint also names
Harmonic as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges claims for abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the Harmonic defendants, and claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against all defendants. On
July 22, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to stay the case pending resolution of
the appeal in the securities class action. Following the decision of
the Ninth Circuit discussed above, on May 9,
2006, defendants filed demurrers to this complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint
on July 10, 2006, which names only the Harmonic defendants. A schedule for briefing and a hearing
on the amended complaint has been established through November 2006. On July 11, 2006, the
plaintiffs served requests for discovery, to which the defendants responses are due by August 15,
2006.
Based on its review of the surviving claims in the securities class actions, Harmonic believes that
it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. There can be no assurance,
however, that Harmonic will prevail. No estimate can be made of the possible range of loss
associated with the resolution of this contingency, and accordingly, Harmonic has not recorded a
liability. An unfavorable outcome of this litigation could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
On July 3, 2003, Stanford University and Litton Systems filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that optical fiber amplifiers incorporated into
certain of Harmonics products infringe U.S. Patent No. 4859016. This patent expired in September
2003. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, royalties and damages. Harmonic has not been served in
the case. At this time, we are unable to determine whether we will be able to settle this
litigation on reasonable terms or at all, nor can we predict the impact of an adverse outcome of
this litigation if we elect to defend against it. No estimate can be made of the possible range of
loss associated with the resolution of this contingency and accordingly, we have not recorded a
liability associated with the outcome of a negotiated settlement or an unfavorable verdict in
litigation. An unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
17
Harmonic is involved in other litigation and may be subject to claims arising in the normal course
of business. In the opinion of management the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these
matters in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on the Company or its operating
results, financial position or cash flows.
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
including statements regarding our expectations of continued customer concentration; our
expectations regarding future sales for a major telecommunications operator; our expectations that
sales to cable television, satellite and telecommunications operators will constitute a significant
portion of net sales for the foreseeable future; our expectation that international sales will
continue to account for a significant portion of our net sales for the foreseeable future; our
expectation that our facilities rationalization plan will result in a significant charge for excess
facilities in the third quarter of 2006; our expectations regarding our capital expenditures during
the remainder of 2006; our expectation that we will not receive any tax benefits in fiscal 2006 for
any expense deductions resulting from expensing of stock options or shares issued under our ESPP;
our expectations regarding the amount of amortization expense we will incur during the remainder of
2006; our expectation that near-term changes in foreign exchange rates will not have a material
impact on our operating results, financial position and liquidity; our belief that any ultimate
liability of Harmonic with respect to certain litigation arising in the normal course of business
will not, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on us or our operating results,
financial position or cash flows; our belief that our existing liquidity sources will satisfy our
cash requirement for at least the next 12 months; and our expectation that operating results are
likely to fluctuate in the future. These statements involve risks and uncertainties as well as
assumptions that, if they were to never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause actual results
to differ materially from those projected, expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements.
These risks and uncertainties include those set forth under Risk Factors below and elsewhere in
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and that are otherwise described from time to time in Harmonics
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Overview
Harmonic designs, manufactures and sells products for video processing and edge and access
applications. In addition, we provide network management software and have recently introduced new
application software products. Harmonic also provides technical support services to its customers
worldwide. Our video processing products provide broadband operators with the ability to accept a
variety of signals from different sources, in different protocols, and to organize, manage and
distribute this content to maximize use of the available bandwidth. Our edge products enable
operators to deliver customized broadcast or narrowcast on-demand services to their subscribers,
and our access products, which consist mainly of optical transmission products, node platforms and
return path products, allow operators to deliver video, data and voice services over their physical
networks.
These products and services enable network operators to provide a range of interactive and advanced
digital services that include digital video, video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition television
(HDTV), high-speed Internet access and telephony. They enable our customers to process video for
distribution over cable, satellite, telephone and wireless networks. We also provide fiber optic
transmission systems to cable television operators and to certain telephone companies that offer
video services to their customers.
The sequential increases in net sales in 2005 and 2004 that Harmonic experienced reflected an
improved industry capital spending environment worldwide which favorably impacted us. We believe
that this improvement in the industry capital spending environment was, in part, a result of the
intensifying competition between cable and satellite operators to offer more channels of digital
video and new services, such as VOD and HDTV, and in part the result of the entry of telephone
companies into the business of delivering video services to their subscribers. We also believe that
the improvement was due to more favorable conditions in industry capital markets and the completion
or resolution of certain major business combinations, financial restructurings and regulatory
issues.
In the second quarter and first six months of 2006, Harmonics net sales decreased 11% and 17%
compared to the second quarter and first six months of 2005, respectively. We believe that the
decrease in sales in the second quarter
18
of 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to supply chain constraints on certain product lines and
the timing of completion of certain projects for our international telco customers. The decrease in
net sales in the first six months of 2006 compared to the first six months of 2005 was also
attributable to weaker spending by domestic cable customers, the significant amount of third party
products sold to our end customers in the first six months of 2005, as well as the supply chain
constraints and delays in the completion of projects for our international telco customers. Our
quarterly and annual results may fluctuate significantly due to spending by our customers, our
revenue recognition policies and the timing of the receipt of orders, as well as other factors,
including those set forth in the section entitled Risk Factors in this Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q.
Harmonic often recognizes a significant portion, or the majority, of its revenues in the last month
of the quarter. Harmonic establishes its expenditure levels for product development and other
operating expenses based on projected sales levels, and expenses are relatively fixed in the short
term. Accordingly, variations in timing of sales can cause significant fluctuations in operating
results. In addition, because a significant portion of Harmonics business is derived from orders
placed by a limited number of large customers, the timing of such orders can also cause significant
fluctuations in our operating results. Harmonics expenses for any given quarter are typically
based on expected sales and if sales are below expectations, our operating results may be adversely
impacted by our inability to adjust spending to compensate for the shortfall.
Historically, a majority of our net sales have been to relatively few customers, and due in part to
the consolidation of ownership of cable television and direct broadcast satellite systems, we
expect this customer concentration to continue for the foreseeable future. In the second quarter of
2006, sales to Cox Communications accounted for 13% of net sales and in the second quarter of 2005,
sales to Comcast accounted for 19% of net sales. In the first six months of 2006, no customer had
sales that accounted for more than 10% of net sales, and in the first six months of 2005, sales to
Comcast and Charter Communications accounted for 28% and 10% of net sales, respectively.
Sales to customers outside of the U.S. in the second quarter and first six months of 2006
represented 49% and 52% of net sales, respectively, compared to 41% and 39% for the comparable
periods in 2005. A significant portion of international sales are made to distributors and system
integrators, which are generally responsible for importing the products and providing installation
and technical support and service to customers within their territory. Sales denominated in foreign
currencies were approximately 5% of net sales in the first six months of 2006 compared to 6% for
the comparable period of 2005. We expect international sales to continue to account for a
significant portion of our net sales for the foreseeable future.
In May 2006, the Companys Board of Directors appointed Patrick J. Harshman as President and Chief
Executive Officer, replacing Anthony Ley, who retired after
18 years. Mr. Ley carries on as a
consultant to the Company and as chairman of its Board of Directors. Following Dr. Harshmans
appointment, the Company announced a reorganization of its senior management, resulting in a charge
of approximately $1 million in severance costs in the second quarter of 2006. In addition to our
management reorganization plan, in the third quarter of 2006, the Company is executing on a
facilities rationalization plan to make more efficient use of our Sunnyvale campus and expects to
vacate additional space. We expect that this will result in a significant charge for excess
facilities in the third quarter of 2006.
In the fourth quarter of 2005, Harmonic announced a restructuring that combined our product
development, marketing and manufacturing operations and resulted in the BAN and CS operating
segments being combined into a single segment, effective January 1, 2006. In connection with this
restructuring, Harmonic reduced its workforce by approximately 40 employees and recorded an expense
of $1.1 million for severance costs related to the restructuring.
In the fourth quarter of 2005, the excess facilities liability was decreased by $1.1 million due to
subleasing a portion of the unoccupied portion of one building for the remainder of the lease.
Although we entered into new subleases for approximately 60,000 square feet of space in 2004 and
approximately 30,000 square feet of space in 2005, in the event we are unable to achieve expected
levels of sublease rental income, we will need to revise our estimate of the liability, which could
materially impact our financial position, liquidity, cash flows and results of operations.
On February 25, 2005, Harmonic purchased all of the issued and outstanding shares of Broadcast
Technology Ltd., a private UK company, for a total purchase consideration of £4.0 million, or
approximately $7.6 million. The purchase
19
consideration consisted of a payment of £3.0 million in cash and the issuance of 169,112 shares of
Harmonic common stock. Broadcast Technology Ltd. develops, manufactures and distributes
professional video/ audio receivers and decoders and had 42 employees at the time of the
acquisition.
Critical Accounting Policies, Judgments and Estimates
The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures requires Harmonic to make
judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities,
the disclosure of contingencies and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses in the financial
statements and accompanying notes. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of
revenue and expenses if different judgments or different estimates were made.
Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the annual consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, included in our Annual Report on Form
10-K filed with the SEC on March 14, 2006 and notes to condensed consolidated financial statements
as of and for the three and six month period ended June 30, 2006, included herein. Our most
critical accounting policies include the following:
§ |
|
Revenue recognition; |
|
§ |
|
Allowances for doubtful accounts, returns and discounts; |
|
§ |
|
Valuation of inventories; |
|
§ |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets; |
|
§ |
|
Restructuring costs and accruals for excess facilities; |
|
§ |
|
Assessment of the probability of the outcome of current litigation; |
|
§ |
|
Accounting for income taxes; and |
|
§ |
|
Stock-based compensation. |
Since January 1, 2006, our accounting policy for stock-based compensation for employee stock-based
awards was modified due to the adoption of SFAS 123(R) and is described below.
Stock-Based Compensation
On January 1, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment, (SFAS 123(R)) which requires the measurement and recognition of
compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors, including
employee stock options and employee stock purchases related to our Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(ESPP) based upon the grant-date fair value of those awards. SFAS 123(R) supersedes the Companys
previous accounting under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued
to Employees (APB 25) and related interpretations, and provided the required pro forma
disclosures prescribed by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation, (SFAS 123) as amended. In addition, we have applied the provisions of
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (SAB 107), issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).
The Company adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified-prospective transition method, which requires
the application of the accounting standard as of January 1, 2006, the first day of the Companys
fiscal year 2006. The Companys Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2006 reflects the impact of SFAS 123(R). In accordance with the
modified prospective transition method, the Companys Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
for prior periods have not been restated to reflect, and do not include, the impact of SFAS 123(R).
Stock-based compensation expense recognized under SFAS 123(R) for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2006 was $1.5 million and $3.1 million, respectively, which consisted of stock-
20
based compensation expense related to employee equity awards and employee stock purchases. There
was no stock-based compensation expense related to employee equity awards and employee stock
purchases recognized during the three and six months ended July 1, 2005.
SFAS 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value of share-based payment awards on the date
of grant using an option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately
expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service period in the Companys
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. Prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), the Company
accounted for employee equity awards and employee stock purchases using the intrinsic value method
in accordance with APB 25 as allowed under SFAS 123. Under the intrinsic value method, no
stock-based compensation expense had been recognized in the Companys Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Operations because the exercise price of the Companys stock options granted to
employees and directors equaled the fair market value of the underlying stock at the date of grant.
Stock-based compensation expense recognized during the period is based on the value of the portion
of share-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period. Stock-based
compensation expense recognized in the Companys Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 included compensation expense for share-based payment
awards granted prior to, but not yet vested as of December 31, 2005 based on the grant date fair
value estimated in accordance with the pro forma provisions of SFAS 123 and compensation expense
for the share-based payment awards granted subsequent to December 31, 2005 based on the grant date
fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123(R). In conjunction with the
adoption of SFAS 123(R), the Company changed its method of attributing the value of stock-based
compensation costs to expense from the accelerated multiple-option method to the straight-line
single-option method. Compensation expense for all share-based payment awards granted on or prior
to December 31, 2005 will continue to be recognized using the accelerated approach while
compensation expense for all share-based payment awards related to stock options and employee stock
purchase rights granted subsequent to December 31, 2005 are recognized using the straight-line
method.
As stock-based compensation expense recognized in our results for the second quarter and the first
six months of fiscal year 2006 is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced
for estimated forfeitures. SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant
and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.
Prior to fiscal year 2006, we accounted for forfeitures as they occurred for the purposes of pro
forma information under SFAS 123, as disclosed in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for the related periods.
The fair value of share-based payment awards is estimated at grant date using a
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model. The Companys determination of fair value of share-based
payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model is affected by the Companys
stock price as well as the assumptions regarding a number of highly complex and subjective
variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, the Companys expected stock price
volatility over the term of the awards, and actual and projected employee stock option exercise
behaviors.
Harmonic currently does not expect to receive any tax benefits in fiscal 2006 for any expense
deductions resulting from expensing of stock options or shares issued under its ESPP. On November
10, 2005 the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FSP FAS 123(R)-3, Transition Election Related to
Accounting for Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards. Harmonic currently provides a valuation
allowance for most of its deferred tax assets, and a valuation allowance has also been provided for
deferred tax assets related to nonqualified stock options.
Also see Note 10 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements on Stock-Based Compensation.
21
Results of Operations
Harmonics historical consolidated statements of operations data for the second quarter and first
six months of 2006 and 2005 as a percentage of net sales, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Net sales |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
Cost of sales |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Amortization of intangibles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Interest income, net |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other income (expense), net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
|
(5 |
)% |
|
|
(4 |
)% |
|
|
(7 |
)% |
|
|
(1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Sales Consolidated
Harmonics consolidated net sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 compared
with the corresponding periods in 2005 are presented by product line in the table below. Also
presented is the related dollar and percentage increase (decrease) in consolidated net sales in the
second quarter and first six months of 2006 compared with the corresponding periods in 2005 (in
thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
Product Sales Data: |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Video Processing |
|
$ |
20,563 |
|
|
$ |
30,678 |
|
|
$ |
40,248 |
|
|
$ |
74,409 |
|
Edge and Access |
|
|
23,434 |
|
|
|
20,295 |
|
|
|
51,886 |
|
|
|
41,535 |
|
Software, Support and Other |
|
|
9,273 |
|
|
|
8,789 |
|
|
|
17,357 |
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
53,270 |
|
|
$ |
59,762 |
|
|
$ |
109,491 |
|
|
$ |
132,678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video Processing decrease |
|
$ |
(10,115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(34,161 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Edge and Access increase |
|
|
3,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,351 |
|
|
|
|
|
Software, Support and Other increase |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total decrease |
|
$ |
(6,492 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(23,187 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video Processing percent change |
|
|
(33.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(45.9 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Edge and Access percent change |
|
|
15.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
24.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Software, Support and Other percent
change |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total percent change |
|
|
(10.9 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Net sales decreased in the second quarter of 2006 compared to the same period of 2005 principally
due to supply chain constraints, which resulted in product shortages, and delays in the completion
of certain international telco customer projects. In the video processing product lines, delays in
the completion of certain projects underway for our international telco customers resulted in less
revenue being recognized along with product shortages. The edge and access products line
experienced an increase in revenue in the second quarter of 2006 compared to the second quarter of
2005 as telcos and a major North American multiple system operator continued to introduce and
expand video and other services, primarily in the U.S. and European markets. Third party product
sales decreased by approximately $2.7 million in the second quarter of 2006, compared to the
corresponding period in 2005.
Net sales decreased in the first six months of 2006 compared to the same period of 2005 principally
due to weaker spending by domestic cable customers for major digital headend projects, supply chain
constraints resulting in product shortages, delays in the completion of certain projects for
international telco customers and the decrease in
22
the sale of third party products to our end customers. In the video processing product line,
encoder and stream processing sales decreased by approximately $22.3 million in the first six
months of 2006 compared to the same period in the prior year due to lower spending for major
digital headend projects by domestic cable companies. Delays in the completion of certain projects
underway with our international telco customers resulted in less revenue being recognized. In
addition, sales of third party products to end customers decreased by approximately $12.5 million
in the first six months of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The edge and access products
line, which includes VOD products, experienced a significant increase in revenue in the first six
months of 2006 compared to the first six months of 2005 as telcos and other broadband operators
continued to introduce and expand video and other services, primarily in the U.S. and European
markets.
Net Sales Geographic
Harmonics domestic and international net sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006
compared with the corresponding periods in 2005 are presented in the table below. Also presented is
the related dollar and percentage increase (decrease) in domestic and international net sales in
the second quarter and first six months of 2006 compared with the corresponding periods in 2005 (in
thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
Geographic Sales Data: |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
U.S |
|
$ |
26,949 |
|
|
$ |
35,197 |
|
|
$ |
52,602 |
|
|
$ |
81,571 |
|
International |
|
|
26,321 |
|
|
|
24,565 |
|
|
|
56,889 |
|
|
|
51,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales |
|
$ |
53,270 |
|
|
$ |
59,762 |
|
|
$ |
109,491 |
|
|
$ |
132,678 |
|
|
U.S. decrease |
|
$ |
(8,248 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(28,969 |
) |
|
|
|
|
International increase |
|
|
1,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total decrease |
|
$ |
(6,492 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(23,187 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. percent change |
|
|
(23.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
International percent change |
|
|
7.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total percent change |
|
|
(10.9 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
The decreased U.S. sales in the second quarter and the first six months of 2006 compared to the
corresponding periods in 2005 was principally due to supply chain constraints, which resulted in
product shortages, fewer sales of third party products to end customers and weaker spending by
domestic cable customers for major digital headend projects.
International sales in the second quarter and the first six months of 2006 increased significantly
compared to the corresponding periods in 2005 primarily due to sales to telcos in the European
market. The increased international sales in the second quarter of 2006 as compared to the same
period of 2005, was also due to increased international capital spending by customers primarily in
Europe and Asia. As a result of these factors, we expect that international sales will continue to
account for a significant portion of our net sales for the foreseeable future.
Gross Profit
Harmonics gross profit and gross profit as a percentage of consolidated net sales in the second
quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding prior year periods of 2005
are presented in the tables below. Also presented is the related dollar and percentage decrease in
gross profit in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding
periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Gross profit |
|
$ |
21,606 |
|
|
$ |
23,397 |
|
|
$ |
41,486 |
|
|
$ |
50,445 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
40.6 |
% |
|
|
39.2 |
% |
|
|
37.9 |
% |
|
|
38.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease |
|
$ |
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(8,959 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
(7.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
23
The
decrease in gross profit in the second quarter and the first six months of 2006 as compared to
the corresponding periods of 2005 was primarily due to lower sales and the recording of stock-based
compensation expense. The gross margin percentage of 40.6% in the second quarter of 2006 compared
to 39.2% in the second quarter of 2005 was higher primarily due to a higher proportion of digital
video and service revenue, which carry higher gross margins than the
average gross margins for our products, and lower sales of third party products
to our end customers compared to the second quarter of 2005, sales of which products have
significantly lower gross margins than the average gross margin in sales of our products.
In the first six months of 2006, $0.3 million of amortization of intangibles was included in cost
of sales compared to $0.9 million in the first six months of 2005. The lower amortization in the
first six months of 2006 was due to certain intangibles arising from the BTL acquisition being
fully amortized in the second quarter of 2006. We expect to record approximately $0.3 million in
amortization of intangibles in cost of sales in the remaining six months of 2006 due to the
acquisition of BTL in February 2005.
Research and Development
Harmonics research and development expense and the expense as a percentage of consolidated net
sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006, as compared with the corresponding
periods of 2005, are presented in the table below. Also presented is the related dollar and
percentage increase in research and development expense in the second quarter and first six months
of 2006 as compared with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Research and development expense |
|
$ |
9,585 |
|
|
$ |
9,519 |
|
|
$ |
19,533 |
|
|
$ |
18,977 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
18.0 |
% |
|
|
15.9 |
% |
|
|
17.8 |
% |
|
|
14.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
556 |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The increase in research and development expense in the second quarter of 2006 as compared to
the same period in 2005 was primarily the result of increased use of outside consulting services of
$0.4 million associated with the development of new products and stock-based compensation expense
of $0.5 million, which was partially offset by lower prototype materials expense of $0.4 million
and lower compensation expense of $0.3 million from reductions in headcount and incentive
compensation. The increase in research and development expense in the first six months of 2006 as
compared to the same period in 2005 was primarily the result of increased use of outside consulting
services of $0.9 million associated with the development of new products and stock-based
compensation expense of $1.0 million, which was partially offset by lower prototype materials
expense of $0.3 million and lower compensation expense of $1.0 million from reductions in headcount
and incentive compensation.
Selling, General and Administrative
Harmonics selling, general and administrative expense and the expense as a percentage of
consolidated net sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006, as compared with the
corresponding periods of 2005, are presented in the table below. Also presented is the related
dollar and percentage decrease in selling, general and administrative expense in the second quarter
and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands,
except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expense |
|
$ |
15,979 |
|
|
$ |
16,611 |
|
|
$ |
31,692 |
|
|
$ |
31,937 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
30.0 |
% |
|
|
27.8 |
% |
|
|
28.9 |
% |
|
|
24.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease |
|
$ |
(632 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(245 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
(3.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
24
The decrease in selling, general and administrative expense in the second quarter of 2006
compared to the same period in 2005 was primarily the result of lower compensation expenses of $0.5
million, lower trade show expenses of $0.4 million and lower travel expenses of $0.2 million, which
was partially offset by stock-based compensation expense of $0.8 million. The decrease in selling,
general and administrative expense in the first six months of 2006 compared to the same period in
2005 was primarily a result of lower compensation expenses of $0.8 million, lower trade show
expenses of $0.5 million and lower corporate governance costs of $0.4 million, which were
substantially offset by higher stock-based compensation expense of $1.6 million.
Amortization of Intangibles
Harmonics amortization of intangible assets and the expense as a percentage of consolidated net
sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding periods
of 2005 are presented in the table below. Also presented is the related dollar and percentage
decrease in amortization of intangible assets in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as
compared with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Amortization of intangibles |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
165 |
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
$ |
1,123 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
0.1 |
% |
|
|
0.3 |
% |
|
|
0.1 |
% |
|
|
0.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(988 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
(73.9 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(88.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in the amortization of intangibles in the second quarter of 2006 compared to the
same period in 2005 was primarily due to the completion of
amortization of certain items acquired in
connection with the BTL transaction during the second quarter of 2006. The decrease in the
amortization of intangibles in the first six months of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005 was
primarily due to the completion of amortization of the DiviCom intangible assets during the first
six months of 2005. Harmonic expects to record a total of approximately $0.1 million in
amortization of intangibles in operating expenses in the remaining six months of 2006 due to the
intangible assets resulting from the acquisition of BTL in February 2005.
Interest Income, Net
Harmonics interest income, net, and interest income, net, as a percentage of consolidated net
sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding periods
of 2005, are presented in the table below. Also presented is the related dollar and percentage
increase in interest income, net, in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared
with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Interest income, net |
|
$ |
1,175 |
|
|
$ |
636 |
|
|
$ |
2,167 |
|
|
$ |
1,157 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
2.2 |
% |
|
|
1.1 |
% |
|
|
2.0 |
% |
|
|
0.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
$ |
539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
84.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
87.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The
increase in interest income, net, in second quarter and the first six months of 2006 compared
to the corresponding periods of 2005 was due primarily to a larger cash and short-term investment
portfolio during the respective periods of 2006 as compared to 2005, higher interest rates on the
cash and short-term investments portfolio and lower interest expense due to a lower debt balance in
the second quarter and the first six months of 2006 as compared to the corresponding periods in 2005.
25
Other Income (Expense), Net
Harmonics other income (expense), net, and other income (expense), net, as a percentage of
consolidated net sales
in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as compared with the corresponding periods of
2005, are presented in the table below. Also presented is the related dollar and percentage
increase in other income (expense), net, in the second quarter and first six months of 2006 as
compared with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Other income (expense) |
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
$ |
(304 |
) |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
(353 |
) |
As a % of net sales |
|
|
0.2 |
% |
|
|
(0.5 |
)% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
(0.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
$ |
432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
389 |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
142.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
110.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The increase in other income (expense), net, in the second quarter and first six months of
2006 compared to the corresponding periods of 2005 was primarily due to lower foreign exchange
losses in 2006.
Income Taxes
Harmonics provision for income taxes, and provision for income taxes as a percentage of
consolidated net sales in the second quarter and first six months of 2006, as compared with the
corresponding periods of 2005, are presented in the tables below. Also presented is the related
dollar and percentage increase in income taxes in the second quarter and first six months of 2006
as compared with the corresponding periods of 2005 (in thousands, except percentages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
380 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
As a % of net sales |
|
|
0.4 |
% |
|
|
(0.1 |
)% |
|
|
0.3 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
$ |
241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
344 |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent change |
|
|
669.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
955.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The
increase in the provision for income taxes in the second quarter and
the first six months of
2006 compared to the corresponding periods in 2005 was due to higher foreign income taxes.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
July 1, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments |
|
$ |
113,534 |
|
|
$ |
98,164 |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
3,318 |
|
|
$ |
787 |
|
Net cash used provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
$ |
7,189 |
|
|
$ |
(11,322 |
) |
Net cash provided by financing activities |
|
$ |
1,686 |
|
|
$ |
5,394 |
|
As of June 30, 2006, cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled $113.5 million,
compared to $110.8 million as of December 31, 2005. Cash provided by operations was $3.3 million in
the first six months of 2006, compared to cash provided by operations of $0.8 million in the first
six months of 2005. The increased provision of cash in operating activities in the first six months
of 2006 was primarily due to lower accounts receivable and inventories, and stock-based
compensation expense, which was partially offset by an increased net loss, lower prepaid expenses
and other assets, deferred revenue and accounts payable. The lower accounts receivable was due to
decreased revenue in the second quarter of 2006 compared to the second quarter of 2005. The lower
inventory was due to a decrease in the purchase of production inventory, which was partially caused
by specific product supply shortages. The stock-based compensation expense in the first six months
of 2006 was due to the adoption of SFAS123(R) beginning on January 1, 2006. The higher prepaid
expenses and lower deferred revenue was due to
26
delays in the progress and completion of specific projects with a portion of the delays due to
product shortages resulting in higher deferred cost of goods sold in prepaid expenses and lower
deferred revenue. The lower accounts payable was due to a decrease in the purchase of production
inventory.
Additions to property, plant and equipment were $2.4 million during the first six months of 2006
compared to $2.9 million in the first six months of 2005. The decrease in the first six months of
2006 from the comparable period in 2005 was primarily due to a decrease in the acquisition of test
equipment. Harmonic currently expects capital expenditures to be approximately $3.6 million during
the remainder of 2006.
On November 3, 2003, Harmonic completed a public offering of 9.0 million shares of its common stock
at a price of $7.40 per share. The net proceeds were approximately $62.0 million, which is net of
underwriters fees of $3.7 million, and related legal, accounting, printing and other expenses
totaling approximately $0.9 million. In connection with this offering, the underwriters exercised
their option to purchase 1.35 million additional shares of common stock at $7.40 per share on
November 12, 2003 to cover over-allotments which resulted in additional net proceeds of
approximately $9.4 million. The net proceeds from the offering are being used for general corporate
purposes, including payment of existing liabilities, research and development, the development or
acquisition of new products or technologies, equipment acquisitions, strategic acquisitions of
businesses, general working capital and operating expenses.
Under the terms of the merger agreement with C-Cube, Harmonic is generally liable for C-Cubes
pre-merger tax liabilities. Approximately $10.0 million of pre-merger tax liabilities remained
outstanding at June 30, 2006 and are included in accrued liabilities. These liabilities represent
estimates of C-Cubes pre-merger tax obligations to various tax authorities in 11 countries. We are
working with LSI Logic, which acquired the spun-off semiconductor business in June 2001 and assumed
its obligations, to settle these obligations, a process which has been underway since the merger in
2000. Although we expect to make payments in 2006 for these tax liabilities, Harmonic is unable to
predict when the remaining obligations will be paid, or in what amount. The full amount of the
estimated obligation has been classified as a current liability. To the extent that these
obligations are finally settled for less than the amounts provided, Harmonic is required, under the
terms of the tax-sharing agreement, to refund the difference to LSI Logic. Conversely, if the
settlements are more than the $10.0 million pre-merger tax liability, LSI is obligated to reimburse
Harmonic.
Harmonic has a bank line of credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, which provides for borrowings
of up to $23.7 million, including $3.7 million for equipment under a secured term loan. This
facility, which was amended and restated in December 2005, expires in December 2006 and contains
financial and other covenants including the requirement for Harmonic to maintain cash, cash
equivalents and short-term investments, net of credit extensions, of not less than $30.0 million.
If Harmonic is unable to maintain this cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balance or
satisfy the additional affirmative covenant requirements, Harmonic would be in noncompliance with
the facility. In the event of noncompliance by Harmonic with the covenants under the facility,
Silicon Valley Bank would be entitled to exercise its remedies under the facility which include
declaring all obligations immediately due and payable and disposing of the collateral if
obligations were not repaid. At June 30, 2006, Harmonic was in compliance with the covenants under
this line of credit facility. The December 2005 amendment resulted in the company paying a fee of
approximately $33,000 and requiring payment of approximately $43,000 of additional fees if the
Company does not maintain an unrestricted deposit of $20.0 million with the bank. Future borrowings
pursuant to the line bear interest at the banks prime rate (8.25% at June 30, 2006) or prime plus
0.5% for equipment borrowings. Borrowings are repayable monthly and are collateralized by all of
Harmonics assets except intellectual property. As of June 30, 2006, $0.9 million was outstanding
under the equipment term loan portion of this facility and there were no borrowings in 2005 or
2006. The term loan is payable monthly, including principal and interest at 8.75% per annum on
outstanding borrowings as of June 30, 2006 and matures at various dates through December 2007.
Other than standby letters of credit and guarantees (Note 15), there were no other outstanding
borrowings or commitments under the line of credit facility as of June 30, 2006.
Harmonics cash and investment balances at June 30, 2006 were $113.5 million. We currently believe
that our existing liquidity sources, including our bank line of credit facility, will satisfy our
requirements for at least the next twelve months, including the final settlement and payment of
C-Cubes pre-merger tax liabilities. However, we may need to raise additional funds if our
expectations or estimates change or prove inaccurate, or to take advantage of
27
unanticipated opportunities or to strengthen our financial position. The completed stock offering
in the fourth quarter of 2003 was part of a registration statement on Form S-3 declared effective
by the SEC in April 2002. In April 2005, we filed another registration statement on Form S-3 with
the SEC. Pursuant to these registration statements on Form S-3, which have been declared effective
by the SEC, we are able to issue various types of registered securities, including common stock,
preferred stock, debt securities, and warrants to purchase common stock from time to time, up to an
aggregate of approximately $200 million, subject to market conditions and our capital needs.
In addition, we actively review potential acquisitions that would complement our existing product
offerings, enhance our technical capabilities or expand our marketing and sales presence. Any
future transaction of this nature could require potentially significant amounts of capital or could
require us to issue our stock and dilute existing stockholders. If adequate funds are not
available, or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not be able to take advantage of market
opportunities, to develop new products or to otherwise respond to competitive pressures.
Our ability to raise funds may be adversely affected by a number of factors relating to Harmonic,
as well as factors beyond our control, including increased market uncertainty surrounding the
ongoing U.S. war on terrorism, as well as conditions in capital markets and the cable and satellite
industries. There can be no assurance that any financing will be available on terms acceptable to
us, if at all.
Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact the operating results, financial position,
or liquidity of Harmonic due to adverse changes in market prices and rates. Harmonic is exposed to
market risk because of changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates as measured
against the U.S. Dollar and currencies of Harmonics subsidiaries.
Foreign Currency Exchange Risk
Harmonic has a number of international subsidiaries each of whose sales are generally denominated
in U.S. dollars. Sales denominated in foreign currencies were approximately 5% and 7% of net sales
in the first six months of 2006 and the full year of 2005, respectively. In addition, the Company
has various international branch offices that provide sales support and systems integration
services. Periodically, Harmonic enters into foreign currency forward exchange contracts, or
forward contracts, to manage exposure related to accounts receivable denominated in foreign
currencies. Harmonic does not enter into derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. At
June 30, 2006, we had a forward contract to sell Euros totaling $4.2 million that matures during
the third quarter of 2006. While Harmonic does not anticipate that near-term changes in exchange
rates will have a material impact on Harmonics operating results, financial position and
liquidity, Harmonic cannot assure you that a sudden and significant change in the value of local
currencies would not harm Harmonics operating results, financial position and liquidity.
Interest Rate Risk
Exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relate primarily to Harmonics investment
portfolio of marketable debt securities of various issuers, types and maturities and to Harmonics
borrowings under its bank line of credit facility. Harmonic does not use derivative instruments in
its investment portfolio, and its investment portfolio only includes highly liquid instruments with
an original maturity of less than two years. These investments are classified as available for sale
and are carried at estimated fair value, with material unrealized gains and losses reported in
other comprehensive income. There is risk that losses could be incurred if Harmonic were to sell
any of its securities prior to stated maturity. A 10% change in interest rates would not have had a
material impact on financial conditions, results of operations or cash flows.
28
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
Our management, with the participation of our chief executive officer and our chief financial
officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act))
as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance
that the objectives of the control system are met. Our management, including our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or
internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and fraud. Further, the design of
a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of
controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all
control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues
within the company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the reality that
judgments in decision-making can be incorrect, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple
errors or mistakes. The design of any control system is also based, in part, upon certain
assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design
will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time,
controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with
the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a control
system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
Based upon their evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of
the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, our chief executive officer
and chief financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are
effective based on their evaluation of these controls and procedures required by paragraph (b) of
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 or 15d-15.
Changes in internal controls.
There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection
with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 or 15d-15 that occurred
during our last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Shareholder Litigation
Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by Harmonic and certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no longer with
Harmonic) were filed in or removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The actions subsequently were consolidated.
A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased Harmonics publicly traded securities between January 19 and June 26, 2000.
The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube
securities between January 19 and May 3, 2000. In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers
and directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants. The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonics prospects and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) by filing a
false or misleading registration statement,
29
prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.
On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. An
amended complaint alleging the same claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13,
2001. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 24, 2001. On November 13,
2002, the District Court issued an opinion granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint
without leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December 2, 2002. On December 12,
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 6, 2003, the
District Court denied plaintiffs motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003. The appeal was heard by a panel of
three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit) on
February 17, 2005.
On November 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
further proceedings the decision of the District Court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their
allegations of fraud. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did
not allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading standards. Regarding the
secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act, the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of that claim against Anthony J. Ley, Harmonics Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and affirmed the dismissal of that claim against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend. The Ninth
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for further proceedings.
On November 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit
for a rehearing of the appeal. On February 16, 2006 the Ninth Circuit denied both petitions. On May
17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the issues remanded for further proceedings
by the Ninth Circuit, to which the Harmonic defendants responded on June 23, 2006 with a Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiffs opposition was filed on July 24, 2006, and the defendants are due to reply
by August 11, 2006. There will be no hearing unless the Court requests one.
A derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed against its then-current
directors in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on September 5, 2000. Harmonic also
was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint is based on allegations similar to those found in
the securities class action and claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, causing Harmonic to violate federal securities laws. The derivative action was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September
20, 2000. All deadlines in this action were stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss the
securities class action. On July 29, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to dismiss
this derivative action without prejudice and to toll the applicable limitations period pending the
Ninth Circuits decision in the securities action. Pursuant to the stipulation, defendants have
provided plaintiff with a copy of the mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit in the securities action.
A second derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Santa Clara on May 15, 2003. It alleges facts similar to those previously alleged
in the securities class action and the federal derivative action. The complaint names as defendants
former and current Harmonic officers and directors, along with former officers and directors of
C-Cube Microsystems, Inc., who were named in the securities class action. The complaint also names
Harmonic as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges claims for abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the Harmonic defendants, and claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against all defendants. On
July 22, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to stay the case pending resolution of
the appeal in the securities class action. Following the decision of
the Ninth Circuit discussed above, on May 9,
2006, defendants filed demurrers to this complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint
on July 10, 2006, which names only the Harmonic defendants. A schedule for briefing and a hearing
on the amended complaint has been established through November 2006. On July 11, 2006, the
plaintiffs served requests for discovery, to which the defendants responses are due by August 15,
2006.
30
Based on its review of the surviving claims in the securities class actions, Harmonic believes that
it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. There can be no assurance,
however, that Harmonic will prevail. No estimate can be made of the possible range of loss
associated with the resolution of this contingency, and accordingly, Harmonic has not recorded a
liability. An unfavorable outcome of this litigation could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
Other Litigation
On July 3, 2003, Stanford University and Litton Systems filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that optical fiber amplifiers incorporated into
certain of Harmonics products infringe U.S. Patent No. 4859016. This patent expired in September
2003. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, royalties and damages. Harmonic has not been served in
the case. At this time, we are unable to determine whether we will be able to settle this
litigation on reasonable terms or at all, nor can we predict the impact of an adverse outcome of
this litigation if we elect to defend against it. No estimate can be made of the possible range of
loss associated with the resolution of this contingency and accordingly, we have not recorded a
liability associated with the outcome of a negotiated settlement or an unfavorable verdict in
litigation. An unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
Harmonic is involved in other litigation and may be subject to claims arising in the normal course
of business. In the opinion of management the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these
matters in the aggregate will not have a material adverse effect on the Company or its operating
results, financial position or cash flows.
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
We Depend On Cable, Satellite And Telecom Industry Capital Spending For A Substantial Portion Of
Our Revenue And Any Decrease Or Delay In Capital Spending In These Industries Would Negatively
Impact Our Resources, Operating Results And Financial Condition And Cash Flows.
A significant portion of Harmonics sales have been derived from sales to cable television,
satellite and telecommunications operators, and we expect these sales to constitute a significant
portion of net sales for the foreseeable future. Demand for our products will depend on the
magnitude and timing of capital spending by cable television operators, satellite operators,
telephone companies and broadcasters for constructing and upgrading their systems.
These capital spending patterns are dependent on a variety of factors, including:
§ |
|
access to financing; |
|
§ |
|
annual budget cycles; |
|
§ |
|
the impact of industry consolidation; |
|
§ |
|
the status of federal, local and foreign government regulation of telecommunications and television
broadcasting; |
|
§ |
|
overall demand for communication services and the acceptance of new video, voice and data services; |
|
§ |
|
evolving industry standards and network architectures; |
|
§ |
|
competitive pressures, including pricing pressures; |
|
§ |
|
discretionary customer spending patterns; and |
|
§ |
|
general economic conditions. |
31
In the past, specific factors contributing to reduced capital spending have included:
§ |
|
uncertainty related to development of digital video industry standards; |
|
§ |
|
delays associated with the evaluation of new services, new standards, and system architectures by many
operators; |
|
§ |
|
emphasis on generating revenue from existing customers by operators instead of new construction or network
upgrades; |
|
§ |
|
a reduction in the amount of capital available to finance projects of our customers and potential customers; |
|
§ |
|
proposed and completed business combinations and divestitures by our customers and regulatory review
thereof; |
|
§ |
|
economic and financial conditions in domestic and international markets; and |
|
§ |
|
bankruptcies and financial restructuring of major customers. |
The financial difficulties of certain of our customers and changes in our customers deployment
plans adversely affected our business in recent years. However, we believe that the financial
condition of many of our customers has stabilized or improved, and our net sales increased in 2005
compared to 2004, and in 2004 compared to 2003, although our sales decreased on a sequential basis
in the first and second quarter of 2006. An economic downturn or other factors could cause
additional financial difficulties among our customers, and customers whose financial condition has
stabilized may not purchase new equipment at levels we have seen in the past. Continued financial
difficulties among our customers would adversely affect our operating results and financial
condition. In addition, industry consolidation has, in the past and may in the future, constrain
capital spending among our customers. In this regard, we believe that the bankruptcy of Adelphia
Communications has led to capital spending delays and we cannot currently predict the impact of the
sale of Adelphia Communications cable systems to Comcast and Time-Warner Cable on our future
sales. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will maintain or increase our net sales in the
future.
Major U.S. cable operators have indicated that the substantial completion of major network
upgrades, which involved significant labor and construction costs, will lead to lower capital
expenditures in the future. If our product portfolio and product development plans do not position
us well to capture an increased portion of the capital spending of U.S. cable operators, our
revenue may decline and our operating results would be adversely affected.
Our Customer Base Is Concentrated And The Loss Of One Or More Of Our Key Customers, Or a Failure to
Diversify Our Customer Base, Could Harm Our Business.
Historically, a majority of our sales have been to relatively few customers, and due in part to the
consolidation of ownership of cable television and direct broadcast satellite systems, we expect
this customer concentration to continue in the foreseeable future. Sales to our ten largest
customers in the first six months of 2006 and the years 2005 and 2004 accounted for approximately
46%, 54% and 55% of net sales, respectively. Although we are attempting to broaden our customer
base by penetrating new markets such as the telecommunications and broadcast markets and expand
internationally, we expect to see continuing industry consolidation and customer concentration due
in part to the significant capital costs of constructing broadband networks. For example, Comcast
acquired AT&T Broadband in November 2002, thereby creating the largest U.S. cable operator,
reaching approximately 22 million subscribers. In the DBS market, The News Corporation Ltd.
acquired an indirect controlling interest in Hughes Electronics, the parent company of DIRECTV in
2003. NTL and Telewest, the two largest cable operators in the UK have recently completed their
announced merger. In the telco market, AT&T has announced an agreement to acquire Bell South. The
sale of Adelphia Communications has led to further industry consolidation. In addition, rumors have
circulated recently about the potential merger of DirecTV and Echostar, the two largest DBS
operators in the U.S. In the first quarter of 2006 and the years 2005 and 2004, sales to Comcast
accounted for 11%, 18% and 17%, respectively, of net sales. The loss of Comcast or any other
significant customer or any reduction in orders by Comcast or any significant customer, or our
failure to qualify our products with a significant customer could
32
adversely affect our business, operating results and liquidity. In this regard, sales to Comcast
declined in 2004 compared to 2003, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenues.
Furthermore, in the third and fourth quarters of 2005, sales for a major telco accounted for 13% of
net sales. However, we do not expect to make continuing significant shipments for this telco after
the second quarter of 2006. The loss of, or any reduction in orders from, a significant customer
would harm our business.
In addition, historically we have been dependent upon capital spending in the cable and satellite
industry. We are attempting to diversify our customer base beyond cable and satellite customers,
principally into the telco market. Major telcos have begun to implement plans to rebuild or upgrade
their networks to offer bundled video, voice and data services. While we have recently increased
our revenue from telco customers, we are relatively new to this market. In order to be successful
in this market, we may need to build alliances with telco equipment manufacturers, adapt our
products for telco applications, take orders at prices resulting in lower margins, and build
internal expertise to handle the particular contractual and technical demands of the telco
industry. In addition, telco video deployments are subject to delays in completion, as video
processing technologies and video business models are new to most telcos and many of their largest
suppliers. Implementation issues with our products or those of other vendors have caused, and may
continue to cause delays in project completion for our customers and delay the recognition of
revenue by Harmonic. As a result of these and other factors, we cannot assure you that we will be
able to increase our revenues from the telco market, or that we can do so profitably, and any
failure to increase revenues and profits from telco customers could adversely affect our business.
Our Operating Results Are Likely To Fluctuate Significantly And May Fail To Meet Or Exceed The
Expectations Of Securities Analysts Or Investors, Causing Our Stock Price To Decline.
Our operating results have fluctuated in the past and are likely to continue to fluctuate in the
future, on an annual and a quarterly basis, as a result of several factors, many of which are
outside of our control. Some of the factors that may cause these fluctuations include:
§ |
|
the level and timing of capital spending of our customers, both in the U.S. and in foreign markets; |
|
§ |
|
changes in market demand; |
|
§ |
|
the timing and amount of orders, especially from significant customers; |
|
§ |
|
the timing of revenue recognition from solution contracts which may span several quarters; |
|
§ |
|
the timing of revenue recognition on sales arrangements, which may include multiple deliverables; |
|
§ |
|
the need to replace revenue from shipments to a distributor for a major telco, which we do not expect to continue at
the same level of revenue in 2006 as in 2005; |
|
§ |
|
competitive market conditions, including pricing actions by our competitors; |
|
§ |
|
seasonality, with fewer construction and upgrade projects typically occurring in winter months and otherwise being
affected by inclement weather; |
|
§ |
|
our unpredictable sales cycles; |
|
§ |
|
the amount and timing of sales to telcos, which are particularly difficult to predict; |
|
§ |
|
new product introductions by our competitors or by us; |
|
§ |
|
changes in domestic and international regulatory environments; |
|
§ |
|
market acceptance of new or existing products; |
|
§ |
|
the cost and availability of components, subassemblies and modules; |
33
§ |
|
the mix of our customer base and sales channels; |
|
§ |
|
the mix of our products sold; |
|
§ |
|
changes in our operating expenses and extraordinary expenses; |
|
§ |
|
the impact of SFAS 123(R), a recently adopted accounting standard which requires us to expense stock options; |
|
§ |
|
our development of custom products and software; |
|
§ |
|
the quantity of third-party products we sell, which products carry lower gross margins, compared to our own products; |
|
§ |
|
the quantity of FTTP products we sell, which products carry lower gross margins than our other products; |
|
§ |
|
the level of international sales; and |
|
§ |
|
economic and financial conditions specific to the cable, satellite and telco industries, and general economic
conditions. |
The timing of deployment of our equipment can be subject to a number of other risks, including the
availability of skilled engineering and technical personnel, the availability of other equipment
such as compatible set top boxes, and our customers need for local franchise and licensing
approvals.
For example, during the first and second quarters of 2006, our net sales declined sequentially due
in part to a reduction in sales to Verizon, one of our major customers, and in comparison to the
comparable period in 2005, due to a decrease in the volume of third party products we sold.
In addition, we often recognize a substantial portion of our revenues in the last month of the
quarter. We establish our expenditure levels for product development and other operating expenses
based on projected sales levels, and expenses are relatively fixed in the short term. Accordingly,
variations in timing of sales can cause significant fluctuations in operating results. As a result
of all these factors, our operating results in one or more future periods may fail to meet or
exceed the expectations of securities analysts or investors. In that event, the trading price of
our common stock would likely decline. In this regard, due to lower than expected sales during the
first quarter of 2003, the third quarter of 2004, a decrease in gross profit percentage in 2005,
and lower than expected sales during the first and second quarters of 2006, we failed to meet our
internal expectations, as well as the expectations of securities analysts and investors, and the
price of our common stock declined, in some cases significantly.
Our Future Growth Depends on Market Acceptance of Several Emerging Broadband Services, on the
Adoption of New Broadband Technologies and on Several Other Broadband Industry Trends.
Future demand for our products will depend significantly on the growing market acceptance of
several emerging broadband services, including digital video; VOD; HDTV; very high-speed data
services and voice-over-IP (VoIP) telephony.
The effective delivery of these services will depend, in part, on a variety of new network
architectures and standards, such as:
§ |
|
new video compression standards such as MPEG-4/H.264 and Microsofts Windows Media 9 broadcast profile (VC-1), for both
standard definition and high definition services; |
|
§ |
|
FTTP and DSL networks designed to facilitate the delivery of video services by telcos; |
|
§ |
|
the greater use of protocols such as IP; and |
34
§ |
|
the introduction of new consumer devices, such as advanced set-top boxes and personal video recorders (PVRs). |
If adoption of these emerging services and/or technologies is not as widespread or as rapid as we
expect, or if we are unable to develop new products based on these technologies on a timely basis,
our net sales growth will be materially and adversely affected.
Furthermore, other technological, industry and regulatory trends will affect the growth of our
business. These trends include the following:
§ |
|
convergence, or the desire of certain network operators to deliver a package of video, voice and data services to
consumers, also known as the triple play; |
|
§ |
|
the use of digital video by businesses, governments and educators; |
|
§ |
|
the entry of telcos into the video business to allow them to offer the triple play; |
|
§ |
|
growth in HDTV, on-demand services and mobile video; |
|
§ |
|
efforts by regulators and governments in the U.S. and abroad to encourage the adoption of broadband and digital
technologies; and |
|
§ |
|
the extent and nature of regulatory attitudes towards such issues as competition between operators, access by third
parties to networks of other operators, local franchising requirements for telcos to offer video, and new services such
as VoIP. |
If, for instance, operators do not pursue the triple play as aggressively as we expect, our net
sales growth would be materially and adversely affected. Similarly, if our expectations regarding
these and other trends are not met, our net sales may be materially and adversely affected.
We Need To Develop And Introduce New And Enhanced Products In A Timely Manner To Remain
Competitive.
Broadband communications markets are characterized by continuing technological advancement, changes
in customer requirements and evolving industry standards. To compete successfully, we must design,
develop, manufacture and sell new or enhanced products that provide increasingly higher levels of
performance and reliability. However, we may not be able to successfully develop or introduce these
products if our products:
§ |
|
are not cost effective; |
|
§ |
|
are not brought to market in a timely manner; |
|
§ |
|
are not in accordance with evolving industry standards and architectures; |
|
§ |
|
fail to achieve market acceptance; or |
|
§ |
|
are ahead of the market. |
We are currently developing and marketing products based on new video compression standards.
Encoding products based on the MPEG-2 compression standards have represented a significant portion
of the Companys sales since the acquisition of DiviCom in 2000. New standards, such as
MPEG-4/H.264 and Microsofts Windows Media 9 broadcast profile (VC-1), have been adopted which
provide significantly greater compression efficiency, thereby making more bandwidth available to
operators. The availability of more bandwidth is particularly important to those DBS and telco
operators seeking to launch, or expand, HDTV services. One of our competitors has already announced
significant orders for MPEG-4 HD encoders from a major DBS operator. Harmonic has developed and
launched products, including HD encoders, based on these new standards in order to remain
competitive and is devoting considerable resources to this effort. There can be no assurance that
these efforts will be successful in the
35
near future, or at all, or that competitors will not take significant market share in HD encoding.
We are also currently marketing products for FTTP networks which certain telcos have begun to
build. We believe that a number of our existing products can be deployed successfully in these
networks and we have devoted considerable resources to obtaining orders, qualifying our products
and hiring knowledgeable personnel. Shipments of products for a major telcos FTTP projects
represented 13% of sales in our third and fourth quarters of 2005. However, we do not expect to
make significant shipments for this telco after the second quarter of 2006, and we have reduced the
amount of resources devoted to these products. While we expect to continue to market these products
to other customers, there can be no assurance that these efforts will be successful in the near
future, or at all.
Also, to successfully develop and market certain of our planned products for digital applications,
we may be required to enter into technology development or licensing agreements with third parties.
We cannot assure you that we will be able to enter into any necessary technology development or
licensing agreement on terms acceptable to us, or at all. The failure to enter into technology
development or licensing agreements when necessary could limit our ability to develop and market
new products and, accordingly, could materially and adversely affect our business and operating
results.
Broadband Communications Markets Are Characterized By Rapid Technological Change.
Broadband communications markets are relatively immature, making it difficult to accurately predict
the markets future growth rates, sizes or technological directions. In view of the evolving nature
of these markets, it is possible that cable television operators, telephone companies or other
suppliers of broadband wireless and satellite services will decide to adopt alternative
architectures or technologies that are incompatible with our current or future products. Also,
decisions by customers to adopt new technologies or products are often delayed by extensive
evaluation and qualification processes and can result in delays in sales of current products. If we
are unable to design, develop, manufacture and sell products that incorporate or are compatible
with these new architectures or technologies, our business will suffer.
The Markets In Which We Operate Are Intensely Competitive And Many Of Our Competitors Are Larger
And More Established.
The markets for fiber optics systems and digital video systems are extremely competitive and have
been characterized by rapid technological change and declining average selling prices. Pressure on
average selling prices was particularly severe during the most recent economic downturn as equipment
suppliers competed aggressively for customers reduced capital spending. Harmonics competitors for
fiber optic products include corporations such as Motorola, Cisco Systems and C-Cor. In our digital
and video broadcasting products, we compete broadly with products from vertically integrated system
suppliers including Motorola, Cisco Systems, Tandberg Television and Thomson Multimedia, and in
certain product lines with a number of smaller companies.
Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have greater financial, technical, marketing
and other resources than Harmonic. Many of these large organizations are in a better position to
withstand any significant reduction in capital spending by customers in these markets. They often
have broader product lines and market focus and may not be as susceptible to downturns in a
particular market. In addition, many of our competitors have been in operation longer than we have
and therefore have more long-standing and established relationships with domestic and foreign
customers. We may not be able to compete successfully in the future, which may harm our business.
If any of our competitors products or technologies were to become the industry standard, our
business could be seriously harmed. For example, new standards for video compression are being
introduced and products based on these standards are being developed by Harmonic and certain
competitors. If our competitors are successful in bringing these products to market earlier, or if
these products are more technologically capable than ours, then our sales could be materially and
adversely affected. In addition, companies that have historically not had a large presence in the
broadband communications equipment market have begun recently to expand their market share through
mergers and acquisitions. The continued consolidation of our competitors could have a significant
negative impact on us. Further, our competitors, particularly competitors of our digital and video
broadcasting systems business, may bundle their products or incorporate functionality into existing
products in a manner that discourages
36
users from purchasing our products or which may require us to lower our selling prices resulting in
lower gross margins.
If Sales Forecasted For A Particular Period Are Not Realized In That Period Due To The
Unpredictable Sales Cycles Of Our Products, Our Operating Results For That Period Will Be Harmed.
The sales cycles of many of our products, particularly our newer products and products sold
internationally, are typically unpredictable and usually involve:
§ |
|
a significant technical evaluation; |
|
§ |
|
a commitment of capital and other resources by cable, satellite, and other network operators; |
|
§ |
|
time required to engineer the deployment of new technologies or new broadband services; |
|
§ |
|
testing and acceptance of new technologies that affect key operations; and |
|
§ |
|
test marketing of new services with subscribers. |
For these and other reasons, our sales cycles generally last three to six months, but can last up
to 12 months. If orders forecasted for a specific customer for a particular quarter do not occur in
that quarter, our operating results for that quarter could be substantially lower than anticipated.
In this regard, our sales cycles with our current and potential satellite and telco customers are
particularly unpredictable. Additionally, orders may include multiple elements, the timing of
delivery of which may impact the timing of revenue recognition. Quarterly and annual results may
fluctuate significantly due to revenue recognition policies and the timing of the receipt of
orders. For example, revenue from two significant customer orders in the third quarter of 2004 was
delayed due to these factors until the fourth quarter of 2004, and delays in the completion of
certain project underway with our international telco customers in the second quarter of 2006
resulted in lower revenue.
In addition, a significant portion of our revenue is derived from solution sales that principally
consist of and include the system design, manufacture, test, installation and integration of
equipment to the specifications of Harmonics customers, including equipment acquired from third
parties to be integrated with Harmonics products. Revenue forecasts for solution contracts are
based on the estimated timing of the system design, installation and integration of projects.
Because the solution contracts generally span several quarters and revenue recognition is based on
progress under the contract, the timing of revenue is difficult to predict and could result in
lower than expected revenue in any particular quarter.
We Face Risks Associated With Having Important Facilities And Resources Located In Israel.
Harmonic maintains a facility in Caesarea in the State of Israel with a total of 71 employees as of
June 30, 2006, or approximately 12% of our workforce. The employees at this facility consist
principally of research and development personnel involved in development of certain digital video
products. In addition, we have pilot production capabilities at this facility consisting of
procurement of subassemblies and modules from Israeli subcontractors and final assembly and test
operations. Accordingly, we are directly influenced by the political, economic and military
conditions affecting Israel. The current conflict in Israel and Lebanon could have a direct effect
on our business or that of our Israeli subcontractors, in the form of physical damage or injury,
reluctance to travel within or to Israel by our Israeli and foreign employees, or the loss of
employees to active military duty. Most of our employees in Israel are currently obligated to
perform annual reserve duty in the Israel Defense Forces and several have been called for active
military duty recently. In the event that more employees are called
to active duty, certain of our research and development activities
may be adversely affected and significantly delayed. In addition, the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and
its trading partners could significantly harm our business. Terrorist attacks and hostilities within
Israel, the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and the election of Hamas representatives to a
majority of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council have also heightened these risks. We
cannot assure you that current tensions in the Middle East will not adversely affect our business
and results of operations, and we cannot predict the effect of events
in Israel on Harmonic in the future.
37
We Depend On Our International Sales And Are Subject To The Risks Associated With International
Operations, Which May Negatively Affect Our Operating Results.
Sales to customers outside of the U.S. in the first six months of 2006 and the years 2005 and 2004
represented 52%, 40% and 42% of net sales, respectively, and we expect that international sales
will continue to represent a meaningful portion of our net sales for the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, a substantial portion of our contract manufacturing occurs overseas. Our international
operations, the international operations of our contract manufacturers, and our efforts to increase
sales in international markets, are subject to a number of risks, including:
§ |
|
changes in foreign government regulations and telecommunications standards; |
|
§ |
|
import and export license requirements, tariffs, taxes and other trade barriers; |
|
§ |
|
fluctuations in currency exchange rates; |
|
§ |
|
difficulty in collecting accounts receivable; |
|
§ |
|
the burden of complying with a wide variety of foreign laws, treaties and technical standards; |
|
§ |
|
difficulty in staffing and managing foreign operations; |
|
§ |
|
political and economic instability; and |
|
§ |
|
changes in economic policies by foreign governments. |
Certain of our international customers have accumulated significant levels of debt and have
announced during the past three years reorganizations and financial restructurings, including
bankruptcy filings. Even if these restructurings are completed, we cannot assure you that these
customers will be in a position to purchase new equipment at levels we have seen in the past.
While our international sales and operating expenses have typically been denominated in U.S.
dollars, fluctuations in currency exchange rates could cause our products to become relatively more
expensive to customers in a particular country, leading to a reduction in sales or profitability in
that country.
Following implementation of the Euro in January 2002, a higher portion of our European business is
denominated in Euros, which may subject us to increased foreign currency risk. Gains and losses on
the conversion to U.S. dollars of accounts receivable, accounts payable and other monetary assets
and liabilities arising from international operations may contribute to fluctuations in operating
results. Furthermore, payment cycles for international customers are typically longer than those
for customers in the U.S. Unpredictable sales cycles could cause us to fail to meet or exceed the
expectations of security analysts and investors for any given period. In addition, foreign markets
may not develop in the future. Any or all of these factors could adversely impact our business and
results of operations and we cannot predict the effect of events in Israel on Harmonic in the
future.
Pending Business Combinations And Other Financial And Regulatory Issues Among Our Customers Could
Adversely Affect Our Business.
Many of our domestic and international customers accumulated significant levels of debt and
announced reorganizations and financial restructurings during the past three years, including
bankruptcy filings. In particular, Adelphia Communications, a major domestic cable operator,
declared bankruptcy in June 2002. The stock prices of other domestic cable companies came under
pressure following the Adelphia bankruptcy due to concerns about debt levels and capital
expenditure requirements for new and expanded services, thereby making the raising of capital more
difficult and expensive.
While the capital market concerns about the domestic cable industry have eased, market conditions
remain difficult and capital spending plans are generally constrained. It is likely that further
industry restructuring will take place via mergers or spin-offs, such as the Comcast/AT&T Broadband
transaction in 2002 and the acquisition by The News
38
Corporation Ltd. in December 2003 of an indirect controlling interest in Hughes Electronics, the
parent company of DIRECTV. This transaction followed regulatory opposition to the proposed
acquisition of DIRECTV by EchoStar. We believe that uncertainty during 2002 regarding the proposed
DIRECTV and EchoStar merger adversely affected capital spending by both of these parties as well as
other customers. Rumors have again surfaced recently concerning a possible combination of these
customers. More recently, restructuring of the industry has continued with the privatization of Cox
Communications, the sale of Adelphia Communications out of bankruptcy to Comcast and Time-Warner,
the proposed sale of Cablevisions VOOM! satellite assets to Echostar and the recently completed
merger of UK cable operators NTL and Telewest. In addition, further business combinations may occur
in our industry, and these further combinations could adversely affect our business. Regulatory
issues, financial concerns and business combinations among our customers are likely to
significantly affect the industry, its capital spending plans, and our levels of business for the
foreseeable future.
Changes in Telecommunications Legislation and Regulations Could Harm Our Prospects And Future
Sales.
Changes in telecommunications legislation and regulations in the U.S. and other countries could
affect the sales of our products. In particular, regulations dealing with access by competitors to
the networks of incumbent operators could slow or stop additional construction or expansion by
these operators. Local franchising and licensing requirements may slow the entry of telcos into the
video business. Increased regulation of our customers pricing or service offerings could limit
their investments and consequently the sales of our products. Changes in regulations could have a
material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.
Competition For Qualified Personnel, Particularly Management Personnel, Can Be Intense. In Order To
Manage Our Growth, We Must Be Successful In Addressing Management Succession Issues And Attracting
And Retaining Qualified Personnel.
Our future success will depend, to a significant extent, on the ability of our management to
operate effectively, both individually and as a group. We must successfully manage transition and
replacement issues that may result from the departure or retirement of members of our senior
management. For example, on May 4, 2006 we announced that our Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Anthony J. Ley, was retiring from his position as President and Chief Executive
Officer effective immediately, and that he was being succeeded by our current Executive Vice
President, Patrick J. Harshman. We cannot assure you that this transition of management personnel
will not cause disruption to our operations or customer relationships, or a decline in our
financial results.
In addition, we are dependent on our ability to retain and motivate high caliber personnel, in
addition to attracting new personnel. Competition for qualified management, technical and other
personnel can be intense, and we may not be successful in attracting and retaining such personnel.
Competitors and others have in the past and may in the future attempt to recruit our employees.
While our employees are required to sign standard agreements concerning confidentiality and
ownership of inventions, we generally do not have employment contracts or non-competition
agreements with any of our personnel. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, the
inability to attract or retain qualified personnel in the future or delays in hiring required
personnel, particularly senior management and engineers and other technical personnel, could
negatively affect our business.
Recent And Proposed Regulations Related To Equity Compensation Could Adversely Affect Earnings,
Affect Our Ability To Raise Capital And Affect Our Ability To Attract And Retain Key Personnel.
Since our inception, we have used stock options as a fundamental component of our employee
compensation packages. We believe that our stock option plans are an essential tool to link the
long-term interests of stockholders and employees, especially executive management, and serve to
motivate management to make decisions that will, in the long run, give the best returns to
stockholders. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued FAS 123(R) that requires
us to record a charge to earnings for employee stock option grants and employee stock purchase plan
rights for all future periods beginning on January 1, 2006. This standard has negatively impacted
and will continue to negatively impact our earnings and may affect our ability to raise capital on
acceptable terms. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, stock-based compensation
expense recognized under SFAS 123(R) was $1.5 million and $3.1 million, respectively, which
consisted of stock-based compensation expense related to employee equity awards and employee stock
purchases.
39
In addition, regulations implemented by Nasdaq requiring stockholder approval for all stock option
plans could make it more difficult for us to grant options to employees in the future. To the
extent that new accounting standards make it more difficult or expensive to grant options to
employees, we may incur increased compensation costs, change our equity compensation strategy or
find it difficult to attract, retain and motivate employees, each of which could materially and
adversely affect our business.
We Are Exposed To Additional Costs And Risks Associated With Complying With Increasing And New
Regulation Of Corporate Governance And Disclosure Standards.
We are spending an increased amount of management time and external resources to comply with
changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure,
including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, SEC regulations and Nasdaq rules. Particularly, Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires managements annual review and evaluation of our internal
control over financial reporting, and attestation of the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting by management and the Companys independent registered public accounting firm
in connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 10-K for each fiscal year. We have
documented and tested our internal control systems and procedures and have made improvements in
order for us to comply with the requirements of Section 404. This process required us to hire
additional personnel and outside advisory services and has resulted in significant additional
expenses. While our assessment of our internal control over financial reporting resulted in our
conclusion that as of December 31, 2005, our internal control over financial reporting was
effective, we cannot predict the outcome of our testing in future periods. If we conclude in future
periods that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective or if our independent
registered public accounting firm is unable to provide an unqualified opinion as of future
year-ends, investors may lose confidence in our financial statements, and the price of our stock
may suffer.
We May Need Additional Capital In The Future And May Not Be Able To Secure Adequate Funds On Terms
Acceptable To Us.
We have generated substantial operating losses since we began operations in June 1988. We have been
engaged in the design, manufacture and sale of a variety of broadband products since inception,
which has required, and will continue to require, significant research and development
expenditures. As of June 30, 2006 we had an accumulated deficit of $1.9 billion. These losses,
among other things, have had and may have an adverse effect on our stockholders equity and working
capital.
We believe that the proceeds of the stock offering we completed in November 2003, together with our
existing liquidity sources, will satisfy our cash requirements for at least the next twelve months,
including the final settlement and payment of C-Cubes pre-merger tax liabilities. However, we may
need to raise additional funds if our expectations are incorrect, to fund our operations, to take
advantage of unanticipated strategic opportunities or to strengthen our financial position. The
stock offering we completed in November 2003 related to a registration statement on Form S-3
declared effective by the SEC in April 2002. In April 2005, we filed another registration statement
on Form S-3 with the SEC. Pursuant to these registration statements on Form S-3, which have been
declared effective by the SEC, we will continue to be able to issue registered common stock,
preferred stock, debt securities and warrants to purchase common stock from time to time, up to an
aggregate of approximately $200 million, subject to market conditions and our capital needs. Our
ability to raise funds may be adversely affected by a number of factors relating to Harmonic, as
well as factors beyond our control, including conditions in capital markets and the cable, telecom
and satellite industries. There can be no assurance that such financing will be available on terms
acceptable to us, if at all.
In addition, we actively review potential acquisitions that would complement our existing product
offerings, enhance our technical capabilities or expand our marketing and sales presence. Any
future transaction of this nature could require potentially significant amounts of capital to
finance the acquisition and related expenses as well as to integrate operations following a
transaction, and could require us to issue our stock and dilute existing stockholders. If adequate
funds are not available, or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not be able to take
advantage of market opportunities, to develop new products or to otherwise respond to competitive
pressures.
We may raise additional financing through public or private equity offerings, debt financings or
additional corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements. To the extent we raise additional
capital by issuing equity securities, our
40
stockholders may experience dilution. To the extent that we raise additional funds through
collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our
technologies or products, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate
funds are not available, we will not be able to continue developing our products.
If Demand For Our Products Increases More Quickly Than We Expect, We May Be Unable To Meet Our
Customers Requirements.
If demand for our products increases, the difficulty of
accurately forecasting our customers requirements and meeting these requirements will increase.
For example, we had insufficient quantities of certain products to meet customer demand late in the
second quarter of 2006 and, as a result, our revenues were lower than internal and external
expectations. Forecasting to meet customers needs and
effectively managing our supply chain is particularly difficult in connection with
newer products. Our ability to meet customer demand depends significantly on the availability of
components and other materials as well as the ability of our contract manufacturers to scale their
production. Furthermore, we purchase several key components, subassemblies and modules used in the
manufacture or integration of our products from sole or limited sources. Our ability to meet
customer requirements depends in part on our ability to obtain sufficient volumes of these
materials in a timely fashion. Also, in recent years, in response to lower net sales and the
prolonged economic recession, we significantly reduced our headcount and other expenses. As a
result, we may be unable to respond to customer demand that increases more quickly than we expect.
If we fail to meet customers supply expectations, our net sales would be adversely affected and we
may lose business.
We Must Be Able To Manage Expenses And Inventory Risks Associated With Meeting The Demand Of Our
Customers.
If actual orders are materially lower than the indications we receive from our customers, our
ability to manage inventory and expenses may be affected. If we enter into purchase commitments to
acquire materials, or expend resources to manufacture products, and such products are not purchased
by our customers, our business and operating results could suffer. In this regard, our gross
margins and operating results have been in the past adversely affected by significant charges for
excess and obsolete inventories.
In addition, the Company must carefully manage the introduction of next generation products in
order to balance potential inventory risks associated with excess quantities of older product lines
and forecasts of customer demand for new products. For example, in 2005, we wrote down
approximately $8.4 million for obsolete and excess inventory, with a major portion of the
write-down being the result of product transitions in certain product lines. There can be no
assurance that the Company will be able to manage these product transitions in the future without
incurring write-downs for excess inventory or having inadequate supplies of new products to meet
customer expectations.
We Purchase Several Key Components, Subassemblies And Modules Used In The Manufacture Or
Integration Of Our Products From Sole Or Limited Sources, And We Are Increasingly Dependent On
Contract Manufacturers.
Many components, subassemblies and modules necessary for the manufacture or integration of our
products are obtained from a sole supplier or a limited group of suppliers. For example, we depend
on LSI Logic for video encoding chips. Our reliance on sole or limited suppliers, particularly
foreign suppliers, and our increased reliance on subcontractors since the merger with C-Cube
involves several risks, including a potential inability to obtain an adequate supply of required
components, subassemblies or modules and reduced control over pricing, quality and timely delivery
of components, subassemblies or modules. In particular, certain optical components have in the past
been in short supply and are available only from a small number of suppliers, including sole source
suppliers. While we expend resources to qualify additional optical component sources, consolidation
of suppliers in the industry and the small number of viable alternatives have limited the results
of these efforts. We do not generally maintain long-term agreements with any of our suppliers.
Managing our supplier and contractor relationships is particularly difficult during time periods in
which we introduce new products and during time periods in which demand for our products is
increasing, especially if demand increases more quickly than we expect. Furthermore, from time to
time we assess our relationship with our contract manufacturers. In late 2003, we entered into a
three-year agreement
41
with Plexus Services Corp. as our primary contract manufacturer. This agreement has automatic
annual renewals unless prior notice is given.
Difficulties in managing relationships with current contract manufacturers, could impede our
ability to meet our customers requirements and adversely affect our operating results. An
inability to obtain adequate deliveries or any other circumstance that would require us to seek
alternative sources of supply could negatively affect our ability to ship our products on a timely
basis, which could damage relationships with current and prospective customers and harm our
business. We attempt to limit this risk by maintaining safety stocks of certain components,
subassemblies and modules. As a result of this investment in inventories, we have in the past and
in the future may be subject to risk of excess and obsolete inventories, which could harm our
business, operating results, financial position and liquidity. In this regard, our gross margins
and operating results in the past were adversely affected by significant excess and obsolete
inventory charges.
We Need To Effectively Manage Our Operations And The Cyclical Nature Of Our Business.
The cyclical nature of our business has placed, and is expected to continue to place, a significant
strain on our personnel, management and other resources. We reduced our work force by approximately
44% between December 31, 2000 and December 31, 2003 due to reduced industry spending and demand for
our products. If demand for products increases significantly, we may need to increase our
headcount, as we did during 2004, adding 33 employees. In the first quarter of 2005, we added 42
employees in connection with our acquisition of BTL, and in connection with the consolidation of
our two operating divisions in December 2005, we reduced our workforce by approximately 40
employees. Our ability to manage our business effectively in the future, including any future
growth, will require us to train, motivate and manage our employees successfully, to attract and
integrate new employees into our overall operations, to retain key employees and to continue to
improve our operational, financial and management systems.
We May Be Materially Affected By The WEEE And RoHS Directives.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have finalized the Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, which became effective in August 2005, which regulates
the collection, recovery, and recycling of waste from electrical and electronic products, and the
Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(RoHS) directive, which became effective in July 2006, which bans the use of certain hazardous
materials including lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and polybrominated biphenyls
(PBBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) that exceed certain specified levels. Under
WEEE, we are responsible for financing operations for the collection, treatment, disposal, and
recycling of past and future covered products that we produce. In addition, we may not have
saleable inventory located within the EU that can be sold to customers due to import restrictions
which could result in unfulfilled sales orders. We cannot assure you that compliance with WEEE and
RoHS will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
We Are Liable For C-Cubes Pre-Merger Tax Liabilities, Including Tax Liabilities Resulting From The
Spin-Off Of Its Semiconductor Business.
Under the terms of the merger agreement with C-Cube, Harmonic is generally liable for C-Cubes
pre-merger tax liabilities. As of June 30, 2006, approximately $10.0 million of pre-merger tax
liabilities remained outstanding and are included in accrued liabilities. We are working with LSI
Logic, which acquired C-Cubes spun-off semiconductor business in June 2001 and assumed its
obligations, to develop an approach to settle these obligations, a process which has been underway
since the merger in 2000. These liabilities represent estimates of C-Cubes pre-merger tax
obligations to various tax authorities in 11 countries. Harmonic paid $5.8 million of these tax
obligations in February 2005, but is unable to predict when the remaining tax obligations will be
paid, or in what amount. The full amount of the estimated obligation has been classified as a
current liability. To the extent that these obligations are finally settled for less than the
amounts provided, Harmonic is required, under the terms of the merger agreement, to refund the
difference to LSI Logic. Conversely, if the settlements are more than the $10.0 million pre-merger
tax liability after the February 2005 payments, LSI Logic is obligated to reimburse Harmonic.
42
The merger agreement stipulates that Harmonic will be indemnified by the spun-off semiconductor
business if the cash reserves are not sufficient to satisfy all of C-Cubes tax liabilities for
periods prior to the merger. If for any reason, the spun-off semiconductor business does not have
sufficient cash to pay such taxes, or if there are additional taxes due with respect to the
non-semiconductor business and Harmonic cannot be indemnified by LSI Logic, Harmonic generally will
remain liable, and such liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.
We May Be Subject To Risks Associated With Acquisitions.
We have made, continue to consider making and may make investments in complementary companies,
products or technologies. For example, on February 25, 2005, we acquired all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Broadcast Technology Ltd., a private U.K. company. In connection with this
and other acquisition transactions, we could have difficulty assimilating or retaining the acquired
companies key personnel and operations, integrating the acquired technology or products into ours
or complying with internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a result of an
acquisition. We also may face challenges in achieving the strategic objectives, cost savings or
other benefits from these acquisitions and difficulties in expanding our management information
systems to accommodate the acquired business. These difficulties could disrupt our ongoing
business, distract our management and employees and significantly increase our expenses. Moreover,
our operating results may suffer because of acquisition-related expenses, amortization of
intangible assets and impairment of acquired goodwill or intangible assets. Furthermore, we may
have to incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for any future acquisitions, or to provide for
additional working capital requirements, the issuance of which could be dilutive to our existing
shareholders. If we are unable to successfully address any of these risks, our business, financial
condition or operating results could be harmed.
Cessation Of The Development And Production Of Video Encoding Chips By C-Cubes Spun-off
Semiconductor Business May Adversely Impact Us.
The DiviCom business and C-Cube semiconductor business (acquired by LSI Logic in June 2001)
collaborated on the production and development of two video encoding microelectronic chips prior to
the merger. In connection with the merger, Harmonic and the spun-off semiconductor business entered
into a contractual relationship under which Harmonic has access to certain of the spun-off
semiconductor business technologies and products on which the DiviCom business previously depended
for its product and service offerings. The current term of this agreement is through October 2006,
with automatic annual renewal unless terminated by either party in accordance with the agreement
provisions. The spun-off semiconductor business is the sole supplier of these chips to Harmonic.
Several of these products continue to be important to our business, and we have incorporated these
chips into additional products that we have developed. If the spun-off semiconductor business is
not able to or does not sustain its development and production efforts in this area our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could be harmed.
Our Failure To Adequately Protect Our Proprietary Rights May Adversely Affect Us.
We currently hold 38 issued U.S. patents and 19 issued foreign patents, and have a number of patent
applications pending. Although we attempt to protect our intellectual property rights through
patents, trademarks, copyrights, licensing arrangements, maintaining certain technology as trade
secrets and other measures, we cannot assure you that any patent, trademark, copyright or other
intellectual property rights owned by us will not be invalidated, circumvented or challenged, that
such intellectual property rights will provide competitive advantages to us or that any of our
pending or future patent applications will be issued with the scope of the claims sought by us, if
at all. We cannot assure you that others will not develop technologies that are similar or superior
to our technology, duplicate our technology or design around the patents that we own. In addition,
effective patent, copyright and trade secret protection may be unavailable or limited in certain
foreign countries in which we do business or may do business in the future.
We believe that patents and patent applications are not currently significant to our business, and
investors therefore should not rely on our patent portfolio to give us a competitive advantage over
others in our industry. We believe that the future success of our business will depend on our
ability to translate the technological expertise and innovation of our personnel into new and
enhanced products. We generally enter into confidentiality or license
43
agreements with our employees, consultants, vendors and customers as needed, and generally limit
access to and distribution of our proprietary information. Nevertheless, we cannot assure you that
the steps taken by us will prevent misappropriation of our technology. In addition, we have taken
in the past, and may take in the future, legal action to enforce our patents and other intellectual
property rights, to protect our trade secrets, to determine the validity and scope of the
proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of infringement or invalidity. Such
litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could negatively affect
our business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
In order to successfully develop and market certain of our planned products for digital
applications, we may be required to enter into technology development or licensing agreements with
third parties. Although many companies are often willing to enter into technology development or
licensing agreements, we cannot assure you that such agreements will be negotiated on terms
acceptable to us, or at all. The failure to enter into technology development or licensing
agreements, when necessary, could limit our ability to develop and market new products and could
cause our business to suffer.
We Or Our Customers May Face Intellectual Property Infringement Claims From Third Parties.
Harmonics industry is characterized by the existence of a large number of patents and frequent
claims and related litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. In
particular, leading companies in the telecommunications industry have extensive patent portfolios.
From time to time, third parties, including these leading companies, have asserted and may assert
exclusive patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights against us or our
customers. Indeed, a number of third parties, including leading companies, have asserted patent
rights to technologies that are important to us.
On July 3, 2003, Stanford University and Litton Systems filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that optical fiber amplifiers incorporated into
certain of Harmonics products infringe U.S. Patent No. 4859016. This patent expired in September
2003. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, royalties and damages. Harmonic has not been served in
the case. At this time, we are unable to determine whether we will be able to settle this
litigation on reasonable terms or at all, nor can we predict the impact of an adverse outcome of
this litigation if we elect to defend against it. No estimate can be made of the possible range of
loss associated with the resolution of this contingency and accordingly, we have not recorded a
liability associated with the outcome of a negotiated settlement or an unfavorable verdict in
litigation. An unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
Our suppliers and customers may receive similar claims. We have agreed to indemnify some of our
suppliers and customers for alleged patent infringement. The scope of this indemnity varies, but,
in some instances, includes indemnification for damages and expenses (including reasonable
attorneys fees).
We Are The Subject Of Securities Class Action Claims And Other Litigation Which, If Adversely
Determined, Could Harm Our Business And Operating Results.
Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by Harmonic and certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no longer with
Harmonic) were filed in or removed to the United States District Court (the District Court) for
the Northern District of California. The actions subsequently were consolidated.
A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased Harmonics publicly traded securities between January 19 and June 26, 2000.
The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube
securities between January 19 and May 3, 2000. In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers
and directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants. The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonics prospects and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) by filing a
false or misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the
C-Cube acquisition.
44
On July 3, 2001, the District Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. An
amended complaint alleging the same claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13,
2001. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 24, 2001. On November 13,
2002, the District Court issued an opinion granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint
without leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December 2, 2002. On December 12,
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 6, 2003, the
District Court denied plaintiffs motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003. The appeal was heard by a panel of
three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit) on
February 17, 2005.
On November 8, 2005, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for
further proceedings the decision of the District Court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs fraud claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their
allegations of fraud. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, however, finding that those claims did
not allege fraud and therefore were subject to only minimal pleading standards. Regarding the
secondary liability claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act, the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal of that claim against Anthony J. Ley, Harmonics Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and affirmed the dismissal of that claim against Harmonic, while granting leave to amend. The Ninth
Circuit remanded the surviving claims to the District Court for further proceedings.
On November 22, 2005, both the Harmonic defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit
for a rehearing of the appeal. On February 16, 2006 the Ninth Circuit denied both petitions. On May
17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on the issues remanded for further proceedings
by the Ninth Circuit, to which the Harmonic defendants responded on June 23, 2006 with a Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiffs opposition was filed on July 24, 2006, and the defendants are due to reply
by August 11, 2006. There will be no hearing unless the Court requests one.
A derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed against its then-current
directors in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on September 5, 2000. Harmonic also
was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint is based on allegations similar to those found in
the securities class action and claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, causing Harmonic to violate federal securities laws. The derivative action was
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September
20, 2000. All deadlines in this action were stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss the
securities class action. On July 29, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to dismiss
this derivative action without prejudice and to toll the applicable limitations period pending the
Ninth Circuits decision in the securities action. Pursuant to the stipulation, defendants have
provided plaintiff with a copy of the mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit in the securities action.
A second derivative action purporting to be on behalf of Harmonic was filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Santa Clara on May 15, 2003. It alleges facts similar to those previously alleged
in the securities class action and the federal derivative action. The complaint names as defendants
former and current Harmonic officers and directors, along with former officers and directors of
C-Cube Microsystems, Inc., who were named in the securities class action. The complaint also names
Harmonic as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges claims for abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the Harmonic defendants, and claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against all defendants. On
July 22, 2003, the Court approved the parties stipulation to stay the case pending resolution of
the appeal in the securities class action. Following the decision of
the Ninth Circuit discussed above, on May 9,
2006, defendants filed demurrers to this complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint
on July 10, 2006, which names only the Harmonic defendants. A schedule for briefing and a hearing
on the amended complaint has been established through November 2006. On July 11, 2006, the
plaintiffs served requests for discovery, to which the defendants responses are due by August 15,
2006.
Based on its review of the surviving claims in the securities class actions, Harmonic believes that
it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. There can be no assurance,
however, that Harmonic will prevail.
45
No estimate can be made of the possible range of loss associated with the resolution of each of
these claims, and, accordingly, Harmonic has not recorded a liability. An unfavorable outcome of
any of these litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on Harmonics business,
operating results, financial position or cash flows.
On July 3, 2003, Stanford University and Litton Systems filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that optical fiber amplifiers incorporated into
certain of Harmonics products infringe U.S. Patent No. 4859016. This patent expired in September
2003. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, royalties and damages. Harmonic has not been served in
the case. At this time, we are unable to determine whether we will be able to settle this
litigation on reasonable terms or at all, nor can we predict the impact of an adverse outcome of
this litigation if we elect to defend against it. No estimate can be made of the possible range of
loss associated with the resolution of this contingency and accordingly, we have not recorded a
liability associated with the outcome of a negotiated settlement or an unfavorable verdict in
litigation. An unfavorable outcome of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
Harmonics business, operating results, financial position or cash flows.
The Terrorist Attacks Of 2001 And The Ongoing Threat Of Terrorism Have Created Great Uncertainty
And May Continue To Harm Our Business.
Current conditions in the U.S. and global economies are uncertain. The terrorist attacks in 2001
created many economic and political uncertainties that have severely impacted the global economy.
We experienced a further decline in demand for our products after the attacks. The long-term
effects of the attacks, the situation in Iraq and the ongoing war on terrorism on our business and
on the global economy remain unknown. Moreover, the potential for future terrorist attacks has
created additional uncertainty and makes it difficult to estimate the stability and strength of the
U.S. and other economies and the impact of economic conditions on our business.
We Rely On A Continuous Power Supply To Conduct Our Operations, And Any Electrical And Natural Gas
Crisis Could Disrupt Our Operations And Increase Our Expenses.
We rely on a continuous power supply for manufacturing and to conduct our business operations.
Interruptions in electrical power supplies in California in the early part of 2001 could recur in
the future. For example, extremely hot weather in recent weeks has pushed power capacity close to
its limits. In addition, the cost of electricity and natural gas has risen significantly. Power
outages could disrupt our manufacturing and business operations and those of many of our suppliers,
and could cause us to fail to meet production schedules and commitments to customers and other
third parties. Any disruption to our operations or those of our suppliers could result in damage to
our current and prospective business relationships and could result in lost revenue and additional
expenses, thereby harming our business and operating results.
The Markets In Which We, Our Customers And Suppliers Operate Are Subject To The Risk Of Earthquakes
And Other Natural Disasters.
Our headquarters and the majority of our operations are located in California, which is prone to
earthquakes, and some of the other locations in which we, our customers and suppliers conduct
business are prone to natural disasters. In the event that any of our business centers are affected
by any such disasters, we may sustain damage to our operations and properties and suffer
significant financial losses. Furthermore, we rely on third party manufacturers for the production
of many of our products, and any disruption in the business or operations of such manufacturers
could adversely impact our business. In addition, if there is a major earthquake or other natural
disaster in any of the locations in which our significant customers are located, we face the risk
that our customers may incur losses, or sustained business interruption and/or loss which may
materially impair their ability to continue their purchase of products from us. A major earthquake
or other natural disaster in the markets in which we, our customers or suppliers operate could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our Stock Price May Be Volatile.
The market price of our common stock has fluctuated significantly in the past, and is likely to
fluctuate in the future. In addition, the securities markets have experienced significant price and
volume fluctuations and the market prices of the securities of technology companies have been
especially volatile. Investors may be unable to resell their
46
shares of our common stock at or above their purchase price. In the past, companies that have
experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been the object of securities class
action litigation.
Some Anti-Takeover Provisions Contained In Our Certificate Of Incorporation, Bylaws And Stockholder
Rights Plan, As Well As Provisions Of Delaware Law, Could Impair A Takeover Attempt.
Harmonic has provisions in its certificate of incorporation and bylaws, each of which could have
the effect of rendering more difficult or discouraging an acquisition deemed undesirable by the
Harmonic Board of Directors. These include provisions:
§ |
|
authorizing blank check preferred stock, which could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights
superior to Harmonic common stock; |
|
§ |
|
limiting the liability of, and providing indemnification to, directors and officers; |
|
§ |
|
limiting the ability of Harmonic stockholders to call and bring business before special meetings; |
|
§ |
|
requiring advance notice of stockholder proposals for business to be conducted at meetings of Harmonic stockholders and
for nominations of candidates for election to the Harmonic Board of Directors; |
|
§ |
|
controlling the procedures for conduct and scheduling of Board and stockholder meetings; and |
|
§ |
|
providing the board of directors with the express power to postpone previously scheduled annual meetings and to cancel
previously scheduled special meetings. |
These provisions, alone or together, could delay hostile takeovers and changes in control or
management of Harmonic.
In addition, Harmonic has adopted a stockholder rights plan. The rights are not intended to prevent
a takeover of Harmonic, and we believe these rights will help Harmonics negotiations with any
potential acquirers. However, if the Board of Directors believes that a particular acquisition is
undesirable, the rights may have the effect of rendering more difficult or discouraging that
acquisition. The rights would cause substantial dilution to a person or group that attempts to
acquire Harmonic on terms or in a manner not approved by the Harmonic Board of Directors, except
pursuant to an offer conditioned upon redemption of the rights.
As a Delaware corporation, Harmonic also is subject to provisions of Delaware law, including
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation law, which prevents some stockholders holding more
than 15% of our outstanding common stock from engaging in certain business combinations without
approval of the holders of substantially all of our outstanding common stock.
Any provision of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, our stockholder rights plan or
Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the
opportunity for Harmonic stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of Harmonic common
stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for Harmonic common
stock.
Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
None.
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
None.
47
Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
At the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company, held on June 28, 2006, the following matters
were acted upon by the stockholders of the Company:
1. |
|
The election of Anthony J. Ley, Patrick J. Harshman, E. Floyd Kvamme, William F. Reddersen,
Lewis Solomon, Michel L. Vaillaud, and David R. Van Valkenburg as directors of the Company,
each to hold office for a one-year term or until a successor is elected and qualified; |
|
2. |
|
Approval of amendments to the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan to reduce the term of future
offering periods to six months and increase the number of shares of common stock available for
issuance thereunder by 2,000,000 shares; |
|
3. |
|
Approval of amendments to the 2002 Director Option Plan to
increase the maximum number of shares which may become subject to options and sold under the Director Option Plan by an
additional 300,000 shares and reduce the term of future options granted under the Director
Option Plan to seven years; and |
|
4. |
|
Ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent registered
public accounting firm of the Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. |
The number of shares of Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting was
74,168,674 and 67,737,107 shares were represented in person or by proxy. The results of the voting
on each of the matters presented to stockholders at the Annual Meeting are set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Votes For |
|
Votes Withheld |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal 1 Election of Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony J. Ley |
|
|
61,588,093 |
|
|
|
6,149,014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick J. Harshman |
|
|
62,418,662 |
|
|
|
5,318,445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Floyd Kvamme |
|
|
62,178,321 |
|
|
|
5,558,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William F. Reddersen |
|
|
62,539,290 |
|
|
|
5,197,817 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis Solomon |
|
|
59,686,029 |
|
|
|
8,051,078 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michel L. Vaillaud |
|
|
62,377,741 |
|
|
|
5,359,366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David R. Van Valkenburg |
|
|
62,394,481 |
|
|
|
5,342,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Votes For |
|
Votes Against |
|
Abstain |
|
Broker Non-Vote |
|
Proposal 2
2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Amendments |
|
|
26,331,555 |
|
|
|
6,364,515 |
|
|
|
1,121,191 |
|
|
33,919,846 |
|
Proposal 3
2002 Director Option Plan Amendments |
|
|
25,296,600 |
|
|
|
7,369,749 |
|
|
|
1,150,912 |
|
|
33,919,846 |
|
Proposal 4
Ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|
|
66,420,092 |
|
|
|
1,158,434 |
|
|
|
158,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
Item 5. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
Item 6. EXHIBITS
Exhibits.
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
Exhibit |
31.1
|
|
Section 302 Certification of Principal Executive Officer |
31.2
|
|
Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer |
32.1
|
|
Section 906 Certification of Principal Executive Officer |
32.2
|
|
Section 906 Certification of Principal Financial Officer |
48
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Act of 1934, the Registrant,
Harmonic Inc., a Delaware corporation, has duly caused this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Sunnyvale, State
of California, on August 9, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HARMONIC INC.
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ Robin N. Dickson
|
|
|
|
Robin N. Dickson |
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
49
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
Exhibit Index |
31.1
|
|
Section 302 Certification of Principal Executive Officer |
31.2
|
|
Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer |
32.1
|
|
Section 906 Certification of Principal Executive Officer |
32.2
|
|
Section 906 Certification of Principal Financial Officer |
exv31w1
Exhibit 31.1
Harmonic Inc.
Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Patrick J. Harshman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Harmonic Inc., certify that:
1. |
|
I have reviewed this report of Harmonic Inc.: |
|
2. |
|
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; |
|
3. |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; |
|
4. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|
a) |
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles; |
|
|
c) |
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and |
|
|
d) |
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): |
|
a) |
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and |
|
|
b) |
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: August 9, 2006 |
By: |
/s/Patrick J. Harshman
|
|
|
|
Patrick J. Harshman |
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
exv31w2
Exhibit 31.2
Harmonic Inc.
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Robin N. Dickson, Principal Financial Officer of Harmonic Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report of Harmonic Inc.:
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
|
a) |
|
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles; |
|
|
c) |
|
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and |
|
|
d) |
|
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and |
5. |
|
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): |
|
a) |
|
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and |
|
|
b) |
|
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: August 9, 2006 |
By: |
/s/Robin N. Dickson
|
|
|
|
Robin N. Dickson |
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
exv32w1
Exhibit 32.1
Harmonic Inc.
Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
As of the date hereof, I, Patrick J. Harshman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Harmonic
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for
the quarter year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This written statement
is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying such Report
and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Date:
August 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Patrick J. Harshman
|
|
|
Patrick J. Harshman |
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
exv32w2
Exhibit 32.2
Harmonic Inc.
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
As of the date hereof, I, Robin N. Dickson, Chief Financial Officer of Harmonic Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying such Report and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Date:
August 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robin N. Dickson
|
|
|
Robin N. Dickson |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|