Form 10-K
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the year ended January 31, 2008
Commission File Number 000-49790
VERINT SYSTEMS INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
11-3200514 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Identification No.) |
330 South Service Road, Melville, New York 11747
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (631) 962-9600
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Name of each exchange |
Title of each class
|
|
on which registered |
|
|
|
None
|
|
None |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, $.001 par value per share
Title of class
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of
the Securities Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark
whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate
Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and
posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
submit and post such files). Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in
definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of large accelerated
filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant,
based on the
closing price for the registrants common stock on the Pink OTC Markets Inc. on the last business day of the
registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter (July 31, 2009)
was approximately $164,219,172.
There were 32,529,594 shares of the registrants common stock
outstanding on February 28, 2010.
Cautionary Note on Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements discussed in this report constitute forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the provisions of Section 27A of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act) (which Sections were adopted as part of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995). Forward-looking statements include financial projections,
statements of plans and objectives for future operations, statements of future economic
performance, and statements of assumptions relating thereto. Forward-looking statements are often
identified by future or conditional words such as will, plans, expects, intends,
believes, seeks, estimates, or anticipates, or by variations of such words or by similar
expressions. There can be no assurances that forward-looking statements will be achieved. By
their very nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and
other important factors that could cause our actual results or performance to differ materially
from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important risks,
uncertainties, and other factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from our
forward-looking statements include, among others:
|
|
|
risks relating to the filing of our Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
reports, including the occurrence of known contingencies or unforeseen events that could
delay our plan for completion of our outstanding financial
statements, management distraction, and significant expense; |
|
|
|
risk associated with the SECs initiation of an
administrative proceeding on March 3, 2010 to suspend or revoke the registration
of our common stock under the Exchange Act due to our previous failure to file
an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since April 25, 2005 or
quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since
December 12, 2005; |
|
|
|
|
risks that the delay in the filing of this report, our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended January 31, 2009, and the Quarterly Reports for each of the
quarters ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009 may cause us to be
delayed in the completion of the audit relating to, and timely filing of our Annual
Report for, the year ended January 31, 2010, which may cause us to not be in
compliance with the financial statement delivery requirements of our credit
facility and result in an event of default thereunder; |
|
|
|
|
risks related to the announcement by Standard &
Poors (S&P) on January 29, 2010 that our credit rating
had been placed on CreditWatch Developing, or that S&P or Moodys could
downgrade our credit ratings; |
|
|
|
risks associated with being a consolidated, controlled
subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. (Comverse) and formerly part of Comverses consolidated tax group,
including risk of any future impact on us resulting from Comverses special committee
investigation and restatement or related effects, and risks related
to our dependence on Comverse to provide us with accurate financial
information, including with respect to stock-based
compensation expense and net operating loss carryforwards
(NOLs) for our financial statements; |
|
|
|
uncertainty regarding the impact of general economic conditions, particularly in
information technology spending, on our business; |
|
|
|
risk that our financial results will cause us not to be compliant with the leverage
ratio covenant under our credit facility; |
|
|
|
risk that customers or partners delay or cancel orders or are unable to honor
contractual commitments due to liquidity issues, challenges in their business, or
otherwise; |
|
|
|
risk that we will experience liquidity or working capital issues and related risk that
financing sources will be unavailable to us on reasonable terms or at all; |
|
|
|
uncertainty regarding the future impact on our business of our internal investigation,
restatement, extended filing delay, and the SECs administrative proceeding, including customer, partner, employee, and investor
concern and potential customer and partner transaction deferrals or losses; |
|
|
|
risks relating to the remediation or inability to adequately remediate internal control
weaknesses and to the proper application of highly complex accounting rules and
pronouncements in order to produce accurate SEC reports on a timely basis;
|
iii
|
|
|
risks relating to our implementation and maintenance of adequate systems and internal
controls for our current and future operations and reporting needs; |
|
|
|
risk of possible future restatements if the special processes
being used to prepare the
financial statements contained in this report or the regular recurring processes that will
be used to produce future SEC reports are inadequate; |
|
|
|
risk associated with current or future regulatory actions or private litigations
relating to our internal investigation, restatement, or delay in timely making required SEC
filings; |
|
|
|
risk that we will be unable to re-list our common stock on a national securities
exchange and maintain such listing; |
|
|
|
risks associated with Comverse controlling our board of directors and a majority of our
common stock (and therefore the results of any significant stockholder vote); |
|
|
|
risks associated with significant leverage resulting from our current debt position; |
|
|
|
risks due to aggressive competition in all of our markets, including with respect to
maintaining margins and sufficient levels of investment in the business and with respect to
introducing quality products which achieve market acceptance; |
|
|
|
risks created by continued consolidation of competitors or introduction of large
competitors in our markets with greater resources than us; |
|
|
|
risks associated with significant foreign and international operations, including
exposure to fluctuations in exchange rates; |
|
|
|
risks associated with complex and changing local and foreign regulatory environments; |
|
|
|
risks associated with our ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in all
geographies in which we operate; |
|
|
|
challenges in accurately forecasting revenue and expenses; |
|
|
|
risks associated with acquisitions and related system integrations;
|
iv
|
|
|
risks relating to our ability to improve our infrastructure to support growth; |
|
|
|
risks that our intellectual property rights may not be adequate to protect our business
or that others may make claims on our intellectual property or claim infringement on their
intellectual property rights; |
|
|
|
risks associated with a significant amount of our business coming from domestic and
foreign government customers; |
|
|
|
risk that we improperly handle sensitive or confidential information or perception of
such mishandling; |
|
|
|
risks associated with dependence on a limited number of suppliers for certain components
of our products; |
|
|
|
risk that we are unable to maintain and enhance relationships with key resellers,
partners, and systems integrators; and |
|
|
|
risk that use of our NOLs or other tax benefits may be restricted or
eliminated in the future. |
These risks and uncertainties, as well as other factors, are discussed in greater detail in Risk
Factors under Item 1A of this report. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on
forward-looking statements, which reflect our managements view only as of the filing date of this
report. We make no commitment to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order
to reflect events or circumstances after the date any such statement is made, except as otherwise
required under the federal securities laws. If we were in any particular instance to update or
correct a forward-looking statement, investors and others should not conclude that we would make
additional updates or corrections thereafter except as otherwise required under the federal
securities laws.
Explanatory Note
General. This is the first periodic report of Verint Systems Inc. (together with its
consolidated subsidiaries, Verint, the Company, we, us, and our, unless the context
indicates otherwise) covering periods after October 31, 2005. Readers should be aware that several
aspects of this report differ from other annual reports. First, this report is for each of the
years ended January 31, 2008, January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2006, in lieu of filing separate
reports for each of those years. Second, because of the amount of time that has passed since our
last periodic report was filed with the SEC and the significant changes we have made to our
business in the interim (including the acquisition of Witness Systems, Inc. (Witness) in May
2007), the information relating to our business and related matters is focused on our more recent
periods and also includes certain information for periods after January 31, 2008. Finally, in this
report, we are restating certain items and making other corrective adjustments to certain of our
previously filed historical financial statements and related information resulting from the
accounting reviews and internal investigation referenced below. We intend to file, as soon as
practicable, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009 and our Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q for each of the quarters ended April 30, 2009, July 31, 2009, and October 31,
2009.
v
We have not amended and do not intend to amend any of our previously filed Annual Reports on Form
10-K or Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods affected by the restatements or corrections
of our financial statements. Instead, we are only restating and correcting the selected financial
data for the years ended January 31, 2005 and January 31, 2004 that are included in this report
in Selected Financial Data
under Item 6. Accordingly, as disclosed in our Current Reports on Form 8-K dated November 5, 2007
and April 17, 2006, the consolidated financial statements and related financial information
contained in previously filed financial reports, including all financial information furnished on
Form 8-K and any related reports of our independent registered public accounting firm, should no
longer be relied upon. We also do not intend to file the Current Reports on Form 8-K/A in respect
of the acquisitions of Witness and the networked video security business of MultiVision
Intelligent Surveillance Limited. We also do not intend to file the Quarterly Reports for any of
the quarters for the years ended January 31, 2007 and January 31, 2008, although we have included
certain quarterly disclosures for those quarters in this report. See Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Selected Quarterly Results of
Operations under Item 7. We intend to include similar disclosures for the 2008 quarterly periods
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009 that we will file as soon as
practicable after the date of this report. This Annual Report on Form
10-K supersedes the information provided in our Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on February 3, 2010, including the
preliminary unaudited financial information and the notes thereto
included as Exhibit 99.2 in such Form 8-K.
Background
of the Restatement and Extended Filing Delay. This report has been delayed due to various accounting reviews and
an internal investigation, together with the resulting restatement of our previously filed
financial statements described in this report. We were initially delayed in the filing of our
periodic reports as a result of an investigation by our majority stockholder, Comverse, of its
improper stock option grant practices because we were dependent upon Comverse to provide us with
certain information regarding our stock-based compensation expenses relating to grants of Comverse
stock options made to our employees prior to our initial public offering (IPO). Following the
initiation of the Comverse investigation, we internally reviewed our own stock option grant
practices to determine whether the actual dates of measurement for any stock options granted by us
following our IPO differed from the recorded dates. In this report, we refer to our own stock
option grant review (which did not result in any adjustments) and the adjustments to stock based
compensation expenses relating to Comverse stock option grants (and related tax expenses) as Phase
I.
Our periodic reporting was further delayed after Comverse subsequently expanded its investigation
into certain non-option related accounting matters, including possible revenue recognition errors,
errors in recording of certain deferred tax assets, expense misclassification, misuse of accounting
reserves, and understatement of backlog. As a result of this expansion of the Comverse
investigation, our audit committee initiated its own internal investigation into certain of these
non-option accounting issues, including accounting reserves, income statement expense
classification and certain revenue recognition practices. In this report, we refer to our internal
investigation and adjustments relating to this investigation as Phase II.
vi
Separate and distinct from the Phase I review and the Phase II investigation, we also undertook a
review of our accounting treatment for revenue recognition under complex contractual arrangements
pursuant to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement of Position
(SOP) 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition (SOP 97-2), SOP 81-1, Accounting for Performance of
Construction-Type and Certain Production-Type Contracts (SOP 81-1), and related accounting
guidance. In this report, we refer to this review and related adjustments as the VSOE/revenue
recognition review.
All of the foregoing accounting reviews and the independent investigation have been completed,
including with respect to the periods covered by this report and the results have been reported to
our board of directors.
Additionally, we were delayed in filing our periodic reports
due to an unexpected recent change in the allocation of NOLs to us by Comverse for the year ended January 31, 2003 and earlier years (i.e., prior to our IPO).
Summary of Findings of the Reviews and the Internal Investigation. In connection with the Phase I
review, the Phase II investigation, and the VSOE/revenue recognition review, our management and
audit committee made certain findings, as more fully described in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Investigation and Restatement under
Item 7. A summary of the key findings is below:
|
|
|
Phase I No evidence of any differences between the actual dates of
measurement and the recorded dates of measurement with respect to Verint stock option
grants was discovered during the course of our management review. Although it was not the
focus of the Phase II investigation, our audit committee subsequently uncovered no
evidence of improper stock option backdating. As described below, Phase I adjustments
consist of tax related adjustments resulting from errors in Comverses stock-based
compensation accounting and additional stock-based compensation expense related to
Comverses grant of its options to our employees. |
|
|
|
Phase II Our audit committee found that prior to the year ended January 31,
2003, accounting reserves were intentionally overstated. In addition, our audit committee
found this practice of overstating reserves was not systemic within Verint but rather was
done on an ad hoc basis by a small number of employees, including our former Chief
Financial Officer and certain other former employees who directly or indirectly reported to
him. Following the recommendation of our audit committee, we terminated our relationship
with our former Chief Financial Officer and these other employees. Moreover, although this
practice of overstating reserves (and the subsequent release of these overstated reserves)
necessarily had an impact on our published earnings, our audit committee found no evidence
that the purpose of the individuals involved in overstating reserves was to cause any
particular effect on earnings. Rather, our audit committee found that the apparent intent
of these individuals in overstating reserves was to build a conservative reserve to protect
against unanticipated future expenses or erroneous judgments. Our audit committee also
concluded that the overstated reserves had resulted in large measure from a simple lack of
rigorous and diligent accounting. Our audit committee found no evidence indicating that
reserves were intentionally overstated in any period subsequent to the year ended January
31, 2003. |
vii
|
|
|
VSOE/revenue recognition review We found that the requirement to prepare
contemporaneous documentation analyzing and supporting the adoption of SOP 97-2 was not
adequately performed, that we had prepared limited documentation analyzing our initial and
ongoing compliance with SOP 97-2, that we had not appropriately determined whether VSOE of
fair value (as defined below) existed for undelivered elements, and that other errors had
been made in the recognition of revenue and cost of revenue related to many of our contracts. |
Summary of Financial Statements and Restatement Adjustments. As noted above, this report includes
audited consolidated financial statements with respect to the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007,
and 2006, none of which have been previously filed by us with the SEC. Additionally, we have
included in Selected Financial Data under Item 6 unaudited and restated financial information
with respect to certain items for each of the years ended January 31, 2005 and 2004. As described
more fully in this report, certain restatement adjustments affecting periods prior to the year
ended January 31, 2004 have been reflected as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained
earnings as of February 1, 2003. As set forth in the table below, with respect to Phase I, we are
also providing a reconciliation covering all affected periods by year, going back to the year ended
January 31, 1991.
The restatements and corrections of our consolidated financial statements included in this report
reflect:
|
|
|
additional stock-based compensation expense relating to grants by Comverse of options to
acquire Comverse common stock granted to our employees during the period from the year
ended January 31,1991 through our May 2002 IPO, during which time we were a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Comverse; |
|
|
|
tax-related adjustments resulting from errors in Comverses stock-based compensation
accounting; |
|
|
|
the correction of certain misstated reserves for periods through October 31, 2005; |
|
|
|
the reclassification of royalty and license fees from either selling, general
and administrative expense or research and development expense to cost of revenues for
periods prior to the year ended January 31, 2003; and |
|
|
|
corrections relating to revenue recognition (including correction of errors in
determining vendor specific objective evidence of fair value, or VSOE) under SOP 97-2,
and associated corrections to cost of revenue, deferred revenue, and deferred cost of
revenue, for periods from February 1, 2000 through October 31, 2005. |
viii
The following table summarizes the adjustments to our historical financial statements resulting
from the restatement.
As no financial statements for periods subsequent to the three months
ended October 31, 2005 have previously been filed by us as a result
of the various accounting reviews, there are no adjustments or
restatements for those periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Restatement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of |
|
|
Phase I |
|
|
Phase II |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Income Tax |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments, |
|
|
Effect of All |
|
|
Adjustments, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(1) |
|
|
(2) |
|
|
(3) |
|
|
(4) |
|
|
(5) |
|
|
Before Taxes |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Net of Taxes |
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) to Earnings |
|
Period: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on
February 1, 2003 opening
retained earnings |
|
$ |
(145,176 |
) |
|
$ |
54,479 |
|
|
$ |
(18,135 |
) |
|
$ |
4,376 |
|
|
$ |
1,064 |
|
|
$ |
(103,392 |
) |
|
$ |
2,197 |
|
|
$ |
(101,195 |
) |
Year ended January 31, 2004 |
|
|
(20,873 |
) |
|
|
10,421 |
|
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
(2,170 |
) |
|
|
1,235 |
|
|
|
(11,498 |
) |
|
|
(4,164 |
) |
|
|
(15,662 |
) |
Year ended January 31, 2005 |
|
|
(37,422 |
) |
|
|
7,234 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(1,486 |
) |
|
|
(353 |
) |
|
|
(32,084 |
) |
|
|
32,039 |
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on
February 1, 2005 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
(203,471 |
) |
|
|
72,134 |
|
|
|
(18,303 |
) |
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
1,946 |
|
|
|
(146,974 |
) |
|
|
30,072 |
|
|
|
(116,902 |
) |
Nine month period ended
October 31, 2005 |
|
|
(36,722 |
) |
|
|
11,611 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
626 |
|
|
|
(24,414 |
) |
|
|
2,736 |
|
|
|
(21,678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments |
|
$ |
(240,193 |
) |
|
$ |
83,745 |
|
|
$ |
(18,331 |
) |
|
$ |
819 |
|
|
$ |
2,572 |
|
|
$ |
(171,388 |
) |
|
$ |
32,808 |
|
|
$ |
(138,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Because they do not affect our reported income
(loss) before income tax and noncontrolling
interest or net income (loss) in any period, these restatement adjustments do not reflect
the impact of certain transactions now reported on a gross rather than net basis of
accounting. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes cost of revenue as well as certain operating costs that vary directly with
revenue. These adjustments do not reflect the impact of certain transactions now reported
on a gross rather than net basis of accounting. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase I review. Further details of these
adjustments by year are presented in the table below. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase II investigation, primarily relating
to impacts to reserves, as well as certain revenue recognition matters unrelated to our
VSOE/revenue recognition review and account classifications. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes adjustments to correct misstatements identified during our restatement process
that were not related to historical stock option practices, reserves, or revenue
recognition. |
As indicated in the above table, we have restated our reported revenue so that $240 million of
revenue that was previously reported through October 31, 2005 has been deferred into subsequent
periods. Below is an illustration of when the revenue recognition criteria will be met and
therefore how revenue deferred in the restatement is expected to be recognized, other than the
impact of foreign currency exchange rates on certain revenue now reported and translated into U.S.
Dollars in different accounting periods:
|
|
|
$26 million in the three-month period ended January 31, 2006; |
|
|
|
$84 million in the year ended January 31, 2007; |
|
|
|
$48 million in the year ended January 31, 2008; |
|
|
|
$34 million in the year ended January 31, 2009; |
|
|
|
$25 million in the year ended January 31, 2010; |
ix
|
|
|
$12 million in the year ending January 31, 2011; and |
|
|
|
$11 million thereafter. |
A breakdown of the adjustments by period relating to the Phase I review, to record stock-based
compensation expense, is provided below.
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Phase I Adjustments by Period |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended January 31, 1991 |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1992 |
|
|
5 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1993 |
|
|
94 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1994 |
|
|
34 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1995 |
|
|
95 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1996 |
|
|
171 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1997 |
|
|
184 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1998 |
|
|
15 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1999 |
|
|
393 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2000 |
|
|
2,147 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2001 |
|
|
5,829 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2002 |
|
|
3,881 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2003 |
|
|
5,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on February 1, 2003 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
18,135 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2004 |
|
|
111 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2005 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on February 1, 2005 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
18,303 |
|
Nine-month period ended October 31, 2005 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Adjustments |
|
$ |
18,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
x
For a detailed explanation of the impact of the restatements and corrections to certain of our
historical financial information for the year ended January 31, 2005 and the year ended January 31,
2004, see Selected Financial Data under Item 6. For a detailed discussion of the circumstances
giving rise to the delays in filing our periodic reports for periods following the quarter ended
October 31, 2005 and for additional information regarding the reviews and the internal
investigation, the findings of the reviews and the internal investigation, the accounting errors
identified and the related adjustments, see Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Investigation and Restatement under Item 7 and Note 2,
Correction of Errors in Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements to the consolidated
financial statements included in Item 15. For a full description of the material weaknesses in our
internal controls over financial reporting identified by management as a result of the reviews and
the internal investigation as well as managements remediation
efforts as of the filing date of this report, see Controls and Procedures under
Item 9A.
Remedial Efforts. As a result of the Phase I review, the Phase II investigation, the VSOE/revenue
recognition review, and our internal controls testing, we have identified the material weaknesses
set forth in Controls and Procedures under Item 9A and have implemented several remedial measures
relating to corporate governance, training, ethics and corporate culture, internal controls and
compliance. Such measures include:
|
|
|
establishing an Internal Audit Department, which reports directly to our audit
committee; |
|
|
|
updating our Employee Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and implementing a new Finance
and Accounting Code of Conduct that serves as a set of guiding principles emphasizing our
commitment to integrity in financial and accounting reporting, as well as transparency and
robust and complete communications with, and disclosures to, internal and external
auditors; |
|
|
|
revising and enhancing our revenue recognition policies and controls, including |
|
|
|
appointing a VP Finance and Global Revenue Controller and Regional
Revenue Controllers, and establishing a centralized revenue recognition department
to address complex revenue recognition matters and to provide oversight and
guidance on the design of controls and processes to enhance and standardize revenue
recognition accounting application; and |
|
|
|
designing and implementing enhanced information technology systems and
user applications, including a broader and more sophisticated implementation of our
Enterprise Resource Planning system; |
|
|
|
engaging external subject matter experts to assist in developing, implementing, and/or
enhancing accounting and finance-related policies and procedures, including |
|
|
|
advising on the accounting for and disclosure of stock-based
compensation matters; |
|
|
|
assisting in developing and implementing a formal remediation plan; and |
|
|
|
assisting in developing, implementing and/or enhancing revenue
recognition, account reconciliations, journal entry review/approval procedures,
end-user computing, fixed assets, and reserve and accrual analyses; |
xi
|
|
|
revising our policies and procedures regarding the manner in which transactions are to
be documented, the level of support required for documenting managements judgments and
related document retention procedures, including |
|
|
|
implementing a record retention program to centralize global finance
documentation in a standard repository; |
|
|
|
engaging external subject matter experts with specialized international
and consolidated income tax knowledge to assist in creating, implementing, and
documenting a consolidated tax process; and |
|
|
|
expanding our accounting policy and controls organization by creating and filling new
positions with qualified accounting and finance personnel including a new Chief Financial
Officer, a new Senior Vice President Finance and Corporate Controller, and a Vice President of Global Accounting
as well as creating the position of Chief Compliance Officer. |
Other Information. As a result of the delay in filing our periodic reports with the SEC, we were
unable to comply with the listing standards of NASDAQ and our common stock was suspended from
trading effective February 1, 2007 and formally de-listed effective June 4, 2007.
In connection
with our Phase I review and the internal investigation, on
April 9, 2008, as we previously reported, we received a Wells
Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the staffs investigation of our past stock option
grant practices and certain unrelated accounting matters. These accounting matters were also the subject of our internal investigation.
On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment permanently
enjoining us from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules
13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief beyond the entry
of a permanent injunction. The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC considered our
remediation and cooperation in the SECs investigation. The
settlement was approved by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on March 9, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file our
periodic reports under the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) pursuant to
Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an annual report
on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005.
An Administrative Law Judge will consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the OIP to issue an initial
decision within 120 days of service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including available procedural remedies
and intend to defend against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
xii
PART I
Item 1.
Business
As discussed under Explanatory Note, this report covers each of the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006. As such, the information relating to our business and related matters set
forth below includes information for each of those years. However, as a result of the gap in our
public financial reporting and the significant changes we have made to our business in the interim,
the information in this Item 1 focuses on our more recent periods and also includes certain
updated information for periods after January 31, 2008.
Our Company
Verint® Systems Inc. is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence® solutions
and value-added services. Our solutions enable organizations of all sizes to make timely and
effective decisions to improve enterprise performance and make the world a safer place. More than
10,000 organizations in over 150 countries including over 80%
of the Fortune 100 use Verint
solutions to capture, distill, and analyze complex and underused information sources, such as
voice, video, and unstructured text.
In the enterprise market, our workforce optimization solutions help organizations enhance customer
service operations in contact centers, branches, and back-office environments to increase customer
satisfaction, reduce operating costs, identify revenue opportunities, and improve profitability.
In the security intelligence market, our video intelligence, public safety, and communications
intelligence and investigative solutions are vital to government and commercial organizations in
their efforts to protect people and property and neutralize terrorism and crime.
Headquartered in Melville, New York, we support our customers around the globe directly and with an
extensive network of selling and support partners.
Actionable
Intelligence Markets Enterprise Workforce Optimization and Security Intelligence
We deliver our Actionable Intelligence solutions to the enterprise workforce optimization and
security intelligence markets across a wide range of industries, including financial services,
retail, healthcare, telecommunications, law enforcement, government, transportation, utilities, and
critical infrastructure. Much of the information available to organizations in these industries is
unstructured, residing in telephone conversations, video streams, Web pages, email, and other text
communications. Our advanced Actionable Intelligence solutions enable our customers to collect and
analyze large amounts of both structured and unstructured information in order to make better
decisions.
- 1 -
In the enterprise workforce optimization market, demand for our Actionable Intelligence solutions
is driven by organizations that seek to leverage unstructured information from customer
interactions and other customer-related data in order to optimize the performance of their customer
service operations, improve the customer experience, and enhance compliance. In the security
intelligence market, demand for our Actionable Intelligence solutions is driven by organizations
that seek to distill intelligence from a wide range of unstructured and structured information
sources in order to detect, investigate, and neutralize security threats.
We have established leadership positions in both the enterprise workforce optimization and security
intelligence markets by leveraging our core competency in developing highly scalable,
enterprise-class applications with advanced, integrated analytics for both unstructured and
structured information.
Company Background
We were incorporated in Delaware in February 1994 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse. Our
initial focus was on the commercial call recording market, which at the time was transitioning from
analog tape to digital recorders. In 1999, we expanded into the security market by combining with
another division of Comverse focused on the communications interception market. In 2001, we
further expanded our security offering into video security through a combination of our business
with Loronix® Information Systems, Inc., which had been previously acquired by Comverse.
In May 2002, we completed our IPO, and, today, Comverse holds approximately a 67% ownership
position in us (assuming conversion of all of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, par value
$0.001 per share, (preferred stock) into common stock). Since our IPO, we have acquired a number
of companies that have strengthened our position in both the enterprise workforce optimization and
security intelligence markets. Our largest acquisition was of Witness in May 2007,
which strengthened our leadership position in the enterprise workforce optimization market. For
further information regarding the Witness and other recent
acquisitions, see Recent Developments
Mergers and Acquisitions; Financings.
We participate in the enterprise workforce optimization and security intelligence markets through
three operating segments: Enterprise Workforce Optimization Solutions (Workforce Optimization),
Video Intelligence Solutions (Video Intelligence), and Communications Intelligence and
Investigative Solutions (Communications Intelligence), each of which is described in greater
detail below and in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations under Item 7. At the time of filing of our last annual report on Form 10-K, filed for
the year ended January 31, 2005, we conducted our business in a single operating segment. As a
result of developments relating to the management of our business subsequent to January 2005,
during a portion of the period of our extended filing delay, we disclosed that our business
operated in two segments. Following the May 25, 2007 acquisition of Witness and resulting changes
in our business as a whole, we concluded that our business was conducted in three separate
operating segments. All of the applicable financial information contained in this report for the
years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, is presented to reflect our three operating segments.
Please see also Note 18, Segment,
Geographic, and Significant Customer Information to the consolidated financial statements included
in Item 15 for additional information and financial data about each of our operating segments and
geographic regions.
- 2 -
Through our website at www.verint.com, we will make available our annual reports on Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and current reports on Form 8-K, as well as amendments to those
reports filed or furnished by us pursuant to Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Exchange Act free of charge, as soon as reasonably
practicable after we file such materials with the SEC. Any documents that we file with the SEC can
also be read and copied at the SECs Public Reference Room located at 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information. Our
filings are also available at the SECs website at www.sec.gov. Our website address set forth
above is not intended to be an active link and information on our website is not incorporated in,
and should not be construed to be a part of, this report.
The Enterprise Workforce Optimization Solutions Segment
We are a leading provider of enterprise workforce optimization software and services. Our
solutions enable organizations to extract and analyze valuable information from customer
interactions and related operational data in order to make more effective, proactive decisions for
optimizing the performance of their customer service operations, improving the customer experience,
and enhancing compliance. Marketed under the Impact 360® brand to contact centers, back
offices, branch and remote offices, and public safety centers, these solutions comprise a unified
suite of enterprise workforce optimization applications and services that include Internet Protocol
(IP) and legacy Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) voice recording and quality monitoring, speech
and data analytics, workforce management, customer feedback, eLearning and coaching, performance
management, and desktop productivity/application analysis. These applications can be deployed
stand-alone or in an integrated fashion.
The Workforce Optimization Market and Trends
We believe that customer service is being viewed more strategically than in the past, particularly
by organizations whose interactions with customers regarding sales and services take place
primarily through contact centers. Consistent with this trend, we believe organizations seek
solutions that enable them to strike a balance between driving sales, managing operating costs, and
delivering the optimal customer experience.
In order to make better decisions to achieve these goals, we believe that organizations
increasingly seek to leverage valuable data collected from customer interactions and associated
operational activities. However, customer service solutions have traditionally been deployed in
the contact center as stand-alone applications, which prevented information from being shared and
analyzed across multiple/related applications. These solutions also lacked functionality for
analyzing unstructured information, such as the content of phone calls and emails. As a result,
organizations historically based their customer service-related business decisions on a fraction of
the information available to them.
- 3 -
We believe that customer-centric organizations today seek unified, innovative enterprise workforce
optimization solutions delivered by a single vendor to better manage customer service operations
across the enterprise. We believe that the key business and technology trends driving demand for
workforce optimization solutions include:
Integration of Workforce Optimization Applications
We believe that organizations increasingly seek a unified enterprise workforce optimization suite
that includes call recording and quality monitoring, speech and data analytics, workforce
management, customer feedback, performance management, eLearning, and coaching, as well as
pre-defined business integrations. Such a unified workforce optimization suite can provide
business and financial benefits, create a foundation for continuous improvement through a closed
loop feedback process, and improve collaboration among various functions throughout the enterprise.
For example:
|
|
|
contact center managers can receive instant alerts when staff is out of adherence with
standards, monitor and record interactions to determine the cause, and act quickly to
correct the problem; |
|
|
|
supervisors can assign and deliver electronic learning material to staff desktops based
on training needs automatically identified from quality monitoring evaluation scores and
performance management scorecard metrics, and then track courses taken and new skills
acquired; and |
|
|
|
using integrated speech analytics with quality monitoring, our solutions can categorize
calls, allowing organizations to review the interactions that are most significant to the
business and identify the underlying causes of customer service issues. |
Additionally, by deploying an integrated workforce optimization suite with a single, unified
graphical user interface and common database, enterprises can achieve lower cost of ownership,
reduce hardware costs, simplify system administration, and streamline implementation and training.
An integrated workforce optimization suite also enables enterprises to interact with a single
vendor for sales and service and helps ensure seamless integration and update of all applications.
Greater Insight through Customer Interaction Analytics
We believe that enterprises are increasingly interested in deploying sophisticated customer
interaction analytics, particularly speech, data, and customer feedback analytics, for gaining a
better understanding of workforce performance, the customer experience, and the factors underlying
business trends in order to improve the performance of their customer service operations. Although
enterprises have recorded customer interactions for many years, most were able to extract
intelligence only by manually listening to calls, which generally could be done for only a small
percentage of all calls. Today, customer interaction analytics applications, such as speech and
data analytics, have evolved to automatically analyze and categorize customer interactions in order to detect patterns and trends that significantly impact the business.
Customer surveys included in a unified analytics suite help enterprises understand the
effectiveness of their employees, products, and processes directly from the customers perspective.
Together, these applications provide a new level of insight into such important areas as customer
satisfaction, customer behavior, and staff effectiveness, including the underlying cause of
business trends in these critical areas.
- 4 -
Adoption of Workforce Optimization Across the Enterprise
Workforce optimization solutions have traditionally been deployed in contact centers. However,
many customer service employees work in other areas of the enterprise, such as the back office and
branch and remote office locations. Today, we believe that certain enterprises show increased
interest in deploying certain workforce optimization applications, such as staff scheduling and
desktop activity management, outside the contact center to enable the same type of performance
measurement that has historically been available in the contact center, with the goal of improving
customer service and performance across the enterprise.
Migration to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Technologies
Many enterprises are replacing their contact centers legacy voice (TDM) infrastructures with VoIP
telephony infrastructure. These upgrades typically require new deployments of enterprise workforce
optimization solutions that are designed to support IP or hybrid TDM/IP environments.
Our Enterprise Workforce Optimization Solution Portfolio
We are a leader in the workforce optimization market with Impact 360, a comprehensive, unified
portfolio of workforce optimization solutions. Our Workforce Optimization solutions are highly
scalable and designed to be deployed by small to very large organizations in traditional contact
centers and other areas of the enterprise, such as the back office, remote offices, and branches,
as well as by public safety centers. Our solutions are generally implemented in industries that
have significant customer service operations, such as insurance, banking and brokerage,
telecommunications, media, retail, public safety, and hospitality.
The
following table summarizes our portfolio of Workforce Optimization solutions.
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
Quality Monitoring
|
|
Records multimedia interactions
based on user-defined business rules
and provides sophisticated
interaction assessment
functionality, including intelligent
evaluation forms and automatic
delivery of calls for evaluation
according to quotas or
contact-related criteria, to help
enterprises evaluate and improve the
performance of customer service
staff. |
Full-Time and Compliance Recording
|
|
Provides contact center recording
for compliance, sales verification,
and monitoring in IP, traditional
TDM, and mixed telephony
environments. Includes encryption
capabilities to help support the
Payment Card Industry Data Security
Standard and other regulatory
requirements for protecting
sensitive data. |
- 5 -
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
Workforce Management
|
|
Helps enterprises forecast staffing
requirements, deploy the appropriate
level of resources, and evaluate the
productivity of their customer
service staff. Also includes
optional strategic planning
capabilities to help determine
optimal hiring plans. |
Customer Interaction Analytics
(Speech, Data, and Customer
Feedback)
|
|
Our speech analytics analyze call
content for the purpose of
proactively identifying business
trends, building effective cost
containment and customer service
strategies, and enhancing quality
monitoring programs.
Our data analytics apply our data
mining technology to call-related
information (metadata) and call
content, as well as to productivity,
quality, and customer experience
metrics, to help enterprises
identify hidden service and quality
issues, determine the causes, and
correct them.
Our customer feedback analytics help
enterprises efficiently survey
customers via Interactive Voice
Response (IVR), Web, or email in
order to gather customer feedback on
products, processes, agent
performance, and customer
satisfaction and loyalty. |
Performance Management
|
|
Provides a comprehensive view of key
performance indicators (KPIs),
with performance scorecards and
reports on customer interactions,
customer experience trends, and
contact center, back office, branch,
remote office, and customer service
staff performance. |
eLearning and Coaching
|
|
Enables enterprises to deliver
Web-based training to customer
service staff desktops, including
learning clips created from
recordings and other customized
materials targeted to staff needs
and competencies. |
Desktop Activity Management
|
|
Captures information from customer
service employee interactions with
their desktop applications to
provide insights into productivity,
training issues, process adherence,
and bottlenecks. |
Workforce Optimization for
Small-to-Medium Sized Businesses
(SMB)
|
|
Designed for smaller companies (with
contact centers), which increasingly
face the same business requirements
as their larger competitors.
Enables companies of all sizes to
boost productivity, reduce
attrition, capture and evaluate
interactions, and satisfy compliance
and risk management requirements in
a cost-effective way. |
Public Safety
|
|
Includes quality monitoring, speech
analytics, and full-time and
compliance recording solutions under
the brand Impact 360 for Public
Safety Powered by Audiolog. Our
public safety solution allows first
responders (police, fire
departments, emergency medical
services, etc.) in the Security
Intelligence market to deploy
workforce optimization solutions to
record, manage, and act on incoming
assistance requests and related
data. |
- 6 -
The Video Intelligence Solutions Segment
We are a leading provider of networked IP video solutions designed to optimize security and enhance
operations. Our Video Intelligence Solutions portfolio includes IP video management software and
services, edge devices for capturing, digitizing, and transmitting video over different types of
wired and wireless networks, video analytics, and networked digital video recorders (DVRs).
Marketed under the Nextiva® brand, this portfolio enables organizations to deploy an
end-to-end IP video solution with analytics or evolve to IP video solutions without discarding
their investments in analog Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) technology.
The Networked IP Video Market and Trends
We believe that terrorism, crime, and other security threats around the world are generating demand
for advanced video security solutions that can help detect threats and prevent security breaches.
We believe that organizations across a wide range of industries, including public transportation,
utilities, ports and airports, government, education, finance, and retail, are interested in
broader deployment of video solutions and more proactive use of existing video to increase the
safety and security of their facilities, employees, and visitors, improve emergency response, and
enhance their investigative capabilities.
Consistent with this trend, the video security market continues to experience a technology
transition from relatively passive analog CCTV video systems, which use analog equipment and closed
networks and generally provide only basic recording and viewing capabilities, to more
sophisticated, proactive, network-based IP video that use video management software to efficiently
collect, manage, and analyze large amounts of video over networks and feature analytics. We
believe this transition from passive analog systems to network-based digital systems greatly
improves the ability of organizations to quickly and efficiently detect security breaches and
deliver video and data across the enterprise and to outside agencies in order to address security
threats, improve operational efficiency, and comply with cost containment mandates.
While the security market is evolving to networked IP video solutions, many organizations have
already made significant investments in analog technology. Our Nextiva solutions allow these
organizations to cost effectively migrate to networked IP video without discarding their existing
analog investments. Designed on an open platform, our solutions facilitate interoperability with
our customers business and security systems and with complementary third-party products, such as
cameras, video analytics, video management software, command and control systems, and access
control systems.
- 7 -
Our Video Intelligence Solutions Portfolio
We are a leader in the networked video market with Nextiva, a comprehensive, end-to-end, networked
IP video solution portfolio. The following table summarizes our portfolio of Video Intelligence
Solutions.
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
IP Video Management Software
|
|
Simplifies management of large
volumes of video and
geographically-dispersed video
surveillance operations, with a
suite of applications that includes
automated system health monitoring,
policy-based video distribution,
networked video viewing, and
investigation management. Designed
for use with industry-standard
servers and storage solutions and
for inter-operability with other
enterprise systems. |
Edge Devices
|
|
Captures, digitizes, and transmits
video across enterprise networks,
providing many of the benefits of IP
video while using existing analog
CCTV investments. Includes IP
cameras; bandwidth-efficient video
encoders to convert analog images to
IP video for transmission over IP
networks; and wireless devices that
perform both video encoding and
wireless IP transmission,
facilitating video surveillance in
areas too difficult or expensive to
wire. |
Video Analytics
|
|
Analyzes video content to
automatically detect anomalies and
activities of interest, such as
perimeter intrusion, unattended
objects, camera tampering, and
vehicles moving in the wrong
direction. Also includes
industry-specific analytics
applications focused on the behavior
of people in retail and other
environments. |
Networked DVRs
|
|
Performs networked digital video
recording utilizing secure, embedded
operating systems and
market-specific data integrations
for applications that require local
storage, as well as remote
networking. |
Our Video Intelligence Solutions are deployed across a wide range of industries, including banking,
retail, critical infrastructure, government, corporate campuses, education, airports, seaports,
public transportation, and homeland security. Our video solutions include certain video analytics
and data integrations specifically optimized for these industries. For example, our public
transportation application includes global positioning system (GPS) integrations, our retail
application includes point of sale integrations and retail traffic analytics, our banking
application includes automated teller machine (ATM) integrations, and our critical infrastructure
application includes video analytics for detecting suspicious events and command and control
integrations.
- 8 -
The Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions Segment
We are a leading provider of Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions that help law
enforcement, national security, intelligence, and other government agencies effectively detect,
investigate, and neutralize criminal and terrorist threats. Our solutions are designed to handle
massive amounts of unstructured and structured information from different sources, quickly make
sense of complex scenarios, and generate evidence and intelligence. Our portfolio includes
solutions for communications interception, service provider compliance, mobile location tracking,
fusion and data management, financial crime investigation, web intelligence, integrated video
monitoring, and tactical communications intelligence. These solutions can be deployed stand-alone
or collectively, as part of a large-scale system to address the needs of large government agencies
that require advanced, comprehensive solutions.
The Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions Market and Trends
We believe that terrorism, criminal activities, including financial fraud and drug trafficking,
and other security threats, combined with an expanding range of communication and information
media, are driving demand for innovative security solutions that collect, integrate, and analyze
information from voice, video, and data communications, as well as from other sources, such as
private and public databases. We believe the key trends driving demand for our Communications
Intelligence and Investigative Solutions are:
Increasing Complexity of Communications Networks and Growing Network Traffic
Law enforcement and certain other government agencies are typically given the authority to
intercept communication transmissions to and from specified targets for the purpose of generating
evidence. National security and intelligence agencies intercept communications, often in massive
volumes, for the purpose of generating intelligence and supporting investigations. We believe that
these agencies are seeking technically advanced solutions to help them to keep pace with
increasingly complex communications networks and the growing amount of network traffic.
Growing Demand for Advanced Intelligence and Investigative Solutions
Investigations related to criminal and terrorist networks, drugs, financial crimes, and other
illegal activities are highly complex and often involve collecting and analyzing information from
multiple sources. We believe that law enforcement, national security, intelligence, and other
government agencies are seeking advanced solutions that enable them to integrate and analyze
information from multiple sources and collaborate more efficiently with various other agencies in
order to unearth suspicious activity, optimize investigative workflows, and make investigations
more effective.
- 9 -
Legal and Regulatory Compliance Requirements
In many countries, communications service providers are mandated by government regulation to
satisfy certain technical requirements for delivering communication content and data to law
enforcement and government authorities. For example, in the United States, requirements have been
established under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). In Europe,
similar requirements have been adopted by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI). In addition, many law enforcement and government agencies around the world are mandated
to ensure compliance of laws and regulations related to criminal activities, such as financial
crime. We believe these laws and regulations are creating demand for our Communications
Intelligence and Investigative Solutions.
Our Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions Portfolio
We are a leader in the market for communications intelligence and investigative solutions, which
are marketed under the RELIANT, VANTAGE®, STAR-GATE, X-TRACT®, and ENGAGE
brand names. The following table summarizes our portfolio of
Communications Intelligence and Investigative
solutions.
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
Communications Interception
|
|
Enables the interception,
monitoring, and analysis of
information collected from a wide
range of communications networks,
including fixed and mobile networks,
IP networks, and the Internet.
Includes lawful interception
solutions designed to intercept
specific target communications
pursuant to legal warrants and mass
interception solutions for
investigating and proactively
addressing criminal and terrorist
threats. |
Communications Service Provider
Compliance
|
|
Provides communication service
providers with the ability to
collect and deliver to government
agencies specific call-related
information in compliance with
CALEA, ETSI, and other compliance
regulations and standards. Includes
a scalable warrant and subpoena
management system for efficient,
cost-effective administration of
legal warrants across multiple
networks and sites. |
Mobile Location Tracking
|
|
Tracks the location of mobile
network devices for intelligence and
evidence gathering, with analytics
and workflow designed to support
investigative activities. Provides
real-time tracking of multiple
targets, real-time alerts, and
investigative capabilities, such as
geospatial fencing and events
correlation. |
Fusion and Investigation Management
|
|
Fuses data gathered from multiple
database sources, with link
analysis, adaptable investigative
workflow, and analytics to improve
investigation efficiency and
productivity. Supports complex
investigations that require
expertise across various domains,
involve multiple government
agencies, and require significant
resources and time. |
Financial Crime Investigation
|
|
Helps law enforcement and government
financial regulatory agencies
investigate financial fraud, money
laundering, and other financial
crimes, as well as drug- and
terror-related cases. |
- 10 -
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
Web Intelligence
|
|
Increases the productivity and
efficiency of investigations in
which the Internet is the prime
source of information. Features
advanced data collection, text
analysis, data enrichment, advanced
analytics, and a clearly defined
investigative workflow on a scalable
platform. |
Integrated Video Monitoring
|
|
Enables the scalable collection,
storage, and analysis of video
captured by surveillance systems and
its integration with other sources
of information, such as intercepted
communications or location tracking
data. |
Tactical Communications Intelligence
|
|
Provides portable communications
interception and location tracking
capabilities for local use or
integration with centralized
monitoring systems, to support
tactical field operations. |
Customer Services
We offer a range of customer services, including implementation, training, consulting, and
maintenance, to help our customers maximize their return on investment in our solutions.
Implementation, Training and Consulting
Our solutions are implemented by our service organizations, authorized partners, resellers, or
customers. Our implementation services include project management, system installation, and
commissioning, including integrating our applications with our customers environments and
third-party solutions. Our training programs are designed to enable our customers to effectively
utilize our solutions and to certify our partners to sell, install, and support our solutions.
Customer and partner training are provided at the customer site, at our training centers around the
world, or remotely through webinars. Our consulting services are designed to enable our customers
to maximize the value of our solutions in their own environments.
Maintenance Support
We offer a range of customer maintenance support programs to our customers and partners, including
phone, Web, and email access to technical personnel up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our
support programs are designed to ensure long-term, successful use of our solutions. We believe
that customer support is critical to retaining and expanding our customer base. Our
Workforce Optimization solutions are sold with a warranty of generally one year for hardware and 90
days for software. Our Video Intelligence solutions and Communications Intelligence solutions are sold with warranties that typically range
from 90 days to 3 years, and
in some cases longer. In addition, customers are typically provided the option to purchase
maintenance plans that provide a range of services, such as telephone support, advanced replacement
upgrades, and on-site repair or replacement. Currently, the majority of our maintenance revenue is
related to our Workforce Optimization solutions.
- 11 -
Direct and Indirect Sales
We sell our solutions through our direct sales teams and indirect channels, including distributors,
systems integrators, value-added resellers (VAR), and original equipment manufacturers (OEM)
partners.
Each of our solutions is sold by trained, dedicated, regionally organized direct and indirect sales
teams. Our direct sales teams are focused on large and mid-sized customers and, in many cases,
co-sell with our other channels and sales agents. Our indirect sales teams are focused on
developing and supporting relationships with our indirect channels, which provide us with broader
market coverage, including access to their customer base, integration services, and presence in
certain geographies and vertical markets. Our sales teams are supported by business consultants,
solutions specialists, and pre-sales engineers who, during the sales process, determine customer
requirements and develop technical responses to those requirements. While we sell directly and
indirectly in all three of our segments, sales of our Video Intelligence solutions are primarily
indirect, and sales of our Communications Intelligence solutions are primarily
direct.
Customers
Our solutions are currently used by more than 10,000 organizations in over 150 countries. In the
year ended January 31, 2008, we derived approximately 49%, 28%, and 23% of our revenue from the
sales of our Workforce Optimization solutions, Video
Intelligence solutions, and
Communications Intelligence solutions, respectively. In the year ended January
31, 2007, we derived approximately 34%, 33%, and 33% of our revenue from the sales of our
Workforce Optimization solutions, Video Intelligence solutions, and Communications
Intelligence solutions, respectively. In the year ended January 31, 2006, we
derived approximately 25%, 37%, and 38% of our revenue from the sales of our Enterprise Workforce
Optimization solutions, Video Intelligence solutions, and Communications Intelligence solutions, respectively.
In the year ended January 31, 2008, we derived approximately 52%, 33%, and 15% of our revenue from
sales to end users in the Americas; Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA); and the Asia
Pacific Region (APAC), respectively. In the year ended January 31, 2007, we derived
approximately 48%, 31%, and 21% of our revenue from sales to end users in the Americas, EMEA, and
APAC, respectively. In the year ended January 31, 2006, we derived approximately 51%, 33%, and 16%
of our revenue from sales to end users in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC, respectively.
- 12 -
None of our customers, including system integrators, VARs, various local, regional, and national
governments worldwide, and OEM partners, individually accounted for more than 10% of our
consolidated revenue in the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, or 2006. Additionally, while none
of our operating segments is dependent on a single or small number of customers, in some years, we
have entered into contracts with customers in our Video Intelligence segment or our Communications
Intelligence segment the loss of which could have a material adverse effect on the segment. See
Note 18, Segment, Geographic, and Significant Customer Information to the
consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. Some of the customer engagements on which
we work require us to have the necessary security credentials or to participate in the project
through an approved legal entity. For a more detailed discussion of the risks associated with our
government customers, see Risk Factors We are dependent on contracts with governments around the
world for a significant portion of our revenue. These contracts expose us to additional business
risks and compliance obligations under Item 1A and Risk Factors U.S. and foreign governments
could refuse to buy our Communications Intelligence solutions or could deactivate our security
clearances in their countries thereby restricting or eliminating our ability to sell these
solutions in those countries and perhaps other countries influenced by such a decision under Item
1A.
Research and Development
We continue to enhance the features and performance of our existing solutions and to introduce new
solutions through extensive research and development activities, including the development of new
solutions, the addition of capabilities to existing solutions, quality assurance, and advanced
technical support for our customer services organization. In certain instances, we customize our
products to meet the particular requirements of our customers. Research and development is
performed primarily in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel for our Workforce Optimization
segment; primarily in the United States, Canada, and Israel for our Video Intelligence segment; and
primarily in Israel, with separate and independent research and development activities in Germany,
for our Communications Intelligence segment.
We believe that our future success depends on a number of factors, which include our ability to:
|
|
|
identify and respond to emerging technological trends in our target markets; |
|
|
|
develop and maintain competitive solutions that meet our customers changing needs; |
|
|
|
enhance our existing products by adding features and functionality to meet specific
customer needs or differentiate our products from those of our competitors; and |
|
|
|
attract, recruit, and retain highly skilled and experienced employees. |
To support these efforts, we make significant investments in research and development every year.
In the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, we spent approximately $87.7 million, $53.0
million, and $34.9 million, respectively, on research and development, net. We allocate our
research and development resources in response to market research and customer demand for
additional features and solutions. Our development strategy involves rolling out initial releases
of our products and adding features over time. We incorporate product feedback received from our
customers into our product development process. While the majority of our products are developed
internally, in some cases, we also acquire or license technologies, products, and applications from
third parties based on timing and cost considerations.
- 13 -
As noted above, a significant portion of our research and development operations is located outside
the United States. Historically, we have also derived substantial benefits from
participation in certain government-sponsored programs, including the Office of the Chief Scientist
(OCS) of Israel and certain research and development programs in Canada, for the support of
research and development activities conducted in those countries. The Israeli law under which
these OCS grants are made limits our ability to manufacture products, or transfer technologies,
developed using these grants outside of Israel without permission from the OCS. See Risk Factors -
Research and development and tax benefits we receive in Israel may be reduced or eliminated in the
future and our receipt of these benefits subjects us to certain restrictions and Risk Factors -
Because we have significant foreign operations, we are subject to geopolitical and other risks that
could materially adversely affect our business under Item 1A for a discussion of these and other
risks associated with our foreign operations.
Manufacturing and Suppliers
Our manufacturing and assembly operations are performed in our United States and Israeli facilities
for our Workforce Optimization solutions; in our United States, Israeli and Canadian
facilities for our Video Intelligence Solutions; and in our German and Israeli facilities for our
Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions. These operations consist of installing
our software on externally purchased hardware components, final assembly, and testing, which
involves the application of extensive quality control procedures to materials, components,
subassemblies, and systems. We also manufacture certain hardware units and perform system
integration functions prior to shipping turnkey solutions to our customers. We rely on several
unaffiliated subcontractors for the supply of specific proprietary components and assemblies that
are incorporated in our products, as well as for certain operations activities that we outsource.
Although we have occasionally experienced delays and shortages in the supply of proprietary
components in the past, we have, to date, been able to obtain adequate supplies of all components
in a timely manner from alternative sources, when necessary. See Risk Factors For certain
products and components, we rely on a limited number of suppliers and manufacturers and we may not
be able to obtain substitute suppliers or manufacturers on terms that are as favorable as those we
have now or at all if these relationships are interrupted under Item 1A for a discussion of risks
associated with our manufacturing operations and suppliers.
Employees
As of
January 31, 2010, we employed approximately 2,500 people, including part-time employees and
certain contractors. Approximately 46%, 38%, 10%, and 6% of our employees are located in the
Americas, Israel, Europe, and APAC, respectively.
We consider our relationship with our employees to be good and a critical factor in our success.
Our employees in the United States are not covered by any collective bargaining agreements. In
some cases, our employees outside the United States are automatically subject to certain
protections negotiated by organized labor in those countries directly with the government or are
automatically entitled to severance or other benefits mandated under local laws. For example,
while we are not a party to any collective bargaining or other agreement with any labor
organization in Israel, certain provisions of the collective bargaining agreements between the
Histadrut (General Federation of Labor in Israel) and the Coordinating Bureau of Economic
Organizations (including the Manufacturers Association of Israel) are applicable to our Israeli
employees by virtue of an expansion order of the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor.
- 14 -
Intellectual Property Rights
General
Our success depends to a significant degree on the legal protection of our software and other
proprietary technology. We rely on a combination of patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark
laws and confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with employees and third parties to
establish and protect our proprietary rights.
Patents
As of
February 28, 2010, we had more than 460 patents and patent applications
worldwide. We have accumulated a significant amount of proprietary know-how and expertise in
developing analytics solutions for enterprise workforce optimization and security intelligence
products. We regularly review new areas of technology related to our businesses to determine
whether they are patentable.
Licenses
Our licenses are designed to prohibit unauthorized use, copying, and disclosure of our software
technology. When we license our software to customers, we require license agreements containing
restrictions and confidentiality terms customary in the industry in order to protect our
proprietary rights in the software. These agreements generally warrant that the software and
propriety hardware will materially comply with written documentation and assert that we own or have
sufficient rights in the software we distribute and have not violated the intellectual property
rights of others. We license our products in a format that does not permit users to change the
software code.
We license certain software, technology, and related rights for use in the manufacture and
marketing of our products and pay royalties to third parties under such licenses and other
agreements. We believe that our rights under such licenses and other agreements are sufficient for
the manufacture and marketing of our products and, in the case of licenses, extend for periods at
least equal to the estimated useful lives of the related technology and know-how.
Trademarks and Service Marks
We use various trademarks and service marks to protect the marks used in our business. We also
claim common law protections for other marks we use in our business. Competitors and other
companies could adopt similar marks or try to prevent us from using our marks, consequently
impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to customer confusion. See Risk
Factors Our intellectual property may not be adequately protected under Item 1A for a more
detailed discussion regarding the risks associated with the protection of our intellectual
property.
- 15 -
Competition
We face strong competition in all of our markets, and we expect that competition will persist and
intensify. In our Workforce Optimization segment, our competitors are Aspect Software, Inc.,
Autonomy Corp., Genesys Telecommunications, NICE Systems Ltd (NICE), and many smaller companies,
which can vary across regions. In our Video Intelligence segment, our competitors include
Dedicated Microcomputer Limited, Genetec Inc., March Networks Corporation, Milestone Systems A/S,
NICE, and Pelco, Inc. (a division of Schneider Electric Limited); divisions of larger companies,
including Bosch Security Systems, Cisco Systems, Inc., General Electric Company (which announced in
November 2009 its intent to sell its fire-detection and security business to United Technologies
Corp.), Honeywell International Inc., and many smaller companies, which can vary across regions.
In our Communications Intelligence segment, our primary competitors are Aqsacom Inc., ETI, JSI
Telecom, NICE, Pen-Link, Ltd., RCS S.R.L. a subsidiary of URMET S.p.A., Trovicor, SS8 Networks,
Inc., Ultimaco (a division of Sophos, Plc), and many smaller companies, which can vary across
regions. Some of our competitors have superior brand recognition and greater financial resources
than we do, which may enable them to increase their market share at our expense. Furthermore, we
expect that competition will increase as other established and emerging companies enter IP markets
and as new products, services, and technologies are introduced.
In each of our operating segments, we believe we compete principally on the basis of:
|
|
|
product performance and functionality; |
|
|
|
product quality and reliability; |
|
|
|
breadth of product portfolio and interoperability; |
|
|
|
global presence and high-quality customer service and support; |
|
|
|
specific industry knowledge, vision, and experience; and |
We believe that our success depends primarily on our ability to provide technologically advanced
and cost-effective solutions and services. We expect that competition will increase as other
established and emerging companies enter our market and as new products, services, and technologies
are introduced. In recent years, there has also been significant consolidation among our
competitors, which has improved the competitive position of several of these companies and enabled
new competitors to emerge in all of our markets. See Risk Factors Intense competition in our
markets and competitors with greater resources than us may limit our market share, profitability,
and growth under Item 1A for a more detailed discussion of the competitive risks we face.
- 16 -
Export Regulations
We and our subsidiaries are subject to applicable export control regulations in countries from
which we export goods and services, including the United States and Israel. These controls may
apply by virtue of the country in which the products are located or by virtue of the origin of the
content contained in the products. If the controls of a particular country apply, the level of
control generally depends on the nature of the goods and services in question. For example, our
Communications Intelligence solutions tend to be more highly controlled than our
Workforce Optimization solutions. Certain countries, including the United States and
Israel, have also imposed controls on products that contain encryption functionality, which covers
many of our products. Where controls apply, the export of our products generally requires an
export license or authorization (either on a per-product or per-transaction basis) or that the
transaction qualify for a license exception or the equivalent, and may also be subject to
corresponding reporting requirements.
Recent Developments
The following summarizes significant developments at Verint since October 31, 2005 (the date of our
last periodic report), beyond our internal investigation, restatement, and audit-related items
discussed in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Investigation and Restatement under Item 7 and elsewhere in this report.
Mergers and Acquisitions; Financings
On January 9, 2006, we acquired the networked video security business of Hong Kong-based
MultiVision Intelligent Surveillance Limited (MultiVision) as part of our plan to expand the
footprint of our video business in the APAC region. We paid approximately $48.9 million in cash
for MultiVision.
On February 6, 2006, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of CM Insight Limited (CM
Insight), a U.K.-based, privately held customer management solution provider that helps
enterprises enhance their customer experience and improve the quality and performance of their
contact center operations. We paid approximately $6.6 million in cash for CM Insight. In
addition, the selling shareholders of CM Insight were entitled to receive earn-out payments over
two years based on certain performance targets. For the 12-month period ended February 6, 2007,
the selling shareholders of CM Insight earned the maximum earn-out payment available for such
period of £2.0 million, or approximately $3.9 million at then-current exchange rates. As the
applicable performance targets for the 12-month period ended February 6, 2008 were not achieved, no
earn-out payments were made for such period.
On July 14, 2006, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Mercom Systems Inc. (Mercom), a
privately held provider of interaction recording and performance evaluation solutions for
small-to-midsize contact centers and public safety centers. The purchase price consisted of $35.0
million in cash at closing, $0.7 million of direct transaction costs, and potential additional cash
earn-out payments. As of January 31, 2008, the end of the earn-out
period, the former shareholders had earned and been paid approximately $3.7 million of the
potential earn-out.
- 17 -
On February 1, 2007, we completed the acquisition of ViewLinks Euclipse Ltd., an Israeli-based,
privately-held provider of data mining and link analysis software solutions. The aggregate
purchase price was $7.4 million in cash.
On May 25, 2007, we completed the acquisition of Witness. Under the terms of the merger agreement,
each outstanding share of Witness common stock was converted into the right to receive $27.50 in
cash, less applicable withholding taxes, if any. In addition, upon consummation of the merger,
outstanding vested options to purchase Witness common stock were converted into a right to receive
a cash payment, and unvested options to purchase Witness common stock were assumed by us and
converted into options to purchase our common stock. The aggregate merger consideration paid to
consummate the transaction, including the fair value of Witness stock options exchanged for Verint
options, was approximately $944.3 million, net of cash acquired, $650.0 million of which was
financed by proceeds of a term loan and a new credit agreement entered into by us in connection
with the transaction, and $293.0 million of which was financed with proceeds from the issuance of
our preferred stock to Comverse and from available cash balances.
On
February 4, 2010, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Verint Americas Inc.,
acquired all of the outstanding shares of Iontas Limited
(Iontas), a privately held provider of desktop analytics
solutions. Prior to this acquisition, we licensed certain technology
from Iontas, whose solutions measure application usage and analyze
workflows to help improve staff performance in contact center, branch
and back-office operations environments. We acquired Iontas for
approximately $15.2 million in cash (net of cash acquired) and
potential additional earn-out payments of up to $3.8 million,
tied to certain targets being achieved over the next two years. The
initial purchase price allocation for this acquisition is not yet
available, as we have not completed the appraisals necessary to
assess the fair values of the tangible and identified intangible
assets acquired and liabilities assumed, the assets and liabilities
arising from contingencies (if any), and the amount of goodwill to be
recognized as of the acquisition date.
For the years ended January 31, 2007 and 2008, we recorded non-cash impairment charges related to
certain of these acquisitions. For more information regarding these impairment charges, see Note
6, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15.
For more information about the integration risks associated with the foregoing acquisitions and the
requirements of our credit facility, see Risk Factors We have incurred significant indebtedness
as a result of the acquisition of Witness, which makes us highly leveraged, subjects us to
restrictive covenants, and could adversely affect our operations under Item 1A and Risk Factors
Our business could be materially adversely affected as a result of the risks associated with
acquisitions and investments under Item 1A.
OCS Royalty Settlement
On July 31, 2006, we entered into a settlement agreement with the OCS,
pursuant to which we exited a
royalty-bearing program and the OCS agreed to accept a lump sum payment of approximately $36.0
million. Prior to the settlement, we had accrued approximately $16.8 million of
royalties and related interest due under the original terms of the program through charges to cost of
revenue in the corresponding periods of
the related revenue, net of previous royalty payments. We recorded
a charge of approximately $19.2 million to cost of revenue in the second quarter of
the year ended
January 31, 2007 for the remaining amount of the lump sum settlement in excess of
amounts previously accrued under the program. Payments agreed to under the OCS settlement
were completed immediately following the execution of the settlement agreement.
Beginning in calendar year 2006, we entered into a new program with the OCS under
which we are no longer required to pay royalties to the OCS.
Settlement with NICE
On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement with NICE to resolve all then-outstanding
patent litigations between NICE and its subsidiaries and Witness. These litigations resulted from
a 2004 suit filed by one of NICEs subsidiaries against Witness alleging that certain Witness
products infringed a number of VoIP call recording patents held by NICE. Following the filing of
this initial lawsuit, Witness filed two patent infringement suits against
NICE alleging infringement of certain screen capture and speech analytics patents, and NICE filed a
second suit against Witness alleging violation of additional call recording patents.
- 18 -
Following a January 2008 trial, a jury in the second suit filed by NICE was unable to reach a
verdict, resulting in a mistrial. On May 16, 2008, a jury in the speech analytics case filed by
Witness returned a verdict in our favor and against NICE on the claims of infringement and awarded
us $3.3 million in damages; however, this award was superseded by the terms of the settlement
agreement disclosed above. On May 23, 2008, the court in the initial VoIP suit filed by NICE found
in our favor and against NICE on the claims of infringement.
Wells Notices
On April 9, 2008, as we previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the staffs
investigation of our past stock option grant practices and certain unrelated accounting matters. These accounting matters were also the subject of our internal investigation. On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled
enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices. Without admitting or denying the
allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment permanently enjoining us from violating
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.
The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief beyond the entry of a permanent injunction.
The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC considered our remediation and cooperation in
the SECs investigation. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on March 9, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file
our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an OIP pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to
suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB
since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005. An Administrative Law Judge will
consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of
service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including available procedural remedies and intend to defend
against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
Item 1a. Risk Factors
Many of the factors that affect our business and operations involve risks and uncertainties.
The factors described below are risks that could materially harm our business, financial condition,
and results of operations. These are not all the risks we face and other factors currently
considered immaterial or unknown to us may have a material adverse impact on our future operations.
- 19 -
Risks Related to Our Internal Investigation, Restatement, Internal Controls, and Ownership
Following the filing of this report, we will remain delayed in our SEC reporting obligations, we
cannot assure you when we will complete our remaining SEC filings for periods subsequent to those
included in this report, and we are likely to continue to face challenges until we complete these
filings and re-list our common stock.
Although our internal investigation, revenue recognition review, and related restatement of our
financial statements have been completed as discussed under Explanatory Note, we continue to face challenges with regard to completing
our remaining SEC filings for periods subsequent to those included in this report. We remain
delayed with our SEC reporting obligations as of the filing date of this report and we cannot
assure you that we will be able to complete our remaining filings for periods subsequent to those
included in this report prior to the conclusion of the SEC
administrative proceeding to suspend or revoke the registration of
our common stock described below. Until we complete these remaining filings, we expect
to continue to face many of the risks and challenges we have experienced during our extended filing
delay period, including:
|
|
|
risk associated with the SECs initiation of an
administrative proceeding on March 3, 2010 to suspend or revoke the registration
of our common stock under the Exchange Act due to our previous failure to file an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since
April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005; |
|
|
|
continued risk in maintaining compliance with the covenants and other requirements of
our credit agreement, which, among other things, makes it an event of default if we do not
provide audited financial statements for the year ended January 31, 2010 to our lenders on
or before May 31, 2010; |
|
|
|
continued concern on the part of customers, partners, investors, and employees about our
financial condition and extended filing delay status, including potential loss of business
opportunities; |
|
|
|
additional significant time and expense required to complete our remaining filings and
the process of seeking the re-listing of our common stock on NASDAQ or
another national securities exchange beyond the very significant time
and expense we have already incurred in connection with our internal investigation,
restatement, and audits to date; |
|
|
|
continued distraction of our senior management team and our board of directors as we
work to complete our remaining filings and seek to re-list our common stock; |
|
|
|
limitations on our ability to raise capital and make acquisitions; and |
|
|
|
general reputational harm as a result of the foregoing. |
- 20 -
Even if we complete our remaining filings for periods subsequent to those included in this report
and our common stock is re-listed on NASDAQ or another national securities exchange, we cannot
assure you that all of the risks and challenges described above will be eliminated. For
example, we cannot assure you that lost business opportunities can be recaptured or that general
reputational harm will not persist. If we are unable to complete our
remaining filings prior to the conclusion of the SEC
administrative proceeding to suspend or revoke the registration of
our common stock described below, are unable to re-list our common stock, or if one or more of the foregoing risks or
challenges persist even after we have done so, our business, results of operations, and financial
condition are likely to be materially and adversely affected.
We have identified various material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting
which have materially adversely affected our ability to timely and accurately report our results of
operations and financial condition. These material weaknesses may not have been fully remediated as of
the filing date of this report and we cannot assure you that other material weaknesses will not be identified in the future.
As a
result of the circumstances which gave rise to our internal
investigation, restatement, and revenue recognition review discussed under Explanatory Note, our
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of January 31, 2008, we
had material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting and that, as a result,
our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal controls over
financial reporting were not effective at such date. A material weakness is a deficiency, or
combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that creates a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements
will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
In addition, we believe that we continued to have material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting subsequent to January 31, 2008 and that many, if not all, of the material
weaknesses identified at January 31, 2008 remained material weaknesses as of January 31, 2009 (for
which our assessment has not been completed as of the filing date of this report) and possibly
subsequent to that date. See Controls and Procedures under Item 9A for a detailed discussion of
the material weaknesses identified as of January 31, 2008, possible material weaknesses as of
subsequent periods, and related remediation activities. Although we
have implemented remedial measures to address all of the identified material weaknesses, our assessment of the
impact of these measures has not been completed as of the filing date of this report and we cannot assure you that these measures are adequate. Moreover, we cannot assure you that additional
material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting
will not arise or be identified in the future.
As a result, we must continue our remediation activities and must also continue to improve our
operational, information technology, and financial systems, infrastructure, procedures, and
controls, as well as continue to expand, train, retain, and manage our employee base. Any failure
to do so, or any difficulties we encounter during implementation, could result in additional
material weaknesses or in material misstatements in our financial statements. These misstatements
could result in a future restatement of our financial statements, could cause us to fail to meet
our reporting obligations, or could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial
information, leading to a decline in our stock price.
- 21 -
The extraordinary processes underlying the preparation of the financial statements contained in this report may not have been adequate and our financial statements remain
subject to the risk of future restatement.
The completion of our audits for the years ended January 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006, the restatement of our financial results for the years ended January 31, 2005 and 2004, and the revenue recognition review undertaken
in connection therewith, involved many months of review and analysis, including highly technical
analyses of our contracts and business practices, equity-based compensation instruments, tax
accounting, and the proper application of SOP 97-2, SOP 81-1, and other accounting rules and
pronouncements. The completion of our financial statement audits also followed the completion of
an extremely detailed forensic audit as part of our internal investigation. Given the complexity
and scope of these exercises, and notwithstanding the very extensive time, effort, and expense that
went into them, we cannot assure you that these extraordinary processes were adequate or that
additional accounting errors will not come to light in the future in these or other areas.
In addition, the relevant accounting rules and pronouncements that were the focus of our
restatement and extended audit are subject to ongoing interpretation by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB), the AICPA, the SEC, and various bodies formed to promulgate and interpret
appropriate accounting principles. Further, the accounting profession continues to assess these
accounting rules and pronouncements with the objective of providing additional guidance on
potential interpretations. As a result, ongoing interpretations of these rules and pronouncements
could drive unanticipated changes in our accounting practices or financial reporting. We cannot
assure you that such unanticipated changes will not arise or that if they do arise that we will be
able to timely adapt to them or that we will not experience future reporting delays.
If additional accounting errors come to light in areas reviewed as part of our extraordinary
processes or otherwise, or if ongoing interpretations of applicable accounting rules and
pronouncements result in unanticipated changes in our accounting practices or financial reporting,
future restatements of our financial statements may be required.
We cannot assure you that our regular financial statement preparation
and reporting processes are or will be adequate or that future restatements will not be required.
As discussed in the preceding risk factor, the processes underlying the
preparation of the financial statements contained in this report were extraordinary. While we expect to continue to rely on these
extraordinary processes for a period of time, during the year ending January 31, 2011, we expect to increasingly rely on our regular
financial statement preparation and reporting processes.
- 22 -
While we have significantly changed and enhanced these regular processes
(as described elsewhere in this report), as of the filing date of
this report, we cannot assure you that previously identified material
weaknesses have been fully remediated and we continue to:
|
|
|
make changes to our finance organization; |
|
|
|
adopt new accounting and reporting processes and procedures; |
|
|
|
enhance our revenue recognition and other existing accounting policies and procedures; |
|
|
|
introduce new or enhanced accounting systems and processes; and |
|
|
|
improve our internal controls over financial reporting. |
Many of these changes and enhancements to our regular processes are ongoing as
of the filing date of this report and we continue to assimilate the complex and pervasive changes we have already made. We cannot assure
you that the changes and enhancements made to date, or those that are still in process, are adequate, will operate as expected, or will be
completed in a timely fashion (if still in process). As a result, we cannot assure you that we will not discover additional errors, that
future financial reports will not contain material misstatements or omissions, that future restatements will not be required, that we will
be able to timely complete our remaining SEC filings
for periods subsequent to this report, or that we will be able to stay current with our reporting obligations
in the future.
We cannot assure you that our common stock will be re-listed, or that once re-listed, it will
remain listed.
As a result of the delay in filing our periodic reports with the SEC, we were unable to comply with
the listing standards of NASDAQ and our common stock was suspended from trading effective February
1, 2007 and formally de-listed effective June 4, 2007. We have
applied to re-list our common stock with NASDAQ; however, there can be no
assurance that we will be able to re-list our common stock in an expeditious manner or at all.
Even if our common stock is re-listed, unless we are able to timely comply with our SEC reporting
obligations in the future, our common stock may again be de-listed. If we cannot re-list our common stock or if
it is de-listed again in the future, the price of our common stock will likely be adversely
affected and there may be a decrease in the liquidity of our common stock.
- 23 -
The circumstances which gave rise to our extended filing delay and restatement continue to create
the risk of litigation against us, which could be expensive and could damage our business.
Although Comverse and its affiliates have been named in a number of class action or shareholder
derivative lawsuits relating to Comverses internal investigation and restatement, no such actions
relating to our investigation, restatement, or extended filing delay have been brought against us to
date. However, companies that have undertaken internal reviews and investigations or restatements
face greater risk of litigation or other actions and there can be no assurance that such a suit or
action relating to our internal investigation, restatement, or extended filing delay will not be
initiated against us or our current or former officers, directors, or other personnel in the
future. In addition, we have in the past and may in the future become subject to litigation or
threatened litigation from current or former personnel as a result of our suspension of option
exercises during our extended filing delay period, the expiration of equity awards during such
period, or other employment-related matters relating to our internal investigation, restatement, or extended filing delay. Any such
litigation or action may be time consuming and expensive, and may distract management from the
conduct of our business. Any such litigation or action could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, and results of operations, and may expose us to costly
indemnification obligations to current or former officers, directors, or other personnel,
regardless of the outcome of such matter.
We
were the subject of an SEC investigation relating to our reserve and stock option
accounting practices, and are the subject of an SEC proceeding relating to our failure to timely file required SEC reports.
These government inquiries or any future inquiries to which we may become subject could result in
penalties and/or other remedies that could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition and results of operation.
Comverse was the subject of an SEC investigation and resulting civil action regarding the improper
backdating of stock options and other accounting practices, including the improper establishment,
maintenance, and release of reserves, the reclassification of certain expenses, and the calculation
of backlog of sales orders. On June 18, 2009, Comverse announced that it had reached a settlement
with the SEC on these matters without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC complaint.
Three of Comverses former officers, each of whom previously served on our board of directors, have
also been charged in civil and criminal actions by the SEC and the Department of Justice in
connection with the circumstances surrounding the Comverse Special Committee investigation. Two of
these three matters have been settled to date.
On July 20, 2006, we announced that, in connection with the SEC investigation into Comverses past
stock option grants which was in process at that time, we had received a letter requesting that we
voluntarily provide to the SEC certain documents and information related to our own stock option
grants and practices. We voluntarily responded to this request. On April 9, 2008, as we
previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the
staffs investigation of our past stock option grant practices and certain unrelated accounting
matters. These accounting matters were also the subject of our internal investigation. On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment
permanently enjoining us from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief
beyond the entry of a permanent injunction. The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC
considered our remediation and cooperation in the SECs
investigation. The settlement was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York March 9,
2010.
- 24 -
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file
our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an OIP pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to
suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB
since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005. An Administrative Law Judge will
consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of
service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including available procedural remedies and intend to defend
against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock. We cannot at this time predict the outcome of the
Section 12(j) administrative proceedings or of any available appeals that may follow. Similarly, we cannot predict what, if any, impact
the outcome of the administrative proceedings may have on our business.
If a final order is issued by the SEC suspending or revoking the registration of our common stock, broker-dealers would be
prevented from making a market in our common stock in the United States and from any further
trading of our common stock on the Pink OTC Markets, Inc. (the Pink Sheets) or any other
exchange, market, or board in the United States until, in the case of
a suspension, the lifting of such suspension, and, in the case of a
revocation, we file a new registration with the SEC under
the Exchange Act and that registration is made effective.
In addition, as a result of our acquisition of Witness, we are subject to an additional SEC inquiry
relating to certain of Witness stock option grants. On October 27, 2006, Witness received notice
from the SEC of an informal non-public inquiry relating to the stock option grant practices of
Witness from February 1, 2000 through the date of the notice. On July 12, 2007, we received a copy
of the Formal Order of Investigation from the SEC relating to substantially the same matter as the
informal inquiry. We and Witness have fully cooperated, and intend to continue to fully cooperate,
if called upon to do so, with the SEC regarding this matter. In addition, the U.S. Attorneys
Office for the Northern District of Georgia was given access to the documents and information
provided by Witness to the SEC. While we have not heard from the SEC or the U.S. Attorneys office
on this matter since June 2008, we have no assurance that one or both will not further pursue the
matter.
We cannot
predict the outcome of any of the foregoing unresolved proceedings or whether we will face
additional government inquiries, investigations, or other actions related to these or other matters. An adverse
ruling in any SEC enforcement action or other regulatory proceeding could impose upon us fines,
penalties, or other remedies, including the suspension or revocation
of the registration of our common stock as discussed above, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations and financial condition. Even if we are successful in defending against an SEC
enforcement action or other regulatory proceeding, such an action or proceeding may be time
consuming, expensive, and distracting from the conduct of our business and could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In the
event of any such action or proceeding, we may also become subject to costly indemnification
obligations to current or former officers, directors, or employees, which may or may not be covered
by insurance.
- 25 -
We may not have sufficient insurance to cover our liability in any future litigation claims either
due to coverage limits or as a result of insurance carriers seeking to deny coverage of such
claims.
We face a variety of litigation-related liability risks, including liability for indemnification of
(and advancement of expenses to) current and former directors, officers, and employees under
certain circumstances, pursuant to our certificate of incorporation, bylaws, other applicable
agreements, and/or Delaware law.
Prior to the announcement of the Comverse Special Committee investigation, our directors and
officers were included in a director and officer liability insurance policy, which covered all
directors and officers of Comverse and its subsidiaries, which policy remains the sole source of
insurance in connection with the matters related to such investigation. The Comverse insurance
coverage may not be adequate to cover any claims against us in connection with such matters and may
not be available to us due to the exhaustion of the coverage limits by Comverse in connection with
the claims already asserted against Comverse and its personnel.
Following the announcement of the Comverse Special Committee investigation, we sought and obtained
our own director and officer liability insurance policy for our directors and officers. We cannot
assure you that the limits of our directors and officers liability insurance coverage will be
sufficient to cover our potential exposure.
In addition, the underwriters of our present coverage or our old shared coverage with Comverse may
seek to avoid coverage in certain circumstances based upon the terms of the respective policies, in
which case we would have to self-fund any indemnification amounts owed to our directors and
officers and bear any other uninsured liabilities.
If we do not have sufficient directors and officers insurance coverage under our present or
historical insurance policies, or if our insurance underwriters are successful in avoiding
coverage, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
- 26 -
We have been adversely affected as a result of being a consolidated, controlled subsidiary of
Comverse and may continue to be adversely affected in the future.
We have been adversely affected as a result of being a consolidated, controlled subsidiary of
Comverse and may continue to be adversely affected in the future. These adverse effects arise in
part, though not exclusively, from the Comverse Special Committee investigation. Under applicable
accounting rules, we were required to record stock-based compensation expenses on our books
for Comverse stock options granted to our employees while we were a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Comverse which were found to have been improperly accounted for
as part of the Comverse Special Committee investigation. Because we were dependent upon Comverse
to provide us with the amount of these charges, we were forced to wait until the conclusion of the
Comverse Special Committee investigation to record them, which was the initial reason we were not
able to timely complete our required SEC filings. The subsequent expansion of the Comverse Special
Committee investigation into other accounting issues further delayed our receipt of the required
information. In addition, because of our previous inclusion in Comverses consolidated tax group
and our related tax sharing agreement with Comverse, as further
discussed below, we were also
forced to wait for Comverse to substantially complete its analysis of certain tax
information, including information related to the net operating loss
allocated to us as of our May 2002 IPO, in order to
complete the restatement of our historical financial statements, the
preparation of our current financial statements and associated audits. In addition to our own internal investigation and revenue
recognition review, these investigations and reviews have required significant time, expense, and management
distraction, have contributed to a protracted delay in the completion of our SEC filings, and have
caused significant concerns on the part of customers, partners,
investors, and employees.
Future delays at Comverse, if any, may again
delay the completion of the preparation of our outstanding or future
financial statements, associated audits and SEC filings, which could
have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, if errors are
discovered in the information provided to us by Comverse, we may be
required to correct or restate our financial statements. In part
because of the issues identified at Comverse and our relationship with Comverse, we have also been
subject to enhanced scrutiny by third parties, including customers, prospects, suppliers, service
providers, and regulatory authorities, all of which have adversely affected our business, and the
cost, duration, and risks associated with our restatement and audits have increased.
We may continue to be adversely affected by events at Comverse so long as we remain one of its
majority-owned subsidiaries. In particular, Comverses strategic plans regarding its assets,
including its ownership interest in our stock, may adversely affect our business.
Our previous inclusion in Comverses consolidated tax group and our related tax sharing agreement
with Comverse may expose us to additional tax liabilities.
Prior to our IPO in May 2002, we were included in Comverses U.S. federal income tax return.
Following our IPO, we began filing a separate U.S. federal income tax return for our own
consolidated group; however, we remained party to a tax-sharing agreement with Comverse for prior
periods. As a result, Comverse may unilaterally make decisions that could impact our liability for
income taxes for periods prior to the IPO. Additionally, adjustments to the consolidated groups tax liability for periods prior to our IPO
could affect our NOLs from Comverse and cause us to incur additional
tax liability in future periods. The foregoing could result from, among other things, any
agreements between Comverse and the Internal Revenue Service relating to issues that could be
raised upon examination or the filing of amended federal income tax returns by Comverse on our
behalf.
In addition, notwithstanding the terms of the tax sharing agreement, federal tax law provides that
each member of a consolidated federal income tax group is jointly and severally liable for the
groups entire tax obligation; as a result, under certain circumstances, we could be liable for
taxes of other members of the Comverse consolidated group if, for example, federal income tax
assessments were not paid. Similar principles apply for certain combined state income tax return
filings.
- 27 -
Comverse can control our business and affairs, including our board of directors.
Because Comverse currently holds approximately a 67% ownership position in us (assuming the
conversion of all of our preferred stock into common stock), Comverse effectively controls the
outcome of all matters submitted for stockholder action, including the approval of significant
corporate transactions, such as financings, equity issuances, or mergers and acquisitions. Our
preferred stock, all of which is held by Comverse, entitles it to further control over significant
corporate transactions.
By virtue of its majority ownership stake, Comverse also has the ability, acting alone, to remove
existing directors and/or to elect new directors to our board of directors in order to fill
vacancies. At present, Comverse has appointed individuals who are officers or executives of
Comverse as six of our eleven directors. These directors have fiduciary duties to both us and
Comverse and may become subject to conflicts of interest on certain matters where Comverses
interest as majority stockholder may not be aligned with the interests of our minority
stockholders. In addition, under the terms of the preferred stock, Comverse also has the right to
appoint two additional directors to our board of directors under certain circumstances.
As a consequence of Comverses control over the composition of our board of directors, Comverse can
also exert a controlling influence on our management, direction and policies, including the ability
to appoint and remove our officers or, subject to the terms of our credit agreement, declare and
pay dividends.
We may lose business opportunities to Comverse that might otherwise be available to us.
In connection with our May 2002 IPO, we entered into a business opportunities agreement with
Comverse that addresses certain potential conflicts of interest between Comverse and us. This
agreement allocates between Comverse and us opportunities to pursue transactions or matters that,
absent such allocation, could constitute corporate opportunities of both companies. In general, we
are precluded under this agreement from pursuing opportunities offered to officers or employees of
Comverse who may also be our directors, officers, or employees, unless Comverse fails to pursue
these opportunities. As a result, we may lose valuable business opportunities to Comverse, which
could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
As a result of the delay in completing our financial statements, we are currently unable to
register securities with the SEC, which may adversely affect our ability to raise, and the cost of
raising, future capital.
As a result of the delay in completing our financial statements, we have been and remain unable to
register securities for sale by us or for resale by other security holders, which has adversely
affected our ability to raise capital. Additionally, following the filing of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009 and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for each of
the quarters ended April 30, 2009, July 31, 2009, and October 31, 2009, as discussed under
Explanatory Note, we will remain ineligible to use Form S-3 to register securities until we have
timely filed all periodic reports under the Exchange Act for at least
12 calendar months (or, in the event the registration of our common
stock is revoked pursuant to the Section 12(j) proceeding discussed
under Explanatory Note, until after we have timely filed
all required reports for the 12 calendar months following the date
on which we once again become subject to the SEC reporting
requirements). In the
meantime, we would need to use Form S-1 to register securities with the SEC for capital raising
transactions or issue such securities in private placements, in either case, increasing the costs
of raising capital during that period.
- 28 -
Risks Related to Our Business
Competition and Markets
Our business is impacted by changes in general economic conditions and information technology
spending in particular.
Our business is subject to risks arising from adverse changes in domestic and global economic
conditions. Slowdowns or recessions around the world may cause companies and governments to delay,
reduce, or even cancel planned spending. In particular, declines in information technology
spending have affected the market for our products, especially in industries that are or have
experienced significant cost-cutting, such as financial services. Customers or partners who are
facing business challenges or liquidity issues are also more likely to delay purchase decisions or
cancel orders, as well as to delay or default on payments. If customers or partners significantly
reduce their spending with us or significantly delay or fail to make payments to us, our business,
results of operations, and financial condition would be materially adversely affected. Moreover,
as a result of current economic conditions, like many companies, we have engaged in significant
cost-saving measures over the last 24 months. We cannot assure you that these measures will not
negatively impact our ability to execute on our objectives and grow in the future, particularly if
we are not able to invest in our business as a result of a protracted economic downturn.
Intense competition in our markets and competitors with greater resources than us may limit our
market share, profitability, and growth.
We face aggressive competition from numerous and varied competitors in all of our markets, making
it difficult to maintain market share, remain profitable, and grow. Even if we are able to
maintain or increase our market share for a particular product, revenue or profitability could
decline due to pricing pressures, increased competition from other types of products, or because
the product is in a maturing industry.
Our competitors may be able to more quickly develop or adapt to new or emerging technologies,
better respond to changes in customer requirements or preferences, or devote greater resources to
the development, promotion, and sale of their products. Some of our competitors have, in relation
to us, longer operating histories, larger customer bases, longer standing relationships with
customers, greater name recognition, and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing,
customer service, public relations, distribution, or other resources. Some of our competitors are
also significantly larger than us and some of these companies have increased their presence in our
markets in recent years through internal development, partnerships, and acquisitions. There has
also been significant consolidation among our competitors, which has improved the competitive
position of several of these companies, and enabled new competitors to emerge in all of our
markets. In addition, we may face competition from solutions developed internally by our customers
or partners. To the extent we cannot compete effectively, our market share and, therefore, results
of operations, could be materially adversely affected.
- 29 -
Because price is a key consideration for many of our customers, we may have to accept
less-favorable payment terms, lower the prices of our products and services, and/or reduce our cost
structure, including reducing headcount or investment in research and development, in order to
remain competitive. Certain of our competitors have become increasingly aggressive in their
pricing strategy, particularly in markets where they are trying to establish a foothold. If we are
forced to take these kinds of actions to maintain market share, our revenue and profitability may
suffer or we may adversely impact our longer-term ability to execute or compete.
The industry in which we operate is characterized by rapid technological changes and evolving
industry standards, and if we cannot anticipate and react to such changes our results may suffer.
The markets for our products are characterized by rapidly changing technology and evolving industry
standards. The introduction of products embodying new technology and the emergence of new industry
standards can exert pricing pressure on existing products and/or can render our existing products
obsolete and unmarketable. It is critical to our success that, in all of our markets, we are able
to:
|
|
|
anticipate and respond to changes in technology and industry standards; |
|
|
|
successfully develop and introduce new, enhanced, and competitive products which meet
our customers changing needs; and |
|
|
|
deliver these new and enhanced products on a timely basis while adhering to our high
quality standards. |
We may not be able to successfully develop new products or introduce new applications for existing
products. In addition, new products and applications that we introduce may not achieve market
acceptance. If we are unable to introduce new products that address the needs of our customers or
that achieve market acceptance, there may be a material adverse impact on our revenue and on our
financial results.
Because many of our solutions are sophisticated, we must invest greater resources in sales and
installation processes with greater risk of loss if we are not successful.
In many cases, it is necessary for us to educate our potential customers about the benefits and
value of our solutions because many of our solutions are not simple, mass-market items with which
customers are already familiar. In addition, many of our solutions are sophisticated and may not
be readily usable by customers without our assistance in training, system integration, and
configuration. The greater need to work with and educate customers as part of the sales process
and, after completion of a sale, during the installation process for many of our products,
increases the time and difficulty of completing transactions, makes it more difficult to
efficiently deploy limited resources, and creates risk that we will have invested in an opportunity
that ultimately does not come to fruition. If we are unable to demonstrate the benefits and value
of our solutions to customers and efficiently convert our sales leads into successful sales and
installations, our results may be adversely affected.
- 30 -
Many of our sales are made by competitive bid, which often requires us to expend significant
resources, which we may not recoup.
Many of our sales, particularly in larger installations, are made by competitive bid. Successfully
competing in competitive bidding situations subjects us to risks associated with the frequent need
to bid on programs in advance of the completion of their design, which may result in unforeseen
technological difficulties and cost overruns, as well as making substantial investments of time and
money in research and development and marketing activities for contracts that may not be awarded to
us. If we do not ultimately win a bid, we may obtain little or no benefit from these expenditures
and may not be able to recoup these costs on future projects.
Even where we are not involved in a competitive bidding process, due to the intense competition in
our markets and increasing customer demand for shorter delivery periods, we must in some cases
begin the implementation of a project before the corresponding order has been finalized, increasing
the risk that we will have to write off expenses associated with potential orders that do not come
to fruition.
The nature of our business and our varying business models make it difficult for us to predict our
operating results.
It is difficult for us to forecast the timing of revenue from product sales because customers often
need a significant amount of time to evaluate our products before a purchase, and sales are
dependent on budgetary and, in the case of government customers, other bureaucratic processes. The
period between initial customer contact and a purchase by a customer may vary from as little as a
few weeks to more than a year. During the evaluation period, customers may defer or scale down
proposed orders for various reasons, including:
|
|
|
changes in budgets and purchasing priorities; |
|
|
|
reductions in need to upgrade existing systems; |
|
|
|
deferrals in anticipation of enhanced or new products; |
|
|
|
introduction of new products by our competitors; or |
|
|
|
lower prices offered by our competitors. |
In addition, we have historically derived a significant portion of our revenue from contracts for
large system installations with major customers and we continue to emphasize sales to larger
customers in our product development and marketing strategies. Contracts for large installations
typically involve a lengthy and complex bidding and selection process, and our ability to obtain
particular contracts is inherently difficult to predict. The timing and scope of these
opportunities are difficult to forecast, and the pricing and margins may vary substantially from
transaction to transaction. As a result, our future operating results may be volatile and vary
significantly from period to period.
- 31 -
While we have no single customer that is material to our total revenue, we do have many significant
customers in each of our segments and periodically receive multi-million dollar orders. The
deferral or loss of one or more significant orders or customers or a delay in an expected
implementation of such an order could materially adversely affect our segment operating results in
any quarter, particularly if there are significant sales and marketing expenses associated with the
deferred or lost sales.
In recent years, an increasing percentage of our revenue has come from software sales as compared
to hardware sales. This trend has only been amplified with the addition of the Witness business.
As with other software-focused companies, this has meant that more of our quarterly business has
come in the last few weeks of each quarter. In addition, customers have increasingly been placing
orders close to, or even on, the requested delivery date. The trend of shorter periods between
order date and delivery date, along with this trend of business moving to the end of the quarter,
has further complicated the process of accurately predicting revenue or making sales forecasts on a
quarterly basis.
Under applicable accounting standards and guidance, revenue for some of our software and hardware
transactions is recognized at the time of delivery, while revenue from other software and hardware
transactions is required to be deferred over a period of years. To a large extent, this depends on
the terms we offer to customers and partners, including terms relating to pricing, future
deliverables, and post-contract customer support. As a result, it is difficult for us to
accurately predict at the outset of a given period how much of our future revenue will be
recognized within that period and how much will be required to be deferred over a longer period.
See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under
Item 7 for additional information.
We base our current and future expense levels on our internal operating plans and sales forecasts,
and our operating costs are, to a large extent, fixed. As a result, we may not be able to
sufficiently reduce our operating costs in any period to compensate for an unexpected near-term
shortfall in revenue.
If we are unable to maintain our relationships with resellers, systems integrators, and other third
parties that market and sell our products, our business, financial condition, results of
operations, and ability to grow could be materially adversely impacted.
Approximately half of our revenue is generated by sales made through partners, distributors,
resellers, and systems integrators. If our relationship in any of these sales channels
deteriorates or terminates, we may lose important sales and marketing opportunities. In pursuing
new partnerships and strategic alliances, we must often compete for the opportunity with similar
solution providers. In order to effectively compete for such opportunities, we must introduce
products tailored not only to meet specific partner needs, but also to evolving customer and
prospective customer needs, and include innovative features and functionality easy for partners to
sell and install. Even if we are able to win such opportunities on terms we find acceptable, there
is no assurance that we will be able to realize the benefits we anticipate. Our competitors often
seek to establish exclusive relationships with these sales channels or, at a minimum, to become a
preferred partner for these sales channels. Some of our sales channel partners also
partner with our competitors and may even offer our products and those of our competitors as
alternatives when presenting bids to end customers. Our ability to achieve revenue growth depends
to a significant extent on maintaining and adding to these sales channels and if we are unable to
do so, our revenue could be materially adversely affected.
- 32 -
Certain provisions in agreements that we have entered into may expose us to liability that is not
limited in amount by the terms of the contract.
Certain contract provisions, principally confidentiality and indemnification obligations in certain
of our license agreements, could expose us to risks of loss that, in some cases, are not limited to
a specified maximum amount. Even where we are able to negotiate limitation of liability
provisions, these provisions may not always be enforced depending on the facts and circumstances of
the case at hand. If we or our products fail to perform to the standards required by our
contracts, we could be subject to uncapped liability for which we may or may not have adequate
insurance and our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially
adversely affected.
Our products may contain undetected defects which could impair their market acceptance and may
result in customer claims for substantial damages if our products fail to perform properly.
Our products are complex and involve sophisticated technology that performs critical functions to
highly demanding standards. Our existing and future products may develop operational problems. In
addition, new products or new versions of existing products may contain undetected defects or
errors. If we do not discover such defects, errors, or other operational problems until after a
product has been released and used by the customer or partner, we may incur significant costs to
correct such defects, errors, or other operational problems, including product liability claims or
other contract liabilities to customers or partners. In addition, defects or errors in our
products may result in claims for substantial damages and questions regarding the integrity of the
products, which could cause adverse publicity and impair their market acceptance.
If the regulatory environment does not evolve as expected or does not favor our products, our
results may suffer.
The regulatory environment relating to our solutions is still evolving and, in the security market
in particular, has been driven to a significant extent by legislative and regulatory actions, such
as the CALEA in the United States and standards established by the ETSI in Europe, as well as
initiatives to strengthen security for critical infrastructure, such as airports. These actions
and initiatives are evolving and are at all times subject to change based on factors beyond our
control, such as political climate, budgets, and even current events. While we attempt to
anticipate these actions and initiatives through our product offerings and refinements thereto, we
cannot assure you that we will be successful in these efforts, that our competitors will not do so
more successfully than us, or that changes in these actions or initiatives or the underlying
factors which affect them will not occur which will reduce or eliminate this demand. If any of the
foregoing should occur, or if our markets do not grow as anticipated for any other reason, our
results may suffer. In addition, changes to these actions or initiatives, including changes to
technical requirements, may require us to modify or redesign our products in order to maintain
compliance, which may subject us to significant additional expense.
- 33 -
Conversely, as the telecommunications industry continues to evolve, state, federal, and foreign
governments (including supranational government organizations such as the European Union) and
industry associations may increasingly regulate the monitoring of telecommunications and telephone
or internet monitoring and recording products such as ours. We believe that increases in
regulation could come in a number of forms, including increased regulations regarding privacy or
protection of personal information such as social security numbers, credit card information, and
employment records. The adoption of these types of regulations or changes to existing regulations
could cause a decline in the use of our solutions or could result in increased expense for us if we
must modify our solutions to comply with these regulations. Moreover, these types of regulations
could subject our customers or us to liability. Whether or not these kinds of regulations are
adopted, if we do not adequately address the privacy concerns of consumers, companies may be
hesitant to use our solutions. If any of these events occur, our business could be materially
adversely affected.
For certain products and components, we rely on a limited number of suppliers and manufacturers and
if these relationships are interrupted we may not be able to obtain substitute suppliers or
manufacturers on favorable terms or at all.
Although we generally use standard parts and components in our products, we do rely on
non-affiliated suppliers for certain non-standard components which may be critical to our products,
including both hardware and software, and on manufacturers of assemblies that are incorporated into
our products. While we endeavor to use larger, more established suppliers and manufacturers
wherever possible, in some cases, these providers may be smaller, more early-stage companies,
particularly with respect to suppliers of new technologies we may incorporate into our products
that we have not developed internally. Although we do have agreements in place with most of these
providers, which include appropriate protections such as source code escrows where needed, these
agreements are generally not long-term and these contractual protections offer limited practical
benefits to us in the event our relationship with a key provider is interrupted. If these
suppliers or manufacturers experience financial, operational, manufacturing capacity, or quality
assurance difficulties, or cease production and sale of the products we buy from them entirely, or
there is any other disruption in our relationships with these suppliers or manufacturers, we will
be required to locate alternative sources of supply or manufacturing, to internally develop the
applicable technologies, to redesign our products to accommodate an alternative technology, or to
remove certain features from our products. This could increase the costs of, and create delays in,
delivering our products or reduce the functionality of our products, which could adversely affect
our business and financial results.
- 34 -
If we cannot recruit or retain qualified personnel, our ability to operate and grow our business
may be limited.
We depend on the continued services of our executive officers and other key personnel. In
addition, in order to continue to grow effectively, we need to attract (and retain) new employees,
including managers, finance personnel, sales and marketing personnel, and technical personnel, who
understand and have experience with our products, services, and industry. The market for such
personnel is intensely competitive in most, if not all, of the geographies in which we operate, and
on occasion we have had to relocate personnel to fill positions in locations where we could not
attract qualified experienced personnel. Further, for as long as we remain delayed with our SEC
reporting obligations and our common stock remains de-listed, we are likely to continue to
experience a certain amount of difficulty attracting and retaining highly-qualified personnel,
particularly at more senior levels, due to concerns about our status. So long as we remain delayed
with our SEC reporting obligations and our common stock remains de-listed, our ability to use our
common stock to retain and motivate employees will also continue to be a challenge and subject to
certain restrictions. If we are unable to attract and retain qualified employees, on reasonable
economic and other terms or at all, our ability to grow could be impaired, our ability to timely
report our financial results could be adversely affected, and our operations and financial results
could be materially adversely affected.
Because we have significant foreign operations, we are subject to geopolitical and other risks that
could materially adversely affect our business.
We have significant operations in foreign countries, including sales, research and development,
customer support and administrative services. The countries in which we have our most significant
foreign operations include Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Hong Kong, and Germany, and
we intend to continue to expand our operations internationally. We believe our business may suffer
if we are unable to successfully expand into new regions, as well as maintain and expand existing
foreign operations. Our foreign operations are, and any future foreign expansion will be, subject
to a variety of risks, many of which are beyond our control, including risks associated with:
|
|
|
foreign currency fluctuations; |
|
|
|
political, security, and economic instability in foreign countries; |
|
|
|
changes in and compliance with local laws and regulations, including export control
laws, tax laws, labor laws, employee benefits, customs requirements, currency restrictions,
and other requirements; |
|
|
|
differences in tax regimes and potentially adverse tax consequences of operating in
foreign countries; |
|
|
|
customizing products for foreign countries; |
|
|
|
legal uncertainties regarding liability and intellectual property rights; |
|
|
|
hiring and retaining qualified foreign employees; and |
|
|
|
difficulty in accounts receivable collection and longer collection periods. |
- 35 -
Any or all of these factors could materially affect our business or results of operations.
In addition, the tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including the United
States, may from time to time review the pricing arrangements between us and our foreign
subsidiaries. An adverse determination by one or more tax authorities in this regard may have a
material adverse effect on our financial results. Restrictive laws, policies, or practices in
certain countries directed toward Israel or companies having operations in Israel may also limit
our ability to sell some of our products in those countries.
Conditions in Israel may materially adversely affect our operations and personnel and may limit our
ability to produce and sell our products.
We have significant operations in Israel, including research and development, manufacturing, sales,
and support. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts
have taken place between Israel and its Arab neighbors, which in the past have led and may in the
future, lead to security and economic problems for Israel. In addition, Israel has faced and
continues to face difficult relations with the Palestinians and the risk of terrorist violence from
both Palestinian as well as foreign elements such as Hezbollah. Infighting among the Palestinians
may also create security and economic risks to Israel. Current and future conflicts and political,
economic, and/or military conditions in Israel and the Middle East region have affected and may in
the future affect our operations in Israel. The exacerbation of violence within Israel or the
outbreak of violent conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, including Iran, may impede our
ability to manufacture, sell, and support our products, engage in research and development, or
otherwise adversely affect our business or operations. In addition, many of our employees in
Israel are required to perform annual compulsory military service and are subject to being called
to active duty at any time under emergency circumstances. The absence of these employees may have
an adverse effect on our operations. Hostilities involving Israel may also result in the
interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners or a significant
downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel and could materially adversely affect our
results of operations.
- 36 -
Regulatory and Government Contracting
We are dependent on contracts with governments around the world for a significant portion of our
revenue. These contracts expose us to additional business risks and compliance obligations.
A significant portion of our business is generated from sales under government contracts around the
world. We expect that government contracts will continue to be a significant source of our revenue
for the foreseeable future. We must comply with domestic and foreign laws and regulations relating
to the formation, administration, and performance of government contracts. These laws and
regulations affect how we do business with government agencies in various countries and may impose
added costs on our business. Our business generated from government contracts may be materially
adversely affected if:
|
|
|
our reputation or relationship with government agencies is impaired; |
|
|
|
we are suspended or otherwise prohibited from contracting with a domestic or foreign
government or any significant law enforcement agency; |
|
|
|
levels of government expenditures and authorizations for law enforcement and security
related programs decrease or shift to programs in areas where we do not provide products
and services; |
|
|
|
we are prevented from entering into new government contracts or extending existing
government contracts based on violations or suspected violations of laws or regulations,
including those related to procurement; |
|
|
|
we are not granted security clearances that are required to sell our products to
domestic or foreign governments or such security clearances are deactivated; |
|
|
|
there is a change in government procurement procedures; or |
|
|
|
there is a change in political climate that adversely affects our existing or
prospective relationships. |
As a result of the consent judgment we entered into with the SEC relating to our reserves accounting practices, we and our subsidiaries
are required, for three years from the date of the settlement, to disclose that this civil judgment was rendered against us in any
proposals to perform new government work for U.S. federal agencies. In addition, we and our subsidiaries must amend our representations in
existing grants and contracts with U.S. federal agencies to reflect the civil judgment. While this certification does not bar us from
receiving government grants or contracts from U.S. federal agencies, each government procurement official has the discretion to determine
whether it considers us and our subsidiaries responsible companies for purposes of each transaction. The government
procurement officials may also seek advice from government agency debarring officials to determine if we and our subsidiaries should be
considered for suspension or debarment from receiving government contracts or grants from U.S. federal agencies.
In addition, our government contracts may contain, or under applicable law may be deemed to
contain, provisions not typically found in private commercial contracts, including provisions
enabling the government party to:
|
|
|
terminate or cancel existing contracts for convenience; |
|
|
|
in the case of the U.S. federal government, suspend us from doing business with a
foreign government or prevent us from selling our products in certain countries; |
|
|
|
audit and object to our contract-related costs and expenses, including allocated
indirect costs; and |
|
|
|
unilaterally change contract terms and conditions, including warranty provisions,
schedule, quantities, and scope of work, in advance of our agreement on corresponding
pricing adjustments. |
The effect of these provisions may significantly increase our cost to perform the contract or defer
our ability to recognize revenue from such contracts. In some cases, this may mean that we must
begin recording expenses on a contract in advance of being able to recognize the corresponding
revenue. If a government customer terminates a contract with us for convenience, we may not
recover our incurred or committed costs, receive any settlement of expenses, or earn a profit on
work completed prior to the termination. If a government customer terminates a contract for
default, we may not recover these amounts, and, in addition, we may be liable for any costs
incurred by the government customer in procuring undelivered items and services from another
source. Further, an agency within a government may share information regarding our
termination with other agencies. As a result, our ongoing or prospective relationships with other
government agencies could be impaired.
- 37 -
We may not be able to receive or retain the necessary licenses or authorizations required for us to
export some of our products that we develop or manufacture in specific countries.
We are required to obtain export licenses or qualify for other authorizations from the United
States, Israel, and other governments to export some of the products that we develop or manufacture
in these countries and, in any event, are required to comply with applicable export control laws of
each country generally. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining or
maintaining the licenses and other authorizations required to export our products from applicable
government authorities. In addition, export laws and regulations are revised from time to time and
can be extremely complex in their application; if we are found not to have complied with applicable
export control laws, we may be fined or penalized by, among other things, having our ability to
obtain export licenses curtailed or eliminated, possibly for an extended period of time. Our
failure to receive or maintain any required export licenses or authorizations or our penalization
for failure to comply with applicable export control laws would hinder our ability to sell our
products and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of
operations.
U.S. and foreign governments could refuse to buy our Communications Intelligence solutions or could
deactivate our security clearances in their countries thereby restricting or eliminating our
ability to sell these solutions in those countries and perhaps other countries influenced by such a
decision.
Some of our subsidiaries maintain security clearances in the United States and other countries in
connection with the development, marketing, sale, and support of our Communications Intelligence
solutions. These clearances are reviewed from time to time by the applicable government agencies
in these countries and following these reviews, our security clearances are either maintained or
deactivated. Our security clearances can be deactivated for many reasons, including that the
clearing agencies in some countries may object to the fact that we do business in certain other
countries or the fact that our local subsidiary is affiliated with or controlled by an entity based
in another country. In the event that our security clearances are deactivated in any particular
country, we would lose the ability to sell our Communications Intelligence solutions in that
country for projects that require security clearances. Additionally, any inability to obtain or
maintain security clearances in a particular country may affect our ability to sell our
Communications Intelligence solutions in that country generally (even for non-secure projects). We
have in the past, and may in the future, have our security clearances deactivated. Any inability
to obtain or maintain clearances can materially adversely affect our results of operations.
Whether or not we are able to maintain our security clearances, law enforcement and intelligence
agencies in certain countries may decline to purchase Communications Intelligence solutions if they
were not developed or manufactured in that country. As a result, because our Communications
Intelligence solutions are developed or manufactured in whole or in part in Israel or in Germany,
there may be certain countries where some or all of the law enforcement
and intelligence agencies are unwilling to purchase our Communications Intelligence solutions. If
we are unable to sell our Communications Intelligence solutions in certain countries for this
reason, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
- 38 -
The mishandling or even the perception of mishandling of sensitive information could harm our
business.
Our products are in some cases used by customers to compile and analyze highly sensitive or
confidential information and data, including in some cases, information or data used in
intelligence gathering or law enforcement activities. While our customers use of our products in
no way affords us access to this information or data, we may come into contact with such
information or data when we perform services or support functions for our customers. We have
implemented policies and procedures to help ensure the proper handling of such information and
data, including background screening of services personnel, non-disclosure agreements, access
rules, and controls on our information technology systems. However, these measures are designed to
mitigate the risks associated with handling sensitive data and cannot safeguard against all risks
at all times. The improper handling of sensitive data, or even the perception of such mishandling
or other security lapses or risks, whether or not valid, could reduce demand for our products or
otherwise expose us to financial or reputational harm.
Intellectual Property
Our intellectual property may not be adequately protected.
While much of our intellectual property is protected by patents or patent applications, we have not
and cannot protect all of our intellectual property with patents or other registrations. There can
be no assurance that patents we have applied for will be issued on the basis of our patent
applications or that, if such patents are issued, they will be sufficiently broad enough to protect
our technologies, products, or services. There can be no assurance that we will file new patent,
trademark, or copyright applications, that any future applications will be approved, that any
existing or future patents, trademarks or copyrights will adequately protect our intellectual
property or that any existing or future patents, trademarks, or copyrights will not be challenged
by third parties. Our intellectual property rights may not be successfully asserted in the future
or may be invalidated, designed-around, or challenged.
In order to safeguard our unpatented proprietary know-how, source code, trade secrets, and
technology, we rely primarily upon trade secret protection and non-disclosure provisions in
agreements with employees and other third parties having access to our confidential information.
There can be no assurance that these measures will adequately protect us from improper disclosure
or misappropriation of our proprietary information.
Preventing unauthorized use or infringement of our intellectual property rights is difficult. The
laws of certain countries do not protect our proprietary rights to the same extent as the laws of
the United States. Therefore, in certain jurisdictions we may be unable to protect our intellectual
property adequately against unauthorized third-party use or infringement, which could adversely
affect our competitive position.
- 39 -
Our products may infringe or may be alleged to infringe on the intellectual property rights of
others, which could lead to costly disputes or disruptions for us and may require us to indemnify
our customers and partners for any damages they suffer.
The technology industry is characterized by frequent allegations of intellectual property
infringement. In the past, third parties have asserted that certain of our products infringed upon
their intellectual property rights and similar claims may be made in the future. Any allegation of
infringement against us could be time consuming and expensive to defend or resolve, result in
substantial diversion of management resources, cause product shipment delays, or force us to enter
into royalty or license agreements. If patent holders or other holders of intellectual property
initiate legal proceedings against us, we may be forced into protracted and costly litigation,
regardless of the merits of these claims. We may not be successful in defending such litigation,
in part due to the complex technical issues and inherent uncertainties in intellectual property
litigation, and may not be able to procure any required royalty or license agreements on terms
acceptable to us, or at all. Third parties may also assert infringement claims against our
customers. Subject to certain limitations, we generally indemnify our customers and partners with
respect to infringement by our products of the proprietary rights of third parties. These claims
may require us to initiate or defend protracted and costly litigation, regardless of the merits of
these claims. If any of these claims succeed, we may be forced to pay damages, be required to
obtain licenses for the products our customers or partners use, or incur significant expenses in
developing non-infringing alternatives. If we cannot obtain all necessary licenses on commercially
reasonable terms, our customers may be forced to stop using or, in the case of resellers and other
partners, stop selling our products.
Loss of third-party licensing agreements could materially adversely affect our business, financial
condition, and results of operations.
While most of our products are developed internally, we also purchase technology, license
intellectual property rights, and oversee third-party development and localization of certain
products or components. If we lose or are unable to maintain licenses or distribution rights, we
could incur additional costs or experience unexpected delays until an alternative solution can be
internally developed or licensed from another third party and integrated into our products or we
may be forced to re-design our products or remove certain features from our products. See For
certain products and components, we rely on a limited number of suppliers and manufacturers and if
these relationships are interrupted we may not be able to obtain substitute suppliers or
manufacturers on favorable terms or at all above for additional information.
- 40 -
Use of free or open source software could expose our products to unintended restrictions and could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Some of our products contain free or open source (collectively, open source) software and we
anticipate making use of open source software in the future. Open source software is generally
covered by license agreements that permit the user to use, copy, modify, and distribute the
software without cost, provided that the users and modifiers abide by certain licensing
requirements. The original developers of the open source software generally provide no
warranties on such software. Although we endeavor to monitor the use of open source software in
our product development, we cannot assure you that past, present, or future products will not
contain open source elements which impose unfavorable licensing restrictions or other requirements
on our products. In addition, the terms of many open source licenses have not yet been interpreted
by U.S. or foreign courts and as a result there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in
a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on products that use such software.
The introduction of certain kinds of open source software into our products or a court decision
construing an open source license in an unexpected way could require us to seek licenses from third
parties in order to continue offering affected products, to re-engineer affected products, to
discontinue sales of affected products, or to release all or portions of the source code of
affected products under the terms of the applicable open source licenses. Any of these
developments could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of
operations.
Risks Related to Our Capital Structure and Finances
We have incurred significant indebtedness as a result of the acquisition of Witness, which makes us
highly leveraged, subjects us to restrictive covenants, and could adversely affect our operations.
Risks associated with being highly leveraged.
At
February 28, 2010, we had outstanding indebtedness of approximately $620 million. As a result
of our significant indebtedness, we are highly leveraged. Our leverage position may, among other things:
|
|
|
limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing in the future for working capital,
capital expenditures, acquisitions, or other general corporate purposes; |
|
|
|
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to debt
service, reducing the availability of our cash flow for other purposes; |
|
|
|
require us to repatriate cash for debt service from our foreign subsidiaries resulting
in dividend tax costs or require us to adopt other disadvantageous tax structures to
accommodate debt service payments; or |
|
|
|
increase our vulnerability to economic downturns, limit our ability to capitalize on
significant business opportunities, and restrict our flexibility to react to changes in
market or industry conditions. |
In addition, because our indebtedness bears interest at a variable rate, we are exposed to risk
from fluctuations in interest rates. While we have hedged a portion of this exposure under our
term loan, this interest rate swap does not cover all of our term loan indebtedness, it expires prior
to the maturity date of our term loan, and it subjects us to above-market interest rates at any time
that prevailing rates drop below the rate fixed by the swap.
On
January 29, 2010, S&P announced that our credit rating had been placed on CreditWatch Developing,
and there can be no assurance that S&P or Moodys will not downgrade our credit rating.
- 41 -
Risks
associated with our leverage ratio and financial statement delivery
covenants.
Our credit agreement contains a financial covenant that requires us to maintain a minimum
consolidated leverage ratio and a covenant requiring us to deliver
audited financial statements to the lenders each year as provided
below. See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital Resources under Item 7 for additional information.
Our ability to comply with the leverage ratio covenant is highly dependent upon our ability to
continue to grow earnings from quarter to quarter, which requires us to increase revenue while
limiting increases in expenses or, if we are unable to increase or maintain revenue, to reduce
expenses. Our ability to satisfy our debt obligations and our leverage ratio covenant will depend
upon our future operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and
financial, business, and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Alternatively, we may seek to maintain compliance with the leverage ratio covenant by reducing our outstanding debt by raising additional
funds through a number of means, including, but not limited to, securities offerings or asset sales.
There can be no assurance that we will be able to grow our earnings,
reduce our expenses, and/or raise funds to reduce our outstanding
debt to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with this covenant. In addition, any expense reductions undertaken to maintain
compliance may impair our ability to compete by, among other things, limiting research and
development or hiring of key personnel. The complexity of our revenue accounting and the continued
shift of our business to the end of the quarter (discussed in greater detail above) has also
increased the difficulty in accurately forecasting quarterly revenue and therefore in predicting
whether we will be in compliance with the leverage ratio requirements at the end of each quarter.
Because our revenue recognition review resulted in changes in the way we recognize revenue from the
way we did so at the time the credit agreement was put in place, it may be more difficult for us to
maintain compliance with our leverage ratio covenant on a prospective basis than we expected at the
time we entered into the credit agreement since the leverage ratio
covenant is based on our earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA),
which is affected by revenue. In addition, because U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) require us to continue to refine our accounting for open periods until the financial
statements for such periods are filed, it is also possible that we may determine that we were not
in compliance with the leverage ratio covenant in periods subsequent to January 31, 2008, until
such time as we file the financial statements for such periods.
Following
an event of default under the credit agreement, our lenders could declare all amounts
outstanding to be immediately due and payable. In that event, we may
be forced to sell assets, raise additional capital through a
securities offering, or seek to refinance or restructure our debt. In such a
case, there can be no assurance that we will be able to consummate
such a sale, securities offering, or refinance or
restructure our debt on reasonable terms or at all.
The credit agreement also includes a requirement that we submit audited
consolidated financial statements to the lenders within 90 days of
the end of each fiscal year beginning with the year ending January
31, 2010, which for the year ended January 31, 2010 is May 1, 2010.
If audited consolidated financial statements are not so delivered and
such failure of delivery is not remedied within 30 days thereafter, an event of default occurs.
- 42 -
Limitations resulting from the restrictive covenants in the credit agreement.
Our credit agreement also includes a number of restrictive covenants which limit our ability to,
among other things:
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness or liens or issue preferred stock; |
|
|
|
pay dividends or make other distributions or repurchase or redeem our stock or
subordinated indebtedness; |
|
|
|
engage in transactions with affiliates; |
|
|
|
engage in sale-leaseback transactions; |
|
|
|
change our lines of business; |
|
|
|
make investments, loans, or advances; and |
|
|
|
engage in consolidations, mergers, liquidations, or dissolutions. |
These covenants could limit our ability to plan for or react to market conditions, to meet our
capital needs, or to otherwise engage in transactions that might be considered beneficial to us.
The rights of the holders of shares of our common stock are subject to, and may be adversely
affected by, the rights of holders of the preferred stock that we issued to Comverse in connection
with the Witness acquisition.
In connection with the Witness acquisition, we issued 293,000 shares of preferred stock to Comverse
at an aggregate purchase price of $293.0 million. The issuance of shares of common stock upon
conversion of the preferred stock (after the conversion feature of the preferred stock has been
approved by our stockholders) will result in substantial dilution to the other common stockholders.
In addition, the terms of the preferred stock include liquidation, dividend, and other rights that
are senior to and more favorable than the rights of the holders of our common stock.
Our business could be materially adversely affected as a result of the risks associated with
acquisitions and investments.
As part of our growth strategy, we have made a number of acquisitions and investments and expect to
continue to make acquisitions and investments in the future. However, so long as we remain delayed
with our SEC filings and our common stock remains de-listed, our ability to use our common stock to
raise capital for acquisitions will continue to be severely restricted.
Future acquisitions or investments, if any, could result in potentially dilutive issuances of
equity securities, the incurrence of debt and contingent liabilities, and amortization expenses
related to intangible assets, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operating
results and financial condition. In addition, investments in immature businesses with unproven
track records and technologies have a high degree of risk, with the possibility that we may lose
the value of our entire investments and potentially incur additional unexpected liabilities.
- 43 -
The process of integrating an acquired companys business into our operations and investing in new
technologies may result in unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures, which may require a
significant amount of our managements attention that would otherwise be focused on the ongoing
operation of our business. Other risks we may encounter with acquisitions include the effect of
the acquisition on our financial and strategic positions and our reputation, the inability to
obtain the anticipated benefits of the acquisition, including synergies or economies of scale, on a
timely basis or at all, or unexpected challenges in reconciling business practices, particularly in
foreign geographies. Due to rapidly changing market conditions, we may also find the value of our
acquired technologies and related intangible assets, such as goodwill, as recorded in our financial
statements, to be impaired, resulting in charges to operations. The magnitude of these risks is
greater in the case of large acquisitions, such as our 2007 acquisition of Witness. See Note 5,
Business Combinations to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. There can be
no assurance that we will be successful in making additional acquisitions or that we will be able
to effectively integrate any acquisitions we do make or realize the expected benefits for our
business.
If our goodwill or other intangible assets become further impaired, our financial condition and
results of operations would be negatively affected.
Because we have historically acquired a significant number of companies, goodwill and other
intangible assets have represented a substantial portion of our assets. As of January 31, 2008,
goodwill and other intangible assets totaled approximately $1.0 billion, or approximately 70% of
our total assets. At a minimum, we assess annually whether there has been impairment in the
carrying amount of our goodwill or indefinite-lived intangible assets. In determining fair value,
we make significant judgments and estimates, including assumptions about our strategic plans with
regard to our operations, as well as current economic indicators and market valuations. We have
recorded non-cash impairment charges related to our Video Intelligence business (the MultiVision
acquisition) and our Workforce Optimization performance management consulting business (the Opus,
CM Insight, and a portion of the Witness acquisitions) for the years ended January 31, 2008 and
2007, totaling $23.4 million, and $24.7 million,
respectively. In addition, we expect to record a material non-cash
impairment charge for the year ended January 31, 2009
in the range of $11 million to $46 million. To the extent economic conditions
that would impact the future fair value of our reporting units worsen, we would be required to
record an additional non-cash charge. Any significant goodwill or intangible asset impairment
would negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. See Note 6, Intangible
Assets and Goodwill and Note 19, Subsequent Events to the consolidated financial statements
included in Item 15 for more information.
- 44 -
Our international operations subject us to currency exchange risk.
Most of
our revenue is denominated in U.S. Dollars, while a significant portion of
our operating expenses, primarily labor expenses, is denominated in the local currencies
where our foreign operations are located, principally Israel, Germany, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. As a result, we are exposed to the risk that fluctuations in the value of these currencies
relative to the U.S. Dollar could increase the U.S. Dollar cost of our operations in these
countries and which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In
addition, since a portion of our sales are made in foreign currencies, primarily the British Pound
and the Euro, fluctuations in the value of these currencies relative to the U.S. Dollar could
impact our revenue (on a U.S. Dollar basis) and materially adversely affect our results of operations.
Our ability to realize value from and use our net operating losses will impact our results and tax
liability.
We have significant deferred tax assets as a result of prior net operating losses. These deferred
tax assets can provide us with significant future tax savings if we are able to use them. However,
the extent to which we will be able to use these tax benefits may be impacted, restricted, or
eliminated by a number of factors including whether we generate sufficient future net income, a
future ownership change, adjustments to Comverses tax liability
for periods prior to our IPO, or changes in tax rates, laws, or regulations that could have retroactive
effect. To the extent that we are unable to utilize our net operating losses, our results of
operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be adversely affected in a significant manner.
When we cease to have net operating loss carry forwards available to us in a particular tax
jurisdiction, either through their expiration, disallowance, or utilization, our effective tax rate will increase
in that jurisdiction, thereby impacting our overall effective tax rate. Our effective tax rate in
any given year is also dependent on the relative mix of jurisdictions (and corresponding local tax
rates) in which we operate.
Research and development and tax benefits we receive in Israel may be reduced or eliminated in the
future and our receipt of these benefits subjects us to certain restrictions.
We receive grants from the OCS for the financing of a portion of our research and development
expenditures in Israel. The availability in any given year of these OCS grants depends on OCS
approval of the projects and related budgets we submit to the OCS each year. In addition, in
recent years, the Government of Israel has reduced the benefits available under these programs and
these programs may be discontinued or curtailed in the future. The continued reduction in these
benefits or the termination of our eligibility to receive these benefits may adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
The Israeli law under which these OCS grants are made also limits our ability to manufacture
products, or transfer technologies, developed using these grants outside of Israel. This may limit
our ability to engage in certain outsourcing or business combination transactions involving these
products. We may seek permission from the OCS to manufacture these products or transfer these
technologies out of Israel, but we cannot assure you that any such request would be approved, and
even if approved, we may be required to pay significant royalties or fees to the
OCS. If we fail to comply with these restrictions, we may be required to repay the grants we
received from the OCS and could also become subject to monetary or criminal penalties.
- 45 -
Our facility in Israel has been granted approved enterprise status and we are therefore eligible
for tax benefits under the Israeli Law for Encouragement of Capital Investments. The Government of
Israel may reduce or eliminate the tax benefits available to approved enterprise programs such as
the programs provided to us. There can be no assurance that these tax benefits will continue in
the future at their current levels or at all. If these tax benefits are reduced or eliminated, the
amount of tax that we pay in Israel will increase. In addition, if we fail to comply with any of
the conditions and requirements of the investment programs, the tax benefits we have received may
be rescinded and we may be required to disgorge the amount of the tax benefit received, together
with interest and penalties.
Item 1b.
Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Properties
The following describes our leased and owned properties as of the date of this report.
Leased Properties
We lease
a total of approximately 260,900 square feet of office space in the United States. Our
corporate headquarters is located in a leased facility in Melville, New York, and consists of
approximately 45,800 square feet under a lease that expires in May 2013. The facility is primarily
used by our administrative, sales, marketing, customer support, and services groups. We lease
approximately 91,600 square feet at a facility in Roswell, Georgia under a lease that expires in
November 2012. The Roswell, Georgia facility is used primarily by the administrative, marketing,
product development, support, and sales groups for our Workforce Optimization operations.
We occupy additional leased facilities in the United States, including offices located in Columbia,
Maryland and Denver, Colorado which are primarily used for product development, sales, training,
and support for our Video Intelligence operations; an office in Chantilly, Virginia used primarily
for supporting our Communications Intelligence operations; and offices in Santa Clara, California;
Lyndhurst, New Jersey; San Diego, California; and Norwell, Massachusetts which are primarily used
for product development, sales, training, and support for our Workforce Optimization operations.
- 46 -
Outside
of the United States, we occupy approximately 176,000 square feet at a facility in
Herzliya, Israel under a lease that expires in October 2015. The Herzliya, Israel facility is used
primarily for manufacturing, storage, development, sales, marketing and support related to our
Communications Intelligence operations. We also occupy approximately 34,500 square feet at a
leased facility in Laval, Quebec, which is used primarily for our manufacturing, product
development, support, and sales for our Video Intelligence operations. The lease in Laval, Quebec
expires in June 2011. We occupy approximately 21,000 square feet at a facility in Leatherhead, the
United Kingdom under a lease which expires in March 2014. The Leatherhead facility is used
primarily for administrative, marketing, product development, support, and sales groups for our
Workforce Optimization and Video Intelligence operations.
Additionally, we occupy leased facilities outside of the United States in Weybridge, the United
Kingdom; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City, Mexico; Hong Kong, China; Tokyo, Japan; Sydney, Australia;
Taguig, Philippines; Singapore (through our joint venture); and Gurgaon and Bangalore, India, which are used primarily by our
administrative, product development, sales, and support functions for our Workforce Optimization,
Communications Intelligence and Video Intelligence operations.
In addition to the leases noted above, we also lease executive office space throughout the world
for our local sales, support and services needs. For additional information regarding our lease
obligations, see Note 17, Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements
included in Item 15.
Owned Properties
We own approximately 12.3 acres of land, including 40,000 square feet of office space in Durango,
Colorado, which we have historically used to support our Video
Intelligence operations. We owned
an additional 12.7 acres of adjacent land which we sold on October 10, 2006 to a third party.
Additionally, on October 10, 2006, we entered into a 10-year lease with the same third party for
6.5 acres of the 12.3 acres we own, all of which was undeveloped and not being used by us. The
remaining 5.8 acres, including the office space, are subject to a mortgage under the term loan and
credit agreement entered into by us in connection with the acquisition of Witness.
We also own approximately 35,000 square feet of office and storage space for sales, manufacturing,
support, and development for our Communications Intelligence operations in Bexbach, Germany.
We believe our leased and owned facilities are in good operating condition and are adequate for our
current requirements, though growth in our business may require us to acquire additional facilities
or modify existing facilities. We believe that alternative locations are available in all areas
where we currently do business.
- 47 -
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
Comverse Investigation-Related Matters
On December 17, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements to settle the following lawsuits previously
disclosed by Comverse relating to the matters involved in the Comverse Special Committee
investigation which had been brought against Comverse and certain former officers and directors of
Comverse: (i) a consolidated shareholder class action before the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation; (ii) a
shareholder derivative action before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation; and (iii) a shareholder derivative
action before the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation.
Verint was not named as a defendant in any of these suits. Igal Nissim, our former Chief Financial
Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his
capacity as the former Chief Financial Officer of Comverse, and Dan Bodner, our Chief Executive
Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his
capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Verint (i.e., as the president of a significant
subsidiary of Comverse). Mr. Nissim and Mr. Bodner were not named in the shareholder class action
suit.
The federal shareholder derivative suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
beginning in 1994 by: (i) allowing and participating in a scheme to backdate the grant dates of
employee stock options to improperly benefit Comverses executives and certain directors; (ii)
allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to personally profit by trading Comverses
stock while in possession of material inside information; (iii) failing to properly oversee or
implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper practices; (iv) causing Comverse to issue
materially false and misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file other false
and misleading documents with the SEC; and (v) exposing Comverse to civil liability. The
plaintiffs originally filed suit on April 20, 2006. The Consolidated, Amended, and Verified
Shareholder Derivative Complaint, filed on October 6, 2006, sought unspecified damages, injunctive
relief, including restricting the proceeds of the defendants trading activities and other assets,
setting aside the election of the defendant directors to the Comverse board of directors, and costs
and attorneys fees. On December 21, 2007, motions to dismiss the federal shareholder derivative
suit were fully briefed on behalf of Comverse as well as the individual defendants, including Mr.
Nissim and Mr. Bodner. No decision had been rendered on these motions to dismiss as of the signing
of the settlement agreements or as of the filing date of this report.
The state shareholder derivative suit made similar allegations to the federal shareholder
derivative suit. The plaintiffs first filed suit on April 11, 2006. The Consolidated and Amended
Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which was filed on September 18, 2006, sought unspecified
damages, injunctive relief, such as restricting the proceeds of the defendants trading activities
and other assets, and costs and attorneys fees.
- 48 -
The agreements in settlement of the above-mentioned actions are subject to notice to Comverses
shareholders and approval by the federal and state courts in which such proceedings are pending.
Neither we nor Mr. Nissim or Mr. Bodner is responsible for making any payments or relinquishing any
equity holdings under the terms of the settlement.
Comverse was also the subject of a SEC investigation and resulting civil action regarding the
improper backdating of stock options and other accounting practices, including the improper
establishment, maintenance, and release of reserves, the reclassification of certain expenses, and
the calculation of backlog of sales orders. On June 18, 2009, Comverse announced that it had
reached a settlement with the SEC on these matters without admitting or denying the allegations of
the SEC complaint.
Verint Investigation-Related Matters
On July 20, 2006, we announced that, in connection with the SEC investigation into Comverses past
stock option grants which was in process at that time, we had received a letter requesting that we
voluntarily provide to the SEC certain documents and information related to our own stock option
grants and practices. We voluntarily responded to this request. On April 9, 2008, as we
previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the
staffs investigation of our past stock option grant practices
and certain unrelated accounting
matters. These accounting matters were also the subject of our
internal investigation.
On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment
permanently enjoining us from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief
beyond the entry of a permanent injunction. The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC
considered our remediation and cooperation in the SECs
investigation. The settlement was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March
9, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file
our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. Under the SECs Wells process, recipients of a Wells Notice have the opportunity to
make a Wells Submission before the SEC staff makes a recommendation to the SEC regarding what action, if any, should be brought by the SEC.
On January 15, 2010, we submitted a Wells Submission to the SEC in response to this Wells Notice. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an
OIP pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file
an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since
December 12, 2005. An Administrative Law Judge will consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the
OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including
available procedural remedies and intend to defend against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
- 49 -
On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class lawsuit action (the Labor Motion) and the class
action lawsuit itself (the Labor Class Action) (Labor Case No. 4186/09) were filed against our
subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited (VSL) by a former employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch in the Tel
Aviv Labor Court. Mrs. Deutsch purports to represent a class of our employees and
ex-employees, who were granted options to buy shares of Verint, and to whom allegedly, damages
were caused as a result of the blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by our employees
or ex-employees. The Labor Motion and the Labor Class Action both claim that we are responsible
for the alleged damages due to our status as employer and that the blocking of Verint options from
being exercised constitutes default of the employment agreements between the members of the class
and VSL. The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages for the entire class in an unspecified
amount. On July 9, 2009, we filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively for the stay of
the Labor Motion. A preliminary session was held on July 12, 2009. Mrs. Deutsch filed her
response to our response on November 10, 2009.
On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv Labor Court dismissed the case
for lack of material jurisdiction and ruled that it will be
transferred to the District Court in Tel Aviv.
Witness Investigation-Related Matters
At the time of our May 25, 2007 acquisition of Witness, Witness was subject to a number of
proceedings relating to a stock options backdating internal investigation undertaken and publicly
disclosed by Witness prior to the acquisition. The following is a summary of those proceedings and
developments since the date of the acquisition.
On August 29, 2006, A. Edward Miller filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) naming Witness as a nominal defendant
and naming all of Witness directors and a number of its officers as defendants (Miller v. Gould,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-2039 (N.D. Ga.)). The complaint alleged purported violations of
federal and state law, and violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws (including Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder)
in connection with certain stock option grants made by Witness. The complaint sought monetary
damages in unspecified amounts, disgorgement of profits, an accounting, rescission of stock option
grants, imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants stock options and proceeds derived
therefrom, punitive damages, reimbursement of attorneys fees and other costs and expenses, an
order directing Witness to adopt or put to a stockholder vote various proposals relating to
corporate governance, and other relief as determined by the court. On March 11, 2009, the Court
granted defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff did
not file an appeal and the time to do so under the federal rules has elapsed.
On August 14, 2006, a class action securities lawsuit was filed by an individual claiming to be a
Witness stockholder naming Witness and certain of its directors and officers as defendants in
connection with certain stock option grants made by Witness (Rosenberg v. Gould, et al., Civil
Action No. 1:06-CV-1894 (N.D. Ga.)). The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys fees and other costs and
expenses, unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive relief, and other relief as
determined by the court. On March 31, 2008, the Court granted defendants motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On April 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and on January 9, 2009, the 11th Circuit affirmed the lower courts dismissal of the
complaint. Plaintiff has not pursued further appeal of this decision and the time to do so under
the federal rules has elapsed.
- 50 -
On October 27, 2006, Witness received notice from the SEC of an informal non-public inquiry
relating to the stock option grant practices of Witness from February 1, 2000 through the date of
the notice. On July 12, 2007, we received a copy of the Formal Order of Investigation from the SEC
relating to substantially the same matter as the informal inquiry. We and Witness have fully
cooperated, and intend to continue to fully cooperate, if called upon to do so, with the SEC
regarding this matter. In addition, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Northern District of
Georgia was also given access to the documents and information provided by Witness to the SEC. Our
last communication with the SEC with respect to the matter was in June 2008.
Verint Patent and General Litigation Matters
On December 18, 2006, Trover Group, Inc. (Trover) filed a patent infringement suit seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against us, Target Corporation, and The Home Depot, Inc. based on claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
5,751,345 and 5,751,346 (the Trover Patents). Trover dismissed Home Depot and Target without
prejudice on April 17, 2008 and on April 25, 2008, respectively. Trover also commenced separate
patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against
Diebold Incorporated, one of our customers, and against Regions Bank, a user of our video security
and surveillance products. On July 21, 2008, we entered into a settlement agreement with Trover.
The settlement agreement provides protections to us and other parties that have or had purchased or
used certain of our products, including the products at issue in the foregoing litigations. On
July 23, 2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against us by Trover.
On October 18, 2005, the Administrative Court of Appeals of Athens entered a final,
non-appealable verdict against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Verint Systems UK Ltd. (formerly
Comverse Infosys UK Limited) (Verint UK), in a dispute between Verint UK and its former customer,
the Greek Civil Aviation Authority, which began in June 1999. The Greek Civil Aviation Authority
had claimed that the equipment provided to it by Verint UK did not operate properly. The verdict
did not contain a calculation of the monetary judgment, but as of October 31, 2009, we estimated
the amount at approximately $2.6 million based on an earlier decision in the case, exclusive of any
interest which may be assessed on the judgment based on the passage of time. The Greek government
must seek enforcement of this judgment in the United Kingdom. To date this judgment has not been
enforced and we have made no payments.
- 51 -
Witness Patent and General Litigation Matters
At the time of our May 25, 2007 acquisition of Witness, Witness was subject to a number of patent
and general litigations that were publicly disclosed by Witness prior to the acquisition. The
following is a summary of those proceedings and developments since the date of the acquisition:
Knowlagent
On December 11, 2002, Witness filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against Knowlagent, Inc. (Knowlagent), which is the
assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,282 B1 and 6,459,787 B2. Witness sought a declaration that it
did not infringe either of these two patents and a declaration that these patents were invalid and
unenforceable. We subsequently reached a settlement agreement with Knowlagent and the case was
terminated on August 31, 2007.
Blue Pumpkin
On March 14, 2007, Witness was served with a complaint by Doron Aspitz, the former Chief Executive
Officer of Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc. (Blue Pumpkin), in California Superior Court for the
County of Santa Clara. The complaint named Witness as defendant and asserted eight causes of
action, including promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation, in connection with Witnesss
2005 acquisition of Blue Pumpkin. The complaint sought over $5.0 million in compensatory damages
as well as other unquantified punitive and exemplary damages. On August 10, 2007, Witness
successfully removed the suit from the California Superior Court to the Southern District of New
York and on August 14, 2007, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.
NICE Systems Settlement Agreement
On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement with NICE to resolve all patent litigations
between NICE and Witness in existence at that time. The following is a summary of these
litigations, each of which was formally terminated by the applicable court between August 8, 2008
and August 13, 2008:
|
|
|
Suit filed on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York by STS Software Systems Ltd. (STS Software), a wholly-owned subsidiary of NICE and
declaratory judgment action filed the same day by Witness against STS Software in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. These two cases were consolidated to
the Northern District of Georgia, where STS Software asserted that certain Witness
recording products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,122,665; 6,865,604; 6,871,229;
and 6,880,004 relating to VoIP technology and sought only injunctive relief. A bench trial
was held from March 17-21, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the court entered a judgment of
non-infringement in our favor. |
|
|
|
Suit filed on August 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Witness against NICE Systems, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of NICE. Witness asserted that NICEs screen capture products infringed on claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,790,790 and 6,510,220. The case was consolidated with a separate February
24, 2005 suit filed by Witness against NICE alleging infringement on the same patents. We
were waiting on the court to assign a trial date at the time of the settlement. |
- 52 -
|
|
|
Suit filed on January 19, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Witness against NICE. Witness asserted that NICEs speech
analytics products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857. A jury trial was held
from May 12-16, 2008 and the jury returned a verdict in our favor and against NICE on the
claims of infringement. The jury also awarded us $3.3 million in damages; however, this
award was superseded by the terms of the settlement agreement disclosed above. |
|
|
|
Suit filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by
NICE against Witness seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. NICE asserted that
various Witness recording products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,274,738;
5,396,371; 5,819,005; 6,249,570; 6,728,345; 6,775,372; 6,785,370; 6,870,920; 6,959,079; and
7,010,109. These patents cover various aspects for recording customer interaction
communications and traditional call logging. A jury trial was held from January 14-22,
2008, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. |
|
|
|
Declaratory judgment action filed on December 27, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by NICE against Witness seeking a declaration that the
claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,361 (relating to speech analytics) were invalid and that
NICE has not infringed this patent. The Court granted our motion to dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 10, 2007. |
From time to time we or our subsidiaries may be involved in other legal proceedings and/or
litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business that might impact our financial position,
our results of operations, or our cash flows.
Item 4.
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Not applicable.
- 53 -
PART II
|
|
Item 5. |
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities |
Market Information
Since February 1, 2007, our common stock has traded on the over-the-counter securities market under
the symbol VRNT.PK with pricing and financial information provided by the Pink Sheets. Prior to
February 1, 2007, our common stock traded on NASDAQ under the symbol VRNT. However, as a result
of the delay in filing our periodic reports with the SEC, we were unable to comply with the listing
standards of NASDAQ and our common stock was suspended from trading effective February 1, 2007 and
formally de-listed effective June 4, 2007.
The following table sets forth the range of high and low intra-day sales prices of our common stock
as reported on NASDAQ for the period from February 1, 2005 through January 31, 2007 and high and
low quotations as reported by the Pink Sheets from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008. The
bid quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down, or commission, and
may not necessarily reflect actual transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
Quarter |
|
Low |
|
|
High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
2/1/05 4/30/05 |
|
$ |
29.74 |
|
|
$ |
40.80 |
|
|
|
5/1/05 7/31/05 |
|
$ |
30.18 |
|
|
$ |
39.59 |
|
|
|
8/1/05 10/31/05 |
|
$ |
36.48 |
|
|
$ |
42.73 |
|
|
|
11/1/05 1/31/06 |
|
$ |
33.21 |
|
|
$ |
39.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
2/1/06 4/30/06 |
|
$ |
31.86 |
|
|
$ |
37.98 |
|
|
|
5/1/06 7/31/06 |
|
$ |
25.14 |
|
|
$ |
33.89 |
|
|
|
8/1/06 10/31/06 |
|
$ |
26.50 |
|
|
$ |
33.05 |
|
|
|
11/1/06 1/31/07 |
|
$ |
32.09 |
|
|
$ |
36.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
2/1/07 4/30/07 |
|
$ |
28.40 |
|
|
$ |
32.80 |
|
|
|
5/1/07 7/31/07 |
|
$ |
28.40 |
|
|
$ |
33.25 |
|
|
|
8/1/07 10/31/07 |
|
$ |
23.50 |
|
|
$ |
30.25 |
|
|
|
11/1/07 1/31/08 |
|
$ |
13.35 |
|
|
$ |
25.10 |
|
Holders
There
were 98 holders of record of our common stock at February 28, 2010. Such record holders
include holders who are nominees for an undetermined number of beneficial owners.
- 54 -
Dividends
We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our equity securities and have no current plans
to pay any dividends on our equity securities. We intend to retain our earnings to finance the
development of our business, repay debt, and for other corporate purposes. In addition, the terms
of our credit agreement restrict our ability to pay cash dividends on
shares of our common or preferred stock.
See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations -
Liquidity and Capital Resources under Item 7, for a more detailed discussion of these limitations.
Our ability to pay dividends on our common stock is also limited by the terms of our outstanding
shares of preferred stock which ranks senior to our common stock with respect to the payment of
dividends and bears a preferred dividend which currently accrues at the rate of 3.875% per year.
See Note 9, Convertible Preferred Stock to the consolidated financial statements included in Item
15 for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions.
Any future determination as to the payment of dividends on our common stock will be made by our
board of directors at its discretion, subject to the limitations contained in the credit agreement
and the rights of the holders of the preferred stock and will depend upon our earnings, financial
condition, capital requirements, and other relevant factors.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
See Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
- Equity Compensation Plan Information under Item 12.
- 55 -
Stock Performance Graph
The following table compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock with the
cumulative total return on the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Computer & Data Processing
Services Index, assuming an investment of $100 on May 16, 2002, the date of our IPO, through
January 31, 2008, and the reinvestment of any dividends. The comparisons in the graph below are
based upon historical data based upon closing sale prices on NASDAQ for our common stock for each
day prior to the year ended January 31, 2007 and the high and low closing bid quotations (as
reported by the Pink Sheets) for each day during the year ended January 31, 2008 and are not
indicative of, nor intended to forecast, future performance of our common stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2002 |
|
|
January
31, 2003 |
|
|
January
31, 2004 |
|
|
January
31, 2005 |
|
|
January
31, 2006 |
|
|
January
31, 2007 |
|
|
January
31, 2008 |
|
Verint Systems Inc. |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
128.50 |
|
|
$ |
169.77 |
|
|
$ |
263.15 |
|
|
$ |
250.17 |
|
|
$ |
228.09 |
|
|
$ |
127.67 |
|
NASDAQ
Composite Index |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
90.60 |
|
|
$ |
159.14 |
|
|
$ |
152.93 |
|
|
$ |
183.47 |
|
|
$ |
181.75 |
|
|
$ |
178.73 |
|
NASDAQ
Computer & Data Processing Index |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
85.53 |
|
|
$ |
113.76 |
|
|
$ |
121.70 |
|
|
$ |
131.70 |
|
|
$ |
147.19 |
|
|
$ |
150.86 |
|
- 56 -
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
Preferred Stock
On May 25, 2007, we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the Securities Purchase
Agreement) with Comverse, pursuant to which Comverse purchased, for cash, an aggregate of 293,000
shares of our preferred stock, at an aggregate purchase price of $293.0 million. Proceeds from the
issuance of the preferred stock were used, together with the proceeds of the term loan under our
credit agreement, described in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital Resources under Item 7 and in Note 7, Long-term
Debt to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15, and cash on hand, to finance
the acquisition of Witness.
The preferred stock was issued at a purchase price of $1,000 per share and ranks senior to our
common stock. Commencing 180 days after we become compliant with our SEC reporting requirements,
and provided that the underlying shares of our common stock have been approved for issuance by our
common stockholders, Comverse will have demand and customary piggyback registration rights with
respect to the preferred stock. See Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence Comverse Preferred Stock Financing Agreements under Item 13 for additional
information. The preferred stock does not have voting or conversion rights until the underlying
shares of common stock are approved for issuance by a vote of holders of a majority of our common
stock, at which time each share of preferred stock will be entitled to a number of votes equal to
the number of shares of our common stock into which such preferred stock would have been
convertible at the Conversion Rate (as defined below) in effect on the date the preferred stock was
issued to Comverse. Following receipt of stockholder approval for the issuance of the underlying
shares, each share of preferred stock will be convertible at the option of the holder thereof into
a number of shares of our common stock equal to the liquidation preference then in effect divided
by the conversion price then in effect. The initial conversion price is set at $32.66 and the initial conversion rate is set at 30.6185 shares of common
stock for each share of preferred stock that is converted. We also have the right in certain
circumstances to cause the mandatory conversion of the preferred stock into shares of common stock
at the then-applicable conversion rate.
The terms of the preferred stock also provide that upon a fundamental change, as defined in the
certificate of designation, the holders of the preferred stock will have the right to require us to
repurchase the preferred stock for 100% of the liquidation preference then in effect. If we fail
to repurchase the preferred stock as required upon a fundamental change, then the number of
directors constituting the board of directors will be increased by two, and the holders of the
preferred stock will have the right to elect two directors to fill such vacancies. Upon repurchase
of the preferred stock subject to the fundamental change repurchase right, the holders of the
preferred stock will no longer have the right to elect additional directors, the term of office of
each additional director will terminate immediately upon such repurchase, and the number of
directors will, without further action, be reduced by two. In addition, in the event of a
fundamental change, the conversion rate will be increased to provide for additional shares of
common stock issuable to the holders of the preferred stock upon conversion, based on a sliding
scale depending on the acquisition price, as defined in the certificate of designation, ranging
from zero to 3.7 additional shares of common stock for every share of preferred stock converted
into common stock following a fundamental change. The preferred stock was issued in a private
placement in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
- 57 -
Equity Grants
As a result of our inability to file required SEC reports during our extended filing delay period,
we ceased using our registration statement on Form S-8 to make equity grants to employees. As a
result, on March 27, 2006, we suspended option exercises under our equity incentive plans and
terminated purchases under our employee stock purchase plan for all employees, including executive
officers. In addition, we did not make any equity awards to employees, including executive
officers, during the year ended January 31, 2007.
On May 24, 2007, we received a no-action letter from the SEC upon which we relied to make a
broad-based equity grant to employees under a no-sale theory. The stock option committee of our
board of directors approved this grant on July 2, 2007. On this same date, the board of directors
and the stock option committee also approved an equity grant to our directors, executive officers,
and certain other executives who were accredited investors in reliance upon a private placement
exemption from the federal securities laws.
We have continued to rely on our no-action relief to make broad-based equity grants during our
extended filing delay period, while simultaneously making grants to our executive officers and
directors under a private placement exemption. We believe that these continued broad-based equity
awards have been an important part of our retention initiatives and have also helped to incentivize
participants and build long-term commitment and goodwill to the company.
The following summarizes various time-based equity awards approved by the stock option committee on
the dates listed below since the beginning of the year ended January 31, 2007 under the application
of the no-sale theory to employees (excluding directors and executive officers) in the United
States and elsewhere throughout the world:
|
|
|
July 2, 2007 and August 23, 2007 equity awards representing an aggregate of
approximately 669,000 shares; |
|
|
|
December 7, 2007 equity awards representing approximately 235,000
shares; |
|
|
|
April 10, 2008 and May 28, 2008 equity
awards representing an aggregate of
approximately 717,000 shares; |
|
|
|
March 4, 2009 equity awards representing approximately 585,000 shares;
and |
|
|
|
May 20, 2009 equity awards representing approximately 458,000 shares. |
- 58 -
The following summarizes various time-based and performance-based equity awards approved by the
board of directors or the stock option committee on the dates listed below since the beginning of
the year ended January 31, 2007 under a private placement exemption to directors, executive
officers, or other employees qualifying as accredited investors:
|
|
|
July 2, 2007 equity awards representing approximately 602,000 shares; |
|
|
|
December 6, 2007 equity awards representing approximately 262,000 shares; |
|
|
|
May 28, 2008 equity awards representing
approximately 524,000 shares; |
|
|
|
March 4, 2009 equity awards representing
approximately 768,000 shares; |
|
|
|
March 19, 2009 equity awards representing
approximately 20,000 shares; and |
|
|
|
May 20, 2009 equity awards representing approximately 72,000 shares. |
All grants were made under a stockholder-approved equity compensation plan or contain vesting
conditions which require that we receive stockholder approval of a new equity compensation plan or
have additional share capacity under an existing stockholder-approved equity compensation plan for
the awards to stock vest. All grants were compensatory in nature and were issued without cost to
the employee. For a more detailed discussion of equity granted to our executive officers, see
Executive Compensation Compensation Discussion and Analysis under Item 11.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
All of the purchases in the table below reflect shares withheld upon vesting of restricted stock to
satisfy statutory minimum tax withholding obligations. The shares that were withheld were
deposited in our treasury and a corresponding cash payment was made by us to the tax authorities.
Due to the extended period covered by this report, the table below only includes those months in
which purchases were made (no purchases were made in the months omitted from the table). Purchases
subsequent to January 31, 2008, which are not included in the table below, are as follows
(repurchase prices correspond to the closing prices of our common stock on the Pink Sheets on the
relevant vesting dates (or the trading date immediately preceding the vesting date)): February 16,
2008 (2,000 shares at $17.69 per share), May 16, 2008 (2,000 shares at $23.50 per share), May
16, 2009 (8,000 shares at $6.20 per share), and January 11, 2010
(2,913 shares at $19.00 per share). From time to time, we may also
foreclose on shares of our common stock pledged to us by non-officer
employees as security for tax-related loans associated with equity
vestings if the employee defaults on his or her repayment obligations.
- 59 -
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum number (or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
|
approximate dollar value) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of shares (or |
|
|
of shares (or units) that |
|
|
|
Total number of |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
units) purchased as part of |
|
|
may yet be purchased |
|
|
|
shares (or units) |
|
|
Average price paid per |
|
|
publicly announced plans or |
|
|
under the plans or |
|
Period |
|
purchased |
|
|
share (or unit) |
|
|
programs |
|
|
programs |
|
December 2005 |
|
|
12,340 |
|
|
$ |
38.22 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
December 2006 |
|
|
15,976 |
|
|
$ |
33.82 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
July 2007 |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
$ |
30.77 |
|
|
|
7,500 |
1 |
|
|
N/A |
1 |
August 2007 |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
$ |
27.55 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
1 |
|
|
N/A |
1 |
November 2007 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
$ |
21.00 |
|
|
|
2,500 |
1 |
|
|
N/A |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
On June 28, 2007, our board of directors approved a limited stock repurchase
program (the Director Repurchase Program) to enable us to automatically repurchase, upon vesting,
40% of the shares of restricted stock otherwise deliverable to the independent directors of our
board of directors (and such other directors as our board of directors may from time to time
designate) upon such vesting in order to enable these directors to make required tax payments. The
Director Repurchase Program is effective through the date we become compliant with our SEC
reporting obligations. Based on all grants made eligible for the Director Repurchase Program as of
the filing date of this report, assuming that the Director Repurchase Program is still in effect at
the time of vesting and that all grants vest, the maximum number of shares yet to be repurchased is
currently 8,000. In addition, on November 24, 2009, our board of directors approved a limited
stock repurchase program (the Officer Repurchase Program) to enable us to offer to repurchase
from each executive officer the number of shares necessary to satisfy such officers minimum tax
withholding obligation in connection with equity vesting-related tax events that occur during a
company-imposed trading blackout. Our executive officers are not obligated to participate in the
Officer Repurchase Program, which is effective through the date we file our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ending January 31, 2010 and is not limited to a set number of shares. |
Item 6.
Selected Financial Data
The following selected consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included
elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended
January 31, 2005 and 2004, has been derived from our restated unaudited consolidated financial
statements, which are not contained in this report. Our historical results should not be viewed as
indicative of results expected for any future period.
The financial information as of and for the years ended January 31, 2005 and 2004 has been restated
to reflect adjustments to our financial statements as discussed in Explanatory Note in the
forepart of this report, in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations under Item 7 and in Note 2, Corrections of Errors in Previously Issued
Consolidated Financial Statements to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15.
- 60 -
We have not amended our previously-filed Annual Reports on Form 10-K or Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q for the periods affected by the restatement. The financial information that has been
previously filed or otherwise reported for these periods is superseded by the information in this
report, and the financial statements and related financial information contained in such
previously-filed reports should no longer be relied upon.
Five-Year Selected Financial Highlights:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data |
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) |
|
|
(Restated) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
$ |
214,038 |
|
|
$ |
174,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
$ |
(114,630 |
) |
|
$ |
(47,253 |
) |
|
$ |
4,112 |
|
|
$ |
(15,074 |
) |
|
$ |
5,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(198,609 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
|
$ |
19,027 |
|
|
$ |
2,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares |
|
$ |
(207,290 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
|
$ |
19,027 |
|
|
$ |
2,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
31,781 |
|
|
|
30,881 |
|
|
|
27,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
32,620 |
|
|
|
32,175 |
|
|
|
29,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have never declared a cash dividend to common stockholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data |
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) |
|
|
(Restated) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,492,275 |
|
|
$ |
593,676 |
|
|
$ |
609,558 |
|
|
$ |
529,761 |
|
|
$ |
414,639 |
|
Long-term debt, including current maturities |
|
|
610,000 |
|
|
|
1,058 |
|
|
|
1,325 |
|
|
|
1,823 |
|
|
|
1,889 |
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
293,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
29,298 |
|
|
|
197,604 |
|
|
|
219,632 |
|
|
|
203,074 |
|
|
|
151,045 |
|
During the five year period ended January 31, 2008, we acquired a number of businesses, the
more significant of which were the acquisitions of MultiVision in January 2006, Mercom in July
2006, and Witness in May 2007. The operating results of acquired businesses have been included in
our consolidated financial statements since their respective acquisition dates and have contributed
to our revenue growth.
- 61 -
The May 2007 acquisition of Witness had significant impacts to our operating results for the year
ended January 31, 2008, including the following:
|
|
|
an increase in revenue of $123.1 million; |
|
|
|
additional amortization of intangible assets of $22.6 million; |
|
|
|
a $6.4 million charge for in-process research and development; |
|
|
|
integration costs of $11.0 million incurred to support and facilitate the
combination of Verint and Witness into a single organization; |
|
|
|
legal fees of $8.7 million associated with pre-existing litigation between
Witness and a competitor; |
|
|
|
interest expense on our term loan of $34.4 million; |
|
|
|
realized and unrealized losses on our interest rate swap of $29.2 million; and |
|
|
|
unrealized gains of $7.2 million on an embedded derivative financial instrument
related to the variable dividend feature of our preferred stock. |
Operating results for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 include non-cash impairment charges
related to the MultiVision acquisition of $9.4 million and $21.6 million, respectively, and
non-cash impairment charges related to the Opus, CM Insight, and a portion of the Witness
acquisitions of $14.0 million and $3.1 million, respectively.
Operating results for the year ended January 31, 2008 include $3.3 million in restructuring costs
and approximately $26 million in professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of
previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status.
Operating results for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 include stock-based compensation
expense associated with our adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No.
123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payments (SFAS No. 123(R)), of $31.0 million and $18.6 million,
respectively.
Operating results for the year ended January 31, 2007 include a $19.2 million one-time settlement
charge related to our exit from a royalty-bearing program with the OCS.
More detailed information regarding these transactions appears in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in Item 7.
- 62 -
The following unaudited tables present the impact of the restatement adjustments to selected
financial data previously presented in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended January
31, 2005 and 2004. We have derived this data from our unaudited consolidated financial statements
not contained within this report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations |
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
As Reported |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
As Restated |
|
|
As Reported |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
As Restated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
249,824 |
|
|
$ |
(35,786 |
) |
|
$ |
214,038 |
|
|
$ |
192,744 |
|
|
$ |
(18,612 |
) |
|
$ |
174,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
112,774 |
|
|
|
(494 |
) |
|
|
112,280 |
|
|
|
89,302 |
|
|
|
(6,075 |
) |
|
|
83,227 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
137,050 |
|
|
|
(35,292 |
) |
|
|
101,758 |
|
|
|
103,442 |
|
|
|
(12,537 |
) |
|
|
90,905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development, net |
|
|
31,961 |
|
|
|
(2,644 |
) |
|
|
29,317 |
|
|
|
23,233 |
|
|
|
(3,676 |
) |
|
|
19,557 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
83,070 |
|
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
|
84,361 |
|
|
|
63,020 |
|
|
|
2,719 |
|
|
|
65,739 |
|
In-process research and development |
|
|
3,154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition-related
write-downs (1) |
|
|
1,481 |
|
|
|
(1,481 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
119,666 |
|
|
|
(2,834 |
) |
|
|
116,832 |
|
|
|
86,253 |
|
|
|
(957 |
) |
|
|
85,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
17,384 |
|
|
|
(32,458 |
) |
|
|
(15,074 |
) |
|
|
17,189 |
|
|
|
(11,580 |
) |
|
|
5,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income, net |
|
|
3,618 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
3,992 |
|
|
|
2,670 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
2,752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
21,002 |
|
|
|
(32,084 |
) |
|
|
(11,082 |
) |
|
|
19,859 |
|
|
|
(11,498 |
) |
|
|
8,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
(32,039 |
) |
|
|
(30,109 |
) |
|
|
1,921 |
|
|
|
4,164 |
|
|
|
6,085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
19,072 |
|
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
|
$ |
19,027 |
|
|
$ |
17,938 |
|
|
$ |
(15,662 |
) |
|
$ |
2,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
$ |
(0.57 |
) |
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.58 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
(0.53 |
) |
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
30,894 |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
30,881 |
|
|
|
27,690 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
27,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
32,626 |
|
|
|
(451 |
) |
|
|
32,175 |
|
|
|
29,437 |
|
|
|
(354 |
) |
|
|
29,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
$1.5 million of acquisition-related write-downs was
reclassified to cost of revenue to correctly present the
acquisition-related write-downs in accordance with GAAP. |
- 63 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets |
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
As reported |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
As Restated |
|
|
As reported |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
As Restated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
45,100 |
|
|
$ |
(177 |
) |
|
$ |
44,923 |
|
|
$ |
77,516 |
|
|
$ |
(76 |
) |
|
$ |
77,440 |
|
Restricted cash and bank time deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
195,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,314 |
|
|
|
151,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
151,197 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
39,072 |
|
|
|
(6,309 |
) |
|
|
32,763 |
|
|
|
31,856 |
|
|
|
(8,790 |
) |
|
|
23,066 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
17,267 |
|
|
|
994 |
|
|
|
18,261 |
|
|
|
15,833 |
|
|
|
2,499 |
|
|
|
18,332 |
|
Receivables from affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,221 |
|
|
|
1,221 |
|
|
|
1,824 |
|
|
|
3,922 |
|
|
|
5,746 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
17,540 |
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
17,491 |
|
|
|
14,129 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
14,122 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
49,625 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
49,669 |
|
|
|
14,364 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
14,657 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
12,026 |
|
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
11,943 |
|
|
|
2,051 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
2,024 |
|
Capitalized software development costs, net (1) |
|
|
9,728 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
9,814 |
|
|
|
10,815 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
10,987 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
13,306 |
|
|
|
134,879 |
|
|
|
148,185 |
|
|
|
9,121 |
|
|
|
87,871 |
|
|
|
96,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
398,978 |
|
|
$ |
130,783 |
|
|
$ |
529,761 |
|
|
$ |
328,706 |
|
|
$ |
85,933 |
|
|
$ |
414,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses |
|
$ |
67,012 |
|
|
$ |
16,517 |
|
|
$ |
83,529 |
|
|
$ |
49,564 |
|
|
$ |
9,380 |
|
|
$ |
58,944 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
41,086 |
|
|
|
184,865 |
|
|
|
225,951 |
|
|
|
26,701 |
|
|
|
151,560 |
|
|
|
178,261 |
|
Liabilities to affiliates |
|
|
2,154 |
|
|
|
(768 |
) |
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
1,178 |
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
1,152 |
|
Other liabilities (2) |
|
|
5,351 |
|
|
|
10,470 |
|
|
|
15,821 |
|
|
|
6,595 |
|
|
|
18,642 |
|
|
|
25,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
115,603 |
|
|
|
211,084 |
|
|
|
326,687 |
|
|
|
84,038 |
|
|
|
179,556 |
|
|
|
263,594 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
282,364 |
|
|
|
39,576 |
|
|
|
321,940 |
|
|
|
262,472 |
|
|
|
24,844 |
|
|
|
287,316 |
|
Unearned stock-based compensation |
|
|
(3,395 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,395 |
) |
|
|
(1,615 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,615 |
) |
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit) |
|
|
2,155 |
|
|
|
(116,902 |
) |
|
|
(114,747 |
) |
|
|
(16,917 |
) |
|
|
(116,857 |
) |
|
|
(133,774 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
2,219 |
|
|
|
(2,975 |
) |
|
|
(756 |
) |
|
|
698 |
|
|
|
(1,610 |
) |
|
|
(912 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
283,375 |
|
|
|
(80,301 |
) |
|
|
203,074 |
|
|
|
244,668 |
|
|
|
(93,623 |
) |
|
|
151,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
398,978 |
|
|
$ |
130,783 |
|
|
$ |
529,761 |
|
|
$ |
328,706 |
|
|
$ |
85,933 |
|
|
$ |
414,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously presented within Other assets. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes liability of $2,125 and $1,586 for severance pay as of January 31, 2005 and
2004, respectively, and a convertible note of $2,200 as of
January 31, 2004, all previously reported separately. |
- 64 -
The following table presents the cumulative effect of the unaudited restatement adjustments on our
accumulated deficit for all periods through January 31, 2003. Our restated accumulated deficit as
of January 31, 2003 is $136.1 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deficit as originally reported January 31, 2003 |
|
$ |
(34,855 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restatement adjustments: |
|
|
|
|
Phase I Stock-based compensation |
|
|
(18,135 |
) |
Phase II Other restatement adjustments |
|
|
4,376 |
|
Revenue recognition |
|
|
(145,176 |
) |
Cost of revenue |
|
|
54,479 |
|
Other restatement adjustments |
|
|
1,064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(103,392 |
) |
Income tax benefit |
|
|
2,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total impact of restatement on opening accumulated deficit |
|
|
(101,195 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deficit as restated January 31, 2003 |
|
$ |
(136,050 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The restatement adjustments recorded to the financial statements for the years ended January 31,
2005 and 2004 include the following:
|
|
|
Revenue adjustments reflect the net impact of the recognition of revenue over longer
periods of time than originally recorded for those multiple element arrangements for which
we were unable to determine the fair value of undelivered elements, or where the criteria
for revenue recognition was otherwise not met; |
|
|
|
Adjustments to cost of revenue reflect the net impact of the deferral or recognition of
the cost of revenue associated with the corresponding revenue adjustments; |
|
|
|
Cost of revenue has also been adjusted to reflect the reclassification of certain
expenses previously classified as research and development expenses into cost of revenue.
These adjustments also account for the reduction in research and development expenses; |
|
|
|
Cost of revenue and operating expenses have been adjusted to reflect adjustments to
stock-based compensation expense, relating to grants by Comverse of options to acquire
Comverse common stock, pursuant to the Phase I review performed by Comverses Special
Committee; |
|
|
|
Cost of revenue and operating expenses have been adjusted to reflect adjustments to
reserves and accruals pursuant to the Phase II investigation performed by our audit
committee; |
- 65 -
|
|
|
The provision for (benefit from) income taxes has been adjusted to reflect the
anticipated income tax consequences of all restatement adjustments; |
|
|
|
Certain restricted cash balances have been reclassified from cash and cash equivalents
and into restricted cash and time deposits; |
|
|
|
Accounts receivable has been adjusted as a result of our revenue recognition
corrections, primarily to present accounts receivable net of related deferred revenue; |
|
|
|
Certain previously recognized cost of revenue deferrals have been reclassified from
inventories to deferred cost of revenue within other assets; |
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net, goodwill, intangible assets, net, and capitalized software
development costs, net, have been adjusted to reflect the impact of correcting
misstatements identified during our restatement process. |
|
|
|
We have recorded sizeable increases in deferred revenue and deferred cost of revenue
resulting from our revenue recognition corrections. Deferred cost of revenue is reflected
within other assets; |
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses have been adjusted to reflect adjustments to
reserves and accruals pursuant to the Phase II investigation performed by our audit
committee. Accounts payable and accrued expenses have also been adjusted to reflect the
impact of correcting misstatements identified during our restatement process. |
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital has been corrected to reflect adjustments to stock-based
compensation expense pursuant to the Phase I review performed by Comverses Special
Committee; |
|
|
|
The changes to accumulated deficit reflect the cumulative impact of all corrections to
our statement of operations for periods up to and through the balance sheet date; |
|
|
|
The changes to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) reflect the impact of
foreign currency translation on corrected balance sheet accounts with functional
currencies other than the U.S. Dollar. |
Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations
The following managements discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of
operations should be read in conjunction with the Explanatory Note at the beginning of this
report, Business under Item 1, Selected Financial Data under Item 6, and the consolidated
financial statements and the related notes thereto which appear elsewhere in this report. This
discussion contains a number of forward-looking statements, all of which are based on our current
expectations and all of which could be affected by uncertainties and risks. Our actual results may
differ materially from the results contemplated in these forward-looking statements as a result of
many factors including, but not limited to, those described under Risk Factors under Item 1A.
- 66 -
Investigation and Restatement
Background
Since our IPO in May 2002, we have been a majority-owned subsidiary of Comverse, and prior thereto
we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse.
Phase I Review
While we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse, our employees received from Comverse options
to purchase Comverse common stock, which we accounted for under the then-applicable accounting and
disclosure rules of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS No. 123) and
Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (APB
No. 25). We did not recognize any compensation expense for stock options granted to employees
during the periods when we were a wholly-owned subsidiary as we believed that the exercise price of
the options granted was equivalent to the market price of the common stock on the date of grant.
We provided the pro forma disclosures of stock-based compensation in accordance with SFAS No. 123.
Since May 2002, none of our employees have received any compensatory awards from Comverse, other
than in connection with a repricing of Comverse stock options initiated by Comverse in June 2002.
On March 14, 2006, Comverse announced that its board of directors had formed the Comverse Special
Committee, composed of their outside directors, to review matters relating to stock option granting
practices of Comverse including the accuracy of the option grant dates.
On April 17, 2006, the Comverse Special Committee announced its preliminary conclusion that the
actual dates of measurement for certain Comverse stock option grants differed from the recorded
dates. As a result of this announcement, we determined that, until completion of the Comverse
review, we could not determine the impact that such review would have on our historical
compensation expense or our previous disclosures made in accordance with SFAS No. 123 and APB No.
25. As a result, on April 17, 2006, we announced that our historical financial statements should
not be relied on. In addition, we concluded at that time, that without better visibility into the
results of the Comverse investigation, we could not disclose any current financial information
(other than selected unaudited information, such as revenue data, which would not be impacted by
the potential stock-based compensation charges) since that information could ultimately prove to be
materially incorrect, incomplete, or misleading.
- 67 -
Although there were no allegations or evidence suggesting that the measurement dates we used for
options we granted after our IPO date were incorrect, at the request of our audit committee, our
management conducted an internal review of our stock option grant practices to determine whether
the actual dates of measurement for any stock options granted following our IPO differed from the
recorded dates. No such differences were uncovered and the evidence supported all grant dates.
Although it was not the focus of the Phase II investigation, our audit committee subsequently
uncovered no evidence of improper stock option backdating.
On September 6, 2006, we announced that the Comverse Special Committee had provided us with
preliminary measurement dates for the Comverse stock options granted to our employees, including
preliminary calculations of the additional stock-based compensation expense attributable to those
grants. We also announced that, based on this information, we had determined that the non-cash,
stock-based compensation expense we would possibly need to record was material for certain periods,
our expectation was that we would restate certain of our historical financial statements since our
IPO, that periods prior to the year ended January 31, 2002 could be affected and that, in addition
to such expense, we also expected to record certain material tax charges, make various tax
payments, and pay third-party fees and expenses resulting from the improper accounting for certain
Comverse stock options.
Phase II Investigation
On November 14, 2006, Comverse announced that the Comverse Special Committee had expanded its
investigation into certain non-option related accounting matters, including possible revenue
recognition errors, errors in recording of certain deferred tax assets, expense misclassification,
misuse of accounting reserves, and understatement of backlog. As a result, our audit committee
initiated its own internal investigation into certain of these non-option accounting issues,
including accounting reserves, income statement expense classification, and revenue recognition.
Our internal investigation of these other accounting issues was conducted by our audit committee
with the assistance of Loeb & Loeb LLP, special independent counsel, and BDO Seidman, LLP, forensic
accountants, as well as various technology experts. Over 5 million documents were collected and,
after filtering the documents for relevance, more than half a million documents were reviewed. Our
audit committee and special independent counsel conducted interviews with 27 current and former
employees, as well as personnel of our auditors. In addition, representatives of our audit
committee interfaced frequently with our personnel worldwide. The review initially covered the
year ended January 31, 1998 through the year ended January 31, 2006, but was later expanded to
include the year ended January 31, 2007.
VSOE/Revenue Recognition Review
Separate and distinct from the Phase I review and the Phase II investigation, in connection with
the audits of our open and prior accounting periods at the time, we announced on November 5, 2007
that we had also undertaken reviews of our accounting treatment for revenue recognition under
complex contractual arrangements pursuant to SOP 97-2, SOP 81-1, and related accounting guidance.
As part of this review, we completed a comprehensive review of our license and sales agreements,
and re-performed our analysis associated with, among other things, the establishment of VSOE of
fair value in accordance with SOP 97-2. VSOE of fair value
calculations involve making determinations regarding the fair value of our maintenance,
professional and implementation services, as well as the application of the residual method to
allocate revenue to each element of our bundled hardware and software arrangements.
- 68 -
On March 20, 2008, we announced the completion and key results of the Phase I review and Phase II
investigation, which are described more fully below. The VSOE/revenue recognition review has also
been completed as described below.
The adjustments recorded in connection with these restatements to our previously filed historical
financial statements are set forth below under - Restatement Adjustments.
Summary of Findings
Phase I Review
The investigation by the Comverse Special Committee determined that Comverses historical stock
option granting practices were not in accordance with U.S. GAAP. On that basis, we determined that
our previous disclosures made in accordance with SFAS No. 123 and APB No. 25 needed to be restated
and that amounts of compensation expense and income tax benefits previously recorded by us were
understated, as more fully described below under - Restatement Adjustments.
During the course of our management review, no evidence of any differences between the actual dates
of measurement and the recorded dates of measurement with respect to Verint stock option grants was
discovered. In addition, although it was not the focus of the Phase II investigation discussed
below, our audit committee also uncovered no evidence of improper stock option backdating and we
believe that the accounting related to these stock options was correct. As a result, no accounting
adjustments were required to be recorded.
Phase II Investigation
Issues Resulting in Restatement Adjustments
Reserves Adjustments
Our audit committee found that, prior to the year ended January 31, 2003, accounting reserves were
intentionally overstated. Our audit committee found that this practice of overstating reserves was
not systemic within Verint but rather was done on an ad hoc basis by a small number of employees,
including our former Chief Financial Officer and certain other former employees who directly or
indirectly reported to him. Moreover, although this practice of overstating reserves (and the
subsequent release of these overstated reserves) necessarily had an impact on our published
earnings, our audit committee found no evidence that the purpose of the individuals involved in
overstating reserves was to cause any particular effect on earnings. Rather, our audit committee
found that the apparent intent of these individuals in overstating reserves was to build a
conservative reserve to protect against unanticipated future expenses or erroneous judgments. Our
audit committee also concluded that the overstated reserves had
resulted in large measure from a simple lack of rigorous and diligent accounting. Our audit
committee found no evidence indicating that reserves were intentionally overstated in any period
subsequent to the year ended January 31, 2003.
- 69 -
As a result of these findings, we have made adjustments to our historical accounting reserves for
those periods as more fully described below under - Restatement Adjustments.
Other Phase II Findings
Our audit committee determined that our personnel, including sales teams and senior executives,
were focused on the need to meet or exceed budgeted revenue projections on a quarterly basis. In
that regard, our audit committee found evidence of the practice of seeking customer agreement to
accept delivery of products either earlier or later than originally scheduled delivery dates,
depending on our budget needs in a particular quarter. Our audit committee concluded that these
actions did not constitute fraud or other unlawful conduct and that the accounting treatment was
appropriate and, therefore, the audit committee did not propose any adjustments. However, our
audit committee concluded that it was not the best business practice to have delivery decisions
influenced by revenue recognition factors. As a result of our audit committees conclusions, we
have revised our policies and procedures regarding revenue recognition and have established a set
of enhanced practices for quarter-end transactions.
Our audit committee found evidence that during the tenure of our former Chief Financial Officer,
our finance departments practices with regard to documenting transactions and conclusions with
respect to judgments made by management and the retention of documentation were significantly
deficient, which impeded its investigation. As a result, our audit committee determined that
enhancement of our record retention practices was necessary. As a result, we have revised our
policies and procedures regarding the manner in which transactions are to be documented, the level
of support required for documenting managements judgments, and related document retention
procedures.
Our audit committee also investigated the alleged manipulation of backlog and improper
expense classifications. The investigation revealed that we did not manipulate our backlog, but we did misclassify
certain expenses. The review of statement of operations classifications found that in certain
periods, certain royalties and license fees were misclassified as either selling expenses, general
and administrative expenses or research and development expenses, and instead should have been
classified as components of cost of revenue. We have concluded that such misclassifications were
the result of error and did not have a material impact on our previously issued financial
statements. However, these reclassifications are included in the Phase II adjustments included in
the table entitled Summary of Restatement Adjustments below.
Our audit committee also concluded that neither Dan Bodner, our Chief Executive Officer, nor any
other of our current executive officers, participated in unlawful activities or wrongful conduct.
- 70 -
With respect to our former Chief Financial Officer, Igal Nissim, our audit committee found Mr.
Nissim responsible for, among other things: (i) deficiencies in the finance departments
documentation of transactions and conclusions with respect to management judgment and in failing to
retain sufficient documentation; (ii) manipulation of our reserves as described above; and (iii) a
failure to properly document revenue recognition policies in a manner that allowed evaluation of
compliance with SOP 97-2. Based on its findings, the audit committee recommended that Mr. Nissim
be terminated without bonus or severance, subject to contractual obligations and applicable law.
At the time of the audit committees recommendation in March 2008, we had already completed the
transition of the Chief Financial Officer role from Mr. Nissim to Douglas Robinson in December
2006, at which time Mr. Nissim had ceased to be a director or an executive officer, or to have any
role in the preparation of our financial statements or public disclosures. In addition, based on
previous guidance from our board of directors, we had already notified Mr. Nissim in October 2007
of our intention to formally terminate his employment for cause. Mr. Nissims employment
officially ended on January 31, 2008 at the conclusion of his employment term.
The audit committee also recommended that we terminate our relationship with three other finance
personnel based on the audit committees finding that these individuals had participated in the
misconduct described above. We subsequently implemented this recommendation.
VSOE/Revenue Recognition Review
The VSOE/revenue recognition review revealed that the requirement to prepare contemporaneous
documentation analyzing and supporting the adoption of SOP 97-2 was not adequately performed and
that we had prepared limited documentation analyzing our initial and ongoing compliance with SOP
97-2. Errors in recognition of revenue related to many of our contracts, including errors related
to the determination of VSOE, were discovered, requiring corrective adjustments to both
revenue and cost of revenue as described below under - Restatement Adjustments. We have revised
and enhanced our revenue recognition policies and controls as part of our remediation efforts, as
more fully described below in Controls and Procedures under Item 9A.
Restatement Adjustments
Comverse
Stock Options Phase I Review
Comverses Special Committee investigation determined that Comverses historical stock option
granting practices were not in accordance with GAAP and required the restatement of prior period
financial information. Based upon the results of the Comverse Special Committee investigation, we
determined that our previous disclosures made in accordance with SFAS No. 123 and APB No. 25 needed
to be restated and that the amounts of compensation expense previously recorded by us were
understated.
The restatements in this report reflect additional stock-based compensation expense and related tax
effects under APB No. 25, and restated pro forma disclosures pursuant to the requirements of SFAS
No. 123, which were the standards under which we recorded our stock-based compensation through
January 31, 2006.
- 71 -
Based on the results of the Comverse Special Committee investigation, we determined that our
previously recorded stock-based compensation was understated. As a result, we recorded a pre-tax
charge of $18.1 million to our opening retained earnings balance as of February 1, 2003, reflecting
the cumulative effect of the Phase I review corrections impacting periods through that date. In
addition, the restatements in this report reflect additional non-cash, stock-based compensation
expense related to past Comverse stock option grants of approximately $0.1 million and $0.1 million
for the years ended January 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These adjustments are included within
the restatement adjustments of prior financial statements for all periods through October 31, 2005.
Additionally, the Phase I review resulted in additional stock-based compensation expenses in
financial statements for periods not previously reported. In addition to stock-based compensation
expense resulting from the Phase I review, we recorded non-cash, stock-based compensation charges
of approximately $0.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 related to a modification of
Comverse stock options held by our employees, which extended the exercise periods during the
period Comverse was delayed in its financial reporting with the SEC. We also recorded non-cash,
stock-based compensation charges of $2.0 million and $2.6 million for the years ended January 31,
2008 and 2007, respectively, related to a modification of Verint stock options which extended their
exercise periods during the period we were delayed in our periodic filings with the SEC.
Phase II Investigation Reserves
Following the publication of our audit committees report, we carefully reviewed our historic
reserve accounts in light of our audit committees findings and found that some reserves lacked
adequate supporting documentation. Where documentation was lacking, reviews of actual transactions
subsequent to the establishment of the reserves were performed. For certain reserves, the actual
subsequent transactions were significantly different than the recorded reserves, even when allowing
for modest differences to be expected when an estimated reserve is recorded, and did not justify
the amounts of the original reserves. Accordingly, we have restated these accounts to reflect
appropriate and supportable balances. As a result, we recorded an increase of $4.4 million to our
opening retained earnings balance as of February 1, 2003, reflecting the cumulative pre-tax effect
of the Phase II investigation corrections impacting periods through that date. In addition, we
recorded Phase II investigation corrections to increase pre-tax earnings by $0.1 million for the
nine months ended October 31, 2005, and reduce pre-tax earnings by $1.5 million and $2.2 million
for the years ended January 31, 2005 and January 31, 2004, respectively.
VSOE/Revenue Recognition and Cost of Revenue
Following the completion of our revenue recognition review, we determined that in many of the
arrangements reviewed, we were unable to determine the fair value of
post-contract support (PCS) and installation services
for undelivered elements within multiple element arrangements, as defined by the guidance in SOP
97-2. As a result, the fair values of the elements of many of these arrangements were not
appropriately determined and documented, which affected the timing of the revenue we recognized
under these arrangements. Generally, these restatement adjustments resulted in the
recognition of revenue over a longer period of time than originally recorded. These restatement
adjustments do not, however, impact the overall amount of revenue we will ultimately record and
relate only to the proper allocation of this revenue among accounting periods, other than the
impact of foreign currency exchange rates on certain revenue now reported and translated into U.S.
Dollars in different accounting periods and certain transactions now reported on a gross rather
than net basis of accounting. We have corrected these errors in revenue recognition, along with
the related cost of revenue, over the period from the year ended January 31, 2001 through October
31, 2005 for these bundled arrangements.
- 72 -
Other Adjustments
The financial statements contained in this report also reflect other accounting adjustments to
correct misstatements identified during our restatement process that were not related to historical
stock option practices, reserves, or revenue recognition.
Summary of Adjustments
The table below summarizes the aggregate impact of all of the accounting adjustments described
above to our historical financial statements for the first nine months of the year ended January
31, 2006 and for the years ended January 31, 2005 and 2004, and reflects the cumulative effect of
each type of adjustment for periods prior to and including the year ended January 31, 2003. As no
financial statements for periods subsequent to the three months ended October 31, 2005 have
previously been filed by us as a result of the various accounting reviews, there are no adjustments
or restatements for those periods.
Summary of Restatement Adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Restatement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of |
|
|
Phase I |
|
|
Phase II |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Income Tax |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Revenue |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Adjustments, |
|
|
Effect of All |
|
|
Adjustments, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
(1) |
|
|
(2) |
|
|
(3) |
|
|
(4) |
|
|
(5) |
|
|
Before Taxes |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Net of Taxes |
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) to Earnings |
|
Period: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on
February 1, 2003 opening
retained earnings |
|
$ |
(145,176 |
) |
|
$ |
54,479 |
|
|
$ |
(18,135 |
) |
|
$ |
4,376 |
|
|
$ |
1,064 |
|
|
$ |
(103,392 |
) |
|
$ |
2,197 |
|
|
$ |
(101,195 |
) |
Year ended January 31, 2004 |
|
|
(20,873 |
) |
|
|
10,421 |
|
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
(2,170 |
) |
|
|
1,235 |
|
|
|
(11,498 |
) |
|
|
(4,164 |
) |
|
|
(15,662 |
) |
Year ended January 31, 2005 |
|
|
(37,422 |
) |
|
|
7,234 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(1,486 |
) |
|
|
(353 |
) |
|
|
(32,084 |
) |
|
|
32,039 |
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on
February 1, 2005 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
(203,471 |
) |
|
|
72,134 |
|
|
|
(18,303 |
) |
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
1,946 |
|
|
|
(146,974 |
) |
|
|
30,072 |
|
|
|
(116,902 |
) |
Nine month period ended
October 31, 2005 |
|
|
(36,722 |
) |
|
|
11,611 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
626 |
|
|
|
(24,414 |
) |
|
|
2,736 |
|
|
|
(21,678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments |
|
$ |
(240,193 |
) |
|
$ |
83,745 |
|
|
$ |
(18,331 |
) |
|
$ |
819 |
|
|
$ |
2,572 |
|
|
$ |
(171,388 |
) |
|
$ |
32,808 |
|
|
$ |
(138,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) |
|
Because they do not affect our reported income
(loss) before income tax and noncontrolling
interest or net income (loss) in any period, these restatement adjustments do not reflect
the impact of certain transactions now reported on a gross rather than net basis of
accounting. |
- 73 -
|
|
|
|
2) |
|
Includes cost of revenue as well as certain operating costs that vary directly with
revenue. These adjustments do not reflect the impact of certain transactions now reported
on a gross rather than net basis of accounting. |
|
3) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase I review. Further details of these
adjustments by year are presented in the table below. |
|
4) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase II investigation, primarily relating
to impacts to reserves, as well as certain revenue recognition matters unrelated to our
VSOE/revenue recognition review and account classifications. |
|
5) |
|
Includes adjustments to correct misstatements identified during our restatement process
that were not related to historical stock option practices, reserves, or revenue
recognition. |
As indicated in the above table, we have restated our reported revenue so that $240 million of
revenue that was previously reported through October 31, 2005 is being deferred into subsequent
periods. Below is an illustration of when the revenue recognition criteria will be met and
therefore how revenue deferred in the restatement is expected to be recognized other than the
impact of foreign currency exchange rates on certain revenue now reported and translated into U.S.
Dollars in different accounting periods:
|
|
|
$26 million in the three-month period ended January 31, 2006; |
|
|
|
$84 million in the year ended January 31, 2007; |
|
|
|
$48 million in the year ended January 31, 2008; |
|
|
|
$34 million in the year ended January 31, 2009; |
|
|
|
$25 million in the year ended January 31, 2010; |
|
|
|
$12 million in the year ending January 31, 2011; and |
|
|
|
$11 million thereafter. |
- 74 -
A breakdown of the adjustments by period relating to the Phase I review, to record stock-based
compensation expense, is provided below.
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of Phase I Adjustments by Period |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended January 31, 1991 |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1992 |
|
|
5 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1993 |
|
|
94 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1994 |
|
|
34 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1995 |
|
|
95 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1996 |
|
|
171 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1997 |
|
|
184 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1998 |
|
|
15 |
|
Year ended January 31, 1999 |
|
|
393 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2000 |
|
|
2,147 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2001 |
|
|
5,829 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2002 |
|
|
3,881 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2003 |
|
|
5,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on February 1, 2003 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
18,135 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2004 |
|
|
111 |
|
Year ended January 31, 2005 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect on February 1, 2005 opening
retained earnings |
|
|
18,303 |
|
Nine-month period ended October 31, 2005 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Adjustments |
|
$ |
18,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Accounting Investigation and Related Restatements
We have incurred substantial expense for accounting assistance, audit, legal, tax, and other
professional services in connection with the accounting reviews and preparation of this report, and
the ongoing preparation of our other outstanding periodic reports, including our restatement of
previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status. Certain of these
expenses are difficult to quantify, as we are unable to specifically segregate accounting and tax
expenses related to the accounting reviews and related restatement activities from such expenses
associated with customary and ongoing accounting and tax services. Billing for these services did
not provide this level of differentiation as the services were often commingled. However, we
estimate that expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and
expenses related to our extended filing delay status were approximately $26 million and $4 million
in the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, including our best estimate of the
associated accounting and tax expenses. Of these amounts, expenses related specifically to the
Phase II investigation were approximately $17 million and $3 million in the years ended January 31,
2008 and 2007, respectively. We estimate that we incurred approximately $29 million of expenses
associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing
delay status during the year ended January 31, 2009, including approximately $4 million related
specifically to the Phase II investigation. We estimate that we
incurred approximately $55 million of expenses
associated with our restatement of previously filed financial
statements and our extended filing delay status during the year ended
January 31, 2010. In addition, during our extended filing delay period,
we incurred approximately $15 million of expenses associated with a special retention program in
the year ended January 31, 2008. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses in connection
with completing our periodic reports at least until the time we
begin to timely file our SEC filings.
- 75 -
Remedial Efforts
As a result of the Phase I review, the Phase II investigation, and the VSOE/revenue recognition
review, and our internal controls testing, we have identified the material weaknesses set forth in
Controls and Procedures under Item 9A and have implemented several remedial measures relating to
corporate governance, training, ethics and corporate culture, internal controls and compliance.
Such measures include:
|
|
|
establishing an Internal Audit Department, which reports directly to our audit
committee; |
|
|
|
updating our Employee Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and implementing a new Finance
and Accounting Code of Conduct that serves as a set of guiding principles emphasizing our
commitment to integrity in financial and accounting reporting, as well as transparency and
robust and complete communications with, and disclosures to, internal and external
auditors; |
|
|
|
revising and enhancing our revenue recognition policies and controls, including |
|
|
|
appointing a VP Finance and Global Revenue Controller and Regional
Revenue Controllers, and establishing a centralized revenue recognition department
to address complex revenue recognition matters and to provide oversight and
guidance on the design of controls and processes to enhance and standardize revenue
recognition accounting application; and |
|
|
|
designing and implementing enhanced information technology systems and
user applications, including a broader and more sophisticated implementation of our
Enterprise Resource Planning system; |
|
|
|
engaging external subject matter experts to assist in developing, implementing, and/or
enhancing accounting and finance-related policies and procedures, including |
|
|
|
advising on the accounting for and disclosure of stock-based
compensation matters; |
|
|
|
assisting in developing and implementing a formal remediation plan; and |
|
|
|
assisting in developing, implementing and/or enhancing revenue
recognition, account reconciliations, journal entry review/approval procedures,
end-user computing, fixed assets, and reserve and accrual analyses; |
- 76 -
|
|
|
revising our policies and procedures regarding the manner in which transactions are to
be documented, the level of support required for documenting managements judgments and
related document retention procedures, including |
|
|
|
implementing a record retention program to centralize global finance
documentation in a standard repository; |
|
|
|
engaging external subject matter experts with specialized international
and consolidated income tax knowledge to assist in creating, implementing, and
documenting a consolidated tax process; and |
|
|
|
expanding our accounting policy and controls organization by creating and filling new
positions with qualified accounting and finance personnel, including a new Chief Financial
Officer, a new Senior Vice President Finance and Corporate Controller, and a Vice President of Global Accounting as well as creating the position of Chief Compliance Officer. |
Business Overview
Verint is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence® solutions and value-added
services. Our solutions enable organizations of all sizes to make timely and effective decisions
to improve enterprise performance and make the world a safer place. More than 10,000 organizations
in over 150 countries including over 80% of the Fortune 100
use Verint solutions to capture,
distill, and analyze complex and underused information sources, such as voice, video, and
unstructured text.
In the enterprise market, our Workforce Optimization solutions help organizations enhance customer
service operations in contact centers, branches, and back-office environments to increase customer
satisfaction, reduce operating costs, identify revenue opportunities, and improve profitability.
In the security intelligence market, our video intelligence, public safety, and communications
intelligence and investigative solutions are vital to government and commercial organizations in
their efforts to protect people and property and neutralize terrorism and crime.
We support our customers around the globe directly and with an extensive network of selling and
support partners.
- 77 -
Background
Shift in Our Business
For the year ended January 31, 2005, our security solutions represented approximately 75% of our
revenue, while our business intelligence solutions represented the remainder of our revenue, and we
reported those results in a single operating segment. Since that time our revenue mix and
financial profile have shifted significantly, primarily as a result of the Witness acquisition in
May 2007, but also as the result of the additional changes to our business, each of which is
described in more detail below:
|
|
|
The Workforce Optimization segment (comprising our legacy
business intelligence solutions business and Witness entire business) became, and continues to be, our largest
business, as measured by revenue and assets. As of January 31, 2008, our Workforce
Optimization segment represented approximately 49% of our revenue; |
|
|
|
the acquisition of Witness increased the software portion of our product mix, which
increased our gross margins and has provided us with more recurring maintenance revenue; |
|
|
|
our customer base has increased to more than 10,000 organizations; |
|
|
|
we incurred approximately $650.0 million of indebtedness to finance a portion of the
Witness acquisition. See - Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements below; and |
|
|
|
we issued 293,000 shares of preferred stock to Comverse at an aggregate purchase price
of $293.0 million to finance a portion of the Witness acquisition, which increased
Comverses majority ownership position in us to approximately 67% (assuming conversion of
all of the preferred stock into common stock). See Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence under Item 13. |
How We View Our Business
We participate in the enterprise workforce optimization and security intelligence markets through
three operating segments: Workforce Optimization,
Video Intelligence and Communications Intelligence.
In our Workforce Optimization segment, we are a leading provider of enterprise
workforce optimization software and services. Our solutions enable organizations to extract and
analyze valuable information from customer interactions and related operational data in order to
make more effective, proactive decisions for optimizing the performance of their customer service
operations, improving the customer experience, and enhancing compliance. Marketed under the Impact
360® brand to contact centers, back offices, branch and remote offices, and public
safety centers, these solutions comprise a unified suite of enterprise workforce optimization
applications and services that include IP and TDM voice recording and quality monitoring, speech
and data analytics, workforce management, customer feedback, eLearning and coaching, performance
management and desktop productivity/application analysis. These applications can be deployed
stand-alone or in an integrated fashion. Key business and technology trends driving this segment
include a growing interest in a unified workforce optimization suite and sophisticated customer
interaction analytics, the adoption of workforce optimization solutions outside contact centers,
and the ongoing upgrade of legacy voice (TDM) systems to VoIP telephony infrastructure. For the
years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, this segment represented approximately 49%, 34%, and
25% of our total revenue, respectively.
- 78 -
In our Video Intelligence segment, we are a leading provider of networked IP video
solutions designed to optimize security and enhance operations. Our Video Intelligence
solutions portfolio includes IP video management software and services, edge devices for capturing,
digitizing, and transmitting video over different types of wired and wireless networks, video
analytics, and networked DVRs. Marketed under the Nextiva® brand, this portfolio enables
organizations to deploy an end-to-end IP video solution with analytics or evolve to IP video
operations without discarding their investments in analog CCTV technology. Key business and
technology trends in the Video Intelligence segment include increased demand for advanced security
solutions due to ongoing terrorism and security threats around the world and the transition from
relatively passive analog CCTV video systems to more sophisticated networked-based IP video
solutions. For the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, this segment represented
approximately 28%, 33%, and 37% of our total revenue, respectively.
In our Communications Intelligence segment, we are a leading provider
of communications intelligence and investigative solutions that help law enforcement, national
security, intelligence, and other government agencies effectively detect, investigate, and
neutralize criminal and terrorist threats. Our solutions are designed to handle massive amounts of
unstructured and structured information from different sources, quickly make sense of complex
scenarios, and generate evidence and intelligence. Our portfolio includes solutions for
communications interception, service provider compliance, mobile location tracking, fusion and data
management, financial crime investigation, web intelligence, integrated video monitoring, and
tactical communications intelligence. These solutions can be deployed stand-alone or collectively,
as part of a large-scale system to address the needs of large government agencies that require
advanced, comprehensive solutions. Key business and technology trends in this segment include the
demand for innovative communications intelligence and investigative solutions due to terrorism,
criminal activities, and other security threats, an expanding range of communication and
information media, the increasing complexity of communications networks and growing network
traffic, and legal and regulatory compliance requirements. For the years ended January 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006, this segment represented approximately 23%, 33%, and 38% of our total revenue,
respectively.
Generally, we make business decisions by evaluating the risks and rewards of the opportunities
available to us in the markets served by each of our segments. We view each operating segment
differently and allocate capital, personnel, resources, and management attention accordingly. In
reviewing each operating segment, we also review the performance of that segment by geography. Our
marketing and sales strategies, expansion opportunities, and product offerings may differ
materially within a particular segment geographically, as may our allocation of resources between
segments. When making decisions regarding investment in our business, increasing capital
expenditures or making other decisions that may reduce our profitability, we also consider the
leverage ratio in our credit facility. See - Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements.
- 79 -
Our Strategy
There are several elements to our strategy, including:
|
|
|
Continue to drive the development of Actionable Intelligence solutions for unstructured
data. We were a pioneer in the development of solutions that help businesses and
governmental organizations derive intelligence from unstructured data (such as telephone
conversations, video streams, email and Internet communications, etc.) to help them make
better decisions. We believe that traditional business intelligence solutions, which have
generally been designed for structured data stored in relational databases, cannot easily
analyze this unstructured information and that the market opportunity for Actionable
Intelligence solutions is still in its early stages. We intend to continue to drive the
adoption of Actionable Intelligence solutions by delivering solutions to the workforce
optimization and security intelligence markets designed to provide a high return on
investment. |
|
|
|
Maintain market leadership through innovation and customer centricity. We believe that
to compete successfully we must continue to introduce solutions that better enable
customers to derive Actionable Intelligence from their unstructured data. In order to do
this, we intend to continue to make significant investment in research and development and
to protect our intellectual property through patents and other means. We must continue to
be in regular dialog with our customer base in order to understand their business
objectives and requirements. |
|
|
|
Grow through acquisitions, in addition to organic
growth. Companies in our markets
continue to consolidate, and we believe this trend will continue. We examine acquisition
opportunities regularly as a means to add technology, increase our geographic presence,
enhance our market leadership, or expand into adjacent markets. Historically, we have
engaged in acquisitions for all of these purposes and expect to continue to do so in the
future when strategic opportunities arise. |
|
|
|
Expand our market presence through OEM and partner relationships. We offer our products
and solutions to customers both directly and indirectly. For our indirect sales, we have
expanded our relationships with OEMs and other channel partners. We believe these
relationships broaden our market coverage, particularly in the SMB portion of the market,
though in these arrangements, the partner has the primary relationship with the customer.
We believe this is an important part of our growth strategy and intend to expand existing
relationships while creating new relationships. |
- 80 -
Key Trends and Developments in Our Business
We believe that there are many factors that affect our ability to sustain and increase both revenue
and profitability, including:
|
|
|
Completion of our outstanding SEC filings. The prolonged period of being a delayed
filer has limited the information we have been able to provide to the public and other
interested parties, including customers, partners, and bank lenders. This has had an
adverse impact upon relationships with customers and partners and, we believe, upon our
actual results. |
|
|
|
Decreased information technology spending. During the current global recession,
information technology spending has decreased, and the market for our products and services
has been adversely affected. Customers are delaying, reducing, and eliminating their
spending on information technology, and we believe this has adversely affected our results. |
|
|
|
Market acceptance of Actionable Intelligence for unstructured data, particularly
analytics. We are in an early stage market where the value of certain aspects of our
products and solutions is still in the process of market acceptance. We believe that our
future growth depends in part on the continued and increasing acceptance of the value of
our data analytics across our product offerings. |
|
|
|
Our ownership and capital structure constrains investment and growth. We have a
majority stockholder that can effectively control our business and affairs. We also are
subject to various restrictive covenants under our credit facility, as well as a leverage
ratio financial covenant. As a result, our current capital structure limits our ability to
issue equity, incur additional debt or make certain investments in our business. We are
also limited in our ability to raise additional capital until such time that we have filed
certain additional late periodic reports. These limitations may impede our ability to
execute upon our business strategy. |
See also Risk Factors under Item 1A for a more complete description of these and other risks that
may impact future revenue and profitability.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
An appreciation of our critical accounting policies is necessary to understand our financial
results. The accounting policies outlined below are considered to be critical because they can
materially affect our operating results and financial condition, as these policies may require
management to make difficult and subjective judgments regarding uncertainties. The accuracy of
these estimates and the likelihood of future changes depend on a range of possible outcomes and a
number of underlying variables, many of which are beyond our control, and there can be no assurance
that our estimates are accurate.
- 81 -
Revenue Recognition
Our revenue recognition policy is a critical component of determining our operating results and is
based on a complex set of accounting rules that require us to make significant judgments and
estimates. We derive revenue primarily from two sources: product revenue, which includes revenue
from hardware and software products; and service and support revenue, which includes revenue from
installation services, PCS, project management, hosting services, and training services. Our
customer arrangements typically include several of these elements. Revenue recognition for a
particular arrangement is dependent upon such factors as the level of customization within the
solution and the contractual delivery, acceptance, payment and support terms with the customer.
Significant judgment is required to conclude whether collectability of fees is considered probable
and whether fees are fixed or determinable. In addition, our multiple element arrangements must be
carefully reviewed to determine whether the fair value of each
element can be established, which is a critical factor in determining the timing of the
arrangements revenue recognition.
The majority of our software license arrangements contain multiple elements including software,
hardware, PCS, and professional services, such as installation, consulting, and training. We
allocate revenue to delivered elements of the arrangement using the residual value method, whereby
revenue is allocated to the undelivered elements based on VSOE of the fair value of the undelivered
elements as prescribed in SOP 97-2 with the remaining arrangement fee allocated to the delivered
elements and recognized as revenue assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met. If we
are unable to establish VSOE of fair value for the undelivered elements of the arrangement, revenue
recognition is deferred for the entire arrangement until all elements of the arrangement are
delivered. However, if the only undelivered element is PCS, we recognize the arrangement fee
ratably over the PCS period.
Our policy for establishing VSOE of fair value for installation, consulting, and training is based
upon an analysis of separate sales of services, which are then compared with the fees charged
when the same elements are included in a multiple element arrangement.
PCS revenues are derived from providing technical software support services and software updates
and upgrades to customers on a when and if available basis. PCS revenue is recognized ratably over
the term of the maintenance period, which in most cases is one year. When PCS is included within a
multiple element arrangement, we utilize either the substantive renewal rate approach or the
bell-shaped curve approach to establish VSOE of the PCS, depending upon the business operating
segment, geographical region, or product line.
Under the bell-shaped curve approach of establishing VSOE, we perform a VSOE compliance test to
ensure that a substantial majority (75% or over) of our actual PCS renewals are within a narrow
range of plus or minus 15% of the median pricing.
Under the substantive renewal rate approach, we believe it is necessary to evaluate whether both
the support renewal rate and term are substantive, and whether the renewal rate is being
consistently applied to subsequent renewals for a particular customer. We establish VSOE under
this approach through analyzing the renewal rate stated in the customer agreement and determining
whether that rate is above the minimum substantive VSOE renewal rate established for that
particular PCS offering. The minimum substantive VSOE rate is determined based upon an analysis of
revenue associated with historical PCS contracts. Typically, renewal rates of 15% for PCS plans
that provide when and if available upgrades, and 10% for plans that do not provide for when and if
available upgrades, would be deemed to be minimum substantive renewal rates. For contracts that
do not contain a stated renewal rate, revenue associated with the entire bundled arrangement is
recognized ratably over the PCS term. Contracts that have a renewal rate below the minimum
substantive VSOE rate are deemed to contain a more than insignificant discount element, for which
VSOE cannot be established. We recognize revenue for these arrangements over the period that the
customer is entitled to renew their PCS at the discounted rate, but not to exceed the estimated
economic life of the product. We evaluate many factors in determining the estimated economic life
of our products, including the support period of the product, technological obsolescence, product
roadmaps, and the customers expectations. We have
concluded that our software products have estimated economic lives of from five to seven years.
- 82 -
For certain of our products, we do not have an explicit obligation to provide PCS but as a matter
of business practice have provided implied PCS. The implied PCS is accounted for as a separate
element for which VSOE of fair value does not exist. Arrangements that contain implied PCS are
recognized over the period the implied PCS is provided, but not to exceed the estimated economic
life of the product.
For shipment of products which include embedded firmware that has been deemed incidental, we
recognize revenue in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104, Revenue Recognition
(SAB No. 104), and EITF Issue No. 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables (EITF
No. 00-21). EITF No. 00-21 addresses the accounting for arrangements that may involve the
delivery or performance of multiple products, services, and/or rights to use assets. Under the
terms of SAB No. 104, revenue is recognized provided that persuasive evidence of an arrangement
exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the fee is fixed or determinable, and
collectability of the fee is reasonably assured. For shipments of hardware products, delivery is
considered to have occurred upon shipment, provided that the risks of loss, and title in certain
jurisdictions, have been transferred to the customer.
Some of our arrangements require significant customization of the product to meet the particular
requirements of the customer. For these arrangements, revenue is recognized in accordance with
Accounting Research Bulletin No. 45, Long-Term Construction-Type Contracts, and the relevant
guidance contained within SOP 81-1, Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and Certain
Production-Type Contracts, typically using the percentage of completion (POC) method. Under the
POC method, revenue recognition is generally based upon the ratio of hours incurred to date to the
total estimated hours required to complete the contract. Profit estimates on long-term contracts
are revised periodically based on changes in circumstances, and any losses on contracts are
recognized in the period that such losses become evident. Generally, the terms of long-term
contracts provide for progress billings based on completion of milestones or other defined phases
of work. Significant judgment is often required when estimating total hours and progress to
completion on these arrangements, as well as whether a loss is expected to be incurred on the
contract due to several factors including the degree of customization required and the customers
existing environment. If the range of profitability cannot be estimated but some level of profit
is assured, revenue is recognized to the extent of costs incurred, until such time that the
projects profitability can be estimated or the services have been completed. In addition, if VSOE
of fair value does not exist for the contracts PCS element, but some level of profit is assured,
the zero gross margin approach of applying percentage of completion accounting is used based on the
extent of costs incurred. Once the services are completed, the remaining unrecognized portion of
the arrangement fee is recognized ratably over the remaining PCS period. In the event some level
of profitability on a contract cannot be assured, the completed-contract method of revenue
recognition is applied. We use historical experience, project plans, and an assessment of the
risks and uncertainties inherent in the arrangement to establish these estimates. Uncertainties in
these arrangements include implementation delays or performance issues that may or may not be
within our control.
- 83 -
In certain of our arrangements accounted for under SOP 81-1, the fee is contingent on the return
on investment our customers receive from our products and services. Revenue from these
arrangements is recognized under the completed contract method of accounting when the contingency
is resolved and collectability is assured, which in most cases is upon final receipt of payment.
If an arrangement includes customer acceptance criteria, revenue is not recognized until we can
objectively demonstrate that the software or services meet the acceptance criteria, or the
acceptance period lapses, whichever occurs earlier. If a software license arrangement obligates us
to deliver specified future products or upgrades, revenue is recognized when the specified future
products or upgrades are delivered, or when the obligation to deliver specified future products
expires, whichever occurs earlier.
We extend customary trade payment terms to our customers in the normal course of conducting
business. To assess the probability of collection for purposes of revenue recognition, we have
established credit policies that establish prudent credit limits for our customers. These credit
limits are based upon our risk assessment of the customers ability to pay, their payment history,
geographic risk, and other factors, and are not contingent upon the resale of the product or upon
the collection of payments from their customers. These credit limits are reviewed and revised
periodically on the basis of updated customer financial statement information, payment performance,
and other factors.
We record provisions for estimated product returns in accordance with SFAS No. 48, Revenue
Recognition When Right of Return Exists (SFAS No. 48), in the same period in which the associated
revenue is recognized. We base these estimates of product returns upon historical levels of sales
returns and other known factors. Actual product returns could be different from our estimates and
current or future provisions for product returns may differ from historical provisions.
Concessions granted to customers are recorded as reductions to revenue in the period in which they
were granted and have been minimal in both amount and frequency.
Product revenue derived from shipments to resellers and OEMs who purchase our products for resale
are generally recognized when such products are shipped (on a sell-in basis). This policy is
predicated on our ability to estimate sales returns as well as the other criteria outlined in SFAS
No. 48 regarding these customers. We are also required to evaluate whether our resellers and OEMs
have the ability to honor their commitment to make fixed or determinable payments, regardless of
whether they collect payment from their customers. In this regard, we assess whether our resellers
and OEMs are new, poorly capitalized, or experiencing financial difficulty, and whether they have a
pattern of not paying as amounts become due on previous arrangements or seeking payment terms
longer than those provided to end customers. If we were to change any of these assumptions or
judgments, it could cause a material change to the revenue reported in a particular period. We
have historically experienced insignificant product returns from resellers and OEMs, and our
payment terms for these customers are similar to those granted to our end-users. Our policy also
presumes that we have no significant performance obligations in connection with the sale of our
products by our resellers and OEMs to their customers. If a reseller or OEM develops a pattern of
payment delinquency, or seeks payment terms longer than generally granted to our resellers or OEMs,
we defer the recognition of revenue from transactions with that reseller or OEM until the receipt
of cash.
- 84 -
For multiple element arrangements for which we are unable to establish VSOE of fair value of one or
more elements, we use various available indicators of fair value and apply our best judgment to
reasonably classify the arrangements revenue into product revenue and service revenue. For these
arrangements, we review our VSOE for training, installation and PCS services from similar
transactions, stand-alone service arrangements and prepare comparisons to peers, in order to
determine reasonable and consistent approximations of fair values of service revenue for income
statement classification purposes with the remaining amount being allocated to product revenue.
Installation services associated with our Communications Intelligence arrangements recognized under
SOP 97-2 are included within product revenue as such amounts are not considered material.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
We estimate the collectability of our accounts receivable balances each accounting period and
adjust our allowance for doubtful accounts accordingly. We exercise a considerable amount of
judgment in assessing the collectability of accounts receivable, including consideration of the
creditworthiness of each customer, their collection history, and the related aging of past due
receivables balances. We evaluate specific accounts when we learn that a customer may be
experiencing a deterioration of their financial condition due to lower credit ratings, bankruptcy
or other factors that may affect their ability to render payment.
Accounting for Business Combinations
Business acquisitions completed prior to January 31, 2009 have been accounted for under the
provisions of SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141). Pursuant to SFAS No. 141, we
allocate the purchase price of acquired companies to the tangible and intangible assets acquired
and liabilities assumed as well as to in-process research and development costs based upon their
estimated fair values at the acquisition date. These fair values are typically estimated with
assistance from independent valuation specialists. The purchase price allocation process requires
our management to make significant estimates and assumptions, especially at the acquisition date
with respect to intangible assets, contractual support obligations assumed, and pre-acquisition
contingencies.
Although we believe the assumptions and estimates we have made in the past have been reasonable and
appropriate, they are based in part on historical experience and information obtained from the
management of the acquired companies and are inherently uncertain.
- 85 -
Examples of critical estimates in valuing certain of the intangible assets we have acquired or may
acquire in the future include but are not limited to:
|
|
|
future expected cash flows from software license sales, support agreements, consulting
contracts, other customer contracts, and acquired developed technologies; |
|
|
|
expected costs to develop the in-process research and development into commercially
viable products and estimated cash flows from the projects when completed; |
|
|
|
the acquired companys brand and competitive position, as well as assumptions about the
period of time the acquired brand will continue to be used in the combined companys
product portfolio; |
|
|
|
cost of capital and discount rates; and |
|
|
|
estimating the useful lives of acquired assets as well as the pattern or manner in which
the assets will amortize. |
In connection with the purchase price allocations for applicable acquisitions, we estimate the fair
value of the contractual support obligations we are assuming from the acquired business. The
estimated fair value of the support obligations is determined utilizing a cost build-up approach,
which determines fair value by estimating the costs related to fulfilling the obligations plus a
reasonable profit margin. The estimated costs to fulfill the support obligations are based on the
historical direct costs related to providing the support services. The sum of these costs and
operating profit represents an approximation of the amount that we would be required to pay a third
party to assume the support obligations.
Impairment of Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
We perform our goodwill impairment test on an annual basis, as of November 1, or more
frequently, if changes in facts and circumstances indicate that impairment in the value of goodwill
may exist. Our goodwill impairment evaluation is based upon comparing the fair value to the
carrying value of our reporting units containing goodwill. To test for potential impairment, we
first perform an assessment of the fair value of our reporting units. We utilize three primary
approaches to determine fair value: (i) an income based approach, using projected discounted cash
flows, (ii) a market based approach using multiples of comparable companies, and (iii) a
transaction based approach using multiples for recent acquisitions of similar businesses made in
the marketplace.
Our estimate of fair value of each reporting unit is based on a number of subjective factors,
including: (a) appropriate weighting of valuation approaches (income approach, market approach, and
comparable public company approach), (b) estimates of our future cost structure, (c) discount rates
for our estimated cash flows, (d) selection of peer group companies for the public company
approach, (e) required level of working capital, (f) assumed terminal value, and (g) time horizon
of cash flow forecasts.
- 86 -
The fair value of each reporting unit is compared to its carrying value to determine whether there
is an indication of impairment in value. If an indication of impairment exists, we perform a
second analysis to measure the amount of impairment, if any.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we
review intangible assets that have finite useful lives and other long-lived assets when an event
occurs indicating the potential for impairment. If any indicators are present, we perform a
recoverability test by comparing the sum of the estimated undiscounted future cash
flows attributable to the assets in question to their carrying amounts. If the undiscounted cash
flows used in the test for recoverability are less than the long-lived assets carrying amount, we
determine the fair value of the long-lived asset and recognize an impairment loss if the carrying
amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value.
During
the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, we recorded non-cash charges to recognize
impairments of goodwill and other intangible assets of
$23.4 million and $24.7 million,
respectively.
The assumptions and estimates used in this process are complex and often subjective. They can be
affected by a variety of factors, including external factors such as industry and economic trends,
and internal factors such as changes in our business strategy or our internal forecasts. Although
we believe the assumptions, judgments, and estimates we have used are reasonable and appropriate,
changes in any of our assumptions could trigger impairments not originally identified or could
result in a material change to impairments identified.
Income Taxes
We account for income taxes using a balance sheet approach in accordance with SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes (SFAS No. 109). Under this approach, deferred taxes are recorded for
the future tax consequences expected to occur when the reported amounts of assets and liabilities
are recovered or paid. The provision for income taxes represents income taxes paid or payable for
the current year plus the change in deferred taxes during the year. Deferred taxes result from
differences between the financial statement and tax bases of our assets and liabilities, and are
adjusted for changes in tax rates and tax laws when changes are enacted. The effects of future
changes in income tax laws or rates are not anticipated.
We are subject to income taxes in the U.S. and numerous foreign jurisdictions. The calculation of
our tax provision involves the application of complex tax laws and requires significant judgment
and estimates.
We evaluate the realizability of our deferred tax assets for each jurisdiction in which we operate
at each reporting date. SFAS No. 109 requires a valuation allowance to be established when it is
more likely than not that all or a portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized. The
ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable
income of the same character and in the same jurisdiction. We consider all available positive and
negative evidence in making this assessment, including but not limited to, the scheduled reversal
of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and tax planning strategies. In
circumstances where there is sufficient negative evidence indicating that our deferred tax assets
are not more-likely-than-not realizable, we establish a valuation allowance.
- 87 -
On February 1, 2007, we implemented the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48). FIN 48
requires a two-step approach to recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions accounted for in
accordance with SFAS No. 109. The first step is to evaluate tax positions taken or expected to be
taken in a tax return by assessing whether, based solely on their technical
merits, they are more-likely-than-not sustainable upon examination and including resolution of any
related appeals or litigation process. The second step is to measure the associated tax benefit
of each position as the largest amount that we believe is more-likely-than-not realizable.
Differences between the amount of tax benefits taken or expected to be taken in our income tax
returns and the amount of tax benefits recognized in our financial statements, determined by
applying the prescribed methodologies of FIN 48, represent our unrecognized income tax benefits,
which we either record as a liability or as a reduction of the deferred tax asset for net operating
loss carryovers. This interpretation also provides guidance on de-recognition, financial statement
classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.
Our policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized income tax benefits as a
component of income tax expense.
Contingencies
We account for claims and contingencies in accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for
Contingencies, which requires the recognition of an estimated loss from a claim or loss contingency
when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is
probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred at the date of the
financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Accounting for claims
and contingencies requires the use of significant judgment and estimates. One notable potential
source of loss contingencies is pending or threatened litigation. Legal counsel and other advisors
and experts are consulted on issues related to litigation as well as on matters related to
contingencies occurring in the ordinary course of business.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
On February 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123(R) and related interpretative guidance issued by the
FASB and the SEC. SFAS No. 123(R) requires the recognition of the cost of employee services
received in exchange for an award of equity instruments in the financial statements and measurement
of such cost based on the grant-date fair value of the award.
The application of SFAS No. 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value of stock-based
payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model. We use the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model, which requires the input of significant assumptions including an estimate of
the average period of time employees will retain stock options before exercising them, the
estimated volatility of our common stock price over the expected term, the number of options that
will ultimately be forfeited before completing vesting requirements, and the risk-free interest
rate. Changes in the assumptions can materially affect the estimate of fair value of stock-based
compensation and, consequently, the related expense recognized. The assumptions we use in
calculating the fair value of stock-based payment awards represent our best estimates, which
involve inherent uncertainties and the application of judgment. As a result, if factors change and
we use different assumptions, our stock-based compensation expense could be materially different in
the future.
- 88 -
For information regarding the correction of errors in previously issued financial statements
associated with certain option awards made in years prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R),
please see - Investigation and Restatement.
Impact of Our VSOE/Revenue Recognition Policies on Our Results of Operations
In our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2005, we disclosed that we
generally recognized revenue at the time of shipment for sales of systems which did not require
significant customization and when collection of the resulting receivable was deemed probable by
us. We also disclosed that revenue from certain long-term contracts (i.e., systems that did
require significant customization) was recognized under the POC method.
In addition, we disclosed that customers could engage in maintenance contracts and that revenue
from maintenance contracts was recognized ratably over the term of the maintenance period. In
arrangements where customers placed a single order for products and maintenance, we disclosed that
we used VSOE of fair value to determine the fair value of the maintenance portion of the purchase
(also referred to as post contract support or PCS) and that the fair value of the maintenance
portion was recognized over the term of the maintenance period. In accordance with SOP 97-2, VSOE
is used in transactions or arrangements that involve multiple bundled elements to determine the
value of undelivered elements of a transaction or arrangement. We also believed we had established
VSOE of fair value for our professional services, including installation, consulting, and training.
Professional services revenue was recognized upon the performance of the services.
As explained above, in our previously filed annual and quarterly reports, we generally recognized
product revenue at the time of the shipment, except for certain long-term contracts. Our last
annual filing was for the year ended January 31, 2005, our last quarterly filing was for the
quarter ended October 31, 2005 and we last reported revenue on a Form 8-K for the quarter ended July
31, 2007.
On
November 5, 2007, we publicly announced in a Form 8-K the review of our revenue recognition
practices in accordance with SOP 97-2 and related accounting pronouncements, including performing
additional analysis associated with the establishment of VSOE. At that time, we stated that if we
were unable to determine the fair value of an undelivered element within a multiple element
arrangement, revenue for the entire arrangement would be deferred until all elements had been
delivered. Our revenue recognition review was unrelated to the Phase I review or Phase II
investigation described in this report and our prior SEC filings.
- 89 -
In reviewing our revenue recognition practices, we examined our two primary sources of revenue:
(i) product revenue, including hardware and software products; and (ii) service revenue, including
implementation, training, consulting, maintenance, and warranty. A significant portion of customer
arrangements contain multiple elements which include bundling products and services in a single
arrangement with a customer.
When VSOE does not exist for all delivered elements of an arrangement, SOP 97-2, as modified by SOP
98-9, Modification of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition with Respect to Certain Transactions,
requires revenue to be recognized under the residual value method (Residual
Method). The fair value of our products is derived by ascertaining the fair value of all
undelivered elements (i.e., PCS and other services) and subtracting the value of the undelivered
elements from the total arrangement consideration. If the fair value of all undelivered elements
cannot be determined, revenue recognition is deferred for all elements, including delivered
elements, until all elements are delivered. However, if the only undelivered element is PCS, the
entire arrangement fee is recognized ratably over the PCS period.
During our revenue recognition review, we determined that for many of the arrangements we examined,
we were unable to determine the fair value of all or some of the elements within the multiple
element arrangement, as required by SOP 97-2. The result of this conclusion is that a significant
amount of our product revenue that was previously recognized upon delivery (and assuming payment
had been received or was then due) is now being deferred to later periods and in many cases being
recognized ratably over several quarters or years. For an approximation of revenue shifting from
previously reported periods into later periods, see the Explanatory Note.
Following is a general overview of how we previously reported revenue (through October 31, 2005)
and how we now recognize revenue for arrangements that were affected by our revenue review:
Workforce Optimization Segment
We determined in our review that, in certain circumstances, revenue originally recognized by our
Workforce Optimization segment should have been deferred to later periods. These
circumstances primarily related to contractual arrangements involving multiple deliverables, for
which VSOE was not adequately established for certain of the arrangements elements.
Our review determined that VSOE of the fair value for professional services was not adequately
established for a majority of our Workforce Optimization transactions. As a result,
product revenue previously recognized upon delivery has been restated, with such revenue now being
deferred until all professional services associated with the arrangement are completed and the only
remaining element is PCS. This could result in revenue recognition being deferred for one quarter
or several quarters depending on the nature of the arrangement. We are in the process of
implementing more sophisticated time tracking processes for our professional services to be used
for establishing VSOE.
- 90 -
Our review also determined that certain Workforce Optimization arrangements previously
believed to have appropriate VSOE of the fair value of PCS services, in fact did not meet the VSOE
criteria required by SOP 97-2. As a result, previously recognized product revenue has been
restated to be recognized ratably over the period that the customer is entitled to renew its PCS,
but not to exceed the estimated economic life of the software product.
In addition, several of our Workforce Optimization PCS service plans provided for
significant and incremental discounts on future when-and-if available version upgrades, which
resulted in the restatement adjustments to recognize the entire arrangement fee over the term of
the PCS period.
Over the
last three years based on how we now recognize revenue in our Workforce
Optimization segment, approximately 55% of our revenue is recognized using the Residual Method and
approximately 40% is recognized ratably over either the PCS term or the period that the customer is
entitled to renew its PCS but not to exceed the estimated economic life of the product (Ratable Method) and approximately 5% is recognized under the provisions of
SOP 81-1 (Contract Accounting Method) primarily using the completed contract method.
Video Intelligence Segment
Certain of our Video Intelligence arrangements include support services which we previously had
concluded did not qualify as PCS as defined in SOP 97-2 but were instead accounted for as
warranties. However, upon reconsideration of the support provided in these arrangements, including
software upgrades and telephone support, we concluded that such support qualifies as implied PCS
and requires VSOE of fair value for separate revenue recognition of the element. We were unable to
adequately establish VSOE of fair value for these implied PCS services. Accordingly, we have
restated the recognition of revenue for these arrangements over the support period, limited to the
estimated economic life of the product.
We now offer PCS service plans to our Video Intelligence customers, but due to the lack of the
actual subsequent renewal arrangements, we have been unable to establish VSOE of fair value for
these services and therefore, revenue for these services will continue to be recognized over the
support period. Additionally, we are implementing improved processes which will allow us to
identify Video Intelligence customers under PCS service plans and appropriately monitor and provide
the contracted support such that implied PCS for our significant arrangements are not provided
beyond the contractual terms.
Over the last three years based on how we now recognize revenue in our Video Intelligence segment,
approximately 55% of our revenue is recognized using the Residual Method and approximately 45% is
recognized using the Ratable Method.
- 91 -
Communications Intelligence Segment
Our review determined that certain Communications Intelligence contracts included professional
services, for which VSOE of fair value was not adequately established, in circumstances similar to
those described previously for the Workforce Optimization segment. As a result, certain
previously recognized revenue for these contracts has been restated with such revenue now being
deferred until all professional services associated with the arrangement are completed and the only
remaining element is PCS. In addition, several of our Communications Intelligence contracts
require substantial customization, and are therefore accounted for under the provisions of SOP
81-1. Our review determined that certain of these arrangements were bundled with PCS for which we
were unable to establish VSOE of fair value. Revenue for those contracts was restated accordingly.
Over the last three years based on the way we now recognize revenue in our Communications Intelligence
segment, approximately 50% of our revenue is recognized using the Residual Method, approximately
25% is recognized using the Ratable Method and approximately 25% is recognized under the Contract
Accounting Method primarily using the POC method.
The restatement adjustments described above primarily relate to correcting the timing of the
recognition of revenue over accounting periods, and do not impact the aggregate amount of cash
flows or the aggregate amount of revenue we will ultimately record, other than the impact of
foreign currency exchange rates on certain revenue now reported and translated into U.S. Dollars in
different accounting periods and certain transactions moving from net to gross accounting.
However, the effect of these restatement adjustments extends beyond the restated periods. As a
result, revenue arrangements that were previously recognized in a single year are now being
recognized ratably over a period as long as seven years. For example, revenue for an arrangement
that was previously recognized entirely in the year ended January 31, 2005 may now be recognized
ratably over a period through the year ended January 31, 2012, thereby reducing revenue in the year
ended January 31, 2005 and adding to revenue in later periods.
In addition, as part of restating revenue for a particular arrangement, we have also restated
certain cost of revenue associated with the arrangement. In accordance with applicable provisions
of GAAP, we have made an accounting policy election whereby the product cost of revenue,
including hardware and third-party software license fees, is capitalized and amortized over the
same period that product revenue is recognized, while installation and other service costs are
generally expensed as incurred, except for certain contracts recognized according to contract
accounting. For example, in a multiple element arrangement where revenue is now being recognized
over a seven year period, the cost of revenue associated with the product is capitalized upon
product delivery and amortized over that same seven year period. However, the cost of revenue
associated with the services is expensed as incurred in the period in which the services are
performed. In addition, we expense customer acquisition and origination costs to selling, general
and administrative expense, including sales commissions, as incurred, with the exception of certain
sales referral fees in our communications intelligence business which are capitalized and amortized
ratably over the revenue recognition period.
- 92 -
As a result of the issues discussed above, revenue recognized in each of the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 relates to products and services that were delivered in that year as well
as products and services that were delivered in prior years. Beginning in the year ended
January 31, 2009 and more so in the year ending January 31, 2010, we believe that, in most cases, we have
or will have changed our business processes and systems in a way that will enable us to establish
fair value for each undelivered element in our offerings. These changes are intended to enable us
to recognize revenue from product and services upon delivery instead of deferring all revenue over
the PCS period and as a result we expect the amount of revenue that we will recognize in future
periods that originated from prior periods will diminish over time. However, we believe that we
will, in certain situations, continue to enter into arrangements that will require revenue to be
deferred over longer periods of time.
Because the application of SOP 97-2 is extremely technical and complex, we have made a
variety of changes in our business and our financial reporting systems during our extended filing
delay period to appropriately allow separate recognition of revenue for the various elements of our
solutions in accordance with the requirements of SOP 97-2. Many of those changes involve
strengthening our internal controls and processes and systems in order to better ensure that we
have the technical expertise and business processes to properly establish VSOE and apply SOP 97-2.
In addition to improvements to our controls and processes, we have made changes to our standard
business practices in an effort to adjust past business practices that prevented us from
establishing VSOE. These changes include developing a more formal process for approving customer
discounts and a more detailed review of all contract terms, particularly those related to
commitments for future features or services.
Results of Operations
Financial Overview
The following table sets forth summary financial information for the years ended January 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
$ |
(114,630 |
) |
|
$ |
(47,253 |
) |
|
$ |
4,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common
shares |
|
$ |
(207,290 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Our revenue increased
approximately 45%, or $165.7 million, to $534.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from
$368.8 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. The increase was primarily due to the
acquisition of Witness in May 2007, which represented approximately 74% of the revenue increase, as
well as approximately 10% of the increase resulting from greater Residual Method revenue primarily
related to our Video Intelligence segment. For more details on our revenue by segment,
see - Revenue by Operating Segment. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC regions represented
approximately 52%, 33%, and 15% of our total revenue, respectively, in the year ended January 31,
2008 compared to approximately 48%, 31%, and 21%, respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2007.
- 93 -
We had an
operating loss of $114.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 compared to an
operating loss of $47.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. The increased operating loss
was primarily due to an increase in professional fees and related expenses of approximately $22
million associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended
filing delay status, an increase in amortization of intangibles of $20.4 million, an increase in
stock-based compensation of $12.4 million, integration and restructuring expenses of $14.3 million,
and legal fees associated with intellectual property litigations of $12.0 million. With the
exception of the professional fees, all of the previously mentioned increases were primarily due to
the acquisition of Witness. Also included in our operating loss was an impairment charge of $2.7
million related to acquired intangible assets in our Video Intelligence operating segment and
goodwill impairment charges totaling $14.0 million in our Workforce Optimization operating segment
and $6.6 million in our Video Intelligence operating segment. For additional information see -
Impairment of Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets and Note 6, Intangible Assets and
Goodwill to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. The operating loss for the
year ended January 31, 2007 included a $19.2 million settlement charge relating to the exit from a
royalty-bearing program with the OCS. (For additional information see - OCS Royalty Settlement).
We had a
net loss applicable to common shares of $207.3 million and a loss per share of $6.43 in
the year ended January 31, 2008, compared to a net loss applicable to common shares of
$40.5 million and a loss per share of $1.26 in the year ended January 31, 2007. The increase in our net
loss and loss per share in the year ended January 31, 2008 was due to our higher operating expenses
as described above and to interest and other expenses, net of $55.2 million in the year ended
January 31, 2008, compared to interest and other income, net of $7.8 million in the year ended
January 31, 2007. Included in interest and other expenses is a $29.2 million loss in connection
with a $450.0 million interest rate swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit
agreement. The increased interest and other expenses were primarily a result of the financing
arrangements that we entered into in connection with the Witness acquisition. See - Liquidity and
Capital Resources.
The weakening of the U.S. Dollar relative to the major foreign currencies where we do business
(primarily the British Pound, the Euro, the Israeli Shekel and Canadian Dollar) in the year ended
January 31, 2008 compared to the year ended January 31, 2007 had a favorable impact on our revenues
and an unfavorable impact on our operating expenses and our operating loss. Had foreign exchange
rates remained constant in these periods, our total revenues would have been approximately $12
million lower and our operating expenses and cost of goods sold would have been approximately $16
million lower, or a net favorable constant dollar impact of approximately $4 million on our
operating loss.
As of January 31, 2008, we employed approximately 2,600 employees, including part-time employees
and certain contractors, as compared to approximately 1,800 as of January 31, 2007. This increase
is almost entirely due to the Witness acquisition.
- 94 -
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Our revenue increased
approximately 32%, or $90.0 million, to $368.8 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 from
$278.8 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. Approximately 45% of the increase was due to
the acquisitions of Opus in September 2005, MultiVision in January 2006, CM Insight in February
2006 and Mercom in July 2006. Approximately 40% of the increase
was due to greater Residual Method revenue in all our operating segments, approximately 7% of the
increase was due to greater revenue recognized under the Ratable Method, and approximately 8% of
the increase was due to greater revenue recognized under Contract Accounting Method. For more
details on revenue by operating segment, see - Revenue by Operating Segment. Revenue in the
Americas, EMEA, and APAC regions represented approximately 48%, 31%, and 21% of our total revenue,
respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2007, compared to approximately 51%, 33%, and 16%,
respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2006.
We had an
operating loss of $47.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2007, compared to an
operating profit of $4.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. This decrease in our
operating profit was primarily due to a $19.2 million settlement charge relating to the exit from a
royalty-bearing program with the OCS (For additional information see - OCS Royalty Settlement),
an intangible asset impairment charge of $4.5 million in our Video Intelligence operating segment,
a goodwill impairment charges of $17.1 million in our Video Intelligence operating segment and
$3.1 million in our Workforce Optimization operating segment (for additional information see -
Impairment of Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets and Note 6, Intangible Assets and
Goodwill to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15), an increase of $17.5
million in stock-based compensation expenses due to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), and
professional fees and related expenses of approximately $4 million associated with our restatement
of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status.
For the reasons set forth above, we had a net loss applicable to common
shares of $40.5 million and a loss per share of $1.26 in the year ended January 31, 2007, compared to net income applicable to
common shares of $1.7 million and earnings per share of $0.05 in the year ended January 31, 2006.
The weakening of the U.S. Dollar relative to the major foreign currencies where we do business
(primarily the British Pound, the Euro, the Israeli Shekel and Canadian Dollar) in the year ended
January 31, 2007 compared to the year ended January 31, 2006 had a favorable impact on our revenues
and an unfavorable impact on our operating expenses and our operating loss. Had foreign exchange
rates remained constant in these periods, our total revenues would have been approximately $3
million lower and our operating expenses and cost of goods sold would have been approximately $5
million lower, or a net favorable constant dollar impact of approximately $2 million on our
operating loss.
As of January 31, 2007, we employed approximately 1,800 employees, including part-time employees
and certain contractors, as compared to approximately 1,700 as of January 31, 2006. This increase
is partially due to increased business activity which required additional headcount, as well as the
acquisitions of MultiVision, CM Insight and Mercom.
- 95 -
Revenue by Operating Segment
The following table sets forth revenue for each of our three operating segments for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Workforce Optimization |
|
$ |
260,938 |
|
|
$ |
125,982 |
|
|
$ |
68,500 |
|
|
|
107 |
% |
|
|
84 |
% |
Video Intelligence |
|
|
147,225 |
|
|
|
122,681 |
|
|
|
102,225 |
|
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
Communications
Intelligence |
|
|
126,380 |
|
|
|
120,115 |
|
|
|
108,029 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
|
45 |
% |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workforce Optimization Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Workforce Optimization
revenue increased approximately 107%, or $134.9 million, to $260.9 million in the year ended
January 31, 2008 from $126.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. Approximately 91% of the
increase was due to the acquisition of Witness in May 2007.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Workforce Optimization
revenue increased approximately 84%, or $57.5 million, to $126.0 million in the year ended January
31, 2007 from $68.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. Approximately 45% of the increase
was due to the acquisitions of Mercom in July 2006, CM Insight in February 2006 and Opus in
September 2005, approximately 40% of the increase was due to greater Residual Method revenue and
approximately 10% of the increase was due to greater Ratable Method revenue related to our
Workforce Optimization solutions.
Video Intelligence Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Video Intelligence revenue
increased approximately 20%, or $24.5 million, to $147.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008
from $122.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. Approximately 70% of the increase was due
to greater Residual Method revenue primarily related to the completion of a multi-site installation
for a major customer, partially offset by a decline in our distribution business in the APAC
region, and approximately 30% of the increase was due to an increase in Ratable Method revenue
recognized, primarily as a result of the introduction of our Nextiva Video Solution during the year
ended January 31, 2007.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Video Intelligence revenue
increased approximately 20%, or $20.5 million, to $122.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2007
from $102.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. Approximately 70% of the increase was due
to the acquisition of MultiVision in January 2006, approximately 15% of the increase was due to
greater Ratable Method revenue, and approximately 15% of the increase
related to greater Residual Method revenue from our Video Intelligence solutions.
- 96 -
Communications Intelligence Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Communications Intelligence
revenue increased approximately 5%, or $6.3 million, to $126.4 million in the year ended January
31, 2008 from $120.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. This increase was primarily due
to the increase in Ratable Method revenue related to the completion of certain installations,
partially offset by a decline in Contract Accounting Method revenue.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Communications Intelligence
revenue increased approximately 11%, or $12.1 million, to $120.1 million in the year ended January
31, 2007 from $108.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. The increase was primarily due to
greater Residual Method revenue related to the completion of certain installations and partially
due to greater Contract Accounting Method revenue, partially offset by a reduction in Ratable
Method revenue.
Volume and Price
We sell products in multiple configurations, and the price of any particular product varies
depending on the configuration of the product sold. Due to the variety of customized
configurations for each product we sell, we are unable to quantify the amount of any revenue
increases attributable to a change in the price of any particular product and/or a change in the
number of products sold.
Revenue by Product Revenue and Service and Support Revenue
We categorize and report our revenue in two categories product revenue and service and support
revenue. For multiple element arrangements for which we are unable to establish VSOE of fair value
of one or more elements, we use various available indicators of fair value and apply our best
judgment to reasonably classify the arrangements revenue into product revenue and service and
support revenue. For additional information see Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15.
The following table sets forth revenue for products and services and support for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Product revenue |
|
$ |
333,130 |
|
|
$ |
251,584 |
|
|
$ |
187,253 |
|
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
34 |
% |
Service and support
revenue |
|
|
201,413 |
|
|
|
117,194 |
|
|
|
91,501 |
|
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
|
45 |
% |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 97 -
Product Revenue
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Product revenue increased
approximately 32%, or $81.5 million, to $333.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from
$251.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. The increase was primarily in our Workforce
Optimization segment, due to the acquisition of Witness in May 2007 which represented approximately
70% of the product revenue increase, as well as an increase in product revenue recognized in our
Video Intelligence segment which represented approximately 30% of the product revenue increase.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Product revenue increased
approximately 34%, or $64.3 million, to $251.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 from
$187.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. The increase was due to the acquisitions of
Mercom and Multivision, which combined represented 40% of the revenue increase, as well as an
increase in product revenue recognized in all three of our segments representing approximately 60%
of the product revenue increase.
Service and Support Revenue
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Service and support revenue
increased approximately 72%, or $84.2 million, to $201.4 million for the year ended January 31,
2008 from $117.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. The increase was primarily in our
Workforce Optimization segment, due to the acquisition of Witness in May 2007 which represented
approximately 80% of the service and support revenue increase, as well as an increase in service
and support revenue recognized in both our Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence
segments which represented approximately 20% of the revenue increase.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Service and support revenue
increased approximately 28%, or $25.7 million, to $117.2 million for the year ended January 31,
2007 from $91.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2006. The increase was almost entirely in
our Workforce Optimization segment, due to, in approximately equal measure, the acquisitions of
Opus and CM Insight combined, and an increase attributable to our existing Workforce Optimization
solutions.
- 98 -
Cost of Revenue
The following table sets forth cost of revenue by products and services and support as well as
amortization and impairment of acquired technology and backlog, and settlement with the OCS
for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Product cost of revenue |
|
$ |
121,627 |
|
|
$ |
116,274 |
|
|
$ |
88,996 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
31 |
% |
Service and support cost of
revenue |
|
|
100,397 |
|
|
|
48,175 |
|
|
|
40,598 |
|
|
|
108 |
% |
|
|
19 |
% |
Amortization and impairment of
acquired technology and
backlog |
|
|
8,018 |
|
|
|
7,664 |
|
|
|
5,017 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
53 |
% |
Settlement with OCS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-100 |
% |
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
$ |
230,042 |
|
|
$ |
191,271 |
|
|
$ |
134,611 |
|
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
42 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Cost of Revenue
Product cost of revenue primarily consists of hardware material costs and royalties due to third
parties for software components that are embedded in our software applications. As discussed under
- Impact of Our VSOE/Revenue Recognition Policies on our Results of Operations, when revenue is
deferred, we also defer hardware material costs and third-party software royalties and amortize
those costs over the same period that the product revenue is recognized.
Product cost of revenue also includes amortization of capitalized software development costs, OCS
royalties, write-offs of intangible assets, employee compensation and related expenses associated
with our global operations, facility costs and other allocated overhead expenses. In our
Communications Intelligence segment, product cost of revenue also includes employee compensation
and related expenses, contractor and consulting expenses, and travel expenses, all of which relate
to resources dedicated to the delivery of customized projects for which certain contracts are
accounted for under the POC method.
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Product cost of revenue
increased approximately 5% to $121.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from $116.3 million
in the year ended January 31, 2007 primarily as a result of increased costs related to an increase
in product revenue. The majority of the product revenue increase was in our Workforce Optimization
segment and was almost entirely due to the acquisition of Witness. Our product margins have
expanded as a result of product mix, as our Workforce Optimization solutions carry a lower hardware
component and therefore a lower product cost of revenue compared to our Video Intelligence and
Communications Intelligence solutions. The increase in product costs included an increase in
hardware and software material costs of $5.6 million, an increase in employee compensation and
related expenses of $2.8 million, primarily a result of increased employee headcount attributable
to the Witness acquisition, and an increase in contractor costs of $1.9 million. These increases
were offset by a $2.4 million elimination of royalty expenses as a result of exiting the OCS
royalty-bearing programs in calendar year 2006 (for additional information see - OCS Royalty
Settlement), a $1.6 million reduction in write-down of capitalized software development costs, and
a $1.0 elimination of write-down in prepaid third-party licenses.
- 99 -
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Product cost of revenue
increased approximately 31% to $116.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 from $89.0 million
in the year ended January 31, 2006 due to an increase in hardware and software material costs of
$25.8 million, due to an increase in product revenue, as well as a $1.3 million increase in
employee compensation and related expenses. Our product margins have expanded as a result of
product mix, as most of the revenue increases were in our Workforce Optimization solutions, which
carry a lower hardware component and therefore a lower product cost of revenue compared to our
Video Intelligence and Communication Intelligence solutions. In the year ended January 31, 2007
product cost of revenues include write-offs of capitalized software
development costs, intangible assets, and prepaid third-party licenses aggregating $2.8 million.
These increases were offset by a $1.5 million reduction of royalty expenses as a result of exiting
the OCS royalty-bearing programs in calendar year 2006 (for additional information see - OCS
Royalty Settlement), and other reductions totaling $1.1 million.
Service and Support Cost of Revenue
Service and support cost of revenue primarily consist of employee compensation and related
expenses, contractor costs, and travel expenses relating to installation, training, consulting and
maintenance services. Service and support cost of revenue also include stock compensation
expenses, OCS royalties, facility costs, and other overhead expenses.
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Service and support cost of
revenue increased approximately 108% to $100.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from
$48.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. Of these expenses, employee compensation and
related expenses increased $29.4 million primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program
in the year ended January 31, 2008. Other expense increases included an increase in contractor
expenses of $6.4 million, an increase in travel and lodging of $4.7 million, a $3.0 million
increase in stock-compensation expense, a $4.3 million increase in overhead expenses, and an
increase in other expenses totaling $5.7 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the
acquisition of Witness. These increases were offset by a $1.3 million elimination of royalty
expenses as a result of exiting the OCS royalty-bearing programs in calendar year 2006 (for
additional information see - OCS Royalty Settlement).
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Service and support cost of
revenue increased approximately 19% to $48.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 from $40.6
million in the year ended January 31, 2006 due to increases in employee compensation and related
expenses of $5.0 million, and travel expenses of $1.6 million, primarily as a result of our
acquisitions of CM Insight, Opus, and Mercom, an increase in stock-based compensation expense of
$1.3 million as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), and other increases totaling $0.5
million. These increases were partially offset by an $0.8 million reduction of royalty expenses as
a result of exiting the OCS royalty-bearing program in calendar year 2006 (for additional
information see - OCS Royalty Settlement).
- 100 -
Amortization and Impairment of Acquired Technology and Backlog
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Amortization and impairment
of acquired technology and backlog increased approximately 5% to $8.0 million in the year ended
January 31, 2008 from $7.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2007, primarily due to the Witness
acquisition. In the year ended January 31, 2008, we recorded a $0.4 million impairment charge
related to certain acquired technologies in our Video Intelligence segment in the APAC region.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Amortization and impairment
of acquired technology and backlog increased approximately 53% to $7.7 million in
the year ended January 31, 2007 from $5.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2006, primarily as
a result of an impairment of acquired technology. In the year ended January 31, 2007, we recorded
a $3.6 million impairment charge related to certain acquired technologies in our Video Intelligence
segment in the APAC region. We impaired the carrying amount of the acquired technologies as we
decided to replace these technologies with new technology sooner than originally planned.
OCS Royalty Settlement
On July 31, 2006, we entered into a settlement agreement with the OCS, pursuant to which we exited
a royalty-bearing program and the OCS agreed to accept a lump sum payment of approximately $36.0 million. Prior to
the settlement, we had accrued approximately $16.8 million of
royalties and related interest due under the original terms of the
program through charges to cost of revenue in the corresponding
periods of the related revenue, net of previous royalty payments. We recorded a charge of approximately $19.2 million
to cost of revenue in the second quarter of the year ended January 31, 2007 for
the remaining amount of the lump sum settlement in excess of amounts previously accrued under
the program. Payments agreed to under the OCS settlement were completed immediately following
the execution of the settlement agreement. Beginning in calendar year 2006,
we entered into a new program with the OCS under which we are no longer required to pay royalties to the OCS.
Research and Development, Net
Research and development expenses primarily consist of personnel and subcontracting expenses,
facility costs and other allocated overhead, net of certain software development costs that are
capitalized as well as reimbursements under government programs. Software development costs are
capitalized upon the establishment of technological feasibility and until related products are
available for general release to customers.
- 101 -
The following table sets forth research and development, net expense for the years ended January
31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Research and
development, net |
|
$ |
87,668 |
|
|
$ |
53,029 |
|
|
$ |
34,889 |
|
|
|
65 |
% |
|
|
52 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Research and development, net
expense increased approximately 65% to $87.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from $53.0
million in the year ended January 31, 2007. Of these expenses, employee compensation and related
expenses increased $22.6 million primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program
in the year ended January 31, 2008. Other expense increases included an increase in contractor
expenses of $5.3 million, a $3.4 million increase in facility costs and other overhead expenses,
$2.1 million of greater depreciation and amortization expenses, and an increase in other expenses
totaling $1.3 million, all of which were primarily due to the acquisition of Witness.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Research and
development, net expenses increased approximately 52% to $53.0 million in the year ended January
31, 2007 from $34.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2006 due to growth in employee
compensation and related expenses of $7.1 million and overhead expenses of $2.9 million, and an
increase in other expenses totaling $2.3 million, in each case, primarily as a result of headcount
growth and investments to support development of new products and enhancements to existing
products, and partially due to the acquisitions of Mercom and MultiVision. Stock-based
compensation expense increased by $3.9 million as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) in
the year ended January 31, 2007. Reimbursements under government programs declined by $1.9 million
as a result of our transition from a royalty-bearing OCS program to a non-royalty OCS program in
the year ended January 31, 2007.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs and related
expenses, sales and marketing expenses, including travel, sales commissions and sales referral
fees, facility costs, communication expenses, and other administrative expenses.
- 102 -
The following table sets forth selling, general and administrative expense for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Selling, general
and administrative |
|
$ |
259,183 |
|
|
$ |
148,229 |
|
|
$ |
98,399 |
|
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Selling, general and
administrative expenses increased approximately 75% to $259.2 million in the year ended January 31,
2008 from $148.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $45.9 million, and employee sales commissions increased
$11.7 million primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount attributable to the
Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program in the year ended
January 31, 2008. Other expense increases included an increase in stock-based compensation of $8.4
million, an increase in rent and utilities expense of $6.3 million, an increase in communications
expense of $3.6 million, an increase in travel and entertainment expense of $4.5 million, and an
increase in other expenses totaling $8.6 million, all of which were primarily due to the
acquisition of Witness. In addition, professional fees and related expenses associated with our
restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status increased
by approximately $22 million to $26 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from approximately
$4 million in the year ended January 31, 2007.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Selling, general and
administrative expenses increased approximately 51% to $148.2 million in the year ended January 31,
2007 from $98.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2006 due to an increase in employee
compensation and related expenses of $16.4 million, an increase in employee sales commissions of
$3.3 million, an increase in rent and utilities expense of $3.1 million, an increase
in professional fees of $2.6 million, increased travel and entertainment expenses of $1.7 million,
an increase in depreciation of $1.7 million, higher contractor costs of $1.7 million, increased
advertising and marketing costs of $1.1 million, and an increase in other expenses totaling $2.1
million, all of which were a result of organic growth as well as the acquisitions of Mercom, CM
Insight, MultiVision and Opus. In the year ended January 31, 2007, we incurred approximately $4
million in professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of previously
filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status, and an increase in stock-based
compensation of $12.1 million as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) during that year.
- 103 -
Amortization of Other Acquired Intangible Assets
The following table sets forth amortization of acquisition related intangibles for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Amortization of
other acquired
intangible assets |
|
$ |
19,668 |
|
|
$ |
3,164 |
|
|
$ |
1,337 |
|
|
|
522 |
% |
|
|
137 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Amortization of other
acquired intangible assets increased approximately 522% to $19.7 million in the year ended January
31, 2008 from $3.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 almost entirely due to the Witness
acquisition. We report amortization of acquired trade names, customer relationships and
non-compete agreements as operating expenses.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Amortization of other
acquired intangible assets increased to $3.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 from $1.3
million in the year ended January 31, 2006, primarily due to the acquisitions of MultiVision, Opus,
Mercom, and CM Insight.
In-Process Research and Development
We expense the fair value of in-process research and development upon the date of the acquisition,
as it represents incomplete research and development projects that had not yet reached
technological feasibility and have no known alternative future use as of the date of the
acquisition. Technological feasibility is generally established when an enterprise completes all
planning, designing, coding, and testing activities that are necessary to establish that a product
can be produced to meet its design specifications, including functions, features, and technical
performance requirements.
The following table sets forth in-process research and development expense for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
In-process research and development |
|
$ |
6,682 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,852 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008. In-process research and development expenses in the year ended
January 31, 2008 primarily related to incomplete research and development projects attributable to
the Witness acquisition.
- 104 -
Year Ended January 31, 2006. In-process research and development expenses in the year ended
January 31, 2006 related to incomplete research and development projects attributable to the
MultiVision acquisition.
Impairment of Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets
The following table sets forth impairment of goodwill and other acquired intangible assets for the
years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Intangible asset impairment |
|
$ |
2,295 |
|
|
$ |
838 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
20,639 |
|
|
|
20,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets |
|
$ |
22,934 |
|
|
$ |
21,103 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008. We recorded a $2.3 million impairment charge to customer
relationships and a goodwill impairment charge of $6.6 million in our Video Intelligence operating
segment. The goodwill impairment charge was recorded due to a change in business strategy, which
resulted in a decline in our distribution business in the APAC region. We reviewed our intangible
assets for impairment in conjunction with our goodwill impairment review and determined that the
customer relationships related to this business were also impaired. We also recorded a goodwill
impairment charge of $14.0 million in our Workforce Optimization operating segment. The impairment
in our Workforce Optimization operating segment is related to our performance management consulting
businesses in the United States and Europe and was due primarily to overall lower than anticipated
demand for our consulting services, which resulted in a decline in projected future revenue and
cash flow. See Note 6, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the consolidated financial statements
included in Item 15.
Year Ended January 31, 2007. We recorded an $0.8 million impairment charge of an acquired
distribution network, in our Video Intelligence segment in the APAC region. We fully impaired the
value of an acquired distribution network due to reduced business
with certain distributors, driven by changes in our business strategy in the region. We also recorded goodwill impairment charges of $3.1 million in our
Workforce Optimization operating segment and $17.1 million in our Video Intelligence operating
segment. The impairment in our Workforce Optimization operating segment is related to our
performance management consulting business in the United States and was primarily due to overall
lower than anticipated demand for our consulting services, which
resulted in a decline in projected future revenue and cash flow. The impairment in our Video
Intelligence operating segment is related to our business in the APAC region, where revenue
declined due to a change in business strategy, which resulted in a decline in our distribution
business in the region. See Note 6, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the consolidated
financial statements included in Item 15.
- 105 -
Integration, Restructuring and Other, Net
The following table sets forth integration, restructuring and other, net for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Integration costs |
|
$ |
10,980 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Restructuring costs |
|
|
3,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other legal costs |
|
|
8,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,554 |
|
Gain on sale of land |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(765 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
$ |
22,996 |
|
|
$ |
(765 |
) |
|
$ |
2,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration and restructuring costs
Year Ended January 31, 2008. We continually review our business to manage costs and align our
resources with market demand. In connection with such reviews, and also in conjunction with the
acquisition of Witness, we took several actions in the year ended January 31, 2008 to reduce fixed
costs, eliminate redundancies, strengthen areas needing operational focus, and better position us
to respond to market pressures or unfavorable economic conditions. As a result of these actions,
we incurred restructuring costs of $3.3 million, in approximately equal measure, as a result of
acquiring Witness, and from restructuring charges pertaining to the Video Intelligence segment.
Also, resulting from the Witness acquisition and the subsequent integration of the Witness and
Verint businesses, we incurred integration costs of $11.0 million during the year ended January 31,
2008. The majority of these integration and restructuring costs consisted of severance and
personnel-related costs resulting from headcount reductions and retention, professional fees, and
costs associated with travel and lodging. We did not incur any significant restructuring and
integration costs during the years ended January 31, 2007 and 2006.
Other Legal Costs
Year Ended January 31, 2008.
We incurred $8.7 million of legal fees related to an ongoing
patent infringement litigation matter. This litigation was
subsequently settled during the year ended January 31, 2009.
Year Ended January 31, 2006. We recorded a $2.6 million legal charge in connection with a customer
dispute. Final settlement has not yet occurred, pending certain action by the
counterparty, and we are currently unable to determine when final settlement will occur.
- 106 -
Gain on sale of land
Year Ended January 31, 2007. We recorded a gain of $0.8 million from the sale of a parcel of land
in Durango, Colorado.
Other Income (Expense), Net
The following table sets forth total other income (expense), net for the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
5,443 |
|
|
$ |
8,835 |
|
|
$ |
8,503 |
|
|
|
(38 |
%) |
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(36,862 |
) |
|
|
(444 |
) |
|
|
(310 |
) |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains (losses) on
investments |
|
|
(4,713 |
) |
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
Foreign currency
gains (losses), net |
|
|
1,431 |
|
|
|
(919 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
(256 |
%) |
|
|
509 |
% |
Losses on derivatives, net |
|
|
(20,407 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
0 |
% |
Other, net |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
117 |
% |
|
|
(25 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other expense |
|
|
(23,767 |
) |
|
|
(595 |
) |
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
201 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income
(expense), net |
|
$ |
(55,186 |
) |
|
$ |
7,796 |
|
|
$ |
7,995 |
|
|
|
(808 |
%) |
|
|
(2 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Percentage is not meaningful. |
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Total other income (expense),
net, decreased $63.0 million to a loss of $55.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008,
compared to $7.8 million of income in the year ended January 31, 2007. Interest income decreased
approximately 38% to $5.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 from $8.8 million in the year
ended January 31, 2007 primarily due to lower cash and investment balances as a result of the
acquisition of Witness. Interest expense increased to $36.9 million in the year ended January 31,
2008 from $0.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2007 due to interest on borrowings under our
$650.0 million term loan which we entered into to finance a portion of the purchase price of
Witness. As of January 31, 2008, we also held investments in auction rate securities (ARS),
which had an original cost of $7.0 million and estimated fair value of $2.3 million. During the
fourth quarter of the year ended January 31, 2008, we concluded that our ARS investments had
incurred an other-than-temporary impairment in market value and recorded a $4.7 million pre-tax
charge. Subsequent to January 31, 2008, our ARS were repurchased by our broker at the value equal
to the par value plus interest. Foreign currency gains (losses) were the result of the effect
of currency rate movements, primarily between the U.S. Dollar and the Euro, British Pound Sterling,
Israeli Shekel, and Canadian Dollar.
- 107 -
In the year ended January 31, 2008, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $20.4 million. This
loss was primarily attributable to a $29.2 million loss in connection with a $450.0 million
interest rate swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit agreement. These losses
reflected the dramatic decline in market interest rates during the second half of the year ended
January 31, 2008. This interest rate swap is not designated as a hedging instrument under the
terms of SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (SFAS No.
133), and is accounted for as a derivative. This loss was partially offset by a $1.5 million gain
on foreign currency derivatives, which represented the realized and unrealized portions of our
foreign currency hedges. As of January 31, 2008, our foreign-currency forward contracts were not
designated as hedging instruments under the terms of SFAS No. 133 and are accounted for as
derivatives, whereby the fair value of the contracts is reported as other current assets or other
current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet, and gains and losses from changes in fair
value are reported in other income (expense), net. The loss was also partially offset by a $7.2
million gain from an increase in the fair value of a derivative embedded in the preferred stock
issued to Comverse for $293.0 million to finance a portion of the Witness acquisition.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Other income (expense), net
decreased approximately 2% to a $7.8 million gain in the year ended January 31, 2007 compared to an
$8.0 million gain in the year ended January 31, 2006. The increase in interest income was due to
higher market interest rates in the year ended January 31, 2007. Interest expense for the year
ended January 31, 2007 and the year ended January 31, 2006 primarily related to foreign borrowings
for our German subsidiaries. Foreign currency gains (losses) were the result of the effect of
currency rate movements, primarily between the U.S. Dollar and the Euro, British Pound Sterling,
Israeli Shekel, and Canadian Dollar.
Income Tax Provision
The following table sets forth our income tax provision for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007,
and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
27,729 |
|
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
$ |
9,625 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
(99 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Percentage is not meaningful. |
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. Our effective tax rate was
(16.3)% for the year ended January 31, 2008, as compared to (0.4)% for the year ended January 31,
2007. The decrease was primarily due to our recording a valuation allowance during the year ended
January 31, 2008 on our U.S. deferred tax assets. This resulted in U.S. income tax expense being
accrued for the year ended January 31, 2008, even though we incurred U.S. net operating losses.
Such losses were primarily caused by interest expense on Witness acquisition indebtedness. The
combination of consolidated tax expense in the year calculated on our worldwide pre-tax loss
resulted in a negative effective tax rate. Excluding the impact of valuation allowances, our
effective tax rate for the year ended January 31, 2008 would
have been 26.9%, which was lower than
the U.S. statutory tax rate primarily due to tax benefits recorded
in foreign jurisdictions with income tax rates lower than in the U.S. Losses outside the U.S. were
incurred primarily in Hong Kong, Israel and the United Kingdom.
- 108 -
Our effective tax rate for the year ended January 31, 2007, was lower than the U.S. statutory tax
rate primarily due to the impact of non-deductible impairment charges on identified intangibles and
non-deductible stock option expense in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions. These charges reduced the
tax benefits we could record on our pre-tax loss. The combination of consolidated tax expense in
the year calculated on our worldwide pre-tax loss resulted in a negative effective tax rate. This
was partially offset by our release of a valuation allowance recorded on certain of our German
deferred tax assets.
The manner in which we evaluate the need for valuation allowances is
described in - Critical
Accounting Policies and in Note 1, Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements
included in Item 15.
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. Our effective tax rate was
(0.4)% for the year ended January 31, 2007, as compared to 79.5% for the year ended January 31,
2006. The decrease was primarily due to the impact of non-deductible impairment charges on
identified intangibles and non-deductible stock option expense in certain foreign jurisdictions.
These charges reduced the tax benefits we could record on our pre-tax loss for the year ended
January 31, 2007. The combination of consolidated tax expense in the year calculated on our
worldwide pre-tax loss resulted in a negative effective tax rate. This was partially offset by our
release of a valuation allowance recorded on certain of our German deferred tax assets. Our
effective tax rate for the year ended January 31, 2006, was higher than the U.S. statutory tax rate
primarily as a result of non-deductible expenses and increases to valuation allowances on certain
non-U.S. deferred tax assets. The impact of the non-deductible items on our effective tax rate was
magnified by the relatively low level of pre-tax income for the year.
Backlog
The delivery cycles of most of our products are generally very short, ranging from days to several
months, with the exception of certain projects with multiple deliverables over a longer period of
time. Therefore, we do not view backlog as a meaningful indicator of future business activity and
do not consider it a meaningful financial metric for evaluating our business.
- 109 -
Selected Quarterly Results of Operations
The following table shows selected results of operations for each quarter during the two years
ended January 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
Jan. 31, |
|
|
Oct. 31, |
|
|
Jul. 31, |
|
|
Apr. 30, |
|
|
Jan. 31, |
|
|
Oct. 31, |
|
|
Jul. 31, |
|
|
Apr. 30, |
|
(In thousands, except per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
158,712 |
|
|
$ |
158,135 |
|
|
$ |
128,325 |
|
|
$ |
89,371 |
|
|
$ |
100,759 |
|
|
$ |
82,337 |
|
|
$ |
92,327 |
|
|
$ |
93,355 |
|
Cost of revenue |
|
|
61,415 |
|
|
|
64,421 |
|
|
|
56,230 |
|
|
|
39,958 |
|
|
|
42,427 |
|
|
|
35,754 |
|
|
|
40,792 |
|
|
|
45,476 |
|
Amortization and
impairment of
acquired technology
and backlog |
|
|
2,819 |
|
|
|
2,468 |
|
|
|
2,039 |
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
|
4,255 |
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
1,559 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Settlement with OCS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
94,478 |
|
|
|
91,246 |
|
|
|
70,056 |
|
|
|
48,721 |
|
|
|
54,077 |
|
|
|
45,733 |
|
|
|
30,818 |
|
|
|
46,879 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and
development, net |
|
|
24,361 |
|
|
|
23,278 |
|
|
|
22,933 |
|
|
|
17,096 |
|
|
|
13,675 |
|
|
|
13,534 |
|
|
|
13,157 |
|
|
|
12,663 |
|
Selling, general
and administrative |
|
|
80,476 |
|
|
|
72,306 |
|
|
|
63,090 |
|
|
|
43,311 |
|
|
|
43,217 |
|
|
|
36,703 |
|
|
|
34,351 |
|
|
|
33,958 |
|
Amortization of
other acquired
intangible assets |
|
|
6,941 |
|
|
|
6,961 |
|
|
|
5,264 |
|
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
837 |
|
|
|
929 |
|
|
|
689 |
|
|
|
709 |
|
In-process research
and development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,439 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of
goodwill and other
acquired intangible
assets |
|
|
22,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration,
restructuring and
other, net |
|
|
9,216 |
|
|
|
5,836 |
|
|
|
7,705 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(765 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from
operations |
|
|
(49,450 |
) |
|
|
(17,135 |
) |
|
|
(35,375 |
) |
|
|
(12,670 |
) |
|
|
(24,755 |
) |
|
|
(4,668 |
) |
|
|
(17,379 |
) |
|
|
(451 |
) |
Other income
(expense), net |
|
|
(29,195 |
) |
|
|
(17,734 |
) |
|
|
(9,316 |
) |
|
|
1,059 |
|
|
|
1,758 |
|
|
|
1,818 |
|
|
|
2,559 |
|
|
|
1,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss)
before taxes and
noncontrolling
interest |
|
|
(78,645 |
) |
|
|
(34,869 |
) |
|
|
(44,691 |
) |
|
|
(11,611 |
) |
|
|
(22,997 |
) |
|
|
(2,850 |
) |
|
|
(14,820 |
) |
|
|
1,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for
(benefit from)
income taxes |
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
30,676 |
|
|
|
(2,840 |
) |
|
|
(1,757 |
) |
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
1,701 |
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
Noncontrolling
interest in net
income (loss) of
joint venture |
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
436 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(78,690 |
) |
|
|
(35,101 |
) |
|
|
(75,611 |
) |
|
|
(9,207 |
) |
|
|
(21,564 |
) |
|
|
(3,163 |
) |
|
|
(16,705 |
) |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on
preferred stock |
|
|
(3,197 |
) |
|
|
(3,164 |
) |
|
|
(2,320 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
applicable to
common shares |
|
$ |
(81,887 |
) |
|
$ |
(38,265 |
) |
|
$ |
(77,931 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,207 |
) |
|
$ |
(21,564 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,163 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,705 |
) |
|
$ |
913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(2.54 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.19 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.42 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.29 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.67 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.52 |
) |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(2.54 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.19 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.42 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.29 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.67 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.52 |
) |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 110 -
Revenue
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007. Our revenue
increased approximately 57%, or $57.9 million, to $158.7 million in the three months ended January
31, 2008 from $100.8 million in the three months ended January 31, 2007. The increase was
primarily due to the acquisition of Witness in May 2007 which represented approximately 85% of the
revenue increase. Workforce Optimization segment revenue increased by 160%, or $53.6 million, Video
Intelligence segment revenue increased by 13%, or $3.9 million, and Communications Intelligence segment revenue
increased by 1%, or $0.4 million. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA and APAC regions represented
approximately 49%, 37%, and 14% of our total revenue, respectively, in the three months ended
January 31, 2008, compared to approximately 43%, 37%, and 20%, respectively, in the three months
ended January 31, 2007.
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006. Our revenue
increased approximately 92%, or $75.8 million, to $158.1 million in the three months ended October
31, 2007 from $82.3 million in the three months ended October 31, 2006. Approximately 55% of the
increase was due to the acquisition of Witness in May 2007 and approximately 15% of the increase
was due to greater revenue recognized upon the completion of a multi-site installation for a major
customer in our Video Intelligence segment. Workforce Optimization segment revenue increased by 156%, or
$46.7 million, Video Intelligence segment revenue increased by 52%, or $16.3 million, and Communications
Intelligence segment revenue increased by 61%, or $12.8 million. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA and APAC
regions represented approximately 59%, 28%, and 13% of our total revenue, respectively, in the
three months ended October 31, 2007 compared to approximately 53%, 25%, and 22%, respectively, in
the three months ended October 31, 2006.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Our revenue increased approximately 39%, or $36.0 million, to $128.3 million in the three months
ended July 31, 2007 compared to $92.3 million in the three months ended July 31, 2006.
Approximately 95% of the increase was due to the acquisitions of Witness in May 2007 and Mercom in
July 2006. Workforce Optimization segment revenue increased by 127%, or $36.2 million, Video Intelligence
segment revenue increased by 5%, or $1.6 million, and Communications Intelligence segment revenue decreased by
5%, or $1.8 million. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA and APAC regions represented approximately 49%,
35%, and 16% of our total revenue, respectively, in the three months ended July 31, 2007 compared
to approximately 44%, 34%, and 22%, respectively, in the three months ended July 31, 2006.
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Our revenue decreased approximately 4%, or $4.0 million, to $89.4 million in the three months ended
April 30, 2007 from $93.4 million in the three months ended April 30, 2006. The decrease was
primarily due to a reduction in Contract Accounting Revenue recognized in our
Communication Intelligence segment, partially offset by an estimated 5% revenue increase
attributable to the acquisition of Mercom in July 2006. Workforce Optimization segment revenue decreased
by 5%, or $1.6 million, Communications Intelligence revenue decreased by 18%, or $5.2 million and
Video Intelligence segment revenue increased 9%, or $2.8 million. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA and APAC
regions represented approximately 49%, 33%, and 18% of our total revenue, respectively, in the
three months ended April 30, 2007 compared to approximately 53%, 28%, and 19%, respectively, in the
three months ended April 30, 2006.
- 111 -
Cost of Revenue
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007.
Cost of revenue increased $19.0 million in the three months ended January 31, 2008 compared to the
three months ended January 31, 2007. Product cost of revenue decreased $0.8 million. Service and
support cost of revenue increased $19.8 million. Of these expenses, employee compensation and
related expenses increased $10.6 million as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition. Other service and support cost of revenue increases
included an increase in consultant costs of $2.4 million, travel expenses of $1.4 million, overhead
expenses of $1.4 million, stock compensation expense of $1.1 million, and other expenses totaling
$2.9 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of Witness.
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006.
Cost of revenue increased $28.7 million in the three months ended October 31, 2007 compared to the
three months ended October 31, 2006. Product cost of revenue increased $10.6 million, primarily as
a result of higher hardware and software material costs of $8.6 million due to greater product
revenue. Service and support cost of revenue increased $18.1 million. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $8.8 million as a result of an increase in employee
headcount attributable to the Witness acquisition. Other service and support cost of revenue
increases included an increase in consultant costs of $2.9 million, travel expenses of $1.7
million, stock compensation expense of $1.3 million, overhead expenses of $1.4 million, and other
expenses totaling $2.0 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of
Witness.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Cost of revenue increased $15.4 million in the three months ended July 31, 2007 compared to the
three months ended July 31, 2006. Product cost of revenue increased $2.3 million as a result of a
$2.2 million increase in hardware and software material costs, growth in employee compensation and
related expenses of $1.2 million and other expenses totaling $0.1 million. These increases were
offset by a $1.2 million elimination of royalty expenses as a result of exiting the OCS
royalty-bearing programs in calendar year 2006 (for additional information see - OCS Royalty
Settlement). Service and support cost of revenue increased $13.1 million. Of these expenses,
employee compensation and related expenses increased $8.0 million as a result of an increase in
employee headcount attributable to the Witness acquisition. Other service and support cost of
revenue increases included an increase in stock compensation expenses of $0.8 million, overhead
expenses of $1.3 million, travel expenses of $1.1 million, consultant costs of $0.9 million, and
other expenses totaling $1.7 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of
Witness. These increases were offset by a $0.7 million elimination of royalty expenses as a result
of exiting the OCS royalty-bearing programs in calendar year 2006 (for additional information see
- OCS Royalty Settlement).
- 112 -
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Cost of revenue decreased $5.5 million in the three months ended April 30, 2007 compared to the
three months ended April 30, 2006. Product cost of revenue decreased $6.7 million, due to lower
hardware and software material costs of $4.5 million as a result of lower product revenue, a $1.2
million elimination of royalty expenses as a result of exiting the OCS royalty-bearing programs in
calendar year 2006 (for additional information see - OCS Royalty Settlement), and other
reductions totaling $1.0 million. Service and support cost of revenue increased $1.2 million. Of
these expenses employee compensation and related expenses increased $2.0 million as a result of an
increase in employee headcount attributable to the Mercom acquisition, and partially as a result of
our special retention program in the year ended January 31, 2008. This increase was offset by a
$0.6 million elimination of royalty expenses as a result of exiting the OCS royalty-bearing
programs in calendar year 2006 (for additional information see - OCS Royalty Settlement) and
other reductions totaling $0.2 million.
Research and Development, Net
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007.
Research and development, net increased $10.7 million in the three months ended January 31, 2008
compared to the three months ended January 31, 2007. Of these expenses, employee compensation and
related expenses increased $6.2 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program.
Other expense increases included an increase in contractor costs of $1.8 million and increases in
other expenses totaling $2.7 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of
Witness.
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006.
Research and development, net increased $9.7 million in the three months ended October 31, 2007
compared to the three months ended October 31, 2006. Of these expenses, employee compensation and
related expenses increased $5.5 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program.
Other expense increases included an increase in contractor costs of $1.5 million and increases in
other expenses totaling $2.7 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of
Witness.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Research and development, net increased $9.8 million in the three months ended July 31, 2007
compared to the three months ended July 31, 2006. Of these expenses, employee compensation and
related expenses increased $6.9 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount
attributable to the Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program.
Other expense increases included an increase in contractor costs of $1.9 million and other
expenses totaling $1.0 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the acquisition of
Witness.
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Research and development, net increased $4.4 million in the three months ended April 30, 2007
compared to the three months ended April 30, 2006. This increase was due to a $4.0 million
increase in employee compensation and related expenses, primarily as a result of an increase in
employee headcount attributable to internal growth and partially due to the acquisition of Mercom,
as well as increases in other expenses totaling $0.4 million.
- 113 -
Selling, General and Administrative Expense
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007.
Selling, general and administrative expense increased $37.3 million in the three months ended
January 31, 2008 compared to the three months ended January 31, 2007. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $13.2 million and employee sales commissions increased
$4.1 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount attributable to the
Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program. Other expense
increases included an increase in stock-based compensation of $3.2 million, an increase in
communication expense of $1.6 million, an increase in travel and entertainment expense of $1.4
million, and increases in other expenses totaling $4.4 million, all of which were almost entirely
due to the acquisition of Witness. We also incurred $1.4 million of legal fees relating to
intellectual property litigation in our Video Intelligence segment. Professional fees and related
expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended
filing delay status increased by approximately $8 million.
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006.
Selling, general and administrative expense increased $35.6 million in the three months ended
October 31, 2007 compared to the three months ended October 31, 2006. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $13.6 million, and employee sales commissions increased
$3.3 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount attributable to the
Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program. Other expense
increases included an increase in stock-based compensation of $3.8 million, an increase in
communication expense of $1.2 million, an increase in travel and entertainment expense of $1.3
million, and other expenses totaling $4.3 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the
acquisition of Witness. We also incurred $1.1 million of legal fees associated with intellectual
property litigation in our Video Intelligence segment. Professional fees and related expenses
associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing
delay status increased by approximately $7 million.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Selling, general and administrative expense increased $28.7 million in the three months ended July
31, 2007, compared to the three months ended July 31, 2006. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $13.9 million, and employee sales commissions increased
$3.1 million, primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount attributable to the
Witness acquisition and partially as a result of our special retention program. Other expense
increases included an increase in stock-based compensation of $2.1 million, an increase in
communication expense of $0.7 million, an increase in travel and entertainment expense of $1.1
million, and other expenses totaling $3.8 million, all of which were almost entirely due to the
acquisition of Witness. Professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of
previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status increased by
approximately $4 million.
- 114 -
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Selling, general and administrative expense increased $9.3 million in the three months ended April
30, 2007 compared to the three months ended April 30, 2006. The increase in selling, general and
administrative expense reflects increases in employee compensation and related expenses of $5.2
million which was primarily a result of business growth but also partially due to the acquisitions
of Mercom, Opus, and MultiVision. Professional fees and related expenses associated with our
restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status increased
by approximately $3 million, and other expenses totaling $1.1 million.
Amortization and Impairment of Acquired Intangible Assets
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007.
Total amortization of acquired intangible assets increased $4.7 million in the three months ended
January 31, 2008 compared to the three months ended January 31, 2007 primarily due to the
acquisition of Witness and partially offset by lower impairment charges relating to the Multivision
acquired technology.
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006.
Total amortization of acquired intangible assets increased $7.7 million in the three months ended
October 31, 2007 compared to the three months ended October 31, 2006 primarily due to the
acquisition of Witness.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Total amortization of acquired intangible assets increased $5.1 million in the three months ended
July 31, 2007 compared to the three months ended July 31, 2006 primarily due to the acquisition of
Witness.
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Total amortization of acquired intangible assets decreased $0.5 million in the three months ended
April 30, 2007 compared to the three months ended April 30, 2006 as certain intangible assets
became fully amortized during the period.
Other Income (Expense), Net
Three Months Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Three Months Ended January 31, 2007.
Other income (expense), net decreased $30.9 million to other
expense, net, of $29.2 million in the
three months ended January 31, 2008, compared to other income,
net, of $1.7 million in the three
months ended January 31, 2007. Interest expense increased by $12.2 million due to interest
incurred under our $650.0 million term loan used to finance a portion of the purchase price of
Witness. Interest income decreased by $1.0 million due to lower interest-carrying cash and
investment balances. In addition, during the three months ended January 31, 2008, we recorded
a net loss on derivatives of $16.1 million. This loss is primarily attributable to a $20.9 million
loss related to a $450.0 million interest-rate swap contract executed concurrently with our credit
agreement. This loss was partially offset by a $0.3 million gain on foreign currency derivatives,
and a $4.5 million gain from an increase in the fair value of a derivative embedded in shares of
preferred stock issued to Comverse for $293.0 million. In addition, we also recorded a $3.4
million loss on an ARS investment due to other-than-temporary impairment in market value during
the three months ended January 31, 2008. Subsequent to the year ended January 31, 2008, our ARS
were repurchased by our broker at the value equal to the par value plus interest.
- 115 -
Three Months Ended October 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended October 31, 2006.
Other income (expense), net decreased $19.5 million to other expense, net, of $17.7 million in the
three months ended October 31, 2007 compared to other income, net, of $1.8 million in the three
months ended October 31, 2006. Interest expense increased by $13.0 million due to interest under
our $650.0 million term loan used to acquire Witness. Interest income decreased by $1.3 million
due to lower interest-carrying cash and investment balances. In the three months ended October 31,
2007, we also recorded a net loss on derivatives of $3.4 million. This loss is primarily
attributable to a $6.9 million loss related to a $450.0 million interest rate swap contract
executed concurrently with our credit agreement, partially offset by a $1.9 million gain from an
increase in the fair value of a derivative embedded in shares of preferred stock issued to Comverse
for $293.0 million and a $1.6 million gain on foreign currency derivatives. In addition, in the
three months ended October 31, 2007 we recorded a $1.3 million loss on an ARS investment due to
other-than-temporary impairment in market value. Subsequent to the year ended January 31, 2008,
our ARS were repurchased by our broker at the value equal to the par
value plus interest.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2006.
Other income (expense), net decreased $11.9 million to other expense, net, of $9.3 million in the
three months ended July 31, 2007 compared to other income, net, of $2.6 million in the three months
ended July 31, 2006. Interest expense increased by $11.1 million due to interest under our $650.0
million term loan used to acquire Witness. Interest income decreased by $0.8 million due to lower
interest-carrying cash and investment balances. In addition, in the three months ended July 31,
2007, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $0.9 million, primarily attributable to a $1.5
million loss related to a $450.0 million interest rate swap contract executed concurrently with our
credit agreement, as well as a $0.3 million loss on foreign currency derivatives, partially offset
by a $0.9 million gain from an increase in the fair value of a derivative embedded in shares of
preferred stock issued to Comverse for $293.0 million.
Three Months Ended April 30, 2007 compared to Three Months Ended April 30, 2006.
Interest and other income, net decreased $0.6 million to a net gain of $1.1 million in the three
months ended April 30, 2007 compared to a $1.7 million net gain in the three months ended April 30,
2006. Interest income decreased by $0.2 million, foreign currency losses increased by $0.3
million, interest expense increased by $0.1 million, and other expenses increased by $0.1 million.
- 116 -
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Overview
Historically, our primary source of liquidity has been cash from operations, consisting of
collections of our accounts receivable for services and products as well as cash advances from our
customers. However, in the year ended January 31, 2008, we borrowed $650.0 million under a new
term loan facility ($40.0 million of which was prepaid during the year ended January 31, 2008) and
received $293.0 million through the issuance of a preferred stock to finance a significant portion
of the Witness acquisition. We also have a $15.0 million revolving line of credit, which was fully
drawn down in November, 2008. See - Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements below for
additional information regarding our credit agreement. Our primary uses of cash have been and are
expected to continue to be for acquisitions of businesses, selling and marketing activities,
research and development, professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of
previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status, and capital
expenditures. Beginning in the year ended January 31, 2008, uses have also included interest
payments and debt repayments.
The following table sets forth, for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, cash, cash
equivalents, and other funding sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
83,233 |
|
|
$ |
49,325 |
|
|
$ |
55,730 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,453 |
|
|
|
167,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents, and
short-term investments |
|
$ |
83,233 |
|
|
$ |
176,778 |
|
|
$ |
223,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred
stock (at carrying value) |
|
$ |
293,663 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
$ |
610,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,058 |
|
|
$ |
1,325 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2008 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2007. At January 31, 2008 our cash,
cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaled $83.2 million, or $93.5 million less than our
January 31, 2007 balance. Our debt increased during this same period by $608.9 million as a result
of borrowings under our credit agreement. We also issued shares of preferred stock to Comverse for
$293.0 million. The decrease in our net cash position, along with the increase in debt and the new
preferred stock were substantially all used to finance the Witness
acquisition, including special payments related to the acquisition for
severance, integration, legal and underwriting fees, and employee compensation. See Note 5,
Business Combinations to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15 for more
information on this acquisition. In addition,
during the year we made payments associated with our restatement of previously filed financial
statements and our extended filing delay status, and payments related to acquisitions.
- 117 -
Year Ended January 31, 2007 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2006. At January 31, 2007
our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled $176.8 million or $46.9 million less
than our January 31, 2006 balance. Our debt decreased during this same period by $0.3 million.
The decrease in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments is primarily due to the OCS
settlement in Israel (see Developing Since our Last Periodic
Report OCS Settlement) and the acquisitions of Mercom and
CM Insight in the year ended January 31, 2007.
The following table summarizes selected items from our statements of cash flows for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Net cash
provided by (used in) operating activities |
|
$ |
(299 |
) |
|
$ |
9,099 |
|
|
$ |
58,273 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(851,733 |
) |
|
|
(15,086 |
) |
|
|
(56,019 |
) |
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
885,017 |
|
|
|
(1,089 |
) |
|
|
8,993 |
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
923 |
|
|
|
671 |
|
|
|
(440 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
33,908 |
|
|
$ |
(6,405 |
) |
|
$ |
10,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
Prior to the year ended January 31, 2008, Verint has historically had positive cash provided by
operating activities as our cash collections from operations have exceeded our costs. In the year
ended January 31, 2008 we made payments related to the Witness acquisition including interest
expense, integration expense, and special employee compensation. In addition, we made professional
fee and related expense payments associated with our restatement of previously filed financial
statements and our extended filing delay status. These incremental payments caused our operating
activities to become a $0.3 million use of cash in the year ended January 31, 2008. In the year ended
January 31, 2007 we had $9.1 million in cash provided by operating activities. In the year
ended January 31, 2006 we had $58.3 million in cash provided by operating activities.
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we used $0.3 million in cash in operating activities. The
cash used consisted primarily of a net loss of $198.6 million and increased accounts receivable of
$20.2 million due to higher revenue. This was partially offset by non-cash items of $160.8
million, primarily depreciation and amortization, deferred income taxes, stock-based compensation,
impairment of assets, and non-cash losses on derivative financial
instruments, increase to
deferred revenue of $25.1 million, lower prepaid expenses and
other assets of $14.0 million,
lower deferred cost of revenue of $5.6 million, and higher accounts payable and accrued expenses of
$8.5 million.
During
the year ended January 31, 2007, we generated $9.1 million in cash in operating
activities. This $9.1 million positive cash from operating activities was due to non-cash
items of $60.6 million, primarily impairment of assets, depreciation and amortization, and
stock-based compensation, lower accounts receivable of $7.1 million, and higher accounts
payable and accrued expenses of $6.1 million, partially offset by a net loss of
$40.5 million and a decrease to deferred revenue of $23.7 million.
- 118 -
During the year ended January 31,
2006, we generated $58.3 million in cash in operating activities. This source of cash
included net income of $1.7 million, non-cash items of $28.4 million, primarily
depreciation and amortization, higher accounts payable and accrued
expenses of $23.2 million
and an increase to deferred revenue of $24.5 million, partially offset by higher
accounts receivable of $11.9 million and higher deferred cost of
revenue of $7.7 million.
Net cash used by investing activities
During
the year ended January 31, 2008, $851.7 million in cash was used in investing activities,
principally due to the acquisition of Witness and ViewLinks Euclipse Ltd with net assets acquired
net of cash of $953.2 million and capital expenditures of $14.2 million, partially offset by cash
receipts from sales and maturities of investments, net of purchases of $120.5 million.
During
the year ended January 31, 2007, $15.1 million in cash was used in investing activities,
principally related to the acquisitions of Mercom and CM Insight of
$42.5 million, capital
expenditures of $11.2 million and capitalized software development costs of $4.5 million, partially
offset by cash receipts from sales and maturities of investments, net of purchases of
$41.6 million.
During
the year ended January 31, 2006, $56.0 million in cash was used in investing activities,
principally for the acquisitions of MultiVision and Opus of $63.2 million, capital expenditures of
$10.9 million, and capitalized software development costs of $4.8 million, partially offset by cash
receipts from sales and maturities of investments, net of purchases of $26.4 million.
Currently, we have no significant commitments for capital expenditures.
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
During
the year ended January 31, 2008, we generated $885.0 million in cash from financing
activities, reflecting proceeds from borrowings under our new term loan for $650.0 million and
proceeds from issuance of preferred stock to Comverse for $293.0 million, partially offset by
repayments of long term debt of $42.5 million and debt issuance costs paid of $13.6 million.
During
the year ended January 31, 2007, we used $1.1 million in cash from financing activities.
During the year ended January 31,
2006, we generated $9.0 million in cash from financing activities. The source of this cash
was primarily proceeds from exercised stock options of $10.2 million.
- 119 -
Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements
Based on past performance, and current expectations, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents,
investments, and cash generated from operations will be sufficient to meet anticipated operating
costs including required payments of principal and interest, working capital needs, capital expenditures, research and development spending, and other commitments for at least the
next 12 months. Currently, we have no plans to pay any dividends on our preferred or common stock,
which are not permitted under our credit agreement.
Our liquidity could be negatively impacted by a decrease in demand for our products and services
and support, including the impact of changes in customer buying behavior due to the general global
economic downturn. We have incurred significant professional fees and related expenses in
connection with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing
delay status, and we expect that we will continue to incur significant professional fees and costs
in the first half of 2010. Our liquidity could be negatively impacted by these additional
fees and costs. In the event we determine to make acquisitions or
otherwise require additional funds, we may need to raise additional
capital, which could involve the issuance of equity or debt securities. There can be no assurance
that we would be able to raise additional equity or debt in the private or public markets on terms
favorable to us, or at all.
On May 25, 2007 we entered into a $650.0 million term loan and a $25.0 million revolving credit
facility with a group of banks which we used to fund a portion of the acquisition of Witness. As
of January 31, 2008, our outstanding term loan balance was $610.0 million. The original $25.0
million revolving credit facility was reduced to $15.0 million in September 2008 due to the
bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the termination of its commitment under the credit agreement. We
borrowed the entire $15.0 million available to us in November 2008 and currently have no remaining
balance available to us. The term loan matures on May 25, 2014
and the revolving credit facility matures on May 25,
2013.
The credit agreement requires mandatory prepayments from the proceeds of certain asset sales,
excess cash flow as defined by the agreement and proceeds of indebtedness as well as quarterly
principal repayments. Any re-borrowings under the revolving credit facility are dependent upon
certain conditions including the absence of any material adverse effect or change on our business,
as defined in the credit agreement.
- 120 -
The credit agreement contains one financial covenant that requires us to meet a certain
consolidated leverage ratio, defined as our consolidated net total debt divided by consolidated
EBITDA for the trailing four quarters. EBITDA is defined in our credit agreement as net
income/(loss) plus income tax expense, interest expense, depreciation and amortization, losses
related to hedge agreements, any extraordinary, unusual or non-recurring expenses or losses, any
other non-cash charges, and expenses incurred or taken prior to April 30, 2008 in connection with
our acquisition of Witness, minus interest income, any extraordinary, unusual or non-recurring
income or gains, gains related to hedge agreements, and any other non-cash income. Under the
credit agreement, the consolidated leverage ratio could not exceed 5.50:1 for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2008, and we were in compliance with such requirement as of such date. For the
quarterly periods ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2008, the consolidated leverage ratio
could not exceed 5.50:1. For the quarterly periods ended January 31, April 30, July 31, and
October 31, 2009, the consolidated leverage ratio could not exceed 4.50:1. For the quarterly periods
ending January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2010, the consolidated leverage ratio cannot
exceed 3.50:1. For the quarterly periods ending January 31, April 30, July 31, and October 31,
2011, the consolidated leverage ratio cannot exceed 2.50:1.
For the quarterly period ending January 31, 2012 and thereafter, the consolidated leverage ratio
cannot exceed 2.00:1.
Because our revenue recognition review resulted in changes in the way we
recognize revenue from the way we did so at the time the credit agreement was put in place, it may
be more difficult for us to maintain compliance with our leverage ratio covenant on a prospective
basis than we expected at the time we entered into the credit agreement since the leverage ratio
covenant is based on our EBITDA, which is affected by revenue.
In addition, because GAAP requires
us to continue to refine our accounting for open periods until the financial statements for such
periods are filed, it is also possible that we may determine that we were not in compliance with
the leverage ratio covenant in periods subsequent to January 31, 2008, until such time as we file
the financial statements for such periods.
Based on our current expectations, we intend to reduce our outstanding debt by
the end of the quarterly period ending January 31, 2011 in order to maintain compliance with the consolidated leverage ratio covenant
using available cash or cash raised from financing activities. Alternatively, we may pursue an acquisition that is accretive to our
earnings. There can be no assurance that we will be successful with
any such financing activities or in pursuing such an acquisition.
In addition, we are subject to a number of restrictive covenants, including limitations on our
ability to incur indebtedness, create liens, make fundamental business changes, dispose of
property, make restricted payments including dividends, make significant investments, enter into
sale and leasebacks, enter new lines of business, provide negative pledges, enter into transactions
with related parties, and enter into any speculative hedges, although there are limited exceptions
to these covenants. Because of the delay in the filing of this report, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended January 31, 2009, and the Quarterly Reports for each of the quarters ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009, we may be delayed in the completion of the audits related to, and the timely filing of our Annual Report for, the year ended January 31, 2010 and the credit agreement includes a requirement that we submit audited consolidated financial statements to the lenders within 90 days of the end of each fiscal
year beginning with the year ending January 31, 2010, which for the
year ended January 31, 2010 is May 1, 2010. If audited consolidated financial statements are not so delivered and such failure of delivery is not remedied within 30 days thereafter, an event of default occurs.
Effective on February 25, 2008, our applicable borrowing margin increased by 0.25%, pursuant to the
terms of the facility, because we did not provide certain audited financial statements to our
lenders. Additionally, on August 25, 2008 the applicable margins increased another 0.25%, or 0.50%
in total, since we did not deliver audited financial statements to our lenders.
See Risk
Factors We have incurred significant indebtedness as a result of the acquisition of Witness,
which makes us highly leveraged, subjects us to restrictive covenants, and could adversely affect
our operations under Item 1A.
If we are unable to comply with any of these requirements, an event of default could occur which
could cause or permit holders of the debt to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due
and payable. In that event, we may be forced to sell assets, raise
additional capital through a securities offering, or seek to
refinance or restructure our debt.
In such a case, we may not be able to consummate such a sale,
securities offering, or refinancing or restructuring of the debt on reasonable terms, or at all.
- 121 -
Contractual Obligations
As of January 31, 2008, our contractual obligations were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by period |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Total |
|
|
< 1 year |
|
|
1-3 years |
|
|
3-5 years |
|
|
> 5 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt obligations,
including interest |
|
$ |
909,552 |
|
|
$ |
42,875 |
|
|
$ |
119,212 |
|
|
$ |
104,573 |
|
|
$ |
642,892 |
|
Operating lease obligations |
|
|
63,036 |
|
|
|
12,492 |
|
|
|
21,402 |
|
|
|
18,355 |
|
|
|
10,787 |
|
Purchase obligations |
|
|
25,105 |
|
|
|
23,775 |
|
|
|
1,318 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Other long-term obligations |
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual obligations |
|
$ |
1,000,593 |
|
|
$ |
79,742 |
|
|
$ |
143,132 |
|
|
$ |
124,036 |
|
|
$ |
653,683 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The long-term debt obligations reflected above include projected interest payments over the term of
the debt, assuming an interest rate of 7.38%, which was the interest rate in effect for the debt as
of January 31, 2008. Actual interest on this debt is variable, as further discussed in Note 7,
Long-term Debt to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. The long-term debt
obligations also include the projected quarterly settlements of our interest rate swap, through its
expiration in May 2011, using the same future interest rate assumptions that underlie the estimated
fair value of the swap at January 31, 2008.
Our purchase obligations are associated with agreements for purchases of goods or services
generally including agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all
significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum, or
variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transactions. The table above also
includes agreements to purchase goods or services that have cancellation provisions requiring
little or no payment. The amounts under such contracts are included in the table above because we
believe that cancellation of these contracts is unlikely and we expect to make future cash payments
according to the contract terms or in similar amounts for similar materials.
Our
consolidated balance sheet at January 31, 2008 includes $34.6 million of non-current tax reserves, net of related
benefits (including interest and penalties of $6.4 million, net of federal benefit) for uncertain
tax positions under FIN 48. However these amounts are not included in the table above because it
is not possible to predict or estimate the timing of payments for these obligations. We do not
expect to make any significant payments for these uncertain tax positions within the next twelve
months.
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
We lease certain of our current facilities, furniture, and equipment under non-cancelable operating
lease agreements. We are typically required to pay property taxes, insurance, and normal
maintenance costs for of these facilities.
- 122 -
In the normal course of business, we provide certain customers with financial performance
guarantees, which are generally backed by standby letters of credit or surety bonds. In general,
we would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that our nonperformance
permits termination of the related contract by our customer, which we believe is remote. At
January 31, 2008, we had approximately $13.1 million of outstanding letters of credit and surety
bonds relating to these performance guarantees. As of January 31, 2008, we believe we were in
compliance with our performance obligations under all contracts for which there is a financial
performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these
guarantees will not have a material adverse affect on our consolidated results of operations,
financial position or cash flows. Our historical noncompliance with our performance obligations
has been insignificant.
In the normal course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scopes to customers
against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of
our products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been
significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification
provisions on our future results of operations.
To the extent permitted under Delaware law or other applicable law, we indemnify our directors,
officers, employees and agents against claims they may become subject to by virtue of serving in
such capacities for us. We also have contractual indemnification agreements with our directors,
officers, and certain senior executives. The maximum amount of future payments we could be
required to make under these indemnification arrangements and agreements is potentially unlimited;
however, we have insurance coverage that limits our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of
any future amounts paid. We are not able to estimate the fair value of these indemnification
arrangements and agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if any.
Developments since our Last Periodic Report
The following summarizes significant developments since October 31, 2005 (the date of our last
periodic report), beyond our internal investigation, restatement, and audit-related items discussed
in - Investigation and Restatement and elsewhere in this report.
Mergers
and Acquisitions; Financing
On January 9, 2006, we acquired the networked video security business of Hong Kong-based
MultiVision, enabling us to expand the footprint of our video business in the APAC region. We paid
approximately $48.9 million in cash for MultiVision.
On February 6, 2006, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of CM Insight, a U.K.-based,
privately-held customer management solution provider that helps enterprises enhance their customer
experience and improve the quality and performance of their contact center operations. We paid
approximately $6.6 million in cash for CM Insight. In addition, the selling shareholders of CM
Insight were entitled to receive earn-out payments over two years based on certain performance
targets. For the 12-month period ended February 6, 2007, the selling shareholders of CM Insight
earned the maximum earn-out payment available for such period of £2.0 million, or approximately
$3.9 million at then-current exchange rates. As the applicable performance targets for the
12-month period ended February 6, 2008 were not achieved, no earn-out payments were made for such
period.
- 123 -
On July 14, 2006, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Mercom, a privately-held provider of
interaction recording and performance evaluation solutions for small-to-midsize contact centers.
The purchase price consisted of $35.0 million in cash at closing,
$0.7 million of direct transaction costs,
and potential additional cash
earn-out payments not to exceed $17.5 million over two years based on certain performance targets.
As of January 31, 2008, the end of the earn-out period, the former shareholders had earned approximately $3.7 million of the available earn-out.
On February 1, 2007, we completed the acquisition of ViewLinks Euclipse Ltd., an Israeli-based,
privately-held provider of data mining and link analysis software solutions. The aggregate
purchase price was $7.4 million in cash, including contingent consideration earned through January
31, 2008.
On May 25, 2007, we completed the acquisition of Witness. Under the terms of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated February 11, 2007, among us, Merger Sub and Witness, each outstanding share
of Witness common stock was converted into the right to receive $27.50 in cash, less applicable
withholding taxes (if any). In addition, upon consummation of the merger, outstanding vested
options to purchase Witness common stock were converted into a right to receive a cash payment, and
unvested options to purchase Witness common stock were assumed by us and converted into options to
purchase Verint common stock. The aggregate merger consideration paid to consummate the
transaction was approximately $944.3 million, net of cash acquired; approximately $650.0 million of
which was financed by proceeds of a term loan under a credit agreement entered into by us in
connection with the transaction and approximately $293.0 million of which was financed with
proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock to Comverse, and from available cash balances. In
July 2007, we prepaid $40.0 million of this debt and in November 2008, we borrowed $15.0 million
under a revolving credit facility entered into concurrently with the credit agreement. We are
subject to customary restrictive covenants under the credit agreement, including a maximum leverage
ratio.
On
February 4, 2010, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Verint Americas
Inc., acquired all of the outstanding shares of Iontas, a privately held provider of desktop analytics
solutions. Prior to this acquisition, we licensed certain technology
from Iontas, whose solutions measure application usage and analyze
workflows to help improve staff performance in contact center, branch
and back-office operations environments. We acquired Iontas for
approximately $15.2 million in cash (net of cash acquired) and
potential additional earn-out payments of up to $3.8 million, tied to
certain targets being achieved over the next two years. The initial
purchase price allocation for this acquisition is not yet available,
as we have not completed the appraisals necessary to assess the fair
values of the tangible and identified intangible assets acquired and
liabilities assumed, the assets and liabilities arising from
contingencies (if any), and the amount of goodwill to be recognized
as of the acquisition date.
For more information about the integration risks associated with the foregoing acquisitions and the
requirements of our credit facility, please see Risk Factors under Item 1A.
OCS Royalty Settlement
On July
31, 2006, we entered into a settlement agreement with the OCS, pursuant to which we exited a
royalty-bearing program and the OCS agreed to accept a lump sum payment of approximately $36.0
million. Prior to the settlement, we had accrued approximately $16.8
million of royalties and related interest due under the original terms of the program through charges to cost of revenue in the corresponding periods of
the related revenue, net of previous royalty payments. We recorded
a charge of approximately $19.2 million to cost of revenue in the second quarter of the year ended
January 31, 2007 for the remaining amount of the lump sum settlement in excess of
amounts previously accrued under the program. Payments agreed to under the OCS settlement
were completed immediately following the execution of the settlement agreement.
Beginning in calendar year 2006, we entered into a new program with the OCS under
which we are no longer required to pay royalties to the OCS.
- 124 -
Chief Financial Officer Succession
On August 14, 2006, we announced a succession plan for our Chief Financial Officer position, in
which Douglas E. Robinson would replace Igal Nissim as Chief Financial Officer upon completion of
our outstanding SEC filings. However, due to the extended filing delay period and the expansion of
the Comverse Special Committee investigation and our own internal review of certain non-options
related matters, we decided to complete the succession process on December 11, 2006, at which time
Mr. Robinson was formally appointed Chief Financial Officer of Verint. Mr. Robinsons background
is discussed in Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance under Item 10.
Subsequent Events
The following summarizes significant developments at Verint since January 31, 2008, the last
day of the last fiscal year covered by this report.
Settlement with NICE
On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement with NICE to resolve all then-outstanding
patent litigations between NICE and Witness. These litigations resulted from a 2004 suit filed by
one of NICEs subsidiaries against Witness alleging that certain Witness products infringed a
number of VoIP call recording patents held by NICE. Following the filing of this initial lawsuit,
Witness filed two patent infringement suits against NICE alleging infringement of certain screen
capture and speech analytics patents and NICE filed a second suit against Witness alleging
violation of additional call recording patents. Following a January 2008 trial, a jury in the
second suit filed by NICE was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. On May 16, 2008,
a jury in the speech analytics case filed by Witness returned a verdict in our favor and against
NICE on the claims of infringement and awarded us $3.3 million in damages; however this award was
superseded by the terms of the settlement agreement disclosed in Legal Proceedings Witness
Patent and General Litigation Matters NICE Systems Settlement Agreement under Item 3. On May
23, 2008, the court in the initial VoIP suit filed by NICE found in our favor and against NICE on
the claims of infringement.
Wells
Notices
On April 9, 2008, as we previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the staffs
investigation of our past stock option grant practices and certain
unrelated accounting matters. These accounting matters were also the
subject of our internal investigation. On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled
enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices. Without admitting or denying the
allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment permanently enjoining us from violating
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.
The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief beyond the entry of a permanent injunction.
The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC considered our remediation and cooperation in
the SECs investigation. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on March 9, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file
our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an OIP pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to
suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB
since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005. An Administrative Law Judge will
consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of
service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including available procedural remedies and intend to defend
against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
- 125 -
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS No. 157),
which provides enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. SFAS No.
157 also responds to investors requests for expanded information about the extent to which
companies measure assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used to measure fair value
and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other
standards require or permit assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. This standard does
not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 is effective for years
beginning after November 15, 2007, and is effective for our year beginning
February 1, 2008. In February 2008, the FASB issued a Staff Position (a FSP) which partially
defers the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for one year for non-financial assets and liabilities,
except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in an entitys financial statements
on a recurring basis (at least annually). The adoption of SFAS No. 157 on February 1, 2008 did not
have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and
Financial Liabilities (SFAS No. 159). SFAS No. 159 provides companies with an option to report
selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value. The standards objective is to reduce
both complexity in accounting for financial instruments and the volatility in earnings caused by
measuring related assets and liabilities differently. The standard requires companies to provide
additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more
easily understand the effect of the option to use fair value on earnings. It also requires
companies to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which they have chosen to
use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. The new standard does not eliminate disclosure
requirements included in other accounting standards, including requirements for disclosures about
fair value measurements included in SFAS No. 157 and SFAS No. 107,
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments
(SFAS No. 107). SFAS No. 159 is effective for years
beginning after November 15, 2007, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning
February 1, 2008. The adoption of SFAS No. 159 on February 1, 2008 did not have a material effect
on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In June 2007, the FASB ratified the consensus reached by the EITF in Issue No. 06-11, Accounting
for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards (EITF No. 06-11). Under this
consensus, a realized income tax benefit from dividends or dividend equivalents that are charged to
retained earnings and are paid to employees under certain share-based benefit plans should be
recognized as an increase in additional paid-in capital. As it relates to us, the consensus became
effective on February 1, 2008. As no dividends were paid during the year ended January 31, 2009,
the accounting guidance in EITF No. 06-11 is not expected to be applied in the preparation of the
consolidated financial statements for the year then ended.
- 126 -
In June 2007, the FASB ratified EITF No. 07-3, Accounting for Nonrefundable Advance Payments for
Goods or Services to Be Used in Future Research and Development Activities (EITF No. 07-3).
EITF No. 07-3 requires non-refundable advance payments for goods and services to be used in future
research and development (R&D) activities to be recorded as assets and the payments to be
expensed when the R&D activities are performed. EITF No. 07-3 applies prospectively for new
contractual arrangements entered into beginning in the first quarter of the year ended January 31,
2009 (our quarter ended April 30, 2008). Prior to adoption, we recognized these non-refundable
advance payments as expenses upon payment. The adoption of EITF No. 07-3 did not have a
significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)). SFAS
No. 141(R) replaces SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141), but retains the
requirement that the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions be used for all business
combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) expands on the disclosures previously required by
SFAS No. 141, better defines the acquirer and the acquisition date in a business combination, and
establishes principles for recognizing and measuring the assets acquired (including goodwill), the
liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling interests in the acquired business. SFAS No. 141(R)
is effective for all business combinations with an acquisition date occurring in years beginning
after December 15, 2008, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February 1,
2009. The impact that SFAS No. 141(R) will have on us will depend on the nature and size of any
acquisitions completed after we adopt this standard.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements (SFAS No. 160), which establishes accounting and reporting standards for the
noncontrolling (minority) interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary.
SFAS No. 160 is effective for business arrangements entered into in years beginning on or after
December 15, 2008, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2009.
Early adoption is prohibited. We are in the process of evaluating this standard and therefore have
not yet determined the impact that the adoption of SFAS No. 160 will have on our financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activitiesan amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (SFAS No. 161), which changes the disclosure
requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide
enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how
derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and its
related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an
entitys financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for
financial statements issued for years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with
early application encouraged, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning
February 1, 2009. The adoption of SFAS No. 161 is not expected to have a significant impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
- 127 -
In June 2008, the FASB issued FSP EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether Instruments Granted in
Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities (FSP EITF 03-6-1). FSP EITF 03-6-1
provides that all outstanding unvested share-based payments that contain rights to non-forfeitable
dividends participate in the undistributed earnings with the common shareholders and are therefore
participating securities. Companies with participating securities are required to apply the
two-class method in calculating basic and diluted earnings per share. FSP EITF 03-6-1 is effective
for years beginning after December 15, 2008 and early adoption is prohibited, which means that it
will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2009. The adoption of FSP EITF 03-6-1 is not
expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued the following three FSPs that are intended to provide additional
application guidance and enhance disclosures about fair value measurements and impairments of
securities:
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the
Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That
Are Not Orderly (FSP FAS 157-4); |
|
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments (FSP FAS 115-2); and |
|
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures About Fair Value of Financial
Instruments (FSP FAS 107-1). |
FSP FAS 157-4 clarifies the objective and method of fair value measurement even when there has been
a significant decrease in market activity for the asset being measured. FSP FAS 115-2 establishes
a new model for measuring other-than-temporary impairments for debt securities, including
establishing criteria for when to recognize a write-down through earnings versus other
comprehensive income. FSP FAS 107-1 expands the fair value disclosures required for all financial
instruments within the scope of SFAS No. 107 to interim periods. All of these FSPs are effective for interim and annual periods
ending after June 15, 2009. We are assessing the potential impact that the adoption of FSP FAS
157-4 and FSP FAS 115-2 may have on our consolidated financial statements. FSP FAS 107-1 may
result in increased disclosures in our future interim periods.
In
May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, Subsequent
Events (SFAS No. 165). SFAS No. 165 was modified
by Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events
(Topic 855): Amendments to Certain Recognition and Discloure
Requirements, issued in February 2010. SFAS No. 165, as
modified,
establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the
balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. This statement is effective for
interim and annual periods ending after June 15, 2009. We do not expect that the adoption of SFAS
No. 165 will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
- 128 -
In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R) (SFAS
No. 167). SFAS No. 167 amends FIN 46(R) and requires a company to perform an analysis to
determine whether its variable interests give it a controlling financial interest in a variable
interest entity. This analysis requires a company to assess whether it has the power to direct the
activities of the variable interest entity and if it has the obligation to absorb losses or the
right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the variable interest entity.
SFAS No. 167 requires an ongoing reassessment of whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a
variable interest entity, eliminates the quantitative approach previously required for determining
the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity and significantly enhances disclosures.
SFAS No. 167 may be applied retrospectively in previously issued
financial statements with a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained
earnings as of the beginning of the first year restated.
SFAS No. 167 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. We are in the
process of evaluating this standard and therefore have not yet determined the impact that the
adoption of SFAS No. 167 will have on our consolidated financial statements.
In September 2009, the FASB ratified the consensuses reached by the EITF regarding the following
issues involving revenue recognition:
|
|
|
Issue No. 08-1, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables (EITF No. 08-1); and |
|
|
|
|
Issue No. 09-3, Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements (EITF No.
09-3). |
EITF No. 08-1 applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that are currently within the
scope of EITF No. 00-21. EITF No. 08-1 also provides principles and application guidance on
whether a revenue arrangement contains multiple deliverables, how the arrangement should be
separated, and how the arrangement consideration should be allocated. EITF No. 08-1 requires an
entity to allocate revenue in a multiple-deliverable arrangement using estimated selling prices of
the deliverables if a vendor does not have vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party
evidence of selling price. It eliminates the use of the residual method and, instead, requires an
entity to allocate revenue using the relative selling price method. It also expands disclosure
requirements with respect to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements.
EITF No. 09-3 applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that contain both software and
hardware elements, focusing on determining which revenue arrangements are within the scope of the
software revenue guidance in SOP 97-2. EITF No. 09-3 removes tangible products from the scope of
the software revenue guidance and provides guidance on determining whether software deliverables in
an arrangement that includes a tangible product are within the scope of the software revenue
guidance.
The accounting guidance in EITF No. 08-1 and EITF No. 09-3 should be applied on a prospective basis
for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010. It will be effective for us in our fiscal year beginning February 1, 2011, although
early adoption is also permitted. Alternatively, an entity can elect to adopt the provisions of
these issues on a retrospective basis. We are currently assessing the potential impact that the
application of EITF No. 08-1 and EITF No. 09-3 may have on our consolidated financial statements.
- 129 -
During the third quarter of the year ending January 31, 2010, we adopted the new Accounting
Standards Codification (ASC) as issued by the FASB. The ASC has become the source of
authoritative U.S. GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. The ASC
is not intended to change or alter existing GAAP. The adoption of the ASC had no impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
Item 7a. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
Market risk represents the risk of loss that may impact our financial condition due to adverse
changes in financial market prices and rates. We are exposed to market risk related to changes in
interest rates and foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. To manage the volatility relating
to interest rate and foreign currency risks, we periodically enter into derivative instruments
including foreign currency forward exchange contracts and interest rate swap agreements. It is our
policy to enter into derivative transactions only to the extent considered necessary to meet our
risk management objectives. We use derivative instruments solely to reduce the financial impact of
these risks and do not use derivative instruments for trading purposes.
Credit Agreement
On May 25, 2007, to partially finance the acquisition of Witness, we entered into a $675.0 million
secured financing arrangement comprised of a seven-year $650.0 million term loan facility and a
six-year $25.0 million revolving credit facility (the facilities). As of January 31, 2008, we
had $610.0 million outstanding under the term loan as we repaid $40.0 million in July, 2007. We
did not draw under the revolving credit facility as of January 31, 2008. The $25.0 million revolving credit facility was
subsequently reduced to $15.0 million due to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and in November,
2008, we borrowed the full $15.0 million under the revolving credit facility.
Borrowings under the facilities bear interest at a rate of, at our election, (a) 1.75% plus the
higher of (i) prime rate and (ii) the federal funds rate plus 0.50% or (b) 2.75% over the London
Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR. In the case of the former, the interest rate adjusts in unison
with the underlying index. In the case of LIBOR borrowings, the interest rate adjusts at the end
of the relevant LIBOR period. Effective on February 25, 2008, our applicable margins indicated
above increased by 0.25%, pursuant to the terms of the facility, because we did not provide certain
audited financial statements to our lenders. Additionally, on August 25, 2008 the applicable
margins increased another 0.25%, or 0.50% in total, since we did not deliver audited financial
statements to our lenders. After delivery of certain audited financials and receipt of appropriate
credit ratings from Standard & Poors and Moodys Investor Services, the applicable margins
described above will be determined by reference to our credit ratings, and will range from 1.00% to
1.75% in the case of prime rate (or federal funds) based borrowings, and from 2.00% to 2.75% for
LIBOR-based borrowings.
- 130 -
Interest Rate Risk on our Debt
Because the interest rates applicable to borrowings under the facilities are variable, we are
exposed to market risk from changes in the underlying index rates, which affect our cost of
borrowing. To partially mitigate this risk, and in part because we were
required to do so by the lenders, when we entered into our credit
facilities in May 2007, we executed a pay-fixed, receive-variable interest rate swap with a multinational financial
institution under which we pay fixed interest at 5.18% and receive variable interest of three-month
LIBOR on a notional amount of $450.0 million. This instrument is settled with the counterparty on
a quarterly basis, and matures on May 1, 2011. As of January 31, 2008, of the $610.0 million of
borrowings which were outstanding under the term loan, the interest rate on $450.0 million of such
borrowings was substantially fixed by utilization of the interest rate swap. Interest on the
remaining $160.0 million was variable. If the market interest rates for one or three-month LIBOR
changed by 1.00% as of January 31, 2008, the annual interest expense on these borrowings would
change by approximately $1.6 million.
This interest rate swap is not designated as a hedging instrument under the terms of SFAS No. 133
and is accounted for as a derivative, whereby the fair value of the instrument is reported on our
consolidated balance sheets, and gains and losses from changes in its fair value are reported in
other income (expense), net. We recorded gains and losses on this instrument, realized and
unrealized, in other income (expense), net on the consolidated statements of income, of
approximately $29.2 million of net losses in the year ended January 31, 2008. These losses reflect
the decline in market interest rates during the second half of the year ended January 31,
2008.
The counterparty to our interest rate swap is a multinational financial institution. Despite the
recent disruption in the global financial markets, we believe the risk of this counterpartys
nonperformance of its obligations is not material. Currently and for the expected remaining term
of the agreement, the swap is in the counterpartys favor and not ours, so we do not expect to have
counterparty risk.
Investments
We invest in cash equivalents, bank time deposits and short-term investment portfolios. Interest
rate changes could result in an increase or decrease in interest income we generate from these
interest-bearing assets. Our cash, cash equivalents and bank time deposits are primarily
maintained at high credit-quality financial institutions around the world. The primary objective
of our investment activities is the preservation of principal while maximizing investment income
and minimizing risk. We have investment guidelines relative to diversification and maturities
designed to maintain safety and liquidity.
As of January 31, 2008, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling approximately $83.2 million,
consisting of demand deposits and bank time deposits having maturities of three months or less. We
also held $3.6 million of cash equivalents which were restricted for purposes of securing certain
short-term performance obligations, and were not available for general operating use.
- 131 -
As of January 31, 2008, we also held investments in ARS, which had an original cost of $7.0 million
and estimated fair value of $2.3 million. These ARS investments represented investments in pools
of assets, including commercial paper, collateralized debt obligations, credit default linked notes
and credit derivative products. These investments were intended to provide liquidity through an
auction process that resets the applicable interest rate at predetermined calendar intervals,
allowing investors to either roll over their holdings or gain immediate liquidity by selling the
investments at par. The disruptions in the credit markets during 2007 and 2008 affected our
holdings in ARS investments, as scheduled auctions for the securities failed and therefore severely
limited the liquidity of these investments. During the quarter ended January 31, 2008, we
concluded that our ARS investments had incurred an other-than-temporary impairment in market
value and recorded a $4.7 million pre-tax charge to reduce the carrying value of these investments
to $2.3 million. In consideration of the ongoing failed auctions and the uncertain market for
these securities, we classified them within other assets as of January 31, 2008. In October and
November 2008, these ARS investments were repurchased from us at
par value of $7.0 million,
plus interest, by the investment firm from whom we had purchased them. Our current investment
policy no longer permits investments in auction rate securities.
As of January 31, 2007, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling approximately $49.3 million,
consisting of demand deposits and bank time deposits having maturities of three months or less. We
also held $3.7 million of cash equivalents which were restricted for purposes of securing certain
short-term performance obligations, and were not available for general operating use.
We also held short-term investments of $127.5 million, consisting primarily of ARS
investments. The carrying value of these investments approximated the fair value as of January
31, 2007.
As of January 31, 2006, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling approximately $55.7 million,
consisting of demand deposits and bank time deposits having maturities of three months or less. We
also held $4.0 million of cash equivalents which were restricted for purposes of securing certain
short-term performance obligations, and were not available for general operating use.
We also held short-term investments of $167.9 million, consisting primarily of ARS
investments. The carrying value of these investments approximated the fair value as of January 31,
2006.
Interest Rate Risk on our Investments
To provide a meaningful assessment of the interest rate risk associated with our investment
portfolio, we performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact a change in interest rates
would have on the value of the investment portfolio assuming, during the year ended January 31,
2009, average short-term interest rates increase or decrease by 50 basis points relative to average
rates realized during the year ended January 31, 2008, which would cause our projected interest
income from cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments to increase or decrease by
approximately $0.4 million, assuming a similar level of investments in the year ended January 31,
2009 as in the year ended January 31, 2008.
Due to the short-term nature of our cash and cash equivalents and time deposits, the carrying
values approximate market values and are not generally subject to price risk due to fluctuations in
interest rates. See Note 4, Investments to the consolidated financial statements included in
Item 15 of this report for more information regarding our short-term investments.
- 132 -
Foreign Currency Exchange Risk
The functional currency for each of our foreign subsidiaries is the respective local currency with
the exception of our subsidiaries in Israel and Canada, whose functional currencies are the U.S.
Dollar. We are exposed to foreign exchange rate fluctuations as we convert the financial
statements of our foreign subsidiaries into U.S. Dollars for consolidated reporting purposes. If
there is a change in foreign currency exchange rates, the conversion of the foreign subsidiaries
financial statements into U.S. Dollars results in a gain or loss which is recorded as a component
of accumulated other comprehensive income within stockholders equity.
Our
international operations subject us to risks associated with currency
exchange fluctuations. Most of our revenue is denominated in U.S. Dollars, while a
significant portion of our operating expenses, primarily labor expenses, is denominated in
the local currencies where our foreign operations are located, principally Israel, the United
Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. As a result, our consolidated U.S.
Dollar operating results are subject to the potentially adverse
impact of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates between the
U.S. Dollar and the other currencies in which we conduct business.
In addition, we have certain assets and liabilities that are denominated in currencies other than
the respective entitys functional currency. Changes in the functional currency value of these
assets and liabilities create fluctuations that result in gains or losses. We recorded foreign
currency transaction gains and losses, realized and unrealized, in other income (expense), net on
the consolidated statements of operations, of approximately $1.4 million of net gains in the year
ended January 31, 2008, $0.9 million of net losses in the year ended January 31, 2007, and $0.2
million of net losses in the year ended January 31, 2006.
Additionally, from time to time, we enter into foreign currency forward contracts in an effort to
reduce the volatility of cash flows primarily related to forecasted payroll and payroll-related
expenses denominated in Israeli Shekels and Canadian Dollars. These contracts are limited to
durations of one year. We do not enter into foreign currency forward contracts for trading or
speculative purposes. At January 31, 2008, we held such foreign currency forward contracts in
notional amounts totaling $11.7 million. As of January 31, 2008, our foreign currency forward
contracts are not designated as hedging instruments under the terms of SFAS No. 133 and are
accounted for as derivatives, whereby the fair value of the contracts are reported as other current
assets or other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets, and gains and losses from
changes in fair value are reported in other income (expense), net. We recorded gains and losses on
these instruments, realized and unrealized, in other income (expense), net on the consolidated
statements of income, of approximately $1.5 million of net gains in the year ended January 31,
2008. There were no such contracts executed during the years ended January 31, 2007 and 2006.
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all of our foreign exchange derivatives as of January 31,
2008. This sensitivity analysis was based on a modeling technique that measures the hypothetical
market value resulting from a 10% shift in the value of exchange rates relative to the U.S. Dollar.
A 10% increase in the value of the U.S. Dollar would lead to a decrease in the fair value of our
hedging instruments by $1.1 million. Conversely, a 10% decrease in the value of the U.S. Dollar
would result in an increase in the fair value of these financial instruments by $1.3 million.
The counterparties to these foreign currency forward contracts are multinational commercial banks.
While we believe the risk of counterparty nonperformance is not material, the recent disruption in
the global financial markets has impacted some of the financial institutions with which we do
business. A sustained decline in the financial stability of financial institutions as a result of
the disruption in the financial markets could affect our ability to secure creditworthy
counterparties for our foreign currency hedging programs.
- 133 -
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The financial statements and supplementary data required by this item are set forth at the
pages indicated at Item 15(a).
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9a. Controls and Procedures
The information contained in this section covers managements evaluation of our disclosure
controls and procedures and our assessment of our internal control over financial reporting for the
periods since our last periodic report (October 31, 2005) through January 31, 2008. However, this
assessment is as of January 31, 2008.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) under the
Exchange Act, are controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information
required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded,
processed, summarized, and reported, within the time periods specified by the rules and forms
promulgated by the SEC. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls
and procedures designed to ensure that such information is accumulated and communicated to
management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to
allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. As a result of this evaluation, our Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
were not effective as of January 31, 2008 because of the material weaknesses set forth below.
- 134 -
We acquired Witness on May 25, 2007, and we elected to exclude Witness internal control over
financial reporting from our assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting for the year ended January 31, 2008. Excluding goodwill and intangible assets resulting
from the acquisition, Witness total assets and total revenue
accounted for approximately 8% and 23%, respectively, of our consolidated assets and revenue as of and for the year ended January 31,
2008.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13(a)-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Our
system of internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated
financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with GAAP.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect every misstatement. An evaluation of effectiveness is subject to the risk that the controls
may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with
policies or procedures may decrease over time.
Our internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1)
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with
GAAP, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations
of our management and directors; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized use, acquisition, or disposition of our assets that could have a
material effect on the consolidated financial statements.
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the year ended
January 31, 2008. In making this assessment, we utilized the criteria set forth by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control Integrated
Framework.
A material weakness is a deficiency or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our
annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. As a
result of this evaluation, we concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not
effective as of January 31, 2008 because of the material weaknesses set forth below.
- 135 -
The following is a summary of our material weaknesses as of January 31, 2008:
Risk assessment is the component of our entitys internal control that involves identifying and
analyzing internal and external risks related to the preparation of reliable financial
statements. We failed to perform an adequate global risk assessment to identify all material
locations, balances, and related fraud risks when evaluating our internal control over financial
reporting and therefore, we did not maintain an effective process to identify, analyze, and
manage risks associated with financial reporting and anti-fraud programs and controls.
Effective monitoring enables a company to determine whether internal control over financial
reporting is present and functioning. We did not design adequate monitoring controls as it
related to certain subsidiaries, such that we could not be assured that a material misstatement
of financial results would be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Due to a lack of adequate systems, processes, and resources with sufficient GAAP knowledge,
experience, and training, we did not maintain effective controls over the period-end financial
close and reporting processes as of January 31, 2008. Due to the actual and potential effect on
financial statement balances and disclosures, the resulting restatement of
our financial statements and the importance of the financial closing and reporting processes, we
concluded that, in the aggregate, these deficiencies in internal controls over the period-end
financial close and reporting process constituted a material weakness in internal control over
financial reporting. The specific deficiencies contributing to this material weakness were as
follows:
|
a) |
|
Inadequate policies and procedures. We did not design, establish, and maintain
effective documented GAAP compliant financial accounting policies and procedures, nor a
formalized process for determining, documenting, communicating, implementing, monitoring,
and updating accounting policies and procedures, including policies and procedures related
to significant, complex, and non-routine transactions. |
|
|
b) |
|
Journal entries. We did not design, establish, and maintain effective procedures for
ensuring adequate review, approval, and existence of sufficient supporting documentation
over journal entries, both recurring and non-recurring. |
|
|
c) |
|
Accruals and Reserves. We did not design, establish, and maintain effective policies
and procedures and documentation requirements as they relate to accrued liabilities and
reserves, including those accounts requiring significant management estimates and judgment. |
- 136 -
|
d) |
|
Account reconciliations. We did not design, establish, and maintain effective controls
over the preparation, timely review, and documented approval of account reconciliations.
Specifically, we did not have effective controls over the completeness and accuracy of
supporting schedules. |
|
|
e) |
|
Inadequate segregation of duties within financial systems. In various accounting
processes, applications, and systems we did not design effective controls to adequately
segregate job responsibilities and system access for initiating, authorizing, and recording
transactions, nor were there adequate mitigating or monitoring controls in place.
Specifically, we did not perform an analysis of financial reporting job responsibilities
and system user access, including information technology
(IT) personnel, in order to establish effective segregation
of responsibilities. |
|
|
f) |
|
Deficiencies in end-user computing controls of critical spreadsheets. We did not
design, establish or maintain adequate controls over the access, completeness, accuracy,
validity, and review of, certain spreadsheet information that supports the financial
reporting process. |
|
|
g) |
|
Property and Equipment. We did not have adequate controls over our property and
equipment process, as we did not maintain effective controls over the existence,
completeness, and accuracy of our property and equipment and recording of depreciation and
amortization expense. In addition, effective controls were not designed and in place for
appropriate classification of our property and equipment and the selection and consistent
application of useful lives. |
|
|
|
|
Equity Compensation |
We did not maintain adequate policies and procedures to ensure effective controls over the
administration, accounting, and disclosure for stock-based compensation sufficient to prevent a
material misstatement of related compensation expense. Specifically, the following deficiencies
in our granting, administration, and accounting for awards were identified:
|
a) |
|
Inaccurate accounting and disclosure. We did not maintain adequate procedures or
effective controls over accounting, communication, and disclosure of compensation expense
related to awards. Specifically, we lacked a process of financial and administrative
oversight over the stock-based compensation process. |
|
|
b) |
|
Administration of awards. We did not maintain effective controls as it related to the
reconciliation of source data and sufficient procedures to ensure that grantees were
notified in a timely manner. |
|
|
c) |
|
Insufficient tracking of employee data. We did not maintain adequate procedures or
effective controls over reporting changes affecting employees and other award holders
(e.g., terminations) that ultimately impacted the timely accounting for compensation
expense. |
- 137 -
|
|
|
Revenue and Cost of Revenue |
We did not maintain effective internal controls over order management, contract management,
master file monitoring, issuance of credit memos and policies and procedures to ensure effective
controls over accounts receivable and the recognition of revenue, deferred revenue, and cost of
revenue in accordance with GAAP, which resulted in material errors in the recognition of revenue
and related cost of revenue. Specifically:
|
a) |
|
we lacked sufficient personnel with appropriate knowledge, experience, and training in
the complexities of software revenue recognition; |
|
|
b) |
|
we did not establish adequate procedures or effective
controls to determine VSOE of fair value for installation, training services, or
certain PCS agreements; |
|
|
c) |
|
we did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to determine proper
accounting treatment for multiple element sales arrangements in accordance with SOP 97-2; |
|
|
d) |
|
we did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to ensure that all
elements included in a multiple element arrangement were timely identified and measured
including establishment of VSOE of fair value for undelivered elements; |
|
|
e) |
|
we did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to identify the nature
of projects, capture the necessary data, and determine the appropriate accounting treatment
for arrangements subject to contract accounting; |
|
|
f) |
|
we did not establish or maintain appropriate policies and procedures to identify,
capitalize, and amortize product costs associated with revenue arrangements for which
related revenue had been deferred; |
|
|
g) |
|
we did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to identify sufficient
evidence of customer delivery and acceptance; and |
|
|
h) |
|
we lacked consistent communication and coordination between and among the various
finance and non-finance organizations across the company on the scope and terms of customer
arrangements, including the proper identification of all undelivered contractual
obligations that impacted revenue recognition. |
- 138 -
We did not maintain adequate policies and procedures and related internal controls to ensure the
completeness, accuracy, and timely preparation and review of our consolidated income tax
provision, related account balances, and disclosures sufficient to prevent a material
misstatement of related account balances. We did not employ adequate resources, with sufficient
technical expertise in the area of accounting for income taxes, to properly account for and
disclose income taxes in accordance with GAAP.
Due to the existence of these material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting
that have been identified as of January 31, 2008, we believe that our internal control over
financial reporting was also ineffective as of January 31, 2007 and January 31, 2006. Our
independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, expressed an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of January 31, 2008
because of the material weaknesses described above.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
As described in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Investigation and Restatements under Item 7, the restatements and corrections of our
consolidated financial statements included in this report reflect the correction of certain
misstated reserves for periods through October 31, 2005 resulting from the audit committee
investigation regarding non-option related accounting issues. Our audit committee found that,
prior to the year ended January 31, 2003, accounting reserves were intentionally overstated. In
addition, the audit committee found no evidence indicating that reserves were intentionally
overstated in any period subsequent to such year. As a result of these findings, we made
restatement adjustments to our historic reserve accounts to reflect appropriate and supportable
balances through October 31, 2005. Consequently, we believe we
may have had a material weakness in our accounting for reserves in the periods affected, but
that any such material weakness was remediated as of the periods presented in this report.
Our management performed extensive procedures
designed to ensure the reliability of our financial reporting. In addition to other internal
processes undertaken, procedures performed included, but were not limited to the following actions:
(a) dedicated significant resources, including the engagement of subject matter specialists to
support management in its efforts to complete our financial filings, (b) expended substantial
resources in response to the findings of the Comverse investigation relating to stock based
compensation errors associated with stock option grants issued to Verint employees previously
employed by Comverse, (c) our own voluntary internal review of Verints stock option grant
practices, and (d) our internal investigation into certain non-option accounting issues, including
accounting reserves, income statement expense classification, and revenue recognition that was
initiated by our audit committee. Based on these procedures, we have concluded that the
consolidated financial statements included in this report fairly present, in all material respects,
our financial position, results of operations, and cash flows for the interim and annual periods
for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006.
Discussed below are changes made to our internal control over financial reporting since our last
filing through January 31, 2008, as well as changes made to our internal control over financial
reporting from February 1, 2008 through the date of this report,
in each case, in response to the identified material weaknesses.
In addition, we are also
providing a description of certain expected material weaknesses and remediation efforts for periods
subsequent to January 31, 2008.
- 139 -
Our efforts to improve our internal controls are ongoing and focused on expanding our
organizational capabilities to improve our control environment and on implementing process changes
to strengthen our internal control and monitoring activities, however, we expect that our internal control over financial reporting and
our disclosure controls and procedures remained ineffective as of
January 31, 2009. In addition, although we have implemented remedial
measures to address all of the identified material weaknesses as
discussed below, our assessment of the impact of these measures has
not been completed as of the filing date of this report.
As part of our ongoing remedial efforts, we have, among other things:
|
|
|
appointed a new Chief Financial Officer effective December 2006; |
|
|
|
|
established an internal audit department in March 2008, which reports directly to the
audit committee. Our internal audit department continues to be expanded and strengthened
by hiring additional qualified staff as well as increasing the number of external
consultants engaged; |
|
|
|
|
appointed a VP Finance and Global Revenue Controller and Regional Revenue Controllers,
and established a centralized revenue recognition department to address complex revenue
recognition matters, and to provide oversight and guidance on the design of controls and
processes to enhance and standardize revenue recognition accounting application; |
|
|
|
|
appointed our Chief Legal Officer as Chief Compliance Officer in September 2008, and
established a robust world-wide compliance program; |
|
|
|
|
hired a new Senior Vice President Finance and Corporate Controller; |
|
|
|
|
appointed a Vice President of Global Accounting to help ensure accurate, consistent application of
GAAP; |
|
|
|
|
engaged a large global public accounting firm to act as an external subject matter
expert with respect to the accounting for and disclosure of stock-based compensation
related matters, including providing additional SFAS No. 123(R), training and accounting
assistance. Centralized responsibility for the administration of stock-based compensation
within the purview of the Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller; |
- 140 -
|
|
|
established a corporate tax department in the first quarter of the year ended January
31, 2009, which now includes a Vice President, Domestic Director, International Director,
and two full-time tax accountants, assisted by external expert tax advisors to prepare
and/or review significant tax provisions in accordance with SFAS No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes / FIN 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes / APB 28, Interim Financial Reporting / FIN 18, Accounting for Income Taxes in
Interim Periods, as well as any changes in local law. In the first quarter of 2009, we
implemented a tax provision software program designed to prepare the consolidated tax
provision and related SFAS No. 109 footnote disclosures; |
|
|
|
|
engaged external subject matter experts with specialized international and consolidated
income tax knowledge to assist in creating and implementing and documenting a consolidated
tax process; |
|
|
|
|
performed a detailed Sarbanes-Oxley scoping and risk analysis and global fraud risk assessment for
the year ending January 31, 2010 to properly identify material locations; |
|
|
|
|
engaged external subject matter experts to assist in developing and implementing a formal
remediation plan; |
|
|
|
|
updated our Employee Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and implemented a new Finance
and Accounting Code of Conduct that serves as a set of guiding principles emphasizing our
commitment to financial and accounting reporting integrity, as well as transparency and
robust and complete communications with, and disclosures to, internal and external
auditors; annually, all finance department personnel are required to acknowledge their
commitment to adhering to the Finance and Accounting Code of Conduct; |
|
|
|
|
reemphasized to all employees the availability of our whistleblower hotline, through
which all employees at all levels can anonymously submit information or express concerns
regarding accounting, financial reporting, or other irregularities they become aware of or
have observed; |
|
|
|
|
expanded our accounting policy and controls organization by creating and filling new
positions with qualified accounting and finance personnel, increasing significantly the
number of persons who are CPAs or the CPA international equivalent; |
|
|
|
|
engaged external subject matter experts to assist in developing, implementing and/or
enhancing accounting and finance-related policies and procedures, including revenue
recognition, account reconciliations, journal entry review/approval procedures, end-user
computing, fixed assets, and reserve and accrual analyses. Also, we have established an
online global portal which includes, among other items, an electronic library containing
various accounting policies and literature; |
|
|
|
|
implemented a record retention program, with the assistance of an external expert, to
centralize global finance documentation in a standard repository. This program is being
administered by regional coordinators with oversight by the internal
audit department; |
- 141 -
|
|
|
initiated a project to review our key financial systems security processes and
responsibilities to appropriately design automated controls that adequately segregate job
responsibilities; |
|
|
|
|
significantly increased our investment in the design and implementation of enhanced
information technology systems and user applications commensurate with the complexity of
our business and our financial reporting requirements, including a broader and more
sophisticated implementation of our Enterprise Resource Planning system, particularly in
the area of revenue recognition accounting. It is expected that these investments will
improve the reliability of our financial reporting by reducing the need for manual
processes, reducing the chance for errors and omissions and thereby decreasing our reliance
on manual controls to detect and correct accounting and financial reporting inaccuracies; |
|
|
|
|
conducted employee training sessions on insider trading and general ethics; and |
|
|
|
|
implemented a training program in the areas of business ethics, certain compliance
matters, financial statements and processes, and best management practices, targeted to
appropriate employees to enhance awareness and understanding of standards and principles
for accounting and financial reporting. |
We believe that the foregoing actions have improved and will continue to improve our internal
control over financial reporting, as well as our disclosure controls and procedures. We intend to
perform such procedures and commit such resources as necessary to continue to allow us to overcome
or mitigate these material weaknesses such that we can make timely and accurate quarterly and
annual financial filings until such time as those material weaknesses are fully addressed and
remediated.
- 142 -
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Verint Systems Inc.
Melville, New York
We have audited Verint Systems Inc.s and subsidiaries (the Companys) internal control over
financial reporting as of January 31, 2008, based on criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. As described in Managements Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures,
management excluded from its assessment the internal control over financial reporting at Witness
Systems, Inc., which was acquired on May 25, 2007 and whose
financial statements constitute 8% and
23%, respectively, of total assets and revenues of the consolidated financial statement amounts as
of and for the year ended January 31, 2008. Accordingly, our audit did not include the internal
control over financial reporting at Witness Systems, Inc. The Companys management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was
maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk,
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the
supervision of, the companys principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons
performing similar functions, and effected by the companys board of directors, management, and
other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. A companys internal control over financial reporting includes
those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance
regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
- 143 -
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the
possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to
error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of
the companys annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely
basis. The following material weaknesses have been identified and included in managements
assessment:
|
1. |
|
The Company failed to perform an adequate global risk assessment to identify all
material locations, balances and related fraud risks when evaluating internal control over
financial reporting and therefore, did not maintain an effective process to identify,
analyze, and manage risks associated with financial reporting and anti-fraud programs and
controls. |
|
|
2. |
|
The Company did not design adequate monitoring controls as it related to certain
subsidiaries such that management of the Company could not be assured that a material
misstatement of financial results would be prevented or detected on a timely basis. |
|
|
3. |
|
Due to a lack of adequate systems, processes, and resources with sufficient knowledge
of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), experience, and training, the Company
did not maintain effective controls over the period-end financial close and reporting
processes as of January 31, 2008. Due to the actual and potential effect on financial
statement balances and disclosures, the resulting restatement of the financial statements
and the importance of the financial closing and reporting processes, management of the
Company concluded that, in the aggregate, these deficiencies in internal controls over the
period-end financial close and reporting process constituted a material weakness in
internal control over financial reporting. The specific deficiencies contributing to this
material weakness were as follows: |
|
a) |
|
Inadequate policies and procedures. The Company did not design, establish, and
maintain effective documented financial accounting policies and procedures that are
compliant with GAAP, nor a formalized process for determining, documenting,
communicating, implementing, monitoring and updating accounting policies and
procedures, including policies and procedures related to significant, complex, and
non-routine transactions. |
|
|
b) |
|
Journal entries. The Company did not design, establish and maintain effective
procedures for ensuring adequate review, approval and existence of sufficient
supporting documentation over journal entries, both recurring and non-recurring. |
|
|
c) |
|
Accruals and Reserves. The Company did not design, establish, and maintain
effective policies and procedures and documentation requirements as they relate to
accrued liabilities and reserves, including those accounts requiring significant
management estimates and judgment. |
- 144 -
|
d) |
|
Account reconciliations. The Company did not design, establish and maintain
effective controls over the preparation, timely review, and documented approval of
account reconciliations. Specifically, the Company did not have effective controls over
the completeness and accuracy of supporting schedules. |
|
|
e) |
|
Inadequate segregation of duties within financial systems. In various
accounting processes, applications, and systems the Company did not design effective
controls to adequately segregate job responsibilities and system access for initiating,
authorizing, and recording transactions, nor were there adequate mitigating or
monitoring controls in place. Specifically, the Company did not perform an analysis of
financial reporting job responsibilities and system user access, including IT
personnel, in order to establish effective segregation of responsibilities. |
|
|
f) |
|
Deficiencies in end-user computing controls of critical spreadsheets. The
Company did not design, establish or maintain adequate controls over the access,
completeness, accuracy, validity, and review of, certain spreadsheet information that
supports the financial reporting process. |
|
|
g) |
|
Property and Equipment. The Company did not have adequate controls over the
property and equipment process, as the Company did not maintain effective controls over
the existence, completeness, and accuracy of property and equipment and recording of
depreciation and amortization expense. In addition, effective controls were not
designed and in place for appropriate classification of property and equipment and the
selection and consistent application of useful lives. |
|
4. |
|
Equity Compensation. The Company did not maintain adequate policies and procedures to
ensure effective controls over the administration, accounting, and disclosure for
stock-based compensation sufficient to prevent a material misstatement of related
compensation expense. Specifically, the following deficiencies in the granting,
administration, and accounting for awards were identified: |
|
a) |
|
Inaccurate accounting and disclosure. The Company did not maintain adequate
procedures or effective controls over accounting, communication, and disclosure of
compensation expense related to awards. Specifically, the Company lacked a process of
financial and administrative oversight over the stock-based compensation process. |
|
|
b) |
|
Administration of awards. The Company did not maintain effective controls as it
related to the reconciliation of source data and sufficient procedures to ensure that
grantees were notified in a timely manner. |
|
|
c) |
|
Insufficient tracking of employee data. The Company did not maintain adequate
procedures or effective controls over reporting changes affecting employees and other
award holders (e.g., terminations) that ultimately impacted the timely accounting for
compensation expense. |
- 145 -
|
5. |
|
Revenue and Cost of Revenue. The Company did not maintain effective internal controls
over order management, contract management, master file monitoring, issuance of credit
memos and policies and procedures to ensure effective controls over accounts receivable and
the recognition of revenue, deferred revenue and cost of revenue in accordance with GAAP,
which resulted in material errors in the recognition of revenue and related cost of
revenue. Specifically: |
|
a) |
|
The Company lacked sufficient personnel with appropriate knowledge, experience
and training in the complexities of software revenue recognition. |
|
|
b) |
|
The Company did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to
determine vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) of fair value for installation,
training services, or certain post-contract customer support agreements. |
|
|
c) |
|
The Company did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to
determine proper accounting treatment for multiple element sales arrangements in
accordance with SOP 97-2. |
|
|
d) |
|
The Company did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to
ensure that all elements included in a multiple element arrangement were timely
identified and measured including establishment of VSOE of fair value for undelivered
elements. |
|
|
e) |
|
The Company did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to
identify the nature of projects, capture the necessary data, and determine the
appropriate accounting treatment for arrangements subject to contract accounting. |
|
|
f) |
|
The Company did not establish or maintain appropriate policies and procedures
to identify, capitalize, and amortize product costs associated with revenue
arrangements for which related revenue had been deferred. |
|
|
g) |
|
The Company did not establish adequate procedures or effective controls to
identify sufficient evidence of customer delivery and acceptance. |
|
|
h) |
|
The Company lacked consistent communication and coordination between and among
the various finance and non-finance organizations across the Company on the scope and
terms of customer arrangements, including the proper identification of all undelivered
contractual obligations that impacted revenue recognition. |
|
6. |
|
Income Taxes. The Company did not maintain adequate policies and procedures and related
internal controls to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and timely preparation and review
of the consolidated income tax provision, related account balances, and disclosures
sufficient to prevent a material misstatement of related account balances. The
Company did not employ adequate resources, with sufficient technical expertise in the area
of accounting for income taxes, to properly account for and disclose income taxes in
accordance with GAAP. |
- 146 -
These material weaknesses were considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit
tests applied in our audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for
the year ended January 31, 2008, and this report does not affect our report on such financial
statements.
In our opinion, because of the effect of the material weaknesses identified above on the
achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, the Company has not maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of January 31, 2008, based on the criteria established
in Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for each of the three years
in the period ended January 31, 2008, of the Company and our
report dated March 16, 2010,
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and includes explanatory paragraphs
regarding (1) the restatement discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, and (2)
the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 16, 2010
- 147 -
Item 9b. Other Information
Not Applicable.
- 148 -
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance
Current Executive Officers and Directors
The following lists our current executive officers and directors as of the date of this report.
Vacancies on the board of directors that have arisen due to the departures noted above have been
filled by the vote of the board of directors, in accordance with our Amended and Restated Bylaws
and Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. As of the date of this report, two
vacancies remain on the board of directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position |
Dan Bodner
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate
Officer, and Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter D. Fante
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Chief Legal Officer, Chief Compliance
Officer, Secretary, and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
President, Verint Witness Actionable
Solutions and Verint Video Intelligence
Solutions and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Managing Director, EMEA and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas E. Robinson
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
President, Verint Communications Intelligence
and Investigative Solutions and Corporate
Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul D. Baker
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Bunyan
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Dahan
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victor A. DeMarines
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth A. Minihan
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Myers
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Howard Safir
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shefali Shah
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Swad
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lauren Wright
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Director |
- 149 -
Background of Current Directors
Dan Bodner serves as our President, Chief Executive Officer, a director, and Corporate Officer.
Mr. Bodner has served as our President and/or Chief Executive Officer and as a director since
February 1994. From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Bodner also served as President and Chief Executive Officer
of Comverse Government Systems Corp., a former affiliate of ours when we were a subsidiary of
Comverse. Prior to such positions, from 1987 to 1991, Mr. Bodner held various management positions
at Comverse.
Paul D. Baker has served as one of our directors since May 2002. Mr. Baker also serves as Vice
President, Corporate Marketing and Corporate Communications of Comverse, a position he has held
since joining Comverse in April 1991. Mr. Baker is also a member of the board of directors of
Ulticom, Inc., a Comverse majority-owned public company and former operating subsidiary of
Comverse. Mr. Baker was nominated by Comverse to serve as a member of our board of directors.
John Bunyan has served as one of our directors since March 2008. Mr. Bunyan also serves as Chief
Marketing Officer of Comverse, a position he has held since October 2007. Prior to joining
Comverse, Mr. Bunyan was President of Intelliventure LLC, a marketing and strategy firm, of which
he remains a member, although the company is currently inactive. He also served as Senior Vice
President of Mobile Multimedia Services at AT&T Wireless from November 2001 to April 2005 and was
responsible for the consumer wireless data business. Before then, Mr. Bunyan served as Senior Vice
President of Marketing at Dun & Bradstreet, and prior to that, as Executive Vice President of
Marketing at Reuters Americas. Mr. Bunyan is also a member of the board of directors of Ulticom,
Inc., a Comverse majority owned public company and former operating subsidiary of Comverse as well
as other directly and indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comverse. Mr. Bunyan was nominated
by Comverse to serve as a member of our board of directors.
Andre Dahan has served as one of our directors since July 2007 and Chairman of the Board of
Directors since March 2008. Mr. Dahan has also served as Chief Executive Officer and President and
a director of Comverse since April 2007. Prior to joining Comverse, Mr. Dahan was President and
Chief Executive Officer of Mobile Multimedia Services at AT&T Wireless from July 2001 to December
2004. Previously, he served as President of North America and Global Accounts and in several other
global executive positions for Dun & Bradstreet, a global business information and business tools
provider. Before then, Mr. Dahan served in a variety of senior executive positions with Teradata
Corp. (now NCR), Sequent Computer Systems and S.E. Qual, an information technology consulting
firm. He also serves as a member of the board of directors of Ulticom, Inc., a Comverse majority
owned public company and former operating subsidiary of Comverse, Starhome, B.V., also a Comverse
majority-owned company and a
global provider of mobile roaming technology and services, as well as numerous other directly and
indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comverse. Mr. Dahan was nominated by Comverse to serve as
a member of our board of directors.
- 150 -
Victor A. DeMarines has served as one of our directors since May 2002. In May, 2000, Mr. DeMarines
retired from his position as President and Chief Executive Officer of MITRE Corporation, a
nonprofit organization, which provides security solutions for the computer systems of the
Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Internal Revenue Service, and several organizations in the U.S. intelligence community. Mr.
DeMarines served in this capacity with MITRE Corporation beginning in 1995, and since retiring
serves as a director. Mr. DeMarines currently also serves as a director of NetScout Systems, Inc.,
a provider of network performance solutions. He serves as a member of the Strategic Command
Advisory Group. Mr. DeMarines served as a Presidential Executive with the Department of
Transportation and is a Lieutenant of the U.S. Air Force.
Kenneth A. Minihan has served as one of our directors since May 2002. Lieutenant General Minihan
was a career U.S. Air Force officer who attained the rank of Lieutenant General and retired from
the Air Force on June 1, 1999. Since February 2002, he has served as a Managing Director of
Paladin Capital Group, a private equity firm. Lieutenant General Minihan also served as the 14th
Director of the National Security Agency/Central Security Services and was the senior uniformed
intelligence officer in the Department of Defense. Prior to this, Lieutenant General Minihan
served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Lieutenant General Minihan sits on the
board of directors of (1) BAE Systems Inc., a defense systems company, (2) Lucent Government
Solutions, an information technology company, (3) Lexis Nexis Special Services, Inc., a leading
provider of information and technology solutions to government, and (4) ManTech International
Corporation, a business software and services company. Lieutenant General Minihan was awarded the
National Security Medal, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star and the National
Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, among other awards and decorations.
Larry Myers has served as one of our directors since August 2003. Since November 1999, Mr. Myers
has been retired from his position of Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of MITRE Corporation, a nonprofit organization which provides security solutions for the computer
systems of the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue
Service and several organizations in the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Myers served in this
capacity with MITRE Corporation beginning in 1991.
Howard Safir has served as one of our directors since May 2002. Since December 2001, Mr. Safir has
been the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SafirRosetti, a provider of security and
investigation services and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Global Options Group Inc. Mr. Safir has
served as the Vice Chairman of Global Options Group Inc. since their May 2005 acquisition of
SafirRosetti. He has served as Chief Executive Officer of Bode Technology, also a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Global Options Group Inc. since February 2007. During his career, Mr. Safir served
as the 39th Police Commissioner of the City of New York, as Associate Director for Operations, U.S.
Marshals Service, and as Assistant Director of the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Mr. Safir was awarded the Ellis Island Medal of Honor among other
citations and awards.
- 151 -
Shefali Shah has served as one of our directors since September 2007. Since March 2009, Ms. Shah
has served as the Acting General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Comverse. From June 2006 until
December 2006, Ms. Shah served as the Assistant Secretary of Comverse and from June 2006 until
March 2009, Ms. Shah served as Associate General Counsel of Comverse. Prior to joining Comverse,
Ms. Shah was an attorney in the corporate practice group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP from
September 2002 to June 2006. Ms. Shah also serves as a member of the board of directors of
Ulticom, Inc., a Comverse majority-owned public company and former operating subsidiary of
Comverse, and Starhome, B.V., a Comverse majority-owned subsidiary and a global provider of mobile
roaming technology and services. Ms. Shah was nominated by Comverse to serve as a member of our
board of directors.
Stephen Swad has served as one of our directors since June 2009. Mr. Swad has served as Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Comverse since June 2009. Prior to joining Comverse,
Mr. Swad served as Chief Financial Officer at Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
from August 2007 to August 2008 and, prior to that, at AOL, LLC (formerly, America Online, Inc.)
from February 2003 to February 2007. He also served as Executive Vice President of Finance and
Administration at Turner Entertainment Group, and Vice President, Financial Planning and Analysis
at Time Warner. Mr. Swad, a Certified Public Accountant and former partner of KPMG LLP, also
served as Deputy Chief Accountant at the SEC. Mr. Swad was nominated by Comverse to serve as a
member of our board of directors.
Lauren Wright has served as one of our directors since September 2007. After serving as Special
Advisor to the board of directors at Comverse from January 2007 to May 2007, Ms. Wright formally
joined Comverse in May 2007 and has served since then as Senior Vice President Global Business
Operations of Comverse. Prior to joining Comverse, Ms. Wright acted as a consultant and held a
variety of executive positions including President and CEO of Pryor Resources, Inc., a
venture-backed international seminar company, which she managed through bankruptcy reorganization,
and President of Sprint International, a global telecommunications provider where she worked from
1988 to 2000. Ms. Wright was nominated by Comverse to serve as a member of our board of directors.
Background of Current Executive Officers (Not Also a Director)
Peter D. Fante serves as our Chief Legal Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Secretary and Corporate
Officer. Mr. Fante was appointed as General Counsel in September 2002, Chief Compliance Officer in
September 2008 and Secretary in September 2005. Prior to joining us, Mr. Fante was an associate at
various global law firms including Shearman & Sterling, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Elan Moriah serves as President, Verint Witness Actionable Solutions and Verint Video Intelligence
Solutions global business lines and Corporate Officer. Mr. Moriah has served in such capacity
since 2008, having previously served as our President, Americas from 2004 to 2008 and as President
of our Contact Center division from 2000 to 2004. Prior to joining us, Mr.
Moriah held various management positions with Motorola Inc., where he served as Business
Development Manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa, Worldwide Network Services Division and as
Vice President of Marketing and Sales of a paging subsidiary. Before then, Mr. Moriah worked for
Comet Software Inc., as Vice President of Marketing and Sales and as Operations Manager.
- 152 -
David Parcell serves as our Managing Director, EMEA and as Corporate Officer. He has served in
such capacity since May 2001. Prior to joining us, Mr. Parcell served as Vice President of EMEA
for Aspect Software, Inc. from 1997 to 2001. Before then, Mr. Parcel held key management positions
at Co-Cam and Datapoint, along with senior sales positions with Unisys and Olivetti.
Douglas E. Robinson has served as our Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Officer since December
2006 (following completion of a transition from the previous Chief Financial Officer which began in
August 2006). Prior to joining us, Mr. Robinson spent 17 years at CA, Inc. (formerly Computer
Associates), one of the worlds largest information technology management software companies, where
he held the positions of Senior Vice President, Finance, Americas Division, Corporate Controller,
Interim Chief Financial Officer, CFO of CAs iCan SP subsidiary, and Senior Vice President Investor
Relations, among other positions.
Meir Sperling serves as our President, Verint Communications Intelligence and Investigative
Solutions and Corporate Officer. Mr. Sperling has served in such capacity since 2000. He also
served as President, APAC from 2006 to 2007. Before joining us, Mr. Sperling served as Corporate
Vice President of ECI Telecom Ltd. (ECI) as General Manager of its Business Systems Division, and
Director of several ECI subsidiaries. Before then, Mr. Sperling held various management positions
with Tadiran Telecommunications Communications Ltd. as well as with Tadiran Ltd and TEI, a U.S.
subsidiary.
Former
Directors and Executive Officers
Since our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2005, which is our last filed
annual report, there have been significant changes in the members of our board of directors
designated by Comverse.
The following individuals, each of whom was an officer or employee of Comverse or one of its
subsidiaries, served on our board of directors for the periods listed below, but no longer serves
on our board of directors:
|
|
|
Kobi Alexander
|
|
(February 1994 April 2006) |
Avi Aronovitz
|
|
(November 2004 November 2008) |
David Kreinberg
|
|
(January 1999 April 2006) |
Paul Robinson
|
|
(May 2002 June 2007) |
William Sorin
|
|
(January 1999 April 2006) |
John Spirtos
|
|
(November 2008 June 2009) |
In addition, the following individuals served on our board of directors but no longer serve on our
board of directors:
|
|
|
David Ledwell
|
|
(May 2002 January 2008) |
Igal Nissim
|
|
(January 1999 December 2006) |
- 153 -
On August 14, 2006, we announced that Igal Nissim would step down as our Chief Financial Officer
and that Douglas Robinson had been named as our new Chief Financial Officer effective upon
completion of our outstanding SEC filings. As discussed in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations under Item 7, we decided to
complete the succession process on December 11, 2006. At that time, Mr. Nissim formally resigned
from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and a director, but continued to serve in a
non-executive corporate planning role reporting to our Chief Executive Officer until January 31,
2008.
The Board of Directors and Board Committees
The Board of Directors
Although our common stock is not currently listed on NASDAQ, we have endeavored to continue to
operate during our extended filing delay period in accordance with NASDAQ rules. To that end, the
board of directors has determined that Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers and Safir are
independent for purposes of NASDAQs amended
governance listing standards (specifically NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)), and the
requirements of both the SEC and NASDAQ that all members of the audit committee satisfy a special
independence definition. The full board of directors has determined that Messrs. DeMarines,
Minihan, Myers, and Safir not only are independent under the objective definitional criteria
established by the SEC and NASDAQ, but also qualify as independent under the separate, subjective
determination required by NASDAQ that, as to each of these directors, no relationships exist which,
in the opinion of the board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment
in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. Both our audit committee and our stock option
committee are composed solely of these four independent directors. The board of directors also has
determined that Mr. Myers is an audit committee financial expert, as that term is defined by the
SEC in Item 407(d) of Regulation S-K. Stockholders should understand that this designation is an
SEC disclosure requirement relating to Mr. Myers experience and understanding of certain
accounting and auditing matters, which the SEC has stated does not impose on the director so
designated any additional duty, obligation or liability than otherwise is imposed generally by
virtue of serving on the audit committee and/or the board of directors.
The remaining seven members of the board of directors do not satisfy these independence
definitions because they are either executive officers of ours or have been chosen by and/or are
affiliated with our controlling stockholder, Comverse. Because we are eligible to be a controlled
company (within the meaning of relevant NASDAQ Listing Rule 5615(c)), we previously were, and if
our common stock was listed on NASDAQ, would continue to be exempt from certain NASDAQ Listing
Rules that would otherwise require us to have a majority independent board or fully independent
standing nominating and compensation committees. We determined that we are such a controlled
company because Comverse holds more than 50% of the voting power for the election of our
directors. If Comverses ownership were to fall below 50%, however, we would cease to be permitted
to rely on the controlled company exception and would be required to have a majority independent
board and fully independent standing nominating and compensation committees.
- 154 -
As of the date of this report, the board of directors consists of 11 directors and has four
standing committees: the corporate governance and nominating committee, the audit committee, the
compensation committee, and the stock option committee.
The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
Members: Messrs. Dahan, DeMarines, and Safir, and Ms. Wright
The corporate governance and nominating committee of the board of directors makes recommendations
on director nominees to the board of directors and will consider director candidates suggested by
existing directors, senior management, and stockholders if properly submitted in accordance with
the applicable procedures set forth in our bylaws. These procedures have not changed since the
filing of our last proxy statement in 2005.
The corporate governance and nominating committee and the board of directors are heavily influenced
in selecting director candidates and nominees by our majority stockholder, Comverse. Comverse has
the right to designate all members for nomination to the board of directors, other than those
required by applicable law and regulation, including NASDAQs amended governance listing standards
and the requirements of the SEC, to be independent, and may fill any vacancy resulting from a
Comverse designee ceasing to serve as a director. As the sole holder of our preferred stock,
Comverse also has the right to designate up to two directors to the board of directors if we fail
to redeem the preferred stock when otherwise required to do so upon the happening of certain
corporate events. See Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence -
Comverse Preferred Stock Financing Agreements under Item 13 for further discussion of rights
associated with our preferred stock. Comverse designees currently serving on our board of
directors are Messrs. Baker, Bunyan, Dahan and Swad, Ms. Shah, and Ms. Wright.
The corporate governance and nominating committees responsibilities are set forth in its charter
and include, among other things (i) responsibility for establishing our corporate governance
guidelines, (ii) overseeing the board of directors operations and effectiveness, and (iii)
identifying, screening, and recommending qualified candidates to serve on the board of directors.
This committee was formed on September 11, 2007. Prior to this time, the nominating function was
performed by the full board of directors.
The Audit Committee
Members: Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir
We have a separately-designated standing audit committee established as contemplated by Section 10A
of the Exchange Act. The board of directors has determined that each member of the audit committee
is independent and financially literate as required by the additional independence requirements
for members of the audit committee pursuant to Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. The audit
committees responsibilities are set forth in its charter and include, among other things, (i)
assisting the board of directors in its oversight of our compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations, which includes oversight of the quality and integrity of our financial reporting,
internal controls, and audit functions, and (ii) direct and sole responsibility
for the appointment, retention, compensation, and monitoring of the performance of our independent
registered public accounting firm.
- 155 -
The Compensation Committee
Members:
Messrs. Dahan, DeMarines, and Minihan and Ms. Shah
The compensation committees responsibilities are set forth in its charter and include, among other
things, (i) approving compensation arrangements for our executive officers and (ii) making
recommendations to the stock option committee and the board of directors regarding awards under our
equity compensation plans.
The Stock Option Committee
Members: Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir
The stock option committee is responsible for administering our stock incentive compensation plans
and approving all grants of stock options and other forms of equity awards, except that equity
grants to non-employee directors are approved or ratified by the full board of directors.
Codes of Business Conduct and Ethics
Codes of Business Conduct and Ethics
The board of directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Senior Officers to
promote our commitment to the legal and ethical conduct of our business. The Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and other senior officers are required to abide by the code. We
intend to disclose on our website any amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of the code that
applies to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or principal accounting officer
that relates to any elements of the code of ethics.
On March 19, 2009, we adopted an amended and restated Code of Conduct: Ethics Promote Excellence
that replaced our Employee Code of Conduct and Ethics which was adopted in 2003. The new code
applies to all executive officers, directors, and employees of the Company. A copy of the amended
code was filed as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on March 24,
2009. The amended code can also be found on our website at www.verint.com under the Investor
Relations tab. A copy of the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Senior Officers is also posted on our
website under the Investor Relations tab. We will provide a copy of these codes of ethics to any
person without charge, upon request. Requests may be made by writing or telephoning us at the
following address:
Verint Systems Inc.
330 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747 USA
(631) 962-9600
Attn: Corporate Secretary
- 156 -
Ethics Hot Line
We have a hot line, managed by a third party, that gives employees and our other stakeholders a way
to confidentially and anonymously report any actual or perceived unethical behavior or violations
or suspected violations of our Codes of Conduct. Information regarding our hot line can be found
on our website at www.verint.com under the Investor Relations tab.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, requires our directors, executive officers and persons who
beneficially own more than 10% of a registered class of our equity securities, to file initial
reports of ownership on Form 3 and reports of changes in ownership on Forms 4 or 5 with the SEC.
Such officers, directors and 10% stockholders also are required by SEC rules to furnish us with
copies of all Section 16(a) reports they file.
Based solely on review of the copies of such reports furnished to us, or written representations
that no reports were required, we believe that:
|
|
|
during the year ended January 31, 2006, our directors,
executive officers, and 10% stockholders complied with all filing requirements, except that an untimely Form 4
was filed by Mr. Bodner on December 16, 2005; |
|
|
|
|
during the year ended January 31, 2007, our directors, executive officers,
and 10% stockholders complied with all filing requirements, except that an untimely Form 3
was filed by Mr. Dahan on September 17, 2007; and |
|
|
|
|
during the year ended January 31, 2008, our directors, executive officers,
and 10% stockholders complied with all filing requirements. |
Item 11. Executive Compensation
As a result of our extended filing delay period, the information contained in this section
covers multiple periods. Information for the year ended January 31, 2006 is presented in
accordance with the compensation disclosure requirements applicable to that period. Information
for the year ended January 31, 2007 and the year ended January 31, 2008 is presented under the
compensation disclosure requirements applicable for those periods. We have also included certain
additional information for periods subsequent to January 31, 2008 that we believe may be useful for
a more complete understanding of our compensation arrangements. While the focus of this discussion
is on our compensation arrangements with our named executive officers (who are also referred to as
executive officers or just officers below), in some cases we also provide information about
compensation arrangements with our other executives or our employees generally where we believe it
may be useful for providing context for our officer compensation arrangements.
- 157 -
Over the course of our extended filing delay period, we have also experienced significant changes
in the composition of the compensation committee of our board of directors (the compensation
committee). As a result, while the members of the compensation committee have recommended to the
board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis below be included in this
report, the events described in the discussion may have preceded a particular committee members
election to the compensation committee and the information contained in the discussion may not be
based on the personal knowledge of certain compensation committee members. None of the present
members of the compensation committee was on the compensation committee in the year ended January
31, 2006 or before. See - Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation for more
information on the composition of the compensation committee. The composition of the stock option
committee of our board of directors has not changed during our extended filing delay period.
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our executive officer compensation program and
addresses how we made compensation decisions for our named executive officers (as defined below)
during the years ended January 31, 2007 and January 31, 2008. Prior to the process of preparing
this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, our named executive officers were Dan Bodner and Douglas
Robinson. In preparing this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, we reviewed and revised our
executive officer designations for the periods covered by this report. Based on this review, the
executive officers covered in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis (the named executive
officers) are as follows:
|
|
|
Dan Bodner, President and Chief Executive Officer and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
Douglas Robinson, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah, President, Verint Witness Actionable Solutions and Verint Video
Intelligence Solutions and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling, President, Verint Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions
and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
David Parcell, Managing Director, EMEA and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Secretary and Corporate
Officer |
While we have determined as part of the review described above that Mr. Parcells designation as an
executive officer should begin in the year ended January 31, 2008, for consistency, we have also
included his compensation for the year ended January 31, 2007 in this Compensation Discussion and
Analysis.
- 158 -
Igal Nissim, our former Chief Financial Officer, ceased to be an executive officer during the year
ended January 31, 2007 and his compensation is therefore covered for the year ended January 31,
2007 only.
Compensation Philosophy and Process
Philosophy and Objectives of Compensation Program
The primary objectives of our executive officer compensation programs are to:
|
|
|
attract and retain highly qualified and effective officers by providing a total
compensation package that is competitive in the market in which we compete for talent; |
|
|
|
|
incentivize our executive officers to execute on our operational and strategic goals and
reward the successful achievement of such goals; and |
|
|
|
|
align the interests of our officers with those of our stockholders. |
Our executive officer compensation packages have historically been, and continue to be, comprised
of a mix of base salary, annual cash bonus, and annual equity or equity-linked grant, plus limited
perquisites. We believe this relatively simple mix of compensation elements allows us to
successfully achieve the compensation objectives outlined above; however, the compensation
committee periodically re-evaluates the companys compensation philosophy, objectives, and tools.
In recent years, due to our extended filing delay period, we have also made use of supplementary
incentives in addition to our regular officer compensation packages.
We believe it is important that a significant portion of an officers compensation be at-risk by
being tied to the performance of our business or our stock price. We believe this is addressed
through the use of performance-based bonuses and performance-vested equity, wherein payment or
vesting is directly dependent on performance, as well as through the use of equity-based
compensation generally, such as stock options, restricted stock, or restricted stock units, whose
value depends on our stock price. We believe that equity-based compensation that is subject to
vesting based on continued employment is also an effective tool for retaining our officers,
aligning their interests with those of our stockholders, and for building long-term commitment to
the company.
Roles and Responsibilities
The compensation committee determines the base salaries and bonus structure for
our executive officers. The compensation committee also establishes the performance goals that are
used to determine how much of an officers annual target bonus is ultimately earned and evaluates
the companys and the officers performance against these goals in awarding actual bonus payments
after the conclusion of the applicable performance period. The compensation committee is also
responsible for overseeing our employee compensation programs generally, including our long-term
incentive programs and any special compensation initiatives.
- 159 -
The stock option committee of the board of directors (the stock option committee), which is
comprised solely of independent directors, is responsible for administering our equity compensation
programs, including final approval of all equity grants, based on recommendations on size, scope,
and structure from the compensation committee. The stock option committee has approved all equity
grants to all personnel since our May 2002 IPO, except that equity grants to non-employee directors
are approved by the full board of directors. Based on recommendations from the compensation
committee, the stock option committee also establishes the performance goals that are used to
determine how much of an officers performance-based equity award ultimately vests and evaluates
the companys and the officers performance against these goals in determining actual vesting
levels after the conclusion of the applicable performance period.
Process Overview and Guidelines
In establishing the compensation package for our executive officers each year, the compensation
committee reviews the various components and amounts of compensation being considered for each
officer normally through the use of tally sheets or similar compensation summaries. The
compensation committee, from time to time, engages a nationally recognized independent compensation
consultant to prepare a peer group compensation benchmarking analysis for our officer
compensation packages and to assist the compensation committee in structuring and evaluating
proposed officer compensation packages or other executive compensation arrangements. The
independent compensation consultant does not provide any other services to the company except
advising the compensation committee on compensation for our officers, directors, or other
personnel. The company pays the cost for the consultants services. With the compensation
committees permission or at the compensation committees request, selected members of senior
management generally work cooperatively with the compensation consultant in preparing proposals for
officer compensation packages or other executive compensation arrangements for consideration by the
compensation committee. The compensation consultant at all times remains independent of
management, however, and forms its own views with respect to the recommendations it makes to the
compensation committee. With the exception of his own package, the Chief Executive Officer also
provides input to the compensation committee on each proposed executive officer compensation
package. The compensation committee also meets in executive session (outside the presence of
management) with its independent compensation consultant and other advisors from time to time. The
compensation committee is solely responsible for making final decisions on cash compensation for
executive officers and the stock option committee is solely responsible for making final decisions
on equity compensation for executive officers.
The composition of the peer group used for benchmarking analyses prepared by the compensation
consultant is developed following discussions between the compensation committee, the compensation
consultant, and members of senior management, and varies from year to year. The companies to be
included in the peer group are selected from a sampling of publicly-traded software and technology
companies with annual revenues, market capitalizations, and/or enterprise values within a range
above and below ours. In general, certain of our closest competitors do not fit within these
parameters; either because they are much larger or much smaller than us, are privately-held, or are
foreign issuers who do not publicly file
detailed compensation data. For compensation for the year ended January 31, 2007, our compensation
peer group consisted of:
|
|
|
Business Objects SA, |
|
|
|
|
Citrix Systems Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Cognos Inc., |
- 160 -
|
|
|
Entrust Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Flir Systems Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Filenet Corp., |
|
|
|
|
Informatica Corporation, |
|
|
|
|
Intergraph Corporation, |
|
|
|
|
Nuance Communications, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Open Text Corp., |
|
|
|
|
Progress Software Corp., |
|
|
|
|
Real Networks Inc., |
|
|
|
|
RSA Security, |
|
|
|
|
SPSS Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Websense, Inc., and |
|
|
|
|
Witness Systems, Inc. |
For compensation for the year ended January 31, 2008, the compensation committee relied on the same
peer group study prepared for the year ended January 31, 2007.
Elements of compensation are considered by the compensation committee individually and in the
aggregate. Based on the benchmarking analysis, the compensation committee initially uses a
guideline of setting cash compensation (salary and target bonus) at the median of our peer group
for target performance and of setting equity compensation at the 75th percentile of our
peer group (based on dollar value) for target performance. We believe that targeting cash
compensation at the median and equity compensation at the 75th percentile of our peer
group ensures that we are well positioned to attract and retain the highest caliber of executive
officer talent and properly
incentivize our officers consistent with our compensation philosophy and objectives described
above. The actual cash and equity target award levels for a given executive officer in a given
year are not, however, determined solely based on these guidelines, but have not historically
exceeded them.
- 161 -
In establishing these actual cash and equity target award levels and the mix between cash
compensation and equity compensation, the other factors considered by the compensation committee
include:
|
|
|
the officers compensation for the previous year; |
|
|
|
|
the officers performance in the previous year; |
|
|
|
|
our performance in the previous year; |
|
|
|
|
our growth from the previous year; |
|
|
|
|
our outlook, budget, and cash forecast for the upcoming year; |
|
|
|
|
the proposed packages for the other executive officers (internal pay equity); |
|
|
|
|
the proposed merit increases, if any, being offered to our employees generally; |
|
|
|
|
equity dilution and burn rates; |
|
|
|
|
the value of previously-awarded equity grants; |
|
|
|
|
executive officer recruiting and retention considerations; and |
|
|
|
|
compensation trends and competitive factors in the market for talent in which we
compete. |
We do not target a specific ratio of equity to cash.
Subject to the parameters of our compensation philosophy, the compensation committee believes that
it is appropriate for our Chief Executive Officer to be compensated more highly from both a cash
and an equity perspective than our other executive officers, and this approach has been supported
by our peer group analyses. In establishing the relative compensation of the other executive
officers, in addition to the factors above and peer group analyses, the compensation committee is
also mindful of internal pay equity and takes into account differences in the scope of each
officers responsibilities.
- 162 -
For the reasons discussed below, in recent years, due to our extended filing delay period, we have
placed increased emphasis on executive retention, particularly in sizing equity awards and in
considering supplementary incentives in addition to our regular executive officer compensation
packages. See - Compensation and Awards During Our Extended Filing Delay Period below.
Elements of Compensation
Base Salary
Base salaries for our executive officers are generally negotiated by us with the officer upon
hiring based on prior compensation history, salary levels of our other executive officers,
geographic location, and benchmarking data. Base salaries for our executive officers are subject
to adjustment annually by the compensation committee as part of its regular compensation review
process based on the benchmarking process and the other factors described above, as well as based
on special achievements, promotions, and other facts and circumstances specific to the individual
officer.
Mr. Robinson began his employment with us in August 2006 and formally assumed the role of Chief
Financial Officer in December 2006 (shortly before the end of the year ended January 31, 2007).
Mr. Robinsons base salary (and other compensation elements) for the year ended January 31, 2007
were negotiated prior to his arrival and reflected benchmarking information provided by the
compensation committees independent compensation consultant.
Mr. Parcell was not an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007 and was therefore not
covered by the peer group study prepared by the compensation committees independent compensation
consultant for that year. His base salary and bonus target for the year ended January 31, 2007
(and for the year ended January 31, 2008 where, as discussed above, no new peer group study was
done) were established by the compensation committee based on the other factors described in the
preceding section, including his prior year compensation, his performance for the prior year, and
salary levels of other executives.
For information about each officers actual base salaries (and increase between years) for the
years ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007, see the table entitled Summary Compensation
Table below.
Annual Bonus
Each of our executive officers is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus. As with base salaries,
target bonuses are established annually by the compensation committee as part of its regular
compensation review process. In establishing target bonuses, in addition to the factors considered
as part of the compensation review process generally, the compensation committee also considers the
target bonus set forth in the executive officers employment agreement (if applicable), as well as
special achievements, promotions, and other facts and circumstances specific to the individual
officer.
- 163 -
Although an officers employment agreement may provide for a specified target bonus (a target bonus
below which an officer may have good reason to resign under his employment agreement) and
although the compensation committee establishes a bonus target for each officer annually, the
actual bonus payment an officer receives is not guaranteed. Actual bonuses are paid based on
company and officer performance, generally by reference to pre-defined performance goals
established by the compensation committee as part of the regular compensation review process.
Performance goals are based on revenue and a measure of profitability (either operating income or
net income). In some cases, a portion of the bonus is also tied to the achievement of
non-financial management business objectives (MBOs) approved by the compensation committee. The
compensation committee uses the same budget prepared by management and approved by our board of
directors for operating our business in establishing these revenue and profitability goals. This
operating budget is prepared annually through a highly detailed, bottom-up process involving dozens
of employees around the world from each of our three operating segments and represents a consensus
view from the organization on the performance we can drive from our business. This same operating
budget is also used in establishing the performance goals for our other employees who receive
performance-based compensation, such as performance-based annual bonuses or sales commissions. We
believe that using the same budget for operating the business and for establishing annual
compensation performance goals helps to maximize the alignment between the interests of our
executive officers (and other employees) and our stockholders. For executive officers with
responsibility for a specific operating unit, unit revenue and unit profitability goals may also be
incorporated into the officers performance goals.
Because our operating budget is an internal tool primarily designed to assist management and the
board of directors in understanding and managing the operations of the business, it uses measures
of revenue, operating income, and net income that are different from their GAAP counterparts. As a
result, because the compensation committee establishes the compensation performance goals using
this same budget, these performance goals are also different from their GAAP counterparts and may
also be calculated differently from the non-GAAP metrics that we may disclose publicly from time to
time. For example, our internal budget targets, and therefore our performance goals, may exclude
the effect of acquisitions that occur during the year. The following table summarizes the
differences between our reported GAAP revenue, GAAP operating income, and GAAP net income and the
corresponding measures used for our operating budget and our compensation performance goals,
subject to any additional adjustments the compensation committee may deem appropriate in a
particular period:
- 164 -
|
|
|
Budget / |
|
|
Performance Goal |
|
|
Metric |
|
Differences from Corresponding GAAP Metric |
Revenue
|
|
GAAP revenue excluding the impact of fair value
adjustments relating to future support obligations under
acquired contracts which would otherwise have been
recognized on a stand-alone basis, as well as adjustments
for sales concessions related to accounts receivable
balances that existed prior to the date of an
acquisition. |
Operating income
|
|
GAAP operating income, adjusted for revenue as described
above, and adjustments related to acquisitions including
amortization of acquisition-related intangibles,
integration costs, acquisition-related write-downs,
in-process research and development, impairment of
goodwill and intangibles assets and special legal costs
and settlement income, as well adjustments for
stock-based compensation, expenses related to our
restatement and extended filing delay, and certain other
non-cash or non-recurring charges. |
Net income
|
|
GAAP net income, adjusted for revenue and operating
expenses as described above, and further adjusted for
certain non-operating expenses, namely unrealized gains
and losses on derivative financial instruments and the
income tax impact of the above adjustments. |
The revenue and profitability performance goals established by the compensation committee generally
come in the form of a range, wherein the officer may achieve a percentage of his target bonus
(generally 65-75%) at the low end of the performance range (or threshold), 100% of his target bonus
towards the middle of the performance range (target performance), and up to 200% of his target
bonus at the high end of the performance range. Below threshold, the officer is not entitled to
any of his target bonus (for that goal). For performance that falls between points on the range,
the bonus payout is calculated on a linear basis between those points. The compensation
committees objective in establishing a range is to incentivize our officers to overachieve, while
at the same time providing for a target performance number that can reasonably be achieved and
lesser levels of reward for performance that approaches but does not achieve target performance.
As a result, while the compensation committee takes into account the probability of achieving
different levels of performance in establishing the threshold, target, and maximum for each
performance goal and attempts to set the target at a level the compensation committee believes
requires strong performance on the part of the officer, the compensation committee does not
specifically attempt to identify a point in the range where it is as likely that the officer will
fail to achieve the goal as it is that he will achieve the goal. Similarly, any MBO goals
incorporated into an officers bonus plan are designed to require strong performance on the part of
the officer, but are not intended to be so difficult to achieve that it is more likely than not
that the officer will be unable to reach the goal.
- 165 -
The following summarizes the specific approach taken by the compensation committee for establishing
annual bonuses for each executive officer for the year ended January 31, 2007:
Performance vs. Payout Matrix
(applies to each officer on a goal by goal basis based on the officers
individualized bonus plan per the table below)
|
|
|
Percentage of Performance Goal |
|
|
Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (by goal) |
Less than 85%
|
|
0% |
86%
|
|
65% |
90%
|
|
75% |
95%
|
|
88% |
100%
|
|
100% |
105%
|
|
113% |
110%
|
|
125% |
120%
|
|
150% |
130%
|
|
175% |
140% or more
|
|
200% |
- 166 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual |
|
Actual |
|
|
|
|
Target |
|
Actual Achievement Against |
|
Payout |
|
Payout |
Name |
|
Description of Bonus Plan |
|
Bonus |
|
Performance Goals |
|
Percentage |
|
Amount |
Bodner
|
|
Bonus determined by the
compensation committee based
on its review of Mr. Bodners
performance and the companys
performance generally and not
by reference to pre-defined
performance goals.
|
|
None set
|
|
No pre-defined performance
goals.
|
|
Discretionary
|
|
$ |
447,300 |
|
Robinson
|
|
Bonus determined by the
compensation committee based
on its review of Mr.
Robinsons performance and
the companys performance
generally (for the partial
year of service) and not by
reference to pre-defined
performance goals.
|
|
$195,000
|
|
No pre-defined performance
goals.
|
|
Discretionary
|
|
$ |
95,400 |
(1) |
Moriah
|
|
Bonus based 25% on company
revenue, 25% on company net
income, 25% on unit revenue,
and 25% on unit contribution
margin (relating to the unit
for which Mr. Moriah was
responsible).
|
|
$175,000
|
|
Company revenue: 95.8%
Company net income: 101.7%
Unit revenue: 93.8%
Unit contribution margin: 95.2%
|
|
90%
104%
85%
88%
|
|
$ |
160,300 |
|
Sperling
|
|
Bonus based 25% on company
revenue, 25% on company net
income, 25% on unit revenue,
and 25% on unit contribution
margin (relating to the unit
for which Mr. Sperling was
responsible).
|
|
Originally approved at
$155,000, subsequently
increased to $175,000
|
|
Company revenue: 95.8%
Company net income: 101.7%
Unit revenue: 96.1%
Unit contribution margin: 106%
|
|
90%
104%
90%
115%
|
|
$ |
175,843 |
|
Parcell
|
|
Bonus based 5% on company
revenue, 5% on company net
income, 45% on unit revenue,
and 45% on unit contribution
margin (relating to the unit
for which Mr. Parcell was
responsible).
|
|
$131,753
|
|
Company revenue: 95.8%
Company net income: 101.7%
Unit revenue: 99.4%
Unit contribution margin: 95%
|
|
90%
104%
99%
88%
|
|
$ |
135,549 |
|
Fante
|
|
Bonus based 25% on company
revenue, 25% on company net
income, and 50% on MBOs.
|
|
Originally approved at
$100,000, subsequently
increased to $150,000
|
|
Company revenue: 95.8%
Company net income: 101.7%
MBO: 100%
|
|
90%
104%
100%
|
|
$ |
147,700 |
|
Nissim
|
|
Mr. Nissim began his
transition from Chief
Financial Officer in August
2006, formally resigned as
Chief Financial Officer in
December of 2006 (prior to
the end of the year ended
January 31, 2007), and was
not included in the
compensation committees
normal compensation review
process for the year ended
January 31, 2007.
|
|
None set
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
None(2)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pro-rated for partial year. |
|
(2) |
|
We are currently in arbitration with Mr. Nissim on certain compensation-related matters. |
- 167 -
Bonuses for the year ended January 31, 2007 for Messrs. Bodner and Robinson were determined by
the compensation committee based on a general performance review of Mr. Bodner and Mr. Robinson
primarily relating to the overall performance of the company and not by reference to pre-defined
performance goals.
Due to delays in the compensation committees regular review process for the year ended January 31,
2007, Mr. Bodner did not receive a salary increase during the course of that year, however, $45,000
of Mr. Bodners $447,300 bonus payment for the year was attributable to a retroactive increase in
Mr. Bodners base salary that was approved by the compensation committee after the year had ended.
The target bonuses for Mr. Sperling and Mr. Fante were increased after the original approval date
by the compensation committee based on internal pay equity considerations and increased roles and
responsibilities. These increases did not result from any accounting related adjustments described
under - Compensation and Awards During Our Extended Filing Delay Period below. The payout
amounts for Messrs. Sperling and Parcell reflect the impact of applicable exchange rates on the
payment dates.
The following summarizes the specific approach taken by the compensation committee for establishing
annual bonuses for each executive officer the year ended January 31, 2008:
Performance vs. Payout Matrix
(applies to each officer on a goal by goal basis based on the officers
individualized bonus plan per the table below)
|
|
|
Percentage of Performance Goal |
|
|
Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (by goal) |
Less than 85%
|
|
0% |
86%
|
|
65% |
90%
|
|
75% |
95%
|
|
88% |
100%
|
|
100% |
105%
|
|
113% |
110%
|
|
125% |
120%
|
|
150% |
130%
|
|
175% |
140% or more
|
|
200% |
- 168 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual |
|
Actual |
|
|
|
|
Target |
|
Actual Achievement Against |
|
Payout |
|
Payout |
Name |
|
Description of Bonus Plan |
|
Bonus |
|
Performance Goals |
|
Percentage |
|
Amount |
Bodner
|
|
Bonus based 50% on
company revenue and 50%
on company operating
income.
|
|
$ |
433,700 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating income: 114%
|
|
99.30% 134.40%
|
|
$506,616 |
Robinson
|
|
Bonus based 50% on
company revenue and 50%
on company operating
income.
|
|
$ |
204,000 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating income: 114%
|
|
99.30% 134.40%
|
|
$238,298 |
Moriah
|
|
Bonus based 50% on
company revenue and 50%
on company operating
income.
|
|
$ |
182,900 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating income: 114%
|
|
99.30% 134.40%
|
|
$213,650 |
Sperling
|
|
Bonus based 25% on
company revenue, 25% on
company operating
income, 25% on unit
revenue, and 25% on unit
contribution margin
(relating to the unit
for which Mr. Sperling
was responsible).
|
|
$ |
182,900 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating
income: 114%
Unit revenue: 103%
Unit contribution
margin: 117.6%
|
|
99.30%
134.40%
125.20% 137.40%
|
|
$245,586 |
Parcell
|
|
Bonus based 25% on
company revenue, 25% on
company operating
income, 25% on unit
revenue, and 25% on unit
contribution margin
(relating to the unit
for which Mr. Parcell
was responsible).
|
|
$ |
139,169 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating
income: 114%
Unit revenue: 98.3%
Unit contribution
margin: 100.1%
|
|
99.30%
134.40%
85.80% 100.30%
|
|
$146,356 |
Fante
|
|
Bonus based 25% on
company revenue, 25% on
company operating
income, and 50% on MBOs.
|
|
$ |
104,500 |
|
|
Company revenue: 99%
Company operating income: 114%
MBO: 150%
|
|
99.30% 134.40% 150%
|
|
$165,000 (includes
$25,590
discretionary
bonus) |
The establishment of the company and unit performance goals for annual bonuses for the year ended
January 31, 2008 was delayed until the approval of a revised operating budget by the board of
directors following our May 2007 acquisition of Witness.
Mr. Fantes bonus reflects both a discretionary bonus from the compensation committee and the
overachievement of his MBO goals based on his performance in the consummation of the Witness
acquisition, in the management of the patent litigations with NICE,
and in supporting the audit
committee in connection with the internal investigation. This discretionary bonus did not result
from any accounting related adjustments described under - Compensation and Awards During Our
Extended Filing Delay Period below. The payout amounts for Messrs. Sperling and Parcell reflect
the impact of applicable exchange rates on the payment dates.
For more information about the threshold, target, and maximum bonus for the years ended January 31,
2008 and January 31, 2007 for each officer who received a bonus qualifying as non-equity incentive
plan compensation, see the table entitled Grants of Plan-Based Awards for the Year Ended January
31, 2008 and the Year Ended January 31, 2007 below. For more information about the actual bonuses
paid to each officer for the years ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007, see the table
entitled Summary Compensation Table below.
- 169 -
Equity Awards
Each of our executive officers is eligible to receive an annual equity award. Equity awards for
executive officers are normally made as part of our regular annual equity grant to employees.
Annual equity awards are established by the stock option committee based on recommended award
levels resulting from the compensation committees regular compensation review process. In
establishing each officers recommended annual equity award, in addition to the factors considered
as part of the compensation review process generally, the compensation committee places special
focus on internal pay equity among the executive officers.
Where possible, the board of directors (or the compensation committee or stock option committee)
endeavors to establish the grant date well in advance of the grant and to schedule vesting dates to
occur at a time when we would not normally be in a quarterly trading blackout (to reduce the
chances that vesting-related tax events occur during blackout periods), however, due to our
extended filing delay and the complexity of our equity granting practice during this period,
in recent years, grant dates have fluctuated. Apart from seeking to grant or schedule vesting
dates outside of blackout periods, we do not time our grants by reference to the release of
earnings or other material information.
Prior to the year ended January 31, 2006, our preferred form of equity award was stock options. In
recent years, we have moved to restricted stock and subsequently to restricted stock units as the
preferred form of award. This move from stock options to restricted stock / restricted stock units
has resulted from a desire to decrease equity compensation expense under SFAS No. 123(R), to
decrease the amount of dilution attributable to using equity compensation, and to improve the
retentive effect and perceived value of our equity awards. The compensation committee periodically
reviews the elements of compensation it uses, however, and we may in the future incorporate stock
options as a component of our compensation packages for executive officers or others. To the
extent that stock options are used, the exercise price of such options is always the closing price
of our stock on the date of board of directors or stock option committee approval.
Since the beginning of the year ended January 31, 2008, annual equity awards for our executive
officers have been divided evenly between time-vested awards and performance-vested awards (as
discussed below, due to our extended filing delay, we were unable to make equity awards to
employees in the year ended January 31, 2007 and therefore also did not make equity awards to
executive officers in that year). We moved to this 50-50 mix in order to further align officer
incentives with company performance and put a greater proportion of our officers compensation at
risk. Time-based equity awards for officers normally vest over a three- or four-year period.
Performance-based equity awards to date have been comprised of three separate vesting periods
corresponding to three separate performance periods, each concluding at the end of a fiscal year,
though in some cases, the performance period has been less than 12 months in duration. The stock
option committee sets the performance goal for each such performance period following the beginning
of the performance period. We believe that waiting until the beginning of the applicable
performance period to set the performance goal for that period allows much greater precision in
tailoring the incentive and retentive effect of these awards than would setting the goals for all
periods at the time of grant.
- 170 -
The performance goal for each such performance period is revenue.
The stock option committee establishes the revenue goal for each performance
period based on a recommendation from the compensation committee. In making this recommendation,
the compensation committee uses the same budget prepared by management and approved by our board of
directors for operating our business. As described above in the discussion of annual bonuses, we
believe that using the same budget for operating the business and for establishing annual
compensation performance goals helps to maximize the alignment between the interests of our
executive officers and our stockholders. As described above with respect
to our annual bonus plans, because our revenue performance goals come
from our annual operating budget, they are expressed on a non-GAAP basis.
See - Elements of Compensation Annual Bonus above
for more information.
The revenue performance goal established by the stock option committee generally comes in the form
of a range, wherein the officer may earn a portion of the award for the applicable performance
period (generally ranging from 50-75%) at the low end of the performance range (or threshold) and
100% of the award at target performance. The stock option committee may
also provide for the opportunity to earn in excess of 100% of the target award in the event actual
performance exceeds target performance, however, the stock option committee did not provide for
such an opportunity for awards made prior to the year ended January 31, 2010. For performance that
falls between points on the range, the amount earned is calculated on a linear basis between those
points. As with the compensation committees approach for annual bonuses, the stock option
committees objective in establishing a range for the performance goal is to provide for a target
performance number that can reasonably be achieved and lesser levels of reward for performance that
approaches but does not achieve target performance. As a result, while the stock option committee
takes into account the probability of achieving different levels of performance in establishing the
threshold and target performance levels of the range and attempts to set the target performance
number at a level the stock option committee believes requires strong performance on the part of
the officer, the stock option committee does not specifically attempt to identify a point in the
range where it is as likely that the officer will fail to achieve the goal as it is that he will
achieve the goal.
As noted above, we did not make equity awards to executive officers in the year ended January 31,
2007. The following summarizes the performance versus payout matrix established by the stock
option committee for the performance period ended January 31, 2008:
|
|
|
Performance vs. Payout Matrix |
|
|
Percentage of Eligible Performance |
Percentage of Revenue Goal Achieved |
|
Shares Earned for Period |
Less than 98.3%
|
|
0% |
98.30%
|
|
75% |
100% or more
|
|
100% |
- 171 -
The stock option committee determines the amount earned by each officer under his outstanding
performance equity awards after year-end following the finalization of results for the applicable
performance period.
For the year ended January 31, 2008, the stock option committee determined that 99.9% of the
revenue goal had been achieved, resulting in each of the officers earning 99.3% of the performance
shares eligible to be earned in such performance period.
For information about the actual equity awards made to each officer for the years ended January 31,
2008 and January 31, 2007, see the table entitled Grants of Plan-Based Awards for the Year Ended
January 31, 2008 and the Year Ended January 31, 2007 below.
We do not presently have any stock ownership guidelines in place for our executive officers,
however, our insider trading policy prohibits all personnel (including officers and directors) from
short-selling in our securities, from short-term trades in our securities (open market purchase and
sale within three months), and from trading options in our securities. Due to our extended filing
delay, other than limited dispositions to the company to cover tax liabilities in connection
with vestings, none of our current executive officers has been able to sell any of our securities,
including shares underlying equity awards, since January 2006.
Other Pay Elements
Except as described in the next section with respect to our extended filing delay period, we do not
currently make use of other equity or cash based long-term incentive compensation arrangements,
defined-benefit plans, or deferred compensation plans. We provide a limited amount of perquisites
to our executive officers, which vary from officer to officer and region to region and include use
of a company car or an annual car allowance, fuel reimbursement allowance, an annual allowance for
professional legal, tax, or financial advice, certain statutory payments, payments for accrued
vacation days (prior to separation from service), and supplemental company-paid life insurance.
Executive officers in the United States also receive the same partial match of their 401(k)
contributions as all other U.S. employees. Executive officers in the United Kingdom receive
company contributions to a retirement fund on the same basis as other U.K. employees. Executive
officers in Israel receive company contributions to a retirement fund, a severance fund, and a
continuing education fund, in each case, on the same basis as other Israeli employees. Executive
officers receive the same health insurance and company-paid group life and disability insurance
offered to all other employees in the country in which the executive officer is employed.
For information about the amount of other pay elements received by each officer for the years ended
January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007, see the tables entitled Summary Compensation Table and
All Other Compensation below.
- 172 -
Employment Agreements
As of the filing date of this report, each of our executive officers other than Mr. Sperling is
party to a formal employment agreement with us. Mr. Sperling has a customary offer letter from us
and a letter agreement regarding the release of his severance, retirement, and disability insurance
funds in the event of a termination event, but does not currently have a formal employment
agreement.
Several of the formal employment agreements or the most recent material amendments thereto with our
executive officers have been signed only recently (during or following the year ended January 31, 2010) and
others have been in place for only part of the period covered by this Item 11. As a result,
neither Mr. Bodner nor Mr. Sperling was covered by a formal employment agreement at any time during
the period covered by this Item 11 (i.e., through January 31, 2008). Messrs. Fante and Moriah were
covered by formal employment agreements during the year ended January 31, 2008, but not during the
year ended January 31, 2007, and did not sign their most recent amendments until the year ended
January 31, 2010. Mr. Robinson has been covered by a formal employment agreement from and after
the year ended January 31, 2007. Mr. Parcell has been covered by a formal employment agreement for
all periods covered by this Item 11.
The following table summarizes the dates that each formal employment agreement or material
amendment was signed:
|
|
|
Name |
|
Date of Employment Agreement or Material Amendment |
Bodner
|
|
Employment agreement signed on February 23, 2010 |
|
Robinson
|
|
Employment agreement signed on August 14, 2006 |
|
Moriah
|
|
Initial employment agreement signed on September 18, 2007 |
|
|
Amended and restated agreement signed on October 29, 2009 |
|
Sperling
|
|
No formal employment agreement as of the filing date of
this report |
|
Parcell
|
|
Initial employment agreement signed on April 16, 2001 |
|
|
Supplemental employment agreement signed on June 13, 2008 |
|
Fante
|
|
Initial employment agreement signed on September 18, 2007 |
|
|
Amended and restated agreement signed on November 10,
2009 |
Mr. Parcells original employment agreement was signed in 2001 in accordance with our local U.K.
practice of entering into employment agreements with all U.K. employees. The other officer
employment agreements were put in place following the negotiation of our first formal executive
employment agreement in connection with the recruiting of Mr. Robinson as our new Chief Financial
Officer. This process of entering into formal employment agreements with our executive officers
has progressed iteratively during our extended filing delay period and at different rates with each
of our officers. We are currently in discussions regarding a formal employment agreement with Mr.
Sperling and amended employment agreements with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Parcell. All of the
employments agreements and amended agreements entered into with our officers since 2006 have been
designed in consultation with the compensation committees independent compensation consultant.
- 173 -
The terms and conditions of each of the executive officer employment agreements are discussed in
greater detail below under - Executive Officer Severance Benefits and Change in Control
Provisions, but in general, the employment agreements entered into with Messrs. Robinson, Fante,
and Moriah during 2006 and 2007, and the supplemental employment agreement entered into with Mr.
Parcell in 2008, provided for 12 months (inclusive of any notice period required by the officers
existing employment agreement) of severance and certain other continued benefits in the event of an
involuntary termination, as well as acceleration of unvested equity in the event of an involuntary
termination in connection with a change in control. Mr. Robinsons agreement provides for
acceleration of unvested equity in connection with a change in control whether or not his
employment was terminated. The new employment agreements or amended agreements entered into beginning in
2009 as part of the compensation committee review of executive compensation arrangements during
2008 and 2009 described below provide, among other things, for greater amounts of severance in the
event of an involuntary termination in connection with a change in control as well as excise tax
gross-ups for our U.S. executive officers.
Clawback Policy
Each of our executive officers who is party to an employment agreement with us is subject to a
clawback provision which allows us to recoup from the officer, or cancel, all or a portion of the
officers incentive compensation (including bonuses and equity awards) for a particular year if we
are required to restate our financial statements for that year due to material noncompliance with
any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws as a result of the officers
misconduct. The clawback applies from and after the year in which the employment agreement was
first signed to awards made during the term of the agreement. The amount to be recovered or
forfeited is the amount by which the incentive compensation in the year in question exceeded the
amount that would have been awarded had the financial statements originally been filed as restated.
Compensation and Awards During Our Extended Filing Delay Period
Introduction
Due to the protracted length of our extended filing delay period, we have placed special emphasis
on retention in our compensation philosophy during the last several years. As noted above, this
has impacted the sizing of executive officer and other key employee equity awards, and has also
included the use of special retention awards and bonuses, as well as modification of existing
awards to improve their retentive effect, and ensuring that executive compensation packages are at
market levels and contain market terms and conditions.
- 174 -
Due to our restatement and lack of audited financial statements during our extended filing delay
period, for compensation for the years ended January 31, 2007 and January 31, 2008, performance
goals for cash bonuses and for performance-based equity, and corresponding year-end payout and
vesting calculations, have been based on preliminary, unaudited financial metrics and results. As
a result, in addition to the regular discretion retained by the compensation committee in awarding
annual bonuses, these performance goals and/or these year-end payouts and vesting calculations have
been subject to equitable adjustment by the compensation committee or the stock option committee,
as applicable, in connection with their regular annual determination of whether performance goals
have been achieved, to take into account changes resulting from our revenue recognition review and
other accounting adjustments unrelated to our operations. The compensation and stock option
committees reserved the right to make such equitable adjustments to ensure that neither the company
nor the officers unfairly benefited or were unfairly penalized by changes to our financial
performance metrics resulting solely from changes to our accounting methodology.
Granting of Equity Awards
As a result of our inability to file required SEC reports during our extended filing delay period,
we ceased using our registration statement on Form S-8 to make equity grants to employees. As a
result, on March 27, 2006, we suspended option exercises under our equity incentive plans and
terminated purchases under our employee stock purchase plan for all employees, including
executive officers. In addition, we did not make any equity awards to employees, including
executive officers, during the year ended January 31, 2007. Our board of directors did not believe
it was appropriate to make equity grants to executive officers under an exemption from registration
at a time when grants could not be made to other employees. In connection with our suspension of
option exercises, on March 27, 2006, the stock option committee also adopted a resolution generally
extending the exercise period of our stock options for employees, including executive officers,
whose employment is terminated during our extended filing delay period until the 30th
day following the date the board of directors determines we have become compliant with our SEC
filing obligations (subject, however, to the original term of such stock options).
On May 24, 2007, we received a no-action letter from the SEC upon which we relied to make a
broad-based equity grant to employees under a no-sale theory. The stock option committee approved
this grant approximately 30 days later on July 2, 2007. On this same date, the board of directors
and the stock option committee also approved an equity grant to our directors, executive officers,
and certain other executives who were accredited investors in reliance upon a private placement
exemption from the federal securities laws. In addition to a regular annual equity award, the July
2, 2007 equity award to our executive officers also included a special time-vested retention grant
(the 2007 retention grants). This special time-vested retention grant corresponded to special
cash-based retention bonuses for certain key employees awarded during 2007 which the compensation
committee deemed necessary to help retain these key employees during our extended filing delay
period (the 2007 retention bonuses). Other than Mr. Parcell, who was not an executive officer in
the year ended January 31, 2007 and who received his 2007 retention award part in cash and part in
stock, none of our executive officers received a 2007 retention bonus. These 2007 special
retention programs were designed in consultation with the compensation committees independent
compensation consultant.
We have continued to rely on our no-action relief to make broad-based equity grants during our
extended filing delay period, while simultaneously making annual grants to our executive officers
and directors under a private placement exemption. We believe that these continued broad-based
equity awards have been an important part of our retention initiatives and have also helped to
incentivize participants and to build long-term commitment and goodwill to the company.
- 175 -
Modification of Equity Awards
Other than awards to our independent directors, all of the equity awards granted in the years ended
January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2009 (including the 2007 retention grants award to the executive
officers) were made subject to special compliance vesting conditions which override the regular
time-vesting or performance-vesting schedule of the awards. These compliance vesting conditions
require that we be both current with our SEC filings and that our common stock be re-listed on
NASDAQ or another nationally-recognized exchange for the awards to vest. The 2008 awards also
require that we have received shareholder approval of a new equity compensation plan or have
additional share capacity under an existing shareholder-approved equity compensation plan for the
2008 awards to vest. If any of these compliance vesting conditions is not satisfied on the date
the awards would otherwise vest, the portion of the award that would otherwise vest remains
unvested until such time as all of the applicable compliance
vesting conditions are satisfied, except that awards granted to non-officers in 2008 vest and
settle in cash if the compliance vesting conditions are not satisfied on the awards vesting date
(unless subsequently modified by the stock option committee). This feature was included in the
2008 awards to non-officer employees as part of our retention initiative in lieu of a 2008
retention bonus program.
Following the payment of the 2007 retention bonuses in mid-2007 and early 2008 to certain key
employees (other than executive officers, except, as noted above, for Mr. Parcell) and the cash
settlement of the first half of the 2008 equity awards for employees (other than executive
officers) in April 2009, the compensation and stock option committees concluded that, in light of
these cash payments to other employees, the inability of the executive officers to derive any
present value from their outstanding equity awards (as a result of our extended filing delay
period), and continued officer retention concerns on the part of senior management, the officers
(i) should be permitted to vest into the portions of their outstanding equity awards that would
otherwise have vested but for the compliance vesting conditions and
(ii) to the extent feasible, should not be subject to
compliance vesting conditions under future equity awards. The compensation and stock option
committees believed that this approach of removing the risk of loss on the earned portions of
these awards was important in ensuring that the officers were not being treated unfairly vis-à-vis
other grantees and was preferable to paying a portion of these awards in cash as we did for other
grantees. As a result, the compensation and stock option committees authorized us to enter into
amendments with each of the executive officers to remove the compliance vesting conditions from
their 2007 and 2008 equity awards, thereby permitting these awards to vest on their original
schedule. As of the filing date of this report, we have finalized most of these amendments. In
addition, the 2009 annual equity awards to our executive officers approved on March 4, 2009 and May
20, 2009 (unlike the grants made to other employees) did not contain these compliance vesting
conditions.
- 176 -
Review of Executive Compensation Arrangements
Over the course of the second half of 2008 and throughout 2009, the compensation committee, in
consultation with its independent compensation consultant and other advisors, undertook a review of
the employment terms of our senior management, including our executive officers, to ensure that
these arrangements were at market levels and contained market terms and conditions. This review
was motivated both by a desire to continue to improve executive retention during our extended
filing delay period as well as by a desire to remain competitive from a compensation perspective
generally. As a result of this process, we have entered into, or are currently in discussions
regarding, new or amended employment agreements with each of our executive officers to provide,
among other things, for enhanced severance benefits in the event of a termination in connection
with a corporate transaction. A more detailed discussion of these updated arrangements is provided
under - Executive Officer Employment Agreements, Severance Benefits and Change in Control
Provisions below. In addition to the goals of enhancing executive officer retention and bringing
the terms of our executive employment arrangements up to market generally, the compensation
committee also believed that it was in our best interest to provide appropriate change in control
protections to our executive officers so they would not be distracted by personal considerations in
the event of a business combination transaction that may be beneficial to our stockholders but may
result in the loss of the officers position.
2009 Retention Awards
In 2009, we entered into retention award letter agreements with each of our executive officers
which provide for the payment of cash bonuses over a two-year period ending in April 2011 (the
2009 retention bonuses). At Mr. Bodners request, the compensation committee did not approve a
2009 retention bonus for him. As with the 2007 retention programs, the 2009 retention bonus
program was designed in consultation with the compensation committees independent compensation
consultant.
Tax Implications
To maintain flexibility in compensating executive officers in a manner designed to promote varying
corporate goals, the compensation committee has not adopted a policy that all compensation must be
deductible under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, however, we attempt to satisfy the
requirements for deductibility under Section 162(m) wherever possible.
- 177 -
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The compensation committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis
section of this report with management. Based on its review and discussions with management
regarding such section of this report, the compensation committee recommended to the board of
directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section be included in this report.
Compensation Committee:
Andre Dahan, Chairman
Victor DeMarines
Kenneth Minihan
Shefali Shah
The foregoing report shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement
incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that we
specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed
under such Acts.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Throughout 2005 and until April 28, 2006, the compensation committee of the board of directors
consisted of three non-independent directors designated by Comverse Kobi Alexander, David
Kreinberg, and William Sorin. On April 28, 2006, these three non-independent directors resigned
from the board of directors and all committees thereof. On May 11, 2006, our four independent
directors, Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Safir, and Myers, were appointed to the compensation
committee. On September 11, 2007, Mr. Dahan and Avi Aronovitz were added to the compensation
committee. Mr. Aronovitz was subsequently replaced by Ms. Shah in connection with his November 24,
2008 resignation from the board of directors. On February 26, 2010,
the compensation committee was reconstituted by the board of
directors to consist of Messrs. Dahan, DeMarines, and Minihan, and
Ms. Shah, with Mr. Dahan to serve as the committees chairman. No executive officer has served on the board of
directors or compensation committee of any other entity that has or has had one or more executive
officers who served as a member of the companys board of directors or compensation committee.
None of the members of the compensation committee is or has ever been an officer or employee of the
company.
- 178 -
Executive Compensation
Summary Compensation Table
The following table lists the annual compensation of our named executive officers for the years
ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Option |
|
|
Incentive Plan |
|
|
All Other |
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position |
|
January 31, |
|
|
Salary |
|
|
Bonus |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Compensation |
|
|
Compensation |
|
|
Total ($) |
|
(a) |
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
|
(d) |
|
|
(e) |
|
|
(f) |
|
|
(g) |
|
|
(h) |
|
|
(i) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($) |
|
|
($)(1) |
|
|
($)(2) |
|
|
($)(2) |
|
|
($)(3) |
|
|
($)(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
506,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,531,006 |
|
|
|
985,935 |
|
|
|
506,616 |
|
|
|
36,412 |
|
|
|
3,566,769 |
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer and Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
440,000 |
(5) |
|
|
447,300 |
(5) |
|
|
960,799 |
|
|
|
1,209,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,337 |
|
|
|
3,095,389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
397,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
238,298 |
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
999,652 |
|
Chief Financial Officer and
Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
151,458 |
(6) |
|
|
95,400 |
(6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
254,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427,212 |
|
|
|
319,731 |
|
|
|
213,650 |
|
|
|
11,969 |
|
|
|
1,312,562 |
|
President, Verint Witness
Actionable Solutions and Verint
Video Intelligence Solutions
and
Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
325,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,656 |
|
|
|
434,887 |
|
|
|
160,300 |
|
|
|
12,731 |
|
|
|
1,106,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
277,601 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
420,830 |
|
|
|
315,927 |
|
|
|
245,586 |
(7) |
|
|
93,388 |
|
|
|
1,353,332 |
|
President, Verint
Communications Intelligence and
Investigative Solutions and
Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
244,404 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
173,656 |
|
|
|
392,769 |
|
|
|
175,843 |
(8) |
|
|
93,621 |
|
|
|
1,080,293 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
376,470 |
(9) |
|
|
67,413 |
(9) |
|
|
171,156 |
|
|
|
158,206 |
|
|
|
146,356 |
(9) |
|
|
52,188 |
|
|
|
971,789 |
|
Managing Director, EMEA and
Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
334,674 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,753 |
|
|
|
204,367 |
|
|
|
135,549 |
(10) |
|
|
46,963 |
|
|
|
790,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
292,500 |
|
|
|
25,590 |
(11) |
|
|
258,757 |
|
|
|
187,191 |
|
|
|
139,410 |
|
|
|
48,672 |
|
|
|
952,120 |
|
Chief Legal Officer, Chief
Compliance Officer, Secretary
and Corporate Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
280,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,159 |
|
|
|
241,713 |
|
|
|
147,700 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
731,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
219,230 |
(12) |
|
|
|
(12) |
|
|
253,002 |
|
|
|
330,293 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,827 |
|
|
|
876,352 |
|
Former Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes annual bonuses paid based on general performance reviews by the compensation
committee not tied to pre-defined performance goals or other special bonuses. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes for
years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), for restricted
stock units, shares of restricted stock, and stock options awarded in and prior to the
years ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007. For further discussion of our
accounting for equity compensation, see Note 15, Employee Benefit Plans to the
consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. |
|
(3) |
|
Amount represents performance-based annual cash bonuses tied to pre-defined performance
goals. |
|
(4) |
|
See the table below for additional information on All Other Compensation amounts for
the years ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007. All Other Compensation does not
include premiums for group life, health, or disability insurance that is available
generally to all salaried employees in the country in which the executive officer is
employed and do not discriminate in scope, terms, or operation in favor of our executive
officers or directors. |
|
(5) |
|
Mr. Bodner did not receive a salary increase during the year ended January 31, 2007,
however, $45,000 of Mr. Bodners bonus payment for the year ended January 31, 2007 was
attributable to a retroactive increase in Mr. Bodners base salary for such year that was
approved by the compensation committee after the year had ended. This $45,000 amount is
included in Mr. Bodners bonus for the year ended January 31, 2007 in column (d) and is not
reflected in his salary for the year ended January 31, 2007 in column (c). |
- 179 -
|
(6) |
|
Represents pro rated portion of $325,000 base salary and of $189,000 bonus approved by
the compensation committee for Mr. Robinson for partial year of service in the year ended
January 31, 2007. |
|
(7) |
|
Mr. Sperling received a salary of NIS 1,128,000 per annum ($277,601 based on the
average exchange rate from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008 of NIS 1=$0.2461) and
a performance-based bonus of NIS 794,262 ($245,586 based on the June 1, 2008 exchange rate
of NIS 1=$0.3092). |
|
(8) |
|
Mr. Sperling received a salary of NIS 1,080,000 per annum ($244,404 based on the
average exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007 of NIS 1=$0.2263) and
a performance-based bonus of NIS 731,155 ($175,843 based on the April 1, 2007 exchange rate
of NIS 1=$0.2405). |
|
(9) |
|
Mr. Parcell received a salary of £188,000 per annum ($376,470 based on the average
exchange rate from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008 of £1= $2.0025) and a
performance-based bonus of £72,572 ($146,356) paid in installments based on the average
exchange rate from July 1, 2007 through February 29, 2008 of £1= $2.0167). Mr. Parcell
also received £33,429 ($67,413 based on the August 31, 2007 exchange rate of £1=$2.0166)
representing one-half of his 2007 cash retention bonus. The remainder of Mr. Parcells
2007 cash retention bonus was earned and paid in 2008 and is not included in the table
above. |
|
(10) |
|
Mr. Parcell received a salary of £180,000 per annum ($334,674 based on the average
exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007 of £1= $1.8593) and a
performance-based bonus of £70,595 ($135,549) paid in installments based on the average
exchange rate from August 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007 of £1= $1.9201). |
|
(11) |
|
Represents discretionary increase to Mr. Fantes performance-based bonus for the year
ended January 31, 2008. |
|
(12) |
|
Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007. For
the year ended January 31, 2007, Mr. Nissim received a salary of NIS 968,760 per annum
($219,230 based on the average exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007
of NIS 1=$0.2263). Mr. Nissim did not receive a bonus for the year ended January 31, 2007.
We are currently in arbitration with Mr. Nissim on certain compensation-related matters. |
All Other Compensation Table(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Car Allowance or Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
Employer |
|
|
Severance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Company |
|
|
Professional |
|
|
Accrued |
|
|
Statutory |
|
|
Supplemental |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
Retirement |
|
|
Fund |
|
|
Study Fund |
|
|
Car Plus |
|
|
Advice |
|
|
Vacation |
|
|
Recreation |
|
|
Life |
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
January 31, |
|
|
Contribution |
|
|
Contribution |
|
|
Contribution |
|
|
Fuel Allowance |
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
Payout |
|
|
Payment |
|
|
Insurance/Other(7) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,532 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,880 |
|
|
|
36,412 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,007 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,330 |
|
|
|
37,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,969 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
2008 |
(2) |
|
|
13,851 |
|
|
|
23,154 |
|
|
|
21,846 |
|
|
|
20,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,681 |
|
|
|
548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,388 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
(3) |
|
|
12,234 |
|
|
|
20,500 |
|
|
|
20,170 |
|
|
|
15,685 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,528 |
|
|
|
504 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell |
|
|
2008 |
(4) |
|
|
22,428 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,188 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
(5) |
|
|
19,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
4,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
48,672 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim |
|
|
2007 |
(6) |
|
|
11,041 |
|
|
|
18,753 |
|
|
|
17,415 |
|
|
|
11,123 |
|
|
|
1,810 |
|
|
|
12,965 |
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73,827 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
This supplemental table is provided as additional information for our stockholders and
is not intended as a substitute for the information presented in the Summary Compensation
Table. |
- 180 -
|
|
|
(2) |
|
For the year ended January 31, 2008, Mr. Sperling received a company contribution to
his retirement fund of NIS 56,284 ($13,851), to his severance fund of NIS 94,084 ($23,154),
to his study fund of NIS 88,769 ($21,846), payout of accrued vacation of NIS 55,592
($13,681), a statutory recreation payment of NIS 2,226 ($548), and use of a company car
plus a fuel reimbursement allowance which cost us NIS 82,520 ($20,308) for the period, in
each case, based on the average exchange rate from February 1, 2007 through January 31,
2008 of NIS 1=$0.2461). |
|
(3) |
|
For the year ended January 31, 2007, Mr. Sperling received a company contribution to
his retirement fund of NIS 54,062 ($12,234), to his severance fund of NIS 90,586 ($20,500),
to his study fund of NIS 89,129 ($20,170), payout of accrued vacation of NIS 108,386
($24,528), a statutory recreation payment of NIS 2,226 ($504), and use of a company car
plus a fuel reimbursement allowance which cost us NIS 69,310 ($15,685) for the period, in
each case, based on the average exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31,
2007 of NIS 1=$0.2263). |
|
(4) |
|
For the year ended January 31, 2008, Mr. Parcell received a company contribution to his
retirement fund of £11,200 ($22,428) and use of a company car plus a fuel reimbursement
allowance which cost us £14,862 ($29,760) for the period, in each case, based on the
average exchange rate from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008 of £1= $2.0025). |
|
(5) |
|
For the year ended January 31, 2007, Mr. Parcell received a company contribution to his
retirement fund of £10,725 ($19,941) and use of a company car plus a fuel reimbursement
allowance which cost us £14,534 ($27,022) for the period, in each case, based on the
average exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007 of £1= $1.8593). |
|
(6) |
|
Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007. For
the year ended January 31, 2007, Mr. Nissim received a company contribution to his
retirement fund of NIS 48,789 ($11,041), to his severance fund of NIS 82,869 ($18,753), to
his study fund of NIS 76,954 ($17,415), a professional advice allowance of NIS 8,000
($1,810), payout of accrued vacation of NIS 57,292 ($12,965), a statutory recreation
payment of NIS 3,180 ($720), and use of a company car plus a fuel reimbursement allowance
which cost us NIS 49,153 ($11,123) for the period, in each case, based on the average
exchange rate from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007 of NIS 1=$0.2263). |
|
(7) |
|
For Mr. Bodner, represents cost of a supplemental
company-paid life insurance policy. For Mr. Fante, represents a
one-time relocation allowance. |
Grants of Plan-Based Awards for the Year Ended January 31, 2008 and the Year Ended January 31, 2007
The following table sets forth information concerning equity grants to our named executive officers
during the year ended January 31, 2008 as well as the range of possible payouts under non-equity
incentive plan awards made in the year ended January 31, 2008 and the year ended January 31, 2007.
No equity grants were made during the year ended January 31, 2007.
- 181 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
123(R) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards: |
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
|
Board |
|
|
123(R) |
|
|
Estimated Possible Payouts |
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts |
|
|
Shares of |
|
|
of Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
Approval |
|
|
Grant |
|
|
Under Non-Equity Incentive |
|
|
Under Equity Incentive Plan |
|
|
Stock or |
|
|
and Option |
|
Name |
|
Type of Award |
|
of Grant |
|
|
Date |
|
|
Plan Awards |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Units |
|
|
Awards(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threshold |
|
|
Target |
|
|
Max |
|
|
Threshold |
|
|
Target |
|
|
Max |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($)(1) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Bodner |
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(3) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,300 |
|
|
$ |
1,732,351 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,800 |
|
|
$ |
1,193,876 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,075 |
(13) |
|
|
18,766 |
|
|
|
18,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
347,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,075 |
(13) |
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
411,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,384 |
(13) |
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
63,808 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
325,275 |
|
|
|
433,700 |
|
|
|
867,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
RSU (Time-vested welcome grant)(6) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,400 |
|
|
$ |
689,248 |
|
|
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(7) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,900 |
|
|
$ |
396,933 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,800 |
|
|
$ |
793,866 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,225 |
(13) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
79,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,225 |
(13) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
94,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,150 |
(13) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14,620 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
153,000 |
|
|
|
204,000 |
|
|
|
408,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(3) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
$ |
347,701 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,200 |
|
|
$ |
867,714 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,825 |
(13) |
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
69,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,825 |
(13) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
82,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,884 |
(13) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,808 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
137,175 |
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
365,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Annual Bonus |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
113,750 |
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling |
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(3) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
$ |
347,701 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,200 |
|
|
$ |
836,944 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,825 |
(13) |
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
69,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,825 |
(13) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
82,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,884 |
(13) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,808 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus(8) |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
137,175 |
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
365,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Annual Bonus(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original: |
|
Original: |
|
Original: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,750 |
|
|
|
155,000 |
|
|
|
310,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised: |
|
Revised: |
|
Revised: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
113,750 |
|
|
|
175,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell |
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(3) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
$ |
261,545 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
$ |
246,160 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,125 |
(13) |
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
52,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,125 |
(13) |
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
62,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,417 |
(13) |
|
|
2,834 |
|
|
|
2,834 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
9,636 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus(10) |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
104,377 |
|
|
|
139,169 |
|
|
|
278,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Annual Bonus(11) |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
85,639 |
|
|
|
131,753 |
|
|
|
263,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante |
|
RSU (Time-vested grant)(3) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
$ |
178,466 |
|
|
|
RSU (Retention grant)(4) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,200 |
|
|
$ |
775,404 |
|
|
|
RSU (Performance-vested grant)(5) |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
1/31/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,450 |
(13) |
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
35,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
5/28/2008 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,450 |
(13) |
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
42,429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
|
|
|
3/18/2009 |
(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
967 |
(13) |
|
|
1,934 |
|
|
|
1,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,576 |
|
|
|
2007 Annual Bonus |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
78,375 |
|
|
|
104,500 |
|
|
|
209,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Annual Bonus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original: |
|
Original: |
|
Original: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,000 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revised: |
|
Revised: |
|
Revised: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
97,500 |
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The threshold column corresponds to the minimum bonus payable to the executive officer
assuming that minimum performance goals are achieved. If minimum performance goals are not
achieved, the bonus payable to the executive officer would be zero. |
- 182 -
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The 123(R) grant date fair value of equity awards is based on the target number of
shares and calculated using the closing price of our common stock on the 123(R) grant date,
which is not always the same as the date the stock option committee approved the grant.
The following table summarizes the grant date fair value of the July 2, 2007
performance-vested awards based on the target number of shares and calculated using the
closing price of our common stock on July 2, 2007 ($30.77), the date the stock option
committee approved the grants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value on |
|
|
|
Date of Board |
|
|
Target |
|
|
Date of Board |
|
Name |
|
Approval of Grant |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Approval |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
18,766 |
|
|
$ |
577,430 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
$ |
577,461 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
18,767 |
|
|
$ |
577,461 |
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
$ |
132,311 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
$ |
132,311 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
$ |
132,311 |
|
Elan Moriah |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
$ |
115,880 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
$ |
115,911 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
$ |
115,911 |
|
Meir Sperling |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
3,766 |
|
|
$ |
115,880 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
$ |
115,911 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
$ |
115,911 |
|
David Parcell |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
$ |
87,171 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
2,833 |
|
|
$ |
87,171 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
2,834 |
|
|
$ |
87,202 |
|
Peter Fante |
|
7/2/07 (1st tranche) |
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
$ |
59,478 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (2nd tranche) |
|
|
1,933 |
|
|
$ |
59,478 |
|
|
|
7/2/07 (3rd tranche) |
|
|
1,934 |
|
|
$ |
59,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For further discussion of our accounting for equity compensation, see Note 15, Employee
Benefit Plans to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 15. |
|
(3) |
|
This award vests 33% on March 15, 2008, 33% on March 15, 2009, and 34% on July 2, 2010
and as of January 31, 2008 was subject to the special vesting conditions described in
Narrative to Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. |
|
(4) |
|
2007 special retention equity award discussed in the Compensation Discussion and
Analysis above. This award vests 50% on March 15, 2008 and 50% on July 2, 2010 and as of
January 31, 2008 was subject to the special vesting conditions described in Narrative to
Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. |
|
(5) |
|
This award vests 1/3 upon the stock option committees determination of our achievement
of specified revenue targets (set by the stock option committee for the relevant
performance period) for the period from August 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008, 1/3 upon
the determination of such achievement for the period from February 1, 2008 through January
31, 2009, and 1/3 upon the determination of such achievement for the period from February
1, 2009 through January 31, 2010 (provided that, with respect to the period from February
1, 2009 through January 31, 2010, no such determination by the stock option committee shall
be final until on or after July 2, 2010), and as of January 31, 2008 was subject to the
special vesting conditions described in Narrative to Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. |
- 183 -
|
(6) |
|
This award vests 25% on August 14, 2007, 25% on August 14, 2008, 25% on August 14,
2009, and 25% on August 14, 2010 and as of January 31, 2008 was subject to the special
vesting conditions described below. |
|
(7) |
|
This award vests 30% on August 14, 2007, 30% on August 14, 2008, 30% on August 14,
2009, and 10% on July 2, 2010 and as of January 31, 2008 was subject to the special vesting
conditions described in Narrative to Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table. |
|
(8) |
|
Mr. Sperlings bonus target for the year ended January 31, 2008 was established in U.S.
Dollars, but his bonus payments are made in Israeli shekels using the U.S.$-to-NIS spot
rate on the applicable payment date. |
|
(9) |
|
Mr. Sperlings bonus target for the year ended January 31, 2007 was established in U.S.
Dollars, but his bonus payments are made in Israeli shekels using the U.S.$-to-NIS spot
rate on the applicable payment date. |
|
(10) |
|
On March 12, 2007, the compensation committee approved threshold, target, and maximum
bonus awards for Mr. Parcell of £54,000, £72,000, and £144,000, respectively ($104,377,
$139,169, and $278,338 based on the March 12, 2007 exchange rate of £1=$1.9329). |
|
(11) |
|
On July 20, 2006, the compensation committee approved threshold, target, and maximum
bonus awards for Mr. Parcell of £46,800, £72,000, and £144,000, respectively ($85,639,
$131,753, and $263,506) based on the July 20, 2006 exchange rate of £1=$1.8299). |
|
(12) |
|
Each performance award contains three equal tranches which vest based on three separate
performance periods. Dates correspond to the SFAS No. 123(R) grant date applicable to the
first, second, and third tranches, respectively, and are based on the date the stock option
committee approved the performance goal for the applicable performance period. |
|
(13) |
|
Represents the threshold number of shares that were available to be earned in each of
the 2007, 2008, and 2009 performance periods. The following table summarizes the actual
number of shares earned for the 2007 and 2008 performance periods (which have now been
completed). If the minimum performance goal is not achieved in any performance period, no
shares are earned for that period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual Shares Earned for |
|
|
Actual Shares Earned for |
|
Name |
|
2007 Performance Period |
|
|
2008 Performance Period |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
18,625 |
|
|
|
15,275 |
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
4,267 |
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
3,737 |
|
|
|
3,065 |
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
3,737 |
|
|
|
3,065 |
|
David Parcell |
|
|
2,811 |
|
|
|
2,306 |
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
1,918 |
|
|
|
1,573 |
|
Further Information Regarding Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table
As of the filing date of this report, each of our executive officers other than Mr. Sperling is
party to an employment agreement with us. Each agreement provides for certain severance payments
and benefits, including in connection with a change in control. See - Executive Officer Severance
Benefits and Change in Control Provisions below for a discussion of these severance and change in
control benefits, as well as a description of the restrictive covenants and clawback provisions
contained in such agreements.
The agreements with our U.S. executive officers generally provide for an initial term of two years,
followed by automatic one-year renewals (unless terminated by either party in accordance with the
agreement and subject to required notice). The agreements with our non-U.S. executive officers do
not provide for a fixed term. Mr. Sperling has a customary offer letter from us and a letter
agreement regarding the release of his severance, retirement, and disability insurance funds in the
event of a termination event, but does not currently have a formal employment agreement.
- 184 -
Narrative to Salary and Bonus Table
As discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis above, each employment agreement provides
for an annual base salary, target bonus (subject to the achievement of performance goals), and
certain perquisites. Although target bonuses are specified in each employment agreement, bonuses
are not guaranteed and are paid based on the achievement of performance goals. In Mr. Robinsons
case, the target bonus is fixed at 60% of his base salary under the terms of his employment
agreement. For the other executive officers party to an employment agreement, the target bonus is
expressed as a dollar amount or an amount denominated in local currency. As of January 31, 2008,
the target bonuses specified by the employment agreements were as follows: $104,500 (for Mr.
Fante), $182,900 (for Mr. Moriah), and £38,000 (for Mr. Parcell). Mr. Parcells target bonus of
£38,000 corresponded to $75,597 as of January 31, 2008 based on an exchange rate of £1=$1.9895 on
such date. As of January 31, 2008, Messrs. Bodner and Sperling had not entered into employment
agreements with us and therefore did not yet have contractually-defined target bonuses. Mr.
Sperlings offer letter provides for an annual base salary and a discretionary annual bonus.
Historically, the target bonuses for each executive officer established by the compensation
committee as part of its annual compensation review process has equaled or exceeded the target
bonus specified in the officers employment
agreement (if any) and the target bonus from the previous year.
As noted in the Summary Compensation Table above, the actual bonuses for the year ended January 31,
2007 for Messrs. Bodner and Robinson were determined by the compensation committee based on a
general performance review of Mr. Bodner and Mr. Robinson and not by reference to pre-defined
performance goals. As a result, these bonuses do not appear in the table entitled Grants of
Plan-Based Awards above but appear in the Bonus column in the table entitled Summary Compensation
Table. Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007 and did
not receive a bonus for that year. We are currently in arbitration with Mr. Nissim on certain
compensation-related matters.
Narrative to All Other Compensation Table
We provide a limited amount of perquisites to our executive officers, which vary from officer to
officer. Each of the executive officers is entitled to use of a company car or an annual car
allowance. Messrs. Sperling and Parcell are entitled to an annual allowance for fuel
reimbursement. Messrs. Bodner, Robinson, and Fante are entitled to an annual allowance for legal,
tax, or accounting advice. Mr. Nissim was also entitled to an annual allowance for legal, tax, or
accounting advice while he was an executive officer. All executive officers receive the same
health insurance and company-paid group life and disability insurance offered to all other
employees in the country in which the executive officer is employed. In addition, Mr. Bodner has
historically received a supplemental company-paid life insurance
policy. In the year ended January 31, 2008, Mr. Fante received a
one-time relocation allowance.
- 185 -
Executive officers in the U.S. receive the same partial match of their 401(k) contributions as all
other U.S. employees, up to a maximum company contribution of $2,000 per year.
In the case of Mr. Parcell, we contribute a percentage of his base salary to a retirement fund on
the same basis as other U.K. employees. Under the retirement fund Mr. Parcell, can elect to
contribute a percentage of his monthly salary to the fund, which is administered by an outside
third party, similar to a 401(k). If he elects to contribute 3% or less of his salary, we
contribute an amount equal to 4% of his salary. If he elects to contribute 4% of salary, our
contribution is 5%. If he elects to contribute 5% or more, our contribution is 6%. Our
contributions are incremental to his salary and are paid by us directly to the third-party
provider.
Like all Israeli employees, under Israeli law, Mr. Sperling is entitled to severance pay equal to
one months salary for each year of employment upon termination without cause (as defined in the
Israel Severance Pay Law). To satisfy this requirement, for all Israeli employees, including Mr.
Sperling, we make contributions on behalf of the employee to a severance fund. This severance fund
is often part of a larger savings fund which also includes a retirement fund and in some cases an
insurance component. Each employee can elect to contribute an amount equal to between 5% and 7% of
his or her monthly salary to the retirement fund. We contribute an amount equal to 5% of the
employees monthly salary to the retirement fund plus an additional amount equal to 8.33% of the
employees monthly salary to the severance fund. The employee is not required to pay anything
towards the severance fund. Our contributions are incremental to the employees base salary and,
except as noted below, are paid by us directly to the third-party plan administrator. Applicable
tax law permits allocations made by the employer to the
retirement fund to be made on a tax-free basis up to a limit set by applicable Israeli tax
regulations. Under local Israeli company policy, the employee may request that any company
contributions in excess of this limit be made directly to him or her rather than being placed in
the retirement fund. For executives like Mr. Sperling, if the amount in the severance fund is
insufficient to cover the required statutory payment under Israeli labor law at the time of a
termination event, we are obligated to supplement the amounts in the severance fund.
In addition, all Israeli employees, including Mr. Sperling, are also entitled to participate in a
continuing education fund, often referred to as a study fund. The continuing education fund is a
savings fund from which the employee can withdraw on a tax-free basis for any purpose after six
years, irrespective of his or her employment status with us. Each month, eligible employees
contribute 2.5%, and we contribute 7.5%, of the employees base salary to the study fund.
Applicable tax law permits a portion of the company contributions to the study fund to be made
tax-free. Under local Israeli company policy, the employee may request that any company
contributions in excess of this limit be made directly to him or her rather than being placed in
the fund. Our contributions are incremental to the employees base salary and, except as noted
above, are paid by us directly to the third-party plan administrator.
Under applicable Israeli law, each employee is paid a small annual amount for recreation based on
the employees tenure and a per-diem rate published by the government. Under local Israeli company
policy, our Israeli employees are also entitled to receive a cash payment in exchange for vacation
days in accordance with the terms of the policy.
- 186 -
Narrative to Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table
All of the equity awards listed in the table entitled Grants of Plan-Based Awards were made under
or subsequently allocated to the Verint Systems Inc. Stock Incentive Compensation Plan or the
Verint Systems Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Compensation Plan (each as amended).
Time-based equity awards for officers normally vest over a three- or a four-year period.
Performance-based equity awards to date have been comprised of three separate vesting periods
corresponding to three separate performance periods which generally correspond to our fiscal year.
Specific vesting schedules for each award listed in the table entitled Grants of Plan-Based
Awards are provided in the footnotes to the table.
All of the equity awards granted to our executive officers in the year ended January 31, 2008
(including the special 2007 retention equity grants) were made subject to special compliance
vesting conditions which override the regular time-vesting or performance-vesting schedule of the
awards. These compliance vesting conditions require us to be both current with our SEC filings and
re-listed on NASDAQ or another nationally-recognized exchange for the awards to vest. If either of
these compliance vesting conditions is not satisfied on the date the awards would otherwise vest,
the portion of the award that would otherwise vest remains unvested until such time as all of the
applicable compliance vesting conditions are satisfied. As described in the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis above, the compensation and stock option committees subsequently authorized
us to enter into amendments with each of the executive officers to remove the compliance vesting
conditions, thereby permitting these awards to vest on their original schedule. As of the filing
date of this report, we have finalized most of these
amendments. For our U.S. executive officers, these amendments also provided for a delay in the
delivery of the shares underlying these awards subject to limitations imposed by Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code.
- 187 -
Outstanding Equity Awards at January 31, 2008
The following table sets forth information regarding various equity awards held by our named
executive officers as of January 31, 2008. The market value of all RSU and restricted stock awards
is based on the closing price of our common stock as of January 31, 2008 ($18.50).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity Incentive Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities |
|
|
Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares or |
|
|
Market Value |
|
|
Equity Incentive Plan |
|
|
Awards: Market or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying |
|
|
Underlying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units of |
|
|
of Shares or |
|
|
Awards: Number of |
|
|
Payout Value of |
|
|
|
Date of |
|
|
Unexercised |
|
|
Unexercised |
|
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
Stock That |
|
|
Units of Stock |
|
|
Unearned Shares, |
|
|
Unearned Shares, |
|
|
|
Board |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Option |
|
|
Have Not |
|
|
That Have |
|
|
Units or Other Rights |
|
|
Units or Other Rights |
|
|
|
Approval |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Expiration |
|
|
Vested |
|
|
Not Vested |
|
|
That Have Not Vested |
|
|
That Have Not Vested |
|
Name |
|
of Grant |
|
|
Exercisable |
|
|
Unexercisable |
|
|
($) |
|
|
Date |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
5/21/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
16,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.00 |
|
|
|
5/21/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
|
3/5/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
37,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3),(4) |
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
8,750 |
|
|
|
161,875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(5),(6) |
|
|
44,000 |
|
|
|
44,000 |
|
|
|
34.40 |
|
|
|
1/11/2016 |
|
|
|
19,350 |
|
|
|
357,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,800 |
|
|
|
717,800 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,300 |
|
|
|
1,041,550 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,300 |
|
|
|
1,041,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,400 |
|
|
|
414,400 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,800 |
|
|
|
477,300 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,900 |
|
|
|
238,650 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,900 |
|
|
|
238,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
5/21/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
2,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.00 |
|
|
|
5/21/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
|
3/5/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
18,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3),(4) |
|
|
18,750 |
|
|
|
6,250 |
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
46,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(5),(6) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
34.40 |
|
|
|
1/11/2016 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
92,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,200 |
|
|
|
521,700 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
|
209,050 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
|
209,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
4/1/2001 |
(2) |
|
|
2,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.69 |
|
|
|
4/1/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/21/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
2,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.00 |
|
|
|
5/21/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
|
3/5/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3) |
|
|
18,750 |
|
|
|
6,250 |
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
46,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(5),(6) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
34.40 |
|
|
|
1/11/2016 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
92,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,200 |
|
|
|
503,200 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
|
209,050 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
|
209,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell |
|
|
5/21/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
2,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.00 |
|
|
|
5/21/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
|
3/5/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
11,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3) |
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
74,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
148,000 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
|
157,250 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
|
157,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
11/20/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
6,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.90 |
|
|
|
11/20/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
18,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3) |
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
64,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,200 |
|
|
|
466,200 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
|
107,300 |
|
|
|
|
7/2/2007 |
(9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
|
107,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim(1) |
|
|
4/1/2001 |
(2) |
|
|
6,115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.69 |
|
|
|
4/1/2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/21/2002 |
(2) |
|
|
4,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.00 |
|
|
|
5/21/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/5/2003 |
(2) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.00 |
|
|
|
3/5/2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/9/2004 |
(3) |
|
|
18,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.11 |
|
|
|
12/9/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/11/2006 |
(5) |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.40 |
|
|
|
1/11/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 188 -
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007. We
are currently in arbitration with Mr. Nissim on certain compensation-related matters. |
|
(2) |
|
These options were fully vested at January 31, 2008. |
|
(3) |
|
The vesting schedule for this option grant was/is 25% on December 9, 2005, 25% on
December 9, 2006, 25% on December 9, 2007, and 25% on December 9, 2008. |
|
(4) |
|
The vesting schedule for this restricted stock grant was/is 50% on December 9, 2006,
25% on December 9, 2007, and 25% on December 9, 2008. |
|
(5) |
|
The vesting schedule for this option grant was/is 25% on January 11, 2007, 25% on
January 11, 2008, 25% on January 11, 2009, and 25% on January 11, 2010. |
|
(6) |
|
The vesting schedule for this restricted stock grant was/is 50% on January 11, 2008,
25% on January 11, 2009, and 25% on January 11, 2010. |
|
(7) |
|
The vesting schedule for this RSU grant was/is 50% on March 15, 2008 and 50% on July 2,
2010, and as of January 31, 2008, this award was subject to the special vesting conditions
described below. |
|
(8) |
|
The vesting schedule for this RSU grant was/is 33% on March 15, 2008, 33% on March 15,
2009, and 34% on July 2, 2010, and as of January 31, 2008, this award was subject to the
special vesting conditions described below. |
|
(9) |
|
The vesting schedule for this RSU grant was/is 1/3 upon the stock option committees
determination of our achievement of specified revenue targets (set by the stock option
committee for the relevant performance period) for the period from August 1, 2007 through
January 31, 2008, 1/3 upon the determination of such
achievement for the period from February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009, and 1/3 upon the
determination of such achievement for the period from February 1, 2009 through January 31,
2010 (provided that, with respect to the period from February 1, 2009 through January 31,
2010, no such determination by the stock option committee shall be final until on or after
July 2, 2010), and as of January 31, 2008, this award was subject to the special vesting
conditions described below. |
|
(10) |
|
The vesting schedule for this RSU grant was/is 25% on August 14, 2007, 25% on August
14, 2008, 25% on August 14, 2009, and 25% on August 14, 2010, and as of January 31, 2008,
this award was subject to the special vesting conditions described below. |
|
(11) |
|
The vesting schedule for this RSU grant was/is 30% on August 14, 2007, 30% on August
14, 2008, 30% on August 14, 2009, and 10% on July 2, 2010, and as of January 31, 2008, this
award was subject to the special vesting conditions described below. |
All of the equity awards granted to our executive officers in the year ended January 31, 2008
(including the special 2007 retention equity grants) were made subject to special compliance
vesting conditions which override the regular time-vesting or performance-vesting schedule of the
awards. These compliance vesting conditions require us to be both current with our SEC filings and
re-listed on NASDAQ or another nationally-recognized exchange for the awards to vest. If either of
these compliance vesting conditions is not satisfied on the date the awards would otherwise vest,
the portion of the award that would otherwise vest remains unvested until such time as all of the
applicable compliance vesting conditions are satisfied. As described in the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis above, the compensation and stock option committees subsequently authorized
us to enter into amendments with each of the executive officers to remove the compliance vesting
conditions, thereby permitting these awards to vest on their original schedule. As of the filing
date of this report, we have finalized most of these amendments. For our U.S. executive officers,
these amendments also provided for a delay in the delivery of the shares underlying these awards
subject to limitations imposed by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
- 189 -
Option Exercises and Stock Vesting During the Year Ended January 31, 2008
No stock options were exercised during the year ended January 31, 2008. The value of stock awards
realized on vesting is calculated by multiplying the number of shares vesting by the closing price
of our common stock on the vesting date. See the table entitled Outstanding Equity Awards at
January 31, 2008 above for the vesting schedule of outstanding awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired on |
|
|
Value Realized on |
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
Value Realized on |
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Acquired on Vesting |
|
|
Vesting |
|
Name |
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,075 |
|
|
|
739,426 |
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
138,575 |
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
138,575 |
|
David Parcell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
77,200 |
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
67,550 |
|
Option Exercises and Stock Vesting During the Year Ended January 31, 2007
No stock options were exercised during the year ended January 31, 2007. The value of stock
awards realized on vesting is calculated by multiplying the number of shares vesting by the closing
price of our common stock on the vesting date. See the table entitled Outstanding Equity Awards
at January 31, 2008 above for the vesting schedule of outstanding awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired on |
|
|
Value Realized on |
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
Value Realized on |
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Acquired on Vesting |
|
|
Vesting |
|
Name |
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
($) |
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,475 |
|
|
|
1,066,401 |
|
Douglas Robinson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
168,250 |
|
Meir Sperling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
168,250 |
|
David Parcell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Fante |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,200 |
|
|
|
311,764 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer in the year ended January 31, 2007. |
Executive Officer Severance Benefits and Change in Control Provisions
As of the filing date of this report, each of our executive officers other than Mr. Sperling is
party to an employment agreement with us. The following is a summary of the severance and change
in control provisions of these employment agreements as of the filing date of this report, with
differences existing at January 31, 2008 noted under the Provisions of Executive Officer
Agreements Historically caption. The following also summarizes benefits that our non-U.S.
executive officers may become entitled to under local law or local company policy.
- 190 -
Provisions of Executive Officer Agreements at Present Date
Each of the employment agreements with our executive officers provides for an annual base salary
and a performance-based bonus target.
Severance Not in Connection with a Change in Control
In the event of an involuntary termination of employment (a termination without cause or a
resignation for good reason) not in connection with a change in control, the executive officers
are, subject to their execution of a release and continued compliance with the restrictive
covenants described below, entitled to severance consisting of base salary and, for our U.S.
executive officers, reimbursement of health insurance premiums for 12 months (inclusive of any
notice period required under the officers employment agreement), or 18 months in the case of Mr.
Bodner. Mr. Bodner is also entitled to 60 days advance notice of any termination other than for
cause, continuation of his professional advice allowance and access to his company-leased vehicle
for 18 months in such instance.
In addition, in the event of an involuntary termination, each executive officer other than Mr.
Bodner and Mr. Robinson is entitled to a pro rated portion of his annual bonus for such year plus
an amount equal to 100% of his average annual bonus measured over the last three years. Mr.
Bodners agreement provides for a pro rated portion of his annual bonus for such year plus an
amount equal to 150% of his target bonus. Mr. Robinsons agreement provides for payment of 150% of
his average annual bonus measured over the last three years, but no pro rated portion of
his annual bonus for the year in question.
Severance in Connection with a Change in Control
In the event of a termination of employment in connection with a change in control, in lieu of the
cash severance described above, each of the officers who has entered into a new or amended
employment agreement with us beginning in 2009 is entitled to enhanced cash severance equal to the sum of 1.5
times base salary and target bonus, plus a pro-rated target bonus for the year of termination, or
in the case of Mr. Bodner, 2.5 times the sum of base salary and target bonus, plus a pro-rated
target bonus for the year of termination. We are currently in discussions regarding a formal
employment agreement with Mr. Sperling and amended employment agreements with Mr. Robinson and Mr.
Parcell, which we expect would include similar benefits.
Equity
Other than in the case of Mr. Bodner, no equity acceleration is provided in the case of an
involuntary termination not in connection with a change in control. In the event of an involuntary
termination of employment in connection with a change in control, each of the employment agreements
provides for acceleration of all unvested equity awards. Mr. Robinsons agreement provides for
acceleration of his unvested equity awards in the event of a change in control whether or not his
employment is terminated. Each of the new or amended employment agreements signed beginning in 2009 also
provides that all of the officers outstanding equity awards will become fully vested if not
assumed in connection with a change in control.
- 191 -
Other Provisions
Each of the employment agreements provides for customary restrictive covenants, with a covenant
period ranging from 12 to 24 months, including a non-compete, a non-solicitation of customers and
employees, and an indefinite non-disclosure provision. Each agreement also contains a clawback
provision which allows us to recoup from the officer, or cancel, a portion of the officers
incentive compensation (including bonuses and equity awards) for a particular year if we are
required to restate our financial statements for that year due to material noncompliance with any
financial reporting requirement under the securities laws as a result of the officers misconduct.
The clawback applies from and after the year in which the employment agreement was first signed to
awards made during the term of the agreement. The amount to be recovered or forfeited is the
amount by which the incentive compensation in the year in question exceeded the amount that would
have been awarded had the financial statements originally been filed as restated. Each of our U.S.
executive officers who has entered into a new or amended employment agreement with us beginning in 2009 is
also entitled to a gross up for any excise taxes he may become subject to in connection with a
change of control. The terms cause, good reason, and change in control are defined in the
forms of employment agreements filed with this report.
Provisions of Executive Officer Agreements Historically
As of January 31, 2008, Messrs. Bodner and Sperling had not entered into employment
agreements with us and therefore did not have any of the contractual benefits described in the
preceding section. As of January 31, 2008 and the filing date of this report, Mr. Sperling is
party to a customary offer letter with us which provides for 90 days advanced notice in the event
of a termination of employment by either party. Mr. Sperling is also party to a letter agreement
with us pursuant to which we have agreed to release the full amounts in his severance, retirement,
and disability insurance funds in the event of a termination event.
As noted above, Mr. Robinsons current employment agreement does not, and did not as of January 31,
2008, provide for the enhanced cash severance and tax gross-up in the event of a termination in
connection with a change in control described above.
As of January 31, 2008, Messrs. Moriah, and Fante had not yet entered into the most recent
amendments to their respective employment agreements and therefore were not entitled to the
enhanced cash severance and tax gross-up in the event of a termination in connection with a change
in control described above.
As of January 31, 2008, Mr. Parcell had not yet entered into the first amendment to his employment
agreement with us and therefore had more limited severance benefits which are described below.
Prior to June 13, 2008, Mr. Parcells employment agreement provided that in the event of an
involuntary termination of employment (a termination without cause), Mr. Parcell was entitled to
six months paid notice or a payment in lieu of the same. The paid notice or payment in lieu is
comprised of all of the same elements of compensation he would otherwise have received (or would
have otherwise been paid on his behalf) during such period, including salary, pro rata annual
bonus, previously-awarded but unpaid special bonuses, car allowance/fuel reimbursement allowance,
retirement plan contributions, health benefits, and insurance premiums. Mr. Parcells original
employment agreement made no provision for special payments or benefits in connection with a change
in control. Mr. Parcell was also bound by customary restrictive covenants under his former
employment agreement, including a 12-month non-compete and non-solicitation of customers and
employees, and an indefinite non-disclosure provision.
- 192 -
In December 2006, we completed the transition of the Chief Financial Officer role from Igal Nissim
to Douglas Robinson, at which time Mr. Nissim ceased to be an executive officer. Mr. Nissim did
not have an employment agreement with us during the period in which he served as an executive
officer.
Benefits Under Local Law or Local Company Policy
As discussed under - Narrative to All Other Compensation Table above, Mr. Sperling is entitled
to severance pay equal to one months salary for each year of employment upon termination without
cause (as defined in the Israel Severance Pay Law) under Israeli law applicable to all Israeli
employees. We make payments into a severance fund to secure this severance obligation during the
course of Mr. Sperlings employment and, unless there is a shortfall as described below, we are not
responsible for any payments at the time of a qualifying termination. As a result, these amounts
are included in the table entitled Summary
Compensation Table above, but not in the table entitled Potential Payments Upon Termination or
Change in Control below. However, the table entitled Potential Payments Upon Termination or
Change in Control does include any additional amount of severance we are responsible for in excess
of the balance in the severance fund at the time of a qualifying termination (in the event there is
a shortfall) based on the legally-mandated formula described above.
In addition to any severance fund shortfall, Mr. Sperling is also entitled to a minimum notice
period under Israeli law in the event of an involuntary termination and to 90 days advanced notice
of termination under his offer letter. Local company notice guidelines for our Israeli employees
subsume this legal notice requirement and, in Mr. Sperlings case, exceed the requirements of his
offer letter. Assuming application of these local company guidelines, employees are entitled to
between two weeks and three and one-half months of pay depending on the circumstances of the
termination and the employees tenure. In Mr. Sperlings case, assuming application of the
guidelines at January 31, 2008, he would have been entitled to three and one-half months of notice,
during which he would receive continued salary and all benefits.
Employees in the United Kingdom are entitled to severance payments under local U.K. company policy
in the event of an involuntary termination in which the employee is made redundant (meaning that
the termination resulted from us closing or downsizing our U.K. operations or a particular
function). Under this policy, U.K. employees receive between two and three weeks of pay for each
year of service depending on the employees age, with partial service years of six months or more
being rounded up. Assuming the application of this local company policy at January 31, 2008, Mr.
Parcell would have been entitled to three weeks of pay for each year of service in addition to the
benefits provided under his employment agreement. The payment is comprised of salary, pro rata
bonus, and car allowance, but no other benefits.
- 193 -
Because payments under the foregoing Israeli and U.K. company guidelines or policies do not arise
until a qualifying termination event, these payments are included in the table entitled Potential
Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control below, but not in the table entitled Summary
Compensation Table above.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
The table below outlines the potential payments and benefits that would have become payable by us
to our named executive officers in the event of an involuntary termination and/or a change in
control, assuming that the relevant event occurred on January 31, 2008. In reviewing the table,
please note the following:
|
|
|
The table does not include amounts that would be payable by third parties where we have
no continuing liability, such as amounts payable under private insurance policies,
government insurance such as social security or national insurance, or 401(k) or similar
defined contribution retirement plans. As a result, the table does not reflect amounts
payable to Mr. Sperling or Mr. Parcell under the applicable local company retirement plan
or retirement fund, for which we have no liability at the time of payment. |
|
|
|
Except as noted in the following bullet, the table does not include payments or benefits that are available generally to all
salaried employees in the country in which the executive officer is employed and do not
discriminate in scope, terms, or operation in favor of our executive officers or directors,
such as short-term disability payments or payment for accrued but unused vacation. |
|
|
|
The table includes all severance or notice payments for which we are financially
responsible, even if such payments are available generally to all salaried employees in the
country in which the executive officer is employed and do not discriminate in scope, terms,
or operation in favor of our executive officers or directors. |
|
|
|
With respect to Mr. Sperlings severance fund, the table includes the difference between
the amount that would have been owed to Mr. Sperling under applicable Israeli labor law in
the event of an involuntary termination and the amount in his severance fund at January 31,
2008. |
- 194 -
|
|
|
As noted in the previous section, as of January 31, 2008, Messrs. Bodner and Sperling
had not entered into employment agreements with us, however, Mr. Sperling (but not Mr.
Bodner) is included in the table below because he was entitled to certain statutory
severance benefits and advanced notice payments, as described below. |
|
|
|
The information for Messrs. Robinson, Moriah, Parcell, and Fante included in the table
below reflects their entitlements as of January 31, 2008 and therefore excludes amounts
attributable to any recent amendments to their employment agreements (signed after January
31, 2008) providing for enhanced cash severance and other benefits in the event of a
termination in connection with a change in control. |
|
|
|
The value of equity awards in the table below is based on the closing price of our
common stock on January 31, 2008, which was $18.50. |
|
|
|
All amounts are calculated on a pre-tax basis. |
- 195 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerated |
|
|
Cont. Health |
|
|
Cont. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salary |
|
|
Pro Rata |
|
|
Additional |
|
|
Equity |
|
|
(present Insurance |
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Name of Executive Officer and |
|
Continuation(1) |
|
|
Bonus(2) |
|
|
Bonus(3) |
|
|
Awards(4) |
|
|
Coverage value)(5) |
|
|
Benefits(6) |
|
|
Total |
|
Triggering Event |
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
($) |
|
Douglas
Robinson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233,918 |
|
Disability |
|
|
170,000 |
|
|
|
204,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388,959 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without Cause |
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
704,751 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without
Cause in Connection with CIC |
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334,833 |
|
|
|
1,369,000 |
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,073,751 |
|
CIC Only (continued employment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,369,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,369,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan
Moriah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212,818 |
|
Disability |
|
|
170,000 |
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
367,859 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without Cause |
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
177,310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
730,128 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without
Cause in Connection with CIC |
|
|
340,000 |
|
|
|
182,900 |
|
|
|
177,310 |
|
|
|
1,078,550 |
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,808,678 |
|
CIC Only (continued employment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir
Sperling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without Cause |
|
|
114,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
28,400 |
|
|
|
143,030 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without
Cause in Connection with CIC |
|
|
114,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
28,400 |
|
|
|
143,030 |
|
CIC Only (continued employment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David
Parcell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without Cause |
|
|
350,649 |
|
|
|
123,861 |
|
|
|
73,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,334 |
|
|
|
38,845 |
|
|
|
590,002 |
|
Resignation for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without
Cause in Connection with CIC |
|
|
350,649 |
|
|
|
123,861 |
|
|
|
73,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,334 |
|
|
|
38,845 |
|
|
|
590,002 |
|
CIC Only (continued employment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter
Fante |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death |
|
|
|
|
|
|
104,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134,418 |
|
Disability |
|
|
146,250 |
|
|
|
104,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
265,709 |
|
Resignation
for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without Cause |
|
|
292,500 |
|
|
|
104,500 |
|
|
|
133,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
560,485 |
|
Resignation
for Good Reason/Involuntary Termination without
Cause in Connection with CIC |
|
|
292,500 |
|
|
|
104,500 |
|
|
|
133,567 |
|
|
|
745,550 |
|
|
|
29,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,306,035 |
|
CIC Only (continued employment) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 196 -
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For Mr. Parcell, includes six months of base salary during his contractual
notice period plus an additional 21 weeks of salary (assuming a termination event on January
31, 2008) assuming the application of local company redundancy policy, costing an aggregate
of £176,250, or $350,649 as indicated in the table above, based on the January 31, 2008
exchange rate of £1= $1.9895. For Mr. Sperling, includes the difference between the amount
that would have been owed to Mr. Sperling under applicable Israeli labor law in the event of
an involuntary termination at January 31, 2008 and the amount in his severance fund on such
date, or NIS 85,521 ($23,647 based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of NIS 1 = $0.2765)
plus three and one-half months base salary during his notice period assuming the
application of local company notice guidelines equaling NIS 329,000 ($90,969 based on the
January 31, 2008 exchange rate of NIS 1 = $0.2765). |
|
(2) |
|
For Mr. Parcell, includes six-months worth (or 50%) of the average annual
bonus paid or payable to him over the course of the three years ended January 31, 2008 as
part of his six month contractual notice period plus an additional 21 weeks worth (assuming
a termination event on January 31, 2008) of his three-year average annual bonus assuming the
application of local company redundancy policy, costing an aggregate of £62,257, or $123,861
as indicated in the table above, based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of £1= $1.9895. |
|
(3) |
|
For Mr. Parcell, represents the second half of his 2007 cash retention bonus
equaling £36,850 ($73,313 based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of £1= $1.9895), which
would have been payable within his six month notice period assuming a termination on January
31, 2008. |
|
(4) |
|
For equity awards other than stock options, value is calculated as the
closing price of our common stock on January 31, 2008 ($18.50) times the number of shares
accelerating. For stock options, value is calculated as the difference between the closing
price of our common stock on January 31, 2008 and the option exercise price per share times
the number of stock options accelerating. |
|
(5) |
|
For executive officers other than Messrs. Parcell and Sperling, amounts shown
represent the actual cost of the contractually-agreed number of months of COBRA payments.
As of January 31, 2008, neither Mr. Parcell nor Mr. Sperling was entitled to company-paid or
reimbursed health insurance following a termination event, however, Mr. Parcell was entitled
to continued health benefits during his six-month notice period costing £1,676, or $3,334 as
indicated in the table above, based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of £1= $1.9895 and
Mr. Sperling was entitled to continued health benefits during his notice period assuming the
application of local company notice guidelines costing NIS 53, or $15 as indicated in the
table above, based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of NIS 1 = $0.2765. |
|
(6) |
|
For Mr. Parcell, includes six months of continued retirement plan
contributions, car allowance/fuel reimbursement allowance, and insurance premiums during his
contractual notice period costing £5,640 ($11,221), £7,431 ($14,784), and £1,286 ($2,559),
respectively, plus an additional 21 weeks of car allowance assuming the application of local
company redundancy policy, costing £5,168 ($10,282), for a total of £19,525 ($38,845), in
each case, based on the January 31, 2008 exchange rate of £1= $1.9895. For Mr. Sperling,
assuming the application of local company notice guidelines, includes three and one-half
months of continued contributions to his retirement fund of NIS 16,416 ($4,539), to his
severance fund of NIS 27,441 ($7,587), to his study fund of NIS 25,891 ($7,159), disability
insurance premiums of NIS 8,247 ($2,280), a statutory recreation payment of NIS 649 ($180),
and use of a company car plus a fuel reimbursement allowance costing NIS 24,068 ($6,655) for
the period, for a total of NIS 102,712 ($28,400), in each case, based on the January 31,
2008 exchange rate of NIS 1 = $0.2765. |
Subsequent to January 31, 2008 (between October 2009 and the filing date of this report), Messrs.
Bodner, Moriah, and Fante entered into a new or amended employment agreements with us which
materially augmented or altered their severance and/or change in control benefits. The terms of
these new or amended agreements are described in greater detail under - Executive Officer
Severance Benefits and Change in Control Provisions above.
- 197 -
Historic Compensation Information for the Year Ended January 31, 2006
The following table presents summary information regarding the compensation paid to or earned by
our executive officers for services rendered during the year ended January 31, 2006:
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Compensation |
|
|
Long-Term Compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities |
|
Name and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Annual |
|
|
Restricted Stock |
|
|
Underlying |
|
Principal |
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Salary |
|
|
Bonus |
|
|
Compensation |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Options/SARs |
|
Position |
|
January 31, |
|
|
($)(1) |
|
|
($)(2) |
|
|
($)(3) |
|
|
($) |
|
|
(#) |
|
|
Dan Bodner, |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
440,000 |
|
|
$ |
316,923 |
|
|
$ |
37,182 |
|
|
$ |
1,331,280 |
(4) |
|
|
88,000 |
|
President and
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim, |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
207,324 |
|
|
$ |
158,461 |
|
|
$ |
44,945 |
|
|
$ |
275,200 |
(5) |
|
|
18,000 |
|
Former Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes salary and payments in lieu of earned vacation. For Mr. Nissim, represents
NIS 936,000 ($207,324 based on the average exchange rate from February 1, 2005 through
January 31, 2006 of NIS 1=$0.2215). |
|
(2) |
|
Includes bonuses accrued for services performed in the year indicated regardless of the
year of payment. For Mr. Nissim, represents NIS 717,100 ($158,461 based on the spot rate
on the payment date of NIS 1=$0.2210). |
|
(3) |
|
Includes company car, 401(k) partial match, life insurance, legal, tax, and financial
advisement fees, and, for Mr. Nissim, contribution to a managers insurance fund and other
customary Israeli savings funds. |
|
(4) |
|
On January 11, 2006, Mr. Bodner was granted 38,700 restricted shares of our common
stock. These shares of restricted stock vest 50% on January 11, 2008, 25% on January 11,
2009 and 25% on January 11, 2010. If dividends are paid by Verint, Mr. Bodner is entitled
to receive such dividends whether or not the shares of restricted stock are vested. The
value of these holdings on the January 11, 2006 grant date was $1,331,280 based on a
closing price per share of $34.40 on such date. The aggregate value of all unvested
restricted stock held by Mr. Bodner as of January 31, 2006 was $3,684,813 based on a
closing price per share of $36.25 on such date. |
|
(5) |
|
On January 11, 2006, Mr. Nissim was granted 8,000 restricted shares of our common
stock. These shares of restricted stock vest 50% on January 11, 2008, 25% on January 11,
2009 and 25% on January 11, 2010. If dividends are paid by Verint, Mr. Nissim is entitled
to receive such dividends whether or not the shares of restricted stock are vested. The
value of these holdings on the January 11, 2006 grant date was $275,200 based on a closing
price per share of $34.40 on such date. The aggregate value of all unvested restricted
stock held by Mr. Nissim as of January 31, 2006 was $957,000 based on a closing price per
share of $36.25 on such date. |
- 198 -
The following table sets forth information concerning options granted during the year ended January
31, 2006 under our employee stock option plans to the executive officers identified in the previous
table:
Option Grant Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Realized Value at |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed Annual Rates of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Price Appreciation |
|
Individual Grants |
|
|
for Option Term |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
Total Options |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Shares |
|
|
Granted to |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject |
|
|
Employees in |
|
|
Price per |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
to Option |
|
|
Period(1) |
|
|
Share |
|
|
Expiration Date |
|
|
5% |
|
|
10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
88,000 |
|
|
|
43.35 |
% |
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
|
January 11, 2016 |
|
$ |
1,903,790 |
|
|
$ |
4,824,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igal Nissim |
|
|
18,000 |
|
|
|
8.87 |
% |
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
|
January 11, 2016 |
|
$ |
389,412 |
|
|
$ |
986,845 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In the year ended January 31, 2006, excluding grants to non-employee directors, we
granted a total of only 191,000 options to a total of 15 employees, including Mr. Bodner
and Mr. Nissim. |
The options have a term of ten years and become exercisable and vest in equal annual increments
over a period of four years from the date of stock option committee approval of the grant. The
exercise price of the options is equal to the fair market value of the underlying shares on the
date of stock option committee approval of the grant.
The following table sets forth, as to each executive officer identified in the previous table, (i)
the number of options exercised during the year ended January 31, 2006 and the value realized upon
such exercises, net of the associated exercise price and (ii) the number of unexercised options
held at January 31, 2006, both exercisable and subject to future vesting as of such date, and the
value of such options based on the closing price of the underlying shares on NASDAQ at that date,
net of the associated exercise price:
- 199 -
Option Exercises and Year-End Value Table
Aggregate Option Exercises in the Year Ended January 31, 2006 and Value of Unexercised Options at January 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
Value of Unexercised In the |
|
|
|
Acquired on |
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Underlying Unexercised |
|
|
Money Options at |
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
($) |
|
|
Options at January 31, 2006 |
|
|
January 31, 2006 (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable |
|
|
Unexercisable |
|
|
Exercisable |
|
|
Unexercisable |
|
|
Dan Bodner |
|
|
48,864 |
|
|
|
1,119,982 |
|
|
|
38,600 |
|
|
|
223,235 |
|
|
$ |
269,250.00 |
|
|
$ |
1,584,508.75 |
|
|
Igal Nissim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,811 |
|
|
|
59,196 |
|
|
$ |
610,204.24 |
|
|
$ |
489,206.50 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Calculated on the basis of the closing price of our common stock as reported on NASDAQ
on January 31, 2006 of $36.25 per share minus the exercise price. |
Director Compensation for the Years Ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007
During the course of our extended filing delay period, we have experienced significant changes in
the composition of our board of directors. However, with the exception of the resignations of
David Ledwell and Igal Nissim, since the beginning of this period, all additions to and
resignations from the board of directors have consisted of changes by Comverse to its board of
directors designees.
The following table summarizes the changes to the composition of our board of directors since March
2006:
|
|
|
Date |
|
Change in Board Composition |
|
|
|
April 28, 2006
|
|
Resignations of Messrs. Alexander, Kreinberg, and Sorin |
|
|
|
December 11, 2006
|
|
Resignation of Mr. Nissim |
|
|
|
June 29, 2007
|
|
Resignation of Mr. P. Robinson |
|
|
|
July 26, 2007
|
|
Appointment of Mr. Dahan |
|
|
|
September 11, 2007
|
|
Appointments of Ms. Shah and Ms. Wright |
|
|
|
January 31, 2008
|
|
Resignation of Mr. Ledwell |
|
|
|
March 24, 2008
|
|
Appointment of Mr. Bunyan |
|
|
|
November 24, 2008
|
|
Resignation of Mr. Aronovitz; appointment of Mr. Spirtos |
|
|
|
June 12, 2009
|
|
Resignation of Mr. Spirtos; appointment of Mr. Swad |
- 200 -
The following table summarizes the cash and equity compensation earned by each member of the board
of directors during the years ended January 31, 2008 and January 31, 2007 for service as a
director.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or |
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Paid in Cash |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Awards |
|
|
Total |
|
Name |
|
January 31, |
|
|
($)(6) |
|
|
($)(7) |
|
|
($)(7) |
|
|
($) |
|
Alexander, Kobi(1),(9) |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aronovitz, Avi(2), (9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,532 |
|
|
|
54,532 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baker, Paul(9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,837 |
|
|
|
9,837 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,970 |
|
|
|
65,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bodner, Dan |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dahan, Andre(9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeMarines, Victor |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
178,375 |
|
|
|
256,577 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
434,952 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
97,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,419 |
|
|
|
145,035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kreinberg, David(1) |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ledwell, David(3) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,727 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,727 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minihan, Kenneth |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
123,500 |
|
|
|
256,577 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
380,077 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
80,768 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,419 |
|
|
|
128,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myers, Larry |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
194,500 |
|
|
|
256,577 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
451,077 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
92,517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,346 |
|
|
|
157,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nissim, Igal(4) |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson, Paul(5), (9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,837 |
|
|
|
9,837 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,970 |
|
|
|
65,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Safir, Howard |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
|
256,577 |
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
396,577 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
76,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,419 |
|
|
|
123,740 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shah, Shefali(9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorin, William(1), (9) |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,271 |
|
|
|
11,271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wright, Lauren(9) |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors on April 28, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors on November 24, 2008. |
- 201 -
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors on January 31, 2008. |
|
(4) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors on December 11, 2006. |
|
(5) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors on June 29, 2007. |
|
(6) |
|
Represents amount earned for board of directors service during the year indicated
regardless of the year of payment. |
|
(7) |
|
Reflects the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes for
years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R). No new equity
awards of any kind were made to our directors during the year ended January 31, 2007. |
|
(8) |
|
On July 2, 2007, each of Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir received (i) an
award of 5,000 shares of restricted stock in respect of board of directors service for the
year ended January 31, 2008, vesting quarterly over 12 months and (ii) a fully-vested award
of 5,000 shares of restricted stock in respect of board of directors service during the
previous year (the year ended January 31, 2007). On July 2, 2007, Mr. Ledwell also
received an award of 5,000 shares of restricted stock in respect of board of directors
service for the year ended January 31, 2008, vesting quarterly over 12 months. These were
the only equity awards made to our directors (for service as directors) in the year ended
January 31, 2008. The fair value on the date of board of directors approval of each of
these awards was $153,850 ($307,700 for the combination of the two awards received by
Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir) based on a closing price of our common stock
of $30.77 on July 2, 2007. |
|
(9) |
|
Comverse-designated director. |
- 202 -
The following table summarizes the aggregate number of unvested stock options and unvested shares
of restricted stock held by each member of our board of directors (granted for service as a
director) as of the end of the year ended January 31, 2008 and the year ended January 31, 2007,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested |
|
|
Unvested |
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Stock Awards |
|
Name |
|
January 31, |
|
|
|
(#) |
|
|
(#) |
|
Alexander, Kobi |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aronovitz, Avi |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baker, Paul |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bodner, Dan |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dahan, Andre |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeMarines, Victor |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kreinberg, David |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ledwell, David |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
Minihan, Kenneth |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myers, Larry |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nissim, Igal |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson, Paul |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Safir, Howard |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shah, Shefali |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorin, William |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wright, Lauren |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We do not presently have any stock ownership guidelines in place for our directors, however, our
insider trading policy prohibits all personnel (including directors) from short selling in our
securities, from short-term trades in our securities (open market purchase and sale within three
months), and from trading options in our securities. Due to our extended filing delay,
other than limited dispositions to the company to cover tax liabilities in connection with
vestings, none of our present directors has been able to sell any of our securities, including
shares underlying equity awards, since January 2006.
- 203 -
Non-Independent Directors
Our non-independent directors, including Comverse designees and employee directors, do not
currently receive any cash compensation for serving on the board of directors or any committee of
the board of directors. As indicated on the table above, these directors may receive grants of
stock options or restricted stock for their service on the board of directors, in the discretion of
the board of directors. None of the Comverse designated directors received an equity grant in the
year ended January 31, 2007 or the year ended January 31, 2008, however, in some cases, we
continued to accrue expense from previous option grants during these periods. In the year ended
January 31, 2006, Messrs. Aronovitz, Baker, Robinson, and Sorin each received options to purchase
3,000 shares of common stock, vesting quarterly over 12 months. In the year ended January 31,
2008, Mr. Ledwell received a grant of 5,000 shares of restricted stock, vesting quarterly over 12
months, in respect of his service on the board of directors. Mr. Ledwell had not previously been
separately compensated for his service on the board of directors. Messrs. Bodner and Nissim have
not been separately compensated for their service on the board of directors.
All directors (whether or not independent) are eligible to be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket
expenses in attending meetings of the board of directors or board of directors committees.
Independent Directors
The board of directors is responsible for establishing independent director compensation
arrangements based on recommendations from the compensation committee. These compensation
arrangements are designed to provide competitive compensation necessary to attract and retain high
quality independent directors. The compensation committee annually reviews the independent
director compensation arrangements based on market studies and trends and from time to time engages
its independent compensation consultant to prepare a customized peer group analysis. In recent
years, the compensation committee and the board of directors have also placed special focus on the
work load associated with our internal investigation and restatement in establishing independent
director compensation arrangements.
Our independent directors receive both an annual cash retainer (paid quarterly) as well as per
meeting fees for attendance of meetings of the board of directors and board of directors
committees. Independent directors also receive an annual equity grant. As a result of the
increased work load and time commitment associated with serving as a director during our extended
filing delay period, in recent years, we have also introduced an annual fee for an independent
directors service as the board of directors or a committee chair, a special quarterly cash
retainer (for the duration of our extended filing delay period), and a per diem fee for work done
outside of board of directors and committee meetings.
- 204 -
The following table summarizes the compensation package for our independent directors from the year
ended January 31, 2006 through January 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
(Through January 31, 2008) |
|
Component of |
|
Year ended |
|
|
From and after |
|
|
From and after |
|
Compensation |
|
January 31, 2006 |
|
August 1, 2006 |
|
November 1, 2007 |
|
Annual retainer (
per annum) |
|
$ |
15,000 |
|
$ |
30,000 |
|
$ |
50,000 |
|
Board meeting fee |
|
$ |
1,000 |
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
Committee meeting
fee |
|
$ |
500 |
|
$ |
750 |
|
$ |
750 |
|
Annual equity grant |
|
6,000 options
(vesting quarterly
over 12 months) |
|
5,000 shares of
restricted stock
(vesting quarterly
over 12 months) |
|
5,000 shares of restricted
stock (vesting annually for
12 months of service) |
Special quarterly
retainer (per
quarter) |
|
|
|
|
|
$10,000 |
|
Chairmanship fee
(per annum) |
|
|
|
|
|
Board |
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit |
|
$ |
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation |
|
$ |
10,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Option |
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Governance |
|
$ |
7,500 |
|
Per diem fee (for
work outside
meetings) |
|
|
|
|
|
$2,500 |
|
Because the chairman of our board of directors is not presently an independent director, the Board
chairmanship fee referred to in the table above is not currently being paid.
On March 19, 2009, the special quarterly retainer for Mr. Myers, Chairman of the Audit Committee,
was increased to $20,000 per quarter for the duration of our extended filing delay period in
recognition of his special role and added responsibilities in overseeing the completion of our
restatement and audits.
- 205 -
Item 12.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder
Matters
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common
stock as of February 28, 2010 (the Reference Date) by:
|
|
|
each person (or group within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act) known
by us to own beneficially 5% or more of our common stock; |
|
|
|
each of our directors and named executive officers; and |
|
|
|
all our directors and named executive officers as a group. |
As used in this table, beneficial ownership means the sole or shared power to vote or direct the
voting or to dispose or direct the disposition of any equity security. A person is deemed to be
the beneficial owner of securities that he or she has the right to acquire within 60 days from the
Reference Date through the exercise of any option, warrant or right. Shares of our common stock
subject to options, warrants or rights which are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60
days (assuming the suspension of option exercises referred to in Executive Compensation under
Item 11 is released) are deemed outstanding for computing the ownership percentage of the person
holding such options, warrants or rights, but are not deemed outstanding for computing the
ownership percentage of any other person. The amounts and percentages are
based upon 32,529,594 shares of common stock outstanding as of the Reference Date and exclude
9,978,682 shares of common stock issuable to Comverse upon conversion of shares of preferred stock
(if converted on the Reference Date).
- 206 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares Name of Beneficial Owner |
|
Class |
|
|
Beneficially Owned(1) |
|
|
Percentage of Total Shares Outstanding |
|
|
Principal Stockholders: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comverse Technology, Inc.
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022 |
|
Common |
|
|
18,589,023 |
(2) |
|
|
57.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comverse Technology, Inc.
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022 |
|
Series A Preferred |
|
|
9,978,682 |
|
|
|
100 |
%(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cadian Capital Management, LLC(4)
461 Fifth Avenue 24th Floor
New York, NY 10017 |
|
Common |
|
|
2,302,525 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Platinum Partners (5)
152 West 57th Street
54th Floor
New York, NY 10019 |
|
Common |
|
|
1,718,300 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directors and Executive Officers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Bodner |
|
Common |
|
|
524,517 |
(6) |
|
|
1.6 |
% |
Douglas E. Robinson |
|
Common |
|
|
82,911 |
(7) |
|
|
* |
|
Peter Fante |
|
Common |
|
|
101,229 |
(8) |
|
|
* |
|
Elan Moriah |
|
Common |
|
|
170,000 |
(9) |
|
|
* |
|
David Parcell |
|
Common |
|
|
58,165 |
(10) |
|
|
* |
|
Meir Sperling |
|
Common |
|
|
177,827 |
(11) |
|
|
* |
|
Paul D. Baker |
|
Common |
|
|
10,723 |
(12) |
|
|
* |
|
John Bunyan |
|
Common |
|
|
0 |
(13) |
|
|
* |
|
Andre Dahan |
|
Common |
|
|
0 |
(14) |
|
|
* |
|
Victor A. DeMarines |
|
Common |
|
|
31,000 |
(15) |
|
|
* |
|
Kenneth A. Minihan |
|
Common |
|
|
32,000 |
(16) |
|
|
* |
|
Larry Myers |
|
Common |
|
|
20,000 |
(17) |
|
|
* |
|
Howard Safir |
|
Common |
|
|
37,000 |
(18) |
|
|
* |
|
Shefali Shah |
|
Common |
|
|
0 |
(19) |
|
|
* |
|
Lauren Wright |
|
Common |
|
|
0 |
(20) |
|
|
* |
|
Stephen M. Swad |
|
Common |
|
|
0 |
(21) |
|
|
* |
|
All executive officers and directors as a
group (sixteen persons) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,245,372 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
The table above does not include Igal Nissim who ceased serving as an executive officer during the
year ended January 31, 2007. According to Mr. Nissims last Form 4 dated January 12, 2006, he
owned 34,800 shares of our common stock and options to purchase 18,000 shares of our common stock.
|
|
|
* |
|
Less than 1% |
|
(1) |
|
Unless otherwise indicated and except pursuant to applicable community property laws, to our
knowledge, each person or entity listed in the table above has sole voting and investment
power with respect to all shares listed as owned by such person or entity. |
- 207 -
|
|
|
(2) |
|
As the preferred stock is not currently convertible, assumes that the 9,978,682 shares
currently underlying the preferred stock (if converted 60 days after the Reference Date) are
not issued. If the preferred stock were converted to common stock 60 days after the Reference
Date, then the percentage of beneficial ownership of Comverse would equal 67.2%. Please see
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of
Equity Securities Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities under Item 5 and Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence Preferred Stock Financing
under Item 13 for a discussion of the conversion rights of the preferred stock. |
|
(3) |
|
Comverse is the sole holder of our preferred stock. See Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence Preferred Stock Financing under Item 13 for details
on the rights of the preferred stock. |
|
(4) |
|
As reported in the Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 15, 2010 by Cadian Capital
Management, LLC (CCM) on behalf of itself and Eric Bannasch, CCM and Eric Bannasch have
shared voting and dispositive power over all the shares. |
|
(5) |
|
As reported in the Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on
February 11, 2010 by Platinum Partners
Value Arbitrage Fund LP (PPVAF), Platinum Partners Legacy Feeder Ltd (PPLF) and Platinum
Partners Liquid Opportunity Fund L.P. (PPLOF) (collectively, Platinum Partners), Platinum
Partners expressly affirms their membership of a group and each has sole voting and
dispositive power over the following shares: PPVAF 401,153 shares; PPLF 1,212,140 shares;
and PPLOF 105,007 shares. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes options to purchase 261,835 shares of common stock,
which are currently exercisable. Includes
103,474 shares of restricted stock, which are fully vested.
Also includes 159,208 restricted stock units, of which 115,458 are fully vested and of which 43,750 will
vest within 60 days after the Reference Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. Mr. Bodner beneficially
owns options to purchase 4,781 shares of Comverse common stock exercisable within 60 days
after the Reference Date. |
|
(7) |
|
Consists of 82,911 restricted stock units, of which 64,114 are fully vested and of which 18,797
will vest within 60 days after the Reference Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes options to purchase 45,000 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 6,235 shares of restricted stock, which are fully vested.
Also includes 49,994 restricted stock units, of which 33,286 are fully vested and of which 16,708
will vest within 60 days after the Reference Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes options to purchase 91,088 shares of common stock,
which are fully vested. Includes 16,718 shares of restricted stock,
which are fully vested. Also includes 62,194 restricted stock units,
of which 43,397 are fully vested and of which 18,797 will vest within
60 days after the Reference Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes options to purchase 41,196 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 6,944 shares of restricted stock, which are fully vested.
Also includes 10,025 restricted stock units that will vest within 60 days of the Reference
Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. Excludes 34,777 restricted stock units that will vest immediately upon the
earlier of finalization of an amendment to Mr. Parcells equity award agreements or
satisfaction of certain compliance conditions as discussed in Item 11. |
|
(11) |
|
Includes options to purchase 99,892 shares of common stock,
which are currently exercisable. Includes
20,000 shares of restricted stock, which are fully vested.
Also includes 57,935 restricted stock units, of which
41,227 are fully vested and of which 16,708 will vest within
60 days after the Reference Date but are currently subject to forfeiture. |
|
(12) |
|
Includes options to purchase 10,223 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable
and 500 shares of common stock held following the exercise of stock options. Mr. Baker
beneficially owns 12,000 shares of Comverse common stock deliverable in settlement of vested
deferred stock unit awards on the first date within calendar 2010 on which such shares are the
subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-8 and no resale restrictions apply.
Mr. Baker also beneficially owns options to purchase 81,250 shares of Comverse common stock
exercisable within 60 days after the Reference Date. Mr. Baker is a senior executive at
Comverse. He disclaims beneficial ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
- 208 -
|
|
|
(13) |
|
Mr. Bunyan beneficially owns 66,000 shares of Comverse common stock deliverable in settlement
of vested deferred stock unit awards on the first date within calendar 2010 on which such
shares are the subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-8 and no resale
restrictions apply. Mr. Bunyan is a senior executive at Comverse. He disclaims beneficial
ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
|
(14) |
|
Mr. Dahan beneficially owns 441,543 shares of Comverse common stock deliverable in settlement
of vested deferred stock unit awards on the first date within calendar 2010 on which such
shares are the subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-8 and no resale
restrictions apply. Mr. Dahan is President, Chief Executive
Officer, and a director of Comverse. He disclaims
beneficial ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
|
(15) |
|
Includes options to purchase 17,000 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 14,000 shares of restricted stock, of which 9,000 are fully vested and of which 5,000
are unvested and subject to forfeiture. |
|
(16) |
|
Includes options to purchase 18,000 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 14,000 shares of restricted stock, of which 9,000 are fully vested and of which 5,000 are unvested and subject to
forfeiture. |
|
(17) |
|
Includes options to purchase 6,000 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 14,000 shares of restricted stock, of which 9,000 are fully vested and of which 5,000 are unvested and subject to
forfeiture. |
|
(18) |
|
Includes options to purchase 23,000 shares of common stock which are currently exercisable.
Includes 14,000 shares of restricted stock, of which 9,000 are fully vested and of which 5,000
are unvested and subject to forfeiture. |
|
(19) |
|
Ms. Shah beneficially owns 34,667 shares of Comverse common stock deliverable in settlement
of vested deferred stock unit awards on the first date within calendar 2010 on which such
shares are the subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-8 and no resale
restrictions apply. Ms. Shah is a senior executive at Comverse. She disclaims beneficial
ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
|
(20) |
|
Ms. Wright beneficially owns 45,001 shares of Comverse common stock deliverable in settlement
of vested deferred stock unit awards on the first date within calendar 2010 on which such
shares are the subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-8 and no resale
restrictions apply. Ms. Wright is a senior executive at Comverse. She disclaims beneficial
ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
|
(21) |
|
Mr. Swad is a senior executive at Comverse. Mr. Swad does not beneficially own any shares of
Comverse common stock or options to purchase shares of Comverse common stock and disclaims
beneficial ownership of any of our securities held by Comverse. |
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table sets forth certain information regarding our equity compensation plans as of
January 31, 2008, after giving effect to our assumption on May 25, 2007 of the following in
connection with our acquisition of Witness: (i) the Witness Amended and Restated Stock Incentive
Plan, the Witness Broad Based Option Plan, and the Witness Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan,
(ii) all unvested awards previously issued under such plans as of May 25, 2007, and (iii) certain
new-hire inducement grants made by Witness outside of its stockholder-approved equity plans prior
to May 25, 2007. In accordance with applicable NASDAQ rules at the time, the Witness Broad Based
Option Plan was not approved by shareholders. No awards were assumed by us under the Witness Broad
Based Option Plan or the Witness Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan in connection with our
acquisition of Witness. Since the closing of the Witness acquisition, we have not made, and do not
in the future expect to make, additional awards under the Witness Broad Based Option Plan or the
Witness Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and these plans are therefore not included in
column (c) in either of the tables below.
- 209 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for |
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
Future Issuance under |
|
|
|
to be Issued upon |
|
|
Exercise Price of |
|
|
Equity Compensation |
|
|
|
Exercise of |
|
|
Outstanding Options, |
|
|
Plans (Excluding |
|
|
|
Outstanding Options, |
|
|
Warrants and |
|
|
Securities Reflected in |
|
Plan Category |
|
Warrants and Rights |
|
|
Rights(1) |
|
|
Column (a)) |
|
Equity compensation
plans approved by
security holders |
|
|
6,697,224 |
(2) |
|
$ |
21.89 |
|
|
|
4,489,138 |
(3) |
Equity compensation
plans not approved
by security holders |
|
|
158,573 |
(4) |
|
$ |
17.57 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
6,855,797 |
|
|
$ |
21.77 |
|
|
|
4,489,138 |
(5) |
The following table sets forth certain information regarding our equity compensation plans as
of February 28, 2010, after giving effect to (i) the assumption of the Witness plans and awards
referred to above, (ii) grants subsequent to January 31, 2008, and (iii) the passage of the
expiration date for making new awards under the Witness Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan
on November 18, 2009. The following table does not include
awards for an aggregate of 1,289,150 shares which were approved for grant by the stock option committee of our board of directors on
March 4, 2009 and May 20, 2009 outside of our equity incentive plans. The vesting of these awards
is contingent on stockholder approval of a new equity compensation plan or having additional share
capacity under an existing stockholder-approved equity compensation plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for |
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
Future Issuance under |
|
|
|
to be Issued upon |
|
|
Exercise Price of |
|
|
Equity Compensation |
|
|
|
Exercise of |
|
|
Outstanding Options, |
|
|
Plans (Excluding |
|
|
|
Outstanding Options, |
|
|
Warrants and |
|
|
Securities Reflected in |
|
Plan Category |
|
Warrants and Rights |
|
|
Rights(1) |
|
|
Column (a)) |
|
Equity compensation
plans approved by
security holders |
|
|
6,753,781 |
(6) |
|
$ |
23.35 |
|
|
|
580,498 |
|
Equity compensation
plans not approved
by security holders |
|
|
5,943 |
(4) |
|
$ |
19.53 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
6,759,724 |
|
|
$ |
23.34 |
|
|
|
580,498 |
(5) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The weighted-average price relates to outstanding stock options only (as of the applicable
date). Other outstanding awards carry no exercise price and are therefore excluded from the
weighted average price. |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Consists of 5,576,094 stock options and 1,121,130 restricted stock units. Does not include
146,425 shares of restricted stock previously issued under our equity
compensation plans. |
- 210 -
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
The Witness Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan contains an evergreen provision pursuant
to which the number of shares available under the plan may increase annually so that the total
number of shares reserved will equal the sum of (a) the aggregate number of shares previously
issued under the plan, (b) the aggregate number of shares subject to outstanding options granted
under the plan, and (c) 10% of the number of shares outstanding on the last day of the preceding
year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the board of directors (or an authorized committee thereof),
in its discretion, may authorize a smaller number of additional shares to be reserved under this
plan. The maximum annual increase in the number of shares, however, shall not exceed 3,000,000 in
any calendar year. No new awards are permitted to be made under this plan after November 18, 2009. |
|
(4) |
|
Consists solely of certain new-hire inducement grants made by Witness outside of its
stockholder-approved equity plans prior to May 25, 2007. |
|
(5) |
|
Does not include 743,489 shares available for issuance pursuant to our Employee Stock Purchase
Plan as of January 31, 2008 and as of February 28, 2010. The Witness Employee Stock Purchase Plan
was terminated immediately prior to our acquisition of Witness and therefore was not assumed by us. |
|
(6) |
|
Consists of 4,667,328 stock options and 2,086,453 restricted stock units. Does not include
20,000 shares of restricted stock previously issued under our equity
compensation plans. |
For additional information about equity grants made subsequent to January 31, 2008, see
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity
Securities Equity Grants under Item 5.
Item 13.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
The following summarizes various agreements in place between Verint and related parties,
principally Comverse (our majority stockholder) and its affiliates.
Under our audit committee charter, all related-party transactions (other than director and officer
compensation arrangements approved by the full board of directors or the compensation committee)
must be approved in advance by the audit committee of our board of directors. Proposed
related-party transactions are generally brought to the audit committees attention for
consideration by our legal department based on its review of the requirements of Item 404 of
Regulation S-K. Apart from the requirements of our audit committee charter, we have no other
written policy or procedure regarding the approval of related-party transactions. The audit
committee has reviewed and approved all of the agreements and transactions referred to in this
section.
See Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance under Item 10 for a discussion of
director independence.
Comverse Preferred Stock Financing Agreements
On May 25, 2007, in connection with our acquisition of Witness, we entered into a Securities
Purchase Agreement with Comverse pursuant to which Comverse
purchased, for cash, an aggregate of 293,000 shares of our preferred stock, at an aggregate purchase price of $293.0 million. Proceeds from the issuance of the preferred stock were
used, together with the proceeds of the $650.0 million term loan under our credit agreement and
cash on hand, to finance the consideration for the acquisition.
- 211 -
The terms of the preferred stock are set forth in a Certificate of Designation, Preferences and
Rights (the Certificate of Designation) approved by our board of directors in accordance with our
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.
The preferred stock was issued at purchase price of $1,000 per share and ranks senior to our common
stock. The preferred stock has an initial liquidation preference equal to the purchase price of
the preferred stock, or $1,000 per share. In the event of any voluntary or involuntary
liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the company, the holders of the preferred stock will be
entitled to receive, out of the assets available for distribution to our stockholders and before
any distribution of assets is made on our common stock, an amount equal to the then-current
liquidation preference plus accrued and unpaid dividends.
Cash dividends on the preferred stock are cumulative and are accrued quarterly at a specified
dividend rate on the liquidation preference in effect at such time. Initially, the specified
dividend rate was 4.25% per annum per share, however, in accordance with the terms of the
Certificate of Designation, beginning with the first quarter after the initial interest rate on the
term loan under our credit agreement had been reduced by 50 basis points or more (i.e., the quarter
ended April 30, 2008), the dividend rate was reset to 3.875% per annum and is now fixed at this
level. If we determine that we are prohibited from paying cash dividends on the preferred stock
under the terms of our credit agreement or other debt instruments, we may elect to make such
dividend payments in shares of our common stock, which common stock will be valued at 95% of the
volume weighted-average price of our common stock for each of the five consecutive trading days
ending on the second trading day immediately prior to the record date for such dividend.
The preferred stock does not have voting or conversion rights until the underlying shares of common
stock are approved for issuance by a vote of holders of a majority of our common stock. Following
receipt of stockholder approval for the issuance of the underlying common shares, each share of
preferred stock will be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of shares of common stock
into which such share of preferred stock would be convertible at the Conversion Rate (as defined
below) in effect on the date the preferred stock was issued to Comverse (the Issue Date). In
addition, following receipt of stockholder approval for the issuance of the underlying shares, each
share of preferred stock will be convertible at the option of the holder into a number of shares of
our common stock equal to the liquidation preference then in effect divided by the conversion price
then in effect, which was initially set at $32.66 (as adjusted from time to time, the Conversion
Rate).
Subject
to stockholder approval of the issuance of the common stock underlying the preferred stock
as described above, at any time on or after the second anniversary of the Issue Date, we may force
the conversion of all, but not less than all, of the preferred stock into common stock at our
option, but only if the closing sale price of our common stock immediately prior to such conversion
equals or exceeds the conversion price then in effect by: (i) 150%, if the conversion is on or
after the second anniversary of the Issue Date but prior to the third anniversary of the Issue Date, (ii) 140%, if the conversion is on or after the third anniversary of the Issue Date but
prior to the fourth anniversary of the Issue Date, or (iii) 135%, if the conversion is on or after
the fourth anniversary of the Issue Date.
- 212 -
The terms of the preferred stock also provide that upon a fundamental change, as defined in the
Certificate of Designation, the holders of the preferred stock will have the right to require us to
repurchase the preferred stock for 100% of the liquidation preference then in effect. If we fail
to repurchase the preferred stock as required upon a fundamental change, then the number of
directors constituting the board of directors will be increased by two, and the holders of the
preferred stock will have the right to elect two directors to fill such vacancies. Upon repurchase
of the preferred stock subject to the fundamental change repurchase right, the holders of the
preferred stock will no longer have the right to elect additional directors, the term of office of
each additional director will terminate immediately upon such repurchase, and the number of
directors will, without further action, be reduced by two. In addition, in the event of a
fundamental change, the conversion rate will be increased to provide for additional shares of
common stock issuable to the holders of the preferred stock upon conversion, based on a sliding
scale depending on the acquisition price, as defined in the certificate of designation, ranging
from zero to 3.7 additional shares of common stock for every share of preferred stock converted
into common stock following a fundamental change.
Comverse has had the right to sell the preferred stock since November 25, 2007 in either private or
public transactions. Pursuant to a registration rights agreement we entered into concurrently with
the Securities Purchase Agreement (the New Registration Rights Agreement), commencing 180 days
after we regain compliance with SEC reporting requirements, and provided that the underlying shares
of our common stock have been approved for issuance by our common stockholders, Comverse will be
entitled to two demands to require us to register (which may be underwritten registrations, upon
Comverses request) the shares of common stock underlying the preferred stock (the Conversion
Shares) for resale under the Securities Act. We are not, however, required to comply with a
demand request if (a) any such request is within twelve months after the effective date of a prior
demand registration, (b)(i) within the 90-day period preceding the request, we have effected (x)
any registration other than an underwritten registration pursuant to which Comverse was entitled to
participate without any limitation on its ability to include all of its registrable securities
requested to be included therein or (y) an underwritten registration pursuant to which Comverse was
entitled to participate and include between 25% to 50% of the registrable securities requested to
be included therein, or (ii) within the 180-day period preceding such request, we have effected an
underwritten registration pursuant to which Comverse was entitled to participate and include more
than 50% of the registrable securities requested to be included therein, (c) a registration
statement is effective at the time the request is made, pursuant to which Comverse can effect the
disposition of its registrable securities in the manner requested, (d) the registrable securities
requested to be registered (i) have an aggregate then-current market value of less than $100.0
million (before deducting any underwriting discounts and commission) or (ii) constitute less than
all remaining registrable securities if less than $100.0 million of then-current market value of
registrable securities are then outstanding; or (e) during the pendency of any blackout period (as
defined in the New Registration Rights Agreement).
- 213 -
The New
Registration Rights Agreement also gives Comverse unlimited piggyback registration rights on certain
Securities Act registrations filed by us on our own behalf or on behalf of other stockholders.
We have agreed to pay all expenses that result from a registration under the New Registration
Rights Agreement, other than underwriting commissions and taxes. We have also agreed to indemnify
Comverse, its directors, officers and employees against liabilities that may result from its sale
of Conversion Shares, including Securities Act liabilities.
Comverse may transfer its rights under the New Registration Rights Agreement to any transferee of
the registrable securities that is an affiliate of Comverse or any other subsequent transferee;
provided that in each case such affiliate or transferee becomes a party to the New Registration
Rights Agreement by executing a joinder agreement agreeing to be bound by all of the terms and
conditions of the New Registration Rights Agreement.
Comverse Original Registration Rights Agreement
Comverses rights under the New Registration Rights Agreement are in addition to its rights under a
previous registration rights agreement we entered into with Comverse shortly before our IPO in
2002. This registration rights agreement (the Original Registration Rights Agreement) covers all
shares of common stock then held by Comverse and any additional shares of common stock acquired by
Comverse at a later date. Under the Original Registration Rights Agreement, Comverse is entitled
to unlimited demand registrations of its shares on Form S-3. If we are not eligible to use Form
S-3, Comverse is also entitled to one demand registration on Form S-1. Under the agreement, we are
not required to comply with a demand request made by Comverse less than 90 days after the effective
date of a prior demand request made under this registration rights agreement. We may also delay
satisfying a demand request if (i) we are in the process of preparing a registration statement at
the time the demand request is received which we intend to file within 90 days from the date of
Comverses demand request or (ii) the board of directors determines in good faith that filing a
registration statement in response to a demand request would either require us to publicly disclose
information which would have a material adverse effect on us or would be seriously detrimental to
us or our stockholders, or could interfere with, or would require us to accelerate public
disclosure of, any material financing, acquisition, disposition, corporate reorganization or other
material transaction involving us or our subsidiaries.
Like the New Registration Rights Agreement, the Original Registration Rights Agreement also
provides that Comverse will have unlimited piggyback registration rights, that we will pay all
expenses of a registration under the agreement (other than underwriting commissions and taxes),
that we will indemnify Comverse and its affiliates from liabilities that may result from the sale
of our stock under the agreement, and that Comverse may transfer its rights under the agreement to
an affiliate or other subsequent transferee subject to the transferee signing a joinder to the
agreement.
- 214 -
Other Agreements with Comverse
Federal Income Tax Sharing Agreement
We are party to a tax sharing agreement with Comverse which applies to periods prior to our IPO in
which we were included in Comverses consolidated federal tax return. By virtue of its controlling
ownership and this tax sharing agreement, Comverse effectively controls all of our tax decisions
for periods ending prior to the completion of our IPO. Under the agreement, for periods during
which we were included in Comverses consolidated tax return, we were required to pay Comverse an
amount equal to the tax liability we would have owed, if any, had we filed a federal tax return on
our own, as computed by Comverse in its reasonable discretion. Under the agreement, we were not
entitled to receive any payments from Comverse in respect of, or to otherwise take advantage of,
any loss resulting from the calculation of our separate tax liability. The tax sharing agreement
also provided for certain payments in the event of adjustments to the groups tax liability. The
tax sharing agreement continues in effect until 60 days after the expiration of the applicable
statute of limitations for the final year in which we were part of the Comverse consolidated group
for tax purposes.
Business Opportunities Agreement
We are party to a business opportunities agreement with Comverse which addresses potential
conflicts of interest between Comverse and us. This agreement allocates between Comverse and us
opportunities to pursue transactions or matters that, absent such allocation, could constitute
corporate opportunities of both companies. Under the agreement, each party is precluded from
pursuing opportunities it may become aware of which are offered to an employee of the other party,
even if such employee serves as a director of the other entity. For example, if one of the
directors on our board designated by Comverse becomes aware of an opportunity that might be of
interest to us, we cannot pursue that opportunity unless and until Comverse has failed to pursue
it. The agreement also allocates to Comverse in the first instance a common interest opportunity
which is offered to a person who is an employee of both Comverse and us or a director of both
Comverse and us. We have also agreed to indemnify Comverse and its directors, officers, employees
and agents against any liabilities as a result of any claim that any provision of the agreement, or
the failure to offer any business opportunity to us, violates or breaches any duty that may be owed
to us by Comverse or any such person. Unless earlier terminated by the parties, the agreement will
remain in place until Comverse no longer holds 20% of our voting
power and no one on our board of directors is a
director or employee of Comverse.
We have in the past and may from time to time in the future enter into other agreements with
Comverse or its subsidiaries. For example, in the past we have entered into certain intercompany
services agreements with Comverse or its subsidiaries relating to shared computer services,
insurance, and use of personnel, as well as a patent cross-license agreement involving a third
party. We believe that the terms of any such agreements have been, and expect that in the future
any such terms would be, no less favorable to us than those we could obtain from an unaffiliated
third party. Other than as described elsewhere in this Item 13, we do not believe that any of
these historical agreements are currently material to us or to Comverse.
- 215 -
Item 14.
Principal Accounting Fees and Services
The audit committee of our board of directors is directly responsible for the appointment,
oversight, and evaluation of our independent registered public accounting firm. In accordance with
the audit committees charter, it must approve, in advance of the service, all audit and
permissible non-audit services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm
and establish policies and procedures for the engagement of the outside auditor to provide audit
and permissible non-audit services. Our independent registered public accounting firm may not be
retained to perform non-audit services specified in Section 10A (g) of the Exchange Act.
The audit committee appointed Deloitte & Touche LLP as our auditors for the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006, and in accordance with established policy, our board of directors ratified
those appointments. Deloitte & Touche LLP also were appointed as our auditors for the years ended
January 31, 2005 and 2004. Deloitte & Touche LLP has advised the audit committee that they are
independent accountants with respect to our company, within the meaning of standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, the Independence Standards Board and federal securities laws administered by the SEC.
In conjunction with our management, the audit committee regularly reviews the services and fees
from its independent registered public accounting firm. Our audit committee has determined that
the providing of certain non-audit services, as described below, is compatible with maintaining the
independence of Deloitte & Touche LLP.
In addition to performing the audit of our consolidated financial statements, Deloitte & Touche LLP
provided various other services during the years ended January 31, 2007, and 2006. Our audit
committee has determined that these services did not impair Deloitte & Touche LLPs independence
from Verint.
The aggregate fees billed for years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 for each of the
following categories of services are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audit Fees (1) |
|
$ |
7,790 |
|
|
$ |
1,553 |
|
|
$ |
811 |
|
Audit-related fees (2) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax fees (3) |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
|
All other fees (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fees |
|
$ |
7,897 |
|
|
$ |
1,636 |
|
|
$ |
811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 216 -
The categories in the above table have the definitions assigned under Item 9 of Schedule 14A
promulgated under the Exchange Act, and these categories include in particular the following
components:
(1) Audit fees include fees for audit services principally related to the year-end
examination and the quarterly reviews of our consolidated financial statements, consultation
on matters that arise during a review or audit, review of SEC filings, audit services
performed in connection with our acquisitions, and statutory audit fees.
(2) Audit-related fees include fees which are for assurance and related services other
than those included in Audit fees.
(3) Tax fees include fees for tax compliance and advice.
(4) All other fees include fees for all other non-audit services.
By policy, all services (audit and non-audit) to be provided by the independent registered public
accounting firm must be pre-approved by the audit committee. The committee may delegate
pre-approval authority to one or more of its members. The member to whom such authority is
delegated must report any pre-approval decisions to the audit committee at its next scheduled
meeting.
As reflected in the table above, and as described in greater detail elsewhere in this report, we
have incurred significant audit fees in connection with our investigation and restatement
activities.
- 217 -
PART IV
Item 15.
Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
Page(s)
(a) |
|
Documents filed as part of this report. |
(1) Financial Statements.
The consolidated financial statements filed as part of this report are listed
on the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements on page F-1.
(2) Financial Statement Schedules.
All financial statement schedules have been omitted here because they are not
applicable, not required, or the information is shown in the consolidated
financial statements or notes thereto.
(3) Exhibits.
See (b) below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed Herewith / |
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by |
Number |
|
Description |
|
Reference from |
2.1
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement between Verint Systems Ltd.
and ECtel Ltd. dated as of February 9, 2004
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
March 31, 2004 |
2.2
|
|
Merger Agreement and Plan of Reorganization by and
among Witness Systems, Inc., Baron Acquisition
Corporation, Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc., and,
solely with respect to Article VIII and Article IX,
Laurence R. Hootnick as Shareholder Agent and The
U.S. Stock Transfer Corporation as Depository Agent
dated December 16, 2004
|
|
Witness Systems,
Inc. Form 8-K
(Commission File
No. 000-29335)
filed on January
27, 2005 |
2.3
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February
11, 2007, among Verint Systems Inc., White
Acquisition Corporation and Witness Systems, Inc.
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
February 15, 2007 |
3.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
3.2
|
|
Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights
of the Series A Convertible Perpetual Preferred
Stock
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
May 30, 2007 8-K |
3.3
|
|
Amended and Restated By-laws of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
Filed herewith |
- 218 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed Herewith / |
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by |
Number |
|
Description |
|
Reference from |
4.1
|
|
Specimen Common Stock certificate
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
4.2
|
|
Specimen Series A Convertible Perpetual Preferred
Stock certificate
|
|
Filed herewith |
4.3
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement by and among the
Company, Nic. Christiansen Invest A/G and Ulrik
Ortiz Rasmussen, dated as of September 2, 2004
|
|
Form S-3
(Commission File
No. 333-120266)
effective on
December 17, 2004 |
4.4
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, by and between the
Company and Comverse Technology, Inc., dated May 25,
2007
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
May 30, 2007 |
10.1
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.2
|
|
Federal Income Tax Sharing Agreement, dated as of
January 31, 2002, between Comverse and the Company
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.3
|
|
Business Opportunities Agreement dated as of March
19, 2002, between Comverse and the Company
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.4
|
|
Offer Letter, dated July 27, 2006, from the Office
of the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Industry,
Trade and Labor of the State of Israel (regarding
final part of settlement payment) (English
translation)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.5
|
|
Acceptance Letter, dated July 31, 2006, from Verint
Systems Ltd. to the Office of the Chief Scientist of
the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor of the
State of Israel (regarding final part of settlement
payment) (English translation)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.6
|
|
Verint Systems Inc. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.7
|
|
Verint Systems Inc. Stock Incentive Compensation
Plan (as amended through December 12, 2002)
|
|
Form 10-K filed on
May 1, 2003 |
10.8
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Verint Systems Inc. Stock
Incentive Compensation Plan (dated December 23,
2008)
|
|
Filed herewith |
- 219 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed Herewith / |
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by |
Number |
|
Description |
|
Reference from |
10.9
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Verint Systems Inc. Stock
Incentive Compensation Plan (dated March 4, 2009)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.10
|
|
Verint Systems Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive
Compensation Plan, as amended and restated
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
January 10, 2006 |
10.11
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Verint Systems Inc. 2004 Stock
Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated
(dated December 23, 2008)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.12
|
|
Witness Systems Amended and Restated Stock Incentive
Plan
|
|
Witness Systems,
Inc. Form 10-Q for
the period ended
June 30, 2005 |
10.13
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Witness Systems Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (dated May 29, 2001)
|
|
Witness Systems,
Inc. Form 10-K
filed on March 17,
2006 |
10.14
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Witness Systems Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (dated January 15,
2004)
|
|
Witness Systems,
Inc. Form 10-K
filed on March 15,
2004 |
10.15
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Witness Systems Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (dated December 6,
2007)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.16
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Witness Systems Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (dated December 23,
2008)
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.17
|
|
Form of Stock Option Award Agreement*
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
December 7, 2004 |
10.18
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement to a U.S.
executive officer*
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
January 10, 2006 |
10.19
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement to an
Israeli executive officer*
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
January 10, 2006 |
10.20
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement to an
Independent Director, as amended*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.21
|
|
Form of Time-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award
Agreement*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.22
|
|
Form of Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit
Award Agreement*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.23
|
|
Form of Time-Based Deferred Stock Award Agreement*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.24
|
|
Form of Performance-Based Deferred Stock Award
Agreement*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.25
|
|
Form of Amendment to Time-Based and
Performance-Based Equity Award Agreements
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.26
|
|
Contribution Agreement, dated as of February 1,
2001, between Comverse and the Company
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
- 220 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed Herewith / |
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by |
Number |
|
Description |
|
Reference from |
10.27
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of January 31,
2002, between Comverse, Inc. and the Company
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.28
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of January
31, 2002, between Comverse and the Company
|
|
Form S-1
(Commission File
No. 333-82300)
effective on May
16, 2002 |
10.29
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 7,
2005, by and among Verint Systems Inc., MultiVision
Holdings Limited, and MultiVision Intelligent
Surveillance Limited
|
|
Form 10-Q/A filed
on December 12,
2005 |
10.30
|
|
Securities Purchase Agreement, by and between the
Company and Comverse Technology, Inc., dated May 25,
2007.
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
May 30, 2007 |
10.31
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of May 25, 2007 among the
Company, as Borrower, the Lenders as parties thereto
and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as Administrative
Agent
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
May 30, 2007 |
10.32
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated
February 23, 2010,
between Verint Systems Inc. and Dan Bodner*
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
February 23, 2010 |
10.33
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated August 14, 2006, between
Verint Systems Inc. and Douglas E. Robinson*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.34
|
|
Amendment No. 1, dated July 2, 2007, to Employment
Agreement between Verint Systems and Douglas E.
Robinson*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.35
|
|
Amendment No. 2, dated December 29, 2008, to
Employment Agreement between Verint Systems Inc. and
Douglas E. Robinson*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.36
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated
October 29, 2009, between Verint Systems Inc. and
Elan Moriah*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.37
|
|
Employment Agreement, dated April 16, 2001, between
Comverse Infosys UK Limited and David Parcell*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.38
|
|
Supplemental Employment Agreement, dated June 13,
2008, between Verint Systems UK Limited and David
Parcell*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.39
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated
November 10, 2009, between Verint Systems Inc. and
Peter Fante*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.40
|
|
Employment Offer Letter, dated August 30, 2000,
between Comverse Infosys Ltd. and Meir Sperling*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.41
|
|
Managers Insurance Policy Letter between Comverse
Infosys Ltd. and Meir Sperling* (English
translation)
|
|
Filed herewith |
- 221 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed Herewith / |
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by |
Number |
|
Description |
|
Reference from |
10.42
|
|
Summary of the Terms of Verint Systems Inc.
Executive Officer Annual Bonus Plan*
|
|
Filed herewith |
10.43
|
|
2009 Executive Officer Retention Letter
|
|
Filed herewith |
14.1
|
|
Verint Code of Conduct: Ethics Promote Excellence,
revised and restated March 19, 2009
|
|
Form 8-K filed on
March 24, 2009 |
21.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Company
|
|
Filed herewith |
31.1
|
|
Certification of Dan Bodner, Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002
|
|
Filed herewith |
31.2
|
|
Certification of Douglas E. Robinson, Chief
Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
Filed herewith |
32.1
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(1)
|
|
Filed herewith |
32.2
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(1)
|
|
Filed herewith |
|
|
|
(1) = |
|
These exhibits are being furnished with this periodic report and are not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not incorporated by reference in any filing of
the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. |
|
* |
|
Denotes a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an
exhibit to this form pursuant to Item 15(b) of this report. |
(c) |
|
Financial Statement Schedules |
|
|
|
None. |
- 222 -
|
|
Item 15A. |
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
Page F-1
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Verint Systems Inc.
Melville, New York
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Verint Systems Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended January 31, 2008. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our
audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of Verint Systems Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended January 31, 2008, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.
As
discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements,
certain opening balance sheet accounts as of January
31, 2005 have been restated.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, effective February 1, 2006, the
Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment, and effective February 1, 2007, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of January 31,
2008, based on the criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and
our report dated March 16, 2010 expressed an adverse opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting
because of material weaknesses.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
March 16, 2010
Page F-2
Financial Statements
VERINT SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Balance Sheets
As of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except share and per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
83,233 |
|
|
$ |
49,325 |
|
|
$ |
55,730 |
|
Restricted cash and bank time deposits |
|
|
3,612 |
|
|
|
3,652 |
|
|
|
4,047 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,453 |
|
|
|
167,922 |
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful
accounts of $6.5 million, $2.6 million and $2.3
million, respectively |
|
|
116,427 |
|
|
|
51,321 |
|
|
|
53,218 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
19,525 |
|
|
|
20,922 |
|
|
|
18,840 |
|
Deferred cost of revenue |
|
|
8,698 |
|
|
|
11,968 |
|
|
|
6,131 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
30,991 |
|
|
|
33,306 |
|
|
|
27,252 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
31,565 |
|
|
|
20,621 |
|
|
|
22,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
294,051 |
|
|
|
318,568 |
|
|
|
355,702 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
36,315 |
|
|
|
26,968 |
|
|
|
24,106 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
785,014 |
|
|
|
122,727 |
|
|
|
96,424 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
249,542 |
|
|
|
17,213 |
|
|
|
20,931 |
|
Capitalized software development costs, net |
|
|
10,272 |
|
|
|
9,762 |
|
|
|
10,241 |
|
Deferred cost of revenue |
|
|
64,043 |
|
|
|
64,712 |
|
|
|
68,361 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
12,686 |
|
|
|
24,595 |
|
|
|
25,563 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
40,352 |
|
|
|
9,131 |
|
|
|
8,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,492,275 |
|
|
$ |
593,676 |
|
|
$ |
609,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities, Preferred Stock and Stockholders
Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
49,434 |
|
|
$ |
35,107 |
|
|
$ |
21,757 |
|
Accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
|
143,941 |
|
|
|
94,959 |
|
|
|
91,092 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
157,803 |
|
|
|
100,092 |
|
|
|
113,871 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,021 |
|
|
|
1,202 |
|
|
|
1,013 |
|
Liabilities to affiliates |
|
|
1,277 |
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
|
|
1,218 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
3,360 |
|
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
356,836 |
|
|
|
234,083 |
|
|
|
229,085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
610,000 |
|
|
|
1,058 |
|
|
|
1,325 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
18,990 |
|
|
|
1,948 |
|
|
|
3,147 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
114,897 |
|
|
|
128,988 |
|
|
|
134,324 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
68,591 |
|
|
|
29,995 |
|
|
|
22,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
1,169,314 |
|
|
|
396,072 |
|
|
|
389,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock $0.001 par value; authorized
2,500,000 shares. Series A convertible preferred
stock; 293,000 shares issued and outstanding;
aggregate liquidation preference and redemption
value of $301,681 at January 31, 2008. |
|
|
293,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock $0.001 par value; authorized
120,000,000 shares. Issued 32,600,000, 32,547,000,
and 32,524,000 shares, respectively; outstanding
32,526,000, 32,519,000, and 32,524,000 shares,
respectively. |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
387,537 |
|
|
|
352,895 |
|
|
|
346,644 |
|
Treasury stock, at cost - 74,000 and 28,000
shares, respectively. |
|
|
(2,094 |
) |
|
|
(936 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Unearned stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,119 |
) |
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(355,567 |
) |
|
|
(153,602 |
) |
|
|
(113,083 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(610 |
) |
|
|
(785 |
) |
|
|
(842 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
29,298 |
|
|
|
197,604 |
|
|
|
219,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities, preferred stock and
stockholders equity |
|
$ |
1,492,275 |
|
|
$ |
593,676 |
|
|
$ |
609,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page F-3
VERINT SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Operations
For the Years Ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product |
|
$ |
333,130 |
|
|
$ |
251,584 |
|
|
$ |
187,253 |
|
Service and support |
|
|
201,413 |
|
|
|
117,194 |
|
|
|
91,501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
|
534,543 |
|
|
|
368,778 |
|
|
|
278,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product |
|
|
121,627 |
|
|
|
116,274 |
|
|
|
88,996 |
|
Service and support |
|
|
100,397 |
|
|
|
48,175 |
|
|
|
40,598 |
|
Amortization and impairment of acquired technology
and backlog |
|
|
8,018 |
|
|
|
7,664 |
|
|
|
5,017 |
|
Settlement with OCS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
|
230,042 |
|
|
|
191,271 |
|
|
|
134,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
304,501 |
|
|
|
177,507 |
|
|
|
144,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development, net |
|
|
87,668 |
|
|
|
53,029 |
|
|
|
34,889 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
259,183 |
|
|
|
148,229 |
|
|
|
98,399 |
|
Amortization of other acquired intangible assets |
|
|
19,668 |
|
|
|
3,164 |
|
|
|
1,337 |
|
In-process research and development |
|
|
6,682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,852 |
|
Impairments of goodwill and other acquired intangible
assets |
|
|
22,934 |
|
|
|
21,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
|
22,996 |
|
|
|
(765 |
) |
|
|
2,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
419,131 |
|
|
|
224,760 |
|
|
|
140,031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
(114,630 |
) |
|
|
(47,253 |
) |
|
|
4,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
income (expense), net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
5,443 |
|
|
|
8,835 |
|
|
|
8,503 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(36,862 |
) |
|
|
(444 |
) |
|
|
(310 |
) |
Other expense, net |
|
|
(23,767 |
) |
|
|
(595 |
) |
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense), net |
|
|
(55,186 |
) |
|
|
7,796 |
|
|
|
7,995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and noncontrolling
interest |
|
|
(169,816 |
) |
|
|
(39,457 |
) |
|
|
12,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
27,729 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
9,625 |
|
Noncontrolling interest in net income of joint venture |
|
|
1,064 |
|
|
|
921 |
|
|
|
818 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends on preferred stock |
|
|
(8,681 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares |
|
$ |
(207,290 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
31,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
32,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page F-4
VERINT SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity
For the Years Ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained |
|
|
Comprehensive Income (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unearned |
|
|
Earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Par |
|
|
Paid-in |
|
|
Treasury |
|
|
Stock-based |
|
|
(Accumulated |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Translation |
|
|
Stockholders |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Shares |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Capital |
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Compensation |
|
|
Deficit) |
|
|
Gains (Losses) |
|
|
Adjustment |
|
|
Equity |
|
|
Balances as of January 31, 2005 - as previously
reported |
|
|
31,578 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
282,364 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3,395 |
) |
|
$ |
2,155 |
|
|
$ |
(151 |
) |
|
$ |
2,370 |
|
|
$ |
283,375 |
|
Cumulative impact of restatement adjustments see
Note 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(116,902 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2,973 |
) |
|
|
(80,301 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of January 31, 2005 - as restated |
|
|
31,578 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
321,940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,395 |
) |
|
|
(114,747 |
) |
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
(603 |
) |
|
|
203,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,664 |
|
Unrealized gain on available for sale securities, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Currency translation adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
1,578 |
|
Exercise of stock options |
|
|
591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,979 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,187 |
|
Common stock issued for stock awards |
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,389 |
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
(10,861 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of treasury stock |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
Tax effects from stock award plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,074 |
|
Common stock issued for Employee Stock Purchase Plan |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of January 31, 2006 |
|
|
32,524 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
346,644 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,119 |
) |
|
|
(113,083 |
) |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
(695 |
) |
|
|
219,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
Unrealized gain on available for sale securities, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
Currency translation adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(40,462 |
) |
Implementation of SFAS No. 123(R) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13,119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
382 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,132 |
|
Forfeitures of restricted stock awards |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of treasury stock |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(541 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(541 |
) |
Tax effects from stock award plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
Other tax adjustments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of January 31, 2007 |
|
|
32,519 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
352,895 |
|
|
|
(936 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(153,602 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(773 |
) |
|
|
197,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
Unrealized gain on available for sale securities, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Currency translation adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
(198,434 |
) |
Cumulative effect of the adoption of FIN 48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,674 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,356 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,030 |
) |
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,013 |
|
Stock options issued in business acquisition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,717 |
|
Common stock issued for stock awards |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeitures of restricted stock awards |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
792 |
|
|
|
(792 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of treasury stock |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(366 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(366 |
) |
Tax effects from stock award plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of January 31, 2008 |
|
|
32,526 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
387,537 |
|
|
$ |
(2,094 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(355,567 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(610 |
) |
|
$ |
29,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page F-5
VERINT SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
For the Years Ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Cash flows from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(198,609 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
46,791 |
|
|
|
20,873 |
|
|
|
17,736 |
|
Provision for doubtful accounts |
|
|
3,380 |
|
|
|
495 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
Impairments of assets |
|
|
28,083 |
|
|
|
25,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
In-process research and development |
|
|
6,682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,852 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
31,013 |
|
|
|
18,132 |
|
|
|
1,187 |
|
Provision for deferred income taxes |
|
|
19,992 |
|
|
|
(6,222 |
) |
|
|
4,864 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Non-cash losses on derivative financial
instruments |
|
|
22,267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-cash items, net |
|
|
2,631 |
|
|
|
2,406 |
|
|
|
1,104 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities, net
of effects of business combinations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
(20,184 |
) |
|
|
7,067 |
|
|
|
(11,889 |
) |
Inventories |
|
|
1,005 |
|
|
|
(1,936 |
) |
|
|
(1,251 |
) |
Deferred cost of revenue |
|
|
5,613 |
|
|
|
(740 |
) |
|
|
(7,737 |
) |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses |
|
|
8,480 |
|
|
|
6,105 |
|
|
|
23,236 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
25,130 |
|
|
|
(23,666 |
) |
|
|
24,521 |
|
Prepaid
expenses and other assets |
|
|
14,040 |
|
|
|
(2,731 |
) |
|
|
(5,600 |
) |
Other liabilities |
|
|
4,697 |
|
|
|
5,381 |
|
|
|
7,813 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
(1,310 |
) |
|
|
(475 |
) |
|
|
(911 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating
activities |
|
|
(299 |
) |
|
|
9,099 |
|
|
|
58,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for business combinations, net of cash
acquired |
|
|
(953,154 |
) |
|
|
(42,473 |
) |
|
|
(63,201 |
) |
Purchases of property and equipment |
|
|
(14,247 |
) |
|
|
(11,166 |
) |
|
|
(10,857 |
) |
Cash paid for capitalized software development
costs |
|
|
(4,624 |
) |
|
|
(4,492 |
) |
|
|
(4,758 |
) |
Purchases of investments |
|
|
(208,000 |
) |
|
|
(1,347,100 |
) |
|
|
(1,308,411 |
) |
Sales and maturities of investments |
|
|
328,465 |
|
|
|
1,388,684 |
|
|
|
1,334,809 |
|
Other investing activities |
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
1,461 |
|
|
|
(3,601 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(851,733 |
) |
|
|
(15,086 |
) |
|
|
(56,019 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock |
|
|
293,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
650,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of debt issuance costs |
|
|
(13,606 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercises of stock options and employee stock
purchase plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
10,191 |
|
Repayments of long-term debt |
|
|
(42,496 |
) |
|
|
(424 |
) |
|
|
(726 |
) |
Excess tax benefits from stock-based
compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other financing activities |
|
|
(1,881 |
) |
|
|
(1,154 |
) |
|
|
(472 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing
activities |
|
|
885,017 |
|
|
|
(1,089 |
) |
|
|
8,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
923 |
|
|
|
671 |
|
|
|
(440 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
33,908 |
|
|
|
(6,405 |
) |
|
|
10,807 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
49,325 |
|
|
|
55,730 |
|
|
|
44,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
83,233 |
|
|
$ |
49,325 |
|
|
$ |
55,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow
information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for interest |
|
$ |
30,680 |
|
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes |
|
$ |
4,113 |
|
|
$ |
3,323 |
|
|
$ |
4,189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash investing transactions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of stock options exchanged in
connection with business combinations |
|
$ |
4,717 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued but unpaid purchases of property and equipment |
|
$ |
1,466 |
|
|
$ |
1,878 |
|
|
$ |
2,122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory transfers to property and equipment |
|
$ |
795 |
|
|
$ |
947 |
|
|
$ |
1,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business combination consideration earned, but
paid in subsequent periods |
|
$ |
1,796 |
|
|
$ |
8,152 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of license, paid for in subsequent periods |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Page F-6
VERINT SYSTEMS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Description of Business
Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms Verint, we, us, and our in these notes to
consolidated financial statements refer to Verint Systems Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.
Verint® Systems Inc. is a leading global provider of Actionable Intelligence® solutions and
value-added services designed to help organizations make timely and effective decisions. Our
solutions are used to capture, distill, and analyze complex and underused information sources, such
as voice, video, and unstructured text. In the enterprise market, our workforce optimization
solutions help organizations enhance customer service operations in contact centers, branches, and
back-office environments to increase customer satisfaction, reduce operating costs, identify
revenue opportunities, and improve profitability. In the security intelligence market, our video
intelligence, public safety, and communications intelligence and investigative solutions are used
by government and commercial organizations in their efforts to protect people, property, and
infrastructure.
Basis of Presentation
We are a majority-owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. (Comverse). Comverse
historically provided certain corporate and administrative services to us in the past. However,
during the three years ended January 31, 2008, Comverse no longer provided material levels of such
services.
Principles of Consolidation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Verint Systems Inc., our
wholly-owned subsidiaries and a joint venture in which we hold a 50% equity interest. This joint
venture is a variable interest entity in which we are the primary beneficiary. Our investment in
this joint venture, which functions as a systems integrator for Asian markets, is not material to
our consolidated financial statements. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have
been eliminated. We reflect the noncontrolling interest in net income (loss) of the joint venture
in the consolidated statements of operations, and the noncontrolling interest in the joint venture
is recorded in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. We have included the results
of operations of acquired companies from the date of acquisition.
Page F-7
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) requires our management to make estimates and assumptions, which may
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash primarily consists of cash on hand and bank deposits. Cash equivalents primarily consist of
interest-bearing money market accounts and other highly liquid investments with an original
maturity of three months or less when purchased.
Restricted Cash and Bank Time Deposits
Restricted cash and restricted bank time deposits are pledged as collateral or otherwise restricted
as to use for vendor payables, general liability insurance, workers compensation insurance, and
warranty programs. Restricted bank time deposits generally consist of certificates of deposit with
original maturities of between 90 and 360 days.
Investments
Investments generally consist of marketable debt securities of corporations, the U.S. government
and agencies of the U.S. government. Through January 31, 2008, we also periodically invested in
auction rate securities. Effective in the year ended January 31, 2009, we no longer invest in
auction rate securities as a matter of policy.
In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 115, Accounting for
Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, we determine the appropriate classification of
debt securities at the time of purchase and reevaluate such designations as of each balance sheet
date. Our investments in marketable securities, all of which are classified as available-for-sale,
are stated at fair value based on market quotes. Investments with stated maturities beyond one
year are classified as short-term if the securities are highly marketable and readily convertible
into cash for current operations. Unrealized gains and losses, net of deferred taxes, are recorded
as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in stockholders equity. We recognize
realized gains and losses upon sale of short-term investments, and declines in value deemed to be
other than temporary, using the specific identification method. Interest on short-term investments
is recognized within income when earned.
We periodically review our investments for indications of possible impairment in value. Factors
considered in determining whether a loss is other than temporary include the length of time and
extent to which fair value has been below the cost basis, the financial condition and near-term
prospects of the investee, and our intent and ability to hold the investment for a period of time
sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value. Upon sale, the cumulative
unrealized gain or loss associated with the sold security that was previously recorded in
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) is reclassified into the consolidated statement of
operations as a realized gain (loss), which is included in interest and other income, net.
Page F-8
Concentration of Credit Risk
Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist
principally of cash and cash equivalents, bank time deposits, short-term investments, and trade
accounts receivable. We invest our cash in bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and money
market accounts with major financial institutions, in U.S. Treasury and agency obligations, and in
debt securities of corporations. By policy, we seek to limit credit exposure on investments
through diversification and by restricting our investments to highly-rated securities.
We grant credit terms to our customers in the ordinary course of business. Concentrations of
credit risk with respect to trade accounts receivable are limited due to the large number of
customers comprising our customer base and their dispersion across different geographic areas.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
Our financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, bank time deposits,
short-term investments, derivative instruments, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued
expenses, and long-term debt. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, bank time deposits,
accounts receivable, and accounts payable approximates fair value because of their nature and short
period of time to maturity or payment. The fair value of short-term investments, derivative
instruments, and long-term debt is determined using quoted market prices for those securities or
similar financial instruments.
Accounts Receivable, Net
Accounts receivable are recorded at the invoiced amount and are not interest-bearing, subject to
the following:
The
application of our revenue recognition policies sometimes results in circumstances for which we
are unable to recognize revenue relating to sales transactions that have been billed, but the
related account receivable has not been collected. For consolidated balance sheet presentation
purposes, we do not recognize the deferred revenue or the related account receivable and no amounts
appear in our consolidated balance sheets for such transactions. Only to the extent that we have
received cash for a given deferred revenue transaction is the amount included in the deferred
revenue recorded on the consolidated balance sheets.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
We estimate the collectability of our accounts receivable balances each accounting period and
adjust our allowance for doubtful accounts accordingly. We exercise a considerable amount of
judgment in assessing the collectability of accounts receivable, including consideration of the
creditworthiness of each customer, their collection history and the related aging of past due
receivables balances. We evaluate specific accounts when we learn that a customer may be
experiencing a deterioration of its financial condition due to lower credit ratings, bankruptcy,
or other factors that may affect its ability to render payment.
Page F-9
The following table summarizes the activity in our allowance for doubtful accounts for the years
ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
2,630 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
|
$ |
2,571 |
|
Provisions charged to expense |
|
|
3,366 |
|
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
348 |
|
Amounts written-off |
|
|
(251 |
) |
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
(583 |
) |
Other (1) |
|
|
745 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
6,490 |
|
|
$ |
2,630 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes balances from acquisitions and changes in balances due to foreign currency
exchange rates. |
Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined using the weighted
average method of inventory accounting. The valuation of our inventories requires us to make
estimates regarding excess or obsolete inventories, including making estimates of the future demand
for our products. Although we make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our forecasts of future
product demand, any significant unanticipated changes in demand, price, or technological
developments could have a significant impact on the value of our inventory and reported operating
results. Charges for excess and obsolete inventories are included within cost of revenue.
Property and Equipment, net
Property and equipment are stated at cost, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization.
Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method based over the estimated useful lives of
the assets. We depreciate our property and equipment, other than buildings and leasehold
improvements, over periods ranging from three to ten years. Buildings are depreciated over periods
ranging from twenty-five to thirty years. Furniture and fixtures are depreciated over periods
ranging from three to ten years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of their
estimated useful lives or the related lease term.
The cost of maintenance and repairs of property and equipment is charged to operations as incurred.
When assets are retired or disposed of, the cost and accumulated depreciation or amortization
thereon are removed from the consolidated balance sheet and any resulting gain or loss is
recognized in the consolidated statement of operations.
Page F-10
Goodwill, Other Acquired Intangible Assets, and Long-lived Assets
We record goodwill when the purchase price of net tangible and intangible assets we acquire exceeds
their fair value. Other acquired intangible assets include identifiable acquired technologies,
trade names, customer relationships, distribution networks, sales backlogs, and non-competition
agreements. We amortize the cost of finite-lived identifiable intangible assets on a straight-line
basis, which approximates the pattern in which the economic benefits of the assets are expected to
be realized, over periods of ten years or less.
We regularly perform reviews to determine if the carrying values of our goodwill and other
intangible assets are impaired. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets (SFAS No. 142), we review goodwill for impairment in value at least annually on November
1, or more frequently if an event occurs indicating the potential for impairment. As of January
31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, we had no indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill. To test for potential
impairment, we first perform an assessment of the fair value of our reporting units. We utilize
three primary approaches to determine fair value: (i) an income-based approach, using projected
discounted cash flows, (ii) a market-based approach using multiples of comparable companies, and
(iii) a transaction-based approach using multiples for recent acquisitions of similar businesses
made in the marketplace.
Our estimate of fair value of each reporting unit is based on a number of subjective factors,
including: (a) appropriate weighting of valuation approaches (income approach, comparable public company approach and
comparable transaction approach), (b) estimates of our future cost structure, (c) discount rates
for our estimated cash flows, (d) selection of peer group
companies for the public company and the market transaction approaches, (e) required level of working capital, (f) assumed terminal value, and (g) time horizon
of cash flow forecasts.
The fair value of each reporting unit is compared to its carrying value to determine whether there
is an indication of impairment in value. If an indication of impairment exists, we perform a
second analysis to measure the amount of impairment, if any. During the years ended January 31,
2008 and 2007 we recorded non-cash charges to recognize impairments of goodwill of $20.6 million
and $20.3 million, respectively.
In
accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets
(SFAS No. 144), we review intangible assets that have finite useful lives and other long-lived
assets when an event occurs indicating the potential for impairment. If any indicators are
present, we perform a recoverability test by comparing the sum of the estimated undiscounted future
cash flows attributable to the assets in question to their carrying amounts. If the undiscounted
cash flows used in the test for recoverability are less than the long-lived assets carrying amount,
we determine the fair value of the long-lived asset and recognize an impairment loss if the
carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value.
During the years
ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, we recorded non-cash charges to recognize
impairments of long-lived intangible assets other than goodwill of $2.7 million and $4.5 million,
respectively.
Further discussion of these impairment charges appears in Note 6, Intangible Assets and Goodwill.
Impairment charges related to operating expenses are included in impairments of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets, and impairment charges related to cost of revenue are included in
amortization and impairment of acquired technology and backlog on the accompanying consolidated
statements of operations.
Page F-11
Derivative Financial Instruments
As part of our risk management strategy we use derivative financial instruments including forward
contracts and interest rate swap agreements to hedge against certain foreign currency and interest
rate exposures. Our intent is to offset gains and losses that occur from the underlying exposure
with gains and losses on the derivative contracts used to offset them. As a matter of our company
policy, we do not enter into speculative positions with derivative instruments. In accordance with
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (SFAS No. 133) the
criteria we use for designating a derivative as a hedge include contemporaneous documentation of
the instruments effectiveness in risk reduction and direct matching of the financial instrument to
the underlying transaction. We record all derivatives in other assets or other liabilities on our
consolidated balance sheets at their fair values. Gains and losses from the changes in values of
these derivatives are accounted for based on the use of the derivative and whether it qualifies for
hedge accounting.
For the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, none of our derivative instruments are being
accounted for using hedge accounting and accordingly, all derivatives are marked-to-market at the
end of each accounting period, with changes in fair value whether realized or unrealized,
recognized in current period earnings within other income (expense), net. See Note 14, Derivative
Financial Instruments for a full description of our hedging activities and related accounting
policies.
Long-term Debt
We capitalize debt issuance costs incurred in connection with our long-term borrowings and credit
facilities. We amortize these costs as an adjustment to interest expense over the contractual life
of the associated long-term borrowing or credit facility using the effective interest method for
long-term borrowings and the straight-line method for revolving credit facilities. When
unscheduled principal payments are made, we adjust the amortization of our deferred debt issuance
costs to reflect the expected remaining terms of the borrowing.
Segment Reporting
We have three operating segments, which are also our reportable segments, Enterprise Workforce
Optimization Solutions (Workforce Optimization), Video Intelligence Solutions (Video
Intelligence), Communications Intelligence and Investigative Solutions (Communications
Intelligence). We determine our reportable segments in accordance with SFAS No. 131, Disclosures
about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. Our Chief Executive Officer is our chief
operating decision maker, who utilizes segment revenues and segment contribution as the primary
basis for assessing financial results of segments and for
the allocation of resources. See Note 18, Segment, Geographic and Significant Customer
Information, for a full description of our segments and related accounting policies.
Page F-12
Revenue Recognition
We derive and report our revenue in two categories: (i) product revenue, including hardware and
software products, and (ii) service and support revenue, including revenue from installation
services, post-contract customer support (PCS), project management, hosting services, and
training services.
Our revenue recognition policy is a critical component of determining our operating results and is
based on a complex set of accounting rules that require us to make significant judgments and
estimates. Our customer arrangements typically include several elements including products,
services, and support. Revenue recognition for a particular arrangement is dependent upon such
factors as the level of customization within the solution and the contractual delivery, acceptance,
payment, and support terms with the customer. Significant judgment is required to conclude whether
collectability of fees is considered probable and whether fees are fixed and determinable. In
addition, our multiple element arrangements must be carefully reviewed to determine whether the
fair value of each element can be established, which is a critical factor in determining the timing
of the arrangements revenue recognition.
For software license arrangements that do not require significant modification or customization of
the underlying software, we recognize revenue when we have persuasive evidence of an arrangement,
the product has been shipped or the services have been provided to the customer, the sales price is
fixed or determinable, collectability is probable, and all pertinent criteria are met as required
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement of Position (SOP)
97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, SOP 98-9, Modification of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue
Recognition With Respect to Certain Transactions, and EITF Issue No. 03-5, Applicability of AICPA
Statement of Position 97-2 to Non-Software Deliverables in an
Arrangement Containing More-Than-Incidental Software (in the aggregate also known as SOP 97-2).
The majority of our software license arrangements contain multiple elements including software,
hardware, PCS, and professional services such as installation, consulting, and training. We
allocate revenue to the delivered elements of the arrangement using the residual method, whereby
revenue is allocated to the undelivered elements based on vendor specific objective evidence of
fair value (VSOE) of the undelivered elements as prescribed in SOP 97-2 with the remaining
arrangement fee allocated to the delivered elements and recognized as revenue assuming all other
revenue recognition criteria are met. If we are unable to establish VSOE for the undelivered
elements of the arrangement, revenue recognition is deferred for the entire arrangement until all
elements of the arrangement are delivered. However, if the only undelivered element is PCS, we
recognize the arrangement fee ratably over the PCS period.
For multiple element arrangements for which we are unable to establish VSOE of one or more
elements, and where such arrangements are recognized ratably, we use various available indicators of fair
value and apply our best judgment to reasonably classify the arrangements revenue into
product revenue and service revenue for purposes of financial reporting. For these arrangements,
we review our VSOE for training, installation, and PCS services from similar transactions, stand-alone services arrangements and prepare comparisons to peers, in order to determine reasonable and
consistent approximations of fair values of service revenue for statement of operations
classification purposes. The remaining amount is allocated to product revenue.
Page F-13
Our policy for establishing VSOE of fair value for installation, consulting, and training is based
upon an analysis of separate sales of services, which are then compared with the fees charged
when the same elements are included in a multiple element arrangement.
PCS revenues are derived from providing technical software support services and unspecified
software updates and upgrades to customers on a when and if available basis. PCS revenue is
recognized ratably over the term of the maintenance period, which in most cases is one year. When
PCS is included within a multiple element arrangement, we utilize either the substantive renewal
rate approach or the bell-shaped curve approach to establish VSOE of fair value for the PCS,
depending upon the business operating segment, geographical region, or product line.
Under the bell-shaped curve approach of establishing VSOE, we perform a VSOE compliance test to
ensure that a substantial majority of our actual PCS renewals are within a narrow range of pricing.
Under the substantive renewal rate approach, we believe it is necessary to evaluate whether both
the support renewal rate and term are substantive, and whether the renewal rate is being
consistently applied to subsequent renewals for a particular customer. We establish VSOE under
this approach through analyzing the renewal rate stated in the customer agreement and determining
whether that rate is above the minimum substantive VSOE renewal rate established for that
particular PCS offering. The minimum substantive VSOE rate is determined based upon an analysis of
renewal rates associated with historical PCS contracts. For contracts that do not contain a stated
renewal rate, revenue associated with the entire bundled arrangement is recognized ratably over the
PCS term. Contracts that have a renewal rate below the minimum substantive VSOE rate are deemed to
contain a more than insignificant discount element, for which VSOE cannot be established. We
recognize aggregate contractual revenue for these arrangements over the period that the customer is
entitled to renew their PCS at the discounted rate, but not to exceed the estimated economic life
of the product. We evaluate many factors in determining the estimated economic life of our
products, including the support period of the product, technological obsolescence, and the
customers expectations. We have concluded that our software products have estimated economic
lives ranging from five to seven years.
For certain of our products, we do not have an explicit obligation to provide PCS but as a matter
of business practice have provided implied PCS. The implied PCS is accounted for as a separate
element for which VSOE does not exist. Arrangements that contain implied PCS are recognized over
the period the implied PCS is provided, but not to exceed the estimated economic life of the
product.
For shipment of products which include embedded firmware that has been deemed incidental, we
recognize revenue in accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104, Revenue
Recognition (SAB No. 104) and EITF Issue No. 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple
Deliverables (EITF No. 00-21). EITF No. 00-21 addresses the accounting for arrangements that may
involve the delivery or performance of multiple products, services, and/or rights to use assets.
Under the terms of SAB No. 104, revenue is recognized provided that persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the fee is fixed or
determinable and collectability of the fee is reasonably assured. For shipments of hardware
products, delivery is considered to have occurred upon shipment, provided that the risks of loss,
and title in certain jurisdictions, have been transferred to the customer.
Page F-14
Some of our arrangements require significant customization of the product to meet the particular
requirements of the customer. For these arrangements, revenue is recognized in accordance with
Accounting Research Bulletin No. 45, Long-Term Construction-Type Contracts, and the relevant
guidance contained within SOP 81-1, Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and Certain
Production-Type Contracts (SOP 81-1), typically using the percentage-of-completion (POC)
method. Under the POC method, revenue recognition is generally based upon the ratio of hours
incurred to date to the total estimated hours required to complete the contract. Profit estimates
on long-term contracts are revised periodically based on changes in circumstances, and any losses
on contracts are recognized in the period that such losses become evident. If the range of
profitability cannot be estimated, but some level of profit is assured, revenue is recognized to
the extent of costs incurred, until such time that the projects profitability can be estimated or
the services have been completed. In addition, if VSOE does not exist for the contracts PCS
element but some level of profitability is assured, revenue is recognized to the extent of costs
incurred. Once the services are completed, the remaining portion of the arrangement fee is
recognized ratably over the remaining PCS period. In the event some level of profitability on a
contract cannot be assured, the completed-contract method of revenue recognition is applied.
In certain of our arrangements accounted for under SOP 81-1, the fee is contingent on the return on
investment our customers receive from such services. Revenue from these arrangements is recognized
under the completed contract method of accounting when the contingency is resolved and
collectability is assured, which in most cases is upon final receipt of payment.
If an arrangement includes customer acceptance criteria, revenue is not recognized until we can
objectively demonstrate that the software or services meet the acceptance criteria, or the
acceptance period lapses, whichever occurs earlier.
We record provisions for estimated product returns in accordance with SFAS No. 48, Revenue
Recognition When Right of Return Exists, in the same period in which the associated revenue is
recognized. We base these estimates of product returns upon historical levels of sales returns and
other known factors. Actual product returns could be different from our estimates and current or
future provisions for product returns may differ from historical provisions. Concessions granted
to customers are recorded as reductions to revenue in the period in which they were granted. The
vast majority of our contracts are successfully completed, and concessions granted to customers are
minimal in both dollar value and frequency.
Product revenue derived from shipments to resellers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
who purchase our products for resale are generally recognized when such products are
shipped (on a sell-in basis). We have historically experienced insignificant product returns
from resellers and OEMs, and our payment terms for these customers are similar to those granted to
our end-users. If a reseller or OEM develops a pattern of payment delinquency, or seeks payment
terms longer than generally accepted, we defer the recognition of revenue until the receipt of
cash. Our arrangements with resellers and OEMs are periodically reviewed as our business and
products change.
We follow EITF Issue No. 99-19,
Reporting Revenue Gross as Principal versus Net as an Agent. Generally, we record revenue at
gross and record costs related to a sale in cost of revenue. In those cases where we are not the
primary obligor and/or do not bear credit risk, or where we earn a fixed transactional fee,
revenue is recorded under the net method based on the net amount retained by us.
Page F-15
Reimbursements
for out-of-pocket expenses are reported as revenue in accordance with
EITF Issue No. 01-14,
Income Statement Characterization of Reimbursements Received for Out-of-Pocket Expenses Incurred.
Shipping and handling fees and expenses that are billed to customers are recognized in revenue and
the costs associated with such fees and expenses are recorded in cost of revenues in accordance
with EITF Issue No. 00-10, Accounting for Shipping and Handling Fees and Costs. Historically,
these fees and expenses have not been material. Taxes collected from customers and remitted to
governmental authorities are excluded from revenue.
For information regarding the correction of errors in previously reported financial statements with
respect to recognition of revenue related to certain contracts, including errors related to the
improper determination of VSOE, please see Note 2, Corrections of Errors in Previously Issued
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Cost of Revenue
Our cost of revenue includes costs of materials, compensation and benefit costs for operations and
service personnel, subcontractor costs, royalties and license fees, depreciation of equipment used
in operations and service, amortization of capitalized software development costs and certain
purchased intangible assets, and related overhead costs.
Where revenue is recognized over multiple periods in accordance with our revenue recognition
policies, we have made an accounting policy election whereby cost of product revenue, including
hardware and third-party software license fees are capitalized and recognized in the same period
that product revenue is recognized, while installation and other service costs are generally
expensed as incurred, except for certain contracts that are accounted for using contract accounting
principles. Deferred costs of revenue are classified in their entirety as current or long-term
assets based on whether the related revenue will be recognized within twelve months of the
origination date of the arrangement.
For certain contracts accounted for using contract accounting principles, revisions in estimates of
costs and profits are reflected in the accounting period in which the facts that require the
revision become known, if such facts become known subsequent to the issuance of the consolidated
financial statements. If such facts become known before the issuance of the financial statements,
the requisite revisions in estimates of costs and profits are reflected in these financial
statements. At the time a loss on a contract becomes evident, the entire amount of the estimated
loss is accrued. Related contract costs include all direct material and labor costs and those
indirect costs related to contract performance.
Customer acquisition and origination costs, including sales commissions, are recorded in selling
general and administrative expenses. These costs are expensed as incurred, with the exception of
certain sales referral fees in our Communication Intelligence business which are capitalized and
amortized ratably over the revenue recognition period.
On July 31,
2006, we entered into a settlement agreement with the OCS, pursuant to
which we exited a royalty-bearing program and the OCS agreed to accept
a lump sum payment of approximately $36.0 million. Prior to the settlement,
we had accrued approximately $16.8 million of royalties and related interest due under the
original terms of the program through charges to cost of revenue in the
corresponding periods of the related revenue, net of previous royalty
payments. We recorded a charge of approximately $19.2 million to cost of
revenue in the second quarter of the year ended January 31, 2007 for the
remaining amount of the lump sum settlement in excess of amounts
previously
accrued under the program. Payments agreed to under the OCS settlement
were completed immediately following the execution of the settlement
agreement. Beginning in calendar year 2006, we entered into a new
program with the OCS under which we are no longer required to pay
royalties to the OCS.
Page F-16
Research and Development, net
With the exception of certain software development costs, all research and development costs are
expensed as incurred, and consist primarily of personnel and consulting costs, travel, depreciation
of research and development equipment, and related overhead and other costs associated with
research and development activities.
We receive non-refundable grants from the Israel Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) that fund a
portion of our research and development expenditures. Prior to arrangements that were made early
in calendar year 2006, subject to a settlement completed in July 2006, we entered into
royalty-bearing arrangements with the OCS, wherein royalties were payable only in the event the
projects receiving such grants were successfully commercialized and generated revenue. Royalties, are recorded as part of our cost
of revenue when due. Beginning in calendar year 2006, we only enter into non royalty-bearing arrangements with the OCS which do
not require us to pay royalties. Funds received from the OCS are recorded as a reduction to
research and development expense.
Software Development Costs
Software development costs incurred subsequent to establishing technological feasibility, and
continuing through general release of the software products, are capitalized in accordance with
SFAS No. 86, Accounting for the Costs of Computer Software to be Sold, Leased, or Otherwise
Marketed. Amortization of capitalized costs begins in the period in which the related product is
available for general release to customers and is recorded on a straight-line basis, which
approximates the pattern in which the economic benefits of the capitalized costs are expected to be
realized, over the useful lives of the related software products, generally four years.
Income Taxes
We account for income taxes using a balance sheet approach in accordance with SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes (SFAS No. 109). Under this approach, deferred taxes are recorded for
the future tax consequences expected to occur when the reported amounts of assets and liabilities
are recovered or paid. The provision for income taxes represents income taxes paid or payable for
the current year plus the change in deferred taxes during the year. Deferred taxes result from
differences between the financial statement and tax bases of our assets and liabilities, and are
adjusted for changes in tax rates and tax laws when changes are enacted. The effects of future
changes in income tax laws or rates are not anticipated.
We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous foreign jurisdictions. The calculation of
our tax provision involves the application of complex tax laws and requires significant judgment
and estimates.
Page F-17
We evaluate the realizability of our deferred tax assets for each jurisdiction in which we operate
at each reporting date. SFAS No. 109 requires a valuation allowance to be established when it is
more likely than not that all or a portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized. The
ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable
income of the same character and in the same jurisdiction. We consider all available positive and
negative evidence in making this assessment, including but not limited to, the scheduled reversal
of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and tax planning strategies. In
circumstances where there is sufficient negative evidence indicating that our deferred tax assets
are not more-likely-than-not realizable, we establish a valuation allowance.
On February 1, 2007, we implemented the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48). FIN 48
requires a two-step approach to recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions accounted for in
accordance with SFAS No. 109. The first step is to evaluate tax positions taken or expected to be
taken in a tax return by assessing whether, based solely on their technical merits, they are
more-likely-than-not sustainable upon examination and including resolution of any related appeals
or litigation process. The second step is to measure the associated tax benefit of each position
as the largest amount that we believe is more-likely-than-not realizable. Differences between the
amount of tax benefits taken or expected to be taken in our income tax returns and the amount of
tax benefits recognized in our financial statements, determined by applying the prescribed
methodologies of FIN 48, represent our unrecognized income tax benefits, which we either record as
a liability or as a reduction of the deferred tax asset for net operating loss carryovers. This
interpretation also provides guidance on de-recognition, financial statement classification,
interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. Our policy is to
include interest and penalties related to unrecognized income tax benefits as a component of income
tax expense.
Functional Currency and Foreign Currency Transaction Gains and Losses
The functional currency for each of our foreign subsidiaries is the respective local currency with
the exception of our subsidiaries in Israel and Canada, whose functional currencies are the U.S.
Dollar (dollar). Most of our revenue and materials purchased from suppliers are denominated in
or linked to the dollar. Transactions denominated in currencies other than the dollar (primarily
compensation and benefits costs of foreign operations) are converted to the dollar on the
transaction date, and any resulting assets or liabilities are further translated at each reporting
date and at settlement. Gains and losses recognized upon such translations are included within
other income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations.
In those limited instances where a foreign subsidiary has a functional currency other than the
dollar, revenue and expenses are translated into dollars using average exchange rates for the
reporting period, while assets and liabilities are translated into dollars using period-end rates.
The effects of foreign currency translation adjustments are included in stockholders equity as a
component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheets.
Page F-18
Stock-Based Compensation
On February 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS No.
123(R)) and related interpretative guidance issued by the FASB and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). SFAS No. 123(R) requires the recognition of the cost of employee services
received in exchange for an award of equity instruments in the financial statements and measurement
of such cost based on the grant-date fair value of the award. We use the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of certain of our stock-based awards. SFAS No.
123(R) requires the fair value of an award to be recognized over the period during which an
employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award.
SFAS No. 123(R) replaced SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS No. 123),
and superseded Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees (APB No. 25), and its related interpretations. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No.
123(R) we previously recognized expense using an intrinsic method for option awards granted at
exercise prices less than the fair market value of the underlying common stock as of the
measurement date.
As part of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we applied the modified prospective transition method
to all past awards outstanding and unvested as of February 1, 2006 and are recognizing the
associated expense over the remaining vesting period of such awards based on the fair values
determined under SFAS No. 123. As such, the modified prospective transition method does not result
in a restatement of results of prior periods.
The following table provides pro forma disclosure of stock-based compensation expense in accordance
with SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based CompensationTransition and Disclosurean amendment
of FASB Statement No. 123, as if the fair value accounting method of SFAS No. 123 had been applied
to stock-based compensation for the year ended January 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
January 31, 2006 |
|
Net income (loss): |
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
Add: Stock-based compensation included in net income, net of related tax effect |
|
|
836 |
|
Add: Stock option expense related to Comverse options issued below fair market value |
|
|
29 |
|
Deduct: Total stock-based compensation expense determined under
fair value based method for all awards,
net of related tax effects |
|
|
(9,961 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net loss |
|
$ |
(7,432 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share basic and diluted |
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma |
|
$ |
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Information regarding the correction of errors in previously issued financial statements associated
with certain option awards made in years prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) appears in Note
2, Corrections of Errors in Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements.
Page F-19
Net Income (Loss) Per Share
Shares used in the calculation of basic net income (loss) per share are based on the
weighted-average number of shares outstanding during the accounting period. Shares used in the
calculation of basic earnings per share exclude unvested shares of restricted stock because they
are contingent upon future service conditions. Shares used in the calculation of diluted net
income per share are based on the weighted-average number of shares outstanding, adjusted for the
assumed exercise of all potentially dilutive stock options and other stock-based awards outstanding
using the treasury stock method. Shares used in the calculation of diluted net income per share
also include the assumed conversion of our convertible preferred stock, if dilutive. In periods
for which we report a net loss, basic net loss per share and diluted net loss per share are
identical since the effect of potential common shares is anti-dilutive and therefore excluded.
Adoption of Other Accounting Pronouncements
In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs an amendment of ARB No. 43,
Chapter 4 (SFAS No. 151). SFAS No. 151 clarifies that abnormal inventory costs such as costs of
idle facilities, excess freight and handling costs, and wasted materials (spoilage) are required to
be recognized as current period charges. We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 151 effective
February 1, 2006 on a prospective basis. The adoption of SFAS No. 151 did not have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, which replaced
APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes, (SFAS
No. 154) and SFAS No. 3, Reporting Accounting Changes
in Interim
Financial Statements-An Amendment of APB Opinion No. 28. SFAS No. 154 provides guidance on the
accounting for and reporting of accounting changes and error corrections. It establishes
retrospective application as the required method for accounting for and reporting a change in
accounting principle (in the absence of explicit transition requirements specific to a newly
adopted accounting principle) and a correction of an error. In September 2006, the SEC issued SAB
No. 108, Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in
Current Year Financial Statements (SAB No. 108). SAB No. 108 provides guidance on how the
effects of the carryover or reversal of prior year financial statement misstatements should be
considered in quantifying a current year misstatement. Specifically, SAB No. 108 requires that
companies evaluate the materiality of an error on the basis of both (1) the error quantified as the
amount by which the current year income was misstated and (2) the cumulative error quantified as
the cumulative amount by which the current year balance sheet was misstated. In our determination,
presentation, and disclosure of
the errors and resulting corrective adjustments discussed in Note 2, Correction of Errors in
Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements, we applied the applicable provisions of both
SFAS No. 154 and SAB No. 108.
Page F-20
In November 2005, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) Nos. FAS 115-1 and FAS 124-1, The
Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments (FSP FAS
115-1). FSP FAS 115-1 addresses the determination as to when an investment is considered
impaired, whether that impairment is other than temporary, and the measurement of an impairment
loss. FSP FAS 115-1 also includes accounting considerations subsequent to the recognition of
other-than-temporary impairment and requires certain disclosures about unrealized losses that have
not been recognized as other-than-temporary impairments. FSP FAS 115-1 clarifies that an investor
must recognize an impairment loss no later than when the impairment is deemed other-than-temporary,
even if a decision to sell an impaired security has not been made. We adopted the provisions of
FSP FAS 115-1 effective February 1, 2006 on a prospective basis. The adoption of FSP FAS 115-1 did
not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In February 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments
(SFAS No. 155), which amends SFAS No. 133 and SFAS No. 140, Accounting of the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (SFAS No. 140). Specifically, SFAS No. 155 amends SFAS No. 133 to
permit fair value re-measurement for any hybrid financial instrument with an embedded derivative
that otherwise would require bifurcation, provided the whole instrument is accounted for on a fair
value basis. Additionally, SFAS No. 155 amends SFAS No. 140 to allow a qualifying special purpose
entity to hold a derivative financial instrument that pertains to a beneficial interest other than
another derivative financial instrument. SFAS No. 155 applies to all financial instruments
acquired or issued after the beginning of an entitys first year that begins after September 15,
2006, with early application allowed. Our adoption of SFAS No. 155 on February 1, 2007 did not
have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS No. 157), which
provides enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 157
also responds to investors requests for expanded information about the extent to which companies
measure assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used to measure fair value and the
effect of fair value measurements on earnings. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other standards
require or permit assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. This standard does not
expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 is effective for years
beginning after November 15, 2007, and is effective for our year beginning February 1, 2008. In
February 2008, the FASB issued a Staff Position which partially defers the effective date of SFAS
No. 157 for one year for non-financial assets and liabilities, except for items that are recognized
or disclosed at fair value in an entitys financial statements on a recurring basis (at least
annually). The adoption of SFAS No. 157 on February 1, 2008 did not have a material effect on our
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Page F-21
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and
Financial Liabilities (SFAS No. 159). SFAS No. 159 provides companies with an option to report
selected financial assets and liabilities at fair value. The standards objective is to reduce
both complexity in accounting for financial instruments and the volatility in earnings caused by
measuring related assets and liabilities differently. The standard requires companies to provide
additional information that will help investors and other users of financial statements to more
easily understand the effect of the option to use fair value on earnings. It also requires
companies to display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which they have chosen to
use fair value on the face of the balance sheet. The new standard does not eliminate disclosure
requirements included in other accounting standards, including requirements for disclosures about
fair value measurements included in SFAS No. 157 and SFAS No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments (SFAS No. 107). SFAS No. 159 is effective for years beginning after
November 15, 2007, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2008.
The adoption of SFAS No. 159 on February 1, 2008 did not have a material effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
In June 2007, the FASB ratified the consensus reached by the EITF in Issue No. 06-11, Accounting
for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards (EITF No. 06-11). Under this
consensus, a realized income tax benefit from dividends or dividend equivalents that are charged to
retained earnings and are paid to employees under certain share-based benefit plans should be
recognized as an increase in additional paid-in capital. As it relates to us, the consensus became
effective on February 1, 2008. As no dividends were paid during the year ended January 31, 2009,
the accounting guidance in EITF No. 06-11 is not expected to be applied in the preparation of the
consolidated financial statements for the year then ended.
In June 2007, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 07-3, Accounting for Nonrefundable Advance Payments
for Goods or Services to Be Used in Future Research and Development Activities (EITF No. 07-3).
EITF No. 07-3 requires non-refundable advance payments for goods and services to be used in future
research and development (R&D) activities to be recorded as assets and the payments to be
expensed when the R&D activities are performed. EITF No. 07-3 applies prospectively for new
contractual arrangements entered into beginning in the first quarter of the year ended January 31,
2009 (our quarter ended April 30, 2008). Prior to adoption, we recognized these non-refundable
advance payments as expenses upon payment. The adoption of EITF No. 07-3 did not have a material
impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)). SFAS
No. 141(R) replaces SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141), but retains the
requirement that the purchase method of accounting for acquisitions be used for all business
combinations. SFAS No. 141(R) expands on the disclosures previously required by SFAS No. 141,
better defines the acquirer and the acquisition date in a business combination, and establishes
principles for recognizing and measuring the assets acquired (including goodwill), the liabilities
assumed, and any non-controlling interests in the acquired business. SFAS No. 141(R) is effective
for all business combinations with an acquisition date occurring in years beginning after December
15, 2008, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2009. The
impact that SFAS No. 141(R) will have on us will depend on
the nature and size of any acquisitions completed after we adopt this standard.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements (SFAS No. 160), which establishes accounting and reporting standards for the
noncontrolling (minority) interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary.
SFAS No. 160 is effective for business arrangements entered into in years beginning on or after
December 15, 2008, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2009.
Early adoption is prohibited. We are in the process of evaluating this standard and therefore have
not yet determined the impact that the adoption of SFAS No. 160 will have on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
Page F-22
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activitiesan amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (SFAS No. 161), which changes the disclosure
requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide
enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how
derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No. 133 and its
related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an
entitys financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for
financial statements issued for years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with
early application encouraged, which means that it will be effective for our year beginning February
1, 2009. The adoption of SFAS No. 161 is not expected to have a significant impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June 2008, the FASB issued FSP EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether Instruments Granted in
Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities (FSP EITF 03-6-1). FSP EITF 03-6-1
provides that all outstanding unvested share-based payments that contain rights to non-forfeitable
dividends participate in the undistributed earnings with the common shareholders and are therefore
participating securities. Companies with participating securities are required to apply the
two-class method in calculating basic and diluted earnings per share. FSP EITF 03-6-1 is effective
for years beginning after December 15, 2008 and early adoption is prohibited, which means that it
will be effective for our year beginning February 1, 2009. The adoption of FSP EITF 03-6-1 is not
expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In April 2009, the FASB issued the following three FSPs that are intended to provide additional
application guidance and enhance disclosures about fair value measurements and impairments of
securities:
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the
Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not
Orderly (FSP FAS 157-4); |
|
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments (FSP FAS 115-2); and |
|
|
|
|
FSP No. FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures About Fair Value of Financial
Instruments (FSP FAS 107-1). |
FSP FAS 157-4 clarifies the objective and method of fair value measurement even when there has been
a significant decrease in market activity for the asset being measured. FSP FAS 115-2 establishes
a new model for measuring other-than-temporary impairments for debt securities, including
establishing criteria for when to recognize a write-down through earnings versus other
comprehensive income. FSP FAS 107-1 expands the fair value disclosures required for all financial
instruments within the scope of SFAS No. 107 to interim periods. All of these FSPs are effective
for interim and annual periods ending after June 15, 2009. We are assessing the potential impact
that the adoption of FSP FAS 157-4 and FSP FAS 115-2 may have on our consolidated financial
statements. FSP FAS 107-1 may result in increased disclosures in our future interim periods.
Page F-23
In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, Subsequent Events (SFAS No. 165).
SFAS No. 165 was modified by Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events (Topic 855):
Amendments to Certain Recognition and Discloure Requirements, issued in February 2010.
SFAS No. 165, as modified,
establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the
balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. This statement is effective for
interim and annual periods ending after June 15, 2009. We do not expect that the adoption of SFAS
No. 165 will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R) (SFAS No.
167). SFAS No. 167 amends FIN 46(R) and requires a company to perform an analysis to determine
whether its variable interests give it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest
entity. This analysis requires a company to assess whether it has the power to direct the
activities of the variable interest entity and if it has the obligation to absorb losses or the
right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the variable interest entity.
SFAS No. 167 requires an ongoing reassessment of whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a
variable interest entity, eliminates the quantitative approach previously required for determining
the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity and significantly enhances disclosures. SFAS
No. 167 may be applied retrospectively in previously issued financial statements with a
cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first year restated.
SFAS No. 167 is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2009. We are in the
process of evaluating this standard and therefore have not yet determined the impact that the
adoption of SFAS No. 167 will have on our consolidated financial
statements.
In September 2009, the FASB ratified the consensuses reached by the EITF regarding the following
issues involving revenue recognition:
|
|
|
Issue No. 08-1, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables (EITF No. 08-1); and |
|
|
|
Issue No. 09-3, Certain Revenue Arrangements That Include Software Elements (EITF No.
09-3). |
EITF No. 08-1 applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that are currently within the
scope of EITF No. 00-21. EITF No. 08-1 also provides principles and application guidance on
whether a revenue arrangement contains multiple deliverables, how the arrangement should be
separated, and how the arrangement consideration should be allocated. EITF No. 08-1 requires an
entity to allocate revenue in a multiple-deliverable arrangement using estimated selling prices of
the deliverables if a vendor does not have vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party
evidence of selling price. It eliminates the use of the residual method and, instead, requires an
entity to allocate revenue using the relative selling price method. It also expands disclosure
requirements with respect to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements.
Page F-24
EITF No. 09-3 applies to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements that contain both software and
hardware elements, focusing on determining which revenue arrangements are within the scope of the
software revenue guidance in SOP 97-2. EITF No. 09-3 removes tangible products from the scope
of the software revenue guidance and provides guidance on determining whether software deliverables
in an arrangement that includes a tangible product are within the scope of the software revenue
guidance.
The accounting guidance in EITF No. 08-1 and EITF No. 09-3 should be applied on a prospective basis
for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010. It will be effective for us in our fiscal year beginning February 1, 2011, although
early adoption is also permitted. Alternatively, an entity can elect to adopt the provisions of
these issues on a retrospective basis. We are currently assessing the potential impact that the
application of EITF No. 08-1 and EITF No. 09-3 may have on our consolidated financial statements.
During the third quarter of the year ending January 31, 2010, we adopted the new Accounting
Standards Codification (ASC) as issued by the FASB. The ASC has become the source of
authoritative U.S. GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. The ASC
is not intended to change or alter existing GAAP. The adoption of the ASC had no impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
2. Corrections of Errors in Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements
Since our IPO in May 2002, we have been a majority-owned subsidiary of Comverse, and prior thereto
we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse.
While we were a wholly-owned subsidiary, our employees received from Comverse options to purchase
Comverse common stock, which we accounted for under the then applicable accounting rules, and we
therefore did not recognize any compensation expense for Comverse stock options granted to
employees, as we believed that the exercise price of the options granted was equivalent to the
market price of the common stock on the date of grant. Since May 2002, none of our employees has
received any compensatory awards from Comverse, other than in connection with a repricing of
Comverse stock options initiated by Comverse in June 2002.
On March 14, 2006, Comverse announced that its board of directors had formed the Comverse
Special Committee, composed of its outside directors, to review matters relating to stock option
granting practices of Comverse including the accuracy of the option grant dates.
Page F-25
On April 17, 2006, the Comverse Special Committee announced its preliminary conclusion that the
actual dates of measurement for certain Comverse stock option grants differed from the recorded
dates. As a result of this announcement, we determined that, until completion of the Comverse
review, we could not determine the impact that such review would have on our historical
compensation expense or our previous disclosures. As a result, on April 17, 2006, we announced
that our historical financial statements should not be relied on. In addition, we concluded at
that time, that without better visibility into the results of the Comverse investigation, we could
not disclose any current financial information (other than selected unaudited information, such as
revenue data, which would not be impacted by the potential stock-based compensation charges) since
that information could ultimately prove to be materially incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
Although there were no allegations or evidence suggesting that the measurement dates we used for
options we granted after our IPO date were incorrect, at the request of our audit committee, our
management conducted an internal review of our stock option grant practices to determine whether
the actual dates of measurement for any stock options granted following our IPO differed from the
recorded dates. This review is referred to as our Phase I review. No such differences were
uncovered and the evidence supported all grant dates. Although it was not the focus of the Phase
II investigation, our audit committee uncovered no evidence of improper stock option backdating.
On September 6, 2006, we announced that the Comverse Special Committee had provided us with
preliminary measurement dates for the Comverse stock options granted to our employees, including
preliminary calculations of the additional stock-based compensation expense attributable to those
grants. We also announced that, based on this information, we had determined that the non-cash,
stock-based compensation expense we would possibly need to record was material for certain periods,
our expectation was that we would restate certain of our historical financial statements since our
IPO, that periods prior to the year ended January 31, 2002 could be affected and that, in addition
to such expense, we also expected to record certain material tax charges, make various tax
payments, and pay third-party fees and expenses resulting from the improper accounting for certain
Comverse stock options.
In addition to the investigation into past stock option granting practices, on November 14, 2006,
Comverse announced that the Comverse Special Committee had expanded its investigation into certain
non-option related accounting matters, including possible revenue recognition errors, errors in
recording of certain deferred tax assets, expense misclassification, misuse of accounting reserves
and understatement of backlog. As a result, our audit committee initiated its own internal
investigation into certain of these non-option accounting issues, including accounting reserves,
income statement expense classification and revenue recognition. This review is referred to as the
Phase II investigation. Our internal investigation of these other accounting issues was conducted
by our audit committee with the assistance of special independent counsel, forensic accountants,
and various technology experts. The review initially covered the year ended January 31, 1998
through the year ended January 31, 2006, but was later expanded to
include the year ended January 31, 2007.
Separate and distinct from the Phase I review and the Phase II investigation, in connection with
the audits of our open and prior accounting periods at the time, we announced on November 5, 2007
that we had also undertaken reviews of our accounting treatment for revenue recognition under
complex contractual arrangements pursuant to SOP 97-2, SOP 81-1, and related accounting guidance.
As part of this review, we completed a comprehensive review of our license and sales agreements,
and re-performed technical calculations associated with, among other things, the establishment of
VSOE of fair value in accordance with SOP 97-2. VSOE of fair value calculations involve making
determinations regarding the fair value of our maintenance, professional and implementation
services, as well as the application of the residual method to allocate revenue to each element of
our bundled hardware and software arrangements.
Page F-26
On March 20, 2008, we announced the completion and key results of the Phase I review and Phase II
investigation, which are described more fully below. The VSOE/revenue recognition review has also
been completed as described below.
The adjustments recorded in connection with these restatements to our previously filed historical
financial statements are set forth below under - Summary of Restatement Adjustments.
Summary of Findings
Phase I Review
The investigation by the Comverse Special Committee determined that Comverses historical stock
option granting practices were not in accordance with U.S. GAAP. On that basis, we determined that
our previously recorded stock-based compensation was understated. As a result, we recorded a
pre-tax reduction of $18.3 million to our opening retained earnings balance as of February 1, 2005,
reflecting the cumulative effect of the Phase I review corrections impacting periods through
January 31, 2005.
During the course of our management review, no evidence of any differences between the actual dates
of measurement and the recorded dates of measurement with respect to Verint stock option grants was
discovered. In addition, although it was not the focus of the Phase II investigation discussed
below, our audit committee also uncovered no evidence of improper stock option backdating and we
believe that the accounting related to these stock options was correct. As a result, no accounting
adjustments were required to be recorded.
Phase II Investigation
Issues Resulting in Restatement Adjustments
Reserves Adjustments
Our audit committee found that, prior to the year ended January 31, 2003, accounting reserves were
intentionally overstated, and concluded that the intent in overstating reserves was to build a
conservative reserve and to allow future flexibility and resulted in large measure from a lack of
rigorous and diligent accounting. Moreover, our audit committee found this practice of overstating
reserves was not systemic within Verint, but rather was isolated in terms of the personnel
involved. This process was found to be far more ad hoc and limited to the actions of a small
number of employees, including our former Chief Financial Officer and certain other former
employees who directly or indirectly reported to him. Our audit committee found no evidence
indicating that reserves were intentionally overstated in any period subsequent to the year ended
January 31, 2003.
Page F-27
Following the publication of our audit committees report, we carefully reviewed our historic
reserve accounts in light of our audit committees findings and found that some reserves lacked
adequate supporting documentation. Where documentation was lacking, reviews of actual transactions
subsequent to the establishment of the reserves were performed. For certain reserves, the actual
subsequent transactions were significantly different than the recorded reserves, even when allowing
for modest differences to be expected when an estimated reserve is recorded, and did not justify
the amounts of the original reserves. Accordingly, we have restated these accounts to reflect
appropriate and supportable balances. As a result, we recorded an increase of $0.7 million to our
opening retained earnings balance as of February 1, 2005, reflecting the cumulative pre-tax effect
of the Phase II investigation corrections impacting periods through that date.
Other Phase II Investigation Findings
Our audit committee determined that our personnel, including sales teams and senior executives,
were focused on the need to meet or exceed budgeted revenue projections on a quarterly basis. In
that regard, our audit committee found evidence of the practice of seeking customer agreement to
accept delivery of products either earlier or later than originally scheduled delivery dates,
depending on our budget needs in a particular quarter. Our audit committee concluded that these
actions did not constitute fraud or other unlawful conduct and that the accounting treatment was
appropriate and, therefore, the audit committee did not propose any adjustments. However, our
audit committee concluded that it was not the best business practice to have delivery decisions
influenced by revenue recognition factors. As a result of our audit committees conclusions, we
have revised our policies and procedures regarding revenue recognition and have established a set
of enhanced practices for quarter-end transactions.
Our audit committee found evidence that during the tenure of our former Chief Financial Officer,
our finance departments practices with regard to documenting transactions and conclusions with
respect to judgments made by management and the retention of documentation were significantly
deficient, which impeded its investigation. As a result, our audit committee determined that
enhancement of our record retention practices was necessary. As a result, we have revised our
policies and procedures regarding the manner in which transactions are to be documented, the level
of support required for documenting managements judgments and related document retention
procedures.
Our audit committee
also investigated the alleged manipulation
of backlog and improper
expense classifications. The investigation revealed that we did not manipulate our backlog, but we did misclassify
certain expenses. The review of statement of operations classifications found that in certain
periods, certain royalties and license fees were misclassified as either selling expenses, general
and administrative expenses or research and development expenses, and instead should have been
classified as components of cost of revenue. We have concluded that such misclassifications were
the result of error and did not have a material impact on our previously issued financial
statements. However, these reclassifications are included in the Phase II adjustments included in
the table entitled Summary of Restatement Adjustments below.
Page F-28
VSOE/Revenue Recognition Review
The VSOE/revenue recognition review revealed that the requirements to prepare contemporaneous
documentation analyzing and supporting the adoption of SOP 97-2 was not adequately performed, that
we had prepared limited documentation analyzing our initial and ongoing compliance with SOP 97-2,
that we had not appropriately determined whether VSOE of fair value existed for undelivered
elements, and that other errors had been made in the recognition of
revenue and cost of revenue related to many of our
contracts.
As a result, we recorded a pre-tax reduction of $131.3 million to our opening retained earnings
balance as of February 1, 2005, reflecting the cumulative effect of the VSOE/revenue recognition
review corrections to revenue and cost of revenue impacting periods through January 31, 2005.
We have revised and enhanced our revenue recognition policies and controls as part of our
remediation efforts.
VSOE/Revenue Recognition and Cost of Revenue
In reviewing our revenue recognition practices, we examined our two primary sources of revenue: (i)
product revenue, including hardware and software products; and (ii) service revenue, including
installation services, warranty, PCS, professional services, and training services. A significant
portion of customer arrangements contain multiple elements which include bundling products and
services in a single arrangement with a customer.
When VSOE of fair value does not exist for all delivered elements of an arrangement, SOP 97-2, as
modified by SOP 98-9, requires revenue to be recognized under the residual method. In essence, the
amount recognized as product revenue is derived by ascertaining the fair value of all undelivered
elements (i.e., PCS and other services) and subtracting the value of the undelivered elements from
the total arrangement value. The amount left after subtracting the fair value of the undelivered
elements from the total arrangement value is referred to as the residual amount and represents
the amount recognized as revenue for the delivered elements of our offering in a multiple element
arrangement. If the fair value of all undelivered elements cannot be determined, revenue
recognition is deferred for all elements, including delivered elements, until all elements are
delivered or VSOE is established for such elements. However, if the only undelivered element is
PCS, the entire arrangement fee is recognized ratably over the PCS period.
During our revenue recognition review, we determined that for many of our arrangements, we were
unable to determine the fair value of all or some of the undelivered elements within the multiple
element arrangement, as required by SOP 97-2. The result of this conclusion is that a significant
amount of our product revenue that was previously recognized upon delivery (and upon payment being
made by the customer or due from the customer) is now being deferred to later periods and in many
cases being recognized ratably over several quarters or years.
Page F-29
Our conclusion that we were unable to determine VSOE of fair value of one or more undelivered
elements in a multiple element arrangement is based on a technical analysis that we have engaged in
over a period of nearly two years. Our technical analysis was complex due in part to the fact we
operate in three business segments and within each business segment we have multiple offerings that
have unique characteristics relative to the application of revenue recognition under SOP 97-2.
Factors that we considered in making these determinations include, but were not limited to:
|
|
|
whether we provided any services or PCS, including bug fixes, updates, and upgrades, to
customers that were more than minimal and infrequent; |
|
|
|
our pricing and discounting practices in respect to our service and support offerings,
such as installation services and maintenance services; |
|
|
|
whether we had sufficient data points to evidence our ability to reasonably estimate the
amount of effort required to perform services; and |
|
|
|
whether we had objective evidence of certain aspects of customer transactions, such as
customer acceptance of our product and installation. |
Specifically, for arrangements in which we were unable to establish VSOE of fair value for PCS, we
allocated the revenue for the entire arrangement ratably over the period PCS was provided.
Therefore, in circumstances in which we had an obligation to deliver PCS, revenue for the
arrangement would be recognized ratably over the PCS period which in certain cases could be several
years. However, we also determined as a result of our review that we delivered PCS in
circumstances in which we were not contractually obligated to do so (i.e., we provided implied PCS
free of charge). In these cases, revenue for the arrangement is being recognized ratably over the
estimated economic life of the product because the free support period was indeterminable. The
result of our review of what we agreed to deliver in terms of PCS, without being explicitly
obligated to do so or in situations where PCS renewal rates were more than insignificantly
discounted, combined with our inability to determine fair value for these undelivered elements,
created a range of outcomes in terms of how we adjusted our revenue recognition for these
arrangements. Essentially, arrangements where a significant portion of revenue was previously
recognized upon delivery of the product are now being recognized over several periods and in
certain cases over the estimated economic life of the underlying product which ranges between five
and seven years. In the instances that we did determine VSOE of fair value for PCS but could not
determine VSOE of fair value for other services, revenue is being deferred until the delivery of
all elements other than PCS.
In addition, certain transactions where revenue was previously recognized net of associated costs
including commissions to third parties are being restated on a gross basis in accordance with EITF
Issue No. 99-19, Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus Net as an Agent, primarily because
we were the primary obligor in circumstances in which sales agents were involved.
Page F-30
Other Adjustments
The accompanying consolidated financial statements also reflect other accounting adjustments to
correct misstatements identified during our restatement process that were not related to historical
stock option practices, reserves, or revenue recognition.
Summary of Restatement Adjustments
The table below summarizes the aggregate impact of all of the accounting adjustments described
above to our historical financial statements for all periods through January 31, 2005.
These adjustments had the cumulative effect of reducing our retained earnings by $116.9 million,
net of income taxes, resulting in an accumulated deficit of $114.7 million as of January 31, 2005.
The components of these cumulative adjustments were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative |
|
|
|
effect through |
|
(in thousands) |
|
January 31, 2005 |
|
Revenue (1) |
|
$ |
(203,471 |
) |
Cost of revenue (2) |
|
|
72,134 |
|
Phase I review (3) |
|
|
(18,303 |
) |
Phase II investigation (4) |
|
|
720 |
|
Other adjustments (5) |
|
|
1,946 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(146,974 |
) |
Income tax effect of all adjustments |
|
|
30,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cumulative effect to accumulated deficit as of February 1, 2005 |
|
$ |
(116,902 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These restatement adjustments do not reflect the impact of certain transactions now
reported on a gross rather than net basis of accounting. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes cost of revenue as well as certain operating costs that vary directly with
revenue. These adjustments do not reflect the impact of certain transactions now
reported on a gross rather than net basis of accounting. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase I review related to stock-based
compensation. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes impact of errors identified in the Phase II investigation, including
impacts to reserves, certain revenue recognition matters unrelated to our VSOE/revenue
recognition
review and account classifications. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes adjustments to correct misstatements identified during our restatement process
that were not related to historical stock option practices, reserves, or revenue
recognition. |
Page F-31
The revenue and cost of revenue restatement adjustments described above primarily relate to
correcting the timing of the recognition of revenue over accounting periods, and do not impact the
aggregate amount of cash flows or the aggregate amount of revenue we generated, other than the
impact of foreign currency exchange rates on certain revenue now reported and translated into U.S.
Dollars in different accounting periods and certain transactions moving from net to gross
accounting. However, the effects of the revenue and cost of revenue restatement adjustments for prior periods extend beyond
those periods and into the subsequent periods. As described above, revenue from certain arrangements that was previously recognized
in a single year is now being recognized ratably over periods as long as seven years. The foregoing changes in revenue and cost of
revenue recognition, among other things, resulted in adjustments to certain balance sheet accounts as of January 31, 2005, including
most significantly deferred revenue and other assets.
Cash and
cash equivalents as of January 31, 2005, as presented in the
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended January 31,
2006, has been adjusted by $0.2 million, from $45.1 million, as
previously reported, to $44.9 million, as restated.
3. Net Income (Loss) Per Share
The following table summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per share for
the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(198,609 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
Dividends on preferred stock |
|
|
(8,681 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common
shares basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(207,290 |
) |
|
$ |
(40,519 |
) |
|
$ |
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
31,781 |
|
Dilutive effect of employee stock plans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
diluted |
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
32,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007, we reported net losses applicable to common
shareholders, and accordingly, the basic and diluted weighted average shares outstanding are equal
because any increase to basic weighted average shares outstanding would be antidilutive. The
weighted average diluted shares outstanding for the year ended January 31, 2006 excludes shares
underlying approximately 1.3 million stock options, since such options have exercise prices in
excess of the average market value of our common stock during the period and are therefore
antidilutive.
Page F-32
4. Investments
The following table presents a summary of our investments as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006.
This table includes certain auction rate securities that we classified within other assets at
January 31, 2008, as the global economic environment created disruptions in the markets for these
securities, limiting their liquidity. Further discussion of our auction rate securities follows
this table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Short-term investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction rate securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
126,465 |
|
|
$ |
126,465 |
|
|
$ |
148,550 |
|
|
$ |
148,550 |
|
U.S. Government corporation
and agency bonds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
988 |
|
|
|
19,499 |
|
|
|
19,372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,465 |
|
|
|
127,453 |
|
|
|
168,049 |
|
|
|
167,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction rate securities
classified in other assets |
|
|
7,000 |
|
|
|
2,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government corporation
and agency bonds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments |
|
$ |
7,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,288 |
|
|
$ |
127,465 |
|
|
$ |
127,453 |
|
|
$ |
169,049 |
|
|
$ |
168,902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We invest in a variety of securities, including auction rate securities, which typically provide
higher yields than money market and other cash equivalent investments. Auction rate securities are
collateralized debt instruments having long-term underlying maturities, that provide liquidity
through a Dutch auction process that resets the applicable interest rate at pre-determined
intervals every 90 days or less, at which time the securities can typically be purchased or sold.
Our intent is not to hold these securities until maturity, but rather to use the interest rate
reset feature to provide liquidity as necessary.
At January 31, 2008, our investment portfolio included auction rate securities with an estimated
fair value of $2.3 million and a cost basis (par value) of $7.0 million. The collateral underlying
these investments are primarily AAA-rated pools of residential mortgages, and corporate debt
obligations. These auction rate securities failed to receive sufficient order interest from
potential investors to clear successfully, resulting in failed auctions beginning in the quarter
ended October 31, 2007. However, we continued to earn interest on our auction rate securities at
the maximum contractual rate. The par value of the auction rate securities we held at January 31,
2008 no longer approximated their estimated market value and, accordingly, we recorded these
short-term investments at their estimated fair value of $2.3 million. We estimated the fair value
of these securities in part using valuation data provided by third-party firms that
underwrote the securities. During the quarter ended January 31, 2008, we concluded that our
auction rate securities were no longer liquid, and in the event we needed to access these funds, we
would not have been able to do so without realizing a loss of principal, unless a future auction on
these securities were to be successful. We therefore concluded we had an other-than-temporary
impairment in market value and recorded a $4.7 million pre-tax charge during the year ended January
31, 2008 related to our auction rate securities investments. The impairment expense was recorded
in other income (expense), net in the consolidated statements of operations.
Page F-33
Prior to the first failed auction of our auction rate securities during the year ended January 31,
2008, we valued auction rate securities using quoted market prices because the securities were
highly liquid and there were active markets for the securities. This generally resulted in
valuations at par. Once the auctions for these securities began to fail, these securities could no
longer be valued using prices established by market transactions and we estimated the securities
fair values in part using estimated values provided by the firms which underwrote the securities.
Additionally, because we could not reliably estimate when a successful auction for the auction rate
securities we held at January 31, 2008 would occur, we reclassified these securities as long-term
assets on our consolidated balance sheets.
During the years ended January 31, 2007 and 2006, we had successfully liquidated all of our
historical auction rate security investments in the normal course of business, without incurring
any material losses.
We intended and concluded that we had the ability to hold all securities for all periods presented
for a reasonable period of time sufficient for a forecasted recovery of fair value up to (or
beyond) the initial cost of the investment, and, aside from the aforementioned auction rate
securities held at January 31, 2008, expected to realize the full value of all of these investments
upon maturity or sale. We concluded that the investments we held at January 31, 2007 and 2006 were
not other-than-temporarily impaired.
The following table summarizes the estimated fair values and gross unrealized losses related to our
investments that were not deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, aggregated by type of
investment and length of time that the securities had been in a continuous unrealized loss
position, at January 31, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 Months |
|
|
12 Months or Greater |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Loss |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Loss |
|
At January 31, 2007: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government
corporation and
agency bonds |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
988 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
988 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
988 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
988 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At January 31, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Government
corporation and
agency bonds |
|
$ |
8,485 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
11,867 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
20,352 |
|
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
8,485 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
11,867 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
20,352 |
|
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized losses from investments held at January 31, 2007 and 2006 are primarily attributable to
changes in interest rates. We consider such diminution in value to be temporary. Proceeds from
sales or maturities of investments were $328.5 million,
$1,388.7 million, and $1,334.8 million
during the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. We did not realize any
significant gains or losses on sales of investments for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006.
Page F-34
The contractual maturities of our investments classified as available-for-sale and reported within
other assets at January 31, 2008, are presented in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Due in one year or less |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Due after one year through three years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due after three years through five years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due after five years through ten years |
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
990 |
|
Due after ten years through twenty years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due after twenty years |
|
|
5,200 |
|
|
|
1,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments |
|
$ |
7,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During
the year ended January 31, 2009, we sold our auction rate securities to the broker from
whom we purchased the securities at par value plus accrued interest. We are aware that at the
time, the broker had entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney General of the State
of New York and the North American Securities Administrators Association Task Force.
Consequently, we recorded a gain of $4.7 million when the securities were sold to the broker.
5. Business Combinations
Business Acquisitions for the year ended January 31, 2008
Witness Systems, Inc.
We acquired Witness Systems, Inc. (Witness), formerly a publicly-held company based in Roswell,
Georgia on May 25, 2007. We acquired Witness, among other objectives, to expand our business in
the enterprise workforce optimization market. We have included the financial results of Witness in
our consolidated financial statements since May 25, 2007.
Page F-35
The following table sets forth the components and the allocation of the purchase price of Witness:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Amount |
|
|
Useful Lives |
|
Components of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of approximately 35.2 million shares
of outstanding common stock of Witness at $27.50
per share in cash, net of interest earned |
|
$ |
966,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement of vested and accelerated Witness
stock options in cash |
|
|
93,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of unvested Witness stock options
exchanged |
|
|
4,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent payments on assumed contingent
consideration arrangements |
|
|
4,736 |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct transaction costs |
|
|
14,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
1,084,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
139,777 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
|
71,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes current |
|
|
1,823 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets |
|
|
15,028 |
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(65,130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes long-term |
|
|
(12,042 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(7,590 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets |
|
|
142,911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifiable intangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed technology |
|
|
43,000 |
|
|
6 years |
Trademark and trade name |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
2-4 years |
Customer relationships |
|
|
206,000 |
|
|
10 years |
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1 year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable intangible assets (1) |
|
|
260,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In-process research and development |
|
|
6,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
674,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
1,084,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The weighted average amortization period of all finite-lived identifiable intangible
assets is 9.0 years. |
Page F-36
Purchase Price
We paid $967.1 million in cash to acquire all of the 35.2 million outstanding shares of Witness
common stock on May 25, 2007 at $27.50 per share. The amount was reduced by $0.6 million of
interest earned on funds deposited with the paying agent for which settlement with Witness
stockholders did not occur within one day.
In accordance with the terms of the acquisition agreement and the underlying Witness stock option
agreements, at the acquisition date all vested Witness stock options, in lieu of being exercised,
were exchanged for a cash payment equal to the excess, if any, of $27.50 over the exercise price
per share of the options. In addition, pursuant to their terms, certain unvested Witness stock
options were deemed vested as a result of the acquisition and were also settled in cash, in the
same manner. These payments, including applicable payroll taxes, totaled $93.2 million and are
included within the purchase price.
Unvested Witness stock options were exchanged for options to purchase our common stock using a
conversion formula which maintained the option holders intrinsic value. The fair value of the
unvested options exchanged, $4.7 million of which was attributable to past service and included
within the purchase price, was determined using a Black-Scholes valuation model with the following
assumptions: expected lives ranging from 1.4 years to 3.9 years, a risk-free interest rate of
approximately 4.9%, expected volatility of 40.5%, and no dividend yield.
We assumed several contingent consideration arrangements related to businesses previously acquired
by Witness. One such arrangement provided for potential additional consideration of up to $18.5
million, to be earned quarterly through July 31, 2009, based upon the previously acquired business
achieving certain performance metrics. During the year ended January 31, 2008, $2.7 million of
this contingent consideration was earned, which has been recorded as additional goodwill. An
additional $1.1 million was earned under this agreement in the year ended January 31, 2009. We
also paid $2.0 million of additional consideration during the year ended January 31, 2008 related
to a separate business previously acquired by Witness. This payment was made upon the expiration
of an indemnification period. All contingent consideration earned and paid under these agreements
was recorded as additional goodwill. No further contingent consideration was earned through the
completion of the contingent consideration periods of these arrangements.
Direct transaction costs include investment banking fees, legal and accounting fees, and other
external costs directly related to the acquisition.
In-Process Research and Development
We expensed the fair value of Witness in-process research and development (IPR&D) upon
acquisition, as it represents incomplete research and development projects that had not yet reached
technological feasibility and had no known alternative future use as of the date of the
acquisition. IPR&D is presented as a separate line item on our statement of operations.
Technological feasibility is generally established when an enterprise completes all planning,
designing, coding, and testing activities that are necessary to establish that a product can be
produced to meet its design specifications, including functions, features, and technical
performance requirements. The value assigned to IPR&D of $6.4 million was determined by
considering the importance of each project to our overall future development plans, estimating
costs to develop the purchased IPR&D into commercially viable products, estimating the resulting
net cash flows from each project when completed, and discounting the net cash flows to their
present values.
Page F-37
The revenue estimates used to value the IPR&D were based on estimates of the relevant market sizes
and growth factors, expected trends in technology and the nature and expected timing of new product
introductions. The rates used to discount the cash flows to their present values were based on the
weighted-average cost of capital. The weighted average cost of capital was adjusted to reflect the
difficulties and uncertainties in completing each project and thereby achieving technical
feasibility, the percentage of completion of each project, anticipated market acceptance and
penetration, market growth rates and risks related to the impact of potential changes in future
target markets. Based on these factors, a discount rate of 17% was deemed appropriate for valuing
the IPR&D.
Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets
Among the factors that contributed to the recognition of goodwill in this transaction were the
significant expansion of our market share in the enterprise workforce optimization market, a
broader available suite of products and services, the addition of a talented assembled workforce,
and opportunities for future efficiencies and cost savings. This goodwill has been assigned to our
Workforce Optimization operating segment, and is not deductible for income tax purposes.
Deferred Revenue
Included within the net tangible assets of Witness at May 25, 2007 is the fair value of support
obligations assumed from Witness in connection with the acquisition. We based our determination of
the fair value of the support obligations, in part, on a valuation completed by a third-party
valuation firm using estimates and assumptions provided by management. The estimated fair value of
the support obligations was determined utilizing a cost build-up approach. The cost build-up
approach determines fair value by estimating the costs relating to fulfilling the obligations plus
a normal profit margin. The sum of the costs and operating profit is used to approximate the
amount that we would pay a third party to assume the support obligations. The estimated costs to
fulfill the support obligations were based on the historical direct costs related to providing the
support services. We did not include any costs associated with selling efforts or research and
development or the related fulfillment margins on these costs. Profit associated with selling
effort is excluded because Witness had concluded the selling effort on the support contracts prior
to the acquisition date. The estimated research and development costs have not been included in
the fair value determination, as these costs do not represent a legal obligation at the time of
acquisition. As a result, in our purchase price allocation, we recorded an adjustment to reduce
the historical carrying value of Witness May 25, 2007 deferred support revenue by $38.9 million,
which represents our estimate of the fair value of the support obligation assumed.
Page F-38
ViewLinks Euclipse, Ltd.
We acquired Israel-based ViewLinks Euclipse Ltd. (ViewLinks), a privately-held provider of data
mining and link analysis software solutions, on February 1, 2007. We have included the financial
results of ViewLinks in our consolidated financial results since February 1, 2007. Through January
31, 2008, the total purchase price for ViewLinks was $7.4 million, which consisted of $5.7 million
in cash paid to acquire ViewLinks remaining outstanding common stock, $1.6 million of contingent
consideration earned by and substantially paid to the former ViewLinks shareholders through January 31, 2008, and
$0.1 million of direct transaction costs. Our purchase price allocation for ViewLinks, based on
estimated fair values, including contingent consideration earned, consisted of $4.7 million of
goodwill, $1.8 million of identifiable intangible assets, $0.7 of net tangible assets, and $0.2
million of IPR&D. The intangible assets acquired in this transaction are being amortized over
estimated useful lives of one to five years. The goodwill recorded in this acquisition has been
assigned to our Communications Intelligence operating segment, and is not deductible for income tax
purposes.
Business Acquisitions for the year ended January 31, 2007
Mercom Systems Inc.
We acquired the stock of Mercom Systems, Inc. (Mercom), a privately-held company based in
Lyndhurst, New Jersey on July 14, 2006. We acquired Mercom to, among other things, expand our
offering of interaction recording and performance evaluation solutions for small to midsized
enterprises with contact centers and public safety centers. We have included the financial results
of Mercom in our consolidated financial statements since July 14, 2006.
Page F-39
The following table sets forth the components and the allocation of the purchase price of
Mercom:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Amount |
|
|
Useful Lives |
|
Components of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
35,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payments under contingent consideration arrangement |
|
|
3,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct transaction costs |
|
|
651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
39,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
536 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
|
5,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes current |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets |
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(6,241 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes long-term |
|
|
(1,406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(1,243 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets |
|
|
(2,851 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifiable intangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed technology |
|
|
3,745 |
|
|
7 years |
Distribution network |
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
10 years |
Trademark and trade name |
|
|
375 |
|
|
1 year |
Backlog |
|
|
450 |
|
|
1 month |
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
1,035 |
|
|
5 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable intangible assets (1) |
|
|
8,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
34,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
39,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The weighted average amortization period of all finite-lived identifiable
intangible assets is 7.0 years. |
Purchase Price
The initial purchase price of Mercom included $35.0 million of cash and $0.7 million of direct
transaction costs.
The terms of the agreement also provided the former Mercom stockholders an opportunity to earn up
to $17.5 million of additional cash consideration, based upon achieving certain performance goals,
over the two year period following the acquisition date. $3.7 million of
additional consideration was earned and paid pursuant to this arrangement through January 31, 2008
and was recorded as additional goodwill. No further contingent consideration was earned through
the completion of the contingent consideration period.
Page F-40
Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets
Among the factors that contributed to the recognition of goodwill in this transaction were securing
an expanded presence in the small to midsized contact center market, acquiring a talented assembled
workforce, and opportunities for future synergies and cost savings. This goodwill has been
assigned to our Workforce Optimization operating segment, and is not deductible for income tax
purposes.
CM Insight Limited
We acquired CM Insight Limited (CM Insight), a privately-held performance management solution
provider, based in the United Kingdom on February 6, 2006. We have included the financial results
of CM Insight in our consolidated financial results since February 6, 2006. Through January 31,
2008, the total purchase price for CM Insight was $10.5 million, which consisted of $6.3 million in
cash paid to acquire the outstanding common stock of CM Insight, $3.9 million of contingent
consideration earned for the period ended January 31, 2008, and $0.3 million for direct transaction
costs. The contingent consideration earned and paid during this period was recorded as additional
goodwill. No further contingent consideration was earned by the former CM Insight shareholders
through the completion of the contingent consideration period. Our purchase price allocation for
CM Insight, based on estimated fair values, including contingent consideration earned, consisted of
$9.7 million of goodwill, $0.5 million of identifiable intangible assets and $0.3 of net tangible
assets. The intangible assets acquired in this transaction are being amortized over estimated
useful lives of one to three years. This goodwill recorded in this transaction has been assigned
to our Workforce Optimization operating segment, and is not deductible for income tax purposes.
Business Acquisitions for the year ended January 31, 2006
MultiVision Holdings Limited
We acquired substantially all of the networked video security business of MultiVision Intelligent
Surveillance Limited through the acquisition of the companys Hong Kong based subsidiary,
MultiVision Holdings Limited (MultiVision) on January 9, 2006. We purchased the MultiVision
business, among other objectives, to acquire local product development, customer support and
solutions that are focused on the regional requirements of the Asia Pacific market, to expand our
overall worldwide geographic presence, and to provide opportunities to more effectively market our
existing networked video solutions in that region. We have included the financial results of
MultiVision in our consolidated financial statements since January 9, 2006.
Page F-41
The following table sets forth the components and the allocation of the purchase price of
MultiVision:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Amount |
|
|
Useful Lives |
|
Components of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
47,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct transaction costs |
|
|
1,638 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
48,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of Purchase Price: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
$ |
431 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
|
9,755 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes current |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets |
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(970 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes long-term |
|
|
(1,661 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(8,578 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible assets |
|
|
(539 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifiable intangible assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed technology |
|
|
5,125 |
|
|
5 years |
Customer relationships |
|
|
3,385 |
|
|
5 years |
Distribution network |
|
|
1,004 |
|
|
5 years |
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
222 |
|
|
5 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total identifiable intangible assets (1) |
|
|
9,736 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In-process research and development |
|
|
2,852 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
36,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price |
|
$ |
48,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The weighted average amortization period of all finite-lived identifiable
intangible assets is 5.0 years. |
Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets
Among the factors that contributed to the recognition of goodwill in this transaction were an
expanded presence in the Asia Pacific region, a talented, assembled workforce of product
development and customer service resources focused on the regional requirements of the Asia Pacific
market, expansion of our overall worldwide geographic presence, and opportunities to more effectively
market our existing networked video solutions in the Asia Pacific region. This goodwill has been
assigned to our Video Intelligence operating segment and is not deductible for income tax purposes.
Page F-42
Opus Group LLC
We acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities of Opus Group, LLC. (Opus), a
privately-held provider of performance management solutions for contact centers and back-office
operations based in Hinsdale, Illinois on September 1, 2005. We have included the financial
results of Opus in our consolidated financial results since September 1, 2005. The total purchase
price for Opus was $12.3 million, which consisted of $12.0 million in cash and $0.3 million for
direct transaction costs. Our purchase price allocation for Opus, based on estimated fair values,
consisted of $8.5 million of goodwill, $2.2 million of identifiable intangible assets, and $1.6
million of net tangible assets. The intangible assets acquired in this transaction are being
amortized over estimated useful lives of one to five years. This goodwill recorded in this
transaction has been assigned to our Workforce Optimization operating segment, and is
deductible for income tax purposes.
Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Information
The unaudited financial information presented in the table below summarizes the combined results of
our operations and the operations of Witness and Mercom on a pro forma basis, as though the
companies had been combined as of the beginning of each of the periods presented. The pro forma
impact of the CM Insight and ViewLinks acquisitions are not material either individually or in the
aggregate to our overall consolidated operating results and therefore are not presented.
Pro forma financial information is subject to various assumptions and estimates and is presented
for informational purposes only. This pro forma information does not purport to represent or be
indicative of the consolidated operating results that would have been reported had the transactions
been completed as described herein, and the data should not be taken as indicative of future
consolidated operating results.
Pro forma financial information for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
601,833 |
|
|
$ |
599,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(230,288 |
) |
|
$ |
(117,891 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss applicable to common shares |
|
$ |
(243,310 |
) |
|
$ |
(130,913 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and
diluted net loss per share |
|
$ |
(7.55 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.07 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Intangible Assets and Goodwill
All acquired, finite-lived intangible assets are amortized on a straight-line basis, which
approximates the pattern in which the estimated economic benefits of the assets are realized, over
their estimated useful lives.
Page F-43
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we completed the acquisition of Witness for which
approximately $260.3 million of the purchase price was assigned to identifiable intangible assets
and $674.4 million was assigned to goodwill, including subsequent payments of contingent
consideration. Further details regarding the acquisition of Witness, as well as other business
acquisitions underlying our acquired intangible assets and goodwill are provided within Note 5,
Business Combinations.
In conjunction with the goodwill impairment reviews described below, we conducted reviews for
impairment of our other long-lived assets, including finite-lived intangible assets, in accordance
with SFAS No. 144, as any impairment of these assets must be considered prior to the conclusion of
the impairment review under SFAS No. 142. As a result of these reviews, we recorded a $2.7 million
impairment of finite-lived intangible assets in the fourth quarter of the year ended January 31,
2008 and a $4.5 million impairment of finite-lived intangible assets in the fourth quarter of the
year ended January 31, 2007, related to our Video Intelligence business in the Asia Pacific region.
The impairment charge of $2.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 was due to a change in
business strategy, which resulted in a decline in our distribution business in the region. For
this impairment, $0.4 million is related to acquired technology and is reported within cost of
revenue, and $2.3 million is related to customer-related intangible assets and is reported within
operating expenses. The impairment charge of $4.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2007
resulted from our decision to replace certain acquired technology with new technology sooner than
originally planned. We also fully impaired the value of an acquired distribution network due to
reduced business with certain distributors, driven by changes in our
business strategy in the region. For this impairment, $3.7
million is related to acquired technology and is reported within cost of revenue, and $0.8 million
is related to customer-related intangible assets is reported within operating expenses.
Acquisition-related intangible assets consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Net |
|
Customer relationships |
|
$ |
208,399 |
|
|
$ |
(15,891 |
) |
|
$ |
192,508 |
|
Acquired technology |
|
|
56,798 |
|
|
|
(11,786 |
) |
|
|
45,012 |
|
Trade names |
|
|
10,283 |
|
|
|
(2,848 |
) |
|
|
7,435 |
|
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
4,742 |
|
|
|
(2,219 |
) |
|
|
2,523 |
|
Distribution network |
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
|
(376 |
) |
|
|
2,064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
282,662 |
|
|
$ |
(33,120 |
) |
|
$ |
249,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Net |
|
Customer relationships |
|
$ |
6,043 |
|
|
$ |
(2,109 |
) |
|
$ |
3,934 |
|
Acquired technology |
|
|
12,830 |
|
|
|
(4,724 |
) |
|
|
8,106 |
|
Trade names |
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
(645 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
4,054 |
|
|
|
(1,270 |
) |
|
|
2,784 |
|
Sales backlog |
|
|
1,812 |
|
|
|
(1,731 |
) |
|
|
81 |
|
Distribution network |
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
2,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
27,824 |
|
|
$ |
(10,611 |
) |
|
$ |
17,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Net |
|
Customer relationships |
|
$ |
5,995 |
|
|
$ |
(886 |
) |
|
$ |
5,109 |
|
Acquired technology |
|
|
14,813 |
|
|
|
(3,861 |
) |
|
|
10,952 |
|
Trade names |
|
|
984 |
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
516 |
|
Non-competition agreements |
|
|
4,445 |
|
|
|
(1,456 |
) |
|
|
2,989 |
|
Sales backlog |
|
|
2,060 |
|
|
|
(1,686 |
) |
|
|
374 |
|
Distribution network |
|
|
1,003 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
29,300 |
|
|
$ |
(8,369 |
) |
|
$ |
20,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table presents acquisition-related intangible assets by operating segment as of
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Workforce Optimization |
|
$ |
243,628 |
|
|
$ |
7,026 |
|
|
$ |
955 |
|
Video Intelligence |
|
|
1,847 |
|
|
|
5,927 |
|
|
|
13,231 |
|
Communications Intelligence |
|
|
4,067 |
|
|
|
4,260 |
|
|
|
6,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
249,542 |
|
|
$ |
17,213 |
|
|
$ |
20,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amortization expense recorded for acquisition-related intangible assets was $27.2 million,
$6.9 million, and $6.4 million for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Page F-45
Estimated future finite-lived acquisition-related intangible asset amortization expense is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) For the Years Ending January 31, |
|
Amount |
|
2009 |
|
$ |
35,091 |
|
2010 |
|
|
31,858 |
|
2011 |
|
|
30,765 |
|
2012 |
|
|
29,796 |
|
2013 |
|
|
28,994 |
|
2014 and thereafter |
|
|
93,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
249,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price in a business combination over the fair value
of net tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, we
assigned goodwill to multiple reporting units at one level below our operating segments, primarily
based on types of products sold or services provided and in certain cases by products sold in a
particular industry or vertical market.
In accordance with SFAS No. 142, we test our goodwill for impairment annually as of November 1, or
more frequently, if events or circumstances indicate the potential for an impairment. We performed
goodwill impairment tests for each of our reporting units as of November 1, 2007, 2006, and 2005.
The results of step one of our testing as of November 1, 2007 indicated that the net carrying value
of four of our reporting units exceeded their fair values. We performed the required step two
analysis and recorded impairment charges of $14.0 million in our Workforce Optimization operating
segment and $6.6 million in our Video Intelligence operating segment in the fourth quarter of the
year ended January 31, 2008, which represented the excess of the carrying value of the impaired
reporting units goodwill over their implied fair values. These charges are recorded in
impairments of goodwill and other acquired intangible assets on the accompanying consolidated
statements of operations. The impairment in our Workforce Optimization operating segment related
to our performance management consulting businesses in the United States and Europe, and was due
primarily to overall lower than anticipated demand for our consulting services, which resulted in a
decline in projected future revenue and cash flow. The impairment in our Video Intelligence
operating segment related to our distribution business in the Asia Pacific region, where
revenue declined due to a change in business strategy.
Page F-46
The results of step one of our testing as of November 1, 2006 indicated that the net carrying value
of two of our reporting units exceeded their fair values. These same two reporting units were
determined to be further impaired as of November 1, 2007, as they are both among the four reporting
units for which impairment was identified at that date, as noted above. We performed
the required step two analysis and recorded impairment charges of $3.1 million in our Workforce
Optimization operating segment and $17.1 million in our Video Intelligence operating segment as of
November 1, 2006, which represented the excess of the carrying value of the impaired reporting
units goodwill over their implied fair values. These charges are recorded in impairments of
goodwill and other acquired intangible assets on the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. The impairment in our Workforce Optimization operating segment related to our
performance management consulting business in the United States and was due primarily to overall
lower than anticipated demand for our consulting services, which resulted in a decline in projected
future revenue and cash flow. The impairment in our Video Intelligence operating segment related
to our distribution business in the Asia Pacific region, where revenue declined due to a
change in business strategy.
No goodwill impairment was identified as of November 1, 2005.
Goodwill activity for the three years ended January 31, 2008, in total and by reportable segment,
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reportable Segment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workforce |
|
|
Video |
|
|
Communications |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Total |
|
|
Optimization |
|
|
Intelligence |
|
|
Intelligence |
|
Balance at January
31, 2005 |
|
$ |
49,669 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
24,615 |
|
|
$ |
25,054 |
|
Acquisition of Opus |
|
|
8,487 |
|
|
|
8,487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of
MultiVision |
|
|
36,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
consideration
previous acquisitions (1) |
|
|
2,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency
translation and
other |
|
|
(931 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(931 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January
31, 2006 |
|
|
96,424 |
|
|
|
8,487 |
|
|
|
62,883 |
|
|
|
25,054 |
|
Acquisition of CM
Insight |
|
|
9,676 |
|
|
|
9,676 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of
Mercom |
|
|
34,114 |
|
|
|
34,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
consideration
previous
acquisitions (1) |
|
|
1,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
(20,265 |
) |
|
|
(3,123 |
) |
|
|
(17,142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency
translation and
other |
|
|
1,211 |
|
|
|
628 |
|
|
|
583 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January
31, 2007 |
|
|
122,727 |
|
|
|
49,782 |
|
|
|
47,891 |
|
|
|
25,054 |
|
Acquisition of
Witness |
|
|
674,378 |
|
|
|
674,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of
View Links |
|
|
4,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,692 |
|
Additional
consideration
previous
acquisitions (1) |
|
|
1,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax-related
adjustments |
|
|
(971 |
) |
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
(785 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
(20,639 |
) |
|
|
(14,019 |
) |
|
|
(6,620 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency
translation and
other |
|
|
3,097 |
|
|
|
969 |
|
|
|
2,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January
31, 2008 |
|
$ |
785,014 |
|
|
$ |
710,924 |
|
|
$ |
44,344 |
|
|
$ |
29,746 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Contingent consideration paid for acquisitions completed prior to February 1, 2005. |
Page F-47
7. Long-term Debt
On May 25, 2007, to partially finance the acquisition of Witness, we entered into a $675.0 million
secured credit facility comprised of a $650.0 million seven-year term loan facility and a $25.0
million six-year revolving credit facility.
Borrowings under the credit facility bear interest at a rate of, at our election, (a) the higher of
(i) the prime rate and (ii) the federal funds rate plus 0.50% plus, in either case, a margin of
1.75% or (b) the applicable London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a margin of 2.75%. Such
margins were subject to increase by 0.25% if we failed to receive corporate credit ratings from
both of Moodys Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poors Ratings Services or failed to deliver
certain financial statements to the credit facility administrative agent by February 25, 2008, and
an additional 0.25% if we failed to do so by August 25, 2008. Because we did not timely do so, the
above-referenced applicable margins increased by 0.25% on February 25, 2008 and another 0.25% on
August 25, 2008 to, respectively, 2.25% and 3.25%. If we both obtain the above-referenced
corporate ratings and deliver to the credit facility administrative agent the requisite financial
statements, the applicable margins will subsequently range from 1.00% to 1.75% and 2.00% to 2.75%,
respectively, depending on our corporate ratings from Moodys and S&P.
Optional prepayments of the loans are permitted without premium or penalty (other than customary
breakage costs associated with the prepayment of loans bearing interest based on LIBOR). The loans
are also subject to mandatory prepayment requirements based upon certain asset sales, excess cash
flow and certain other events.
The term loan originally amortized in 27 consecutive quarterly installments of $1.6 million each,
beginning August 1, 2007, followed by a final amortization payment of the remaining outstanding
principal amount when the loan matures. However, on July 31, 2007, we made an optional prepayment
of $40.0 million, $13.0 million of which was applied towards the eight immediately following
principal payments and $27.0 million of which was applied pro rata to the remaining principal
payments.
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we did not draw upon our revolving credit facility.
Our obligations under our credit facility are guaranteed by certain of our domestic subsidiaries
(including Witness) and are secured by substantially all of our and their assets. We paid debt
issuance costs of $13.6 million associated with the credit facility, which we have deferred and are
classified within other assets. We are amortizing these deferred debt issuance costs over the life
of the credit facility. Amortization of deferred costs associated with the term loan is recorded
using the effective interest rate method, while amortization of deferred costs associated with the
revolving credit facility is recorded on a straight-line basis.
Page F-48
On May 25, 2007, concurrently with entry into our credit facility, we entered into a
receive-variable/pay-fixed interest rate swap agreement with a multinational financial institution
on a notional amount of $450.0 million to mitigate a portion of the risk associated with variable
interest rates on the term loan. This interest rate swap agreement terminates in May 2011. See
Note 14, Derivative Financial Instruments for further details regarding the interest rate swap
agreement.
The following is a summary of our outstanding financing arrangements at January 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Term Loan |
|
|
Credit Facility |
|
Balance outstanding at January 31, 2007 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Funds borrowed |
|
|
650,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Principal repaid |
|
|
(40,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance outstanding at January 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
610,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unused commitment amount at January 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate at January 31, 2008 |
|
|
7.38 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We had no material indebtedness at January 31, 2007 and 2006.
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we incurred $34.4 million of interest expense on the term
loan. We also recorded $1.9 million of amortization of our deferred debt issuance costs, which is
reported within interest expense. Included in the deferred debt issuance cost amortization was a
$0.8 million write-off associated with the July 2007 $40.0 million
prepayment.
Future scheduled annual principal payments on the term loan as of January 31, 2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) For the Year Ended January 31, |
|
Amount |
|
|
2009 |
|
$ |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
3,112 |
|
2011 |
|
|
6,225 |
|
2012 |
|
|
6,225 |
|
2013 |
|
|
6,224 |
|
2014 and thereafter |
|
|
588,214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
610,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-49
The credit facility agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants for credit
facilities of this type, including limitations on Verint and our subsidiaries with respect to
indebtedness, liens, dividends and distributions, acquisitions and dispositions of assets,
investments and loans, transactions with affiliates, and nature of business. It also prohibits us
from exceeding a specified consolidated leverage ratio, tested over rolling four-quarter periods.
The agreement also includes a requirement that we submit audited consolidated financial statements
to the lenders within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year which for the year ended January 31,
2010 is May 1, 2010. If audited consolidated financial statements are not so delivered and not
remedied within 30 days thereafter, an event of default occurs.
The credit facility agreement contains customary events of default with corresponding grace
periods. If an event of default occurs and is continuing, the lenders may terminate and/or suspend
their obligations to make loans and issue letters of credit under the credit facility and/or
accelerate amounts due and/or exercise other rights and remedies. In the case of certain events of
default related to insolvency and receivership, the commitments of the lenders will be
automatically terminated and all outstanding loans will become immediately due and payable.
The fair value of the term loan at January 31, 2008 is estimated to be $583 million. This estimate
is based upon the pricing used in trades of portions of the loan in the secondary market at or near
January 31, 2008. These trades were executed by one of the financial institutions that underwrote
the term loan.
8. Balance Sheet Information
Inventories consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Raw materials |
|
$ |
6,225 |
|
|
$ |
6,117 |
|
|
$ |
4,725 |
|
Work-in-process |
|
|
3,308 |
|
|
|
4,518 |
|
|
|
7,046 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
9,992 |
|
|
|
10,287 |
|
|
|
7,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventories |
|
$ |
19,525 |
|
|
$ |
20,922 |
|
|
$ |
18,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-50
Property and equipment, net consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Land |
|
$ |
4,161 |
|
|
$ |
3,650 |
|
|
$ |
3,535 |
|
Buildings |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
|
2,248 |
|
|
|
2,224 |
|
Leasehold improvements |
|
|
9,967 |
|
|
|
7,610 |
|
|
|
4,729 |
|
Software |
|
|
14,735 |
|
|
|
9,707 |
|
|
|
7,489 |
|
Equipment, furniture and other |
|
|
43,518 |
|
|
|
29,224 |
|
|
|
28,845 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,631 |
|
|
|
52,439 |
|
|
|
46,822 |
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
and amortization |
|
|
(38,316 |
) |
|
|
(25,471 |
) |
|
|
(22,716 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property and equipment, net |
|
$ |
36,315 |
|
|
$ |
26,968 |
|
|
$ |
24,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
expense on property and equipment was $14.4 million,
$9.0 million, and $7.0 million
for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Other assets consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Deferred debt issuance costs, net |
|
$ |
11,749 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Derivative instruments, at fair value |
|
|
8,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
20,482 |
|
|
|
9,131 |
|
|
|
8,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets |
|
$ |
40,352 |
|
|
$ |
9,131 |
|
|
$ |
8,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses and other liabilities consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Compensation and benefits |
|
$ |
48,335 |
|
|
$ |
24,086 |
|
|
$ |
17,608 |
|
Billings in excess of costs and
estimated earnings on uncompleted
contracts |
|
|
29,284 |
|
|
|
28,130 |
|
|
|
30,070 |
|
Professional fees and consulting |
|
|
15,185 |
|
|
|
7,626 |
|
|
|
4,615 |
|
Derivative instruments, at fair value |
|
|
8,832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes other than income |
|
|
6,799 |
|
|
|
3,011 |
|
|
|
1,700 |
|
Interest on indebtedness |
|
|
3,754 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Business acquisition consideration |
|
|
1,796 |
|
|
|
8,152 |
|
|
|
1,936 |
|
Product royalties |
|
|
690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,825 |
|
Other |
|
|
29,266 |
|
|
|
23,948 |
|
|
|
22,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued expenses and other
liabilities |
|
$ |
143,941 |
|
|
$ |
94,959 |
|
|
$ |
91,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-51
Other liabilities consist of the following as of January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Unrecognized tax benefits |
|
$ |
28,219 |
|
|
$ |
16,173 |
|
|
$ |
11,803 |
|
Derivative instruments, at fair value |
|
|
21,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligation for severance compensation |
|
|
4,414 |
|
|
|
3,256 |
|
|
|
2,301 |
|
Other |
|
|
14,918 |
|
|
|
10,566 |
|
|
|
7,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other liabilities |
|
$ |
68,591 |
|
|
$ |
29,995 |
|
|
$ |
22,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Convertible Preferred Stock
On May 25, 2007, in connection with our acquisition of Witness, we entered into a Securities
Purchase Agreement with Comverse whereby Comverse purchased, for cash, an aggregate of 293,000
shares of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (preferred stock), for an aggregate purchase
price of $293.0 million. Proceeds from the issuance of the preferred stock were used to partially
finance the acquisition. We incurred $0.2 million of direct issuance costs associated with the
issuance of the preferred stock, which were charged against the carrying value of the preferred
stock.
The preferred stock was issued at a purchase price of $1,000 per share and ranks senior to our
common stock. The preferred stock has an initial liquidation preference equal to its $1,000 per
share purchase price. In the event of any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or
winding-up of our company, the holders of the preferred stock will be entitled to receive, out of
assets available for distribution to our stockholders and before any distribution of assets to our
common stockholders, an amount equal to the then-current liquidation preference, which includes
accrued and unpaid dividends.
The terms of the preferred stock provide that upon a fundamental change, as defined, the holders of
the preferred stock would have the right to require us to repurchase the preferred stock for 100%
of the liquidation preference then in effect. Therefore, the preferred stock has been classified
as mezzanine equity on our consolidated balance sheet at January 31, 2008, separate
from permanent equity, because the occurrence of these fundamental changes, and thus potential
redemption of the preferred stock, however remote in likelihood, is not solely under our control.
Fundamental change events include the sale of substantially all of our assets, and certain changes
in beneficial ownership, board of directors representation and business reorganizations. In the
event of a fundamental change, the conversion rate (as described in the section entitled Voting and
Conversion, below) will be increased to provide for additional shares of common stock issuable to
the holders of preferred stock, based on a sliding scale (depending on the acquisition price, as
defined) ranging from none to 3.7 additional shares of common stock for every share of preferred
stock converted into shares of common stock.
Page F-52
We have concluded that, as of January 31, 2008, there is no indication that the occurrence of a
fundamental change and the associated redemption of the preferred stock were probable. We
therefore have not adjusted the initial carrying amount of the preferred stock to its redemption
amount, which is its liquidation preference, at January 31, 2008. Through January 31, 2008,
cumulative, undeclared dividends on the preferred stock were $8.7 million and as a result, the
liquidation preference of the preferred stock was $301.7 million at that date.
We determined that the variable dividend feature of the preferred stock, details of which are
further described below, was not clearly and closely related to the characteristics of the
preferred stock host contract and, therefore, is an embedded derivative financial instrument,
subject to bifurcation from the preferred stock. This feature was determined to be an asset, and
was assigned an initial fair value of $0.9 million at the May 25, 2007 issue date of the preferred
stock. Therefore, the preferred stock was assigned a fair value of $293.9 million, and the $0.9
million bifurcated derivative financial instrument was reflected within other assets. The $293.7
million carrying value of the preferred stock at January 31, 2008 also reflects the previously
discussed $0.2 million of direct issuance costs. Subsequent changes in the fair value of the
derivative financial instrument are reflected within other income (expense), net. As of January
31, 2008, the fair value of the embedded derivative instrument had increased to $8.1 million,
driven by declining market interest rates which increased the likelihood that the dividend rate
might be reduced. This $7.2 million increase in fair value is reflected within other income
(expense), net.
The holders of the preferred stock have various rights and preferences, as follows:
Dividends
Cash dividends on the preferred stock are cumulative and are calculated quarterly at a specified
dividend rate on the liquidation preference in effect at such time. Dividends are paid only if
declared by our board of directors. Initially, the specified annual dividend rate was 4.25% per
share. However, beginning in the first quarter after the initial interest rate on our term loan,
which is variable, was reduced by 50 basis points or more, the dividend rate was reset to 3.875%
per annum and is then fixed at that level. This variable dividend feature was accounted for as an
embedded derivative financial instrument, as described above.
Declining market interest rates during 2007 resulted in a reduction in the interest rate on our
term loan of more than 50 basis points below its initial interest rate during the quarter ended
January
31, 2008. Accordingly, the dividend rate on the preferred stock was reset to 3.875% effective
February 1, 2008. This rate is now only subject to future change in the event we are unable to
obtain approval of the issuance of common shares underlying the preferred stocks conversion
feature.
We are prohibited from paying cash dividends on the preferred stock under the terms of a covenant
in our credit agreement. We may elect to make dividend payments in shares of our common stock.
The common stock used for dividends, when and if declared, would be valued at 95% of the volume
weighted average price of our common stock for each of the five consecutive trading days ending on
the second trading day immediately prior to the record date for the dividend.
Page F-53
Through January 31, 2008, no dividends had been declared or paid on the preferred stock.
Voting and Conversion
The preferred stock does not have voting or conversion rights until the underlying shares of common
stock are approved for issuance by a vote of holders of a majority of our common stock. Following
receipt of stockholder approval for the issuance of the underlying common shares, each share of
preferred stock will be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of shares of common stock
into which the preferred stock would be convertible at the conversion rate (as defined below) in
effect on the date the preferred stock was issued to Comverse. In addition, following receipt of
stockholder approval for the issuance of the underlying common shares, each share of preferred
stock will be convertible at the option of the holder into a number of shares of our common stock
equal to the liquidation preference then in effect, divided by the conversion price then in effect,
which was initially set at $32.66. The conversion price is subject to periodic adjustment upon the
occurrence of certain dilutive events. If it were convertible at January 31, 2008, the preferred
stock could be converted into approximately 9.2 million shares of our common stock.
At any time on or after May 25, 2009, we have the right, provided approval of the issuance of the
underlying shares of common stock has been obtained, to cause the preferred stock, in whole but not
in part, to be automatically converted into common stock at the conversion price then in effect.
However, we may exercise this right only if the closing sale price of our common stock immediately
prior to conversion equals or exceeds the conversion price then in effect by: (i) 150%, if the
conversion is on or after May 25, 2009 but prior to May 25, 2010, (ii) 140%, if the conversion is
on or after May 25, 2010 but prior to May 25, 2011, or (iii) 135%, if the conversion is on or after
May 25, 2011.
Transfer and Registration Rights
Comverse has had the right to sell the preferred stock since November 25, 2007 in either private or
public transactions. Pursuant to a registration rights agreement we entered into concurrently with
the Securities Purchase Agreement (New Registration Rights Agreement), commencing 180 days after
we regain compliance with SEC reporting requirements, and provided that the underlying shares of
our common stock have been approved for issuance by our common
stockholders, Comverse will be entitled to two demands to require us to register the shares of
common stock underlying the preferred stock for resale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the Securities Act).
The New Registration Rights Agreement also gives Comverse unlimited piggyback registration rights on certain
Securities Act registrations filed by us on our own behalf or on behalf of other stockholders.
Page F-54
Comverse may transfer its rights under the New Registration Rights Agreement to any transferee of
the registrable securities that is an affiliate of Comverse or any other subsequent transferee,
provided that in each case such affiliate or transferee becomes a party to the New Registration
Rights Agreement, agreeing to be bound by all of its terms and conditions.
Comverses rights under the New Registration Rights Agreement are in addition to its rights under a
previous registration rights agreement we entered into with Comverse shortly before our IPO in
2002. This registration rights agreement (Original Registration Rights Agreement) covers all
shares of common stock then held by Comverse and any additional shares of common stock acquired by
Comverse at a later date. Under the Original Registration Rights Agreement, Comverse is entitled
to unlimited demand registrations of its shares on Form S-3. If we are not eligible to use Form
S-3, Comverse is also entitled to one demand registration on Form S-1.
Like the New Registration Rights Agreement, the Original Registration Rights Agreement also
provides Comverse with unlimited piggyback registration rights. Comverse may transfer its rights
under this agreement to an affiliate or other subsequent transferee, subject to the transferee
agreeing to be bound by all of its terms and conditions.
10. Stockholders Equity
Dividends on Common Stock
We did not declare or pay any dividends on our common stock during the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006. Commencing with our issuance of preferred stock, and our entry into term
loan and revolving credit facilities in May 2007, we are subject to certain restrictions on
declaring and paying dividends on our common stock.
Treasury Stock
Repurchased shares of common stock are recorded as treasury stock, at cost. At January 31, 2008,
we held 74,000 shares of treasury stock with a cost of $2.1 million, and at January 31, 2007, we
held 28,000 shares of treasury stock with a cost of $0.9 million. We held no treasury stock at
January 31, 2006.
Shares of restricted stock awards that are forfeited when the recipient separates their employment
prior to the lapsing of the awards restrictions are recorded as treasury stock.
Our board of directors has approved a program to repurchase shares of our common stock from our
independent directors, and such other directors as may from time to time be designated by the board
of directors upon vesting of restricted stock grants during our extended filing delay period, in
order to provide funds to the recipient for the payment of associated income taxes. From time to
time, our board of directors has also approved repurchases from executive officers for the same
purpose when a vesting has occurred during a blackout period. We record these repurchases of
common stock as treasury stock.
Page F-55
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
In addition to net income (loss), accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) includes items such
as foreign currency translation adjustments and unrealized gains and losses on certain marketable
securities and investments. Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) is presented as a
separate line item in the stockholders equity section of our consolidated balance sheets, the
components of which are detailed in our consolidated statements of stockholders equity. Other
comprehensive income (loss) items have no impact on our net income (loss) as presented in our
consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes, as of each balance sheet date, the components of our accumulated
other comprehensive loss. Income tax effects on unrealized losses on available-for-sale marketable
securities were insignificant for all periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Foreign currency translation losses, net |
|
$ |
(610 |
) |
|
$ |
(773 |
) |
|
$ |
(695 |
) |
Unrealized losses on available-for-sale
marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
$ |
(610 |
) |
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
|
$ |
(842 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Integration, Restructuring and Other, Net
Integration, restructuring and other, net, is comprised of the following for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Integration costs |
|
$ |
10,980 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Restructuring costs |
|
|
3,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other legal costs |
|
|
8,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,554 |
|
Gain on sale of land |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(765 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
$ |
22,996 |
|
|
$ |
(765 |
) |
|
$ |
2,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration,
restructuring and other, net, are unallocated items for segment
reporting purposes, as more fully described in Note 18,
Segment, Geographic and Significant Customer
Information.
Page F-56
Restructuring and Integration Costs
We continually review our business, manage costs, and align resources with market demand. As a
result, and also in conjunction with the acquisition of Witness in May 2007, as more fully
described in Note 5, Business Combinations, we took several actions during the year ended January
31, 2008 to reduce fixed costs, eliminate redundancies, strengthen operational focus, and better
position us to respond to market pressures or unfavorable economic conditions. As a result, we
incurred: (i) restructuring and integration charges from acquiring Witness and integrating Witness
into our Workforce Optimization business, as further discussed below
under - Restructuring and
Integration Costs Related to our Acquisition of Witness; and (ii) restructuring charges pertaining
to the Video Intelligence business in all of our global regions, as further discussed below under
- Restructuring Costs Related to Our Video Intelligence Business. We did not incur any
restructuring and integration costs during the years ended January 31, 2007 and 2006. The
integration and restructuring charges incurred during the year ended January 31, 2008 are included
in Integration, restructuring and other, net in the accompanying consolidated statement of
operations.
The following table summarizes the restructuring and integration charges incurred during the year
ended January 31, 2008 related to these actions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Restructuring |
|
|
Integration |
|
|
Total |
|
Acquisition of Witness |
|
$ |
1,501 |
|
|
$ |
10,980 |
|
|
$ |
12,481 |
|
Video Intelligence business |
|
|
1,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,308 |
|
|
$ |
10,980 |
|
|
$ |
14,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities,
costs associated with the Witness acquisition and Video Intelligence business restructuring
activities have been recognized when they were incurred, rather than at the date of a commitment to
an exit or disposal plan. Such costs were exclusive of those directly associated with the
acquisition of Witness recorded as part of the purchase price. We continually evaluate the
adequacy of liabilities accrued under these restructuring initiatives. Although we believe that
these estimates accurately reflect the remaining costs of our restructuring plans, actual results
may differ, which may require us to record adjustments to the liabilities.
Restructuring and Integration Costs Related to our Acquisition of Witness
Following the acquisition of Witness in May 2007, we immediately formulated and approved a plan to
integrate the Witness business with our existing Workforce Optimization business in all regions.
We implemented certain staff reductions, and streamlined and improved operations and
processes necessary to restructure, integrate, and combine the Witness and Verint businesses,
primarily in the following operational areas and functions: (i) products integrate products and
platforms marketed to clients; (ii) sales, marketing and services centralize and train sales and
field marketing personnel, create a dedicated channel and OEM sales group, leverage and increase
the combined business services helpdesk expertise, and transition to a single global services
organization; and (iii) general and administrative transition finance, human resources and legal
support to our facilities in New York and Georgia, and combine information technology and
communications organizations, processes and systems. These activities resulted in restructuring
and integration charges during the year ended January 31, 2008.
Page F-57
The following table summarizes the activity during the year ended January 31, 2008 associated with
only the restructuring charges related to the acquisition of Witness.
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Total |
|
Accrued restructuring costs January 31, 2007 |
|
$ |
|
|
Costs accrued during the year |
|
|
1,501 |
|
Payments and settlements during the year |
|
|
(1,081 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued restructuring costs January 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring expenses associated with the acquisition of Witness consist of severance and related
costs recorded during the year ended January 31, 2008 for global workforce reductions of Verint
personnel, primarily as a result of redundancies, in sales and marketing, research and development,
and administration and support. Throughout the implementation and execution phase of this
restructuring plan, the scope would periodically be reevaluated, resulting in revisions to the
number of personnel impacted, and the amounts paid under the plan.
The remaining liabilities of $0.4 million for Witness-related restructuring obligations are
included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet at January 31, 2008.
In addition to the aforementioned restructuring charges, we also incurred certain integration costs
of $11.0 million during the year ended January 31, 2008 resulting from the Witness acquisition and
the subsequent integration of the Witness and Verint businesses. These costs included $4.1 million
of legal, accounting, consulting, and other professional fees, $2.4 million of travel and related
costs associated with the integration efforts, and $1.7 million of incremental compensation and
personnel costs, primarily for employees temporarily retained following the acquisition solely to
assist in integration and knowledge transfer activities. These personnel had no other significant
day-to-day responsibilities outside of the integration effort and were generally retained for
periods no longer than twelve months. Professional fees primarily relate to legal, accounting, and
consulting advice associated with efforts to optimize the legal and tax structure of our global
entities, since both Witness and Verint conduct operations in common locations. Integration costs
remaining unpaid as of January 31, 2008 were not significant.
Restructuring Costs Related to our Video Intelligence Business
During the quarter ended July 31, 2007, we established and approved a plan to perform a
comprehensive assessment of our Video Intelligence business operations, predominantly in our North
American and Hong Kong locations. As a result, we implemented certain restructuring initiatives
and activities intended to reduce our overall cost structure, improve operations by building areas
of more centralized expertise, adjust our organization structure to improve scalability, and
enhance our competitive position.
Page F-58
In the year ended January 31, 2008, we recorded $1.8 million of restructuring costs arising from
the elimination of certain positions in finance, customer service, sales and marketing, and
research and development and, in certain instances, migrating certain positions to lower cost
markets, areas of more concentrated expertise, or to corporate locations. Certain staff changes
resulted from combining our call centers and customer support sites in Colorado, and better
aligning and leveraging our worldwide research and development activities in Hong Kong. Throughout
the execution of this restructuring plan, the scope would periodically be reevaluated, resulting in
revisions to the number of personnel impacted, and the amounts paid under the plan.
These restructuring costs included $1.5 million of severance and related costs and $0.3 million of
consulting and temporary personnel costs.
The following table summarizes the activity associated with the year ended January 31, 2008
restructuring charges related to our Video Intelligence business:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consulting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance |
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Related |
|
|
Temporary |
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Costs |
|
|
Staff |
|
|
Total |
|
Accrued restructuring costs January
31, 2007 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Costs accrued during the year |
|
|
1,513 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
1,807 |
|
Payments and settlements during the year |
|
|
(597 |
) |
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
(891 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued restructuring costs January
31, 2008 |
|
$ |
916 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remaining liabilities of $0.9 million for Video Intelligence restructuring obligations as of
January 31, 2008 are included within accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheet at January 31, 2008.
Other Legal Costs
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we incurred $8.7 million of legal fees related to an
ongoing patent infringement litigation matter, which we are reporting within integration,
restructuring and other, net. This litigation was subsequently settled during the year ended
January 31, 2009.
During the year ended January 31, 2006, we recorded a $2.6 million charge in connection with a
customer dispute. Final resolution of this matter has not yet occurred, pending certain action by
the counterparty, and we are currently unable to determine when final resolution will occur.
Page F-59
Gain on Sale of Land
During the year ended January 31, 2007, we sold a parcel of land in Durango, Colorado, realizing a
pre-tax gain of $0.8 million.
12. Research and Development, net
A significant portion of our research and development operations occur in Israel. We have
historically derived substantial benefits from our participation in a program sponsored by the OCS
of the Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, for the support of research and development
activities conducted in Israel (the OCS Program). Our research and development activities have
included projects partially funded under the OCS Program whereby the OCS reimburses a portion of
our research and development expenditures under approved project budgets.
Our gross research and development expenses for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006,
were approximately $91.4 million, $56.1 million, and $39.9 million, respectively. OCS grants
amounted to approximately $2.5 million, $2.3 million, and $4.2 million for the years ended January
31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively, which were recorded as a reduction of gross research and
development expenses. We recorded other reimbursements of research and development expenses
amounting to approximately $1.2 million, $0.8 million, and $0.8 million for the years ended January
31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Page F-60
We capitalize certain costs incurred to develop our commercial software products, and we then
recognize those costs within product cost of revenues as the products are sold. Activity for our
capitalized software development costs for the three years ended January 31, 2008 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Capitalized software development costs, net, beginning
of year |
|
$ |
9,762 |
|
|
$ |
10,241 |
|
|
$ |
9,814 |
|
Software development costs capitalized during the year |
|
|
4,624 |
|
|
|
4,492 |
|
|
|
4,758 |
|
Amortization of software development costs |
|
|
(3,268 |
) |
|
|
(4,971 |
) |
|
|
(4,331 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(846 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized software development costs, net, end of year |
|
$ |
10,272 |
|
|
$ |
9,762 |
|
|
$ |
10,241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The adjustment of $0.8 million in the year ended January 31, 2008
primarily reflects a charge recorded to
recognize the impairment of certain capitalized software development costs determined to be
redundant as a result of the May 2007 acquisition of Witness.
13. Income Taxes
The components of income (loss) before income taxes and noncontrolling interest are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Domestic |
|
$ |
(116,844 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,887 |
) |
|
$ |
9,404 |
|
Foreign |
|
|
(52,972 |
) |
|
|
(30,570 |
) |
|
|
2,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income (loss) before
income taxes and noncontrolling
interest |
|
$ |
(169,816 |
) |
|
$ |
(39,457 |
) |
|
$ |
12,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-61
The provision for income taxes consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Current income tax provision: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
$ |
847 |
|
|
$ |
926 |
|
|
$ |
2,577 |
|
State |
|
|
398 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
633 |
|
Foreign |
|
|
6,492 |
|
|
|
5,236 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current income tax provision |
|
|
7,737 |
|
|
|
6,363 |
|
|
|
4,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax provision (benefit): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
|
26,056 |
|
|
|
(1,416 |
) |
|
|
3,499 |
|
State |
|
|
1,748 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
579 |
|
Foreign |
|
|
(7,812 |
) |
|
|
(4,966 |
) |
|
|
786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred income tax
provision (benefit) |
|
|
19,992 |
|
|
|
(6,222 |
) |
|
|
4,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
27,729 |
|
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
$ |
9,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-62
The reconciliation of the U.S. federal statutory rate to our effective tax rate on income (loss)
before income taxes and noncontrolling interest is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
U.S. federal statutory income tax rate |
|
|
35.0 |
% |
|
|
35.0 |
% |
|
|
35.0 |
% |
Income tax provision (benefit) at the
U.S. statutory rate |
|
$ |
(59,436 |
) |
|
$ |
(13,810 |
) |
|
$ |
4,237 |
|
State tax provision, net of federal
benefit |
|
|
(5,747 |
) |
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
788 |
|
Foreign taxes at rates different from
U.S. federal statutory rate |
|
|
7,305 |
|
|
|
2,128 |
|
|
|
(2,965 |
) |
Valuation allowance |
|
|
73,404 |
|
|
|
(408 |
) |
|
|
3,128 |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
|
(860 |
) |
|
|
(2,495 |
) |
|
|
806 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
2,831 |
|
|
|
4,556 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
Non-deductible expenses |
|
|
1,063 |
|
|
|
2,398 |
|
|
|
759 |
|
Tax credits |
|
|
(2,260 |
) |
|
|
(1,345 |
) |
|
|
(1,040 |
) |
Tax contingencies |
|
|
5,495 |
|
|
|
3,351 |
|
|
|
4,011 |
|
Impairment of goodwill and intangible
assets |
|
|
4,716 |
|
|
|
5,463 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Fair value of derivatives |
|
|
(2,837 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In-process
research and development |
|
|
2,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
998 |
|
Changes in tax laws |
|
|
751 |
|
|
|
(244 |
) |
|
|
184 |
|
Effect of foreign operations |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(906 |
) |
|
|
(1,376 |
) |
Income from controlled foreign
corporations |
|
|
805 |
|
|
|
476 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net |
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
743 |
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
27,729 |
|
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
$ |
9,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate |
|
|
-16.3 |
% |
|
|
-0.4 |
% |
|
|
79.5 |
% |
Our operations in Israel have been granted Approved Enterprise status by the Investment Center of
the Israeli Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, which makes us eligible for tax benefits under
the Israeli Law for Encouragement of Capital Investments,1959. Under the terms of the program,
income attributable to an approved enterprise is exempt from income tax for a period of two years
and is subject to a reduced income tax rate for the subsequent five to eight years (generally
10-25%, depending on the percentage of foreign investment in the Company). These tax incentives
decreased our effective tax rates by 1.4%, 0.2%, and 26.4% for the years ended January 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006, respectively.
Page F-63
Deferred tax assets and liabilities consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Deferred tax assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses |
|
$ |
6,110 |
|
|
$ |
658 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts |
|
|
3,508 |
|
|
|
981 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
73,027 |
|
|
|
73,535 |
|
|
|
72,820 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
3,814 |
|
|
|
1,893 |
|
|
|
1,945 |
|
Depreciation of property and
equipment |
|
|
2,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss carryforwards |
|
|
83,363 |
|
|
|
11,354 |
|
|
|
13,785 |
|
Tax credits |
|
|
9,165 |
|
|
|
451 |
|
|
|
616 |
|
Stock-based and other compensation |
|
|
12,325 |
|
|
|
4,060 |
|
|
|
1,683 |
|
Capitalized
research and development expenses |
|
|
2,898 |
|
|
|
2,119 |
|
|
|
1,389 |
|
Fair value of derivatives |
|
|
11,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
long-term liabilities |
|
|
2,549 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other (net) |
|
|
2,339 |
|
|
|
911 |
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets |
|
|
213,254 |
|
|
|
95,962 |
|
|
|
92,487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(418 |
) |
Allowance for doubtful accounts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(535 |
) |
Deferred cost of revenue |
|
|
(19,953 |
) |
|
|
(22,588 |
) |
|
|
(22,064 |
) |
Prepaid expenses |
|
|
(1,486 |
) |
|
|
(1,065 |
) |
|
|
(2,092 |
) |
Depreciation of property and
equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(611 |
) |
|
|
(1,214 |
) |
Goodwill and other intangible
assets |
|
|
(79,089 |
) |
|
|
(898 |
) |
|
|
(908 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
(100,528 |
) |
|
|
(25,162 |
) |
|
|
(27,231 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance |
|
|
(89,060 |
) |
|
|
(16,049 |
) |
|
|
(16,601 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets |
|
$ |
23,666 |
|
|
$ |
54,751 |
|
|
$ |
48,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded as: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current deferred tax assets |
|
$ |
30,991 |
|
|
$ |
33,306 |
|
|
$ |
27,252 |
|
Long-term deferred tax assets |
|
|
12,686 |
|
|
|
24,595 |
|
|
|
25,563 |
|
Current deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
(1,021 |
) |
|
|
(1,202 |
) |
|
|
(1,013 |
) |
Long-term deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
(18,990 |
) |
|
|
(1,948 |
) |
|
|
(3,147 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets |
|
$ |
23,666 |
|
|
$ |
54,751 |
|
|
$ |
48,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-64
At January 31, 2008, 2007,
and 2006, we had U.S. federal net operating loss carryforwards
("NOLs") of approximately $205.9 million, $7.3 million, and
$12.8 million, respectively. These losses expire
in various years ending from January 31, 2016 to 2028. We had
state NOLs of approximately $127.9 million, $14.5 million and $18.1 million, in the same
respective years, expiring in years ending from January 31, 2009
to 2028. We had foreign NOLs of approximately $62.3 million,
$19.6 million and $20.7 million, in
the same respective years. At January 31, 2008, all but $4.5 million of these foreign loss
carryforwards have indefinite carryforward periods. Certain of these federal, state and foreign
loss carryforwards and credits are subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 382 or similar
provisions, that impose limitations on their utilization following certain changes in ownership of
the entity generating the loss carryforward. The NOLs for tax return purposes are different from the NOLs for financial statement purposes. This is primarily due to the reduction of NOLs for financial statement purposes under FIN 48. We have U.S. federal, state and
foreign tax credit carryforwards of approximately
$10.2 million, $3.6 million and $2.6 million at January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively, the
utilization of which is subject to limitation. At January 31,
2008, approximately $3.8 million of
these tax credit carryforwards may be carried forward indefinitely.
The balance of $6.4 million
expires in various years ending from January 31, 2009 to 2028.
We provide income and withholding taxes on undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries unless
they are indefinitely reinvested. Cumulatively, indefinitely reinvested foreign earnings total
approximately $12.1 million at January 31, 2008. If these earnings were repatriated in
the future, additional income and withholding tax expense would be accrued. Due to complexities in
the laws of the foreign jurisdictions and the assumptions that would have to be made, it is not
practicable to estimate the total amount of income taxes that would have to be provided on such
earnings.
As required by SFAS No. 109, we evaluate the realizability of deferred
tax assets on a jurisdictional basis at each reporting date. SFAS No. 109 requires that a
valuation allowance be established when it is more likely than not that all or a portion of deferred tax assets will not be realized. In circumstances where there is sufficient negative
evidence indicating that deferred tax assets are not more-likely-than-not realizable, we
establish a valuation allowance. We have recorded valuation allowances in the amounts of $89.1 million,
$16.1 million and $16.6 million at January 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. The
$73.0 million increase in the valuation allowance between January 31, 2007 and January 31, 2008
arose primarily as a result of the impact of current and anticipated future losses generated by
interest expense related to Witness acquisition indebtedness. The decrease in valuation allowance between the years
ended January 31, 2006 and January 31, 2007 is due primarily to the release of valuation allowance
in Germany.
Page F-65
The recorded valuation allowance consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
(16,049 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,601 |
) |
|
$ |
(13,444 |
) |
Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
Provision for (benefit from) income
taxes |
|
|
(73,404 |
) |
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
(3,128 |
) |
SFAS No. 5 and FIN 48 |
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Cumulative translation adjustment |
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
(89,060 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,049 |
) |
|
$ |
(16,601 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), we use a with-and-without approach to
applying the intra-period allocation rules in accordance with SFAS No. 109. Under this approach,
the windfall tax benefit is calculated based on the incremental tax benefit received from
deductions related to stock-based compensation. The amount is measured by calculating the tax
benefit both with and without the excess tax deduction; the resulting difference between the
two calculations is considered the windfall. We recognized windfall
tax benefits of $0.1 million
for the year ended January 31, 2007. We did not recognize a windfall benefit in our U.S. income
tax provision for the year ended January 31, 2008 because we incurred a net operating loss.
On
February 1, 2007, we implemented the provisions of FIN 48. FIN 48
contains a two-step approach to recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions accounted for in
accordance with SFAS No. 109. The first step is to determine whether any amount of tax benefit may
be recognized by evaluating tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return and
assessing whether, based solely on their technical merits, they are more-likely-than-not
sustainable upon examination, including resolution of any related appeals or litigation process.
The second step is to measure the amount of associated tax benefit that may be recorded for each
position as the largest amount that we believe is more-likely-than-not sustainable. Differences
between the amount of tax benefits taken or expected to be taken in our income tax returns and the
amount of tax benefits recognized in our financial statements, determined by applying the
prescribed methodologies of FIN 48, represent our unrecognized income tax benefits, which we either
record as a liability or as a reduction of the deferred tax asset for net operating losses.
The adoption of FIN 48 as of February 1, 2007, resulted in an
increase of $3.4 million to our accumulated deficit and a decrease to our additional paid in capital
of $1.7 million. This resulted primarily from an increase in the liability for unrecognized
tax benefits, and included the impact of penalties and interest. As of the adoption date of FIN
48, unrecognized tax benefits totaled $27.1 million, of which $10.2 million represents the amount
that, if recognized, would have impacted our effective income tax rate.
Page F-66
For the year ended January 31, 2008, the year of our adoption of FIN 48, the aggregate changes
in the balance of gross unrecognized tax benefits were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
(in thousands) |
|
January 31, 2008 |
|
Gross unrecognized tax benefits as of February 1, 2007 |
|
$ |
27,073 |
|
Increases as a result of acquisitions |
|
|
13,619 |
|
Increases related to tax positions taken during the current year |
|
|
5,755 |
|
Increases
(decreases) related to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations |
|
|
1,039 |
|
Lapses of statutes of limitation |
|
|
(583 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Gross unrecognized tax benefits as of January 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
46,903 |
|
|
|
|
|
As of
January 31, 2008, we had $46.9 million of unrecognized tax
benefits, of which $15.9 million
represents the amount that, if recognized, would impact the effective income tax rate in future
periods. We recorded $1.6 million of interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions in
our provision for income taxes for the year ended January 31, 2008. The accrued liability for
interest and penalties as of January 31, 2008, is $6.4 million. Interest and penalties are
recorded as a component of the provision for income taxes in the financial statements.
Our income tax returns are subject to ongoing tax examinations in several jurisdictions in which we
operate. In the U.S., we are no longer subject to federal income tax examination for years prior
to January 31, 2004. We are currently in discussions with the Israeli tax authorities regarding
adjustments that will be made to income tax returns for the years ended January 31, 2004 through
January 31, 2008 due to our restated results of operations. As of January 31, 2008, income tax
returns are under examination in the following major tax jurisdictions:
|
|
|
|
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Tax Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
January 31, 2004 - January 31, 2007 |
|
Canada |
|
|
January 31, 2004 - January 31, 2008 |
|
United
Kingdom |
|
|
December 31, 2003, December 31, 2005 |
|
Hong Kong |
|
|
March 31, 2003 - March 31, 2005, January 31, 2006 |
|
We regularly assess the adequacy of our provisions for income tax contingencies in accordance with
FIN 48. As a result, we may adjust the reserves for unrecognized tax benefits for the impact of
new facts and developments, such as changes to interpretations of relevant tax law, assessments
from taxing authorities, settlements with taxing authorities and
lapses of statutes of limitation.
We believe that it is reasonably possible that the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits at
January 31, 2008 could decrease by approximately $14.9 million in the next twelve months as a
result of the settlement of certain tax audits or lapses of statutes of limitation. Such decreases
may involve the payment of additional taxes, the adjustment of certain deferred taxes including the
need for additional valuation allowance and the recognition of tax benefits. We also believe that
it is reasonably possible that new issues may be raised by tax authorities or
developments in tax audits may occur which would require increases or decreases to the balance of
reserves for unrecognized tax benefits; however, an estimate of such changes cannot reasonably be
made.
Page F-67
On October 31, 2008, we reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service regarding U.S.
federal income tax returns for the years ended January 31, 2004 through January 31, 2007.
14. Derivative Financial Instruments
We use derivative financial instruments to manage certain foreign currency and interest rate risks.
We do not use derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.
Foreign Currency Forward Contracts
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we utilized foreign exchange forward contracts to hedge
certain operational cash flow exposures resulting from changes in foreign currency exchange rates.
These cash flow exposures result from portions of our forecasted operating expenses, primarily
compensation and related expenses, which are transacted in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar,
primarily the Israeli Shekel and the Canadian Dollar. These foreign currency forward contracts are
carried at fair value and have maturities of no longer than twelve months. We enter into these
foreign currency forward contracts in the normal course of business to mitigate risks and not for
speculative purposes. These foreign currency forward contracts are not designated as hedging
instruments under the provisions of SFAS No. 133 and therefore the fair values of the instruments
are reported on our consolidated balance sheets within current assets or current liabilities, and
gains and losses from changes in their fair values are reported in other income (expense), net.
Realized gains or losses on settlements of these contracts are also recorded within other income
(expense), net.
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we realized net gains of $1.8 million on settlements of
foreign currency forward contracts, and we have $0.3 million of unrealized losses on outstanding
foreign currency forward contracts with a notional amount of $11.7 million as of January 31, 2008.
The fair value of outstanding foreign currency forward contracts at January 31, 2008 is $0.3
million and is reflected within other current liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet. We did not execute any foreign currency forward contracts during the years ended January
31, 2007 or January 31, 2006.
Interest Rate Swap Agreement
The interest rates applicable to borrowings under our credit facilities are variable, and we are
exposed to risk from changes in the underlying index interest rates, which affect our cost of
borrowing. To partially mitigate this risk, and in part because we
were required to do so by the lenders, when we entered
into our credit facilities in May 2007, we executed a pay-fixed, receive-variable interest rate
swap with a high credit-quality multinational financial institution under which we pay fixed
interest at 5.18% and receive variable interest of three-month LIBOR on a notional amount of $450.0
million. This instrument is settled with the counterparty on a quarterly basis, and matures on May
1, 2011. As of January 31, 2008, of the $610.0 million of borrowings which were outstanding under
the term loan facility, the interest rate on $450.0 million of such borrowings was substantially
fixed by utilization of this interest rate swap. Interest on the remaining $160.0 million of
borrowings was variable.
Page F-68
The fair value of the instrument is reported on our consolidated balance sheets. However, the
interest rate swap is not designated as a hedging instrument under the provisions of SFAS No. 133
and therefore gains and losses from changes in its fair value are reported within other income
(expense), net. The impact of quarterly cash settlements of the interest rate swap agreement are
also recorded within other income (expense), net. We record gains and losses on this instrument,
whether realized or unrealized, within other income (expense), net. For the year ended January 31,
2008 we recorded approximately $29.2 million of net losses on the interest rate swap. These net
losses reflect the decline in market interest rates that occurred during the second half of the
year ended January 31, 2008. The fair value of the interest rate swap as of January 31, 2008 is
$29.6 million in favor of the counterparty. Accordingly, the $8.5 million in fair value expected
to settle quarterly over the following 12 months is classified within other current liabilities,
and the remaining fair value of $21.1 million is classified as long-term within other liabilities.
Embedded Derivative Preferred Stock
As discussed in more detail within Note 9, Convertible Preferred Stock, we determined that the
variable dividend feature of our preferred stock qualifies for accounting as an embedded derivative
financial instrument, subject to bifurcation from the preferred stock host contract. The embedded
derivative financial instrument was valued using a Monte Carlo simulation model. A Monte Carlo
simulation model calculates a probabilistic approximation to the solution of a problem containing
multiple variables using repeated statistical random sampling techniques. This feature was
determined to be an asset, and was assigned an initial fair value of $0.9 million at the May 25,
2007 issue date of the preferred stock. Subsequent changes in the fair value of the derivative
financial instrument are reflected within other income (expense), net. As of January 31, 2008, the
fair value of the embedded derivative instrument had increased to $8.1 million. This $7.2 million
increase in fair value is reflected within other income (expense), net for the year ended January
31, 2008.
15. Employee Benefit Plans
401(k) Plan
We maintain a 401(k) Plan and similar type plans for our full-time employees in the United States
and certain non-U.S. employees of our foreign subsidiaries. The plan in the United States allows
eligible employees who attain the age of 21 with three months of service to elect to contribute up
to 60% of their annual compensation, subject to the prescribed maximum amount.
We match employee contributions at a rate of 50%, up to a maximum annual matched
contribution of
$2,000 per employee. The plans in foreign subsidiaries are similar to a 401(k) plan, and
provide benefits consistent with customary local practices. Employee contributions are always
fully vested, while our matching contributions for each year vest on the last day of the calendar
year provided the employee remains employed with us on that day. During the years ended January
31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, our matching contributions to the 401(k) Plan amounted to approximately
$4.0 million, $2.6 million, and $1.9 million, respectively.
Page F-69
Cash Bonus Retention Program
On February 1, 2007, our board of directors initiated a special retention program for certain of
our employees, other than executive officers and directors. The program provided for bonuses to be
earned on July 31, 2007 and January 31, 2008. The amount recognized as compensation expense under
this program during the year ended January 31, 2008 totaled $15.0 million.
Liability for Severance Pay
We are obligated to make severance payments for the benefit of certain employees of our foreign
subsidiaries. Severance payments made to Israeli employees are considered significant compared to
all other subsidiaries with severance payments. Under Israeli law, we are obligated to make
severance payments to employees of our Israeli subsidiaries, subject to certain conditions. In
most cases, our liability for these severance payments is fully provided for by regular deposits to
funds administered by insurance providers and by an accrual for the amount of our liability which
has not yet been deposited.
Severance expenses for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, were $2.9 million, $2.0
million, and $1.7 million, respectively.
Stock-Based Compensation and Purchase Plans
Plan Summaries
Most of the share-based incentive awards are provided to employees under the terms of our multiple
outstanding stock benefit plans (the Plans or Stock Plans).
The 1996 Stock Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended, (the 1996 Plan) was approved by our
stockholders and became effective on September 10, 1996. The number of shares
reserved under the 1996 Plan may from time to time be reduced to the extent that a corresponding
number of issued and outstanding shares of the common stock are purchased by us and set aside for
issuance pursuant to awards. The 1996 Plan allows for the granting of awards of deferred stock,
restricted stock awards and restricted stock units, incentive and non-qualified stock options, and
stock appreciation rights to our employees, directors, and consultants. If any award expires or
terminates for any reason without having been exercised in full, the outstanding shares subject
thereto shall again be available for the purposes of the 1996 Plan. The 1996 Plan will terminate
on March 10, 2012 or at such earlier time as the board of directors may determine. Awards may be
granted under the 1996 Plan at any time and from time
to time prior to its termination. Any awards outstanding under the 1996 Plan at the time of the
termination of the 1996 Plan shall remain in effect until such awards shall have been exercised or
shall have expired in accordance with its terms.
Page F-70
On May 25, 2007, in connection with the acquisition of Witness, we assumed a stock plan referred to
as the Witness Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the 1997
Plan). Under the 1997 Plan, we are permitted to grant awards of deferred stock, restricted stock
awards and restricted stock units, incentive and non-qualified stock options, and stock appreciation
rights to our employees, directors and consultants. The 1997 Plan contains an evergreen provision,
which allows for an increase in the number of shares available for issuance, up to a maximum of 3.0
million shares per year. The deadline for making new awards under the 1997 Plan was November 18,
2009. Additionally, in connection with the acquisition, we assumed certain new-hire inducement
grants made by Witness outside of its shareholder-approved equity plans prior to May 25, 2007.
Our stockholders approved the 2004 Stock Incentive Compensation Plan (the 2004 Plan) on
July 27, 2004. Under the 2004 Plan, we are permitted to grant awards of deferred stock, restricted
stock awards and restricted stock units, incentive and non-qualified stock options, and stock
appreciation rights to our employees, directors, and consultants. To the extent not used under the
1996 Plan, the shares available pursuant to the 2004 Plan may be increased by a maximum of 1.0
million shares for awards granted under the 1996 Plan that are forfeited, expire, or are cancelled
on or after July 28, 2004. The 2004 Plan will remain in full force and effect until the earlier of
July 27, 2014 or the date it is terminated by our board of directors. Termination of the 2004 Plan
shall not affect awards outstanding under the 2004 Plan at the time of termination.
The table below summarizes key data points for the Plans as of January 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
shares reserved |
|
|
shares |
|
|
shares available |
|
(in thousands) |
|
for grant |
|
|
outstanding |
|
|
for grant |
|
The 1996 Plan |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
1,900 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
The 1997 Plan |
|
|
6,400 |
|
|
|
2,700 |
|
|
|
3,700 |
|
The 1997 Blue
Pumpkin inducement
grants |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
The 2004 Plan |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
2,100 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
14,558 |
|
|
|
6,853 |
|
|
|
4,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards granted under the Plans are generally subject to multi-year vesting periods and generally
expire 10 years or less after the date of grant. We recognize compensation expense for awards on a
straight-line basis over the life of the vesting period, reduced by estimated forfeitures. Upon
exercise of stock options, issuance of restricted stock, or issuance of shares under the Plans, we
will issue authorized but unissued common stock unless treasury shares are available.
Page F-71
As described in Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, we adopted the provisions of
SFAS No. 123(R) on February 1, 2006. The implementation of SFAS No. 123(R) resulted in the
stock-based compensation expense of $31.0 million and $18.6 million for the years ended January 31,
2008 and 2007, respectively. The total income tax benefit recognized for share-based compensation
arrangements was $7.8 million and $2.3 million for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. We capitalized share-based compensation cost of $4.7 million for the fair value of
the vested portion of options issued in connection with the acquisition of Witness on May 25, 2007,
and included as part of the net assets (goodwill) of Witness.
We recognized share-based compensation expense in the following line items on the consolidated
statement of operations for the years indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Component of
income (loss) before provision for income taxes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenue product |
|
$ |
223 |
|
|
$ |
360 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
Cost of revenue service and support |
|
|
4,329 |
|
|
|
1,279 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Research and development, net |
|
|
4,831 |
|
|
|
3,822 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Selling, general, and administrative |
|
|
21,665 |
|
|
|
13,154 |
|
|
|
1,115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation
expense |
|
|
31,048 |
|
|
|
18,615 |
|
|
|
1,165 |
|
Income tax benefits related to stock-based
compensation (before consideration of valuation allowance) |
|
|
7,750 |
|
|
|
2,264 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation, net of taxes |
|
$ |
23,298 |
|
|
$ |
16,351 |
|
|
$ |
865 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on
net income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Component of
stock-based compensation expense: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verint stock options |
|
$ |
22,011 |
|
|
$ |
13,276 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Verint restricted stock awards and
restricted stock units |
|
|
9,229 |
|
|
|
3,390 |
|
|
|
1,137 |
|
Comverse stock options |
|
|
(487 |
) |
|
|
1,834 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Verint phantom stock units |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation
expense |
|
$ |
31,048 |
|
|
$ |
18,615 |
|
|
$ |
1,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table above includes stock-based compensation amounts where we modified certain option awards
to revise exercising terms for certain terminated employees and recognized incremental compensation
expense of $1.7 million and $2.9 million for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Participants in the Plans are currently restricted from exercising options due to
our inability to use our S-8 registration statement during our extended filing delay period.
As such, we modified grants held by terminated employees by extending the time a terminated
employee would normally have to exercise vested stock option awards. The number of employees
affected under such modifications was 103 and 92 for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
Page F-72
For the
year ended January 31, 2007, we recorded an excess tax benefit
of $0.1 million as a
financing cash flow as required by SFAS No. 123(R). Excess tax benefits were not recognized for
the year ended January 31, 2008 as we incurred a taxable loss. The excess tax benefits represent
the reduction in income taxes otherwise payable during the period, attributable to the actual gross
tax benefits in excess of the expected tax benefits.
Stock Options
When stock options are awarded, the fair value of the options is estimated on the date of grant
using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Expected volatility and the expected term are the
input factors to that model which require the most significant management judgment. Expected
volatility is estimated utilizing daily historical volatility over a period that equates to the
expected life of the option. The expected life (estimated period of time outstanding) is estimated
using the historical exercise behavior of employees.
We did not grant stock options subsequent to January 31, 2006. However, in connection with our
acquisition of Witness on May 25, 2007, options to purchase Witness common stock were converted
into options to purchase approximately 3.1 million shares of our stock. The fair value of the
option grant was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the weighted-average
assumptions presented in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of May 25, |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
Expected life (in years) |
|
|
2.62 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
4.88 |
% |
Expected volatility |
|
|
40.5 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
0 |
% |
Based on the above assumptions, the weighted average fair value of the stock options on the
date of acquisition was $15.02.
See Note 5, Business Combinations, for additional information concerning the acquisition of
Witness.
Page F-73
The following table summarizes stock option activity under the Plans for the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Exercise |
|
(in thousands, except exercise prices) |
|
Options |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Price |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance |
|
|
3,003 |
|
|
$ |
23.56 |
|
|
|
3,151 |
|
|
$ |
23.78 |
|
|
|
3,689 |
|
|
$ |
21.57 |
|
Issued in
acquisition (1) |
|
|
3,065 |
|
|
$ |
20.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Granted |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
$ |
34.34 |
|
Exercised |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
$ |
16.22 |
|
|
|
(591 |
) |
|
$ |
13.49 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(326 |
) |
|
$ |
24.16 |
|
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
$ |
30.80 |
|
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
$ |
25.73 |
|
Expired |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
8.56 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
17.83 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
16.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
|
5,735 |
|
|
$ |
21.77 |
|
|
|
3,003 |
|
|
$ |
23.56 |
|
|
|
3,151 |
|
|
$ |
23.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable |
|
|
3,663 |
|
|
$ |
21.17 |
|
|
|
2,081 |
|
|
$ |
20.57 |
|
|
|
1,394 |
|
|
$ |
17.59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On May 25, 2007, 3.3 million non-vested stock options of Witness were converted to options
to acquire our stock using the purchase conversion ratio of 0.9335 shares of Verint common stock
for every 1.0 share of Witness stock. |
As of January 31, 2008, the aggregate intrinsic value for the options vested and exercisable
was $9.2 million with a weighted average remaining contractual life of 3.86 years.
Additionally, there were 5.5 million options vested and expected to vest with a
weighted average exercise price of $21.75, and an aggregate intrinsic
value of $9.7 million, with a weighted average
remaining contractual life of 3.77 years.
The unrecognized compensation expense calculated under the fair value method for options expected
to vest (unvested shares net of expected forfeitures) as of January 31, 2008 was approximately
$27.0 million and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of
2.12 years.
Page F-74
The following table summarizes information about stock options as of January 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding |
|
|
Options Exercisable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
(in thousands, except exercise prices) |
|
Number of |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Average |
|
Range of Exercise |
|
Options |
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Options |
|
|
Exercise |
|
Prices |
|
Outstanding |
|
|
Term |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Exercisable |
|
|
Price |
|
$4.46 $8.69 |
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
1.86 |
|
|
$ |
6.78 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
$ |
6.78 |
|
$8.86 $17.00 |
|
|
790 |
|
|
|
3.78 |
|
|
$ |
15.47 |
|
|
|
745 |
|
|
$ |
15.60 |
|
$17.06 $18.00 |
|
|
615 |
|
|
|
2.78 |
|
|
$ |
17.80 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
$ |
17.80 |
|
$18.18 $19.16 |
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
2.94 |
|
|
$ |
18.74 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
$ |
18.74 |
|
$19.39 $21.75 |
|
|
697 |
|
|
|
2.77 |
|
|
$ |
21.10 |
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
$ |
20.96 |
|
$22.11 $23.95 |
|
|
1,008 |
|
|
|
3.97 |
|
|
$ |
23.47 |
|
|
|
588 |
|
|
$ |
23.19 |
|
$25.01 $32.16 |
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
4.38 |
|
|
$ |
28.68 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
$ |
28.97 |
|
$34.40 $34.40 |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
7.56 |
|
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
$35.11 $35.11 |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
5.69 |
|
|
$ |
35.11 |
|
|
|
717 |
|
|
$ |
35.11 |
|
$37.99 $37.99 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
7.64 |
|
|
$ |
37.99 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
$ |
37.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$4.46 $37.99 |
|
|
5,735 |
|
|
|
3.75 |
|
|
$ |
21.77 |
|
|
|
3,663 |
|
|
$ |
21.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes key data points for exercised options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
The intrinsic value of options exercised |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
480 |
|
|
$ |
14,710 |
|
Cash received from the exercise of stock options |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
382 |
|
|
$ |
7,979 |
|
The tax benefit realized from stock options
exercised |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
$ |
3,644 |
|
The fair value of options vested |
|
$ |
52,661 |
|
|
$ |
26,641 |
|
|
$ |
15,299 |
|
Page F-75
The options granted to employees and officers during the year ended January 31, 2006 vest over
four-year periods, and options granted to the members of our board of directors vest over one-year
periods. The weighted-average fair value of stock options granted during the year ended
January 31, 2006 was $19.03 on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with
the following weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
Expected life (in years) |
|
|
5.86 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
4.27 |
% |
Expected volatility |
|
|
55.0 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
0 |
% |
The weighted average fair value of the shares issued under the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the ESPP) for the
offering period of April 2005 to September 30, 2005 was $8.39. The weighted average assumptions
that were used are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
Expected life (in years) |
|
|
0.5 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
3.13 |
% |
Expected volatility |
|
|
39.0 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
0 |
% |
Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Units
We generally grant restricted stock under the Plans which includes grants of restricted stock
awards (RSAs) and restricted stock units (RSUs). The principal difference between these
instruments is that RSUs are not shares of our common stock and do not have any of the rights or
privileges thereof, including voting or dividend rights. On the applicable vesting date, the
holder of an RSU becomes entitled to a share of our common stock. Both RSAs and RSUs are subject
to certain restrictions and forfeiture provisions prior to vesting.
We have granted RSUs with performance vesting conditions that require us to become current with our
filings with the SEC and to be re-listed on a nationally recognized exchange. In addition, we have granted RSUs
to executive officers and certain members of senior management that require us to
estimate the expected achievement of performance targets over the performance period. The expense
associated with such awards is included in our stock-based compensation cost.
Page F-76
RSUs that settle, or are expected to settle, with cash payments upon vesting are reflected as
liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet under the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R).
Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), unearned compensation for restricted stock awards and
restricted stock units, based on the fair value of our common stock at the date of grant, was
recorded and shown as a separate component of stockholders equity. The unearned compensation was
amortized to compensation expense over the restricted stocks vesting period, which is generally a
four-year period. In connection with the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) on February 1, 2006, we
reclassified the unearned compensation recorded as a separate component of stockholders equity to
additional paid-in-capital within stockholders equity. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R),
compensation expense was being recognized over the restricted stocks vesting period.
The following table summarizes RSA and RSU activity under the Plans for the years ended January 31,
2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
(in thousands, except grant date fair value) |
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Beginning balance |
|
|
354 |
|
|
$ |
33.88 |
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
$ |
33.52 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
$ |
28.72 |
|
Granted |
|
|
1,215 |
|
|
$ |
28.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
Released |
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
$ |
32.85 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
30.77 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
23.00 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
$ |
29.21 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
34.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
|
1,267 |
|
|
$ |
29.39 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
$ |
33.88 |
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
$ |
33.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
unrecognized compensation expense related to 1.1 million unvested RSAs and RSUs expected to vest as of
January 31, 2008 was approximately $26.9 million with remaining weighted average vesting periods of
approximately 1.7 years, and 2.2 years, respectively, over which such expense is expected to be
recognized. The total fair value of restricted stock awards and units vested during the years
ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 is $6.7 million, $1.6 million, and $0.8 million,
respectively.
Phantom Stock Units
During the year ended January 31, 2007, we began issuing phantom stock units to non-officer
employees that settle, or are expected to settle, with cash payments upon vesting, pursuant to the
terms of a form of a phantom stock award agreement approved by the board of directors. Phantom
stock units provide for the payment of a cash bonus equivalent to the value of our common stock as
of the vesting date of the award. Phantom stock units generally have a multi-year vesting. We
recognize compensation expense for phantom stock units on a straight-line
basis, reduced by estimated forfeitures. The phantom stock units are being accounted for as
liabilities under the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R) and as such their value tracks our stock price
and is subject to market volatility.
Page F-77
The total accrued liability for phantom stock units was $0.3 million and $0.1 million as of January
31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Total cash payments made upon vesting of phantom stock units was
$0.2 million for the year ended January 31, 2008.
The following table summarizes phantom stock unit activity for the years ended January 31, 2008 and
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended |
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Beginning balance, in units |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Released |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance, in units |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The phantom stock units granted during the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 primarily vest
over three-year periods.
The
unrecognized compensation expense related to 63,000 unvested phantom stock units expected to
vest as of January 31, 2008 was approximately $1.0 million, based on our stock price of $18.50 at
January 31, 2008 with a remaining weighted-average vesting period of approximately 2.1 years over
which such expense is expected to be recognized.
Comverse Stock Options
One component of stock-based compensation cost is related to stock options granted to Verint
employees who were employed with Comverse when the stock options were issued by Comverse and the
related expenses or benefits are recognized in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R). Refer to Note 2,
Corrections of Errors in Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional
information concerning Comverses effect on our financial statements. We recorded a reduction to
expenses of $0.5 million for the year ended January 31, 2008, and expenses of $1.8 million and
$28,000 related to Comverse stock options issued to Verint employees for the years ended January
31, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
ESPP
Effective September 1, 2002, we adopted and implemented the 2002 ESPP, which was amended and
restated on May 22, 2003. Any employee who had completed three months of employment and was
employed by us on the applicable offering commencement date was eligible to
participate in the ESPP Plan. Participants elected to have amounts withheld through payroll
deductions at the rate of up to 10% of their annualized base salary, to purchase shares of our
common stock at 85% of the lesser of the market price at the offering commencement date or the
offering termination date.
Page F-78
The number of shares available under the ESPP is 1.0 million, of which approximately 260,000 have
been issued as of the date the ESPP was suspended in March 2006, due to our inability to use our S-8 registration statement during our extended filing delay period.
No expense related to the ESPP was recorded during the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006
due to the suspension of the ESPP during these periods resulting from our extended filing delay
status. For the year ended January 31, 2006, the ESPP was accounted for under the provisions of
APB No. 25 and was considered non-compensatory. However, for purposes of the disclosure-only
provisions of SFAS No. 123, we included $0.3 million of stock-based compensation expenses, net of
income tax benefits, related to the ESPP in our pro forma operating results disclosure for the year
ended January 31, 2006. There were no offering periods subsequent to October 31, 2005 and
therefore no dilutive shares outstanding as of January 31, 2006.
16. Related Party Transactions
Relationships with Comverse and its Other Subsidiaries
Preferred Stock Financing
On May 25, 2007, in connection with our acquisition of Witness, we entered into a Securities
Purchase Agreement with Comverse pursuant to which Comverse purchased, for cash, an aggregate of
293,000 shares of our preferred stock for $293 million. Proceeds from the issuance of the
preferred stock were used to partially finance the acquisition of Witness. In connection with the
sale of the preferred stock we entered into the New Registration Rights Agreement with Comverse.
Further details regarding the preferred stock and the related registration rights agreement appear
within Note 9, Convertible Preferred Stock.
Original Registration Rights Agreement
Shortly before our IPO in 2002, we entered into the Original Registration Rights Agreement with
Comverse that covered all shares of common stock then held by Comverse and any additional shares of
common stock acquired by Comverse at a later date. Under the Original Registration Rights
Agreement, Comverse has the right to demand registration of its shares on a stand-alone filing, or
to participate in other registrations we may undertake (piggyback rights). In addition, we are
required to pay registration related expenses and indemnify Comverse from liabilities that may
arise from sale of shares registered pursuant to the Original Registration Rights Agreement.
Page F-79
Service and Tax Agreements with Comverse
There were, and still are, several agreements in place between us and Comverse and its other
subsidiaries, which were executed prior to our IPO in order to allow us to continue to receive
certain services from Comverse and its other subsidiaries following our IPO. A separate agreement
clarifies the income tax relationship between us and Comverse. Since our IPO, we have established
our own systems and reduced or eliminated our reliance on these services. As of January 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006, we had liabilities to Comverse for services under
these agreements of $1.3 million. $1.3 million and $1.2 million,
respectively, which are presented as liabilities to affiliates on our
consolidated balance sheets at those dates. The
following is an overview of certain of these agreements with Comverse:
Corporate Services Agreement
Under the Corporate Services Agreement, Comverse formerly provided us with maintenance
services for general liability and other insurance policies held by Comverse under which we were
covered. During calendar 2006 and 2007, we obtained our own insurance policies, including our own
directors and officers insurance policy, and we are now responsible for our own insurance
coverage. In the past, we also received certain administration services from Comverse with respect
to employee benefit plans, legal support, and public relations support under this agreement.
Following a period of transition, responsibility for these activities was fully transferred us and
as of January 31, 2008, we handle all of these functions ourselves. For the years ended January
31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, we recorded expenses of $0.3 million, $0.6 million, and $0.7 million,
respectively, for the services provided by Comverse under this agreement. This agreement was
terminated effective July 31, 2007.
Enterprise Resource Planning Software Sharing Agreement
Under the Enterprise Resource Planning Software Sharing Agreement, Comverse Ltd., a subsidiary of
Comverse, formerly provided us with shared access to its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software for the operation of our business. During the
quarter ended October 31, 2007, we completed a separation from Comverses ERP/CRM system and fully
transitioned to our own internal ERP/CRM system. For the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006, we recorded charges of $0.4 million, $0.2 million, and $0.4 million, respectively, for the
services under this agreement. The charges for the year ended January 31, 2006 included $0.2 million
for ERP software licenses, which we recorded as a capital expenditure.
Satellite Services Agreement
Under the Satellite Services Agreement, Comverse Inc., a subsidiary of Comverse, provides us with
the exclusive use of the services of specified employees and facilities of Comverse Inc. located in
countries where we do not have our own legal presence or facilities. The fee for this service is
equal to the expenses Comverse Inc. incurs in providing these services plus ten percent. For the
years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, we recorded expenses of $1.1 million, $2.9 million,
and $3.2 million, respectively, for the services provided by Comverse Inc. under this agreement.
We anticipate that we will continue to use some level of services under this agreement in the
future.
Page F-80
Federal Income Tax Sharing Agreement
We are party to a tax sharing agreement with Comverse which applies to periods prior to our IPO in
which we were included in Comverses consolidated federal tax return. By virtue of its controlling
ownership and this tax sharing agreement, Comverse effectively controlled all of our tax decisions
for periods ending prior to the completion of our IPO. Under the agreement, for periods during
which we were included in Comverses consolidated tax return, we were required to pay Comverse an
amount equal to the tax liability we would have owed, if any, had we filed a federal tax return on
our own, as computed by Comverse in its reasonable discretion. Under the agreement, we were not
entitled to receive any payments from Comverse in respect of, or to otherwise take advantage of,
any loss resulting from the calculation of our separate tax liability. The tax sharing agreement
also provided for certain payments in the event of adjustments to the groups tax liability. The
tax sharing agreement continues in effect until 60 days after the expiration of the applicable
statute of limitations for the final year in which we were part of the Comverse consolidated group
for tax purposes.
17. Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Leases
We lease office, manufacturing, and warehouse space, as well as certain equipment and vehicles,
under noncancellable operating lease agreements. Terms of the leases, including renewal options
and escalation clauses, vary by lease. When determining the term of a lease, we include renewal
options that are reasonably assured. The lease agreements generally provide that we pay taxes,
insurance, and maintenance expenses related to the leased assets over the initial lease term and
those renewal periods that are reasonably assured.
Our facility leases may contain rent escalation clauses or rent holidays, commencing at various
times during the terms of the agreements. Rent expense on operating leases with scheduled rent
increases or holidays during the lease term is recognized on a straight-line basis. The difference
between rent expense and rent paid is recorded as deferred rent. Leasehold improvements are
depreciated over the shorter of their economic lives, which begin once the assets are ready for
their intended use, or the term of the lease.
Rent expense incurred under all operating leases was $12.5 million, $7.8 million, and $5.9 million
for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively.
Page F-81
As of January 31, 2008, our minimum future rentals under non-cancelable operating leases were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
For the Years Ending January 31, |
|
Amount |
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
$ |
12,492 |
|
2010 |
|
|
11,373 |
|
2011 |
|
|
10,029 |
|
2012 |
|
|
9,461 |
|
2013 |
|
|
8,894 |
|
2014 and thereafter |
|
|
10,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
63,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we entered into a non-cancelable operating sublease with a
third party to rent space in a location previously utilized by us as a warehouse facility. We
expect to receive rental payments totaling $0.4 million over the next 34 months related to the
sublease. We had no material sublease arrangements prior to May 2007.
Unconditional Purchase Obligations
In the ordinary course of business, we enter into certain unconditional purchase obligations, which
are agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable, legally binding, and that
specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed,
minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Our purchase
orders are based on current needs and are typically fulfilled by our vendors within a relatively
short time horizon.
As of January 31, 2008, our unconditional purchase obligations totaled approximately $25.1 million,
the majority of which occurred within the subsequent twelve months. Due to the relatively short life
of the obligations, the carrying value approximates their fair value at January 31, 2008.
Page F-82
Warranty Liability
The following table summarizes the activity in our warranty liability, which is included in accrued
expenses and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets, for each of the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warranty liability, beginning of year |
|
$ |
2,521 |
|
|
$ |
2,237 |
|
|
$ |
2,889 |
|
Provisions charged to expenses |
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
657 |
|
Warranty charges |
|
|
(989 |
) |
|
|
(364 |
) |
|
|
(1,284 |
) |
Foreign currency translation and
other(1) |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warranty liability, end of year |
|
$ |
1,874 |
|
|
$ |
2,521 |
|
|
$ |
2,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $245 related to the acquisition of Mercom in July 2006. |
We accrue for warranty costs as part of our cost of revenue based on associated product costs,
labor costs, and associated overhead. Our Workforce Optimization solutions are sold with a warranty
of generally one year for hardware and 90 days for software. Our Video Intelligence solutions and
Communications Intelligence solutions are sold with warranties that typically range from 90 days to
3 years, and in some cases longer.
Licenses and Royalties
We
license certain technology and pay royalties under such licenses
and other agreements entered into in connection with research and development activities. As discussed
in Note 12, Research and Development, prior to calendar 2006, we historically paid royalties to
the OCS based on the sales of products successfully developed under the OCS Program. On July 31,
2006, we finalized an arrangement with the OCS pursuant to which we exited the royalty-bearing
funding program.
The Israeli law under which the OCS grants are made limits our ability to manufacture products, or
transfer technologies, developed using these grants outside of Israel. If we were to seek approval
to manufacture products, or transfer technologies, developed using these grants outside of Israel,
we could be subject to additional royalty requirements or be required to pay certain redemption
fees. If we were to violate these restrictions, we could be required to refund any grants
previously received, together with interest and penalties, and may be subject to criminal charges.
Preferred Stock Dividends, Conversion and Redemption
On May 25, 2007, in connection with our acquisition of Witness, we entered into a Securities
Purchase Agreement with Comverse under which Comverse purchased, for cash, an aggregate of 293,000
shares of our preferred stock, for $293.0 million. Upon a fundamental change event, as defined,
and subject to certain exceptions, the holders of the preferred stock would have the right to
require us to purchase the preferred stock for 100% of the liquidation preference then in effect.
Fundamental change events include the sale of substantially all of our assets, and certain changes
in beneficial ownership, board of directors representation and business reorganizations. Further
information regarding the terms of the preferred stock, including liquidation preferences,
dividends, conversion, and redemption rights are included in Note 9, Convertible Preferred Stock.
Page F-83
Off-Balance Sheet Risk
In the normal course of business, we provide certain customers with financial performance
guarantees, which are generally backed by standby letters of credit or surety bonds. In general,
we would only be liable for the amounts of these guarantees in the event that our nonperformance
permits termination of the related contract by our customer, which we believe is remote. At
January 31, 2008, we had approximately $13.1 million of outstanding letters of credit and surety
bonds relating to these performance guarantees. As of January 31, 2008, we believe we were in
compliance with our performance obligations under all contracts for which there is a financial
performance guarantee, and the ultimate liability, if any, incurred in connection with these
guarantees will not have a material adverse affect on our consolidated results of operations,
financial position, or cash flows. Our historical non-compliance with our performance obligations
has been insignificant.
Indemnifications
In the normal course of business, we provide indemnifications of varying scopes to customers
against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of
our products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been
significant and we are unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification
provisions on our future results of operations.
To the extent permitted under Delaware law or other applicable law, we indemnify our directors,
officers, employees, and agents against claims they may become subject to by virtue of serving in
such capacities for us. We also have contractual indemnification agreements with our directors,
officers, and certain senior executives. The maximum amount of future payments we could be
required to make under these indemnification arrangements and agreements is potentially unlimited;
however, we have insurance coverage that limits our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of
any future amounts paid. We are not able to estimate the fair value of these indemnification
arrangements and agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage, if any.
We are party to a business opportunities agreement with Comverse which addresses potential
conflicts of interest between Comverse and us. This agreement allocates between Comverse and us
opportunities to pursue transactions or matters that, absent such allocation, could constitute
corporate opportunities of both companies. Under the agreement, each party is precluded from
pursuing opportunities it may become aware of which are offered to an employee of the other party,
even if such employee serves as a director of the other entity. We have agreed to indemnify
Comverse and its directors, officers, employees and agents against any liabilities as a result of
any claim that any provision of the agreement, or the failure to offer any business opportunity to
us, violates or breaches any duty that may be owed to us by Comverse or any such person. Unless
earlier terminated by the parties, the agreement will remain in place until Comverse no longer
holds 20% of our voting power and no one on our board is a director or employee of Comverse.
Page F-84
Litigation
Comverse Investigation-Related Matters
On December 17, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements to settle the following lawsuits previously
disclosed by Comverse relating to the matters involved in the Comverse Special Committee
investigation which had been brought against Comverse and certain former officers and directors of
Comverse: (i) a consolidated shareholder class action before the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation; (ii) a
shareholder derivative action before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation; and (iii) a shareholder derivative
action before the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation.
Verint was not named as a defendant in any of these suits. Igal Nissim, our former Chief Financial
Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his
capacity as the former Chief Financial Officer of Comverse, and Dan Bodner, our Chief Executive
Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his
capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Verint (i.e., as the president of a significant
subsidiary of Comverse). Mr. Nissim and Mr. Bodner were not named in the shareholder class action
suit.
The federal shareholder derivative suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
beginning in 1994 by: (i) allowing and participating in a scheme to backdate the grant dates of
employee stock options to improperly benefit Comverses executives and certain directors; (ii)
allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to personally profit by trading Comverses
stock while in possession of material inside information; (iii) failing to properly oversee or
implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper practices; (iv) causing Comverse to issue
materially false and misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file other false
and misleading documents with the SEC; and (v) exposing Comverse to civil liability. The
plaintiffs originally filed suit on April 20, 2006. The Consolidated, Amended, and Verified
Shareholder Derivative Complaint, filed on October 6, 2006, seeks unspecified damages, injunctive
relief, including restricting the proceeds of the defendants trading activities and other assets,
setting aside the election of the defendant directors to the Comverse board of directors, and costs
and attorneys fees. On December 21, 2007, motions to dismiss the federal shareholder derivative
suit were fully briefed on behalf of Comverse as well as the individual defendants, including Mr.
Nissim and Mr. Bodner. No decision has been rendered on these motions to dismiss as of the signing
of the settlement agreements or as of the filing date of this report.
The state shareholder derivative suit makes similar allegations to the federal shareholder
derivative suit. The plaintiffs first filed suit on April 11, 2006. The Consolidated and Amended
Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which was filed on September 18, 2006, seeks unspecified damages,
injunctive relief, such as restricting the proceeds of the defendants trading activities and other
assets, and costs and attorneys fees.
Page F-85
The agreements in settlement of the above-mentioned actions are subject to notice to Comverses
shareholders and approval by the federal and state courts in which such proceedings are pending.
Neither we nor Mr. Nissim or Mr. Bodner is responsible for making any payments or relinquishing any
equity holdings under the terms of the settlement.
Comverse was also the subject of a SEC investigation and resulting civil action regarding the
improper backdating of stock options and other accounting practices, including the improper
establishment, maintenance, and release of reserves, the reclassification of certain expenses, and
the calculation of backlog of sales orders. On June 18, 2009, Comverse announced that it had
reached a settlement with the SEC on these matters without admitting or denying the allegations of
the SEC complaint.
Verint Investigation-Related Matters
On July 20, 2006, we announced that, in connection with the SEC investigation into Comverses past
stock option grants which was in process at that time, we had received a letter requesting that we
voluntarily provide to the SEC certain documents and information related to our own stock option
grants and practices. We voluntarily responded to this request. On April 9, 2008, as we
previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC arising from the
staffs investigation of our past stock option grant practices and certain unrelated accounting
matters. These accounting matters were also the subject of our
internal investigation.
On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment
permanently enjoining us from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief
beyond the entry of a permanent injunction. The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC
considered our remediation and cooperation in the SECs
investigation. The settlement was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
March 9, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file
our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. Under the SECs
Wells process, recipients of a Wells Notice have the opportunity to make a Wells Submission before the SEC staff makes a
recommendation to the SEC regarding what action, if any, should be brought by the SEC. On January 15, 2010, we submitted
a Wells Submission to the SEC in response to this Wells Notice. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an Order Instituting
Proceedings (OIP) pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an
annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since
December 12, 2005. An Administrative Law Judge will consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the
OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including
available procedural remedies and intend to defend against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
Page F-86
On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class lawsuit action (the Labor Motion) and the class
action lawsuit itself (the Labor Class Action) (Labor Case No. 4186/09) were filed against our
subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited (VSL) by a former employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch in the Tel
Aviv Labor Court. Mrs. Deutsch purports to represent a class of our employees and ex-employees,
who were granted options to buy shares of Verint, and to whom, allegedly, damages were caused as a
result of the blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by our employees or ex-employees.
The Labor Motion and the Labor Class Action both claim that we are responsible for the alleged
damages due to our status as employer and that the blocking of Verint options from being exercised
constitutes default of the employment agreements between the members of the class and VSL. The
Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages for the entire class in an unspecified amount. On
July 9, 2009, we filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively for the stay of the Labor
Motion. A preliminary session was held on July 12, 2009. Mrs. Deutsch filed her response to our
response on November 10, 2009. On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv
Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction and
ruled that it will be transferred to the District Court in Tel Aviv.
Witness Investigation-Related Matters
At the time of our May 25, 2007 acquisition of Witness, Witness was subject to a number of
proceedings relating to a stock options backdating internal investigation undertaken and publicly
disclosed by Witness prior to the acquisition. The following is a summary of those proceedings and
developments since the date of the acquisition.
On August 29, 2006, A. Edward Miller filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) naming Witness as a nominal defendant
and naming all of Witness directors and a number of its officers as defendants (Miller v. Gould,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-2039 (N.D. Ga.)). The complaint alleged purported violations of
federal and state law, and violations of certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws (including Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder)
in connection with certain stock option grants made by Witness. The complaint sought monetary
damages in unspecified amounts, disgorgement of profits, an accounting, rescission of stock option
grants, imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants stock options and proceeds derived
therefrom, punitive damages, reimbursement of attorneys fees and other costs and expenses, an
order directing Witness to adopt or put to a stockholder vote various proposals relating to
corporate governance, and other relief as determined by the court. On March 11, 2009, the Court
granted defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Plaintiff did
not file an appeal and the time to do so under the federal rules has elapsed.
Page F-87
On August 14, 2006, a class action securities lawsuit was filed by an individual claiming to be a
Witness stockholder naming Witness and certain of its directors and officers as defendants in
connection with certain stock option grants made by Witness (Rosenberg v. Gould, et al., Civil
Action No. 1:06-CV-1894 (N.D. Ga.)). The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys fees and other costs and
expenses, unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive relief, and other relief as
determined by the court. On March 31, 2008, the Court granted defendants motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On April 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and on January 9, 2009, the 11th Circuit affirmed the lower courts dismissal of the
complaint. Plaintiff has not pursued further appeal of this decision and the time to do so under
the federal rules has elapsed.
On October 27, 2006, Witness received notice from the SEC of an informal non-public inquiry
relating to the stock option grant practices of Witness from February 1, 2000 through the date of
the notice. On July 12, 2007, we received a copy of the Formal Order of Investigation from the SEC
relating to substantially the same matter as the informal inquiry. We and Witness have fully
cooperated, and intend to continue to fully cooperate, if called upon to do so, with the SEC
regarding this matter. In addition, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Northern District of
Georgia was also given access to the documents and information provided by Witness to the SEC. Our
last communication with the SEC with respect to the matter was in June 2008.
Verint Patent and General Litigation Matters
On December 18, 2006, Trover Group, Inc. (Trover) filed a patent infringement suit seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against us, Target Corporation, and The Home Depot, Inc. based on claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
5,751,345 and 5,751,346 (the Trover Patents). Trover dismissed Home Depot and Target without
prejudice on April 17, 2008 and on April 25, 2008, respectively. Trover also commenced separate
patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against
Diebold Incorporated, one of our customers, and against Regions Bank, a user of our video security
and surveillance products. On July 21, 2008, we entered into a settlement agreement with Trover.
The settlement agreement provides protections to us and other parties that have or had purchased or
used certain of our products, including the products at issue in the foregoing litigations. On
July 23, 2008, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted against us by Trover.
On October 18, 2005, the Administrative Court of Appeals of Athens entered a final, non-appealable
verdict against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Verint Systems UK Ltd. (formerly Comverse Infosys UK
Limited) (Verint UK), in a dispute between Verint UK and its former customer, the Greek Civil
Aviation Authority, which began in June 1999. The Greek Civil Aviation Authority had claimed that
the equipment provided to it by Verint UK did not operate properly. The verdict did not contain a
calculation of the monetary judgment, but we estimated the amount at
approximately $2.6 million based on an earlier decision in the case, exclusive of any interest
which may be assessed on the judgment based on the passage of time. The Greek government must seek
enforcement of this judgment in the United Kingdom. To date this judgment has not been enforced
and we have made no payments.
Page F-88
Witness Patent and General Litigation Matters
At the time of our May 25, 2007 acquisition of Witness, Witness was subject to a number of patent
and general litigations that were publicly disclosed by Witness prior to the acquisition. The
following is a summary of those proceedings and developments since the date of the acquisition.
Knowlagent
On December 11, 2002, Witness filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against Knowlagent, Inc. (Knowlagent), which is the
assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,282 B1 and 6,459,787 B2. Witness sought a declaration that it
did not infringe either of these two patents and a declaration that these patents were invalid and
unenforceable. We subsequently reached a settlement agreement with Knowlagent and the case was
terminated on August 31, 2007.
Blue Pumpkin
On March 14, 2007, Witness was served with a complaint by Doron Aspitz, the former Chief Executive
Officer of Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc. (Blue Pumpkin), in California Superior Court for the
County of Santa Clara. The complaint named Witness as defendant and asserted eight causes of
action, including promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation, in connection with Witnesss
2005 acquisition of Blue Pumpkin. The complaint sought over $5.0 million in compensatory damages
as well as other unquantified punitive and exemplary damages. On August 10, 2007, Witness
successfully removed the suit from the California Superior Court to the Southern District of New
York and on August 14, 2007, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.
NICE Systems Settlement Agreement
On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement with NICE to resolve all patent litigations
between NICE and Witness in existence at that time. The following is a summary of these
litigations, each of which was formally terminated by the applicable court between August 8, 2008
and August 13, 2008:
|
|
|
Suit filed on July 20, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York by STS Software Systems Ltd. (STS Software), a wholly-owned subsidiary of NICE and
declaratory judgment action filed the same day by Witness against STS Software in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. These two cases were consolidated to
the Northern District of Georgia, where STS Software asserted that certain Witness
recording products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,122,665; 6,865,604; 6,871,229;
and 6,880,004 relating to VoIP technology and sought only injunctive relief. A bench trial
was held from March 17-21, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the court entered a judgment of
non-infringement in our favor. |
Page F-89
|
|
|
Suit filed on August 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Witness against NICE Systems, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of NICE. Witness asserted that NICEs screen capture products infringed on claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,790,790 and 6,510,220. The case was consolidated with a separate February
24, 2005 suit filed by Witness against NICE alleging infringement on the same patents. We
were waiting on the court to assign a trial date at the time of the settlement. |
|
|
|
Suit filed on January 19, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Witness against NICE. Witness asserted that NICEs speech
analytics products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857. A jury trial was held
from May 12-16, 2008 and the jury returned a verdict in our favor and against NICE on the
claims of infringement. The jury also awarded us $3.3 million in damages, however, this
award was superseded by the terms of the settlement agreement disclosed above. |
|
|
|
Suit filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by
NICE against Witness seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. NICE asserted that
various Witness recording products infringed on claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,274,738;
5,396,371; 5,819,005; 6,249,570; 6,728,345; 6,775,372; 6,785,370; 6,870,920; 6,959,079; and
7,010,109. These patents cover various aspects for recording customer interaction
communications and traditional call logging. A jury trial was held from January 14-22,
2008, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. |
|
|
|
Declaratory judgment action filed on December 27, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by NICE against Witness seeking a declaration that the
claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,361 (relating to speech analytics) were invalid and that
NICE has not infringed this patent. The Court granted our motion to dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 10, 2007. |
From time to time we or our subsidiaries may be involved in other legal proceedings and/or
litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business that might impact our financial position,
our results of operations, or our cash flows.
18. Segment, Geographic and Significant Customer Information
Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial
information is available that is evaluated regularly by the enterprises chief operating decision
maker (CODM), or decision making group, in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing
performance. Our Chief Executive Officer is our CODM.
We conduct our business in three operating segments Enterprise Workforce Optimization Solutions
(Workforce Optimization), Video Intelligence Solutions (Video Intelligence) and Communications
Intelligence and Investigative Solutions (Communications Intelligence).
Page F-90
Our Workforce Optimization solutions enable large organizations and small-to-medium sized business
organizations to extract and analyze valuable information from customer interactions and related
operational and transactional data for the purpose of optimizing the performance of their customer
service operations, including contact centers, back offices, branches, and remote locations.
Our Video Intelligence solutions help organizations enhance safety and security by enabling them to
deploy an end-to-end IP video solution with integrated analytics or evolve to IP video
operations without discarding their investments in analog Closed Circuit Television technology.
Our Communications Intelligence solutions are designed to generate evidence and intelligence and
are used to detect and neutralize criminal and terrorist threats.
We measure the performance of our operating segments based upon segment revenue and operating
segment contribution. Operating segment contribution includes segment revenue and expenses
incurred directly by the segment, including material costs, service costs, research and
development, and selling, marketing and administrative expenses. We do not allocate our shared
expenses, which include the majority of general and administrative expenses, facilities and
communication expenses, purchasing expenses, manufacturing support and logistic expenses,
depreciation and amortization, amortization of capitalized software development costs, stock-based
compensation, and special charges such as restructuring and integration expenses. These expenses
are included in the unallocated expenses section of the table presented below. Revenue from
transactions between our operating segments is not material.
The accounting policies used to determine the performance of the operating segments are the same as
those described in the summary of significant accounting policies in Note 1, Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies.
With the exception of goodwill and acquired intangible assets, we do not identify or allocate our
assets by operating segment. Consequently, it is not practical to present assets by operating
segment. The allocation of goodwill and acquired intangible assets by operating segment appears in
Note 6, Intangible Assets and Goodwill.
Page F-91
Operating results by segment for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Workforce |
|
|
Video |
|
|
Communications |
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
Optimization |
|
|
Intelligence |
|
|
Intelligence |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
260,938 |
|
|
$ |
147,225 |
|
|
$ |
126,380 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue adjustment |
|
|
37,254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenue |
|
$ |
298,192 |
|
|
$ |
147,225 |
|
|
$ |
126,380 |
|
|
$ |
571,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution |
|
$ |
112,856 |
|
|
$ |
37,213 |
|
|
$ |
40,173 |
|
|
|
190,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unallocated expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of other acquired
intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,249 |
|
Impairments of goodwill and other acquired
intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,370 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,048 |
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,996 |
|
Other common expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200,209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114,630 |
) |
Other expense, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,186 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before taxes and noncontrolling
interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(169,816 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenue |
|
$ |
125,982 |
|
|
$ |
122,681 |
|
|
$ |
120,115 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution |
|
$ |
43,357 |
|
|
$ |
23,670 |
|
|
$ |
38,489 |
|
|
|
105,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unallocated expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of other acquired
intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,889 |
|
Impairments of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,729 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,615 |
|
Settlement with OCS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,158 |
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(765 |
) |
Other common expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47,253 |
) |
Other income, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before taxes and
noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(39,457 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenue |
|
$ |
68,500 |
|
|
$ |
102,225 |
|
|
$ |
108,029 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment contribution |
|
$ |
16,872 |
|
|
$ |
17,862 |
|
|
$ |
40,728 |
|
|
|
75,462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unallocated expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of other acquired
intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,354 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,165 |
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,554 |
|
Other common expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,112 |
|
Other income, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes and noncontrolling
interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-92
Workforce Optimization segment revenue reviewed by the CODM includes $37.3 million of additional
revenue, primarily related to deferred maintenance and service revenue not recognizable in our GAAP
revenues as a result of purchase accounting following our May 2007 acquisition of Witness. We
include this additional revenue within our segment revenues because it better reflects our ongoing
maintenance and service revenue stream. For additional details see Note 5, Business
Combinations.
The significant increase in unallocated expenses during the year ended January 31, 2008 reflects
higher stock-based compensation costs, higher amortization of intangible assets, higher general and
administrative expenses, and certain restructuring, integration, and litigation costs, all
associated with the acquisition of Witness.
Unallocated expenses for the year ended January 31, 2008 also include professional fees and other
costs associated with our internal investigation, restatement process, and other activities
associated with our efforts to prepare and file our delinquent financial reports with the SEC.
Geographic Information
Revenue by major geographic region is based upon the geographic location of the customers who
purchase our products. The geographic locations of distributors, resellers and systems integrators
who purchase and resell our products may be different from the geographic locations of end
customers. The information below summarizes revenue to unaffiliated customers by geographic area
for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
$ |
245,836 |
|
|
$ |
141,457 |
|
|
$ |
128,688 |
|
United Kingdom |
|
|
73,437 |
|
|
|
40,959 |
|
|
|
23,642 |
|
Other |
|
|
215,270 |
|
|
|
186,362 |
|
|
|
126,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our long-lived assets primarily consist of net property and equipment, goodwill and other
intangible assets, capitalized software development costs, deferred costs of revenue, and deferred
income taxes. We believe that our tangible long-lived assets, which consist of our net property
and equipment, are exposed to greater geographic area risks and uncertainties than intangible
assets and long-term cost deferrals, because these tangible assets are difficult to move and are
relatively illiquid.
Page F-93
Property and equipment, net by geographic area consists of the following as of January 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
$ |
12,740 |
|
|
$ |
8,569 |
|
|
$ |
7,312 |
|
Israel |
|
|
12,656 |
|
|
|
10,643 |
|
|
|
10,286 |
|
Germany |
|
|
3,535 |
|
|
|
3,267 |
|
|
|
3,404 |
|
United Kingdom |
|
|
2,431 |
|
|
|
1,189 |
|
|
|
593 |
|
Canada |
|
|
2,014 |
|
|
|
2,268 |
|
|
|
1,897 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,939 |
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property and equipment, net |
|
$ |
36,315 |
|
|
$ |
26,968 |
|
|
$ |
24,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant Customers
No single customer accounted for more that 10% of our total revenue during any of the years ended
January 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006.
19. Subsequent Events
Settlement with NICE Systems
On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement with NICE to resolve all then-outstanding
patent litigations between NICE and Witness. These litigations resulted from a 2004 suit filed by
one of NICEs subsidiaries against Witness alleging that certain Witness products infringed a
number of VoIP call recording patents held by NICE. Following the filing of this initial lawsuit,
Witness filed two patent infringement suits against NICE alleging infringement of certain screen
capture and speech analytics patents and NICE filed a second suit against Witness alleging
violation of additional call recording patents. Following a January 2008 trial, a jury in the
second suit filed by NICE was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. On May 16, 2008,
a jury in the speech analytics case filed by Witness returned a verdict in our favor and against
NICE on the claims of infringement and awarded us $3.3 million in damages. However, this award was
superseded by the terms of the settlement agreement disclosed above. On May 23, 2008, the court in
the initial VoIP suit filed by NICE found in our favor and against NICE on the claims of
infringement. For additional information, see Note 17, Commitments and Contingencies.
Page F-94
Dividend Rate on Convertible Preferred Stock
Our convertible preferred stock agreement provides that the initial annual dividend rate of 4.25%
is subject to potential increase or decrease, dependent upon certain events. One such provision
provides that the dividend rate will decline to 3.875% beginning with the first quarter after the
initial interest rate on the term loan under the our credit agreement, which is variable, has been
reduced by 50 basis points or more. As market interest rates declined during the second half of
calendar 2007, this condition was satisfied, and effective February 1, 2008, the dividend rate was
reset to 3.875% per annum and is now fixed at this level. For additional information, see Note 9,
Convertible Preferred Stock.
Gain on Sale of Auction Rate Securities
During the quarter ended January 31, 2008, we concluded that our auction rate security investments
had incurred an other-than-temporary impairment in market value and recorded a $4.7 million pre-tax
charge to reduce the carrying value of these investments from their original $7.0 million cost.
During the year ended January 31, 2009, we sold our auction rate
securities to the broker from whom we purchased the securities at par
value plus accrued interest. We are aware that at the time, the
broker had entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorney
General of the State of New York and the North American Securities
Administrators Association Task Force. Consequently, we recorded a gain of $4.7 million
when the securities were sold to the broker.
For additional information, see Note
4, Short-term Investments.
Long-term Debt
On February 25, 2008, and again on August 25, 2008, we failed to deliver the requisite financial
statements in accordance with the terms of our secured financing arrangement. As a result, the
margin over an index utilized to determine interest on borrowings under the agreement increased by
0.25% at each date, or 0.50% in total.
Our $25.0 million revolving line of credit was reduced to $15.0 million during the quarter ended
October 31, 2008 as a result of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. In November 2008, we borrowed
the full $15.0 million under the revolving line of credit.
Wells Notices
On April 9, 2008, as we previously reported, we received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC
arising from the staffs investigation of our past stock option grant practices and certain
unrelated accounting matters. These accounting matters were also the
subject of our internal investigation.
On March 3, 2010, the SEC filed a settled enforcement action against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York relating to certain of our accounting reserve practices.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SECs Complaint, we consented to the issuance of a Final Judgment
permanently enjoining us from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The settled SEC action did not require us to pay any monetary penalty and sought no relief
beyond the entry of a permanent injunction. The SECs related press release noted that, in accepting the settlement offer, the SEC
considered our remediation and cooperation in the SECs
investigation. The settlement was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
March 9, 2010.
Page F-95
On December 23, 2009, as we previously reported, we received
an additional Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC relating to our failure to timely file our periodic reports under the Exchange Act. On March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an OIP pursuant to Section 12(j)
of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our failure to file an annual report on either Form 10-K or Form 10-KSB since April 25, 2005 or quarterly reports on either Form 10-Q or Form 10-QSB since December 12, 2005.
An Administrative Law Judge will consider the evidence in the Section 12(j) proceeding and has been directed in the OIP to issue an initial decision within 120 days of service of the OIP. We are currently evaluating the Section 12(j) OIP, including available procedural remedies and intend to defend against the possible suspension or revocation of the registration of our common stock.
Impairment of Goodwill
In connection with the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for the year ended
January 31, 2009, we are finalizing the evaluation of our goodwill and other acquired intangible
assets for possible impairments in carrying values. While this evaluation is not yet complete, our
preliminary evaluation indicates that certain goodwill in both our Video Intelligence and Workforce
Optimization operating segments has become impaired.
We estimate that the non-cash impairment charges related to our Video Intelligence and Workforce
Optimization operating segments will be from $3 million to $23
million, and from $11 million to $23 million,
respectively. These impairment charges, once finalized, will be reflected in our consolidated
financial statements for the year ended January 31, 2009.
We believe these preliminary impairments are primarily due to the continued global economic
downturn, which has lowered demand for our products, as well as changes in business strategy in
both our video security business in the Asia Pacific market and our performance management
consulting business.
Business
Combination
On
February 4, 2010, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Verint Americas Inc.,
acquired all of the outstanding shares of Iontas Limited ("Iontas"),
a privately held provider of desktop analytics solutions. Prior to
this acquisition, we licensed certain technology from Iontas, whose
solutions measure application usage and analyze workflows to help
improve staff performance in contact center, branch and back-office
operations environments. We acquired Iontas for approximately
$15.2 million in cash (net of cash acquired) and potential additional
earn-out payments of up to $3.8 million, tied to certain targets
being achieved over the next two years. The initial purchase price
allocation for this acquisition is not yet available, as we have not
completed the appraisals necessary to assess the fair values of the
tangible and identified intangible assets acquired and liabilities
assumed, the assets and liabilities arising from contingencies (if
any), and the amount of goodwill to be recognized as of the
acquisition date.
20. Selected Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited)
Summarized consolidated quarterly financial information for the years ended January 31, 2008 and
2007 appears in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
April 30, |
|
|
July 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2007 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
89,371 |
|
|
$ |
128,325 |
|
|
$ |
158,135 |
|
|
$ |
158,712 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
48,721 |
|
|
|
70,056 |
|
|
|
91,246 |
|
|
|
94,478 |
|
Loss before income taxes and noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(11,611 |
) |
|
|
(44,691 |
) |
|
|
(34,869 |
) |
|
|
(78,645 |
) |
Net loss |
|
|
(9,207 |
) |
|
|
(75,611 |
) |
|
|
(35,101 |
) |
|
|
(78,690 |
) |
Net loss applicable to common shares |
|
|
(9,207 |
) |
|
|
(77,931 |
) |
|
|
(38,265 |
) |
|
|
(81,887 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share |
|
$ |
(0.29 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.42 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.19 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page F-96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Quarters Ended |
|
|
|
April 30, |
|
|
July 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
93,355 |
|
|
$ |
92,327 |
|
|
$ |
82,337 |
|
|
$ |
100,759 |
|
Gross profit |
|
|
46,879 |
|
|
|
30,818 |
|
|
|
45,733 |
|
|
|
54,077 |
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and
noncontrolling interest |
|
|
1,210 |
|
|
|
(14,820 |
) |
|
|
(2,850 |
) |
|
|
(22,997 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
(16,705 |
) |
|
|
(3,163 |
) |
|
|
(21,564 |
) |
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
(16,705 |
) |
|
|
(3,163 |
) |
|
|
(21,564 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net income (loss) per share |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
(0.52 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.67 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The May 2007 acquisition of Witness had significant impacts to our quarterly operating results,
including the following:
|
|
an increase in revenue beginning in the quarter ended July 31, 2007; |
|
|
additional amortization of intangible assets of $6.1 million, $8.3 million, and $8.2
million for the quarters ended July 31, 2007, October 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008,
respectively; |
|
|
a charge for in-process research and development of $6.4 million in the quarter ended July
31, 2007; |
|
|
integration costs incurred to support and facilitate the combination of Verint and Witness
into a single organization, of $0.2 million, $4.8 million, $3.2 million, and $2.8 million for
the four quarterly periods ended January 31, 2008, respectively; |
|
|
legal fees associated with pre-existing litigation between Witness and a competitor of $1.3
million, $2.4 million, and $5.0 million for the quarters ended July 31, 2007, October 31,
2007, and January 31, 2008, respectively; |
|
|
interest expense on our term loan of $9.9 million, $12.6 million, and $11.9 million for the
quarters ended July 31, 2007, October 31, 2007, and
January 31, 2008, respectively; |
|
|
realized and unrealized losses on our interest rate swap of $1.5 million, $6.9 million, and
$20.8 million for the quarters ended July 31, 2007, October 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008,
respectively; and |
|
|
unrealized gains on an embedded derivative financial instrument related to the variable
dividend feature of our convertible preferred stock of $0.8 million, $1.9 million, and $4.5
million for the quarters ended July 31, 2007, October 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008,
respectively. |
The quarter ended July 31, 2006 includes a $19.2 million charge related to the settlement of our
obligations to the OCS in Israel under the royalty program in which we were participating.
The quarters ended January 31, 2008 and 2007 include non-cash charges to recognize impairments of
goodwill and long-lived intangible assets of $23.4 million and
$24.7 million, respectively.
Page F-97
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VERINT SYSTEMS INC.
(Registrant)
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
By: |
/s/ Dan Bodner |
|
|
|
Dan Bodner, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
By: |
/s/ Douglas E. Robinson |
|
|
|
Douglas E. Robinson, Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer) |
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Dan Bodner
Dan
Bodner, Chief Executive Officer
and President; Director of Verint Systems Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Douglas E. Robinson
Douglas
E. Robinson, Chief Financial Officer of Verint Systems Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Paul D. Baker
Paul
D. Baker, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John Bunyan
John
Bunyan, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Andre Dahan
Andre
Dahan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Victor A. DeMarines
Victor
A. DeMarines, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kenneth A. Minihan
Kenneth
A. Minihan, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Larry Myers
Larry
Myers, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Howard Safir
Howard
Safir, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Shefali Shah
Shefali
Shah, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Stephen M. Swad
Stephen
M. Swad, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Lauren Wright
Lauren
Wright, Director of Verint Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
March 16, 2010 |