Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended: November 3, 2002

or

For the Transition Period from                              to

Commission File Number: 333-75869

SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (l) 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 ý    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 the Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ý

As of January 24, 2003, the number of outstanding shares of the Registrant's common stock was 3,712,764.

SPECIAL DEVICES, INCORPORATED
INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

NOTE CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This report contains certain forward-looking statements and information within the meaning of the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements and information relating to our business are based on the beliefs of management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to management. The words "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "plans," "intends" and similar expressions, as they relate to our operations, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein as anticipated, believed, estimated or expected. We do not intend to update these forward-looking statements.

2

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

In this report, the "Company," "SDI", "we," "us" and "our" refer to Special Devices, Incorporated unless the context requires otherwise. We changed our fiscal year in 2002 from the last day in October to the Sunday closest to the last day of October. Unless otherwise noted, all references to years, such as "during 2002", means our fiscal year.

Overview

We are a leading designer and manufacturer of highly reliable precision engineered pyrotechnic devices. These devices are used predominantly in vehicle airbag and other automotive safety systems. Our primary products are initiators, which function like an "electrical match" to ignite the gas generating charge in an automotive airbag system.

We currently have one division, our Automotive Products Division, which we believe to be the world's largest independent supplier of initiators sold to leading domestic and foreign automotive airbag system manufacturers. Those manufacturers use our product in the assembly of integrated airbag safety systems, which they then sell to automobile original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs"). The divestiture of our Aerospace Division, which included our wholly owned subsidiary Scot, Incorporated ("Scot"), was completed in a series of transactions in 2000 and 2001.

Our principal executive offices are located at 14370 White Sage Road, Moorpark, California 93021 and our phone number is (805) 553-1200.

History

Special Devices, Incorporated was founded in the late 1950s in Pacoima, California to manufacture pyrotechnics for motion picture special effects applications. In 1960, we constructed a new facility in Newhall, California for the production of military pyrotechnic devices.

During the 1980s, increased defense spending and a broadening of our product lines allowed us to become a leading manufacturer of high-reliability initiators for weapons systems and safe-and-arm and arm-fire devices. By the end of the 1980s, the decline of the Cold War and rising budget deficits were placing downward pressure on defense spending. At the same time Congress passed legislation mandating the increased use of airbags in passenger cars and automotive OEMs were beginning to market the superior safety of cars equipped with airbags. As a result, we decided to maintain our aerospace business and aggressively penetrate the automotive market. In 1989, we signed a five-year contract to supply initiators to TRW, Inc., one of the leading manufacturers of automotive airbags. Through the 1990s, we gained additional airbag customers and established our position as a leading supplier of initiators and pyrotechnic devices to the world automotive and aerospace markets.

To accommodate our growth, we constructed a new, state-of-the-art facility in Moorpark, California during 1998 and 1999. We vacated our Newhall facility and relocated to Moorpark in 1999.

In December 1998, we consummated a recapitalization (the "Recapitalization") in which all shares of our Common Stock, other than those retained by certain members of management and certain other stockholders (the "Continuing Stockholders"), were converted into the right to receive $34 per share in cash. In connection with the Recapitalization, we delisted our Common Stock from the NASDAQ Stock Market, and accordingly filed for deregistration with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").

In July 1999, we entered into a Contribution, License and Lease Agreement with McCormick Selph, Inc. ("MSI"), which at the time was an affiliate of our controlling stockholder, pursuant to which we received certain assets and licensed the intellectual property comprising the micro gas

3

generator ("MGG") automotive product line. MGG units are used by the automotive industry in seat belt pretensioner applications. The Contribution, License and Lease Agreement was amended and restated in September 2000 to convey all of MSI's rights to the intellectual property to SDI. The MGG product line was moved to our Mesa, Arizona facility during the second half of 2000.

On May 11, 2001, we completed the sale of the net assets comprising the remaining operations of our Aerospace Division (the "Aerospace Sale"), which had designed and manufactured products for the aerospace industry for nearly 40 years. Its customers were primarily the U.S. Department of Defense and its prime contractors and subcontractors. The Aerospace Division's products included initiators and devices that incorporated these initiators such as explosive bolts, cutters, actuators, valves, pin pullers and safe-and-arm and arm-fire devices. Scot, which was sold on September 21, 2000, designed and manufactured devices for launch vehicles and aircraft egress applications as well as sophisticated test products such as parachute release and oxygen mask testers.

In June 2001, we completed the sale and leaseback of our facilities in Moorpark, California and Mesa, Arizona (the "Real Estate Transaction").

We formed a joint venture partnership, Special Devices-Molan GmbH & Co. KG ("SDI-Molan"), in Germany in June 2001. SDI-Molan's business is the development, production, marketing, distribution and sale of air bag initiators, micro gas generators and seat belt buckles and pyrotechnic pretensioners in Europe. SDI-Molan began operations in September 2002.

In June 2002, we incorporated Special Devices Japan Kabushiki Kaisha ("SDI Japan") in Japan and in November 2002 we formed Special Devices (Thailand) Co., Ltd ("SDI Thailand") in Thailand. These subsidiaries were formed to create a direct business presence in these geographic markets and are expected to begin operations in 2003. We previously distributed our products in Japan through an agent.

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS DIVISION

General

Our Automotive Products Division was created in 1989 after the United States government adopted regulations requiring the installation of airbags and other crash protection systems in all new passenger automobiles. Since that time, demand for our initiators has grown rapidly. We attribute this growth in large part to the continuing evolution of automotive safety standards and increased customer preferences for airbag-related safety options. We expect continued growth in the demand for our products as the number of airbag-equipped vehicles increases, the number of airbags per vehicle grows, and our customers implement new technologies. These new technologies include seat belt pretensioners and "smart" airbag systems, both of which we expect will require new types of initiators and sometimes more than one initiator per product.

Industry Overview

One of the major reasons for the establishment of the Automotive Products Division was the adoption by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") of regulations that initially required all passenger automobiles manufactured on or after 1989 for sale in the United States to have automatic frontal crash protection systems for the driver and front passenger. Beginning in 1994 similar requirements for light trucks and vans went into effect. Airbags and automatic seat belts were the two initial means of compliance with these regulations.

Automotive airbag systems consist of six basic components: sensors, a diagnostic and firing module, an initiator (the product we manufacture), a combustion chamber, a gas generator and a specially treated fabric bag. Once the sensors detect an impact of sufficient severity, the diagnostic and firing module transmits an electrical charge to the initiator. The initiator then fires, igniting the gas generator in the

4

combustion chamber that burns very rapidly, producing a gas that inflates the bag. The entire process takes approximately 40 milliseconds. The diagnostic module also tests the initiator each time the automobile is started.

In 1994, the NHTSA regulations were amended to require that airbags be the automatic frontal crash protection system used for both the driver and front passenger in at least 95% of passenger automobiles manufactured from September 1996 to August 1997 for sale in the United States, and in 100% of passenger automobiles manufactured on or after September 1997 for sale in the United States. For light trucks and vans, the amended regulations required that airbags be the automatic frontal crash protection system used for at least the driver in no less than 80% of light trucks and vans manufactured from September 1997 to August 1998 for sale in the United States, and for both the driver and front passenger in 100% of light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1998 for sale in the United States. In addition to these requirements, automobile OEMs have recently introduced other safety restraint devices, including side airbags, head protection airbags and seat belt pretensioners. Research and development is currently in process for rear seat airbag systems.

In response to concerns over injuries caused by airbag deployment for out-of-position occupants (primarily children and infants), research is ongoing to develop advanced or "smart" airbag systems. The first generation of these systems, which deploys an airbag at lower forces, has been introduced. The next generation systems will have the ability to detect weight and position of the occupant. Most of these new systems have "dual chambers," each of which requires an initiator. The NHTSA Reauthorization Act of 1998 mandates the issuance of a final rule for advanced airbags. The advanced airbags are required in some new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in September 2002 and in all new cars and light trucks beginning September 2005.

Our business and earnings are sensitive to general business and economic conditions. These conditions include automotive vehicle sales, short-term interest rates and consumer confidence levels about the economy. If any of these conditions worsen, our business and earnings could be adversely affected. For example, if consumer confidence erodes and short term interest rates rise to a point where purchases of automobiles are deferred, our production of initiators, our principal revenue producing product, would be adversely affected. We are subject to price pressure from our customers which reduces our revenues through lower standard unit pricing. We also are affected by the trend towards increased unit sales of lower cost standard products as replacements for higher cost prior generation lead wire products. See "Products" for a discussion of these products. The retail automotive market remains very competitive as the OEMs compete for market share. During calendar year 2002 and early 2003, automobile manufacturers have offered an array of incentives in an effort to sustain sales.

Products

We believe we are the world's largest independent supplier of airbag initiators and micro gas generators. Initiators and micro gas generators are devices that receive a low-energy electrical signal from an electronic firing module and convert that signal to a high-energy output by a thermal reaction of compacted pyrotechnic materials. In the event of an automobile accident, airbag initiators activate inflators, which in turn inflate an airbag. Micro gas generators are initiators used in seat belt pretensioning devices, which take dangerous slack out of seat belts in the event of an accident.

We currently produce over 125 different standard and leadwire airbag initiators for domestic and foreign manufacturers of inflators. Leadwire product differs from standard product in that SDI adds a length of electrical wire, an electrical harness connector and, in some cases, a machined retainer. Any combination of these value added features, depending on the customer need, differentiates a leadwire or value added product from a standard product. We also began manufacturing micro gas generators in 1999 and have a variety of other initiator products that are currently in the qualification process including the Global Standard Initiator and the Global Gas Generator.

5

In order to maintain our leadership position in the industry, we are in the process of developing "smart" initiator technologies that will be used in new, integrated occupant protection systems.

The airbag manufacturers' requirements for our initiators are dependent on the requirements of automobile manufacturers. We believe that the airbag initiator market in the United States has become, and will for the foreseeable future remain, closely tied with the cyclical fluctuations of the automotive market. This trend may be offset partially as new applications for airbags and initiators, such as airbags for side-impact protection and seat belt pretensioners, are installed by automobile manufacturers.

Customers

Currently, the major North American manufacturers of airbag inflators are Autoliv ASP Incorporated ("Autoliv"), TRW, BAICO (owned by Atlantic Research Corporation ("ARC")), Breed Technologies and Inflation Systems Incorporated ("ISI") (owned by Takata), each of whom incorporates our initiators in certain of its airbag systems or sub-systems. Other companies have indicated that they may enter the North American automotive airbag market and reportedly are working on the development of airbag systems. None of the current manufacturers produces all of the components of an airbag system although Autoliv has pursued a vertical integration strategy. Most components of the system are purchased from suppliers like us, and the manufacturers concentrate on the design, assembly, testing and qualification of the airbag systems.

The major non-U.S. manufacturers of inflators to whom we sell our products to are TRW (Europe), Autoliv (Europe), Takata-Petri (Europe), Daicel Chemical Industries (Japan), Autoliv Nichiyu (Japan), NSK (Japan) (owned by Autoliv) and Takata (Japan).

Customers providing more than 10% of our net sales for the year ended November 3, 2002 include TRW (35.5%), Autoliv (36.6%) and ARC (13.4%). The loss of any of these customers would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity.

Backlog

The majority of our sales are achieved under long-term agreements specifying minimum customer requirements to be supplied by us during the term of the agreements. All of our long-term agreements include a clause under which either party can request modifications due to market conditions. Purchase order releases are updated weekly by each customer and include "firm" shipping requirements for the next 8 to 16 weeks. We do not reflect an order in backlog until we have received a purchase order from a customer that specifies the quantity ordered and the delivery dates required. Since these orders are generally shipped within 12 to 16 weeks of receipt of the order, the amount of "firm" backlog at any given time is not indicative of sales levels expected to be achieved over the next 12-month period.

Competitors

There are two major suppliers of airbag initiators in the United States, SDI and OEA, Inc. (purchased by Autoliv in 2000). We believe we hold the largest share of the North American airbag initiator market. In addition, we have identified four major suppliers of airbag initiators in Europe and one major supplier of initiators in Japan.

Other companies may choose to enter the automotive initiator market in the future. New entrants would need to achieve high sales volumes of relatively low-priced units in order to recover significant startup costs, including those relating to equipment outlays. In addition, each automotive initiator platform must pass numerous tests established by automobile OEMs and airbag system manufacturers. These testing phases typically take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete and are very expensive. We believe a new entrant would require many years and significant up-front expenditures to replicate the qualification and testing required to successfully market the mix of products that we offer.

6

Lifespark, owned by Nippon Kayaku of Japan, opened a manufacturing facility in northern California in 2002.

Sales and Marketing

Our management, engineers and personnel maintain close contact with each customer and monitor developments in the automotive industry and safety restraint markets. Recent efforts have focused on the status of products such as side and rear seat airbag systems, seat belt pretensioners and "smart" airbag systems.

For new programs, we generally receive a request for quote from our customers. Our program management handles high volume production quotes, spot buys and prototype production quotes. We respond to customer inquiries with price quotes, configuration confirmation and prospective shipping dates. Lot acceptance testing results are available upon request for confirmed orders. When supplied with specific performance parameters, performance data are also supplied to customers.

GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS

Manufacturing

General.    Our production process consists of fabricating and assembling hardware components and separately preparing the pyrotechnic charge. Production of the electro-mechanical assemblies involves the purchase of machined components, seals and other materials, the mechanical assembly of the components and the testing of the completed units. Throughout the entire process, strict quality assurance controls are maintained in order to obtain the lowest possible theoretical failure rates. After assembly, the products are functionally tested on a sample basis as required by each customer or the applicable contract.

We manufacture the pyrotechnic charge from raw generic materials. These materials are readily available from a variety of suppliers, and we have handled and processed these fuels and oxidizers for nearly 40 years. Some of the pyrotechnic fuels are delivered to us in bulk in a wet and non-volatile form. We dry the pyrotechnic fuels before use. These fuels are then mixed with oxidizers and pressed in small quantities into the metal housings of the specific product being made. Handling and processing pyrotechnic materials requires extensive experience and expertise as well as the proper equipment and facilities.

Because we must produce large quantities of highly reliable products at high speeds, automation and process engineering are as important to us as product design. We have a staff of highly trained automation engineers, technicians and operators whose goal is to maximize yield and product quality. We have implemented Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing methodologies to further these goals. Six Sigma is a methodology designed to improve the quality of our products, manufacturing processes and administration. Lean Manufacturing is a systematic approach to the identification and elimination of waste and non-value added activities through continuous improvement in all products and processes.

Quality Control.    Each type of initiator we manufacture must qualify for use by passing numerous tests established by the automobile and airbag system manufacturers. The initial test phase is design validation, which is intended to demonstrate that the design of the initiator is capable of performing the required function within the stated specifications. The second test phase is product validation, which is intended to demonstrate that we have the management, personnel, equipment and facilities to manufacture the initiator in production quantities to design specifications. The design validation and product validation qualification phases must be repeated for each new initiator design. The product validation qualification phase must also be repeated for each facility at which initiators are produced. These initial qualification procedures are very costly and time consuming. The product validation

7

qualification phase, for example, requires a supplier to have in place its management, personnel, equipment and facilities prior to the time they would otherwise be required for production.

Risk Management and Insurance

The drying, sifting, mixing and processing of pyrotechnic materials involves certain risks and potential liabilities. Our safety and health programs provide specialized training to employees working with pyrotechnic materials. Pyrotechnic materials generally are delivered to us and are stored in a non-volatile form. The pyrotechnic materials are then dried, sifted and blended in a separate building specially designed for these operations. Workstations are designed to shield employees from any accidental initiation incidents. Furthermore, our machines are designed so that an accidental initiation incident will be contained in a protective enclosure to minimize damage. Transportation of pyrotechnic materials also involves certain risks and potential liabilities.

We maintain a liability insurance program covering a number of risks. Our insurance program includes commercial general liability and products liability coverage for approximately $77 million. We also have casualty and fire insurance with various coverage limits for damage to personal property and buildings, business interruption, earthquakes, boilers and machinery and automobile liability. Pollution liability is excluded from our comprehensive general liability insurance policy.

We are engaged in a business that could expose us to possible claims for injury resulting from the failure of products sold by us, notably initiators for airbag systems. We maintain product liability insurance coverage as described above. However, there can be no assurance that claims will not arise in the future and that the proceeds of our insurance policies will be sufficient to pay future claims or that we will be able to maintain the same level of insurance.

Government Regulation

As a former contractor and subcontractor of the U.S. Government, we are subject to various laws and regulations more restrictive than those applicable to non-government contractors. We are subject to periodic audits to confirm compliance with these laws. Violations can result in civil and /or criminal liability as well as suspension or debarment from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or contract renewals. As of the date hereof, we know of one pending preliminary inquiry regarding compliance with government policies by our former Aerospace Division. See "Item 3. Legal Proceedings."

Environmental Regulation

We use various hazardous materials in our manufacturing processes, including organic solvents and pyrotechnic materials. Our operations are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws, regulations and permit requirements relating to the handling, storage and disposal of those substances, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations and that we have obtained all material permits. While compliance with such laws and regulations has the effect of increasing costs of operations, these costs must also be incurred by our competitors and, therefore, they do not materially adversely affect our competitive position. Under certain environmental laws, a current or previous owner, lessee or operator of real property and parties that generate or transport hazardous substances that are disposed of at real property, may be liable for the costs of investigating and remediating such substances on or under the property. CERCLA and similar state laws impose liability on a joint and several basis, regardless of whether the owner, lessee, operator or other responsible party was at fault for the presence of such hazardous substances.

8

In connection with our relocation of operations from Newhall to Moorpark and pursuant to a stipulation and order entered into with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and other responsible parties, we have been and could in the future be required to conduct environmental investigations of the Newhall property. These investigations have disclosed the presence of some hazardous substances in soil that may require remediation, and that could have a potential impact on groundwater conditions. We cannot determine whether the remedial costs we may be required to incur at Newhall, if any, will be material. Any costs that may be incurred in connection with the Newhall cleanup may be shared with other responsible parties due to the site's history of industrial use by multiple parties, although this cannot be guaranteed.

Employees

At November 3, 2002, we had approximately 398 full-time employees in Moorpark, California and approximately 386 full-time employees in Mesa, Arizona. None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining unit. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Intellectual Property

In November 1990, we entered into the DBS License Agreement ("DBS Agreement") pursuant to which we granted Davey Bickford Smith ("DBS") a license to:

•

use all patented and non-patented technical information, know-how, data, systems, programs and specifications (collectively, "Technology") used in the manufacture of initiators or incorporated in initiators (whether such Technology is owned by us or developed by us subsequently) and



•

distribute initiators using the Technology worldwide, provided that DBS may not sell such initiators to TRW or its affiliates in the United States.

Until December 31, 1998, DBS was required to pay royalties to us under the DBS Agreement. From and after January 1, 1999, DBS is no longer obligated to pay royalties to us, and DBS is entitled to continue using the Technology perpetually on a royalty-free basis. As DBS failed to meet certain distribution requirements by December 31, 1998, we have the right to license the Technology to third parties. To date, DBS has neither manufactured nor distributed any products under the DBS Agreement. Significant competition from DBS in Europe or the United States could have a material adverse effect on us.

SDI holds patents covering key design and processing features of its existing and future products.

Research and Development

Our research and development department's expense was $2.1, $1.5 and $0.4 million in 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Our corporate headquarters are located in the City of Moorpark, in Ventura County, north of Los Angeles. The Moorpark facility, which was completed during 1999, consists of six buildings that cover approximately 170,000 square feet. This facility is located on approximately 220 acres of land and is used by our Automotive Products Division.

We have an additional facility in Mesa, Arizona on approximately 21 acres of land used for our Automotive Products Division. The Mesa facility consists of several buildings aggregating approximately 60,000 square feet and two warehouses aggregating approximately 12,000 square feet.

9

In June 2001, we completed the sale and leaseback of our facilities in Moorpark, California and Mesa, Arizona. The lease provides for an initial term of twenty years with options to extend for two ten-year terms and annual rent of $3.9 million with yearly rent escalations beginning in 2003 based on the Consumer Price Index.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

OSHA Investigations.    On September 1, 2000, an accidental initiation incident occurred at our Moorpark facility and two employees were injured. The State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health ("Cal-OSHA") conducted a post-incident and process safety management inspection, which resulted in the issuance in February 2001 of citations for alleged safety violations and proposed fines aggregating approximately $168,000. We appealed the citations, and the appeal was settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement under which the aggregate amount of fines was reduced to approximately $85,000, payable in quarterly installments commencing on December 5, 2002. Because the accident resulted in a serious injury, Cal-OSHA's Bureau of Investigation ("BOI") conducted its own investigation to determine whether to refer the matter to the District Attorney's Office for Ventura County. We believe that this investigation has concluded and no referral has been made. At this stage, it is not possible to predict or assess the amount of potential liabilities associated with the BOI investigation, which could result in criminal liabilities and penalties.

Qui Tam Suit.    We are the defendant in a civil action entitled United States ex rel. Charles K. Holder v. Special Devices, Incorporated pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The action, filed under seal in August 1999 and first served on SDI in December 2001, is a qui tam lawsuit in which a former employee of SDI is seeking, on behalf of the United States, an unspecified amount of money damages and civil penalties under the federal False Claims Act. The complaint alleges that SDI, when submitting invoices under unspecified government contracts prior to August 1999, falsely certified that it was in compliance with environmental laws. We are vigorously defending the action. At this stage, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

Defense Criminal Investigative Service Investigation.    Our former Aerospace Division remains the subject of an investigation commenced in 1999 by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service ("DCIS") of the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense, into allegations that SDI deviated from contractual requirements relating to the use of organic sealants. We responded to a subpoena in 1999, and, since that time, have not been advised formally of any action against SDI arising out of the investigation. We dispute the government's interpretation of the contracts as precluding the use of such sealants in the manner in which they were used. One potential consequence of civil proceedings or criminal charges, if filed, is the possibility that we would be suspended from future military and federal government sales, and if convicted, debarred from such sales for a period of time. This would not be expected to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity given the divestiture of our Aerospace Division, which was completed in 2001. At this point, it is not possible to predict or assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or predict the amount of potential liabilities.

CharTech Suit. A lawsuit alleging that SDI willfully infringed two patents held by CharTech Engineering, Inc. ("CharTech") was filed on July 14, 2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. We answered the complaint, asserted counterclaims against CharTech, and filed a third party complaint against CharTech, its related company Iso Vac Engineering, Inc. ("IsoVac") and George Neff, a principal in both companies. We engaged in a mediation with CharTech, IsoVac and George Neff that resulted in a binding agreement setting forth key terms of the settlement of this dispute. Under these key terms, we will pay CharTech a fee of $1,250,000 for a non-exclusive license under the CharTech patent rights. The fee is payable in installments, with a total of $750,000 paid before December 31, 2002 and the last installment payable on December 31, 2007. The pending lawsuit is to be dismissed with prejudice as part of the terms. The parties are in the process of implementing

10

the settlement agreement. The settlement does not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Hermetic Seal Suit.    We are a defendant in a civil action entitled Hermetic Seal Corporation and HCC Industries, Inc. v. Special Devices, Inc. pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint, filed in August 2002 by a former supplier, claims damages in excess of $2.3 million for breach of contract. We are vigorously defending the action. At this stage, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

Selleck Suit.    We are a defendant in a civil action entitled Daniel F. Selleck v. Special Devices, Incorporated pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura. A complaint served in September 2002 alleged breach of contract, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and injunctive and declaratory relief, and seeks damages in excess of $1 million relating to the Plaintiff's purchase from SDI of certain real estate located in Moorpark, California. An amended complaint served in January 2003 withdrew the allegations of fraud and deceit and the claim for injunctive relief, and added allegations of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. We are vigorously defending the action. At this stage, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None.

11

PART II

ITEM 5.  MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

As a result of the Recapitalization, our common equity is no longer publicly traded.

ITEM 6. SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table sets forth our selected financial data as of and for each of the five years in the period ended November 3, 2002. The financial data for each of the four years in the period ended November 3, 2002 are derived from our consolidated financial statements which have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent accountants. The financial data for the year ended October 31, 1998 also is derived from our consolidated financial statements which have been audited by KPMG LLP, independent accountants. The data set forth below should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes thereto appearing elsewhere herein and Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

We sold our wholly owned subsidiary, Scot, on September 21, 2000 and the net assets comprising our remaining Aerospace operations on May 11, 2001. The results of operations, the gain on sale of Scot and the net assets of the Aerospace Division have been reclassified to Discontinued Operations for all prior periods presented.

(a)

During 2002, we refined our allocation of overhead expenses to cost of sales. As a result of this change, cost of sales, gross profit and operating expenses have been reclassified for 2001 and 2000. Amounts for years prior to 2000 were not reclassified as information was not available. There was no impact on net income (loss) in any period.

12

ITEM 7.  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" and our Consolidated Financial Statements and the related Notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. We sold our wholly owned subsidiary, Scot, on September 21, 2000 and the net assets comprising our remaining Aerospace operations on May 11, 2001. The results of operations, the gain on sale of Scot and the net assets of the Aerospace Division have been reclassified to Discontinued Operations for all prior periods presented. During 2002, we refined our allocation of overhead expenses to cost of sales. As a result of this change, cost of sales, gross profit and operating expenses have been reclassified for all prior periods presented. There was no impact on net income (loss) in any period.

Results of Operations

The following table is derived from our Consolidated Statements of Operations and sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain statement of operations data as a percentage of net sales.

2002 Compared to 2001

Net Sales

Consolidated net sales for 2002 were $120.3 million, compared to consolidated net sales of $122.9 million for 2001. The decrease was primarily due to lower unit sales and prices on high value-added lead wire products partially offset by significantly higher unit sales on standard products.

Gross Profit

Consolidated gross profit for 2002 was $21.5 million or 17.9% of consolidated net sales, compared to consolidated gross profit of $13.2 million or 10.7% of consolidated net sales for 2001. The improvement in gross margin is primarily due to manufacturing gains and improved margins on standard products achieved through product redesigns and negotiated supplier pricing agreements.

Operating Expenses

Consolidated operating expenses for 2002 were $13.9 million or 11.6% of consolidated net sales, compared with consolidated operating expenses of $14.4 million or 11.7% of consolidated net sales for 2001 (excluding expenses for environmental and other investigation costs in both years). The decrease was primarily due to lower payroll and related expenses as a result of the reductions in force in October 2001.

13

Expenses Related to Environmental and Government Investigations

There were no expenses related to environmental and government investigations in 2002, compared with $1.8 million of such expenses in 2001. The expenses in 2001 included $1.0 million related to the settlement of the Cal-OSHA Hollister investigation and $0.8 million related to our former Newhall, California facility.

Other Expense

Net interest expense was $8.9 million for 2002, a $4.1 million decrease compared with net interest expense of $13.0 million for 2001. The decrease was primarily due to a reduction in outstanding debt. Average debt outstanding was $79.0 million in 2002, compared with $120.4 million in 2001. We used the net proceeds from the Aerospace Sale and the Real Estate Transaction to repay borrowings under our prior credit facility and to retire a portion of our Senior Subordinated Notes ("Notes").

There were no gains or losses on asset disposals in 2002, compared with losses of ($6.4) million for 2001. The loss in 2001 was primarily composed of a $4.8 million loss on the sale of our real estate assets and a $1.2 million loss on the disposition of assets related to our discontinued glass seal operations.

We recorded $0.2 million in 2002 for our share of the losses of our joint venture in Germany, SDI-Molan. SDI-Molan started operations in September 2002 and we anticipate net losses from its operations during the next fiscal year.

2001 Compared to 2000

Net Sales

Consolidated net sales for 2001 were $122.9 million, compared to consolidated net sales of $132.0 million for 2000. The decrease was primarily due to unfavorable product mix and lower unit pricing, partially offset by increased unit shipments.

Gross Profit

Consolidated gross profit for 2001 was $13.2 million or 10.7% of consolidated net sales, compared to consolidated gross profit of $12.1 million or 9.2% of consolidated net sales for 2000. This was an increase of 9.1% despite the write-off of $2.5 million in obsolete inventory during the third quarter of 2001. Consolidated gross profit as a percentage of consolidated net sales was 12.8% for 2001, excluding the inventory adjustment. The improvement in gross profit is primarily due to cost reductions in excess of unit price reductions and increased unit shipments. We continued to improve productivity and reduce scrap through the implementation of Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing methodologies.

Operating Expenses

Consolidated operating expenses for 2001 were $14.4 million or 11.7% of consolidated net sales, compared with consolidated operating expenses of $9.2 million or 7.0% of consolidated net sales for 2000 (excluding expenses for environmental and other investigation costs in both years). The increase was primarily due to increased spending for research and development for new products, higher legal and insurance expense and an accrued incentive bonus in 2001.

Expenses Related to Environmental and Government Investigations

There were $1.8 million in expenses related to environmental and government investigations in 2001, compared with $2.1 million of such expenses in 2000. The expenses in 2001 included $1.0 million related to the settlement of the Cal-OSHA Hollister investigation and $0.8 million related to our

14

former Newhall, California facility. There were $2.1 million in expenses related to the settlement of a California EPA investigation in January 2000.

Other Expense

Net interest expense was $13.0 million for 2001, a $4.1 million decrease compared with net interest expense of $17.1 million for 2000. The decrease was primarily due to a reduction in outstanding debt. Average debt outstanding was $120.4 million in 2001, compared with $155.2 million in 2000. We used the net proceeds from the Scot divestiture, the Aerospace Sale and the Real Estate Transaction to repay borrowings under our prior credit facility and to retire a portion of our Notes.

Loss on disposal of assets was $6.4 million for 2001, compared with $0.1 million for 2000. The loss in 2001 was primarily composed of a $4.8 million loss on the sale of our real estate assets and a $1.2 million loss on the disposition of assets related to our discontinued glass seal operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our principal sources of liquidity are cash flow from operations and borrowings under our credit facilities. Our principal uses of cash are debt service requirements, capital expenditures and working capital.

We entered into a five-year credit facility (the "Credit Facility") in June 2001 which consists of a $25.0 million Revolving Credit Facility (the "Revolver") and a $5.0 million Term Loan (the "Term Loan"). Available borrowings under the Revolver are based on a formula comprised of our eligible accounts receivable and inventory. The Credit Facility requires lockbox arrangements which provide for all receipts to be swept daily to reduce borrowings outstanding.

The agreement governing the Credit Facility contains customary covenants, including restrictions on the incurrence of debt, the sale of assets, mergers, acquisitions and other business combinations, voluntary prepayment of other debt, transactions with affiliates, repurchase or redemption of equity securities, and financial covenants on tangible net worth. Substantially all of our assets are pledged as collateral under the Credit Facility.

As of November 3, 2002, we had no borrowings and $3.5 million of letters of credit ("LC") outstanding under the Revolver. As of January 3, 2003, the LC amount was reduced to $2.5 million. The total amount available under the Revolver at November 3, 2002 was $9.0 million subject to compliance with certain financial and operating covenants which we must meet on a quarterly basis. As of November 3, 2002, we were in compliance with all such covenants.

We have guaranteed bank loans made to SDI-Molan, our German joint venture, under agreements entered into in August 2002. Our guarantee is limited to fifty percent of the loans outstanding and is subject to a maximum of 3.2 million Euro or approximately $3.2 million at November 3, 2002. SDI-Molan had bank loans outstanding in the amount of 4.3 million Euro or $4.3 million at November 3, 2002. SDI-Molan started operations in September 2002. We anticipate net losses from its operations for the next fiscal year.

Continuing operations provided cash of $11.4 million and $0.4 million in 2002 and 2001, respectively. The increase was primarily due to reduced interest expense and increased income from operations. Capital expenditures, primarily for manufacturing equipment, were $6.0 million in both years. We expect to spend approximately $5.0 to $6.0 million on capital expenditures, primarily for manufacturing equipment, during fiscal 2003. We will fund these purchases with cash from operations and borrowings under the Revolver. We made a semiannual interest payment of $4.2 million on our Notes in December 2002 and paid bonuses of $2.9 million in January 2003. We made the aforementioned payments with cash from operations.

15

Our working capital was $9.9 million at November 3, 2002, compared with working capital of $7.8 million at October 31, 2001. The increase of $2.1 million was primarily due to larger cash balances because of reduced interest expense and increased income from operations.

As of November 3, 2002, we had net liabilities of $29.2 million. Our ability to pay the interest on, or to refinance our debt, or to fund planned capital expenditures, will depend on generating cash flow from future operations. We have had positive cash flow from continuing operations during the past two years.

Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments

The following schedules summarize our contractual obligations and commercial commitments as of November 3, 2002 (amounts in millions):

(1)

Consists of our guarantee of 50% of the outstanding bank debt of SDI-Molan at November 3, 2002.

(2)

The total amount of standby letters of credit outstanding was reduced to $2.5 million on January 3, 2003 and the amount expiring in 2003 was reduced to $0.5 million.

Critical Accounting Policies

We prepare our financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. This requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts and related disclosures. Actual results could differ from those estimates. From time to time, we may have the following allowances and/or accruals among others:

1.

Allowances for accounts receivable including a sales allowance and an allowance for bad debt;

2.

Allowances for inventory including allowances for obsolescence and shrinkage;

3.

Valuation allowances for deferred taxes;

4.

Accruals for cleanup at former sites; and

5.

Other expense accruals such as for litigation.

At November 3, 2002, these allowances and/or accruals were not material to our results of operations or our financial position.

16

Accounting Developments

In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Statement of Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosure—an amendment of SFAS 123". This statement amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation", to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, this statement amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. We have chosen to continue to account for stock-based compensation using the intrinsic value method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board ("APB") Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," and related interpretations. Accordingly, compensation expense for stock options is measured as the excess, if any, of the estimate of the market value of our stock at the date of the grant over the amount an employee must pay to acquire the stock. We will adopt the annual disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 148 in our financial reports for the year ended November 2, 2003 and we will adopt the interim disclosure provisions for financial reports for the quarter ended May 4, 2003. As the adoption of this standard involves disclosures only, we do not expect a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, "Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities." This statement addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities and nullifies Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3, "Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring)." SFAS No. 146 requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized and measured initially at fair value only when the liability is incurred, not when it is "planned". We are required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 146 for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002 and do not expect the adoption to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

In April 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 145, "Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44 and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections." This statement rescinds SFAS No. 4, "Reporting Gains and Losses from Extinguishment of Debt," and an amendment of that statement, SFAS No. 64, "Extinguishments of Debt Made to Satisfy Sinking Fund Requirements". Under SFAS No. 4, all gains and losses from extinguishment of debt were required to be aggregated and, if material, classified as an extraordinary item, net of the related income tax effect. With the elimination of SFAS No. 4, gains and losses from extinguishment of debt are to be classified as extraordinary items only if they meet the criteria for extraordinary items in APB Opinion No. 30, "Reporting the Results of Operations—Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of Business, and Extraordinary, Unusual and Infrequently Occurring Events and Transactions." Applying the provisions of APB Opinion No. 30 will distinguish transactions that are part of an entity's recurring operations from those that are unusual or infrequent or that meet the classification of an extraordinary item. SFAS No. 145 also rescinds SFAS No. 44, "Accounting for Intangible Assets of Motor Carriers," and amends SFAS No. 13, "Accounting for Leases," to eliminate an inconsistency between the required accounting for sale-leaseback transactions and the required accounting for certain lease modifications that have economic effects that are similar to sale-leaseback transactions. This statement also amends other existing authoritative pronouncements to make various technical corrections, clarify meanings or describe their applicability under changed conditions. We are required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 145 on November 4, 2002 and do not expect the adoption to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

In August 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets." This statement supersedes SFAS No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of

17

Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to Be Disposed Of" issued in June 1995 and the accounting and reporting provisions of APB Opinion No. 30. SFAS No. 144 establishes accounting standards for the impairment of long-lived assets, excluding goodwill, and for long-lived assets to be disposed of. SFAS No. 144 requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to future net cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If such assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the fair value of the assets. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell. The statement retains the basic provisions of APB Opinion No. 30 for the presentation of discontinued operations in the statement of operations but broadens that presentation to include a component of an entity (rather than a segment of a business). We are required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 144 on November 4, 2002 and do not expect the adoption to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations." SFAS No. 143 requires that the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made, that the associated asset retirement costs be capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the asset and requires certain disclosures providing descriptions of the asset retirement obligations and reconciliations of changes in components of those obligations. We are required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 143 on November 4, 2002 and do not expect the adoption to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141, "Business Combinations" and SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Intangible Assets." SFAS No. 141 requires that the purchase method of accounting be used for all business combinations, establishes specific criteria for recognizing intangible assets separately from goodwill and requires certain disclosures regarding reasons for a business combination and the allocation of the purchase price paid. SFAS No. 141 is effective for all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 and for all business combinations accounted for using the purchase accounting method for which the date of acquisition is after June 30, 2001. SFAS No. 142 establishes that goodwill and certain intangible assets will no longer be amortized to earnings, but instead tested for impairment at least annually. Except for business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001, we are required to adopt the provisions of SFAS Nos. 141 and 142 on November 4, 2002. We do not expect the adoption of SFAS Nos. 141 or 142 to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

ITEM 7A: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISKS

We have only limited involvement in derivative financial instruments and do not hold or issue them for trading purposes. We are exposed to market risk related to changes in foreign exchange rates on transactions denominated in foreign currencies and we selectively use foreign currency forward exchange contracts to manage those risks. At November 3, 2002 we had no open contracts. Certain amounts borrowed under our Credit Facility are at variable rates and we are thus subject to market risk resulting from interest rate fluctuations. A change of 1% in the interest rates on these borrowings would have no material impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

We also are exposed to market risks related to fluctuations in interest rates on the Notes we issued in December 1998. For fixed rate debt such as the Notes, changes in interest rates generally affect the fair value of the debt instrument. However, we do not have an obligation to repay the Notes prior to maturity in December 2008.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

The consolidated financial statements required in response to this Item are listed under Item 15(a) of Part III of this report.

ITEM 9.  CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.

18

PART III

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

The following table sets forth the name, age and position of each of our directors and executive officers. All of our officers are elected by and serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

Dr. John F. Lehman, who became a director of the Company upon consummation of the Recapitalization and Chairman of the Company in June 1999, is a Managing General Partner of J.F. Lehman and Company. Prior to founding J.F. Lehman & Company, Dr. Lehman was an investment banker with PaineWebber Incorporated and served as a Managing Director in Corporate Finance. Dr. Lehman served for six years as Secretary of the Navy, was a member of the National Security Council Staff, served as a delegate to the Mutual Balanced Force Reductions negotiations and was the Deputy Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Dr. Lehman is Chairman of the Board of Directors of OAO Technology Solutions, Inc. ("OAOT") and Racal Instruments, Inc. ("Racal"), and is a member of the Board of Directors of Elgar Holdings, Inc. ("Elgar"), Ball Corporation and ISO Inc. In addition, Dr. Lehman is Chairman of the Princess Grace Foundation, a director of OpSail Foundation and a Trustee of LaSalle College High School. Dr. Lehman is a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

Thomas W. Cresante became a director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company in October 1999. In early 1996, Mr. Cresante joined Allied Signal Aerospace as the Vice President of Operations and later that year was named President of Allied Signal Safety Restraints Systems. Mr. Cresante returned to Arizona in 1997 as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for Safety Components International, Inc. Mr. Cresante joined TRW Inflatable Restraints Division in 1990 as the Vice President of Operations. During his tenure with TRW, two of his startup facilities were named as "10 Best Plants in the U.S." by Industry Week Magazine. Prior to joining TRW, Mr. Cresante was general manager with ITT Hancock Hardware Division from 1984 through 1987, at which time he was named Vice President of Manufacturing for its Hardware and Seating Division.

19

George A. Sawyer is currently a director and Secretary of the Company and also served as Chairman of the Board from December 1998 to May 1999 and as interim Chief Executive Officer from May 1999 to October 1999. Mr. Sawyer is also a co-founder and Managing General Partner of J.F. Lehman & Company. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Sawyer served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sperry Marine, Inc. Prior thereto, Mr. Sawyer held a number of prominent positions in private industry and in the United States government, including serving as the President of John J. McMullen Associates, the President and Chief Operating Officer of TRE Corporation, Executive Vice President and Director of General Dynamics Corporation, the Vice President of International Operations for Bechtel Corporation and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Shipbuilding and Logistics under Dr. Lehman. Mr. Sawyer is currently a director of Elgar, OAOT, Racal and American Automar, Inc.. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of Webb Institute, on the Board of Managers of the American Bureau of Shipping and on the Board of the Mariner's Museum.

Louis N. Mintz became Assistant Secretary of the Company in January 2000 and a Director in January 2001. Mr. Mintz is a Principal of J.F. Lehman & Company. From 1996 to 1997, Mr. Mintz was a member of the Private Equity Investment Group at Odyssey Partners, LP, and from 1994 to 1996 served as Vice President at Rosecliff, Inc., where he was involved in all aspects of the acquisition and management of several portfolio companies. Prior to joining Rosecliff, Mr. Mintz spent five years with Nevasca Development Corporation, a leading real estate development firm in the resort community of Telluride, Colorado. He began his career at Drexel Burnham Lambert as a financial analyst in the corp