As
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
7, 2010
Registration
No. 333-169025
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Amendment
No. 1 to
FORM S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
VERINT SYSTEMS INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
7373
|
|
11-3200514 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Classification Code Number)
|
|
Identification Number) |
330 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 962-9600
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrants principal executive offices)
Peter Fante, Esq.
Chief Legal Officer
Verint Systems Inc.
330 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
(631) 962-9600
(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)
Copies to:
Randi C. Lesnick, Esq.
Jones Day
222 East 41st Street
New York, New York 10017
(212) 326-3939
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after
the effective date of this Registration Statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or
continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. o
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b)
under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration
statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act,
check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier
effective registration statement for the same offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act,
check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier
effective registration statement for the same offering. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated
filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
(Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary
to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically
states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with
Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration Statement shall become
effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to Section 8(a), may determine.
The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not
sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and
we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
Subject
to Completion, dated October 7, 2010
PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS
2,434,783 Shares
VERINT SYSTEMS INC.
Common Stock
This
prospectus relates to the sale of 2,434,783 shares of our common
stock by the sole selling
stockholder identified in this prospectus, Comverse Technology, Inc. (Comverse). Comverse is our majority stockholder and, as of September
15, 2010, it beneficially owned 63.5% of our common stock assuming conversion of all of our Series
A Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share.
We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of
these shares. Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol VRNT. On
October 6, 2010, the last reported sale price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market
was $30.89 per share.
Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before buying any shares of our
common stock, you should carefully consider the risks set out under Risk Factors, beginning on
page 11 of this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share |
|
Total |
Public offering price |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Underwriting discounts and commissions |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses, to the selling stockholder |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
The underwriters have the option to purchase up to 365,217 additional shares from the selling
stockholder at the public offering price, less the underwriting discounts and commissions, to cover
over-allotments, if any, within 30 days of the date of this prospectus.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or
disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any
representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares on or about , 2010.
Prospectus dated , 2010
[inside cover graphic to come]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
F-1 |
|
EX-23.1 |
We, the selling stockholder,
and the underwriters have not authorized any other person to provide you with information different
from that contained in this prospectus. The selling stockholder is offering to sell, and seeking
offers to buy, shares of common stock only in jurisdictions where offers and sales are permitted.
The information contained in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date of this prospectus,
regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or of any sale of the common stock.
Some of the industry and market data contained in this prospectus are based on independent industry
publications or other publicly available information, which we believe
is reliable but have not independently verified, while other information is based on our
internal sources.
VERINT,
the VERINT logo, ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE, POWERING ACTIONABLE
INTELLIGENCE, INTELLIGENCE IN ACTION, ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE FOR A
SMARTER WORKFORCE, VERINT VERIFIED, WITNESS
ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS, STAR-GATE, RELIANT, VANTAGE, X-TRACT, NEXTIVA, EDGEVR, ULTRA, AUDIOLOG,
WITNESS, the WITNESS logo, IMPACT 360, the IMPACT 360 logo, IMPROVE EVERYTHING, EQUALITY,
CONTACTSTORE, EYRETEL, BLUE PUMPKIN SOFTWARE, BLUE PUMPKIN, the BLUE PUMPKIN logo, EXAMETRIC and
the EXAMETRIC logo, CLICK2STAFF, STAFFSMART, AMAE SOFTWARE and the AMAE logo are trademarks and
registered trademarks of Verint Systems Inc. Other trademarks mentioned in this prospectus are the
property of their respective owners.
i
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this prospectus and may not contain all
of the information that may be important to you. You should read this entire prospectus carefully,
including the information set forth in Risk Factors and the information incorporated herein by
reference, before making an investment decision. In this prospectus, Verint, we, us, and
our refer to Verint Systems Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires.
Verint Systems Inc.
Our Company
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 Actionable Intelligence
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 solutions are vital to government and commercial organizations in their efforts to
protect people and property and neutralize terrorism and crime.
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. Our innovative solutions are developed by approximately 800 employees in
research and development, representing approximately one-third of our total employees, and are
evidenced by more than 480 patents and patent applications worldwide. In addition, we offer a
range of customer services, from initial implementation to ongoing maintenance and support, to
maximize the value our customers receive from our Actionable Intelligence solutions and to allow us
to extend our customer relationships beyond the initial sale.
Our 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 forms
of text communication. We provide our advanced Actionable Intelligence solutions through our
Enterprise Workforce Optimization (Workforce Optimization solutions), Video Intelligence (Video
Intelligence solutions), and Communications Intelligence and Investigative (Communications
Intelligence solutions) segments to enable our customers to collect and analyze large amounts of
both structured and unstructured information in order to make better decisions.
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 Internet Protocol (IP) and
1
Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) voice recording, quality monitoring, speech and data analytics,
workforce management, customer feedback, eLearning and coaching, performance management, and
desktop process analytics.
The Workforce Optimization Market and Trends
We believe that customer service is 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 that organizations seek workforce
optimization solutions that enable them to strike a balance among driving sales, managing operating
costs, and delivering the optimal customer experience.
We believe that key trends driving demand for our Workforce Optimization solutions include:
|
|
|
Integration of workforce optimization applications to improve collaboration among
various functions throughout the enterprise. |
|
|
|
|
Greater insight through customer interaction analytics to improve the performance of
customer service operations. |
|
|
|
|
Adoption of workforce optimization across the enterprise to enable performance
measurement and improvement, consistent with what has historically been done in the contact
center. |
|
|
|
|
Migration to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies, which typically require
new deployments of workforce optimization solutions designed to support IP or hybrid TDM/IP
environments. |
Based on industry sources, we believe that revenue for workforce optimization vendors was at least
$1.0 billion in 2009. See Risk FactorsRisks Related to Our BusinessCompetition and MarketsOur
business is impacted by changes in general economic conditions and information technology spending
in particular.
Our Strengths in the Workforce Optimization Market
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our leadership in the
workforce optimization market:
|
|
|
Our comprehensive, unified suite of workforce optimization applications offers our
customers many advantages in terms of both functionality and total cost of ownership. |
|
|
|
|
Our advanced customer interaction analytics enable our customers to better understand
workforce performance, the customer experience, and the factors underlying important
business trends. |
|
|
|
|
Our compelling Workforce Optimization solutions for back-office and branch operations
enable the same type of performance measurement and improvement that has historically been
available to contact centers. |
|
|
|
|
Our focus on delivering best-in-class customer service helps enable our customers to
derive maximum value from our Actionable Intelligence solutions. |
|
|
|
|
Our strong Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) partner relationships expand our
market coverage and provide our customers tighter integration with certain third-party
solutions. |
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 Digital Video Recorders (DVRs).
Marketed under the Nextiva® brand, this portfolio enables
2
organizations to deploy an end-to-end IP video solution with analytics or evolve to IP video
operations without discarding their previous 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.
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 video recording and viewing, to more sophisticated,
proactive, network-based IP video systems that use video management software to efficiently
collect, manage, and analyze large amounts of video over networks and utilize video analytics.
We participate in the multibillion dollar security industry, which consists of many smaller
targeted submarkets, including video intelligence. We believe that video security is going through
the aforementioned transition, and companies such as Verint that have a broad IP solution portfolio
can benefit by helping customers migrate to and benefit from IP technology.
Our Strengths in the Networked IP Video Market
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our leadership in the
video intelligence market:
|
|
|
Our broad IP video solutions portfolio enables organizations to generate Actionable
Intelligence from video and related data. |
|
|
|
|
Our open platform facilitates interoperability with our customers existing business
and security systems and with complementary third-party products. |
|
|
|
|
We are able to help our customers cost-effectively migrate to networked IP video
without the need to discard their analog CCTV investments. |
Our Communications Intelligence Segment
We are a leading provider of Communications Intelligence solutions that help law enforcement,
national security, intelligence, and civilian 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, Web intelligence, and tactical communications intelligence.
The Communications Intelligence 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 that key trends driving demand for our Communications Intelligence solutions include:
|
|
|
Increasingly complex communications networks and growing network traffic, in particular
in IP and mobile networks. |
|
|
|
|
Growing demand for advanced intelligence and investigative solutions that enable law
enforcement and government agencies to integrate and analyze information from multiple
sources. |
3
|
|
|
Legal and regulatory compliance requirements. |
We participate in the multibillion dollar security industry, which consists of many smaller
targeted submarkets, including communications intelligence. We believe, because of the trends
discussed above, that companies such as Verint that have a broad and scalable communications
intelligence portfolio and a deep understanding of customer challenges can benefit by helping law
enforcement and government agencies generate Actionable Intelligence.
Our Strengths in the Communications Intelligence Market
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our leadership in the
communications intelligence market:
|
|
|
Our broad Communications Intelligence portfolio is designed to handle massive amounts
of unstructured and structured information from different sources (including fixed and
mobile networks, IP networks, and the Internet), can quickly make sense of complex
scenarios, and can generate evidence and intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
Our solutions can be deployed on a stand-alone basis or provided as part of a
comprehensive, large-scale system and can also interface with third-party systems. This
flexibility addresses the needs of various government agencies that require advanced,
scalable solutions. |
|
|
|
|
Our long-term customer relationships allow us to gain insight into emerging challenges
and to develop new security solutions for a broader set of customers. |
Our Strategy
Our strategy to further enhance our position as a leading provider of enterprise workforce
optimization and security intelligence solutions worldwide includes the following key elements:
|
|
|
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. We intend to
continue our leadership in this area and to further drive the adoption of Actionable
Intelligence solutions by delivering solutions to the enterprise workforce optimization and
security intelligence markets that integrate Actionable Intelligence from unstructured data
with data from other sources, including structured data, and that are 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 investments in research and development,
protect our intellectual property through patents and other means, and maintain a regular
dialogue with our customers in order to understand their business objectives and
requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Continue to expand our market presence through partnerships and alliances including OEM
relationships. We have expanded our partnerships and alliances with integrators, resellers,
distributors, OEMs and others. We believe that these relationships broaden our market
coverage and we intend to continue expanding our existing relationships and creating new
ones. |
|
|
|
|
Augment our organic growth with acquisitions. 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 these purposes and expect to continue doing so in the future, as
strategic opportunities arise. |
4
Recent Developments
Beginning
with our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2010 filed in June
2010, we resumed making timely filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after an
extended filing delay. We have also filed Annual Reports on Form 10-K containing audited financial
information for all prior periods for which we had not previously filed reports and Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q for certain other periods. For more information about our extended filing
delay arising from previously announced accounting reviews and
internal investigations at our majority stockholder, Comverse
Technology, Inc. (Comverse), and at Verint, together with the resulting restatement of certain
items and the making of other corrective adjustments to our previously-filed historical financial
statements, see our comprehensive Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended January 31, 2008,
2007, and 2006 filed on March 17, 2010.
We previously reported that on March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Proceedings
pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) to
suspend or revoke the registration of our common stock because of our previous failure to file
certain annual and quarterly reports. On May 28, 2010, we entered into an agreement in principle
with the SECs Division of Enforcement regarding the terms of a settlement of the Section 12(j)
proceeding, which agreement was subject to approval by the SEC. On June 18, 2010, we satisfied the
requirements of such agreement and subsequently submitted an Offer of Settlement to the SEC. On
July 28, 2010, the SEC issued an Order accepting our Offer of Settlement and dismissing the Section
12(j) proceeding.
On July 6, 2010, our common stock was relisted on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol VRNT.
In July 2010, we amended our credit agreement to, among other things, (i) change the method of
calculation of the applicable interest rate margin to be based on Verints consolidated leverage
ratio from time to time, (ii) add a 1.50% London Interbank
Offered Rate (LIBOR) floor, (iii) increase the aggregate amount of
incremental revolving commitment and term loan increases permitted under the credit agreement from
$50.0 million to $200.0 million, and (iv) make certain changes to the negative covenants, including
providing covenant relief with respect to the permitted consolidated leverage ratio. Also in July
2010, we amended our credit agreement to increase the revolving credit commitments thereunder from
$15.0 million to $75.0 million. In addition, in July 2010 we terminated the interest rate swap we
entered into in May 2007 in connection with entry into the credit agreement that had, in effect,
fixed our interest exposure with respect to $450.0 million of the term loans thereunder at a 5.18%
interest rate. To terminate the swap prior to its May 2011 maturity, we paid approximately $21.7
million to the counterparty, representing the approximate present value of the expected remaining
quarterly settlement payments that otherwise were to have been due from us thereafter.
On October 5, 2010, the conversion feature of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock,
par value $0.001 per share (preferred stock), was approved by our stockholders at a
special meeting of our stockholders. See Corporate
History and Information below
for more information on Comverses ownership of our preferred stock.
Corporate History and Information
As of
September 15, 2010, Comverse beneficially owned 63.5% of our common stock assuming conversion of
all of our preferred stock.
After giving effect to this offering, Comverse will hold
approximately 58.2% of our common stock
assuming no exercise of the underwriters over-allotment option and conversion of all of our
preferred stock into common stock and approximately 57.4% of our common stock assuming full exercise of the underwriters over-allotment option and conversion of all of our preferred stock into common stock.
See Principal and Selling
Stockholders. Because Comverse holds more than 50% of the voting power for the election of our directors,
Comverse exerts a controlling interest on our board of directors, which has determined that we are
eligible to and should rely on the controlled company exemption under NASDAQ Listing Rule
5615(c). As a result of our reliance on this exemption, we are not required to have a majority
independent board or fully independent standing nominating and compensation committees. See Risk
Factors Risks Related to Our Internal Investigation, Restatement, Internal Controls, and
Ownership Our stockholders do not have the same protections
generally available to stockholders of
other NASDAQ-listed companies because we are currently a controlled company within the meaning of the
NASDAQ Listing Rules for more information on the risks we face in connection with our status as a
controlled company and Risk Factors Risks Related to Our Internal Investigation, Restatement,
Internal Controls, and Ownership Comverse can control our business and affairs, including our
board of directors, and will continue to control us after this offering for more information on
the risks we face in connection with Comverses beneficial ownership of a majority of our common
stock.
Our principal
executive offices are located at 330 South Service Road, Melville, New York 11747. Our telephone
number at that address is (631) 962-9600. Our website is www.verint.com. The information contained
on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this prospectus, and you should not
rely on any such information in making a decision about whether to purchase shares of our common
stock.
Risks That We Face
You should consider carefully the risks described under the Risk Factors section and elsewhere in
this prospectus. These risks could materially and adversely impact our business, financial
condition, operating results, and cash flow, which could cause the trading price of our common
stock to decline and could result in a partial or total loss of your investment.
5
The Offering
|
|
|
|
Common stock offered by the selling
stockholder
|
|
2,434,783 shares |
|
|
|
Selling stockholder
|
|
Comverse Technology, Inc. |
|
|
|
Common stock outstanding (both before
and after this offering) (1)
|
|
35,157,845 shares |
|
|
|
Use of Proceeds
|
|
We will not receive any proceeds
from the sale of shares by the
selling stockholder. |
|
|
|
NASDAQ Global Market symbol
|
|
VRNT |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on the number of shares
outstanding as of September 15, 2010, which excludes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,085,301 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of stock options outstanding as
of such date, at a weighted average exercise price of $24.46 per share; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,056,568 shares of common stock issuable upon the vesting of restricted stock units
outstanding as of such date, 638,450 of which vested on October 5, 2010; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,331,413 shares of common stock reserved as of such date for future issuance under our
equity incentive plans (which includes shares reserved for future issuance under our 2010 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan approved by our stockholders on October 5, 2010); and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
approximately 10.2 million shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of our
preferred stock if it were convertible as of such date. |
|
|
6
Summary Consolidated Financial Information
The summary consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009
and 2008 and the summary consolidated balance sheet data as of January 31, 2010 and 2009 are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
The summary consolidated statements of operations data for the three and six months ended July 31, 2010
and 2009 and summary consolidated balance sheet data as of July 31, 2010 are derived from our
unaudited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The unaudited
consolidated financial statements were prepared on a basis consistent with our audited consolidated
financial statements and include, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for the
fair presentation of the financial information contained in those statements. Historical results
are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in the future.
You should read the summary consolidated financial data below together with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our consolidated
financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus.
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
July 31, |
|
Six Months Ended
July 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
(unaudited) |
|
Year Ended January 31, |
in thousands (except per share data) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
Revenue |
|
$ |
180,676 |
|
|
$ |
169,269 |
|
|
$ |
353,289 |
|
|
$ |
344,417 |
|
|
$ |
703,633 |
|
|
$ |
669,544 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
23,799 |
|
|
|
13,709 |
|
|
|
19,817 |
|
|
|
49,718 |
|
|
|
65,679 |
|
|
|
(15,026 |
) |
|
|
(114,630 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
12,391 |
|
|
|
1,482 |
|
|
|
(3,225 |
) |
|
|
22,054 |
|
|
|
17,100 |
|
|
|
(78,577 |
) |
|
|
(197,545 |
) |
Net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. |
|
|
11,475 |
|
|
|
1,598 |
|
|
|
(4,733 |
) |
|
|
21,232 |
|
|
|
15,617 |
|
|
|
(80,388 |
) |
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
Net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares |
|
|
7,921 |
|
|
|
(1,808 |
) |
|
|
(11,690 |
) |
|
|
14,564 |
|
|
|
2,026 |
|
|
|
(93,452 |
) |
|
|
(207,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share attributable to Verint Systems Inc.: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.35 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
(2.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
Diluted |
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
|
|
(0.35 |
) |
|
|
0.45 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
(6.43 |
) |
Weighted-average shares: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
33,272 |
|
|
|
32,465 |
|
|
|
32,972 |
|
|
|
32,462 |
|
|
|
32,478 |
|
|
|
32,394 |
|
|
|
32,222 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
35,006 |
|
|
|
32,465 |
|
|
|
32,972 |
|
|
|
32,606 |
|
|
|
33,127 |
|
|
|
32,394 |
|
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other financial data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP operating income (1) |
|
$ |
46,323 |
|
|
$ |
44,639 |
|
|
$ |
88,602 |
|
|
$ |
101,808 |
|
|
$ |
195,627 |
|
|
$ |
120,444 |
|
|
$ |
75,405 |
|
Non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. (1) |
|
|
31,151 |
|
|
|
31,293 |
|
|
|
56,146 |
|
|
|
70,419 |
|
|
|
132,963 |
|
|
|
69,627 |
|
|
|
41,745 |
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 31, |
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
January 31, |
in thousands |
|
2010 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,342,144 |
|
|
$ |
1,396,337 |
|
|
$ |
1,337,393 |
|
Long-term debt, including current maturities |
|
|
598,234 |
|
|
|
620,912 |
|
|
|
625,000 |
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
285,542 |
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit) |
|
|
1,642 |
|
|
|
(14,567 |
) |
|
|
(76,070 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Each of non-GAAP operating income and non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint Systems
Inc. is a financial measure not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP). |
7
A reconciliation of
these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures appears at the end of this summary consolidated financial information. For
additional information, see Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations Results of Operations.
Non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable
GAAP financial measures. The non-GAAP financial measures we present have limitations in that they
do not reflect all of the amounts associated with our results of operations as determined in
accordance with GAAP and these non-GAAP financial measures should only be used to evaluate our
results of operations in conjunction with the corresponding GAAP financial measures. These
non-GAAP financial measures do not represent discretionary cash available to us to invest in the
growth of our business, and we may in the future incur expenses similar to the adjustments made in
these non-GAAP financial measures.
We believe that the non-GAAP financial measures we present provide meaningful supplemental
information regarding our operating results primarily because they exclude certain non-cash charges
or items that we do not believe are reflective of our ongoing operating results when budgeting,
planning and forecasting, determining compensation, and when assessing the performance of our
business with our individual operating segments or our senior management. We believe that these
non-GAAP financial measures also facilitate the comparison by management and investors of results
between periods and among our peer companies. However, those companies may calculate similar
non-GAAP financial measures differently than we do, limiting their usefulness as comparative
measures.
Non-GAAP operating income
We define
non-GAAP operating income as operating income (loss) adjusted to
eliminate (i) revenue
adjustments related to acquisitions, (ii) amortization and impairment of acquired technology, (iii) amortization of other acquired intangible assets,
(iv) impairments of goodwill and
other acquired intangible assets, (v) in-process research and
development, (vi) integration costs,
(vii) restructuring costs, (viii) other legal expenses
(recoveries), (ix) stock-based compensation
expenses, (x) other adjustments, and (xi) expenses related to our filing delay.
The following table provides further information regarding these adjustments and reconciles GAAP
operating income (loss) to non-GAAP operating income. The footnotes for this reconciliation appear
at the end of this summary consolidated financial information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
July 31, |
|
|
Six Months Ended
July 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
in thousands |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
GAAP operating income (loss) |
|
$ |
23,799 |
|
|
$ |
13,709 |
|
|
$ |
19,817 |
|
|
$ |
49,718 |
|
|
$ |
65,679 |
|
|
$ |
(15,026 |
) |
|
$ |
(114,630 |
) |
Revenue adjustments related to acquisitions (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,890 |
|
|
|
37,254 |
|
Amortization and impairment of acquired technology (b) (c) |
|
|
2,220 |
|
|
|
1,977 |
|
|
|
4,453 |
|
|
|
4,076 |
|
|
|
8,021 |
|
|
|
9,024 |
|
|
|
8,018 |
|
Amortization of other acquired intangible assets (b) |
|
|
5,338 |
|
|
|
5,586 |
|
|
|
10,677 |
|
|
|
11,516 |
|
|
|
22,268 |
|
|
|
25,249 |
|
|
|
19,668 |
|
Impairments of goodwill and other acquired intangible assets (c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,961 |
|
|
|
22,934 |
|
In-process research and development (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,682 |
|
Integration costs (e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
10,980 |
|
Restructuring costs (f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
5,685 |
|
|
|
3,308 |
|
Other legal expenses (recoveries) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,292 |
) |
|
|
8,708 |
|
Stock-based compensation expenses (h) |
|
|
8,035 |
|
|
|
13,138 |
|
|
|
26,004 |
|
|
|
19,694 |
|
|
|
44,245 |
|
|
|
36,011 |
|
|
|
31,061 |
|
Other adjustments (i) |
|
|
864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,371 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses related to our filing delay (j) |
|
|
6,067 |
|
|
|
10,220 |
|
|
|
26,280 |
|
|
|
16,782 |
|
|
|
54,511 |
|
|
|
28,681 |
|
|
|
41,422 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP operating income |
|
$ |
46,323 |
|
|
$ |
44,639 |
|
|
$ |
88,602 |
|
|
$ |
101,808 |
|
|
$ |
195,627 |
|
|
$ |
120,444 |
|
|
$ |
75,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
Non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc.
We define non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. as net income (loss) attributable
to Verint Systems Inc. adjusted to eliminate (i) revenue
adjustments related to acquisitions, (ii)
amortization and impairment of acquired technology, (iii) amortization of other acquired
intangible assets, (iv) impairments of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets, (v) in-process
research and development, (vi) integration costs,
(vii) restructuring costs, (viii) other legal expenses
(recoveries), (ix) stock-based compensation expenses,
(x) other adjustments, (xi) expenses related to
our filing delay, (xii) unrealized gains and losses on
investments and derivatives, and (xiii) non-cash
tax adjustments.
The following table provides further information regarding these adjustments and reconciles GAAP
net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. to non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint
Systems Inc. The footnotes for this reconciliation appear at the end of this summary consolidated
financial information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
July 31, |
|
|
Six Months Ended
July 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
in thousands |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
GAAP net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. |
|
$ |
11,475 |
|
|
$ |
1,598 |
|
|
$ |
(4,733 |
) |
|
$ |
21,232 |
|
|
$ |
15,617 |
|
|
$ |
(80,388 |
) |
|
$ |
(198,609 |
) |
Revenue adjustments related to acquisitions (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,890 |
|
|
|
37,254 |
|
Amortization and impairment of acquired technology (b)(c) |
|
|
2,220 |
|
|
|
1,977 |
|
|
|
4,453 |
|
|
|
4,076 |
|
|
|
8,021 |
|
|
|
9,024 |
|
|
|
8,018 |
|
Amortization of other acquired intangible assets (b) |
|
|
5,338 |
|
|
|
5,586 |
|
|
|
10,677 |
|
|
|
11,516 |
|
|
|
22,268 |
|
|
|
25,249 |
|
|
|
19,668 |
|
Impairments of goodwill and other acquired intangible assets (c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,961 |
|
|
|
22,934 |
|
In-process research and development (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,682 |
|
Integration costs (e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
10,980 |
|
Restructuring costs (f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
5,685 |
|
|
|
3,308 |
|
Other legal expenses (recoveries) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,292 |
) |
|
|
8,708 |
|
Stock-based compensation expenses (h) |
|
|
8,035 |
|
|
|
13,138 |
|
|
|
26,004 |
|
|
|
19,694 |
|
|
|
44,245 |
|
|
|
36,011 |
|
|
|
31,061 |
|
Other adjustments (i) |
|
|
864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,371 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses related to our filing delay (j) |
|
|
6,067 |
|
|
|
10,220 |
|
|
|
26,280 |
|
|
|
16,782 |
|
|
|
54,511 |
|
|
|
28,681 |
|
|
|
41,422 |
|
Unrealized gains and losses on investments and derivatives (k) |
|
|
(3,796 |
) |
|
|
(1,381 |
) |
|
|
(7,763 |
) |
|
|
(3,843 |
) |
|
|
(8,049 |
) |
|
|
(1,807 |
) |
|
|
26,703 |
|
Non-cash tax adjustments (l) |
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
940 |
|
|
|
(4,553 |
) |
|
|
16,352 |
|
|
|
23,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. |
|
$ |
31,151 |
|
|
$ |
31,293 |
|
|
$ |
56,146 |
|
|
$ |
70,419 |
|
|
$ |
132,963 |
|
|
$ |
69,627 |
|
|
$ |
41,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Revenue adjustments related to acquisitions represent (1) the impact of fair value
adjustments required under GAAP relating to acquired customer support contracts that would have
otherwise been recognized on a standalone basis and (2) certain sales concession adjustments
relating to accounts receivable balances that existed prior to the acquisition date, in each case
with respect to the acquisition of Witness Systems, Inc. (Witness) in May 2007. |
|
|
(b) |
|
Amortization of acquired technology, and amortization of other acquired intangible
assets, represent the amortization of intangible assets acquired in business combinations. These
expenses are non-cash charges, which are inconsistent in amount and frequency and are significantly
impacted by the timing and size of acquisitions. |
|
|
(c) |
|
Impairments of acquired technology, and impairments goodwill and other acquired
intangible assets, represent impairments of goodwill and intangible assets acquired in business
combinations. These expenses are non-cash charges that we do not believe are reflective of our
ongoing operations. |
9
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
|
In-process research and development represent the fair value of incomplete research and
development projects that had not yet reached technological
feasibility and had no known
alternative future use as of the date of acquisition. These expenses are non-cash charges that we
do not believe are reflective of our ongoing operations. |
|
|
|
(e) |
|
Integration costs represent expenses directly related to the integration of Witness that we do
not believe are reflective of our ongoing operations. |
|
(f) |
|
Restructuring costs represent expenses associated with the restructuring of our operations due
to internal or external market factors that we do not believe are reflective of our ongoing
operations. |
|
|
|
(g) |
|
Other legal expenses (recoveries) represents other legal fees and settlements associated with
certain intellectual property litigation assumed in connection with the Witness acquisition that
we do not believe are reflective of our ongoing operations. |
|
|
|
(h) |
|
Stock-based compensation expenses represent expenses related to stock options, restricted
stock awards, and units and phantom stock that are primarily non-cash charges. In recent periods
we also incurred significant cash-settled stock compensation due to our extended filing delay and
restrictions on our ability to issue new shares to our employees. |
|
|
(i) |
|
Other adjustments represent legal and other professional fees
associated with acquisitions and certain extraordinary transactions
that we do not believe are reflective of our ongoing operations. |
|
|
(j) |
|
Expenses related to our filing delay represent expenses associated with our restatement of
previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay. These expenses included
professional fees and related expenses as well as expenses associated with a special cash retention
program, in each case that we do not believe are reflective of our ongoing operations. |
|
(k) |
|
Unrealized gains and losses on investments and derivatives represent investment write-down in
auction rate securities and unrealized gain/(loss) on embedded derivatives, interest rate swaps,
and foreign currency derivatives. These gains/(losses) are non-cash charges. |
|
|
(l) |
|
Non-cash tax adjustments represent the difference between the amount of taxes we actually paid
and our GAAP tax provision on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, this adjustment reflects our
expected annual effective tax rate on a cash basis. |
|
10
RISK FACTORS
You should carefully consider the following risks before investing in our common stock. These risks
could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition and cause the
trading price of our common stock to decline. You could lose part or all of your investment. Other
factors currently considered immaterial or unknown to us may have a material adverse impact on our
future operations.
Risks Related to Our Internal Investigation, Restatement, Internal Controls, and Ownership
We face challenges in completing our future SEC filings and cannot assure you that risks associated
with our previous extended filing delay have been eliminated or will not adversely affect us.
Although we have filed all periodic reports required by our agreement in principle with the SEC
staff, we cannot assure you that we will be able to timely complete our future SEC filings (as
discussed in greater detail in the risk factors below), and risks associated with our previous
extended filing delay may persist or intensify. Notwithstanding the completion of these filings and
the re-listing of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market, customers, partners, investors, and
employees may have lingering concerns about us or our financial condition in light of our extended
filing delay, the recently dismissed SEC administrative proceeding, our previous de-listing, or
general reputational harm caused by the foregoing. See We were the subject of an SEC
investigation relating to our reserve and stock option accounting practices and
an SEC proceeding relating to our failure to timely file required SEC reports. These concerns may
result in the potential loss or deferral of business opportunities or relationships or may increase
the costs to us of engaging in such opportunities. If we are unable to timely file our future SEC
filings or if continuing concerns on the part of customers, partners, investors, or employees
persist or intensify, our business, results of operations, financial condition, or stock price may
be materially and adversely affected, or our common stock may be de-registered by the SEC and/or
again de-listed by NASDAQ.
We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of
January 31, 2010 that, if not remedied, could result in a failure to prevent or timely detect a
material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements.
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over our
financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act. Our
management evaluated the design and effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
as of January 31, 2010 and identified material weaknesses related to monitoring, financial
reporting, revenue and cost of revenue, and income taxes. A material weakness is a deficiency, or
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 these material weaknesses, our
management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of
January 31, 2010. For further information about these material weaknesses, see Controls and
Procedures under Item 9A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2010 and
Item 4 of our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
periods ended April 30, 2010 and July 31, 2010.
As of the date of this prospectus, we have implemented remedial measures designed to
address the material weaknesses identified as of January 31, 2010 related to monitoring, financial
reporting, revenue and cost of revenue, and income taxes.
As previously reported under
Item 9A Controls and Procedures of our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended January 31, 2010, we implemented the following remedial measures:
Monitoring
|
|
|
designed and are completing our implementation of analytical procedures to review the
financial results at each of our subsidiary locations on a regular basis; |
|
|
Financial Reporting |
|
|
|
|
|
formalized and communicated our critical accounting policies and procedures to ensure
worldwide compliance with GAAP; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
implemented rigorous policies and procedures related to accounts requiring management
estimates, as well as other complex areas, which include multiple levels of review; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
appointed a VP of Global Accounting to help ensure accurate consistent application of
GAAP; |
11
|
|
|
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 Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) or the CPA international
equivalent; |
|
|
|
|
Revenue and Cost of Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
expended substantial resources and performed extensive, substantive reviews of our
revenue recognition and cost of revenue policies and procedures; |
|
|
|
|
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; |
|
|
|
|
|
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; |
|
|
|
|
|
provided training to increase our general understanding of revenue recognition
principles and enhance awareness of the implications associated with non-standard
arrangements requiring specific revenue recognition; |
|
|
|
|
Income Taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
established a corporate tax department, which now includes a Vice President, Domestic
Director, International Director, Tax Manager, and two full-time tax accountants; |
|
|
|
|
engaged external tax advisors to prepare and/or review significant tax provisions for
compliance with accounting guidance for income taxes, as well as any changes in local tax
law; |
|
|
|
|
implemented a tax software program designed to prepare the consolidated income tax
provisions and related footnote disclosures; |
|
|
|
|
engaged subject matter experts with specialized international and consolidated income
tax knowledge to assist in creating, implementing, and documenting a consolidated tax
process; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
implemented policies and procedures related to amounts requiring management estimates,
such as uncertain tax positions and valuation allowances, which include multiple levels of
review; |
|
|
|
|
|
implemented policies and procedures designed to standardize tax provision computations
and ensure reconciliations of key tax accounts were accurate in all material respects and
properly reviewed by management; |
|
|
|
|
trained personnel involved in the preparation and review of income tax accounts; and |
|
|
|
|
formalized internal reporting, monitoring, and oversight of tax compliance and tax
audits. |
As a result of these remedial measures, we believe that the design of the control activities for
monitoring, financial reporting, and income taxes is effective.
However, as of the date of this prospectus, we are not able to conclude that the identified
material weaknesses have been remediated because these remedial measures have not been operating for a sufficient period of time or because these remedial measures
are not intended to be executed until later in the year, as well as because the operating effectiveness of these measures has not yet been tested.
In addition to the remedial efforts described above and as previously reported in Item 4 of
our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2010, we have implemented
the following remedial measures relating to revenue and cost of revenue:
|
|
|
|
hired additional resources at our subsidiary locations with primary responsibility for revenue
recognition; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
implemented additional levels of review over various aspects of the revenue recognition
process to ensure proper accounting treatment; and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
conducted detailed training on the complexities of current GAAP related to software revenue
recognition. |
|
Although remediation efforts occurred in the area of revenue and cost of revenue, the actions taken or the controls designed
were not in place or had not operated for a sufficient period of time to allow us to conclude that
the identified material weakness in this area had been remediated
as of the date of this prospectus.
We continue to monitor the operation of these remedial measures as of the date of this prospectus
and will perform an evaluation of the operating effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting as of January 31, 2011. If these remedial measures are not operating
effectively, or if additional material weaknesses in our internal controls are discovered in the
future, we may fail to meet our future reporting obligations on a timely basis, our financial
statements may contain material misstatements, our operating results may be harmed, and we may be
subject to litigation. Any failure to remediate the identified material weaknesses or the
identification of any additional material weaknesses in our internal controls would also adversely
affect the results of future management evaluations regarding the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting that are required under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. Continuing or future material weaknesses could also cause investors to lose confidence in our
reported financial information, leading to a decline in our stock price.
12
The extraordinary processes underlying the preparation of the financial statements contained in
this prospectus 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, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006, the
restatement of certain items and the making of other corrective adjustments to our financial
statements for periods through January 31, 2005, 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 applicable accounting guidance. 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, relevant accounting rules and pronouncements are subject to ongoing interpretation by
the accounting profession and refinement by various organizations responsible for promulgating and
interpreting accounting principles. As a result, ongoing interpretations of these rules and
pronouncements or the adoption of new rules and pronouncements could require changes in our
accounting practices or financial reporting. We cannot assure you that, if such changes arise, we
will be able to timely implement them or 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 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, some of the processes underlying the preparation of the
financial statements contained in this prospectus were extraordinary. We have now begun to rely
and expect, going forward, to increasingly rely on our regular financial statement preparation and
reporting processes. In addition to the remedial measures discussed in the risk factor above which are intended to
address our identified material weaknesses, we continue to enhance our regular processes as of the
date of this prospectus. As a result, until we are able to conclude that all material weaknesses
have been remediated and, until other enhancements have been in place and operational for a longer
period of time, we cannot assure you that the changes and enhancements made to date are adequate or
will operate as expected. In addition, 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 additional material weaknesses in our internal
controls over financial reporting will not be identified, or that we will be able to timely comply
with our reporting obligations in the future.
13
The circumstances which gave rise to our internal investigation, restatement, and extended filing
delay have resulted in litigation and continue to create the risk of litigation against us, which
could be expensive and could damage our business.
Generally, companies that have undertaken internal investigations or restatements face greater risk
of litigation or other actions. Although we have not been named as a defendant in any shareholder
class actions or derivative lawsuits relating to our internal investigation, restatement, or
extended filing delay, there can be no assurance that such actions or lawsuits will not be
initiated against us or our current or former officers, directors, or other personnel in the
future. Comverse and some of its former directors and officers and
a current director were
named as defendants in several class and derivative actions relating to Comverses internal
investigations. 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. This litigation or any future litigation may be time
consuming and expensive, and may distract management from the conduct of our business. Any such
litigation 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 an SEC proceeding relating to our failure to timely file required SEC reports.
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 intentional
inaccurate presentation of backlog. See Legal ProceedingsComverse Investigation-Related Matters
for more information concerning Comverses SEC investigation and related civil actions.
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 of 1933, as amended (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.
We previously reported that on March 3, 2010 the SEC issued an Order Instituting Proceedings
pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of our common
stock because of our previous failure to file certain annual and quarterly reports. On May 28,
2010, we entered into an agreement in principle with the SECs Division of Enforcement regarding
the terms of a settlement of the Section 12(j) proceeding, which agreement was subject to approval
by the SEC. On June 18, 2010, we satisfied the requirements of such agreement and subsequently
submitted an Offer of Settlement to the SEC. On July 28, 2010, the SEC issued an Order accepting
our Offer of Settlement and dismissing the Section 12(j) proceeding.
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
14
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 whether we will
face additional government inquiries, investigations, or other actions related to these other
matters or the outcome of any current or future matters. An adverse ruling in any regulatory proceeding could
impose upon us fines, penalties, or other remedies which could have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations and financial condition. Even if we are
successful in defending against a regulatory proceeding, such a 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 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.
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, by-laws, 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 that 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.
Our stockholders do not have the same protections generally available to stockholders of other
NASDAQ-listed companies because we are currently a controlled company within the meaning of the
NASDAQ Listing Rules.
The sole selling stockholder, Comverse, controls a majority of our outstanding common stock. As a
result, we are a controlled company within the meaning of NASDAQ Listing Rule 5615(c). As a
controlled company, we qualify for and our board of directors, which is comprised of a majority of directors appointed by Comverse,
may and intends to rely upon, exemptions from several
corporate governance requirements, including requirements that:
|
|
|
a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors; |
|
|
|
|
compensation of officers be determined or recommended to the board of directors by a
majority of its independent directors or by a compensation committee comprised solely of
independent directors; and |
|
|
|
|
director nominees be selected or recommended to the board of directors by a majority of
its independent directors or by a nominating committee that is composed entirely of
independent directors. |
Additionally, Comverse has the right to have its nominees represented on our compensation committee
and our corporate governance and nominating committee. Accordingly, our stockholders are not and
will not be afforded the same protections generally as stockholders of other NASDAQ-listed companies for so
long as Comverses designees to our board of directors represent a majority of our board and determine to
rely upon such exemptions. See Risk Factors Risks
Related to Our Internal Investigation, Restatement, Internal Controls, and Ownership Comverse can
control our business and affairs, including our board of directors, and will continue to control us
after this offering for more information on the risks we face in connection with Comverses
beneficial ownership of a majority of our common stock.
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
15
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 carryforwards
(NOLs), allocated to us as of our May 2002 initial public offering (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 required significant time, expense, and
management distraction, 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 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 us or 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 United States federal income tax return.
Following our IPO, we began filing a separate United States 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 United
States federal income tax returns by Comverse on
our behalf.
In addition, notwithstanding the terms of the tax sharing agreement, United States federal income tax law provides that
each member of a consolidated federal income tax group is 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, United States federal income tax assessments were not
paid. Similar principles apply for certain combined state income tax return filings.
Comverse can control our business and affairs, including our board of directors, and will continue
to control us after this offering.
Because Comverse beneficially owns and following this offering will continue to beneficially own a
majority of our common stock, Comverse effectively controls the outcome of all matters submitted
for stockholder action, including the approval of significant corporate transactions, such as
certain 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.
The conversion feature of the preferred stock was approved by our stockholders at a special
meeting of our stockholders on October 5, 2010. As of September 15, 2010, if it were convertible,
the preferred stock could have been converted into approximately 10.2 million shares of our common
stock, giving Comverse beneficial ownership of 63.5% of our common stock.
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 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, if we
fail to repurchase the preferred stock as required upon a fundamental change, then the number of
16
directors constituting the board of directors will be increased by two and Comverse will have the
right to elect two directors to fill such vacancies.
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, engage in certain corporate transactions, including debt
financings, 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, the timing and cost of raising
capital may be adversely affected.
As a result of the delay in completing our financial statements, we have been limited in our
ability to register securities for sale by us or for resale by other security holders, which has
adversely affected our ability to raise capital. Additionally, 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. In the meantime, we would need to continue 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, potentially increasing the costs of raising capital during that
period.
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. 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 two years. 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.
17
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.
Because price and related terms are key considerations 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.
18
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 may impact and 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.
While we have no single customer that is material to our total revenue, we do have many significant
customers in each of our segments, notably in our Video Intelligence segment and our Communications
Intelligence segment, 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 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.
19
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 resellers, including terms relating to pricing, future
deliverables, and post-contract customer support (PCS). 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 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.
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.
20
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 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), in
the United States, and
standards established by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (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.
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.
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,
21
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. 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. |
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
22
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.
Regulatory and Government Contracting
We are dependent on contracts with governments around the world for a significant portion of our
revenue. These contracts also expose us to additional business risks and compliance obligations.
For the
year ended January 31, 2010 and the three and six months ended July
31, 2010, approximately one quarter of our business was generated from contracts with various governments around
the world,
including federal, state, and local government agencies. We expect that government contracts will continue to be a significant source of our revenue
for the foreseeable future. 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, 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 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; |
23
|
|
|
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.
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.
24
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. Customers are also increasingly focused on
the security of our products. While our customers use of our products in no way affords us access
to the customers sensitive or confidential 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. We also work to ensure the security of
our products, including through the use of encryption, access rights, and other customary security
features. However, these measures are designed to mitigate the risks associated with handling or
processing 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 by us or our products, 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.
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 resellers 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 resellers 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
25
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.
Reliance on or 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 redesign our products or remove certain features from our products. See
Competition and Markets 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. Additionally, when purchasing or licensing products and services from third parties,
we endeavor to negotiate appropriate warranties, indemnities, and other protections. We cannot
assure you, however, that all such third-party contracts contain adequate protections or that all
such third parties will be able to provide the protections we have negotiated. To the extent we
are not able to negotiate adequate protections from these third parties or these third parties are
unwilling or unable to provide the protections we have negotiated, our business, financial
condition, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
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 software (together, 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 or provide protections in the event the open source software infringes a third
partys intellectual property rights. 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 software elements that impose unfavorable licensing restrictions or
other requirements on our products. In addition, the terms of many open source software 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 software 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 software 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 incurred significant indebtedness in connection with our 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
July 31, 2010, we had outstanding indebtedness of approximately
$598.2 million. As a result of
our significant indebtedness, we are highly leveraged. Our leverage position may, among other
things:
26
|
|
|
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. There can be no assurance that ratings agencies will not
downgrade our credit rating, which could impede our ability to refinance existing debt or secure
new debt or otherwise increase our future cost of borrowing and could create additional concerns on
the part of customers, partners, investors, and employees about our financial condition and results
of operations.
Risks associated with our leverage ratio and financial statement delivery covenants.
Our credit agreement contains a financial covenant that requires us to maintain a maximum
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 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.
The credit agreement also includes a requirement that we deliver audited consolidated financial
statements to the lenders within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year. In the past we have not
timely delivered such financials statements as required by the credit agreement (see Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources for additional information) and may in the future fail to make such deliveries. 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.
If an event of default occurs 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 seek an
amendment of and/or waiver under the credit agreement, sell assets, raise additional capital
through an additional 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 an amendment and/or waiver,
sale or securities offering or refinancing or restructuring on reasonable terms or at all.
27
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; |
|
|
|
|
sell certain assets; |
|
|
|
|
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.
The conversion feature of the preferred stock was approved by our stockholders at a special
meeting of our stockholders on October 5, 2010. As of September 15, 2010, if it were convertible,
the preferred stock could have been converted into approximately 10.2 million shares of our common
stock.
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, as noted above, we are
subject to restrictions on our ability to engage in acquisitions and investments under the terms of
our credit agreement. Acquisitions or investments that are not immediately accretive to earnings
may also make it more difficult for us to maintain compliance with the maximum leverage ratio
covenant under the credit agreement.
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.
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
28
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 4, Business
Combinations to the audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus. 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 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. Goodwill and other
intangible assets totaled approximately $898.5 million, or approximately 64% of our total assets,
as of January 31, 2010 and approximately $897.8 million, or
approximately 67% of our total assets,
as of July 31, 2010. We test our goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if
an event occurs indicating the potential for impairment, and we assess on an as-needed basis
whether there have been impairments in our other intangible assets. No events or circumstances
indicating the potential for goodwill impairment were identified during the year ended January 31,
2010 or the three and six months ended July 31, 2010. We make assumptions and estimates in this
assessment which are complex and often subjective. These assumptions and estimates 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. We did not
record any non-cash impairment charges for the year ended
January 31, 2010 or the three and six months
ended July 31, 2010, but we did record non-cash impairment charges for the years ended January 31,
2009 and 2008, totaling $26.0 million and $23.4 million, respectively. These non-cash impairment
charges related to acquisitions made in our Video Intelligence segment (related to the MultiVision
Intelligence Surveillance Limited (MultiVision) acquisition) and in our Workforce Optimization
performance management consulting business (related to the Opus Group, LLC acquisition, the CM
Insight Limited acquisition, and a portion of the Witness acquisition). To the
extent that the factors described above change, we could be required to record additional non-cash
impairment charges in the future. Any significant impairment charges would negatively affect our
financial condition and results of operations. See Note 5, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
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 NOLs will impact our 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, adjustments to Comverses tax liability for periods prior to our IPO, changes
in tax rates, laws, or regulations that could have retroactive effect, or an ownership change under Section 382 of
the Internal Revenue Code. Although we do not believe that this offering should cause an ownership change under
Section 382, this offering, coupled with other future issuances or sales of our stock (including certain direct or
indirect transactions involving our stock that are outside of our control) could make it more likely that an ownership
change might occur in the future. If an ownership change were to occur, it would impose an annual limit on the
amount of pre-change NOLs and other losses available to reduce our taxable income and could result in a reduction
in the value of our NOL carryforwards or the realizability of other deferred tax assets. To the extent that we are
unable to utilize our NOLs or other losses, our results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be
adversely affected in a significant manner. When we cease to have NOLs available to us in a particular tax
jurisdiction, either through their expiration, disallowance, or utilization, our tax liability will increase in that
jurisdiction.
29
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 Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) of Israel 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.
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.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
We do not plan to pay dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future.
We intend to retain our earnings to support the development and expansion of our business, to repay
debt and for other corporate purposes and, as a result, we do not plan to pay cash dividends on our
common stock in the foreseeable future. Our payment of any future dividends will be at the
discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including our
financial condition, operating results, cash needs, growth plans and the terms of any credit
facility or other restrictive debt agreements that we may be a party to at the time or senior
securities we may have issued. Our credit facility limits us from paying cash dividends or other
payments or distributions with respect to our capital stock. In addition, the terms of any future
facility or other restrictive debt credit agreement may contain similar restrictions on our ability
to pay any dividends or make any distributions or payments with respect to our capital stock. In
addition, holders of our preferred stock are entitled to cumulative dividends before any dividends
may be declared or set aside on our common stock.
Furthermore, our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders is subject to the restrictions set
forth under Delaware law. We cannot assure you that we will meet the criteria specified under
Delaware law in the future, in which case we may not be able to pay dividends on our common stock
even if we were to choose to do so.
The price of our common stock fluctuates significantly, and this may make it difficult for you to
resell the common stock when you want to or at prices you find attractive.
30
There has been significant volatility in the market price and trading volume of equity securities,
including our common stock, some of which is unrelated to the financial performance of the
companies issuing the securities. The public offering price for the shares of common stock being
sold in this offering reflects recent prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global
Market and may not be indicative of prices that will prevail in the open market following this
offering. You may not be able to resell your shares at or above the public offering price due to
fluctuations in the market price of our common stock caused by changes in our operating performance
or prospects and other factors.
Some specific factors that may have a significant effect on our common stock market price include:
|
|
|
actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our operating and financial results; |
|
|
|
|
developments related to investigations, proceedings, or litigation that involve us; |
|
|
|
|
changes in financial estimates and recommendations by financial analysts; |
|
|
|
|
dispositions, acquisitions, and financings; |
|
|
|
|
actions of our current stockholders, including sales of our common stock by existing
stockholders and our directors and executive officers; |
|
|
|
|
success of competitive service offerings or technologies; |
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in the stock price and operating results of our competitors; |
|
|
|
|
investors general perception of us; |
|
|
|
|
regulatory developments; and |
|
|
|
|
developments related to the industries in which we compete. |
Because our common stock has been re-listed on the NASDAQ Global Market only since July 6, 2010, we
cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of
an active trading market on the NASDAQ Global Market or otherwise or how liquid that market might
become. Unless there is an active trading market for our common stock, you may have difficulty
selling any shares of our common stock that you purchase. Consequently, you may not be able to sell
our common stock at prices equal to or greater than the price you paid in this offering.
Sales or potential sales of our common stock by us or our significant stockholders may cause the
market price of our common stock to decline.
We are not restricted from issuing additional shares of common stock, including shares issuable
pursuant to securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right
to receive, common stock. As of September 15, 2010, we had 35.2 million shares of common stock
outstanding. In addition, as of that date, approximately 6.1 million shares of our common stock
were issuable pursuant to outstanding stock options and awards which had not yet vested or which
had been previously acquired upon vesting but had not yet been delivered. Additional shares of
common stock are also available to be granted under our existing equity plans or may be granted
under future equity plans.
In addition, under two registration rights agreements that we entered into with Comverse, Comverse
has registration rights with respect to its common stock and preferred stock holdings in Verint. As
of September 15, 2010, if it were convertible, the preferred stock could have been converted into
approximately 10.2 million shares of our common stock. The conversion feature of the preferred
stock was approved by our stockholders at a special meeting of our stockholders on October 5,
2010.
Also, for the first time since the beginning of our extended filing delay in March 2006, our
directors and certain members of management have recently been
allowed to resume sales of shares of our common stock in
the public markets or in other registered offerings (subject to our securities trading policy and
applicable securities law). As a result, these individuals, including each of our named executive
officers, have sold and may continue to sell, for personal financial planning and asset
diversification purposes, shares of our common stock through block trades in negotiated
transactions or by any other lawful methods permitted by applicable registration statements. Please
see Principal and Selling Stockholders for information regarding the beneficial ownership of our
common stock by our named executive officers and directors.
31
Anti-takeover provisions in Delaware corporate law may make it difficult for our stockholders to
replace or remove our current board of directors and could deter or delay third-parties from
acquiring us, which may adversely affect the marketability and market price of our common stock.
We are subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law (DGCL). Under these provisions, if anyone becomes an interested stockholder, we may not enter
into a business combination with that person for three years without special approval, which
could discourage a third party from making a takeover offer and could delay or prevent a change of
control. For purposes of Section 203, interested stockholder means, generally, someone owning
more than 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate of ours that owned 15% or
more of our outstanding voting stock during the past three years, subject to certain exceptions as
described in Section 203.
Under any change of control, the lenders under our credit facility would have the right to require
us to repay all of our outstanding obligations under the facility. Upon the occurrence of a
Fundamental Change, as defined by the Certificate of Designation setting forth the terms of the
preferred stock, and which includes a change of control, the holders of our preferred stock have
the right to require us to repurchase their shares of preferred stock at the then current
liquidation preference (subject to certain exceptions set forth in the Certificate of Designation).
Holders of our preferred stock have liquidation and other rights that are senior to the rights of
the holders of our common stock.
Our board of directors has the authority to designate and issue preferred stock that may have
dividend, liquidation and other rights that are senior to those of
our common stock. As of September 15,
2010, 293,000 shares of our preferred stock have been issued and are outstanding.
The conversion feature of the preferred stock was approved by our stockholders at a special
meeting of our stockholders on October 5, 2010. As of September 15, 2010, if it were convertible,
the preferred stock could have been converted into approximately 10.2 million shares of our common
stock.
Holders of our
preferred stock are entitled to cumulative dividends before any dividends may be declared or set
aside on our common stock. Upon our voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding
up, before any payment is made to holders of our common stock, holders of our preferred stock are
entitled to receive an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share, plus any accrued and
unpaid dividends, which liquidation preference was approximately
$332.2 million as of July 31,
2010. This will reduce the remaining amount of our assets, if any, available to distribute to
holders of our common stock. See Description of Capital Stock for additional information
regarding the rights of our preferred stock.
32
CAUTIONARY NOTE ON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements discussed in this prospectus constitute forward-looking
statements, which 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
conditions 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 or
conditions to differ materially from our forward-looking statements include, among others:
|
|
|
|
risks relating to the filing of our SEC reports, including the occurrence of known
contingencies or unforeseen events that could delay our future filings, management distractions,
and significant expense; |
|
|
|
|
|
risks that our credit rating could be downgraded or placed on a credit watch based on,
among other things, our financial results or delays in the filing of our periodic reports; |
|
|
|
|
risks associated with being a consolidated, controlled subsidiary of 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 NOLs
for our financial statements; |
|
|
|
|
uncertainties regarding the impact of general economic conditions, particularly in
information technology spending, on our business; |
|
|
|
|
risks that our financial results will cause us not to be compliant with the leverage
ratio covenant under our credit facility or that any delays in the filing of future SEC
reports could cause us not to be compliant with the financial statement delivery covenant
under our credit facility; |
|
|
|
|
risks 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; |
|
|
|
|
risks 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; |
|
|
|
|
|
uncertainties regarding the future impact on our business of
our now concluded internal investigation,
restatement, and extended filing delay, 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 material
weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting and relating to the proper
application of highly complex accounting rules and pronouncements in order to produce
accurate SEC reports on a timely basis; |
|
|
|
|
risks relating to our implementation and maintenance of adequate systems and internal
controls for our current and future operations and reporting needs; |
|
|
|
|
risks of possible future restatements if the processes used to produce the financial
statements contained in our SEC reports are inadequate; |
33
|
|
|
|
|
risks associated with future regulatory actions or private litigation relating to our
internal investigation, restatement, or previous delays in filing required SEC reports; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
risks that we will be unable to maintain our listing on the NASDAQ Global Market; |
|
|
|
|
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; |
|
|
|
|
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; |
|
|
|
|
risks 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; |
|
|
|
|
risks that we are unable to maintain and enhance relationships with key resellers,
partners, and systems integrators; and |
|
|
|
|
|
risks that use of our tax benefits may be restricted or eliminated in the
future. |
|
These risks, uncertainties and challenges, as well as other factors, are discussed in greater
detail in the Risk Factors section of this prospectus. You are cautioned not to place undue
reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our managements view only as of the date of
this prospectus. 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.
34
USE OF PROCEEDS
We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares by the selling stockholder. All net
proceeds from the sale of the common stock covered by this prospectus will be received by the
selling stockholder.
The selling stockholder will pay all underwriting fees, commissions, and discounts, any transfer
taxes, and all legal fees and expenses incurred by it in disposing of the shares. We will bear all
other costs, fees and expenses incurred in effecting the registration of the shares covered by this
prospectus, including, without limitation, all registration and filing fees and fees and expenses
of our counsel and our accountants.
35
CAPITALIZATION
The
following table sets forth our cash, cash equivalents, restricted
cash and bank time deposits and capitalization as of July 31, 2010.
You should read this information, together with our consolidated financial statements and the
related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus and the Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations section and other financial information contained
in this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As
of July 31, 2010 (1) |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except |
|
|
|
share and per share data) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
128,199 |
|
Restricted cash and bank time deposits |
|
|
14,893 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and bank time deposits |
|
$ |
143,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt: |
|
|
|
|
Term loan facility |
|
$ |
583,234 |
|
Revolving credit facility |
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt |
|
|
598,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 $332,196 |
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders
equity: |
|
|
|
|
Common stock $0.001 par value; authorized 120,000,000 shares.
Issued 34,911,000 shares and outstanding 34,651,000 shares |
|
|
35 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
478,031 |
|
Treasury
stock, at cost 260,000 shares |
|
|
(6,639 |
) |
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(425,071 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(46,432 |
) |
Non-controlling interest |
|
|
1,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total
stockholders equity |
|
|
1,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
$ |
885,418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not reflect the payment of approximately $21.7 million made in
August 2010 to terminate our interest rate swap. |
|
36
PRICE RANGE OF COMMON STOCK AND DIVIDEND POLICY
Market Information
Our common stock was re-listed on the NASDAQ Global Market and trading in our common stock
commenced on the NASDAQ Global Market on July 6, 2010 under the symbol VRNT. The following table
sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share as reported by the
NASDAQ Global Market. On October 6, 2010, the last reported sale price of our common stock on the
NASDAQ Global Market was $30.89 per share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
Period |
|
Low |
|
High |
2011
|
|
7/6/10 - 10/6/10
|
|
$19.63
|
|
$31.49 |
From February 1, 2007 until July 2, 2010 (the last trading day prior to the relisting of our common
stock on the NASDAQ Global Market) our common stock traded on the over-the-counter securities
market under the symbol VRNT.PK with pricing and financial information provided by the Pink
Sheets.
The following table sets forth the range of high and low sales prices as reported by the Pink
Sheets from February 1, 2008 through July 2, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
Period |
|
Low |
|
High |
2009
|
|
2/1/08 - 4/30/08
5/1/08 - 7/31/08
8/1/08 - 10/31/08
11/1/08 - 1/31/09
|
|
$14.80
$19.50
$ 8.95
$ 5.40
|
|
$21.85
$24.60
$23.20
$13.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2/1/09 - 4/30/09
5/1/09 - 7/31/09
8/1/09 - 10/31/09
11/1/09 - 1/31/10
|
|
$ 3.10
$ 5.30
$11.31
$15.05
|
|
$ 6.75
$12.85
$17.25
$19.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2/1/10 - 4/30/10
5/1/10 - 7/2/10
|
|
$17.73
$22.20
|
|
$28.00
$27.00 |
Holders
There were
66 holders of record of our common stock at September 15, 2010. Such record holders include
holders who are nominees for an undetermined number of beneficial owners.
Dividends
We have not declared or paid and have no current plans to declare or pay any cash 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 for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions. Holders of our
preferred stock are entitled to cumulative dividends before any dividends may be declared or set
aside on our common stock. See Description of Capital Stock and Note 8, Convertible Preferred
Stock to the audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus for a
more detailed discussion of these restrictions. Our preferred stock currently accrues a dividend at
the rate of 3.875% per year.
37
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.
38
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009
and 2008 and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of January 31, 2010 and 2009 are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
The selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended January 31, 2007 and
2006 and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of January 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this prospectus. The
selected consolidated statements of operations data for the three and six months ended July 31, 2010 and
2009 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of July 31, 2010 are derived from our unaudited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The unaudited consolidated
financial statements were prepared on a basis consistent with our audited consolidated financial
statements and include, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for the fair
presentation of the financial information contained in those statements. Historical results are not
necessarily indicative of results to be expected in the future.
You should read the selected consolidated financial data below together with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our consolidated
financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus.
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
July 31, |
| Six Months Ended
July 31, |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
(unaudited) |
|
Year Ended January 31, |
in thousands (except per share data) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
Revenue |
|
$ |
180,676 |
|
|
$ |
169,269 |
|
|
$ |
353,289 |
|
|
$ |
344,417 |
|
|
$ |
703,633 |
|
|
$ |
669,544 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
$ |
368,778 |
|
|
$ |
278,754 |
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
|
23,799 |
|
|
|
13,709 |
|
|
|
19,817 |
|
|
|
49,718 |
|
|
|
65,679 |
|
|
|
(15,026 |
) |
|
|
(114,630 |
) |
|
|
(47,253 |
) |
|
|
4,112 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
12,391 |
|
|
|
1,482 |
|
|
|
(3,225 |
) |
|
|
22,054 |
|
|
|
17,100 |
|
|
|
(78,577 |
) |
|
|
(197,545 |
) |
|
|
(39,598 |
) |
|
|
2,482 |
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. |
|
|
11,475 |
|
|
|
1,598 |
|
|
|
(4,733 |
) |
|
|
21,232 |
|
|
|
15,617 |
|
|
|
(80,388 |
) |
|
|
(198,609 |
) |
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
|
|
1,664 |
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares |
|
|
7,921 |
|
|
|
(1,808 |
) |
|
|
(11,690 |
) |
|
|
14,564 |
|
|
|
2,026 |
|
|
|
(93,452 |
) |
|
|
(207,290 |
) |
|
|
(40,519 |
) |
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share attributable to Verint Systems Inc.: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.35 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
(2.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.26 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
|
|
(0.35 |
) |
|
|
0.45 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
(6.43 |
) |
|
|
(1.26 |
) |
|
|
0.05 |
|
Weighted-average shares: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
33,272 |
|
|
|
32,465 |
|
|
|
32,972 |
|
|
|
32,462 |
|
|
|
32,478 |
|
|
|
32,394 |
|
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
31,781 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
35,006 |
|
|
|
32,465 |
|
|
|
32,972 |
|
|
|
32,606 |
|
|
|
33,127 |
|
|
|
32,394 |
|
|
|
32,222 |
|
|
|
32,156 |
|
|
|
32,620 |
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
January 31, |
in thousands |
|
2010 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,342,144 |
|
|
$ |
1,396,337 |
|
|
$ |
1,337,393 |
|
|
$ |
1,492,275 |
|
|
$ |
593,676 |
|
|
$ |
609,558 |
|
Long-term debt, including current maturities |
|
|
598,234 |
|
|
|
620,912 |
|
|
|
625,000 |
|
|
|
610,000 |
|
|
|
1,058 |
|
|
|
1,325 |
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
285,542 |
|
|
|
293,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity (deficit) |
|
|
1,642 |
|
|
|
(14,567 |
) |
|
|
(76,070 |
) |
|
|
30,325 |
|
|
|
198,890 |
|
|
|
220,569 |
|
Certain financial data in these tables for years ended prior to January 31, 2010 has been
adjusted to reflect the adoption of a change in accounting for noncontrolling interests, as further
discussed in Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the audited consolidated
financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
During the five year period ended January 31, 2010, we acquired a number of businesses, the more
significant of which were the acquisitions of MultiVision in January 2006, Mercom Systems Inc., in July 2006, and Witness in May 2007. The operating results of acquired businesses have
been included in our consolidated financial
39
statements since their respective acquisition dates and have contributed to our revenue growth.
The May 2007 acquisition of Witness had significant impacts on our revenue and operating results
for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.
Operating results for the period ended January 31, 2010 include:
|
|
|
amortization of intangible assets associated with the acquisition of Witness of $28.3
million; |
|
|
|
|
interest expense on our term loan and revolving credit agreement of $22.6 million; |
|
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense of $44.2 million; |
|
|
|
|
realized and unrealized losses on our interest rate swap of $13.6 million; and |
|
|
|
|
approximately $54 million in professional fees and related expenses associated with our
restatement of previously filed consolidated financial statements for periods through
January 31, 2005 and our extended filing delay status. |
Operating results for the period ended January 31, 2009 include:
|
|
|
a full years revenue from Witness compared to eight months in the prior year; |
|
|
|
|
amortization of intangible assets associated with the acquisition of Witness of $31.1
million; |
|
|
|
|
integration costs of $3.2 million incurred to support and facilitate the combination of
Verint and Witness into a single organization; |
|
|
|
|
net proceeds after legal fees of approximately $4.3 million associated with the
settlement of pre-existing litigation between Witness and a competitor; |
|
|
|
|
interest expense on our term loan and revolving credit agreement of $35.2 million; |
|
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense of $36.0 million; |
|
|
|
|
realized and unrealized losses on our interest rate swap of $11.5 million; |
|
|
|
|
restructuring costs of $5.7 million and approximately $28 million in professional fees
and related expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed consolidated
financial statements for periods through January 31, 2005 and our extended filing delay
status; and |
|
|
|
|
non-cash goodwill impairment charges of $26.0 million. |
Operating results for the period ended January 31, 2008 include:
|
|
|
an increase in revenue of $123.1 million from the Witness business, beginning in the
quarter ended July 31, 2007; |
|
|
|
|
amortization of intangible assets associated with the acquisition of Witness of $22.6
million; |
|
|
|
|
a $6.7 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; |
40
|
|
|
interest expense on our term loan of $34.4 million; |
|
|
|
|
restructuring costs of $3.3 million and approximately $26 million in professional fees
and related expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed consolidated
financial statements for periods through January 31, 2005 and our extended filing delay
status; |
|
|
|
|
realized and unrealized losses on our interest rate swap of $29.2 million; |
|
|
|
|
unrealized gains of $7.2 million on an embedded derivative financial instrument related
to the variable dividend feature of our preferred stock; |
|
|
|
|
stock-based compensation expense of $31.0 million; and |
|
|
|
|
non-cash goodwill and intangible asset impairment charges of $23.4 million. |
Operating results for the year ended January 31, 2007 include:
|
|
|
$19.2 million for a one-time settlement charge related to our exit from a
royalty-bearing program with the OCS; and |
|
|
|
|
approximately $4 million in professional fees and related expenses associated with our
restatement of previously filed consolidated financial statements for periods through
January 31, 2005 and our extended filing delay status. |
Operating results for the year ended January 31, 2006 include a $2.6 million charge in connection
with a customer dispute.
41
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 Business, Selected Financial Data, and the
consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto which appear elsewhere in this
prospectus. 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 in the Risk
Factors section.
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 Actionable Intelligence
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 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.
Our Business
We serve two markets through three operating segments. Our Workforce Optimization segment serves
the enterprise workforce optimization market, while our Video Intelligence segment and
Communications Intelligence segment serve the security intelligence market.
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 TDM voice systems to VoIP telephony
infrastructure. For the three and six months ended
July 31, 2010 and the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, this segment represented
approximately 52%, 54%, 53%, 53%, and 49% of our total revenue, respectively.
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
42
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 network-based IP video
solutions. For the three and six months
ended July 31, 2010 and the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, this segment represented
approximately 21%, 20%, 21%, 19%, and 28% 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 civilian 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, Web intelligence, 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 compliance
requirements. For the three and six months
ended July 31, 2010 and the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, this segment represented
approximately 27%, 26%, 26%, 28%, and 23% 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
for more information.
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:
|
|
|
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 capital structure may impact our financing activities, investments, 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. These limitations may impede our ability to execute upon our business strategy. |
See also Risk Factors for a more complete description of these and other risks that may impact
future revenue and profitability.
43
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.
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 (Residual
Method), whereby revenue is allocated to the undelivered elements based on vendor specific
objective evidence of the fair value (VSOE), of the undelivered elements 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.
Our policy for establishing VSOE 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
44
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 customer expectations. We have
concluded that our software products have estimated economic lives of 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 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 under contract
accounting methods, 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
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.
In certain of our arrangements accounted for under contract accounting methods, 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 under the arrangement is initially
deferred and is recognized only 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
45
periodically on the basis of updated customer financial statement information, payment performance,
and other factors.
We record provisions for estimated product returns 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 other criteria 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.
For multiple-element arrangements for which we are unable to establish VSOE 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
financial reporting purposes. For these arrangements, we review our VSOE for training,
installation, and PCS services from similar transactions and stand-alone service 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 with the
remaining amount being allocated to product revenue. Installation services associated with our
Communications Intelligence arrangements 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 its financial condition due to lower credit ratings, bankruptcy, or
other factors that may affect its ability to render payment.
Accounting for Business Combinations
Business
acquisitions completed prior to January 31, 2009 have been
accounted for using purchase method
standards effective prior to that date. New purchase accounting standards were effective for us on
February 1, 2009. Under purchase accounting standards, 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.
46
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.
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: (a) an income based approach, using projected discounted cash flows, (b) a
market based approach using multiples of comparable companies, and (c) 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 levels 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.
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-
47
lived asset exceeds its fair value. The impairment loss recognized is the amount by which the
carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value.
During the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008, we recorded non-cash charges to recognize
impairments of goodwill and other intangible assets of $26.0 million, and $23.4 million,
respectively. We did not record any impairment of goodwill for the
three and six months ended July 31,
2010 or for the year ended January 31, 2010 as the fair values of all of our reporting units
significantly exceeded their carrying values.
Since the estimated fair values of our reporting units significantly exceeded their carrying values
as of November 1, 2009, we currently do not believe that our reporting units are at risk of
impairment. 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 in our
assessment are reasonable and appropriate, a material change in any of our assumptions or external
factors could trigger impairments not originally identified.
Income Taxes
We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method which includes the recognition of
deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have
been included in the consolidated financial statements. 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.
We evaluate the realizability of our deferred tax assets for each jurisdiction in which we operate
at each reporting date, and we establish a valuation allowance 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.
We use a two-step approach to recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions. The first step is
to evaluate tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return by assessing whether they
are more likely than not sustainable, based solely on their technical merits, 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,
represent our unrecognized income tax benefits, which we either record as a liability or as a
reduction of deferred tax assets. Our policy is to include interest and penalties related to
unrecognized income tax benefits as a component of income tax expense.
Contingencies
We recognize an estimated loss from a claim or loss contingency when and if 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
48
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
We recognize the cost of employee services received in exchange for awards of equity instruments
based on the grant-date fair value of the award.
We 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.
Impact of Our VSOE/Revenue Recognition Policies on Our Results of Operations
When VSOE does not exist for all delivered elements of an arrangement, we recognized revenue under
the Residual Method. In essence, the 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 value. 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.
As we have previously disclosed, we determined that for many of the arrangements we examined in
previously reported periods (including periods included in this prospectus), we were unable to
determine the fair value of all or some of the elements within the multiple-element arrangement, as
required by accounting guidance for revenue recognition. Further, for certain transactions
occurring during periods reported herein, we were similarly unable to determine the fair value of
all or some of the elements.
Following is a general overview of how we recognize revenue for multiple-element arrangements by
segment.
Workforce Optimization Segment
Beginning in the year ended January 31, 2009, VSOE for professional services was established for
the majority of our Workforce Optimization transactions which allowed for the recognition of
product revenue prior to the services being performed. Prior to the
year ended January 31, 2009, VSOE for professional services was not established for a majority of our Workforce
Optimization transactions and, as a result, product revenue that could have otherwise been
recognized upon delivery is being deferred until all services associated with the arrangement are
completed. This results in revenue recognition being deferred for up to several quarters depending
on the nature of the arrangement.
In addition, during the three year period covered by our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 31, 2010, we were also unable to establish VSOE of PCS services related to certain
other Workforce Optimization transactions. As a result, product revenue that could otherwise been
recognized upon delivery is being recognized ratably over either the term of the PCS services or
the estimated economic life of the software product.
During the three year period covered by our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January
31, 2010, in our Workforce Optimization segment, approximately 55% of our revenue was recognized
when delivery of our products or performance of our services occurred using the Residual Method and
approximately 45% was recognized ratably over either the PCS term or the period that the customer
was entitled to renew their PCS but not to exceed the estimated economic life of the product or
contractual period (Ratable Method).
49
Video Intelligence Segment
Beginning in the year ended January 31, 2010, VSOE for PCS services was established for certain
arrangements in our Video Intelligence segment. In the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008 we
were unable to adequately establish VSOE for our PCS service plans due to the lack of actual
subsequent renewals and not having the ability to identify Video Intelligence customers that were
under current PCS service plans. Accordingly, in the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008, we
recognized revenue for these arrangements over the support period, limited to the estimated
economic life of the product.
During the three year period covered by our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January
31, 2010, in our Video Intelligence segment, approximately 60% of our revenue was recognized when
delivery of our products or performance of our services occurred using the Residual Method and
approximately 40% was recognized using the Ratable Method.
Communications Intelligence Segment
During the quarterly period ended April 30, 2010, VSOE for professional services was established
for certain Communications Intelligence contracts, and VSOE had been
maintained through July 31, 2010, which allowed for the recognition of product
revenue prior to those services being performed. In the three-year period covered by our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2010, VSOE for professional services was not
adequately established, in circumstances similar to those described previously for the Workforce
Optimization segment. As a result, revenue for these contracts is deferred to subsequent periods.
In addition, several of our Communications Intelligence contracts require substantial
customization, and are therefore accounted for using the completed contract method (the Contract
Accounting Method). In addition, certain of these arrangements are bundled with PCS for which we
were unable to establish VSOE, and revenue was deferred accordingly.
During the three year period covered by our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January
31, 2010, based on the way we recognize revenue in our Communications Intelligence segment,
approximately 50% of our revenue was recognized using the Residual Method, approximately 20% was
recognized using the Ratable Method, and approximately 30% was recognized under the contract
accounting methods, primarily using the percentage of completion method, or alternately, the
Contract Accounting Method.
In addition, as part of deferring revenue for a particular arrangement, we have also deferred
certain cost of revenue associated with the arrangement. We have made an accounting policy
election whereby the product cost of revenue, including hardware and third-party software license
fees, are 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 recognized over the PCS support period, the cost of revenue associated
with the product is capitalized upon product delivery and amortized over that same 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 segment which
are capitalized and amortized ratably over the revenue recognition period.
50
Results of Operations for Annual Periods
Financial Overview
The following table sets forth a summary of certain key financial information for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
703,633 |
|
|
$ |
669,544 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss) |
|
$ |
65,679 |
|
|
$ |
(15,026 |
) |
|
$ |
(114,630 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to
Verint Systems Inc. common shares |
|
$ |
2,026 |
|
|
$ |
(93,452 |
) |
|
$ |
(207,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share
attributable to Verint Systems Inc.: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
$ |
(2.88 |
) |
|
$ |
(6.43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Our revenue increased
approximately 5%, or $34.1 million, to $703.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from
$669.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The increase was due to revenue increases in
our Workforce Optimization and Video Intelligence segments, partially offset by a revenue reduction
in our Communication Intelligence segment. In our Workforce Optimization segment, revenue
increased by $22.4 million, or 6%, primarily due to the completion of a multi-site installation for
a major customer for which revenue was recognized upon final customer acceptance, coupled with an
increase in maintenance renewal revenue recognized at full value as a result of the elimination of
the impact of purchase accounting adjustments to support obligations assumed which amounted to $5.2
million in the year ended January 31, 2009. We recorded an adjustment reducing support obligations
assumed in the Witness acquisition to their estimated fair value at the acquisition date. As a
result, as required by business combination accounting rules, revenue related to maintenance
contracts in the amount of $5.2 million that would have been otherwise recorded by Witness as an
independent entity, was not recognized in the year ended January 31, 2009. There was no remaining
deferred revenue balance associated with the acquisition as of January 31, 2009. Historically,
substantially all of our customers, including customers from acquired companies, renew their
maintenance contracts when such contracts are eligible for renewal. To the extent these underlying
maintenance contracts are renewed, we will recognize the revenue for the full value of these
contracts over the maintenance periods, the substantial majority of which are one year. In our
Video Intelligence segment, revenue increased $18.0 million, or 14%, almost entirely due to the
product delivery of an order from a major customer, partially offset by a decrease of approximately
$7 million in Ratable Method revenue. In our Communications Intelligence segment, revenue
decreased by $6.3 million, or 3%, primarily due to a decrease in Residual Method revenue associated
with customer installations partially offset by an increase in Contract Accounting Method revenue
due to work performed on certain large projects. For more details on our revenue by segment, see
Revenue by Operating Segment. Revenue in the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA),
and Asia Pacific Regions (APAC), represented approximately 55%, 25%, and 20% of our total revenue,
respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2010 compared to approximately 52%, 32%, and 16%,
respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2009.
We had operating income of $65.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 compared to an
operating loss of $15.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The increase in operating
income was primarily due to an increase in gross profit of $52.4 million to $463.7 million, or 66%,
from $411.3 million, or 61%, coupled with a decrease in operating expenses of $28.3 million. The
increase in gross profit was primarily due to higher revenue and higher gross margin in our
Workforce Optimization and Video Intelligence segments, partially offset by lower revenue and lower
gross margin in our Communications Intelligence segment. Product margins in our Video Intelligence
and Workforce Optimization segments increased mainly as a result of a more favorable product mix.
Service margins increased due to our cost-saving initiatives, as well as the fact, that in certain
cases, expenses
51
associated with service revenue recognized in the current year under the Ratable
Method were recorded in prior periods when the costs were incurred. As discussed under Impact
of Our VSOE/Revenue Recognition Policies on our Results of Operations, in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and our accounting policy, the cost of revenue
associated with services is generally expensed as incurred in the period in which the services are
performed, with the exception of certain transactions accounted for under Contract Accounting
Method revenue. The decrease in operating expenses was primarily due to the absence of impairment
of goodwill and other acquired intangible asset charges in the year ended January 31, 2010 compared
to $26.0 million of impairment of goodwill and other acquired intangible asset charges in the year
ended January 31, 2009, as well as a $4.5 million decrease in research and development expenses and
a $4.5 million decrease in integration, restructuring and other, partially offset by a $9.7 million
increase in selling, general and administrative expenses. The increase in selling, general and
administrative expenses is primarily due to an increase of approximately $26 million in
professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed
financial statements and our extended filing delay status partially offset by our cost-saving
initiatives.
We had net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares of $2.0 million and income per
share of $0.06 in the year ended January 31, 2010, compared to a net loss attributable to Verint
Systems Inc. common shares of $93.5 million and a loss per share of $2.88 in the year ended January
31, 2009. The increase in our net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares and
income per share in the year ended January 31, 2010 was due to our higher gross profit and lower
operating expenses as described above, and to a $2.4 million reduction in interest and other
expenses, net coupled with a reduction of $12.6 million in income tax expense.
The strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to the major foreign currencies in which we transact
(primarily the British pound sterling, the euro, Israeli shekel, and Canadian dollar) in the year ended
January 31, 2010 compared to the year ended January 31, 2009 had an unfavorable impact on our
revenue and a favorable impact on our operating income. Had foreign exchange rates remained
constant in these periods, excluding the impact of foreign currency hedges, our total revenue would
have been approximately $12 million higher and our operating expenses and cost of goods sold would
have been approximately $15 million higher, or a net unfavorable constant U.S. dollar impact of
approximately $3 million on our operating income in the year ended January 31, 2010.
As of January 31, 2010, we employed approximately 2,500 employees, including part-time employees
and certain contractors, as compared to approximately 2,550 as of January 31, 2009.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Our revenue increased
approximately 25%, or $135.0 million, to $669.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from
$534.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The increase was due to revenue increases in
our Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence segments, partially offset by a
reduction in our Video Intelligence segment. In our Workforce Optimization segment, revenue
increased by $91.5 million, or 35%, primarily due to a full year of Witness being included in our
results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight months in the year ended January
31, 2008, coupled with an increase in Witness maintenance renewal revenue recognized at full value
as a result of the reduced impact of purchase accounting adjustments to support obligations
assumed. We recorded an adjustment reducing support obligations assumed in the Witness acquisition
to their estimated fair value at the acquisition date. As a result, as required by business
combination accounting rules, revenue related to maintenance contracts in the amount of $5.2
million and $33.9 million that would have been otherwise recorded by Witness as an independent
entity, was not recognized in the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In our
Communications Intelligence segment, revenue increased by $63.8 million, or 50%, primarily due to
increased business including several large project implementations that started during the year, as
well as the completion of certain installations and work performed for projects accounted for as
Contract Accounting Method revenue. In our Video Intelligence segment, revenue decreased $20.2
million, or 14%, due to timing of installations from a major customer, a decline in our
distribution business in APAC, and a decline in Residual Method revenue due to the global
economic downturn. For more details on our revenue by segment, see Revenue by Operating
Segment. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC represented approximately 52%, 32%, and 16% of
our total revenue, respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to approximately 52%,
33%, and 15%, respectively, in the year ended January 31, 2008.
We had an operating loss of $15.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to an
operating loss of $114.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The decrease in operating
loss was primarily due to an increase
52
in gross profit of $106.8 million to $411.3 million, or 61%,
from $304.5 million, or 57%, partially offset by an increase of $7.2 million in operating expenses.
The increase in gross profit was primarily due to higher revenue and higher gross margin in our
Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence segments, partially offset by lower revenue
and lower gross margin in our Video Intelligence segment. The increase in operating expenses was
due to a $23.0 million increase in selling, general and administrative expenses and a $5.6 million
increase in amortization of intangible assets, primarily due to a full year of Witness being
included in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight months in the
year ended January 31, 2008, as well as a $3.0 million increase in impairment of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets, partially offset by a $5.3 million reduction in integration and
restructuring costs, a $13.0 million decrease in legal fees associated with intellectual property
litigation assumed in the Witness acquisition, net of settlement recovery, as well as the absence
in the year ended January 31, 2009 of a $6.7 million in-process research and development charge
recorded in the year ended January 31, 2008. For additional information see Impairment of
Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets and Note 5, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
We had a net loss attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares of $93.5 million and a loss per
share of $2.88 in the year ended January 31, 2009, compared to a net loss attributable to Verint
Systems Inc. common shares of $207.3 million and a loss per share of $6.43 in the year ended
January 31, 2008. The decrease in our net loss attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares
and loss per share in the year ended January 31, 2009 was due to our higher gross profit and lower
integration costs and the Witness intellectual property legal fees as described above, and to lower
interest and other expenses, net of $43.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2009, compared to
interest and other expenses, net of $55.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The decrease
in interest and other expenses was primarily a result of the repurchase by our broker of our
auction rate securities (ARS), at the value equal to the par value plus interest.
The U.S. dollar was mixed relative to the major foreign currencies in which we transact (weakened
versus the euro and Israeli shekel and strengthened versus the
British pound sterling and Canadian dollar)
in the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to the year ended January 31, 2008. The net impact was
unfavorable on our revenue primarily due to the weaker British pound sterling, and had a net unfavorable
impact on our operating loss primarily due to the stronger Israeli shekel (which caused our local
expenses to be higher). Had foreign exchange rates remained constant in these periods, our total
revenue would have been approximately $5 million higher and our operating expenses and cost of
revenue would have been approximately $2 million lower, or a net favorable constant dollar impact
of approximately $7 million on our operating loss in the year ended January 31, 2009.
As of January 31, 2009, we employed approximately 2,550 employees, including part-time employees
and certain contractors, as compared to approximately 2,600 as of January 31, 2008.
Revenue by Operating Segment
The following table sets forth revenue for each of our three operating segments for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Workforce Optimization |
|
$ |
374,778 |
|
|
$ |
352,367 |
|
|
$ |
260,938 |
|
|
|
6 |
% |
|
|
35 |
% |
Video Intelligence |
|
|
144,970 |
|
|
|
127,012 |
|
|
|
147,225 |
|
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
(14 |
%) |
Communications Intelligence |
|
|
183,885 |
|
|
|
190,165 |
|
|
|
126,380 |
|
|
|
(3 |
%) |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
703,633 |
|
|
$ |
669,544 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53
Workforce Optimization Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Workforce Optimization
segment revenue increased approximately 6%, or $22.4 million, to $374.8 million in the year ended
January 31, 2010 from $352.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The increase was
primarily due to the completion of a multi-site installation for a major customer for which revenue
was recognized upon final customer acceptance, as well as an increase in maintenance renewal
revenue recognized at full value as a result of the elimination of the impact of purchase
accounting adjustments to support obligations assumed. We recorded an adjustment reducing support
obligations assumed in the Witness acquisition to their estimated fair value at the acquisition
date. As a result, as required by business combination accounting rules, revenue related to
maintenance contracts in the amount of $5.2 million that would have been otherwise recorded by
Witness as an independent entity, was not recognized in the year ended January 31, 2009. There was
no remaining deferred revenue balance associated with the acquisition as of January 31, 2009.
Historically, substantially all of our customers, including customers from acquired companies,
renew their maintenance contracts when such contracts are eligible for renewal. To the extent
these underlying maintenance contracts are renewed, we will recognize the revenue for the full
value of these contracts over the maintenance periods, the substantial majority of which are one
year.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. In our Workforce Optimization
segment, revenue increased by $91.5 million, or 35%, primarily due to a full year of Witness being
included in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight months in the
year ended January 31, 2008, coupled with an increase in Witness maintenance renewal revenue
recognized at full value as a result of the reduced impact of purchase accounting adjustments to
support obligations assumed. We recorded an adjustment reducing support obligations assumed in the
Witness acquisition to their estimated fair value at the acquisition date. As a result, as
required by business combination accounting rules, revenue related to maintenance contracts in the
amount of $5.2 million and $33.9 million that would have been otherwise recorded by Witness as an
independent entity, was not recognized in the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
During the year ended January 31, 2009, we combined the operations of Verint and Witness as well as
integrated some of the products of both companies. As a result, we cannot accurately quantify the
increase in revenue attributable to the Witness acquisition.
Video Intelligence Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. In our Video Intelligence
segment, revenue increased by $18.0 million, or 14%, almost entirely due to the product delivery of
an order from a major customer, partially offset by a decrease of approximately $7 million in
Ratable Method revenue due to reduced volume of arrangements for which VSOE was not established.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Video Intelligence segment
revenue decreased approximately 14%, or $20.2 million, to $127.0 million in the year ended January
31, 2009 from $147.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. Approximately 35% of the decrease
was due to lower revenue from a major customer due to the timing of installations, approximately
35% of the decrease was due to a decline in our distribution business in the APAC region, and
approximately 30% of the decrease was due to a decline in Residual Method revenue due to the global
economic downturn.
Communications Intelligence Segment
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Communications Intelligence
segment revenue decreased approximately 3%, or $6.3 million, to $183.9 million in the year ended
January 31, 2010 from $190.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The decrease was
primarily due to a decrease of approximately $33 million in Residual Method revenue associated with
customer installations partially offset by an increase of approximately $27 million in Contract
Accounting Method revenue due to work performed on certain large projects.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Communications Intelligence
segment revenue increased approximately 50%, or $63.8 million, to $190.2 million in the year ended
January 31, 2009 from $126.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The increase was due to
increased business including several
large project implementations that started during the year as well as the completion of certain
installations and work
54
performed for projects accounted for as Contract Accounting Method revenue.
Approximately 60% of the increase was due to an increase in Residual Method revenue related to the
completion of certain installations and approximately 30% of the increase was due to an increase in
Contract Accounting 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 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 audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
The following table sets forth revenue for products and service and support for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Product revenue |
|
$ |
374,272 |
|
|
$ |
365,485 |
|
|
$ |
333,130 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
10 |
% |
Service and support revenue |
|
|
329,361 |
|
|
|
304,059 |
|
|
|
201,413 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
703,633 |
|
|
$ |
669,544 |
|
|
$ |
534,543 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Revenue
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Product revenue increased
approximately 2%, or $8.8 million, to $374.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from $365.5
million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The increase was primarily a result of our Video
Intelligence segment which had a $16.9 million increase in product revenue, as well as our
Workforce Optimization segment which had an increase of $8.9 million in product revenue. These
increases were offset by a decrease of $17.0 million in product revenue in our Communication
Intelligence segment. For additional information see Revenue by Operating Segment.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Product revenue increased
approximately 10%, or $32.4 million, to $365.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from
$333.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The increase was primarily a result of our
Communication Intelligence segment which had a $47.4 million increase in product revenue, as well
as an increase of $6.6 million in our Workforce Optimization segment. These increases were offset
by a decrease of $21.6 million in product revenue in our Video Intelligence segment. For
additional information see Revenue by Operating Segment.
Service and Support Revenue
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Service and support revenue
increased approximately 8%, or $25.3 million, to $329.4 million for the year ended January 31, 2010
from $304.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. The increase was primarily in our
Workforce Optimization segment which represented $13.6 million of the total increase, as well as a
combined increase of $11.7 million in our Video Intelligence and Communications Intelligence
segments. The increase in our Workforce Optimization segment was
55
partially due to an increase in maintenance renewal revenue recognized at full value as a result of
the elimination of the impact of purchase accounting adjustments to support obligations assumed.
We recorded an adjustment reducing support obligations assumed in the Witness acquisition to their
estimated fair value at the acquisition date. As a result, as required by business combination
accounting rules, revenue related to maintenance contracts in the amount of $5.2 million that would
have been otherwise recorded by Witness as an independent entity, was not recognized in the year
ended January 31, 2009.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Service and support revenue
increased approximately 51%, or $102.7 million, to $304.1 million for the year ended January 31,
2009 from $201.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The increase was primarily in our
Workforce Optimization segment which represented $84.9 million of the total increase, as well as a
combined increase of $17.8 million in our Video Intelligence and Communications Intelligence
segments. The increase in our Workforce Optimization segment was primarily due to a full year of
Witness being included in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight
months in the year ended January 31, 2008, coupled with an increase in Witness maintenance renewal
revenue recognized at full value as a result of the reduced impact of purchase accounting
adjustments to support obligations assumed. We recorded an adjustment reducing support obligations
assumed in the Witness acquisition to their estimated fair value at the acquisition date. As a
result, as required by business combination accounting rules, revenue related to maintenance
contracts in the amount of $5.2 million and $33.9 million that would have been otherwise recorded
by Witness as an independent entity, was not recognized in the years ended January 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively.
Cost of Revenue
The following table sets forth cost of revenue by product and service and support, as well as
amortization and impairment of acquired technology for
the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Product cost of revenue |
|
$ |
131,523 |
|
|
$ |
131,638 |
|
|
$ |
121,627 |
|
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
8 |
% |
Service and support cost of revenue |
|
|
100,391 |
|
|
|
117,588 |
|
|
|
100,397 |
|
|
|
(15 |
%) |
|
|
17 |
% |
Amortization and impairment of acquired
technology |
|
|
8,021 |
|
|
|
9,024 |
|
|
|
8,018 |
|
|
|
(11 |
%) |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
$ |
239,935 |
|
|
$ |
258,250 |
|
|
$ |
230,042 |
|
|
|
(7 |
%) |
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, charges for impairments 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, in each case relating to
resources dedicated to the delivery of customized projects for which certain contracts are
accounted for under the Contract Accounting Method.
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Product cost of revenue
decreased $0.1 million to $131.5 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from $131.6 million in
the year ended January 31, 2009. Our overall product margins have increased to 65% in the year
56
ended January 31, 2010 from 64% in the year ended January 31, 2009 as a result of an increase in
revenue and change in product mix. Product margins in our Video Intelligence segment increased to
61% in the year ended January 31, 2010 from 52% in the year ended
January 31, 2009 and product margins in our Workforce Optimization segment increased to 86% in the
year ended January 31, 2010 from 84% in the year ended January 31, 2009, in each case, primarily
due to an increase in revenue coupled with a higher software component in the overall product mix.
These increases were partially offset by a decrease in product margins in our Communication
Intelligence segment to 52% in the year ended January 31, 2010 from 61% in the year ended January
31, 2009. This decrease is mainly due to increases in expenses attributable to a change in project
mix, as Residual Method revenue declined and Contract Accounting method revenue increased,
resulting in an increase in expenses relating to resources dedicated to the delivery of customized
projects and lower product margins.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Product cost of revenue
increased approximately 8% to $131.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from $121.6 million
in the year ended January 31, 2008 primarily as a result of greater product revenue in our
Communication Intelligence segment. This increase in revenue resulted in an increase in hardware
material costs as well as expenses relating to resources dedicated to the delivery of customized
projects, and included an increase in employee compensation and related expenses of $6.0 million,
an increase in consulting and contracting costs of $3.2 million, and an increase in other product
cost of revenue expenses of $0.8 million. Product costs in our Workforce Optimization segment also
increased as a result of an increase in product revenue. Product costs in our Video Intelligence
segment decreased as a result of decrease in product revenue. Our overall product margins
increased slightly as a result of higher revenue and product mix.
Service and Support Cost of Revenue
Service and support cost of revenue primarily consists 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-based compensation
expenses, facility costs, and other overhead expenses. As discussed under Impact of Our
VSOE/Revenue Recognition Policies on our Results of Operations, in accordance with GAAP and our
accounting policy, the cost of revenue associated with the services is generally expensed as
incurred in the period in which the services are performed, with the exception of certain
transactions accounted for under the Contract Accounting Method.
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Service and support cost of
revenue decreased approximately 15% to $100.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from
$117.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 primarily due to our cost-saving initiatives in
our Workforce Optimization segment. Of these expenses, employee compensation and related expenses
decreased $7.0 million, travel and lodging expenses decreased $3.4 million, stock-based
compensation expense, contractor costs, personnel, and communication expenses in the aggregate
decreased $1.7 million, and other expenses decreased $2.1 million all of which were a result of our
cost-saving initiatives. In addition in the year ended January 31, 2009 we completed certain
projects in our performance management business included in our Workforce Optimization segment,
accounted for under the Contract Accounting Method. As a result, we recognized deferred service
revenue and attributable costs of $3.0 million. Our overall service margins increased to 70% in
the year ended January 31, 2010 from 61% in the year ended January 31, 2009 due to increased
service revenue and the decrease in service expenses discussed above. Contributing to the increase
in gross margin was the fact that in certain cases expenses associated with service revenue
recognized in the current year under the Ratable Method were recorded in prior periods when the
costs were incurred. Going forward we expect a greater portion of our service revenue to be
recognized in the same period as service expenses are incurred and therefore we do not expect to
sustain this level of service margins. Service margins in our Workforce Optimization segment
increased to 73% in January 31, 2010 from 65% in the year ended January 31 2009. Service margins
in our Video Intelligence segment increased to 63% in the year ended January 31, 2010 from 54% in
the year ended January 31, 2009. Service margins in our Communications Intelligence segment
increased to 73% in the year ended January 31, 2010 from 68% in the year ended January 31, 2009.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Service and support cost of
revenue increased approximately 17% to $117.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from
$100.4 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 primarily due to a full year of Witness being
included in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight months in the
year ended January 31, 2008. Of these expenses, employee
57
compensation and related expenses
increased $8.3 million, service and support material costs increased $4.3 million,
contractor expenses increased $1.7 million, travel and lodging expenses increased $0.7 million,
stock-based compensation expense increased $0.6 million, and other expenses increased $1.6 million.
Amortization and Impairment of Acquired Technology
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Amortization and impairment
of acquired technology decreased approximately 11% to $8.0 million in the year ended
January 31, 2010 from $9.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 primarily due to the
weakening of the British pound sterling in which some of our intangible assets are denominated.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Amortization and impairment
of acquired technology increased approximately 13% to $9.0 million in the year ended
January 31, 2009 from $8.0 million in the year ended January 31, 2008, primarily due to a full year
of Witness in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 as compared to only eight months in
the year ended January 31, 2008.
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.
The following table sets forth research and development, net expense for the years ended January
31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Research and development, net |
|
$ |
83,797 |
|
|
$ |
88,309 |
|
|
$ |
87,668 |
|
|
|
(5 |
%) |
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Research and
development, net expense decreased approximately 5% to $83.8 million in the year ended January 31,
2010 from $88.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 primarily due to our cost-saving
initiatives. Of these expenses, employee compensation and related expenses decreased $1.6 million
and contractor and consultant fees decreased $4.0 million. These decreases were partially offset
by an increase in stock-based compensation of $1.1 million.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Research and development, net
expense increased approximately 1% to $88.3 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from $87.7
million in the year ended January 31, 2008. The increase reflects increases in stock-based
compensation of $2.0 million, contractors and consultants fees of $2.3 million, and other expenses
totaling $0.5 million, all of which were primarily due to a full year of Witness in our results for
the year ended January 31, 2009. These increases were offset by the absence of our special
retention program in the year ended January 31, 2009, which totaled $4.2 million in the year ended
January 31, 2008.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs and related
expenses, professional fees, sales and marketing expenses, including travel, sales commissions and
sales referral fees, facility costs, communication expenses, and other administrative expenses.
58
The following table sets forth selling, general and administrative expense for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
$ |
291,813 |
|
|
$ |
282,147 |
|
|
$ |
259,183 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Selling, general and
administrative expenses increased approximately 3% to $291.8 million in the year ended January 31,
2010 from $282.1 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 primarily due to an increase in
professional fees associated with our restatement and extended filing status and partially offset
by a decrease in other selling, general and administrative expenses. Professional fees and related
expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements through January
31, 2005 and our extended filing delay status increased by approximately $26 million to $54 million
in the year ended January 31, 2010 from approximately $28 million in the year ended January 31,
2009. We expect professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement of
previously filed financial statements through January 31, 2005 and our extended filing delay status
will decline in the year ending January 31, 2011. This increase was partially offset by a decrease
in employee compensation and related expenses of $5.2 million, a decrease in travel expenses of
$4.0 million, a decrease in communication expenses of $1.7 million, a decrease in personnel
expenses of $1.3 million, and a reduction in other expenses totaling $1.4 million all of which were
due to our cost-saving initiatives. Agent commissions decreased $2.7 million, due to decreased
revenue in our Communications Intelligence segment.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Selling, general and
administrative expenses increased approximately 9% to $282.1 million in the year ended January 31,
2009 from $259.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. Of these expenses, employee
compensation and related expenses increased $7.4 million partially due to a full year of Witness in
our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 offset by lower expenses in our Video Intelligence
segment due to a decrease in employee headcount as a result of cost-saving initiatives and the
absence of our special retention program. Other increases included an increase in stock-based
compensation expense of $2.1 million and an increase in rent and utilities expense of $2.0 million,
both of which were due to a full year of Witness in our results for the year ended January 31,
2009. Agent commissions increased $9.3 million, due to increased revenue in our Communications
Intelligence segment, and professional fees increased $4.0 million. Professional fees and related
expenses associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements through January
31, 2005 and our extended filing delay status increased by approximately $2 million to $28 million
in the year ended January 31, 2009 from approximately $26 million in the year ended January 31,
2008. These increases were offset by a decline in sales commissions of $3.2 million in
approximately equal measures in our Workforce Optimization and Video Intelligence segments, due to
a decline in customer orders received during the year, as well as other expense reductions totaling
$0.7 million.
Amortization of Other Acquired Intangible Assets
The following table sets forth amortization of other acquired intangible assets for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Amortization of other acquired intangible
assets |
|
$ |
22,268 |
|
|
$ |
25,249 |
|
|
$ |
19,668 |
|
|
|
(12 |
%) |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Amortization of other
acquired intangible assets decreased approximately 12% to $22.3 million in the year ended January
31, 2010 from $25.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 primarily due to the weakening of
the British pound sterling in which some of our intangible assets are denominated. We report amortization
of acquired trade names, customer relationships, and non-compete agreements as operating expenses.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Amortization of other
acquired intangible assets increased approximately 28% to $25.2 million in the year ended January
31, 2009 from $19.7 million in the year ended January 31, 2008 primarily due to a full year of
Witness being included in our results for the year ended January 31, 2009 compared to only eight
months in the year ended January 31, 2008.
In-Process Research and Development
In the year ended January 31, 2008, we expensed the fair value of in-process research and
development upon the date of the associated acquisition, as it represents incomplete research and
development projects that had not yet reached technological feasibility and has 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, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
In-process research and development |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. No in-process research and development charges were recorded for the
years ended January 31, 2010 or 2009.
Impairments of Goodwill and Other Acquired Intangible Assets
The following table sets forth impairments of goodwill and other acquired intangible assets for the
years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Intangible asset impairment |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,295 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,961 |
|
|
|
20,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments of goodwill and other
acquired intangible assets |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25,961 |
|
|
$ |
22,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2009. We recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $12.3 million in our
Video Intelligence segment, as we fully impaired the remaining goodwill balance in one reporting
unit in APAC, due to our decision in the fourth quarter to discontinue the development of a product
line as a result of continued decline in our distribution business in that region. We also
recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $13.7 million in our Workforce Optimization segment. The
impairment in our Workforce Optimization segment was 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
60
flow. See Note 5, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the audited consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
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 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 segment. The impairment in our Workforce Optimization segment was 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 5, Intangible Assets and Goodwill to the
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
Integration, Restructuring and Other, Net
The following table sets forth integration, restructuring and other, net for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Integration costs |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,261 |
|
|
$ |
10,980 |
|
Restructuring costs |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
5,685 |
|
|
|
3,308 |
|
Other legal costs (recoveries) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,292 |
) |
|
|
8,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration, restructuring and other, net |
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
$ |
4,654 |
|
|
$ |
22,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration and Restructuring Costs
Year Ended January 31, 2010. We incurred additional restructuring costs of $0.1 million,
consisting primarily of severance and personnel-related costs resulting from headcount reductions
and retentions made in the year ended January 31, 2009.
Year Ended January 31, 2009. 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 continued to take several actions in the year ended January 31, 2009 to
reduce fixed costs, eliminate redundancies, strengthen areas needing operational focus, and better
position us to respond to market pressures or unfavorable economic conditions. We incurred
restructuring costs of $5.7 million, consisting primarily of severance and personnel-related costs
resulting from headcount reductions and retention, due to the acquisition of Witness and the
restructuring of our Video Intelligence segment. As a result of the subsequent integration of the
Witness and Verint businesses, and our Oracle enterprise resource planning re-engineering project,
we incurred integration costs of $3.3 million, the majority of which were professional fees.
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.
61
Other Legal Costs
Year Ended January 31, 2009. On August 1, 2008, we reached a settlement agreement related to an
ongoing patent infringement litigation matter, and recorded $9.7 million in settlement gains in the
three months ended October 31, 2008. This gain was partially offset by $5.4 million of legal fees incurred during the year ended
January 31, 2009 resulting in a net recovery of $4.3 million.
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.
Other Income (Expense), Net
The following table sets forth total other income (expense), net for the years ended January 31,
2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
616 |
|
|
$ |
1,872 |
|
|
$ |
5,443 |
|
|
|
(67 |
%) |
|
|
(66 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(24,964 |
) |
|
|
(37,211 |
) |
|
|
(36,862 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
%) |
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains (losses) on investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,713 |
|
|
|
(4,713 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
%) |
|
|
(200 |
%) |
Foreign currency gains (losses), net |
|
|
(1,898 |
) |
|
|
1,645 |
|
|
|
1,431 |
|
|
|
(215 |
%) |
|
|
15 |
% |
Losses on derivatives, net |
|
|
(14,709 |
) |
|
|
(14,591 |
) |
|
|
(22,267 |
) |
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
(34 |
%) |
Other, net |
|
|
(516 |
) |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
1,782 |
|
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
(117 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(17,123 |
) |
|
|
(8,541 |
) |
|
|
(23,767 |
) |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
(64 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense), net |
|
$ |
(41,471 |
) |
|
$ |
(43,880 |
) |
|
$ |
(55,186 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
%) |
|
|
(20 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Total other income
(expense), net, decreased $2.4 million to an expense of $41.5 million in the year ended January 31,
2010, compared to an expense of $43.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2009. Interest income
decreased to $0.6 million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from $1.9 million in the year ended
January 31, 2009 primarily due to lower interest rates. Interest expense decreased to $25.0
million in the year ended January 31, 2010 from $37.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2009
due to lower interest rates during the year ended January 31, 2010. Foreign currency losses in the
year ended January 31, 2010 resulted from the strengthening U.S. dollar against the British pound sterling,
euro and Israeli shekel as compared to the foreign currency gains in the year ended January 31,
2009 resulting from the weakening U.S. dollar against the British pound sterling, euro and Israeli shekel.
In the year ended January 31, 2010, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $14.7 million. This
loss was primarily attributable to a $13.6 million loss in connection with a $450.0 million
interest rate swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit agreement. This interest
rate swap was not designated as a hedging instrument under derivative accounting guidance, and
accordingly, gains and losses from changes in the fair value were recorded in other income
(expense), net. This loss was also partially due to a $1.1 million loss on foreign currency
derivatives, which represented the realized and unrealized portions of certain foreign currency
hedges.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Total other income (expense),
net, decreased $11.3 million to an expense of $43.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2009,
compared to an expense of $55.2 million in the year ended January 31, 2008. Interest income
decreased to $1.9 million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from $5.4 million in the year ended
January 31, 2008 primarily due to lower interest rates. Interest expense increased to $37.2
million in the year ended January 31, 2009 from $36.9 million in the year ended January
62
31, 2008
due to an increase in our average debt balance year over year, offset by lower interest rates
during the year ended January 31, 2009. In the year ended January 31, 2009, our investment in ARS
with a carrying value of $2.3 million, was repurchased by our broker at par value of $7.0 million,
resulting in a gain of $4.7 million. 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.
In the year ended January 31, 2009, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $14.6 million. This
loss was primarily attributable to an $11.5 million loss in connection with a $450.0 million
interest rate swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit agreement. This interest
rate swap was not designated as a hedging instrument under derivative accounting guidance, and
accordingly, gains and losses from changes in the fair value were recorded in other income
(expense), net. This loss was also partially due to a $3.1 million loss on foreign currency
derivatives, which represented the realized and unrealized portions of our foreign currency hedges.
As of January 31, 2009, some of our foreign-currency forward contracts were not designated as
hedging instruments. Accordingly, 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.
Income Tax Provision
The following table sets forth our income tax provision for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009,
and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 - |
|
|
2009 - |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
7,108 |
|
|
$ |
19,671 |
|
|
$ |
27,729 |
|
|
|
(64 |
%) |
|
|
(29 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. Our effective tax rate
was 29.4% for the year ended January 31, 2010, as compared to (33.4)% for the year ended January
31, 2009. For the year ended January 31, 2010, our overall effective tax rate was lower than the
U.S. statutory rate because we recorded valuation allowances against our U.S. pre-tax losses,
thereby reducing the benefits we could otherwise record on such losses, while reporting an income
tax provision on income in certain foreign jurisdictions with rates lower than the U.S. statutory
rate. The rate was further impacted by non-deductible expenses and tax credits, primarily in
foreign jurisdictions. For the year ended January 31, 2009, we recorded tax expense on a
consolidated pre-tax loss resulting in a negative effective tax rate. In addition, during the year
ended January 31, 2009, we recorded valuation allowances against our U.S. pre-tax losses resulting
in no tax benefit being recorded and we incurred certain pre-tax expenses which were not deductible
for tax purposes, including the impairment of goodwill. Excluding the impact of valuation
allowances, our effective tax rate for the year ended January 31, 2010 would have been (2.6)%. A
negative effective tax rate would result because the tax benefit of U.S. pre-tax losses, taxed at
the U.S. statutory rate, exceeds the tax expense related to pre-tax income in various foreign
jurisdictions being taxed at lower rates.
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 audited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
Year Ended January 31, 2009 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2008. Our effective tax rate was
(33.4)% for the year ended January 31, 2009, as compared to (16.3)% for the year ended January 31,
2008. The effective tax rate was negative in both years due to the fact that we reported tax
expense on a consolidated pre-tax loss, primarily because we recorded a valuation allowance against
certain pre-tax losses while, at the same time, recording an income tax provision in profitable
jurisdictions. Lower pre-tax losses reported in the current year, as compared to the prior year,
coupled with the relative mix of income and losses by taxing jurisdictions with rates different
than the U.S. statutory rate and the impact of permanent book to tax differences, resulted in a
larger negative effective tax rate for the year ended January 31, 2009. The most significant
permanent difference in each year related to non-deductible goodwill impairment charges. For the
year ended January 31, 2008 we recorded valuation allowances against our U.S. deferred tax assets
resulting in the recording of tax expense. For the year ended January 31, 2009
63
we continued to
record valuation allowances against our U.S. deferred tax assets resulting in no tax benefit being
recorded in that year. These charges reduced the benefits we could record on our pre-tax
losses. Excluding the impact of valuation allowances, our effective tax rate for the year ended
January 31, 2009 would have been 17.9%, which was lower than the U.S. statutory tax rate primarily
due to income in certain foreign jurisdictions being taxed at lower rates.
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.
Results
of Operations for Three and Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 and 2009
Financial Overview
The following table sets forth summary financial information for the three and six months ended
July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Revenue |
|
$ |
180,676 |
|
|
$ |
169,269 |
|
|
$ |
353,289 |
|
|
$ |
344,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
$ |
23,799 |
|
|
$ |
13,709 |
|
|
$ |
19,817 |
|
|
$ |
49,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
attributable to Verint
Systems Inc.
common
shares |
|
$ |
7,921 |
|
|
$ |
(1,808 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,690 |
) |
|
$ |
14,564 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income (loss) per share attributable to Verint Systems Inc.: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.35 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.23 |
|
|
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.35 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Our revenue
increased approximately 7%, or $11.4 million, to $180.7 million in the three months ended July 31,
2010 from $169.3 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was due to an
increase in our Communications Intelligence and Workforce Optimization segments, partially offset
by a decrease in our Video Intelligence segment. In our Communications Intelligence segment,
revenue increased $8.7 million, or 22%, primarily due to an increase in Residual Method revenue
primarily as a result of a higher volume of projects completed during the three months ended July
31, 2010 partially offset by a decrease in both Contract Accounting Method revenue associated with
work performed on customized projects and Ratable Method revenue. In our Workforce Optimization
segment, revenue increased $6.5 million, or 7%, primarily due to the improving economic
environment. In our Video Intelligence segment, revenue decreased by $3.8 million, or 9%, due to
the product delivery of an order from a major customer in the three months ended July 31, 2009
partially offset by an increase in revenue from other customers. For more details on our revenue
by segment, see - Revenue by Operating Segment. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC
represented approximately 54%, 25%, and 21%
of our total revenue, respectively, in the three months ended July 31, 2010 compared to
approximately 55%, 24%, and 21%, respectively, in the three months ended July 31, 2009.
We had operating income of $23.8 million in the three months ended July 31, 2010 compared to
operating income of $13.7 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The increase in
operating income was due to an increase in gross profit of $10.1 million to $120.3 million from
$110.2 million which was due to an increase in revenue of $11.4 million as discussed above coupled
with an expansion in our gross margin due to a change in project mix in our Communications
Intelligence segment. The increase in gross profit was primarily due to higher
revenue and gross margin in our Communications Intelligence segment. Total operating expenses
remained constant in the three months ended July 31, 2010 as compared to the three months ended
July 31, 2009. However, employee compensation increased
$7.7 million due to an increase in headcount and salary increases. This increase was partially offset by a decrease in stock-based
compensation expense of $4.8 million primarily driven by a decrease in our stock price during the
period and its impact on certain stock-based compensation arrangements accounted for as liability
awards, and a change in the vesting date for certain performance based awards, that was estimated
in prior periods but became known during the quarter. Professional fees decreased $2.7 million
primarily due to fees associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and
our extended filing delay status totaling approximately $6.0 million in the three months ended July
31, 2010 compared to approximately $10.0 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009, as a
result of the completion of our audit and filing of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 31, 2010, and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended April 30,
July 31, and October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2010 during the three months ended July 31, 2010.
64
We had net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares of $7.9 million and diluted
income per share of $0.23 in the three months ended July 31, 2010, compared to a net loss
attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares of $1.8 million and a net loss per share of $0.06
in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The increase in our net income attributable to Verint
Systems Inc. common shares and income per share in the three months ended July 31, 2010 was due to
our higher revenue and higher gross profit as described above, as well as lower interest and other
expenses, net of $1.1 million partially offset by an increase in provisions for income taxes of
$0.3 million.
The U.S. dollar strengthened relative to the British pound sterling and Euro and weakened relative
to the Israeli shekel, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Singapore dollar, and Brazilian real,
which are the major foreign currencies in which we transact, during the three months ended July 31,
2010 compared to the three months ended July 31, 2009, resulting in an unfavorable impact on our
revenue and operating income. Had foreign exchange rates remained constant in these periods, our
total revenue would have been approximately $2.0 million higher and our total cost of revenue and
operating expenses would have been approximately $1.0 million lower, resulting in approximately
$3.0 million of higher operating income.
As of July 31, 2010, we employed approximately 2,600 personnel, including employees, part-time
employees and certain contractors, as compared to approximately 2,500 as of July 31, 2009.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Our revenue increased
approximately 3%, or $8.9 million, to $353.3 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from
$344.4 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was due to an increase in our
Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence segments, partially offset by a decrease in
our Video Intelligence segment. In our Workforce Optimization segment, revenue increased by $18.1
million, or 10%, primarily due to the improving economic environment. In our Communications
Intelligence segment, revenue increased $4.7 million, or 5%, primarily due to an increase in
Residual Method revenue primarily as a result of a higher volume of projects completed during the
six months ended July 31, 2010 partially offset by a decrease in both Contract Accounting Method
revenue primarily as a result of substantially completing our deliverables for certain large
projects during the prior fiscal year and Ratable
Method revenue. In our Video Intelligence segment, revenue decreased $14.0 million, or 17%, due
to the product delivery of an order from a major customer in the six months ended July 31, 2009
partially offset by an increase in revenue from other customers. For more details on our revenue by segment, see - Revenue by Operating Segment. Revenue in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC
represented approximately 54%, 25%, and 21% of our total revenue, respectively, in the six months
ended July 31, 2010 compared to approximately 55%, 24%, and 21%, respectively, in the six months
ended July 31, 2009.
We had operating income of $19.8 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 compared to
operating income of $49.7 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. The decrease in operating
income was primarily due to an increase in operating expense of $36.7 million to $215.3 million
from $178.6 million, partially offset by an increase in gross profit of $6.8 million to $235.1
million from $228.3 million which was almost entirely due to an increase in revenue of $8.9 million
as discussed above. The increase in gross profit was primarily due to higher revenue in our
Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence operating segments. Product margins
increased in our Communications Intelligence segment as a result of higher Residual Method revenue
associated with product delivery and installation to customers. The increase in operating expenses
was primarily due to higher professional fees and related expenses associated with our restatement
of previously filed financial statements and our extended filing delay status which totaled
approximately $26.0 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 compared to approximately $17.0
million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. During the six months ended July 31, 2010 we filed
our comprehensive annual report on Form 10-K for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006,
our annual reports on Form 10-K for the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2010, and our quarterly
reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009 and April 30,
2010. Other increases to operating expenses included an increase in stock-based compensation
expense of $5.1 million primarily due to the impact of the increase in our stock price on certain
stock-based compensation arrangements accounted for as liability awards, as well as the issuance of
restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and stock-based compensation arrangements granted
at a higher market price during the six months ended July 31, 2010, and an increase in employee
compensation of $15.6 million primarily as a result of an increase in employee headcount and salary
increases as well as the foreign currency impact as described below.
We had a net loss attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common shares of $11.7 million and a loss per
share of $0.35 in the six months ended July 31, 2010, compared to net income attributable to Verint
Systems Inc. common shares of $14.6 million and diluted income per share of $0.45 in the six months
ended July 31, 2009. The decrease in our net income attributable to Verint Systems Inc. common
shares and income per share in the six months ended July 31, 2010 was due to our lower operating
income as described above, partially offset by lower interest and other expenses, net of $2.7
million and lower provision for income taxes of $1.9 million.
The U.S. dollar strengthened relative to the British pound sterling and Euro and weakened relative
to the Israeli shekel, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Singapore dollar and Brazilian real,
which are the major foreign currencies in which we transact, during the six months ended July 31,
2010 compared to the six months ended July 31, 2009 resulting in a favorable impact on our revenues
and an unfavorable impact on our cost of revenue and our operating expenses. Had foreign exchange
rates remained constant in these periods, our total revenues would have been
approximately $3.0 million lower and our operating expenses and cost of revenue would have been
approximately $6.0 million lower, resulting in approximately $3.0 million of higher operating
income.
65
Revenue by Operating Segment
The following table sets forth revenue for each of our three operating segments for the three and
six months ended July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Workforce
Optimization |
|
$ |
94,795 |
|
|
$ |
88,289 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
191,675 |
|
|
$ |
173,603 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
Video Intelligence |
|
|
37,060 |
|
|
|
40,885 |
|
|
|
(9 |
%) |
|
|
68,605 |
|
|
|
82,563 |
|
|
|
(17 |
%) |
Communications
Intelligence |
|
|
48,821 |
|
|
|
40,095 |
|
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
93,009 |
|
|
|
88,251 |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
180,676 |
|
|
$ |
169,269 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
353,289 |
|
|
$ |
344,417 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workforce Optimization Segment
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Workforce
Optimization revenue increased approximately 7%, or $6.5 million, to $94.8 million in the three
months ended July 31, 2010 from $88.3 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The
increase was primarily due to the improving economic environment as well as an increase in our
customer base which resulted in higher service and support revenue.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Workforce Optimization
revenue increased approximately 10%, or $18.1 million, to $191.7 million in the six months ended
July 31, 2010 from $173.6 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was
primarily due to the improving economic environment as well as an increase in our customer base
which resulted in higher service and support revenue.
Video Intelligence Segment
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Video Intelligence
revenue decreased approximately 9%, or $3.8 million, to $37.1 million in the three months ended
July 31, 2010 from $40.9 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The decrease was due to
the product delivery of an order from a major customer in the three months ended July 31, 2009
partially offset by an increase in revenue from other customers.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Video Intelligence
revenue decreased approximately 17%, or $14.0 million, to $68.6 million in the six months ended
July 31, 2010 from $82.6 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. The decrease was due to
the product delivery of an order from a major customer in the six months ended July 31, 2009
partially offset by an increase in revenue from other customers.
Communications Intelligence Segment
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Communications
Intelligence revenue increased approximately 22%, or $8.7 million, to $48.8 million in the three
months ended July 31, 2010 from $40.1 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. This
increase was primarily due to an increase of approximately $12.0 million in Residual Method revenue
primarily as a result of a higher volume of projects completed during the three months ended July
31, 2010. In addition, we have established professional services VSOE in the three months ended
April 30, 2010 and maintained VSOE thereafter, thereby allowing revenue recognition upon product
delivery. This increase in revenue was partially offset by a decrease of approximately $1.0
million in Contract Accounting Method revenue associated with work performed on customized projects
and a decrease of approximately $2.0 million in Ratable Method revenue.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Communications
Intelligence revenue increased approximately 5%, or $4.7 million, to $93.0 million in the six
months ended July 31, 2010 from $88.3 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. This increase
was primarily due to an increase of approximately $19.0 million in Residual Method revenue
primarily as a result of a higher volume of projects completed during the six months ended July 31,
2010. In addition, we have established professional services VSOE in the six months ended July 31,
2010, thereby allowing revenue recognition upon product delivery. This increase in revenue was
partially offset by a decrease of approximately $13.0 million in Contract Accounting Method revenue
primarily as a result of substantially completing our deliverables for certain large projects
during the prior fiscal year and a decrease of approximately $1.0 million 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.
66
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 one or
more delivered elements, we use various available indicators of fair value and apply our best
judgment to reasonably classify the arrangements delivered revenue into product revenue and
services and support revenue.
The following table sets forth revenue for products and services and support for the three and six
months ended July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Product revenue |
|
$ |
93,103 |
|
|
$ |
88,107 |
|
|
|
6 |
% |
|
$ |
185,173 |
|
|
$ |
185,178 |
|
|
|
(0 |
%) |
Service and support
revenue |
|
|
87,573 |
|
|
|
81,162 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
168,116 |
|
|
|
159,239 |
|
|
|
6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
180,676 |
|
|
$ |
169,269 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
353,289 |
|
|
$ |
344,417 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Revenue
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Product revenue
increased approximately 6%, or $5.0 million, to $93.1 million in the three months ended July 31,
2010 from $88.1 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was in our
Communications Intelligence segment, partially offset by a decrease in our Video Intelligence
segment. For additional information see Revenue by Operating Segment.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Product revenue
remained constant at $185.2 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 and in the six months
ended July 31, 2009. Product revenue increases in our Workforce Optimization and Communications
Intelligence segments were offset by a decrease in our Video Intelligence segment. For additional
information see Revenue by Operating Segment.
Service and Support Revenue
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Service and support
revenue increased approximately 8%, or $6.4 million, to $87.6 million for the three months ended
July 31, 2010 from $81.2 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was in our
Workforce Optimization segment due to higher support revenue as well as higher professional
services revenue associated with installation and training, partially offset by decreases in our
Video Intelligence and Communications Intelligence segments. For additional information see
Revenue by Operating Segment.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Service and support
revenue increased approximately 6%, or $8.9 million, to $168.1 million for the six months ended
July 31, 2010 from $159.2 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. The increase was in our
Workforce Optimization segment due to higher support revenue as well as higher professional
services revenue associated with installation and training, partially offset by decreases in our
Video Intelligence and Communications Intelligence segments. For additional information see
Revenue by Operating Segment.
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 for the three and six months ended July 31, 2010
and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Product cost of revenue |
|
$ |
31,909 |
|
|
$ |
30,900 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
$ |
60,255 |
|
|
$ |
62,957 |
|
|
|
(4 |
%) |
Service and support
cost of revenue |
|
|
26,217 |
|
|
|
26,190 |
|
|
|
0 |
% |
|
|
53,445 |
|
|
|
49,103 |
|
|
|
9 |
% |
Amortization of
acquired technology |
|
|
2,220 |
|
|
|
1,977 |
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
4,453 |
|
|
|
4,076 |
|
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
$ |
60,346 |
|
|
$ |
59,067 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
$ |
118,153 |
|
|
$ |
116,136 |
|
|
|
2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. When revenue is
deferred, we also defer hardware material costs and third-party software royalties and
recognize those costs over the same period that the product revenue is recognized. Product cost of revenue
also includes amortization of capitalized software development costs, 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, in each case relating to resources dedicated to the delivery of customized projects for
which certain contracts are accounted for under the Contract Accounting Method.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Product cost of
revenue increased approximately 3% to $31.9 million in the three months ended July 31, 2010 from
$30.9 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Our overall product margins have increased
to 66% in the three months ended July 31, 2010 from 65% in the three months ended July 31, 2009
primarily due to an increase in product revenue in our Communication Intelligence segment which
resulted in higher absorption of overhead costs. Product margins in our Communications
Intelligence segment increased to 64% in the three months ended July 31, 2010 from 46% in the three
months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to a change in project mix, as Residual Method revenue
increased and Contract Accounting Method revenue decreased, which resulted in a decrease in product
costs attributable to work performed on customized projects accounted for under the Contract
Accounting Method. Product margins in our Workforce Optimization segment decreased to 83% in the
three months ended July 31, 2010 from 86% in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Product margins
in our Video Intelligence segment decreased to 58% in the three months ended July 31, 2010 from 64%
in the three months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to a decrease in revenue, resulting in less
absorption of overhead costs, as well as a change in product mix.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Product cost of revenue
decreased approximately 4% to $60.3 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from $63.0
million in the six months ended July 31, 2009 primarily in our Communications Intelligence segment.
Employee compensation and related expenses decreased $1.4 million and contractor expenses decreased
$4.5 million primarily as a result of less work performed on customized projects accounted for
under the Contract Accounting Method revenue in our Communications Intelligence segment. For
additional information see Revenue by Operating Segment. These decreases were partially
offset by an increase in material costs of $3.1 million primarily in our Communications
Intelligence segment as a result of higher product revenues. Our overall product margins have
increased to 68% in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from 66% in the six months ended July 31,
2009 as a result of an increase in product revenue in our Communications Intelligence segment which
resulted in higher absorption of overhead costs. Product margins in our Communications
Intelligence segment increased to 66% in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from 54% in the six
months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to a change in project mix, as Residual Method revenue
increased and Contract Accounting Method revenue decreased, which resulted in a decrease in product
costs attributable to work performed on customized projects accounted for under the Contract
Accounting Method. Product margins in our Workforce Optimization segment remained constant at 85%
in both the six months ended July 31, 2010 and the six months ended July 31, 2009. Product margins
in our Video Intelligence segment decreased to 58% in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from 65%
in the six months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to a decrease in revenue, resulting in less
absorption of overhead costs, as well as a change in product mix.
67
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-based compensation
expenses, facility costs, and other overhead expenses.
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Service and support
cost of revenue remained constant at $26.2 million in the three months ended July 31, 2010 and the
three months ended July 31, 2009. Our overall service and support margins increased to 70% in the
three months ended July 31, 2010 from 68% in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Service and
support margins increased in our Workforce Optimization and Communications Intelligence operating
segments.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Service and support
cost of revenue increased approximately 9% to $53.4 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010
from $49.1 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. Employee compensation and related
expenses increased $3.6 million primarily in our Workforce Optimization segment due to an increase
in employee headcount required in order to provide increased professional services, including
installation and training to customers, as well as salary increases. Our overall service and
support margins decreased to 68% in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from 69% in the six months
ended July 31, 2009 due to the increase in service and support expenses discussed above.
Amortization of Acquired Technology
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Amortization and
impairment of acquired technology increased approximately 12% to $2.2 million in the three months
ended July 31, 2010 from $2.0 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to an
increase in amortization expense of acquired technology associated with the Iontas acquisition.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Amortization and
impairment of acquired technology increased approximately 9% to $4.5 million in the six months
ended July 31, 2010 from $4.1 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009 primarily due to an
increase in amortization expense of acquired technology associated
with the Iontas Limited (Iontas) acquisition.
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 reimbursement 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.
The following table sets forth research and development, net for the three and six months ended
July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Research and
development, net |
|
$ |
22,049 |
|
|
$ |
20,638 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
48,481 |
|
|
$ |
39,539 |
|
|
|
23 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Research and
development, net increased approximately 7% to $22.0 million in the three months ended July 31,
2010 from $20.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Employee compensation and related
expenses increased $4.3 million primarily due to an increase in employee headcount and partially
due to salary increases which took effect during the three months ended July 31, 2010 as well as
the impact of the weakening U.S. dollar against the Israeli shekel and Canadian dollar on research
and development wages in our Israeli and Canadian research and development facilities. This
increase was partially offset by a decrease in stock-based compensation of $1.3 million primarily
driven by a decrease in our stock price during the period and its impact on certain stock-based
compensation arrangements accounted for as liability awards, and a change in the vesting date for
certain performance based awards, that was estimated in prior periods but became known during the
quarter. In addition, research and development reimbursements recorded in the period from
government programs increased $1.3 million primarily due to new programs approved by the OCS received during the quarter.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Research and
development, net increased approximately 23% to $48.5 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010
from $39.5 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. Employee compensation and related
expenses increased $9.5 million due to an increase in employee headcount, salary increases which
took effect in the six months ended July 31, 2009, higher expenses in our Communication
Intelligence segment as a result of a higher portion of employees time devoted to generic product
development rather than specific customization work for projects accounted for under the Contract
Accounting Method, as well as the impact of the weakening U.S. dollar against the Israeli shekel
and Canadian dollar on research and development wages in our Israeli and Canadian research and
development facilities. This increase was partially offset by an increase in research and
development reimbursements recorded in the period from government programs of $1.2 million
primarily due to new programs approved by the OCS received during the six months ended July 31,
2010.
68
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs and related
expenses, professional fees, sales and marketing expenses, including travel, sales commissions and
sales referral fees, facility costs, communication expenses, and other administrative expenses.
The following table sets forth selling, general, and administrative expense for the three and six
months ended July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Selling, general
and administrative |
|
$ |
69,144 |
|
|
$ |
70,258 |
|
|
|
(2 |
%) |
|
$ |
156,161 |
|
|
$ |
127,484 |
|
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Selling,
general and administrative expenses decreased approximately 2% to $69.1 million in the three months
ended July 31, 2010 from $70.3 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Stock-based
compensation decreased $3.5 million primarily driven by a decrease in our stock price during the
period and its impact on certain stock-based compensation arrangements accounted for as liability
awards, and a change in the vesting date for certain performance based awards, that was estimated
in prior periods but became known during the quarter. Professional fees decreased $2.7 million
primarily due to fees associated with our restatement of previously filed financial statements and
our extended filing delay status totaling approximately $6.0 million in the three months ended July
31, 2010 compared to approximately $10.0 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009, as a
result of the completion of our audit and filing of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 31, 2010, and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended April 30,
July 31, and October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2010 during the three months ended July 31, 2010.
These decreases were partially offset by an increase in employee compensation and related expenses
of $3.4 million, due to an increase in headcount
and salary increases which took effect during the three months ended July 31, 2010. Marketing
expenses increased $0.6 million due to our global brand awareness marketing campaign. Other
expense increases include increases in travel and entertainment expenses of $0.5 million, and
recruitment and other personnel related expenses totaling $0.6 million.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Selling, general and
administrative expenses increased approximately 22% to $156.2 million in the six months ended July
31, 2010 from $127.5 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. Professional fees increased
$13.2 million primarily due to fees associated with our restatement of previously filed financial
statements and our extended filing delay status totaling approximately $26.0 million in the six
months ended July 31, 2010 compared to approximately $17.0 million in the six months ended July 31,
2009, as a result of the completion our audit and filing of our financial statements for the prior
years. During the six months ended July 31, 2010 we filed our comprehensive annual report on Form
10-K for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, our annual reports on Form 10-K for the
years ended January 31, 2009 and 2010, and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters
ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2010. Employee compensation and
related expenses increased $6.0 million, due to an increase in headcount, as well as salary
increases which took effect during the three months ended July 31, 2010. Sales commissions
increased $1.1 million due to an increase in customer orders received during the six months ended
July 31, 2010. Stock-based compensation increased $4.0 million primarily due to the impact of the
increase in our stock price on certain stock-based compensation arrangements accounted for as
liability awards, as well as the issuance of restricted stock awards, restricted stock units and
stock-based compensation arrangements granted at a higher market price during the six months ended
July 31, 2010. Marketing expenses increased $1.5 million due to our global brand awareness
marketing campaign. Other expense increases include increases in travel and entertainment expenses
of $1.4 million and recruitment and other personnel expenses totaling $0.9 million.
Amortization of Other Acquired Intangible Assets
The following table sets forth amortization of acquisition related intangibles for the three and
six months ended July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Amortization of
other acquired
intangible
assets |
|
$ |
5,338 |
|
|
$ |
5,586 |
|
|
|
(4 |
%) |
|
$ |
10,677 |
|
|
$ |
11,516 |
|
|
|
(7 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Amortization of
other acquired intangible assets decreased approximately 4% to $5.3 million in the three months
ended July 31, 2010 from $5.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009 primarily as a result
of certain intangible assets becoming fully amortized during the year ended January 31, 2010.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Amortization of other
acquired intangible assets decreased approximately 7% to $10.7 million in the six months
ended July 31, 2010 from $11.5 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009 primarily as a result
of certain intangible assets becoming fully amortized during the year ended January 31, 2010.
69
Other Income (Expense), Net
The following table sets forth total other (expense), net for the three and six months ended July
31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
$ |
98 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
|
(18 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(5,936 |
) |
|
|
(6,369 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
%) |
|
|
(11,884 |
) |
|
|
(12,722 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income (expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency
gains (losses), net |
|
|
(935 |
) |
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
(256 |
%) |
|
|
(2,669 |
) |
|
|
(339 |
) |
|
|
687 |
% |
Gains (losses) on
derivatives, net |
|
|
(1,643 |
) |
|
|
(3,496 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
%) |
|
|
(3,346 |
) |
|
|
(7,035 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
%) |
Other, net |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
%) |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(695 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other (expense) |
|
|
(2,448 |
) |
|
|
(3,106 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
%) |
|
|
(6,146 |
) |
|
|
(8,069 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense, net |
|
$ |
(8,267 |
) |
|
$ |
(9,377 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
%) |
|
$ |
(17,830 |
) |
|
$ |
(20,546 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009. Total other
(expense), net, decreased $1.1 million to an expense of $8.3 million in the three months ended July
31, 2010, compared to an expense of $9.4 million in the three months ended July 31, 2009. Interest
expense decreased $0.5 million to $5.9 million in the three months ended July 31, 2010 from $6.4
million in the three months ended July 31, 2009 due to a decrease in our average variable interest
debt balance period to period, coupled with lower interest rates during the three months ended July
31, 2010. We recorded a $0.9 million loss on foreign currency in the three months ended July 31,
2010 compared to a $0.6 million gain in the prior year quarter. The loss in foreign currency in
the three months ended July 31, 2010 primarily resulted from the decline in the U.S. dollar against
the British pound sterling (we had a net British pound sterling) and the stronger U.S. dollar
versus the Euro (we had a net U.S. dollar payable) during the three months ended July 31, 2010.
In the three months ended July 31, 2010, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $1.6 million.
This loss was almost entirely attributable to a loss in connection with a $450.0 million interest
rate swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit agreement. This interest rate swap
was not designated as a hedging instrument under derivative accounting guidance, and accordingly,
gains and losses from changes in the fair value were recorded in other income (expense), net. On
July 30, 2010 we entered into an agreement to terminate our interest rate swap by making a $21.7
million one-time payment on August 3, 2010. In the three months ended July 31, 2009, we recorded a
net loss on derivatives of $3.5 million primarily attributable to fair value adjustments on our
interest rate swap.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009. Total other (expense),
net, decreased $2.7 million to an expense of $17.8 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010,
compared to an expense of $20.5 million in the six months ended July 31, 2009. Interest expense
decreased to $11.9 million in the six months ended July 31, 2010 from $12.7 million in the six
months ended July 31, 2009 due to a decrease in our average variable interest debt balance period
to period, coupled with lower interest rates during the six months ended July 31, 2010. We
recorded a $2.7 million loss on foreign currency in the six months ended July 31, 2010 compared to
a $0.3 million loss in the prior year quarter. The increase in foreign currency losses in the six
months ended July 31, 2010 primarily resulted from the strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the
Euro during the six months ended July 31, 2010.
In the six months ended July 31, 2010, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $3.3 million. This
loss was almost entirely attributable to a loss in connection with a $450.0 million interest rate
swap contract entered into concurrently with our credit agreement. This interest rate swap is not
designated as a hedging instrument under derivative accounting guidance, and accordingly, gains and
losses from changes in the fair value are recorded in other income (expense), net. The loss on
derivatives includes a $1.5 million loss on the interest rate swap. In the six months ended July
31, 2009, we recorded a net loss on derivatives of $7.0 million primarily attributable to fair
value adjustments on our interest rate swap.
Income Tax Provision
The following table sets forth our income tax provision for the three and six months ended July 31,
2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
|
% Change |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 - 2009 |
|
Provision for
income taxes |
|
$ |
3,141 |
|
|
$ |
2,850 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
|
$ |
5,212 |
|
|
$ |
7,118 |
|
|
|
(27 |
%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2009.
Our effective tax rate was 20.2% for the three months ended July 31, 2010, as compared to 65.8% for
the three months ended July 31, 2009. For the three months ended July 31, 2010, our overall
effective tax rate was lower than the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the mix
of income and losses by jurisdiction. We recorded an income tax provision on income from our
foreign subsidiaries taxed at rates lower than the U.S. federal statutory rate, but did not
recognize a tax benefit on losses incurred by certain domestic and foreign operations where we
maintain valuation allowances. Our effective tax rate for the three months ended July 31, 2009 was
higher than the U.S. federal statutory rate because we recorded an income tax provision on income
from certain profitable foreign subsidiaries while we did not record an income tax benefit on
losses incurred by certain domestic and foreign operations where we maintain valuation allowances.
The comparison of our effective tax rate between periods is significantly impacted by the level and
mix of earnings and losses by taxing jurisdiction, foreign income tax rate differentials, relative
impact of permanent book to tax differences, the effects of the valuation allowances on certain
loss jurisdictions, and discrete items that occur within the period.
Six Months Ended July 31, 2010 compared to Six Months Ended July 31, 2009.
Our effective tax rate was 262.3% for the six months ended July 31, 2010, as compared to 24.4% for
the six months ended July 31, 2009. For the six months ended July 31, 2010, our overall effective
tax rate was higher than the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the mix of income
and losses by jurisdiction. In addition, we maintain valuation allowances and did not record
significant income tax expense or income tax benefit in the United States, but recorded an income
tax provision on income from our foreign subsidiaries. Our effective tax rate for the six months
ended July 31, 2009 was lower than the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the mix
of earnings and losses by jurisdiction. We recorded an income tax provision on income from
certain profitable foreign subsidiaries at rates lower than the U.S. statutory rate while we did
not record an income tax benefit on losses incurred by certain domestic and foreign operations
where we maintain valuation allowances. The comparison of our effective tax rate between periods
is impacted by the level and mix of earnings and losses by taxing jurisdiction, which is
particularly evident for the six months ended July 31, 2010 as we recorded an income tax provision
of $5.2 million on pre-tax income of $2.0 million. Other factors, including foreign income tax
rate differentials, relative impacts of permanent book to tax differences, and the effects of
valuation allowances on certain loss jurisdictions, also impact the comparability of the income tax
provision between periods.
70
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Overview
Prior to the year ended January 31, 2008, our primary source of liquidity was 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, in connection with the
Witness acquisition in May 2007, we entered into a credit agreement pursuant to which we borrowed
$650.0 million under a term loan facility (approximately $66.8 million of which was repaid through July
31, 2010) and under which we currently have a $75.0 million revolving line of credit ($15.0 million of
which was outstanding as of July 31, 2010). See Liquidity and Capital
Resources Requirements below for additional information regarding our credit agreement. We also
issued 293,000 shares of preferred stock at an aggregate purchase price of $293.0 million in
connection with the Witness acquisition.
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
capital expenditures. Beginning in the year ended January 31, 2008, uses of cash have also
included interest payments and debt repayments.
We have recently reported negative working capital (current liabilities in excess of current
assets), due largely to the impact of the change in balance of our deferred revenue. Because
deferred revenue is not a cash-settled liability, working capital in this case may not be a
meaningful indicator of our liquidity. We believe our liquidity is better measured and assessed
by our operating cash flow.
The following table sets forth, for the years ended January 31, 2010 and 2009, cash and cash
equivalents, and other funded sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
184,335 |
|
|
$ |
115,928 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock (at carrying value) |
|
$ |
285,542 |
|
|
$ |
285,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
$ |
598,234 |
|
|
$ |
620,912 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, 2010 compared to Year Ended January 31, 2009. At January 31, 2010, our
cash and cash equivalents totaled $184.3 million, an increase of $68.4 million as compared to our
January 31, 2009 balance. Our total short and long-term debt decreased during this same period by
$4.1 million as a result of a debt repayment made in May 2009. This net increase in cash is due to
our improved operating performance primarily as a result of our cost-saving initiatives.
The
following table sets forth, as of July 31, 2010 and January 31, 2010, cash and cash
equivalents, preferred stock and long-term debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 31, |
|
|
January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
128,199 |
|
|
$ |
184,335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock (at carrying value) |
|
$ |
285,542 |
|
|
$ |
285,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
$ |
598,234 |
|
|
$ |
598,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At
July 31, 2010, our cash and cash equivalents were
$128.2 million, a decrease of $56.1
million from January 31, 2010. A significant portion of this
decrease resulted from $22.7 million of principal payments on our
debt, $15.3 million paid for the acquisition of Iontas, and $15.8
million of payments made upon vesting of cash-settled equity awards
($13.5 million higher than in the prior-year period) during this
six-month period. This decrease also includes $9.7 million of higher
restricted cash and bank time deposits, which is reported as an
investing use of cash. Partially offsetting these uses of cash was
$11.7 million of proceeds from exercises of stock options. Further
discussion of these items appears below.
71
Statements of Cash Flows
The following table summarizes selected items from our statements of cash flows for the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended January 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities |
|
$ |
100,837 |
|
|
$ |
53,635 |
|
|
$ |
(299 |
) |
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(24,599 |
) |
|
|
(26,247 |
) |
|
|
(851,733 |
) |
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
(10,491 |
) |
|
|
11,888 |
|
|
|
885,017 |
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
2,660 |
|
|
|
(6,581 |
) |
|
|
923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
68,407 |
|
|
$ |
32,695 |
|
|
$ |
33,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes selected items from our condensed consolidated statements of
cash flows for the six months ended July 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended July 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
5,512 |
|
|
$ |
52,180 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(41,417 |
) |
|
|
(11,411 |
) |
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(18,863 |
) |
|
|
(8,332 |
) |
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(1,368 |
) |
|
|
5,349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
(56,136 |
) |
|
$ |
37,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities
Prior to the year ended January 31, 2008, we historically had positive cash provided by operating
activities as our cash collections from operations exceeded our costs. In the year ended January
31, 2008, we made payments as a result of 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 resulted in a $0.3 million use of
cash in our operating activities in the year ended January 31, 2008. In the year ended January 31,
2009, due to our improved operating performance reflecting higher revenue and operating margins
versus the prior year, our operating activities returned to a positive cash flow position of $53.6
million. This improvement occurred despite increasing expenses related to restatements and our
extended filing delay status during the year ended January 31, 2009. In the year ended January 31,
2010, our operating performance further improved to $100.8 million, primarily due to our
cost-saving initiatives.
Operating
activities generated $100.8 million of cash in the year ended January 31, 2010,
compared to $53.6 million in the prior year. This $47.2 million increase is primarily due to our
improved operating performance for the year ended January 31, 2010, during which we
generated operating income of $65.7 million, compared to an operating loss of $15.0 million in
the prior year. Lower expenses, largely due to lower staff levels and other cost reduction
initiatives, improved our operating cash flow. In addition, payments for professional fees and
interest on debt were approximately $14 million and $12 million lower, respectively, in the year
ended January 31, 2010, compared to the prior year.
During the year ended January 31, 2009, we generated $53.6 million of operating cash flow, an
increase of $53.9 million compared to a $0.3 million deficit in the prior year. The increase in
the year ended January 31, 2009, compared to the prior year, resulted primarily from higher
revenues and operating margins, which reduced our operating loss. These improvements drove
higher collections from customers, which outpaced more modest increases in payments for
expenses.
72
Operating activities generated $5.5 million of cash during the six months ended July 31, 2010,
compared to $52.2 million in the same period of the prior year. Our operating cash flow in the
current six-month period was adversely impacted by several factors. Payments of professional
fees and related costs associated with the completion and filing of our financial statements for
the prior years were approximately $32 million higher in this period compared to the prior-year
period. During the six months ended July 31, 2010 we filed our comprehensive Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the years ended January 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, our Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2010, and our Quarterly Reports on Form
10-Q for the quarters ended April 30, July 31, and October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2010. In
addition, payments made upon vesting of cash-settled equity awards, the amount of which is
dependent upon our stock price on the vesting date, were $13.5 million higher in the current six-month period compared to the prior years six-month period, resulting primarily from from an
increase in our stock price. Payments for compensation and benefits were also higher in the
current six-month period, compared to the prior year period, reflecting the combination of an
increase in headcount, salary increases, and higher benefit costs per employee.
Net Cash Used by Investing Activities
During the year ended January 31, 2010, our investing activities used $24.6 million primarily due
to settlements of derivative financial instruments not designated as hedges of $19.4 million and
capital expenditures of $5.0 million.
During the year ended January 31, 2009, our investing activities used $26.2 million in cash,
primarily resulting from $10.0 million of payments to settle derivative financial instruments not
designated as hedges, and capital expenditures of $11.1 million.
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 six months ended July 31, 2010, we used $41.4 million of cash in investing activities,
including $15.3 million of net cash utilized to acquire Iontas, and $12.0 million for settlements of
derivative financial instruments not designated as hedges. We also increased our restricted cash
and bank time deposit balances by $9.7 million during this period, primarily reflecting short-term
deposits to secure bank guarantees in connection with sales contracts. In addition, we made $4.4
million of payments for property, equipment, and capitalized software development costs during
this six-month period.
Investing activities utilized $11.4 million of cash during the six months ended July 31, 2009,
including $8.3 million of settlements of derivative financial instruments not designated as hedges,
and $3.3 million of payments for property, equipment, and capitalized software development
costs.
Currently, we have no significant commitments for capital expenditures.
73
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities
During the year ended January 31, 2010, we used $10.5 million in cash from financing activities,
resulting from repayments of borrowings and other financing obligations of $6.1 million and $4.1
million of dividends paid to the noncontrolling stockholders of our joint venture.
During the year ended January 31, 2009, we generated $11.9 million in cash from financing
activities, primarily reflecting $15.0 million of proceeds from borrowings under our revolving
credit facility.
During the year ended January 31, 2008, we generated $885.0 million in cash from financing
activities, reflecting $650.0 million of proceeds from borrowings under our new term loan and
$293.0 million of proceeds from issuance of convertible preferred stock to Comverse, partially
offset by $42.5 million of repayments of long-term debt and payment of $13.6 million of debt
issuance costs.
During the six months ended July 31, 2010, we used $18.9 million of cash in financing activities.
Financing activities during this period included $22.7 million in repayments of financing
arrangements, the largest portion of which was a $22.1 million excess cash flow payment on
our term loan in May 2010. We also acquired $4.1 million of treasury stock from directors and
officers during this period, for purposes of providing funds for the recipients obligation to pay
associated income taxes upon vesting of stock awards. In addition, we paid $3.7 million of fees
and expenses related to our credit agreement during this period, $3.5 million of which was
consideration for amendments to the agreement. Partially offsetting these uses of cash was $11.7
million of proceeds from exercises of stock options. Following the completion of certain
delayed SEC filings, stock option holders were permitted to exercise vested stock options. Stock
option exercises had been suspended during our extended filing delay period.
Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements
Based on past performance and current expectations, we believe that our cash and cash equivalents,
and cash generated from operations will be sufficient to meet anticipated operating costs, 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 cash 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 service 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 continued to incur significant professional fees and costs through the first
half of 2010 and expect to incur some related expenses in the second half of the year.
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 credit agreement providing a $650.0 million term loan and a
$25.0 million revolving credit facility with a group of banks to fund a portion of the acquisition
of Witness. The $25.0 million revolving credit facility was effectively reduced to $15.0 million in September
2008 (in connection with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the related subsequent
termination of its revolving commitment under the credit agreement in June 2009), and then later
increased to $75.0 million in July 2010.
Also in July 2010, we amended the credit agreement to, among other things, (i) change the
method of calculation of the applicable interest rate margin to be based on our consolidated
leverage ratio from time to time, (ii) add a 1.50% LIBOR floor, (iii) increase the aggregate amount
of incremental revolving commitment and term loan increases permitted under the credit agreement
from $50.0 million to $200.0 million, and (iv) make certain changes to the negative covenants,
including providing covenant relief with respect to the permitted consolidated leverage ratio.
Unless the context otherwise requires, references herein to our credit agreement are to the credit
agreement as amended through the date of this prospectus; the description of the credit agreement
in this prospectus is qualified in its entirety by reference to the credit agreement and the
amendments thereto, copies of which are filed as exhibits to the registration statement of which
this prospectus is a part.
As of
July 31, 2010 our outstanding term loan balance under the credit
agreement was approximately $583.2 million. We borrowed
$15.0 million under the revolving
74
credit
facility in November 2008, which loan remained outstanding at
January 31, 2010 and July 31,
2010, and accordingly we had $60.0 million remaining availability thereunder at July 31, 2010. Our
ability to borrow under the revolving credit facility is dependent upon certain conditions,
including the absence of any material adverse effect or change on our business as defined in the
credit agreement. The term loan matures on May 25, 2014, and the revolving credit facility matures
on May 25, 2013.
The credit agreement requires mandatory prepayment of the term loan with the net cash proceeds
of certain asset sales (to the extent such net cash proceeds are not otherwise reinvested in assets
useful in our business) and, on an annual basis, a percentage of excess cash flow that ranges from
0% to 50% depending on our consolidated leverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement). It
also requires periodic amortization payments of the term loan. We made an excess cash flow
payment of $22.1 million in May 2010 (in respect of our fiscal year ended January 31, 2010) and
an amortization payment of $0.6 million in February 2010. Our next amortization payment (of
$1.5 million) is due May 1, 2012. We expect our cash liquidity to be sufficient to fund all term
loan payments required during the next 12 months.
The credit agreement contains one financial covenant that requires us to meet each quarter 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,
amortization of intangibles, 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, 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
and for the quarterly periods ended January 31, April 30 and
July 31, 2010, the consolidated leverage ratio
could not exceed 3.50:1, and we were in compliance with such
requirements as of such dates. At July 31, 2010, our consolidated
leverage ratio was 2.6:1 versus a permitted consolidated leverage
ratio of 3.50:1, which implies that our EBITDA for the period then
ended exceeded the requirement of the covenant by at least $52.0
million.
For the quarterly periods ending October 31, 2010, January 31, April 30, July
31, and October 31, 2011, the consolidated leverage ratio cannot exceed 3.50:1. For the quarterly
periods ending January 31, 2012 and thereafter, the consolidated leverage ratio cannot exceed
3.00:1.
In addition, we are subject to a number of other restrictive covenants under the credit agreement,
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 sales and leasebacks, enter new lines of business, provide negative
pledges, enter into transactions with related parties, and enter into speculative hedges, although
there are limited exceptions to many of these covenants. The credit agreement also contains a
number of affirmative covenants, including a requirement that we submit consolidated financial
statements to the lenders within certain periods after each fiscal year and quarter. In April
2010, we entered into an amendment to the credit agreement to extend the due date for delivery of
audited consolidated financial statements and related documentation for the year ended January 31,
2010. In consideration for this amendment, we paid approximately $0.9 million. In the future, if
we are unable to comply with any of the requirements in the credit agreement and are unable to
obtain an amendment or waiver of those requirements, an event of default could occur which could
cause or permit holders of the debt thereunder 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 on reasonable
terms, or at all. See Risk FactorsRisks Related to Our Capital Structure and FinancesWe
incurred significant indebtedness in connection with our acquisition of Witness, which makes us
highly leveraged, subjects us to restrictive covenants, and could adversely affect our operations
for a description of certain risks arising because of our debt under the credit agreement.
Prior to amendment of our credit agreement in July 2010, the applicable interest rate margin on our
loans was determined by reference to our corporate ratings and twice increased (each time by 25
basis points) due to our failure to deliver certain audited financial statements and lack of
corporate ratings (both resulting from the restatement process). The applicable margin accordingly
was reduced by 50 basis points in June 2010 when we delivered the required financial statements and
obtained corporate ratings. Since entering into an amendment of the credit agreement in July 2010,
the applicable margin has been determined by reference to our consolidated leverage ratio. See
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market RiskCredit Agreement for more information
about the determination of the applicable margin.
75
Contractual Obligations
At January 31, 2010, 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 |
|
$ |
741,632 |
|
|
$ |
65,884 |
|
|
$ |
98,137 |
|
|
$ |
577,611 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Operating lease obligations |
|
|
46,173 |
|
|
|
12,536 |
|
|
|
20,988 |
|
|
|
9,994 |
|
|
|
2,655 |
|
Purchase obligations |
|
|
33,827 |
|
|
|
32,756 |
|
|
|
1,071 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,700 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual obligations |
|
$ |
823,332 |
|
|
$ |
111,776 |
|
|
$ |
121,296 |
|
|
$ |
587,605 |
|
|
$ |
2,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The long-term debt obligations reflected above include projected interest payments over the term of
the debt, assuming an interest rate of 3.49%, which was the interest rate in effect for both our
term loan and revolving credit agreement borrowings as of January 31, 2010. The terms of our
long-term debt obligations are further discussed in Note 6, Long-Term Debt to the audited
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. 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, 2010. As described above under Liquidity and Capital
Resources Requirements, in July 2010, our credit agreement was modified with respect to, among
other things, the calculation of interest expense on borrowings under the agreement. Also in July
2010, we entered into an agreement to terminate our interest rate swap, by making a $21.7 million
one-time payment on August 3, 2010. The impact of these transactions increased our long-term debt
obligations, including interest, as presented in the table above, by less than 10%.
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, 2010 includes $25.7 million of non-current tax
reserves, net of related benefits (including interest and penalties of $7.1 million, net of federal
benefit) for uncertain tax positions. 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.
As described elsewhere in this Liquidity and Capital Resources
section, there were material changes to certain of our contractual obligations and commercial
commitments subsequent to January 31, 2010, including two amendments to our credit agreement.
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 these facilities.
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, 2010, we had approximately $7.4 million of outstanding letters of credit and surety
bonds relating to these performance guarantees. As of July 31, 2010 and January 31, 2010, we
believe we were in compliance with our performance obligations under all contracts for which there
is a financial
76
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.
As of
July 31, 2010, we do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that we believe have or are
reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in
financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures
or capital resources that are material to investors. There were no material changes in our
off-balance sheet arrangements since January 31, 2010.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Standards Implemented:
In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB), revised their guidance on
business combinations. This new guidance requires an acquiring entity to measure and recognize
identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed, and contingent consideration at their fair
value at the acquisition date with subsequent changes recognized in earnings. In addition,
acquisition related costs and restructuring costs are recognized separately from the business
combination and expensed as incurred. The new guidance also requires acquired in-process research
and development costs to be capitalized as an indefinite-lived intangible asset and requires that
changes in accounting for deferred tax asset valuation allowances and acquired income tax
uncertainties after the measurement period be recognized as a component of the provision for income
taxes. In April 2009, the FASB issued a new standard which clarified the accounting for
pre-acquisition contingencies. This guidance was effective for us beginning on February 1, 2009.
For further discussion see Note 4, Business Combinations to the audited consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
In December 2007, the FASB issued a new accounting standard which establishes accounting and
reporting standards for ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent,
the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and the noncontrolling interest,
changes in a parents ownership interest and the valuation of retained noncontrolling equity
investments when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. The new standard also establishes disclosure
requirements that clearly identify and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the
interests of the noncontrolling owners. On February 1, 2009, we adopted this standard, and the
presentation and disclosure requirements of this standard were applied retrospectively to all
periods presented, as required by the standard. The adoption of this standard did not have a
material impact on our consolidated financial statements, other than the following changes in
presentation of the noncontrolling interest:
|
|
|
Net income (loss) now includes net income (loss) attributable to both Verint Systems
Inc. and the noncontrolling interest in the consolidated statements of operations. The
presentation of net income (loss) in prior periods excluded the noncontrolling interest in
the net income of our joint venture. Net income (loss) excluding the noncontrolling
interest in the net income of our joint venture is now presented after net income (loss),
with the caption net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems Inc. |
77
|
|
|
The noncontrolling interest, which was previously reflected in other liabilities, is now
presented in stockholders equity (deficit), separate from Verint Systems Inc.s
stockholders equity (deficit), in the consolidated balance sheets. |
|
|
|
|
The consolidated statements of cash flows now begin with net income (loss), including
the noncontrolling interest, instead of net income (loss) attributable to Verint Systems
Inc. |
In March 2008, the FASB amended the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging
activities. This new guidance requires enhanced disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses
derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for,
and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entitys financial position,
financial performance, and cash flows. This guidance was effective for us beginning on February 1,
2009. For further discussion, see Note 13, Fair Value Measurements and Derivative Financial
Instruments to the audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus.
In April 2009, the FASB issued staff positions that require enhanced fair value disclosures,
including interim disclosures, on financial instruments; determination of fair value in turbulent
markets; and recognition and presentation of other than temporary impairments. These staff
positions were effective beginning with our quarter ended July 31, 2009. These staff positions
will enhance our interim disclosures but will not have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements.
In May 2009, the FASB issued a standard that establishes general standards of accounting for and
disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are
issued. In February 2010, the FASB issued an amendment to this guidance that removed the
requirement for an SEC filer to disclose a date through which subsequent events have been evaluated
in both issued and revised financial statements. The adoption of this standard, as amended, did
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
During the third quarter of the year ended 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.
In June 2009, the FASB issued a new accounting standard related to the consolidation of variable
interest entities, requiring 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. This standard 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. The standard may be applied
retrospectively to previously issued financial statements with a cumulative-effect adjustment to
retained earnings as of the beginning of the first year restated. This standard was effective for
us for the fiscal year beginning on February 1, 2010. The adoption of this standard did not have a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
In January 2010, the FASB issued amended standards that require additional fair value disclosures.
These disclosure requirements are effective in two phases. The initial phase, effective for us as
of February 1, 2010, requires enhanced disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques used to
measure fair value as well as disclosures about significant transfers. The adoption of this
standard did not have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. The
second phase, effective for us as of February 1, 2011, is further discussed below.
New Standards to be Implemented:
In October 2009, the FASB issued guidance that applies to multiple-deliverable revenue
arrangements. This guidance also provides principles and application guidance on whether a revenue
arrangement contains multiple
78
deliverables, how the arrangement should be separated, and how the arrangement consideration should
be allocated. The guidance requires an entity to allocate revenue in a multiple-deliverable
arrangement using estimated selling prices of the deliverables if a vendor does not have VSOE 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.
Also in October 2009, the FASB issued guidance related to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements
that contain both software and hardware elements, focusing on determining which revenue
arrangements are within the scope of existing software revenue guidance. This additional guidance
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. This
revenue recognition guidance, and the guidance discussed in the
preceding paragraph, 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 permitted. Alternatively, an entity can elect to adopt the provisions of these
issues on a retrospective basis. We are assessing the impact that the application of this new
guidance, and the guidance discussed in the previous paragraph, may have on our consolidated financial statements.
In January 2010, the FASB issued amended standards that require additional fair value disclosures.
These disclosure requirements are effective in two phases. The initial phase, as previously
discussed, was effective for us in our fiscal year beginning February 1, 2010. The second phase,
effective for us as of February 1, 2011, will require presentation of disaggregated activity within
the reconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). We
are assessing the impact that the application of this new guidance may have on our consolidated
financial statements.
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
Borrowings under our term loan and revolving credit facilities bear interest at a rate of either,
at our election, (a) the highest of (i) the prime rate, (ii) the federal funds rate plus 0.50%, and
(iii) one-month LIBOR (subject to a 1.50% floor) plus 1.00%, or (b) LIBOR (subject to a 1.50%
floor), plus, in either case, an applicable interest rate margin. In the case of base rate
borrowings, 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. As described in
more detail above under Liquidity and Capital Resources Requirements, prior to its amendment in
July 2010, the applicable margin under the credit agreement was determined by reference to our
corporate ratings and twice increased due to failure to deliver certain audited financial
statements and lack of corporate rating and subsequently decreased when we delivered the required
financial statements and obtained corporate ratings. Since July 2010, the applicable margin has
been determined by reference to our consolidated leverage ratio as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Rate |
|
Eurodollar |
|
|
Consolidated Leverage Ratio |
|
Loans |
|
Loans |
Category 1 |
|
Greater than 3:00:1:00 |
|
|
3.25 |
% |
|
|
4.25 |
% |
Category 2 |
|
Greater than 2:75:1:00 but less
than or equal to 3:00:1:00 |
|
|
3.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Rate |
|
Eurodollar |
|
|
Consolidated Leverage Ratio |
|
Loans |
|
Loans |
Category 3 |
|
Greater than 2:50:1:00 but less
than or equal to 2:75:1:00 |
|
|
2.75 |
% |
|
|
3.75 |
% |
Category 4 |
|
Less than or equal to 2:50:1:00 |
|
|
2.50 |
% |
|
|
3.50 |
% |
Interest Rate Risk on Our Debt
Because the interest rates applicable to borrowings under the credit agreement 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 paid
fixed interest at 5.18% and received variable interest of three-month LIBOR on a notional amount of
$450.0 million. In July 2010, we terminated this swap prior to its May 2011 maturity and paid
approximately $21.7 million to the counterparty on August 3,
2010, representing the approximate present value of the
expected remaining quarterly settlement payments that otherwise were to have been due from us
thereafter.
This interest rate swap was not designated as a hedging instrument under applicable accounting
guidance and has been 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,
whether realized or unrealized, are reported in other income
(expense), net. For the three and six months ended
July 31, 2010 and the year ended January 31, 2010, we recorded losses on this instrument of
approximately $1.5 million, $3.1 million and $13.6 million, respectively, in other income (expense), net on the
consolidated statements of operations. These losses reflect the decline in market interest rates
during these periods.
Giving
effect to the termination of the swap and based on $598.2 million of borrowings outstanding
under the credit agreement at July 31, 2010, but not giving effect to the floor on interest rates
arising because of the LIBOR floor and interest rate margin applicable to borrowings under our
credit agreement, if the interest rate changed by 1.00%, the annual interest expense on the
borrowings would change by approximately $6.0 million.
Investments
We invest in cash, cash equivalents, and bank time deposits. 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
July 31, 2010, January 31, 2010, and January 31, 2009, we had cash and cash equivalents
totaling approximately $128.2 million, $184.3 million, and $115.9 million, respectively, consisting
of demand deposits and bank time deposits having maturities of three months or less. At such dates
we also held $14.9 million, $5.2 million, and $7.7 million, respectively, of cash equivalents which
were restricted and were not
available for general operating use. These balances primarily
represent short-term deposits to secure bank guarantees in connection
with sales contracts. The amounts of these deposits can vary
depending upon the terms of the underlying contracts.
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,
2011, average short-term interest rates increase or decrease by 50 basis points relative to average
rates realized during the year ended January 31, 2010. Such a change would cause our projected
interest income from cash, cash equivalents, and bank time deposits to increase or decrease by
80
approximately $0.9 million, assuming a similar level of investments in the year ended January 31,
2011 as in the year ended January 31, 2010.
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 3, Investments to the audited consolidated financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus for more information regarding our short-term investments.
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 (deficit).
Our international operations subject us to risks associated with currency fluctuations. While most
of our revenue and expenses are denominated in U.S. dollars, we do have a significant portion of
our operating expenses, primarily labor expenses, that is denominated in the local currencies where
our foreign operations are located, primarily Israel, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. We
also generate some of our revenue in foreign currencies, mainly the
British pound sterling and euro. 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 transact.
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 $0.9
million and $2.7 million of net losses in the three and six months
ended July 31, 2010, respectively, $1.9 million of net losses in the year ended January 31, 2010, $1.6
million of net gains in the year ended January 31, 2009, and $1.4 million of net gains in the year
ended January 31, 2008.
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 approximately six months or less. Our 50% owned joint venture in Singapore enters
into foreign currency forward contracts in an effort to reduce the volatility of cash flows
primarily related to forecasted U.S. dollar denominated accounts payable payments. These contracts
are limited to durations of approximately one year or less. We have not entered into any foreign
currency forward contracts for trading or speculative purposes.
During the
three and six months ended July 31, 2010, we recorded no realized gains or losses on
settlements of foreign currency forward contracts not designated as hedges. For the years ended
January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we realized net losses of $2.6 million, net gains of $2.1 million
and net gains of $1.8 million, respectively, on settlements of foreign currency forward contracts
not designated as hedges. Net unrealized gains on outstanding foreign
currency forward contracts were not significant as of July 31,
2010, with notional amounts totaling $57.5 million. We
had $0.5 million of net unrealized losses on outstanding foreign currency forward contracts as of
January 31, 2010, with notional amounts totaling $50.4 million. We had $1.9 million of net
unrealized losses on outstanding foreign currency forward contracts as of January 31, 2009, with
notional amounts totaling $35.9 million.
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all of our foreign exchange derivatives as of January 31,
2010. 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 $4.7 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 $5.7 million.
81
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.
82
BUSINESS
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 Actionable
Intelligence 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 solutions are vital to government and commercial organizations in their efforts to
protect people and property and neutralize terrorism and crime.
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. Our innovative solutions are developed by approximately 800 employees in
research and development, representing approximately one-third of our total employees, and are
evidenced by more than 480 patents and patent applications worldwide. We offer a range of customer
services, from initial implementation to ongoing maintenance and support, to maximize the value our
customers receive from our Actionable Intelligence solutions and allow us to extend our customer
relationships.
Headquartered in Melville, New York, we support our customers around the globe directly and with an
extensive network of selling and support partners.
Our
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.
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.
83
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 initial public offering (IPO), and,
as of September 15, 2010, Comverse held
approximately a 63.5% beneficial ownership position in us assuming conversion of all of our
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. 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,
a privately held provider of desktop analytics solutions. 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.
Our Strengths
Workforce Optimization
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our market leadership
in the workforce optimization market:
|
|
|
Comprehensive, unified suite of workforce optimization applications. A core part of our
product strategy has been to tightly integrate our workforce optimization applications. Our
comprehensive unified suite of workforce optimization applications offers many advantages,
in terms of both functionality and total cost of ownership, and we believe that this
approach helps further differentiate us in the workforce optimization market. |
|
|
|
|
Advanced customer interaction analytics. We were an early innovator of speech analytics
for call centers and today we offer the market an advanced suite of customer interaction
analytics, which includes speech, data, and customer feedback solutions. We believe that
these solutions are attractive to a broad set of customers, enabling them to better
understand workforce performance, the customer experience, and the factors underlying
important business trends. |
|
|
|
|
Compelling Workforce Optimization solutions for back-office and branch operations.
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. We believe that enterprises are
interested in deploying workforce optimization solutions outside the contact center to
enable the same type of performance measurement and improvement that has historically been
available to contact centers and have built a portfolio of solutions specifically for this
opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
Focus on delivering best-in-class customer service. A core part of our strategy is to
help enable our customers to derive maximum value from our Actionable Intelligence
solutions. We believe that a combination of our unified Workforce Optimization solutions
and our focus on customer service has been a major factor in our success. |
84
|
|
|
Strong OEM partner relationships. We have increased our focus on our OEM and other
distribution partners, which is a core element of our go-to-market strategy. We believe
that this investment has strengthened our relationships with our partners, expanded our
market coverage and provided our customers with tighter integration of certain third-party
solutions. |
Video Intelligence
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our market leadership
in the video intelligence business:
|
|
|
Broad IP video portfolio. 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. Our broad portfolio enables organizations to deploy an end-to-end IP video solution
with analytics or evolve to IP video solutions over time, enabling organizations to
generate Actionable Intelligence from video and related data. |
|
|
|
|
Open platform. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Ability to help our customers cost effectively migrate to networked IP Video. While the
security market is evolving to networked IP video solutions, many organizations have
already made significant investments in analog technology. Our Nextiva solutions help our
customers to cost-effectively migrate to networked IP video without discarding their
existing analog CCTV investments. |
Communications Intelligence
We believe that the following competitive strengths will enable us to sustain our market leadership
in the communications intelligence business:
|
|
|
Broad portfolio. Our broad Communications Intelligence portfolio enables solutions for
communications interception, service provider compliance, mobile location tracking, fusion
and data management, Web intelligence, and tactical communications intelligence. Our broad
Communications Intelligence portfolio is designed to handle massive amounts of unstructured
and structured information from different sources (including fixed and mobile networks, IP
networks, and the Internet), can quickly make sense of complex scenarios, and generates
evidence and intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
Highly scalable solutions for a broad range of communications. Our 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. Our
solutions can process very large amounts of information enabling 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. |
|
|
|
|
High quality long-term customer relationships. We have security customers around the
world, including large and sophisticated government organizations, as well as commercial
companies that are leaders in their respective markets. We have long-term relationships
with many of these customers that allow us to gain insight into their challenges and
develop new security solutions for a broader set of customers. |
Our Strategy
Our strategy to further enhance our position as a leading provider of enterprise workforce
optimization and security intelligence solutions worldwide includes the following key elements:
|
|
|
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 |
85
|
|
|
intelligence from unstructured data. 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 investments in research and development,
protect our intellectual property through patents and other means and maintain a regular
dialog with our customer base in order to understand their business objectives and
requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Continue to expand our market presence through OEM and partner relationships. We have
expanded our relationships with OEMs and other channel partners. We believe that these
relationships broaden our market coverage and we intend to continue expanding our existing
relationships while creating new ones. |
|
|
|
|
Augment our organic growth with acquisitions. 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 doing so in the future
when strategic opportunities arise. |
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 IP and TDM voice
recording, quality monitoring, speech and data analytics, workforce management, customer feedback,
eLearning and coaching, performance management, and desktop process analytics. These applications
can be deployed stand-alone or in an integrated fashion.
The Workforce Optimization Market and Trends
We believe that customer service is 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 that organizations seek workforce
optimization solutions that enable them to strike a balance among 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 email. As a result,
organizations historically based their customer service-related business decisions on a fraction of
the information available to them.
We believe that customer-centric organizations today seek unified, innovative 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 workforce optimization suite that
includes call recording and quality monitoring, speech and data analytics, workforce management,
customer feedback, performance
86
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.
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 and process analytics, 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 VoIP Technologies
Many enterprises are replacing their contact centers legacy voice (TDM) infrastructures with VoIP
telephony infrastructure. These upgrades typically require new deployments of workforce
optimization solutions that are designed to support IP or hybrid TDM/IP environments.
87
Our Enterprise Workforce Optimization Solutions 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. |
|
|
|
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 solutions
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
and call-content 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 and Process Analytics
|
|
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 |
88
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
|
|
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. |
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 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 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 video recording and viewing, to more sophisticated,
proactive, network-based IP video systems that use video management software to efficiently
collect, manage, and analyze large amounts of video over networks and utilize video analytics. We
believe that 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.
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 interoperability 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. |
89
|
|
|
Solution |
|
Description |
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.
The Communications Intelligence Solutions Segment
We are a leading provider of Communications Intelligence solutions that help law enforcement,
national security, intelligence, and civilian 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, Web intelligence, 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 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 that the key trends driving demand for our Communications
Intelligence 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.
90
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 CALEA. In Europe, similar requirements have been adopted by the ETSI. In
addition, many law enforcement and government agencies around the world are mandated to ensure
compliance with laws and regulations related to criminal activities, such as financial crime. We
believe that these laws and regulations are creating demand for our Communications Intelligence
solutions.
Our Communications Intelligence Solutions Portfolio
We are a leader in the market for communications intelligence 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 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
|
|
Enables communication service
providers to collect and deliver to
government agencies specific
call-related and call-content
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 a wide range
of complex investigations, including
financial crimes, that require
expertise across various domains,
involve multiple government
agencies, and require significant
resources and time. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
We also offer integrated video monitoring which 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.
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.
91
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 resellers, 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 when and if available, and
on-site repair or replacement. Currently, the majority of our maintenance revenue is related to
our Workforce Optimization solutions.
Direct and Indirect Sales
We sell our solutions through our direct sales teams and indirect channels, including distributors,
systems integrators, value-added resellers (VARs), and 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 used by more than 10,000 organizations in over 150 countries. In the three months
ended July 31, 2010, we derived approximately 52%, 21%, and 27% of our revenue from the sales of
our Workforce Optimization solutions, Video Intelligence solutions, and Communications Intelligence
solutions, respectively. In the six months ended July 31, 2010, we
derived approximately 54%, 20%, and 26% 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, 2010, we derived approximately 53%, 21%,
and 26% 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,
2009, we derived approximately 53%, 19%, and 28% 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, 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
three months ended July 31, 2010, we derived approximately 54%, 25%, and 21% of our revenue
from sales to end users in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC,
respectively. In the six months ended July 31, 2010, we derived
approximately 54%, 25%, and 21% of our revenue from sales to end
users in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC, respectively. In the year ended January
31, 2010, we derived approximately 55%, 25%, and 20% of our revenue from sales to end users in the
Americas, EMEA and APAC, respectively. In the year ended January 31, 2009, we
derived approximately 52%, 32%, and 16% of our revenue from sales to end users in the Americas, EMEA, and
APAC, respectively. In the year ended January 31, 2008, we
92
derived approximately 52%, 33%, and 15% of our revenue from sales to end users in the Americas,
EMEA, and APAC, respectively.
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 revenue in
the three and six months ended July 31, 2010 or the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.
For the year ended January 31, 2010 and the three and six months ended July 31, 2010,
approximately one quarter of our business was generated from contracts with various governments
around the world, including federal, state, and local government agencies.
In some years, we have entered into one or more 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 17, Segment, Geographic, and Significant Customer Information to the
audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. 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.
In addition, because of the unique nature of the terms and conditions associated with
government contracts generally, our government contracts may be subject to renegotiation
or termination at the election of the government customer.
For a more detailed discussion of the
risks associated with our government customers, see Risk Factors Risks Related to Our
BusinessRegulatory and Government ContractingWe are dependent on contracts with governments
around the world for a significant portion of our revenue. These
contracts also expose us to additional
business risks and compliance obligations and Risk FactorsRisks Related to Our
BusinessRegulatory and Government ContractingU.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.
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, the 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 three and six months ended July 31, 2010 and the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we
spent approximately $22.0 million, $48.5 million, $83.8 million, $88.3 million, and $87.7 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.
As noted above, a significant portion of our research and development operations is located outside
the United States. Historically, we have also derived benefits from participation in certain
government-sponsored programs, including those of the OCS 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
93
limits our ability to manufacture products, or transfer technologies, developed using these grants
outside of Israel without permission from the OCS. See Risk FactorsRisks Related to Our Capital
Structure and Finances 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 FactorsRisks Related to Our BusinessCompetition and MarketsBecause we
have significant foreign operations, we are subject to geopolitical and other risks that could
materially adversely affect our business 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 U.S. and Israeli facilities for our
Workforce Optimization solutions; in our U.S., Israeli, and Canadian facilities for our Video
Intelligence solutions; and in our German and Israeli facilities for our Communications
Intelligence 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 FactorsRisks Related to Our BusinessCompetition and MarketsFor
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 for a discussion of risks associated with our
manufacturing operations and suppliers.
Employees
As of
July 31, 2010, we employed approximately 2,600 people, including part-time employees and
certain contractors. Approximately 45%, 38%, 11%, and 6% of our employees are located in or report
into the Americas, Israel, Europe, and APAC, respectively. As noted in the previous sentence,
these percentages include personnel who are physically located outside of the specified region but
who report into that region, which reflects the way management operates the business.
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.
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.
94
Patents
As of
July 31, 2010, we had more than 480 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
FactorsRisks Related to Our BusinessIntellectual
PropertyOur intellectual property may not be adequately protected for a more detailed discussion regarding
the risks associated with the protection of our intellectual property.
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., 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., Trovicor, SS8 Networks, Inc., Utimaco (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 that 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; |
95
|
|
|
specific industry knowledge, vision, and experience; and |
|
|
|
|
price. |
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 FactorsRisks Related to Our
BusinessCompetition and Markets Intense competition in our markets and competitors with greater
resources than us may limit our market share, profitability, and growth for a more detailed
discussion of the competitive risks we face.
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.
Properties
The following describes our leased and owned properties as of the date of this prospectus.
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 used
primarily 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.
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,
96
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 16, Commitments and Contingencies to the audited consolidated financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
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 that 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.
Legal Proceedings
Comverse Investigation-Related Matters
As
previously disclosed by Comverse, Comverse and certain of its former
directors and officers and a current
director were named in the following litigation relating to the matters involved in the Comverse
special committee investigation: (a) a consolidated shareholder class action before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 06-CV-1825; (b) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative
Litigation. No. 06-CV-1849; and (c) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No.
601272/2006.
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 consolidated complaints in both the state and federal shareholder derivative actions alleged
that the defendants breached certain duties to Comverse and that certain of its former
directors and officers and a current
director were unjustly enriched (and, in the federal action, violated the
federal securities laws) by, among other things: (a) allowing and participating in a scheme to
backdate the grant dates of employee stock options to improperly benefit Comverses executives and
certain directors; (b) allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to personally profit
by trading Comverses stock while in possession of material inside information; (c) failing to
properly oversee or implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper practices; (d) causing
Comverse to issue materially
97
false and misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file other false and
misleading documents with the SEC; and (e) exposing Comverse to civil liability. The complaints
sought unspecified damages and various forms of equitable relief.
On December 16, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements, which were subsequently amended, to settle
the consolidated shareholder class action and the consolidated shareholder derivative actions.
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.
On June 23, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued orders in the
shareholder class action and federal shareholder derivative action granting final approval of the
settlement agreements in the respective actions. The Court later amended its order in the federal
derivative action on July 1, 2010 to incorporate ministerial changes. The respective orders
dismissed both actions with prejudice. The parties to the state shareholder derivative action
entered a stipulation of discontinuance in July 2010, referencing the dismissal of the federal
shareholder class action and derivative actions. The Supreme Court of
the State of New York then entered the stipulation as an order,
electronically docketed on September 23, 2010, thereby
discontinuing the state shareholder derivative action with prejudice.
Comverse was also 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 intentional inaccurate presentation of backlog. 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. A final judgment and court order entered into in connection with
such settlement required Comverse to become current in its periodic reporting obligations under the
federal securities laws by February 8, 2010. Comverse intended to file certain annual and
quarterly reports by February 8, 2010 to comply with such final judgment and court order.
As a result of Comverses failure to file certain annual and quarterly reports with the SEC, on
March 23, 2010, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings pursuant to Section
12(j) of the Exchange Act to suspend or revoke the registration of Comverses common stock. On July
22, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge in the Section 12(j) administrative proceeding issued an
initial decision to revoke the registration of Comverses common stock. The initial decision does
not become effective until the SEC issues a final order, which would indicate the date on which
sanctions, if any, would take effect. On August 17, 2010, the SEC issued an order granting a
petition by Comverse for review of the Administrative Law Judges initial decision to revoke the
registration of Comverses common stock and setting forth a briefing schedule under which Comverse
is required to file a brief in support of its petition for review by September 16, 2010. A brief
in opposition is required to be filed by October 18, 2010 and any reply brief is required to be
filed by November 1, 2010. Although Comverse has been granted review of the initial decision by
the SEC, it cannot at this time predict the outcome of such review or any appeal therefrom.
Verint Investigation-Related Matters
On July 20, 2006, we announced that, in connection with the SEC investigation into Comverses past
stock option grants that 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.
We previously reported that on March 3, 2010, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Proceedings
pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act suspend or revoke the registration of our common
stock because of our previous failure to file certain annual and quarterly reports. On May 28,
2010, we entered into an agreement in principle with the SECs Division of Enforcement regarding
the terms of a settlement of the Section 12(j) proceeding, which
98
agreement was subject to approval by the SEC. On June 18, 2010, we satisfied the requirements of
such agreement and subsequently submitted an Offer of Settlement to the SEC. On July 28, 2010, the
SEC issued an Order accepting our Offer of Settlement and dismissing the Section 12(j) proceeding.
On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (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. Ms. 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. Ms. 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 anti-fraud 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 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 General Litigation Matters
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, however, 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
99
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.
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.
100
MANAGEMENT
Current Executive Officers and Directors
The following lists our current executive officers and directors as of the date of this prospectus.
Vacancies on the board of directors that have arisen due to the departures noted below have been
filled by the vote of the board of directors, in accordance with our Amended and Restated By-laws
and Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. As of the date of this prospectus, two
vacancies remain on the board of directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position |
Dan Bodner
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate
Officer, and Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter D. Fante
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Chief Legal Officer, Chief Compliance
Officer, Secretary, and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elan Moriah
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
President, Verint Witness Actionable
Solutions and Verint Video Intelligence
Solutions and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Parcell
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Managing Director, EMEA and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas E. Robinson
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meir Sperling
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
President, Verint Communications Intelligence
and Investigative Solutions and Corporate
Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul D. Baker
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Bunyan
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Dahan
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victor A. DeMarines
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth A. Minihan
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Myers
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Howard Safir
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shefali Shah
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Swad
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lauren Wright
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Director |
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. The board of directors has concluded that Mr. Bodners position
101
as our Chief Executive Officer, intimate knowledge of our operations, assets, customers, growth
strategies, competitors, and industry make-up, vast expertise in software development,
intelligence, and security, and management experience give him the skills and qualifications to
serve as a director.
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 publicly-traded company and a provider of network
signaling and information delivery solutions. Mr. Baker was nominated by Comverse to serve as a
member of our board of directors. The board of directors has concluded that Mr. Bakers management
and business experience within the technology and software industries and experience in serving as
a director of another public company qualify him to serve as a director.
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 publicly-traded company and a provider of network signaling and
information delivery solutions, and one other wholly owned subsidiary of Comverse. Mr. Bunyan was
nominated by Comverse to serve as a member of our board of directors. The board of directors has
concluded that Mr. Bunyans extensive management and business experience, in particular his
expertise in marketing in the technology and software industries, and experience in serving as a
director of another public company, qualify him to serve as a director.
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., Sequent Computer Systems, and S.E. Qual, an information technology consulting firm. Mr.
Dahan also served on the board of directors of (i) NeuStar, Inc., a public company that provides
clearinghouse services to the communications and Internet industries, from 2006 until 2007 and (ii)
Palmsource, Inc., a public company that provides advanced software technologies to the mobile and
beyond-PC markets from 2005 until 2006. He currently serves as a member of the board of directors
of Ulticom, Inc., a Comverse majority-owned publicly-traded company and a provider of network
signaling and information delivery solutions, Starhome, B.V., also a Comverse majority-owned
company and a 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. The board of directors has concluded that
Mr. Dahans business expertise, industry experience, leadership skills, and experience in serving
as a director of other public companies qualify him to serve as Chairman of the Board.
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. The board of directors has concluded
that Mr. DeMarines financial and business expertise, including a diversified background of
managing a security-based company and serving as a director of a public technology company, give
him the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.
102
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 served on
the board of directors of MTC Technologies, Inc., a telecommunications company from 2003 until
2008. Lieutenant General Minihan currently sits on the board of directors of (a) BAE Systems Inc.,
a defense systems company, (b) Lucent Government Solutions, an information technology company, (c)
Lexis Nexis Special Services, Inc., a leading provider of information and technology solutions to
government, (d) ManTech International Corporation, a business software and services company, and
(e) American Government Solutions, a space 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. The
board of directors has concluded that Lieutenant General Minihans extensive service in the U.S.
military as well as within the U.S. intelligence community provides him with enhanced understanding
and guidance with respect to our security business. In addition to his extensive and decorated
military and intelligence service, the board of directors has further determined that Lieutenant
General Minihans leadership skills, financial and business expertise, and networks, including a
diversified background of serving as a director of public technology, software, defense, and
security-based companies, give him the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.
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 that 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. Myers served in this capacity with MITRE Corporation beginning in 1991. Prior to
that, Mr. Myers served as Controller for Fairchild Industries, Inc. Mr. Myers received his MBA
from Ohio State University. The board of directors has concluded that Mr. Myers financial and
business expertise, including a strong background of managing a software and security-based company
and his experience serving as a Chief Financial Officer give him the qualifications and skills to
serve as a director.
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 its 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. Mr. Safir also currently serves as a
director of (a) Implant Sciences Corporation, an explosives device detection company and (b)
LexisNexis Special Services, Inc., a leading provider of information and technology solutions to
government. 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. The board of directors has concluded that Mr. Safirs experience serving as
the Police Commissioner of the City of New York and other U.S. law enforcement agencies is a key
asset in terms of providing valuable guidance with respect to our security business. In addition
to his law enforcement service, the board of directors has determined that Mr. Safirs financial
and business expertise and networks, including a diversified background of managing and serving as
a director of public technology and security-based companies, strengthen the board of directors
collective qualifications and give him the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.
Shefali Shah has served as one of our directors since September 2007. Since March 2010, Ms. Shah
has served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Comverse. From
March 2009 to March 2010, Ms. Shah served as the Acting General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of
Comverse and from June 2006 through March 2009, Ms. Shah served as Associate General Counsel and
Assistant Secretary 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
publicly-traded company and a provider of network signaling and information delivery solutions, and
Starhome, B.V., a Comverse majority-owned subsidiary and a provider of mobile roaming technology
and services as well as numerous other wholly owned subsidiaries of Comverse. Ms. Shah was
nominated by
103
Comverse to serve as a member of our board of directors. The board of directors has concluded that
Ms. Shahs legal expertise, including her experience representing technology companies while in
private practice, qualify her to serve as a director.
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 May 2009. Prior to joining Comverse,
Mr. Swad served as Chief Financial Officer at Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
from May 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. The board of directors has concluded that Mr. Swads expertise as
a Certified Public Accountant, experience serving as a Chief Financial Officer of another public
company, management background, and particular knowledge and experience in accounting, finance, and
capital structure and board practices of other corporations strengthen the board of directors
collective qualifications, skills, and experience and qualify him to serve as a director.
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.
The board of directors has concluded that Ms. Wrights broad business background and management
experience qualify her to serve as a director.
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 LLP, 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.
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 Managing Director of EMEA
and Corporate Officer for Aspect Software, Inc. from 1997 to 2001. Before then, Mr. Parcell 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
104
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
John Spirtos, a former employee of Comverse, served on our board of directors from November 2008
until tendering his resignation in June 2009.
The Board of Directors and Board Committees
The Board of Directors; Director Independence; Controlled Company Exemption
The board of directors has determined that Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir are
independent for purposes of NASDAQs 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 are 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, after any applicable
grace periods, to have a majority independent board and fully independent standing nominating and
compensation committees. The board of directors has determined that a board consisting of between
seven and thirteen members is appropriate at the current time and the number is currently set at
thirteen members, and will evaluate such determination from time to time. As of the date of this
prospectus, the board of directors consists of eleven directors (with two vacancies) and has four
standing committees: the corporate governance and nominating committee, the audit committee, the
compensation committee, and the stock option committee.
Board Leadership Structure
The board of directors believes that a person who holds the position of our Chief Executive Officer
should also serve as one of our directors. We currently separate the roles of Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board which reflects our belief at this time that our stockholders
interests are best served by the day-to-day management direction of the Company under Mr. Bodner,
as President and Chief Executive Officer, and the leadership and energy brought to the Board of
Directors by our Chairman of the Board, Mr. Dahan. Our Chief Executive Officer is most familiar
with our business and industry, and most capable of effectively identifying strategic priorities
and leading the discussion and execution of strategy, while our Chairman of the Board provides
guidance to the Chief Executive Officer, presides over meetings of the full board of directors, and
brings a depth of varied business and management experience to our organization.
105
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 by-laws. These procedures have not changed since the
filing of our last annual proxy statement in 2005. Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines
contained within our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Charter, the corporate
governance and nominating committee of the board of directors will seek members from diverse
professional and personal backgrounds who combine a broad spectrum of experience and expertise with
the highest ethical character and share the values of Verint. The assessment of candidates for the
board includes an individuals independence, as well as consideration of diversity, age, high
personal and professional ethical standards, sound business judgment, personal and professional
accomplishment, background and skills in the context of the needs of the board of directors. The
corporate governance and nominating committee and the board of directors are also 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 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 Description of Capital Stock 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, and Mses. Shah and Wright. In connection with the nomination
of directors for election at the annual meeting of stockholders, the corporate governance and
nominating committee will assess the effectiveness of its selection criteria set forth in our
Corporate Governance Guidelines annually. While the composition of the current board of directors
reflects a majority of Comverse designees, it also reflects diversity in business and professional
experience, skills, age and gender.
The corporate governance and nominating committees responsibilities are set forth in its charter
and include, among other things (a) responsibility for establishing our corporate governance
guidelines, (b) overseeing the board of directors operations and effectiveness, and (c)
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 and corporate governance functions were
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 and by NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(c)(2). The audit
committees responsibilities are set forth in its charter and include, among other things, (a)
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 as well as general risk oversight, and (b) direct and sole
responsibility for the appointment, retention, compensation, and monitoring of the performance of
our independent registered public accounting firm.
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, (a) approving compensation arrangements for our executive officers and (b) making
recommendations to the stock option committee and the board of directors regarding awards under our
equity compensation plans.
106
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.
Risk Oversight
The board of directors, as a whole, and the audit committee of the board of directors, in
particular, have an active role in overseeing the management of our risks. The board of directors
believes an effective risk management system will (1) timely identify the material risks that we
face, (2) communicate necessary information with respect to material risks to senior executives
and, as appropriate, to the board of directors or relevant committee, (3) implement appropriate and
responsive risk management strategies consistent with our risk profile, and (4) integrate risk
management into our decision-making. The board of directors and audit committee of the board of
directors regularly receive information regarding our credit, liquidity and operations from senior
management. During its review of such information, the board of directors discusses, reviews and
analyzes risks associated with each area, as well as risks associated with potential new business
ventures. The compensation committee of the board of directors discusses, reviews and analyzes
risks associated with our executive compensation plans and arrangements. See Compensation
Programs and Risk under Executive and Director Compensation for more information. The audit
committee of the board of directors oversees management of financial and compliance risks and
potential conflicts of interest, and the entire board of directors is regularly informed through
audit committee reports about such risks.
107
EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Non-Employee Director Compensation for the Year Ended January 31, 2010
The following table summarizes the cash and equity compensation earned by each member of the board
of directors during the year ended January 31, 2010 for service as a director.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or |
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid in Cash |
|
Awards |
|
Awards |
|
Total |
Name |
|
|
|
|
|
($)(1) |
|
($)(2) |
|
($)(2) |
|
($) |
|
Baker, Paul |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bodner, Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyan, John |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dahan, Andre |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeMarines, Victor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
144,750 |
|
|
|
16,950 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
161,700 |
|
Minihan, Kenneth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
132,750 |
|
|
|
16,950 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
149,700 |
|
Myers, Larry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
196,500 |
|
|
|
16,950 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
213,450 |
|
Safir, Howard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
147,000 |
|
|
|
16,950 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
163,950 |
|
Shah, Shefali |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spirtos, John |
|
|
(4 |
),(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swad, Stephen |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wright, Lauren |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents amount earned for board of directors service during the year indicated
regardless of the year of payment. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with applicable
accounting standards. |
|
(3) |
|
On March 19, 2009, each of Messrs. DeMarines, Minihan, Myers, and Safir received an
award of 5,000 shares of restricted stock in respect of board of directors service for the
year ended January 31, 2010, vesting May 16, 2010. These were the only equity awards made
to our directors (for service as directors) in the year ended January 31, 2010. The fair
value on the date of board of directors approval of each of these awards was $16,950 based
on a closing price of our common stock of $3.39 on March 19, 2009. |
|
(4) |
|
Comverse-designated director. |
|
(5) |
|
Resigned from the board of directors June 12, 2009. |
108
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, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested Options |
|
Unvested Stock Awards |
Name |
|
(#) |
|
(#) |
|
Baker, Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bodner, Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyan, John |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dahan, Andre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeMarines, Victor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Minihan, Kenneth |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Myers, Larry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Safir, Howard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Shah, Shefali |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spirtos, John |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swad, Stephen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wright, Lauren |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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, 2010. Mr.
Bodner has not been separately compensated for his service on the board of directors.
On September 7, 2010, our board of directors adopted stock ownership guidelines for our
executive officers and non-employee directors who are compensated by us for their
services. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis Stock Ownership
Guidelines.
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.
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 or trends and from time to time engages
an 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 the completion of our internal investigation, restatement, audits, and
outstanding SEC filings in establishing independent director compensation arrangements.
Our independent directors currently 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, during this period, we 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
109
the duration of our extended filing delay period which period ended in the quarter ended July 31,
2010), and a per diem fee for work done outside of board of directors and committee meetings.
The following table summarizes the compensation package for our independent directors for the year
ended January 31, 2010.
Component of Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual retainer (per annum) |
|
|
|
$ |
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board meeting fee |
|
|
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Committee meeting fee |
|
|
|
$ |
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Annual equity grant |
|
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 chairmanship of our board of directors, our compensation committee, and our
corporate governance & nominating committee are presently held by Comverse-designated directors who
do not, as noted above, receive any cash compensation for their service on our board of directors,
these chairmanship fees are 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 (which
period ended in the quarter ended July 31, 2010) in recognition of his special role and added
responsibilities in overseeing the completion of our restatement and audits.
Executive Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our executive officer compensation program and
addresses how we made compensation decisions for the executive officers named below (the named
executive officers) for the year ended January 31, 2010:
|
|
|
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 |
We have included certain information in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis and this
section generally for periods subsequent to January 31, 2010 that we believe may be useful for a
more complete understanding of our
110
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.
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 (RSUs),
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 of the board of directors (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.
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.
111
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 through the use of tally sheets or similar compensation summaries.
The compensation committee and the stock option committee work closely with each other in
determining executive officer compensation. During the year there are also joint committee
meetings to discuss executive compensation. 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. Although the stock option committee makes all final decisions on
equity compensation, it is influenced by the recommendations of the compensation committee
with respect to size, scope, and structure of equity compensation.
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.
For the year ended January 31, 2010, the compensation committee engaged Pearl
Meyer & Partners as its independent compensation consultant.
Any advice provided
with respect to non-officer or director personnel has been ancillary to officer compensation and
has not exceeded $120,000 in fees and/or has been with respect to broad-based plans that do not
discriminate in scope, terms, or operation in favor of our officers or directors and are available
generally to all employees. 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 and the stock option committee, as applicable, on each proposed executive officer
compensation package.
The chief executive officers input to the compensation committee and the stock option
committee on the executive officer compensation packages is based, among other things,
on his views of each officers performance, skills and responsibilities, competitive
factors, and internal pay equity considerations. Notwithstanding the chief executive
officers input, the compensation committee, and in the case of equity compensation,
the stock option committee, at all times exercise independent judgment on executive
compensation and are solely responsible for all final decisions on such matters.
The compensation committee also meets in executive session (outside the
presence of management) both with and without its independent compensation consultant and other
advisors from time to time.
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 is reevaluated 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, 2010, our compensation peer group consisted of:
|
|
|
McAfee Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Compuware Corporation, |
|
|
|
|
THQ Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Sybase, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Novell, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
FLIR Systems, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Lawson Software, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Salesforce.com, Inc., |
|
|
|
|
Quest Software, Inc., and |
112
|
|
|
Nuance Communications, Inc. |
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 targeting cash compensation (salary and target bonus) at the median of our peer group
for target performance and of targeting 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.
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
especially mindful of internal pay equity and takes into account differences in the scope of each
officers responsibilities.
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.
113
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. For the year ended January 31, 2010, we did not increase base salaries for our executive
officers due to the economic environment.
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.
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, a measure of profitability, and a measure of cash
generation. For the year ended January 31, 2010, the measure of profitability was operating income
and the measure of cash generation was days sales outstanding (DSO). A portion of the bonus is
also tied to the achievement of non-financial management business objectives (MBOs).
The MBOs consist of qualitative/subjective performance goals (e.g., leadership achievements,
strategic goals, project goals) and are not based on any quantitative performance goals.
The MBOs are specific to each officers function within the company and are approved by
the compensation committee in connection with the establishment of annual bonus plans.
The compensation committee uses the same budget prepared by management
and approved by our board of directors for operating our business in establishing corresponding
quantitative financial goals for executive officer bonuses. 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. In building the budget, we also
analyze our transaction pipeline, speak with customers and partners, and consider projected
industry growth rates from analysts and other third-party sources. 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.
For executive officers with responsibility for a specific operating unit, unit revenue and unit
profitability goals (contribution margin) are also incorporated into the officers performance
goals. For the year ended January 31, 2010, the compensation committee set the performance goal
levels for revenue and profitability above the corresponding budget levels in order to drive
performance in excess of budget in a challenging economic environment.
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 and operating 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 and GAAP operating income and the corresponding measures used for
our
114
operating budget and our compensation performance goals, subject to any additional adjustments the
compensation committee may deem appropriate in a particular period:
|
|
|
Budget / Performance |
|
|
Goal Metric |
|
Differences from Corresponding GAAP Metric |
Revenue
|
|
GAAP revenue excluding the impact of certain extraordinary business transactions and 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 intangible assets, integration costs,
acquisition-related write-downs, in-process research and development, impairment of goodwill
and intangible 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, including restructuring costs. |
The financial 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
50-75%) 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 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.
For the year ended January 31, 2010, the independent members of the compensation committee
established a maximum bonus pool for the executive officers equal to 3% of our budgeted non-GAAP
operating income for the year ended January 31, 2010, which pool was then allocated among the
executive officers on a percentage basis. The compensation committee also established target
bonuses (below the amounts expected to result from the percentage allocations of the pool) and
retained discretion to reduce the percentage allocations of the pool to or below these target bonus
amounts based on, among other things, the level of achievement of the performance goals adopted by
the compensation committee or the occurrence of extraordinary events, provided that any such
adjustments (a) are consistent with and subject to the requirements set forth in Section 162(m) of
the Internal Revenue Code and (b) do not result in an actual bonus payout that is less than 80% of
the amount such executive officer would receive, if any, if bonuses were based solely on the
financial performance goals (i.e., excluding for this purpose the MBO goal).
In establishing target bonuses for the executive officers other than Mr. Bodner, the compensation
committee elected to set the target bonus for Messrs. Robinson and Moriah at approximately 60% of
base salary and the target bonus for Messrs. Sperling, Parcell, and Fante at 40-50% of base salary.
These percentages of base salary were based on the bonus target specified by the officers
employment agreement (if applicable) and the regular compensation review process, including the
committees review of benchmarking data provided by its independent compensation consultant. Mr.
Bodners target bonus was also based on benchmarking data provided by the compensation committees
independent compensation consultant as part of the regular compensation review process, but was not
115
tied directly to his base salary. For the year ended January 31, 2010, we did not increase target
bonuses for our executive officers due to the economic environment.
Annual Bonuses for the Year Ended January 31, 2010
The following summarizes the specific approach taken by the compensation committee for establishing
annual bonuses for each executive officer the year ended January 31, 2010. Consistent with the
terms of the officer bonus plans described above and taking into account the companys
circumstances during the performance period, in setting the bonus payouts for the year ended
January 31, 2010, the compensation committee accepted managements recommendation to reduce the
bonus levels for each of Messrs. Bodner, Robinson, Moriah, and Fante from the amounts resulting
from the formulaic plan calculation to amounts that management and the compensation committee
believed more accurately reflected the performance achieved against the established performance
goals. The compensation committee also approved managements recommendation to authorize
management to use the amount of this reduction to augment the bonuses for selected high performing
employees below the officer level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target Bonus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max % |
|
% of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated |
|
Payout Amount |
|
Actual |
|
|
|
|
Bonus |
|
Bonus |
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated Achievement Against |
|
Payout |
|
(Prior to |
|
Payout |
Name |
|
Description of Bonus Plan |
|
Pool |
|
Pool |
|
$ |
|
Performance Goals |
|
Percentage |
|
Adjustments) |
|
Amount(1) |
Bodner |
|
Bonus based 40% on company revenue, |
|
|
41.39 |
% |
|
|
12.5 |
% |
|
$ |
600,000 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
897,150 |
|
|
$ |
780,072 |
|
|
|
40% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO, and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 80% |
|
|
80.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson |
|
Bonus based 40% on company revenue, |
|
|
14.65 |
% |
|
|
4.4 |
% |
|
$ |
212,400 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
317,591 |
|
|
$ |
276,145 |
|
|
|
40% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO, and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 80% |
|
|
80.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moriah |
|
Bonus based 40% on company revenue, |
|
|
14.65 |
% |
|
|
4.4 |
% |
|
$ |
212,400 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
321,839 |
|
|
$ |
276,170 |
|
|
|
40% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO, and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 100% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sperling |
|
Bonus based 20% on company revenue, |
|
|
10.34 |
% |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
$ |
149,736 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
217,391 |
|
|
$ |
217,391 |
|
|
|
20% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20% on unit revenue, 20% on unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit revenue: 100.7% |
|
|
102.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contribution margin (relating to the unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit contribution margin: 108.4% |
|
|
111.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for which
Mr. Sperling was responsible), |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO,
and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 100% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parcell |
|
Bonus based 20% on company revenue, |
|
|
7.76 |
% |
|
|
2.3 |
% |
|
$ |
112,472 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
159,280 |
|
|
$ |
159,280 |
|
|
|
20% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20% on unit revenue, 20% on unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit revenue: 101.1% |
|
|
104.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contribution margin (relating to the unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit contribution margin: 85.2% |
|
|
83.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for which Mr. Parcell was responsible), |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO, and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 80% |
|
|
80.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fante |
|
Bonus based 40% on company revenue, |
|
|
11.21 |
% |
|
|
3.4 |
% |
|
$ |
162,500 |
|
|
Company revenue: 104.2% |
|
|
136.0 |
% |
|
$ |
246,228 |
|
|
$ |
211,288 |
|
|
|
40% on company operating income, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company operating income: 126.5% |
|
|
182.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% on DSO, and 10% on MBOs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSO: 111% |
|
|
140.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBO: 100% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As described above, the amounts in this column reflect the amounts determined by the
compensation committee after discretionary adjustments. The payout amounts for Messrs. Parcell and
Sperling also reflect the impact of applicable exchange rates on the payment dates. |
116
Performance vs. Calculated Payout Matrices
(except as noted below, applies to each officer on a goal by goal
basis based on the officers individualized bonus plan per the table above)
|
|
|
Percentage of Company Revenue Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 80%
|
|
0% |
80%
|
|
50% |
88%
|
|
70% |
91%
|
|
80% |
97%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
103%
|
|
125% |
106%
|
|
150% |
109% or more
|
|
200% |
|
|
|
Percentage of Company Operating Income Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 32%
|
|
0% |
32%
|
|
50% |
60%
|
|
70% |
70%
|
|
80% |
90%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
110%
|
|
125% |
120%
|
|
150% |
130% or more
|
|
200% |
|
|
|
Percentage of DSO Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 80%
|
|
0% |
80%
|
|
50% |
87%
|
|
75% |
100%
|
|
100% |
107%
|
|
125% |
113%
|
|
150% |
120% or more
|
|
200% |
|
|
|
Sperling: Percentage of Unit Revenue Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 77%
|
|
0% |
77%
|
|
50% |
83%
|
|
70% |
90%
|
|
80% |
97%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
107%
|
|
125% |
112%
|
|
150% |
117% or more
|
|
200% |
117
Performance vs. Calculated Payout Matrices
(except as noted below, applies to each officer on a goal by goal
basis based on the officers individualized bonus plan per the table above)
|
|
|
Sperling: Percentage of Unit Contribution Margin Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 38%
|
|
0% |
38%
|
|
50% |
55%
|
|
70% |
73%
|
|
80% |
91%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
118%
|
|
125% |
132%
|
|
150% |
145% or more
|
|
200% |
|
|
|
Parcell: Percentage of Unit Revenue Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 78%
|
|
0% |
78%
|
|
50% |
83%
|
|
70% |
90%
|
|
80% |
97%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
106%
|
|
125% |
112%
|
|
150% |
118% or more
|
|
200% |
|
|
|
Parcell: Percentage of Unit Contribution Margin Goal Achieved |
|
Payout Percentage (for goal) |
Less than 56%
|
|
0% |
56%
|
|
50% |
67%
|
|
70% |
81%
|
|
80% |
94%
|
|
90% |
100%
|
|
100% |
112%
|
|
125% |
124%
|
|
150% |
135% or more
|
|
200% |
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). 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 RSUs as the preferred form of
award. This move from stock
118
options to restricted stock and RSUs resulted from a desire to
decrease equity compensation expense under applicable accounting standards and to improve the
retentive effect and perceived value of our equity awards, and was also informed by dilution
considerations. 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. 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. Our current practice for
time-based equity awards for officers is equal vesting over a three-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 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.
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. For the year ended January 31, 2010, the stock option committee provided for
such an opportunity for the new awards approved on March 4, 2009 and May 20, 2009. Performance
awards granted in prior years did not provide for such an opportunity to overachieve. 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 (after considering the compensation committees recommendation with
respect to equity-based awards) a range for the performance goal is to incentivize our officers to
overachieve (for awards which provide for an overachievement opportunity), 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 stock option committee takes into account the probability of achieving different levels of
performance in establishing the threshold, target, and, if applicable, maximum 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.
119
The following summarizes the performance versus payout matrices established by the stock option
committee for the performance period ended January 31, 2010: