e10vq
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
20549
Form 10-Q
|
|
|
þ
|
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the
quarterly period ended June 30,
2010
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission File Number 1-9114
MYLAN INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
(State or other
jurisdiction
of incorporation or organization)
|
|
25-1211621
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
1500 Corporate Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317
(Address of principal executive
offices)
(724) 514-1800
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
issuers classes of common stock, as of the latest
practicable date.
|
|
|
Class of
|
|
Outstanding at
|
Common Stock
|
|
July 26, 2010
|
|
$0.50 par value
|
|
309,360,933
|
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX TO
FORM 10-Q
For the Quarterly Period Ended
June 30, 2010
2
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
Three Months
|
|
|
Six Months
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited; in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
$
|
1,356,543
|
|
|
$
|
1,255,798
|
|
|
$
|
2,634,648
|
|
|
$
|
2,424,160
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
11,993
|
|
|
|
11,179
|
|
|
|
26,261
|
|
|
|
52,733
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
1,368,536
|
|
|
|
1,266,977
|
|
|
|
2,660,909
|
|
|
|
2,476,893
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
826,686
|
|
|
|
739,210
|
|
|
|
1,602,762
|
|
|
|
1,423,393
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
541,850
|
|
|
|
527,767
|
|
|
|
1,058,147
|
|
|
|
1,053,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
66,787
|
|
|
|
74,016
|
|
|
|
128,084
|
|
|
|
132,853
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
268,373
|
|
|
|
279,672
|
|
|
|
524,134
|
|
|
|
521,344
|
|
Litigation settlements, net
|
|
|
12,104
|
|
|
|
(634
|
)
|
|
|
12,838
|
|
|
|
(2,751
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
347,264
|
|
|
|
353,054
|
|
|
|
665,056
|
|
|
|
651,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from operations
|
|
|
194,586
|
|
|
|
174,713
|
|
|
|
393,091
|
|
|
|
402,054
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
78,402
|
|
|
|
78,172
|
|
|
|
152,449
|
|
|
|
163,175
|
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
(15,239
|
)
|
|
|
25,308
|
|
|
|
(14,167
|
)
|
|
|
29,498
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings before income taxes and noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
100,945
|
|
|
|
121,849
|
|
|
|
226,475
|
|
|
|
268,377
|
|
Income tax provision
|
|
|
14,012
|
|
|
|
26,178
|
|
|
|
45,272
|
|
|
|
63,632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings
|
|
|
86,933
|
|
|
|
95,671
|
|
|
|
181,203
|
|
|
|
204,745
|
|
Net (earnings) loss attributable to the noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
(705
|
)
|
|
|
(2,801
|
)
|
|
|
881
|
|
|
|
(5,816
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. before preferred
dividends
|
|
|
86,228
|
|
|
|
92,870
|
|
|
|
182,084
|
|
|
|
198,929
|
|
Preferred dividends
|
|
|
34,759
|
|
|
|
34,759
|
|
|
|
69,518
|
|
|
|
69,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
|
|
$
|
51,469
|
|
|
$
|
58,111
|
|
|
$
|
112,566
|
|
|
$
|
129,411
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per common share attributable to
Mylan Inc. common shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.16
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
308,968
|
|
|
|
304,991
|
|
|
|
307,982
|
|
|
|
304,784
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
314,407
|
|
|
|
306,256
|
|
|
|
313,177
|
|
|
|
305,759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited; in thousands,
|
|
|
|
except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
809,421
|
|
|
$
|
380,516
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
48,063
|
|
|
|
47,965
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
23,791
|
|
|
|
27,559
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
1,249,017
|
|
|
|
1,234,634
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
1,096,365
|
|
|
|
1,114,219
|
|
Deferred income tax benefit
|
|
|
260,742
|
|
|
|
248,917
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
141,929
|
|
|
|
231,576
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
3,629,328
|
|
|
|
3,285,386
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,091,674
|
|
|
|
1,122,648
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
2,132,266
|
|
|
|
2,384,848
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
3,131,135
|
|
|
|
3,331,247
|
|
Deferred income tax benefit
|
|
|
42,947
|
|
|
|
36,610
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
570,468
|
|
|
|
640,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
10,597,818
|
|
|
$
|
10,801,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade accounts payable
|
|
$
|
527,844
|
|
|
$
|
518,252
|
|
Short-term borrowings
|
|
|
161,593
|
|
|
|
184,352
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
100,419
|
|
|
|
69,122
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and other long-term obligations
|
|
|
10,061
|
|
|
|
9,522
|
|
Deferred income tax liability
|
|
|
1,285
|
|
|
|
1,986
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
828,333
|
|
|
|
934,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
1,629,535
|
|
|
|
1,718,147
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
5,047,384
|
|
|
|
4,984,987
|
|
Other long-term obligations
|
|
|
465,745
|
|
|
|
485,905
|
|
Deferred income tax liability
|
|
|
476,198
|
|
|
|
467,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
7,618,862
|
|
|
|
7,656,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mylan Inc. shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock par value $0.50 per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares authorized: 5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued: 2,139,000
|
|
|
1,070
|
|
|
|
1,070
|
|
Common stock par value $0.50 per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares authorized: 1,500,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued: 399,252,737 and 396,683,892 as of June 30,
2010 and December 31, 2009
|
|
|
199,626
|
|
|
|
198,342
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
3,880,285
|
|
|
|
3,834,674
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
772,699
|
|
|
|
660,130
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) earnings
|
|
|
(317,358
|
)
|
|
|
11,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,536,322
|
|
|
|
4,706,023
|
|
Noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
12,272
|
|
|
|
14,052
|
|
Less: treasury stock at cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares: 89,899,071 and 90,199,152 as of June 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,569,638
|
|
|
|
1,574,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity
|
|
|
2,978,956
|
|
|
|
3,145,198
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
10,597,818
|
|
|
$
|
10,801,734
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited; in thousands)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings
|
|
$
|
181,203
|
|
|
$
|
204,745
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
204,933
|
|
|
|
193,361
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
15,617
|
|
|
|
14,652
|
|
Change in estimated sales allowances
|
|
|
26,062
|
|
|
|
36,911
|
|
Deferred income tax benefit
|
|
|
(56,522
|
)
|
|
|
(76,619
|
)
|
Other non-cash items
|
|
|
92,660
|
|
|
|
25,965
|
|
Litigation settlements, net
|
|
|
12,838
|
|
|
|
(2,751
|
)
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(106,844
|
)
|
|
|
48,643
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(44,027
|
)
|
|
|
22,221
|
|
Trade accounts payable
|
|
|
54,869
|
|
|
|
(63,172
|
)
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
120,796
|
|
|
|
27,487
|
|
Other operating assets and liabilities, net
|
|
|
(142,450
|
)
|
|
|
(95,227
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
359,135
|
|
|
|
336,216
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(53,300
|
)
|
|
|
(53,007
|
)
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,029
|
)
|
Cash paid for acquisitions
|
|
|
(4,999
|
)
|
|
|
(173,359
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of equity-method investee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,333
|
|
Purchase of marketable securities
|
|
|
(1,676
|
)
|
|
|
(1,086
|
)
|
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities
|
|
|
6,303
|
|
|
|
13,205
|
|
Other items, net
|
|
|
(720
|
)
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(54,392
|
)
|
|
|
(206,323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends paid
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
Payment of financing fees
|
|
|
(20,394
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Change in short-term borrowings, net
|
|
|
(22,374
|
)
|
|
|
(18,736
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of long-term debt
|
|
|
(1,001,507
|
)
|
|
|
(172,164
|
)
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
36,007
|
|
|
|
1,417
|
|
Other items, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
172,214
|
|
|
|
(259,024
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on cash of changes in exchange rates
|
|
|
(48,052
|
)
|
|
|
1,461
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
428,905
|
|
|
|
(127,670
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents beginning of period
|
|
|
380,516
|
|
|
|
557,147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents end of period
|
|
$
|
809,421
|
|
|
$
|
429,477
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
5
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
The accompanying unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements (interim financial statements) of Mylan
Inc. and subsidiaries (Mylan or the
Company) were prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
(GAAP) and the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for
reporting on
Form 10-Q;
therefore, as permitted under these rules, certain footnotes and
other financial information included in audited financial
statements were condensed or omitted. The interim financial
statements contain all adjustments (consisting of only normal
recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the interim
results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the
periods presented.
These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction
with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto in
the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
for the year ended December 31, 2009.
The interim results of operations for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2010 and the interim cash flows for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative
of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year or any
other future period. The Company computes its provision for
income taxes in the first three quarters of the year using an
estimated effective tax rate for the full year. The estimated
annual effective tax rate for 2010 includes an estimate of the
full-year effect of foreign tax credits that the Company
anticipates it will claim against its 2010 U.S. tax
liabilities. The Company did not claim foreign tax credits
against its 2009 U.S. tax liabilities. Certain
reclassifications of prior year amounts have been made to
conform to the current year presentation.
|
|
2.
|
Revenue
Recognition and Accounts Receivable
|
Mylan recognizes revenue for product sales when title and risk
of loss pass to its customers and when provisions for estimates,
including discounts, rebates, price adjustments, returns,
chargebacks and other promotional programs, are reasonably
determinable. Accounts receivable are presented net of
allowances relating to these provisions. No revisions were made
to the methodology used in determining these provisions during
the six months ended June 30, 2010. Such allowances were
$637.2 million and $607.9 million at June 30,
2010 and December 31, 2009. Other current liabilities
include $235.0 million and $238.2 million at
June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, for certain
rebates and other adjustments that are paid to indirect
customers.
|
|
3.
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
|
In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued revised accounting guidance for
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The amended guidance
requires that consideration received be allocated at the
inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the
relative selling price method and provides for expanded
disclosures related to such arrangements. It is effective for
revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in
fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The
Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its
consolidated financial statements.
|
|
4.
|
Acquisition
of the Remaining Interest in Matrix Laboratories
Limited
|
On March 26, 2009, the Company announced plans to buy the
remaining public interest in Matrix Laboratories Limited
(Matrix) from its minority shareholders pursuant to
a voluntary delisting offer. At the time, the Company owned
approximately 71.2% of Matrix through a wholly-owned subsidiary
and controlled more than 76% of its voting rights. During the
calendar year ended December 31, 2009, the Company
completed the purchase of an additional portion of the remaining
interest from minority shareholders of Matrix, bringing both the
Companys total ownership and control to over 96%. During
the six months ended June 30, 2010, Mylan completed the
purchase of an additional portion of the remaining interest from
minority shareholders of Matrix, for cash of approximately
$5.0 million, bringing both the Companys total
ownership and control to approximately 97%.
6
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
5.
|
Stock-Based
Incentive Plan
|
Mylans shareholders have approved the 2003 Long-Term
Incentive Plan (as amended, the 2003 Plan).
Under the 2003 Plan, 37,500,000 shares of common stock are
reserved for issuance to key employees, consultants, independent
contractors and non-employee directors of Mylan through a
variety of incentive awards, including: stock options, stock
appreciation rights, restricted shares and units, performance
awards, other stock-based awards and short-term cash awards.
Stock option awards are granted at the fair value of the shares
underlying the options at the date of the grant, generally
become exercisable over periods ranging from three to four
years, and generally expire in ten years. In the 2003 Plan, no
more than 8,000,000 shares may be issued as restricted
shares, restricted units, performance shares and other
stock-based awards.
Upon approval of the 2003 Plan, no further grants of stock
options have been made under any other plan. However, there are
stock options outstanding from frozen or expired plans and other
plans assumed through acquisitions.
The following table summarizes stock option activity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
|
Under Option
|
|
|
per Share
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
26,268,678
|
|
|
$
|
15.22
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
2,071,039
|
|
|
|
20.98
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(2,575,185
|
)
|
|
|
14.04
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(672,247
|
)
|
|
|
14.65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
25,092,285
|
|
|
$
|
15.83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
23,890,685
|
|
|
$
|
15.86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercisable at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
16,419,989
|
|
|
$
|
15.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2010, options outstanding, options vested
and expected to vest, and options exercisable had average
remaining contractual terms of 5.88 years, 5.75 years
and 4.42 years, respectively. Also at June 30, 2010,
options outstanding, options vested and expected to vest and
options exercisable had aggregate intrinsic values of
$53.5 million, $50.5 million and $33.1 million,
respectively.
A summary of the status of the Companys nonvested
restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards as of
June 30, 2010 and the changes during the six-month period
ended June 30, 2010, are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
Restricted
|
|
|
Grant-Date
|
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
Fair Value per Share
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,464,600
|
|
|
$
|
12.78
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
816,359
|
|
|
|
21.20
|
|
Released
|
|
|
(395,942
|
)
|
|
|
12.07
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(110,338
|
)
|
|
|
12.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
2,774,679
|
|
|
$
|
15.38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2010, the Company had $47.4 million of
total unrecognized compensation expense, net of estimated
forfeitures, related to all of its stock-based awards, which
will be recognized over the remaining weighted average period of
1.77 years. The total intrinsic value of stock-based awards
exercised and restricted stock units converted during the six
months ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2009 was
$27.2 million and $7.4 million.
7
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
6.
|
Balance
Sheet Components
|
Selected balance sheet components consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Inventories:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
301,052
|
|
|
$
|
287,128
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
204,614
|
|
|
|
198,280
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
590,699
|
|
|
|
628,811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,096,365
|
|
|
$
|
1,114,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land and improvements
|
|
$
|
68,052
|
|
|
$
|
69,614
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
|
|
622,933
|
|
|
|
625,303
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
1,167,528
|
|
|
|
1,145,464
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
108,854
|
|
|
|
118,410
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,967,367
|
|
|
|
1,958,791
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
875,693
|
|
|
|
836,143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,091,674
|
|
|
$
|
1,122,648
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payroll and employee benefit plan accruals
|
|
$
|
139,534
|
|
|
$
|
188,743
|
|
Accrued rebates
|
|
|
235,023
|
|
|
|
238,161
|
|
Fair value of financial instruments
|
|
|
43,646
|
|
|
|
66,420
|
|
Legal and professional accruals, including litigation reserves
|
|
|
240,108
|
|
|
|
218,813
|
|
Other
|
|
|
170,022
|
|
|
|
222,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
828,333
|
|
|
$
|
934,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Earnings
per Common Share attributable to Mylan Inc.
|
Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net
earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders by the
weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period.
Diluted earnings per common share is computed by dividing net
earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders by the
weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period
increased by the number of additional shares that would have
been outstanding related to potentially dilutable securities or
instruments, if the impact is dilutive.
With respect to the Companys convertible preferred stock,
the Company considered the effect on diluted earnings per share
of the preferred stock conversion feature using the if-converted
method. The preferred stock is convertible into between
125,234,172 shares and 152,785,775 shares of the
Companys common stock, subject to anti-dilution
adjustments, depending on the average stock price of the
Companys common stock over the 20
trading-day
period ending on the third trading day prior to conversion. For
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and
June 30, 2009, the if-converted method is anti-dilutive;
therefore, the preferred stock conversion is excluded from the
computation of diluted earnings per share.
8
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Basic and diluted earnings per common share attributable to
Mylan Inc. are calculated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Basic earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
(numerator):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. before preferred
dividends
|
|
$
|
86,228
|
|
|
$
|
92,870
|
|
|
$
|
182,084
|
|
|
$
|
198,929
|
|
Less: Preferred dividends
|
|
|
34,759
|
|
|
|
34,759
|
|
|
|
69,518
|
|
|
|
69,518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
|
|
$
|
51,469
|
|
|
$
|
58,111
|
|
|
$
|
112,566
|
|
|
$
|
129,411
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares (denominator):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
308,968
|
|
|
|
304,991
|
|
|
|
307,982
|
|
|
|
304,784
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per common share attributable to Mylan Inc.
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common
shareholders (numerator):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
|
|
$
|
51,469
|
|
|
$
|
58,111
|
|
|
$
|
112,566
|
|
|
$
|
129,411
|
|
Add: Preferred dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders and
assumed conversions
|
|
$
|
51,469
|
|
|
$
|
58,111
|
|
|
$
|
112,566
|
|
|
$
|
129,411
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares (denominator):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
308,968
|
|
|
|
304,991
|
|
|
|
307,982
|
|
|
|
304,784
|
|
Stock-based awards and warrants
|
|
|
5,439
|
|
|
|
1,265
|
|
|
|
5,195
|
|
|
|
975
|
|
Preferred stock conversion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total dilutive shares outstanding
|
|
|
314,407
|
|
|
|
306,256
|
|
|
|
313,177
|
|
|
|
305,759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Mylan
Inc.
|
|
$
|
0.16
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional stock options or restricted stock awards representing
3.9 million and 18.7 million shares were outstanding
at June 30, 2010 and 2009, but were not included in the
computation of diluted earnings per share because the effect
would be anti-dilutive.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company paid
dividends of $69.5 million on the preferred stock. On
July 19, 2010, the Company announced that a quarterly
dividend of $16.25 per share was declared (based on the annual
dividend rate of 6.5% and a liquidation preference of $1,000 per
share) payable on August 16, 2010, to the holders of
preferred stock of record as of August 1, 2010. The
preferred stock will automatically convert into common stock on
November 15, 2010, and the last dividend payment is
expected on that date.
9
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
8.
|
Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
|
A rollforward of goodwill from December 31, 2009 to
June 30, 2010 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics Segment
|
|
|
Specialty Segment
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$
|
3,009,740
|
|
|
$
|
706,507
|
|
|
$
|
3,716,247
|
|
Accumulated impairment
losses(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(385,000
|
)
|
|
|
(385,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
3,009,740
|
|
|
$
|
321,507
|
|
|
$
|
3,331,247
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
(200,112
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(200,112
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at June 30, 2010
|
|
$
|
2,809,628
|
|
|
$
|
321,507
|
|
|
$
|
3,131,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the only impairment charge recognized by the Company
under the currently effective accounting guidance. |
Intangible assets consist of the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Life
|
|
|
Original
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Net Book
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized intangible assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patents and technologies
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
122,926
|
|
|
$
|
80,737
|
|
|
$
|
42,189
|
|
Product rights and licenses
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
2,784,154
|
|
|
|
770,760
|
|
|
|
2,013,394
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
175,563
|
|
|
|
98,880
|
|
|
|
76,683
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,082,643
|
|
|
$
|
950,377
|
|
|
$
|
2,132,266
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized intangible assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patents and technologies
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
122,926
|
|
|
$
|
77,717
|
|
|
$
|
45,209
|
|
Product rights and licenses
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
2,902,045
|
|
|
|
657,050
|
|
|
|
2,244,995
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
170,426
|
|
|
|
75,782
|
|
|
|
94,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,195,397
|
|
|
$
|
810,549
|
|
|
$
|
2,384,848
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Other intangibles consist principally of customer lists and
contracts. |
Amortization expense, which is classified within cost of sales
on the Companys Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations, for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
was $140.6 million and $133.4 million, and is expected
to be $132.3 million for the remainder of 2010, and
$259.2 million, $252.6 million, $246.9 million
and $239.3 million for the years ended December 31,
2011 through 2014, respectively.
|
|
9.
|
Financial
Instruments and Risk Management
|
Financial
Risks
The Company is exposed to certain financial risks relating to
its ongoing business operations. The primary financial risks
that are managed by using derivative instruments are foreign
currency risk, interest rate risk and equity risk.
10
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
In order to manage foreign currency risk, Mylan enters into
foreign exchange forward contracts to mitigate risk associated
with changes in spot exchange rates of mainly non-functional
currency denominated assets or liabilities. The foreign exchange
forward contracts are measured at fair value and reported as
current assets or current liabilities on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any gains or losses on the foreign
exchange forward contracts are recognized in earnings in the
period incurred in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company
executed a series of forward contracts to hedge foreign currency
denominated sales from certain international subsidiaries. These
contracts are designated as cash flow hedges to manage foreign
currency risk and are measured at fair value and reported as
current assets or current liabilities on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any changes in fair value are
included in earnings or deferred through accumulated other
comprehensive earnings (loss) (AOCE), depending on
the nature and effectiveness of the offset.
As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the Company
had 679.2 million of borrowings under its senior
credit agreement (the Senior Credit Agreement) that
are designated as a hedge of its net investment in certain
Euro-functional currency subsidiaries to manage foreign currency
risk. The U.S. Dollar equivalent of such amount was
$833.0 million at June 30, 2010 and
$978.1 million at December 31, 2009. Borrowings
designated as hedges of net investments are marked to market
using the current spot exchange rate as of the end of the
period, with gains and losses included in the foreign currency
translation adjustment component of AOCE on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet until the sale or substantial
liquidation of the underlying net investments.
The Company enters into interest rate swaps in order to manage
interest rate risk associated with the Companys
floating-rate debt. These interest rate swaps are designated as
cash flow hedges. The Companys interest rate swaps fix the
interest rate on a portion of the Companys variable-rate
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans and Euro Tranche B Term
Loans under the terms of its Senior Credit Agreement. Derivative
contracts designated as hedges to manage interest rate risk are
measured at fair value and reported as current assets or current
liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any
changes in fair value are included in earnings or deferred
through AOCE, depending on the nature and effectiveness of the
offset.
In conjunction with the notes offering during the current
quarter and the associated prepayment of term debt (see
Note 10), the Company terminated certain interest rate
swaps that had previously fixed the interest rate on a portion
of the Companys variable-rate U.S. Tranche B
Term Loans. As a result, during the current quarter,
approximately $7.4 million that had previously been
classified in AOCE was recognized into other (expense) income,
net. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the
total notional amount of the Companys floating-rate debt
interest rate swaps was $1.2 billion and $2.3 billion.
Certain derivative contracts entered into by the Company are
governed by Master Agreements, which contain credit-risk-related
contingent features which would allow the counterparties to
terminate the contracts early and request immediate payment
should the Company trigger an event of default on other
specified borrowings. The aggregate fair value of all derivative
instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that
are in a liability position at June 30, 2010 is
$37.9 million. The Company is not subject to any
obligations to post collateral under derivative contracts.
The Companys most significant credit exposure arises from
the convertible note hedge on its Cash Convertible Notes. At
June 30, 2010, the convertible note hedge had a total fair
value of $347.9 million, which reflects the maximum loss
that would be incurred should the parties fail to perform
according to the terms of the contract. The counterparties are
highly rated diversified financial institutions with both
commercial and investment banking operations. The counterparties
are required to post collateral against this obligation should
they be downgraded below thresholds specified in the contract.
Eligible collateral is comprised of a wide range of financial
securities with a valuation discount percentage reflecting the
associated risk.
11
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
The Company regularly reviews the creditworthiness of its
financial counterparties and does not expect to incur a
significant loss from failure of any counterparties to perform
under any agreements.
Derivatives
Designated as Hedging Instruments
Fair Values of Derivative Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
37,862
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
62,607
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
2,575
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency borrowings
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
832,980
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
978,059
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
$
|
873,417
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,040,666
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
Fair Values of Derivative Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
$
|
2,823
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
$
|
8,793
|
|
Purchased cash convertible note hedge
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
$
|
350,723
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
419,393
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
3,209
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
$
|
5,694
|
|
Cash conversion feature of Cash Convertible Notes
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
$
|
351,109
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
416,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
The
Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain
|
|
|
|
or (Loss) Recognized
|
|
|
|
in AOCE (Net of Tax)
|
|
|
|
on Derivative (Effective
|
|
|
|
Portion)
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
$
|
(7,748
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
(971
|
)
|
|
|
6,039
|
|
|
|
3,041
|
|
|
|
6,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(8,719
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,039
|
|
|
$
|
178
|
|
|
$
|
6,049
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
or (Loss) Reclassified
|
|
|
|
Location of Gain or
|
|
from AOCE into Earnings
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Reclassified
|
|
(Effective Portion)
|
|
|
|
from AOCE
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
into Earnings
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
|
(Effective Portion)
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
Net revenues
|
|
$
|
468
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
879
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(6,271
|
)
|
|
|
(11,190
|
)
|
|
|
(22,358
|
)
|
|
|
(20,370
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
$
|
(5,803
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,190
|
)
|
|
$
|
(21,479
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20,370
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, a gain
of $1.2 million was recognized in other (expense) income,
net, related to the foreign currency forward contracts for
ineffectiveness. There was no gain or loss recognized into
earnings on derivatives with cash flow hedging relationships for
ineffectiveness during the three or six months ended
June 30, 2009.
The
Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Operations
Derivatives in Net Investment Hedging Relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain
|
|
|
|
or (Loss) Recognized
|
|
|
|
in AOCE (Net of Tax)
|
|
|
|
on Derivative
|
|
|
|
(Effective Portion)
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency borrowings
|
|
$
|
53,394
|
|
|
$
|
(35,745
|
)
|
|
$
|
89,058
|
|
|
$
|
(2,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
53,394
|
|
|
$
|
(35,745
|
)
|
|
$
|
89,058
|
|
|
$
|
(2,450
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no gain or loss recognized into earnings on
derivatives with net investment hedging relationships during the
three or six months ended June 30, 2010 or 2009.
13
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
The
Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Operations
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Gain or (Loss)
|
|
|
|
Location of Gain or
|
|
Recognized
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Recognized in
|
|
in Earnings on Derivatives
|
|
|
|
Earnings on
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency forward contracts
|
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
$
|
(8,210
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10,462
|
)
|
|
$
|
(23,151
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,542
|
)
|
Cash conversion feature of Cash Convertible Notes
|
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
183,800
|
|
|
|
55,925
|
|
|
|
62,700
|
|
|
|
(22,425
|
)
|
Purchased cash convertible note hedge
|
|
Other (expense) income, net
|
|
|
(183,800
|
)
|
|
|
(55,925
|
)
|
|
|
(62,700
|
)
|
|
|
22,425
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,210
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10,462
|
)
|
|
$
|
(23,151
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,542
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurement
Fair value is based on the price that would be received from the
sale of an identical asset or paid to transfer an identical
liability in an orderly transaction between market participants
at the measurement date. In order to increase consistency and
comparability in fair value measurements, a fair value hierarchy
has been established that prioritizes observable and
unobservable inputs used to measure fair value into three broad
levels, which are described below:
Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in
active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for
identical assets or liabilities. The fair value hierarchy gives
the highest priority to Level 1 inputs.
Level 2: Observable market-based inputs
other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets
or liabilities.
Level 3: Unobservable inputs are used
when little or no market data is available. The fair value
hierarchy gives the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.
In determining fair value, the Company utilizes valuation
techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and
minimize the use of unobservable inputs to the extent possible,
as well as considers counterparty credit risk in its assessment
of fair value.
14
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value are
classified in the tables below in one of the three categories
described above:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities exchange traded funds
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total trading securities
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
fixed income investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Treasuries
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,561
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,561
|
|
Corporate bonds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,738
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,738
|
|
Agency mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,253
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
fixed income investments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
21,591
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
21,591
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
equity securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biosciences industry
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
equity securities
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange derivative assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
2,823
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,823
|
|
Purchased cash convertible note hedge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair
value(1)
|
|
$
|
2,200
|
|
|
$
|
372,314
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
374,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,784
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,784
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,862
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,862
|
|
Cash conversion feature of cash convertible notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
347,900
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair
value(1)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
391,546
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
391,546
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
fixed income investments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
26,485
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
26,485
|
|
Available-for-sale
equity securities
|
|
|
1,074
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,074
|
|
Foreign exchange derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,793
|
|
Purchased cash convertible note hedge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair
value(1)
|
|
$
|
1,074
|
|
|
$
|
445,878
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
446,952
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,694
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,694
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,607
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,607
|
|
Cash conversion feature of cash convertible notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair
value(1)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
478,901
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
478,901
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Company chose not to elect the fair value option for its
financial assets and liabilities that had not been previously
carried at fair value. Therefore, material financial assets and
liabilities not carried at fair value, such as short-term and
long-term debt obligations and trade accounts receivable and
payable, are still reported at their carrying values. |
For financial assets and liabilities that utilize Level 2
inputs, the Company utilizes both direct and indirect observable
price quotes, including the LIBOR yield curve, foreign exchange
forward prices, and bank price quotes. Below is a summary of
valuation techniques for Level 1 and Level 2 financial
assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities valued at the quoted
market price from broker or dealer quotations or transparent
pricing sources at the reporting date.
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
fixed income investments valued at the quoted
market price from broker or dealer quotations or transparent
pricing sources at the reporting date.
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
equity securities valued using quoted stock
prices from the London Exchange at the reporting date and
translated to U.S. Dollars at prevailing spot exchange
rates.
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap derivative assets and liabilities
valued using the LIBOR/EURIBOR yield curves at
the reporting date. Counterparties to these contracts are highly
rated financial institutions, none of which experienced any
significant downgrades during the six months ended June 30,
2010, that would reduce the receivable amount owed, if any, to
the Company.
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange derivative assets and liabilities
valued using quoted forward foreign exchange
prices at the reporting date. Counterparties to these contracts
are highly rated financial institutions, none of which
experienced any significant downgrades during the six months
ended June 30, 2010 that would reduce the receivable amount
owed, if any, to the Company.
|
|
|
|
Cash conversion feature of cash convertible notes and
purchased convertible note hedge valued using
quoted prices for the Companys cash convertible notes, its
implied volatility and the quoted yield on the Companys
other long-term debt at the reporting date. Counterparties to
the purchased convertible note hedge are highly rated financial
institutions, none of which experienced any significant
downgrades during the six months ended June 30, 2010, that
would reduce the receivable amount owed, if any, to the Company.
|
16
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Although the Company has not elected the fair value option for
financial assets and liabilities, any future transacted
financial asset or liability will be evaluated for the fair
value election.
On May 19, 2010, the Company issued $550.0 million
aggregate principal amount of 7.625% Senior Notes due 2017
(the 2017 Notes) and $700.0 million aggregate
principal amount of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the
2020 Notes) in a private offering exempt from the
registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act) to qualified institutional buyers in
accordance with Rule 144A and to persons outside of the
United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities
Act. The 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes are the Companys senior
unsecured obligations and are guaranteed on a senior unsecured
basis by certain of the Companys domestic subsidiaries.
The 2017 Notes bear interest at a rate of 7.625% per year,
accruing from May 19, 2010. Interest on the 2017 Notes is
payable semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of
each year, beginning on January 15, 2011. The 2017 Notes
will mature on July 15, 2017, subject to earlier repurchase
or redemption in accordance with the terms of the indenture. The
2020 Notes bear interest at a rate of 7.875% per year, accruing
from May 19, 2010. Interest on the 2020 Notes is payable
semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year,
beginning on January 15, 2011. The 2020 Notes will mature
on July 15, 2020, subject to earlier repurchase or
redemption in accordance with the terms of the indenture.
The Company may redeem some or all of the 2017 Notes at any time
prior to July 15, 2014, and some or all of the 2020 Notes
at any time prior to July 15, 2015, in each case at a price
equal to 100% of the principal amount redeemed plus accrued and
unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date and an
applicable make-whole premium set forth in the indenture. On or
after July 15, 2014 in the case of the 2017 Notes, and on
or after July 15, 2015 in the case of the 2020 Notes, the
Company may redeem some or all of the 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes
of such series at redemption prices set forth in the indenture,
plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption
date. In addition, at any time prior to July 15, 2013, the
Company may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount
of either series of the 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes at a specified
redemption price set forth in the indenture with the net cash
proceeds of certain equity offerings. If the Company experiences
certain change of control events, it must offer to repurchase
the 2017 Notes and 2020 Notes at 101% of their principal amount,
plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the repurchase date.
The Company used $1.0 billion of the net proceeds of the
2017 Notes and 2020 Notes offering to repay a portion of the
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans due under the terms of its
Senior Credit Agreement.
17
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
A summary of long-term debt is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Tranche A Term Loans(A)
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
Euro Tranche A Term Loans(A)
|
|
|
214,874
|
|
|
|
252,299
|
|
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans(A)
|
|
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
|
2,453,760
|
|
Euro Tranche B Term Loans(A)
|
|
|
618,106
|
|
|
|
725,760
|
|
Senior Convertible Notes(B)
|
|
|
551,775
|
|
|
|
538,693
|
|
Cash Convertible Notes(C)
|
|
|
793,827
|
|
|
|
847,136
|
|
2017 Notes
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020 Notes
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
15,954
|
|
|
|
17,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,054,546
|
|
|
|
4,991,335
|
|
Less: Current portion
|
|
|
7,162
|
|
|
|
6,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
$
|
5,047,384
|
|
|
$
|
4,984,987
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
|
All 2010 and 2011 mandatory principal payments due under the
Senior Credit Agreement were prepaid during 2009. During the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, the Company also prepaid
$1.0 billion of the outstanding U.S. Tranche B Term
Loans, using a portion of the net proceeds of the 2017 Notes and
the 2020 Notes. |
|
(B) |
|
At June 30, 2010, the $551.8 million of debt is net of
a $48.2 million discount. At December 31, 2009, the
$538.7 million debt is net of a $61.3 million discount. |
|
(C) |
|
At June 30, 2010, the $793.8 million consists of
$445.9 million of debt ($575.0 million face amount,
net of $129.1 million discount) and the bifurcated
conversion feature with a fair value of $347.9 million
recorded as a liability within long-term debt in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2010. Additionally,
the Company has purchased call options, which are recorded as
assets at their fair value of $347.9 million within other
assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at
June 30, 2010. At December 31, 2009, the
$847.1 million consisted of $436.5 million of debt
($575.0 million face amount, net of $138.5 million
discount) and the bifurcated conversion feature with a fair
value of $410.6 million recorded as a liability within
other long-term obligations in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. The purchased call options are assets recorded at
their fair value of $410.6 million within other assets in
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31,
2009. |
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2010, because the closing price of our
common stock for at least 20 trading days in the period of 30
consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day in the
June 30, 2010 period, was more than 130% of the applicable
conversion reference price of $13.32 at June 30, 2010, the
$575.0 million of Cash Convertible Notes was currently
convertible. Although the Companys experience is that
convertible debentures are not normally converted by investors
until close to their maturity date, it is possible that
debentures could be converted prior to their maturity date if,
for example, a holder perceives the market for the debentures to
be weaker than the market for the common stock. Upon an
investors election to convert, the Company is required to
pay the full conversion value in cash. The amount payable per
$1,000 notional bond would be calculated as the product of
(1) the conversion reference rate (currently 75.0751) and
(2) the average Daily Volume Weighted Average Price per
share of common stock for a specified period following the
conversion date. Any payment above the principal amount is
matched by a convertible note hedge. |
18
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Details of the interest rates in effect at June 30, 2010
and December 31, 2009, on the outstanding borrowings under
the Term Loans are in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Tranche A Term Loans
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
|
LIBOR + 2.75%
|
|
|
3.13%
|
|
Euro Tranche A Term Loans
|
|
$
|
214,874
|
|
|
EURIBO + 2.75%
|
|
|
3.22%
|
|
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate December
2010(1)(2)
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
6.03%
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate March
2012(1)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
5.38%
|
|
Floating Rate
|
|
|
453,760
|
|
|
LIBOR + 3.25%
|
|
|
3.63%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
$
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate March
2011(1)
|
|
$
|
245,280
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
5.38%
|
|
Floating Rate
|
|
|
372,826
|
|
|
EURIBO + 3.25%
|
|
|
3.72%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Euro Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
$
|
618,106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
U.S. Tranche A Term Loans
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
|
LIBOR + 2.75%
|
|
|
3.00%
|
|
Euro Tranche A Term Loans
|
|
$
|
252,299
|
|
|
EURIBO + 2.75%
|
|
|
3.19%
|
|
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate December
2010(1)(2)
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
6.03%
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate March
2010(1)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
5.44%
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate December
2010(1)
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
7.37%
|
|
Floating Rate
|
|
|
453,760
|
|
|
LIBOR + 3.25%
|
|
|
3.50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
$
|
2,453,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swapped to Fixed Rate March
2011(1)
|
|
$
|
288,000
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
5.38%
|
|
Floating Rate
|
|
|
437,760
|
|
|
EURIBO + 3.25%
|
|
|
3.83%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Euro Tranche B Term Loans
|
|
$
|
725,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Designated as a cash flow hedge of expected future borrowings
under the Senior Credit Agreement |
|
(2) |
|
This interest rate swap has been extended to December 2012 at a
rate of 6.60%, effective January 2011 |
At June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the fair value
of the Senior Convertible Notes was approximately
$602.5 million and $612.8 million. At June 30,
2010 and December 31, 2009, the fair value of the Cash
Convertible Notes was approximately $818.2 million and
$879.8 million.
19
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Mandatory minimum repayments remaining on the outstanding
borrowings under the term loans and notes at June 30, 2010,
excluding the discounts and conversion features, are as follows
for each of the periods ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
Senior
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tranche A
|
|
|
Tranche A
|
|
|
Tranche B
|
|
|
Tranche B
|
|
|
Convertible
|
|
|
Convertible
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
78,125
|
|
|
|
107,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,439
|
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
792,001
|
|
2013
|
|
|
78,125
|
|
|
|
107,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,439
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,001
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
|
605,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,058,988
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
|
$
|
214,874
|
|
|
$
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
$
|
618,106
|
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
575,000
|
|
|
$
|
550,000
|
|
|
$
|
700,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,867,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Comprehensive
(Loss) Earnings
|
Comprehensive (loss) earnings consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Net earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
86,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
95,671
|
|
Other comprehensive (loss) earnings, net of tax, as applicable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(263,935
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
322,222
|
|
Change in unrecognized (losses) gains and prior service cost
related to post-retirement plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,765
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
281
|
|
Net unrecognized (loss) gain on derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,719
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,039
|
|
Unrealized gains on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
226
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Reclassification for gains included in net earnings
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive (loss) earnings, net of tax, as
applicable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(274,163
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(187,230
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
424,484
|
|
Comprehensive earnings attributable to the noncontrolling
interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(705
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,962
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) earnings attributable to Mylan Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(187,935
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
421,522
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Net earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
181,203
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
204,745
|
|
Other comprehensive (loss) earnings, net of tax, as applicable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(333,332
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,293
|
|
Change in unrecognized gains and prior service cost related to
post-retirement plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,520
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
220
|
|
Net unrecognized gain on derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,049
|
|
Unrealized gains on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
378
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Reclassification for gains included in net earnings
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
470
|
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
539
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive (loss) earnings, net of tax, as
applicable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329,164
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110,101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147,961
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
314,846
|
|
Comprehensive loss (earnings) attributable to the noncontrolling
interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
881
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,865
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) earnings attributable to Mylan Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(147,080
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
308,981
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) earnings, as reflected on
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, is comprised of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Net unrealized gain on
available-for-sale
securities, net of tax
|
|
$
|
1,345
|
|
|
$
|
875
|
|
Net unrecognized gains (losses) and prior service cost related
to post-retirement plans, net of tax
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
(3,413
|
)
|
Net unrecognized losses on derivatives, net of tax
|
|
|
(39,103
|
)
|
|
|
(39,281
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
(279,707
|
)
|
|
|
53,626
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) earnings
|
|
$
|
(317,358
|
)
|
|
$
|
11,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
A summary of the change in shareholders equity for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Mylan Inc.
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
3,131,146
|
|
|
$
|
14,052
|
|
|
$
|
3,145,198
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
182,084
|
|
|
|
(881
|
)
|
|
|
181,203
|
|
Other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(329,164
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329,164
|
)
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
Stock option activity
|
|
|
36,007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,007
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
15,617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,617
|
|
Purchase of subsidiary shares from noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
(4,376
|
)
|
|
|
(623
|
)
|
|
|
(4,999
|
)
|
Tax benefit of stock option plans
|
|
|
3,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,310
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
(276
|
)
|
|
|
1,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
$
|
2,966,684
|
|
|
$
|
12,272
|
|
|
$
|
2,978,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
2,757,733
|
|
|
$
|
29,108
|
|
|
$
|
2,786,841
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
198,929
|
|
|
|
5,816
|
|
|
|
204,745
|
|
Other comprehensive income
|
|
|
110,052
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
110,101
|
|
Dividends paid on preferred stock
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69,518
|
)
|
Stock option activity
|
|
|
1,417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,417
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
14,652
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,652
|
|
Impact on additional paid-in capital of equity transaction
|
|
|
(115,210
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115,210
|
)
|
Purchase of subsidiary shares from noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,299
|
)
|
|
|
(19,299
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
(2,002
|
)
|
|
|
561
|
|
|
|
(1,441
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
$
|
2,896,053
|
|
|
$
|
16,235
|
|
|
$
|
2,912,288
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mylan previously had three reportable segments,
Generics, Specialty and
Matrix. The Matrix Segment consisted of Matrix,
which was previously a publicly traded company in India, in
which Mylan held a 71.2% ownership stake. Following the
acquisition of additional interests in Matrix and its related
delisting from the Indian stock exchanges, Mylan has two
reportable segments, Generics and
Specialty. Mylan changed its segment disclosure to
align with how the business is being managed after those
changes. The former Matrix Segment is included within the
Generics Segment. Information for earlier periods has been
recast.
The Generics Segment primarily develops, manufactures, sells and
distributes generic or branded generic pharmaceutical products
in tablet, capsule or transdermal patch form, as well as active
pharmaceutical ingredients (API). The Specialty
Segment engages mainly in the manufacture and sale of branded
specialty nebulized and injectable products.
The Companys chief operating decision maker evaluates the
performance of its reportable segments based on total revenues
and segment profitability. For the Generics and Specialty
Segments, segment profitability represents segment gross profit
less direct research and development expenses and direct
selling, general and administrative expenses. Certain general
and administrative and research and development expenses not
allocated to the segments,
22
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
as well as reserves for litigation settlements, impairment
charges and other expenses not directly attributable to the
segments, are reported in Corporate/Other. Additionally,
amortization of intangible assets, and other purchase accounting
related items, as well as any other significant special items,
are included in Corporate/Other. Items below the earnings from
operations line on the Companys Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations are not presented by segment, since
they are excluded from the measure of segment profitability
reviewed by the Companys chief operating decision maker.
The Company does not report depreciation expense, total assets
and capital expenditures by segment, as such information is not
used by the chief operating decision maker.
The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those
described in the Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009. Intersegment revenues
are accounted for at current market values.
The table below presents segment information for the periods
identified and provides a reconciliation of segment information
to total consolidated information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Corporate /
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third party
|
|
$
|
1,242,655
|
|
|
$
|
125,881
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,368,536
|
|
Intersegment
|
|
|
1,502
|
|
|
|
17,216
|
|
|
|
(18,718
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,244,157
|
|
|
$
|
143,097
|
|
|
$
|
(18,718
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,368,536
|
|
Segment profitability
|
|
$
|
333,253
|
|
|
$
|
35,315
|
|
|
$
|
(173,982
|
)
|
|
$
|
194,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Corporate /
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third party
|
|
$
|
2,450,516
|
|
|
$
|
210,393
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,660,909
|
|
Intersegment
|
|
|
31,921
|
|
|
|
33,730
|
|
|
|
(65,651
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,482,437
|
|
|
$
|
244,123
|
|
|
$
|
(65,651
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,660,909
|
|
Segment profitability
|
|
$
|
658,587
|
|
|
$
|
55,119
|
|
|
$
|
(320,615
|
)
|
|
$
|
393,091
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Corporate /
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third party
|
|
$
|
1,144,201
|
|
|
$
|
122,776
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,266,977
|
|
Intersegment
|
|
|
1,804
|
|
|
|
7,090
|
|
|
|
(8,894
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,146,005
|
|
|
$
|
129,866
|
|
|
$
|
(8,894
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,266,977
|
|
Segment profitability
|
|
$
|
322,536
|
|
|
$
|
29,794
|
|
|
$
|
(177,617
|
)
|
|
$
|
174,713
|
|
23
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics
|
|
|
Specialty
|
|
|
Corporate /
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third party
|
|
$
|
2,274,721
|
|
|
$
|
202,172
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,476,893
|
|
Intersegment
|
|
|
18,228
|
|
|
|
11,420
|
|
|
|
(29,648
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,292,949
|
|
|
$
|
213,592
|
|
|
$
|
(29,648
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,476,893
|
|
Segment profitability
|
|
$
|
700,018
|
|
|
$
|
31,695
|
|
|
$
|
(329,659
|
)
|
|
$
|
402,054
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes certain corporate general and administrative and
research and development expenses; reserves for litigation
settlements; certain intercompany transactions, including
eliminations; amortization of intangible assets and certain
purchase-accounting items; impairment charges; and other
expenses not directly attributable to segments. |
Included in other current liabilities in the Companys
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2010
and December 31, 2009 are restructuring reserves totaling
$23.4 million and $39.3 million. Of these amounts,
$16.5 million and $27.0 million, as of June 30,
2010 and December 31, 2009, relate to certain estimated
exit costs associated with the acquisition of the former Merck
Generics business, and the remainder of each balance relates to
the Companys intention to restructure certain other
activities and incur certain related exit costs.
The plans related to the exit activities associated with the
former Merck Generics business were finalized during calendar
year 2008. During the six months ended June 30, 2010,
payments of $10.5 million were made against the reserve, of
which $4.5 million was for severance costs and the
remaining $6.0 million was for other exit costs. Of the
remaining accrual, approximately $12.2 million relates to
additional severance and related costs, $2.0 million
relates to costs associated with the previously announced
rationalization and optimization of the Companys global
manufacturing and research and development platforms, and the
remainder consists of other exit costs.
In addition, the Company has announced its intent to restructure
certain activities and incur certain related exit costs,
including costs related to the realignment of the Dey business
and the right-sizing of certain businesses in markets outside of
the U.S. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a reserve
for such activities, of which approximately $6.9 million
remains at June 30, 2010. During the six months ended
June 30, 2010, the Company recorded restructuring charges
of approximately $3.4 million, nearly all of which relates
to severance and related costs. Spending during the six months,
primarily related to severance, amounted to approximately
$8.5 million.
While it is not possible to determine with any degree of
certainty the ultimate outcome of the following legal
proceedings, the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and
intends to vigorously defend its position. The Company is also
party to certain litigation matters, some of which are described
below, for which Merck KGaA has agreed to indemnify the Company,
under the terms by which Mylan acquired the former Merck
Generics business. An adverse outcome in any of these
proceedings, or the inability or denial of Merck KGaA to pay an
indemnified claim, could have a material adverse effect on the
Companys financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
Lorazepam
and Clorazepate
On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI), and co-defendants
Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in
24
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been
accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its
co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and
Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply
agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier
(Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and
clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these
drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the
Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust
claims relating to Mylans 1998 price increases for
lorazepam and clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company
filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a
new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion
to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the
Companys motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion
for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were
denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the
plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that
request was granted on January 24, 2008. On
February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and
its co-defendants in the total amount of approximately
$69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the
plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the
original verdict (approximately $11 million in total) and,
in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of
the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus
doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages
assessed against each of the defendants (approximately
$58 million in total), some or all of which may be subject
to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also
seeking an award of attorneys fees and litigation costs in
unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately
$8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants have
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple
grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on
the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted.
Mylan intends to contest this ruling along with the liability
finding and other damages awards as part of its pending appeal,
which is proceeding in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. In connection with the Companys appeal of the
lorazepam judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond
underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of
$74.5 million. This surety bond is secured by a pledge of a
$40.0 million cash deposit (which is included as restricted
cash on the Companys Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets) and an irrevocable letter of credit for
$34.5 million issued under the Senior Credit Agreement.
Pricing
and Medicaid Litigation
Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI
and/or UDL
Laboratories Inc. (UDL), together with many other
pharmaceutical companies, have been named in civil lawsuits
filed by state attorneys general (AGs) and municipal
bodies within the state of New York alleging generally that the
defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly
reporting Average Wholesale Prices
and/or
Wholesale Acquisition Costs that exceeded the actual
selling price of the defendants prescription drugs,
causing state programs to overpay pharmacies and other
providers. To date, Mylan, MPI
and/or UDL
have been named as defendants in substantially similar civil
lawsuits filed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas,
Utah and Wisconsin and also by the city of New York and
approximately 40 counties across New York State. Several of
these cases have been transferred to the AWP multi-district
litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts for pretrial proceedings.
Others of these cases will likely be litigated in the state
courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases seeks money
damages, civil penalties
and/or
double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees and costs,
equitable relief
and/or
injunctive relief. Certain of these cases may go to trial in
2010. Mylan and its subsidiaries have denied liability and
intend to defend each of these actions vigorously. On
January 27, 2010, in the New York Counties cases, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment
as to liability under New York Social Services Law
§ 145-b against Mylan and several other defendants.
The District Court has not ruled on the remaining issues of
liability and damages. On February 8, 2010, Mylan, and a
majority of the other defendants, filed a motion to amend the
courts decision, requesting the court to certify a
question of New York state law pertaining to the courts
finding of requisite causation under the Social Services Law to
the First Circuit Court of Appeals, so that the defendants could
in turn request that the First Circuit
25
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Court of Appeals certify the question to the New York Court of
Appeals. The District Court denied this motion on May 4,
2010.
In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a
private plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America,
against Mylan, MPI, UDL and several other generic manufacturers.
The original complaint was filed under seal in April 2000, and
Mylan, MPI and UDL were added as parties in February 2001. The
claims against Mylan, MPI, UDL and the other generic
manufacturers were severed from the April 2000 complaint (which
remains under seal) as a result of the federal governments
decision not to intervene in the action as to those defendants.
The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act and
sets forth allegations substantially similar to those alleged in
the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph and
purports to seek nationwide recovery of any and all alleged
overpayment of the federal share under the Medicaid
program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties. In
February 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle this case (except for the claims related to the
California federal share) and the Texas state action mentioned
above. This settlement is contingent upon the execution of
definitive settlement documents and court approval. The
settlement would resolve a significant portion of the damages
claims asserted against Mylan, MPI and UDL in the various
pending pricing litigations. In addition, Mylan has reached
agreement in principle to settle the Hawaii state action, which
settlement is contingent upon the execution of definitive
settlement documents. With regard to the remaining state
actions, the Company continues to believe that it has
meritorious defenses and will continue to vigorously defend
itself in those actions. The Company has accrued
$160 million in connection with the above-mentioned
settlement in principle and the remaining state actions. The
Company reviews the status of these actions on an ongoing basis,
and from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise
resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management
believes are in the best interests of the Company. There are no
assurances that settlements can be reached on acceptable terms
or that adverse judgments, if any, in the remaining litigation
will not exceed the amounts reserved.
In addition, by letter dated January 12, 2005, MPI was
notified by the U.S. Department of Justice of an
investigation concerning calculations of Medicaid drug rebates.
The investigation involved whether MPI and UDL may have violated
the False Claims Act by classifying certain authorized generics
as non-innovator rather than innovator drugs for purposes of
Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs on sales from
2000 through 2004. MPI and UDL denied the governments
allegations and denied that they engaged in any wrongful
conduct. On October 19, 2009, a lawsuit, filed in March
2004 by a private relator, in which the federal government
subsequently intervened, was unsealed by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. That same day, MPI and
UDL announced that they had entered into a settlement agreement
with the federal government, relevant states and the relator for
approximately $121.0 million, resolving both the lawsuit
and the U.S. Department of Justice investigation. A
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice has been filed with the
court. The resolution of the matter did not include any
admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of either MPI or
UDL. The Company has recovered approximately $50 million of
the settlement amount based on overpayments resulting from
adjusted net sales during the relevant timeframe.
Dey is a defendant currently in lawsuits brought by the state
AGs of California, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin, as well as three New York counties. Dey is also named
as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and
third-party payors. Dey has reached a settlement of these class
actions, which has been preliminarily approved by the court.
Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on
behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August
1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its
complaint-in-intervention
and the case was unsealed in September 2006. Deys motion
for partial summary judgment in that case is pending, as is the
Governments cross-motion. The Government has asserted that
Dey is jointly liable with a codefendant and seeks recovery of
alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil
penalties and equitable relief. These cases all generally allege
that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning
certain drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to
be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused
Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims.
Certain of these cases may go to trial in 2010. Dey intends to
defend each of these actions vigorously. The Company has
approximately $97.8 million recorded in other liabilities
related to the
26
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
price-related
litigation involving Dey. As stated above, in conjunction with
the acquisition of the former Merck Generics business, Mylan is
entitled to indemnification from Merck KGaA. As a result, the
Company has recorded approximately $97.8 million in other
assets.
Modafinil
Antitrust Litigation and FTC Inquiry
Beginning in April 2006, Mylan, along with four other drug
manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in civil lawsuits
filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Ohio and a lawsuit originally filed in Tennessee
state court by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and a
third-party payor and one action brought by Apotex, Inc., a
manufacturer of generic drugs, seeking approval to market a
generic modafinil product. These actions allege violations of
federal and state laws in connection with the defendants
settlement of patent litigation relating to modafinil. On
March 29, 2010, the Court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the defendants motions to dismiss.
Mylan intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. In
addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified
by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of
an investigation relating to the settlement of the modafinil
patent litigation. In its letter, the FTC requested certain
information from Mylan, MPI and Mylan Technologies, Inc.
pertaining to the patent litigation and the settlement thereof.
On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on
April 26, 2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand
to Mylan requesting additional information from the Company
relating to the investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with
the governments investigation and completed all requests
for information. On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a
lawsuit against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia and the case has subsequently been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC issued a
third party subpoena to Mylan requesting documents in connection
with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan is in the process of
responding to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in
the FTCs lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain
allegations pertaining to the Mylan/Cephalon settlement.
Digitek®
Recall
On April 25, 2008, Actavis Totowa LLC, a division of
Actavis Group, announced a voluntary, nationwide recall of all
lots and all strengths of Digitek (digoxin tablets USP). Digitek
was manufactured by Actavis and distributed in the United States
by MPI and UDL. The Company has tendered its defense and
indemnity in all lawsuits and claims arising from this event to
Actavis, and Actavis has accepted that tender, subject to a
reservation of rights. While the Company is unable to estimate
total potential costs with any degree of certainty, such costs
could be significant. There are approximately 1,008 cases
pending against Mylan, UDL and Actavis pertaining to the recall.
Most of these cases have been transferred to the multi-district
litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia for pretrial
proceedings. The remainder of these cases will likely be
litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Certain
of these cases may go to trial in 2010. An adverse outcome in
these lawsuits or the inability or denial of Actavis to pay on
an indemnified claim could have a materially negative impact on
the Companys financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.
EU
Commission Proceedings
On or around July 3, 2009, the European Commission (the
EU Commission or the Commission) stated
that it had initiated antitrust proceedings pursuant to
Article 11(6) of
Regulation No. 1/2003
and Article 2(1) of Regulation No. 773/2004 to
explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC and
Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement by Les Laboratoires
Servier (Servier) as well as possible infringement
of Article 81 EC by Matrix and four other companies, each
of which entered into agreements with Servier relating to the
product perindopril. Matrix is cooperating with the EU
Commission in connection with the investigation. The EU
Commission stated that the initiation of proceedings does
not imply that the Commission has conclusive proof of an
infringement but merely signifies that the Commission will deal
with the case as a matter of priority. No statement of
objections has been filed against Matrix in connection with its
investigation. On August 5, 2009,
27
MYLAN
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited) (Continued)
Matrix and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received requests for
information from the EU Commission in connection with this
matter, and both companies have responded. By letters dated
February 17, 2010, the EU Commission served additional
requests for information on Matrix and Mylan S.A.S. The
companies have responded to these requests.
In addition, the EU Commission is conducting a pharmaceutical
sector inquiry involving approximately 100 companies
concerning the introduction of innovative and generic medicines.
Mylan S.A.S. has responded to the questionnaires received in
connection with the sector inquiry and has produced documents
and other information in connection with the inquiry.
On October 6, 2009, the Company received notice that the EU
Commission was initiating an investigation pursuant to
Article 20(4) of Regulation No. 1/2003 to explore
possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the
Company and its affiliates. Mylan S.A.S., acting on behalf of
its Mylan affiliates, has produced documents and other
information in connection with the inquiry. The Company and
Mylan S.A.S. received an additional request for information with
the same case reference on December 18, 2009 and have
responded to the questionnaire. An additional request was
received on March 18, 2010. Mylan S.A.S. has responded to
this request. Mylan is cooperating with the Commission in
connection with the investigation. No statement of objections
has been filed against Mylan in connection with the
investigation.
Other
Litigation
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that
are considered normal to its business, including certain
proceedings assumed as a result of the acquisition of the former
Merck Generics business. While it is not feasible to predict the
ultimate outcome of such other proceedings, the ultimate outcome
of any such proceeding is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.
On July 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to
acquire Bioniche Pharma Holdings Limited (Bioniche
Pharma), a privately held, global injectable
pharmaceutical company, for $550.0 million in cash. Most of
Bioniche Pharmas sales are derived in the
U.S. commercial marketplace. The company manufactures and
sells a diverse portfolio of products across several therapeutic
areas for the hospital setting, including
analgesics/anesthetics, orthopedics, oncology, and urology.
Mylan is not assuming any of Bioniche Pharmas outstanding
debt or acquiring the companys cash as part of the
transaction. Mylan expects to finance this transaction using a
combination of cash on hand and available borrowings. The
closing of this transaction is conditioned upon regulatory
approvals and other customary closing conditions and is expected
to occur within 60 days of signing the agreement.
28
|
|
ITEM 2.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
The following discussion and analysis addresses material changes
in the financial condition and results of operations of Mylan
Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company,
Mylan or we) for the periods presented.
This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with
the Consolidated Financial Statements, the related Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements and Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations included in the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009, the unaudited interim
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes
included in Part I ITEM 1 of this
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
(Form 10-Q)
and our other Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filings and public disclosures.
This
Form 10-Q
may contain forward-looking statements. These
statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such
forward-looking statements may include, without limitation,
statements about our market opportunities, strategies,
competition and expected activities and expenditures, and at
times may be identified by the use of words such as
may, could, should,
would, project, believe,
anticipate, expect, plan,
estimate, forecast,
potential, intend, continue
and variations of these words or comparable words.
Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and
uncertainties. Accordingly, actual results may differ materially
from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking
statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such
differences include, but are not limited to, the risks described
below under Risk Factors in Part II,
ITEM 1A. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any
forward-looking statements for revisions or changes after the
filing date of this
Form 10-Q.
Executive
Overview
Mylan is the worlds third largest producer of generic and
specialty pharmaceuticals, offering one of the industrys
broadest and highest quality product portfolios, a robust
pipeline and a global commercial footprint that spans more than
140 countries and territories. Employing over
15,500 people, Mylan has attained leading positions in key
international markets through its wide array of dosage forms and
delivery systems, significant manufacturing capacity, global
scale and commitment to customer service. Through its Matrix
Laboratories Limited (Matrix) subsidiary, Mylan
controls one of the worlds largest active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API) manufacturers with respect to the
number of drug master files filed with regulatory agencies. This
relationship makes Mylan one of only two global generics
companies with a comprehensive, vertically integrated supply
chain.
Mylan previously had three reportable segments,
Generics, Specialty and
Matrix. The Matrix Segment consisted of Matrix,
which was previously a publicly traded company in India, in
which Mylan held a 71.2% ownership stake. Following the
acquisition of additional interests in Matrix, beginning in
2009, and its related delisting from the Indian stock exchanges,
Mylan now has two reportable segments, Generics and
Specialty. Mylan revised its segment disclosure to
align with how the business is being managed after those
changes. The former Matrix Segment is included within the
Generics Segment. Information for earlier periods has been
recast.
Generics primarily develops, manufactures, sells and distributes
generic or branded generic pharmaceutical products in tablet,
capsule or transdermal patch form, as well as API. Specialty
engages mainly in the manufacture and sale of branded specialty
nebulized and injectable products. We also report in
Corporate/Other certain research and development expenses,
general and administrative expenses, litigation settlements,
amortization of intangible assets and certain
purchase-accounting items, impairment charges, and other items
not directly attributable to the segments.
Issuance
of Senior Notes
During the quarter ended June 30, 2010, we issued
$550.0 million of 7.625% Senior Notes due 2017 (the
2017 Notes) and $700.0 million of
7.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes).
These notes were issued in a private offering exempt from the
registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 to
qualified institutional buyers in accordance with Rule 144A
and to persons outside of the United States pursuant to
Regulation S under the Securities Act. The 2017 Notes and
2020 Notes are the Companys senior unsecured obligations
and are guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by certain of the
Companys domestic subsidiaries.
29
The 2017 Notes bear interest at a rate of 7.625% per year,
accruing from May 19, 2010. Interest on the 2017 Notes is
payable semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of
each year, beginning on January 15, 2011. The 2017 Notes
will mature on July 15, 2017, subject to earlier repurchase
or redemption in accordance with the terms of the indenture. The
2020 Notes bear interest at a rate of 7.875% per year, accruing
from May 19, 2010. Interest on the 2020 Notes is payable
semiannually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each
year, beginning on January 15, 2011. The 2020 Notes will
mature on July 15, 2020, subject to earlier repurchase or
redemption in accordance with the terms of the indenture.
The Company used $1.0 billion of the net proceeds of the
2017 Notes and 2020 Notes offering to repay a portion of the
U.S. Tranche B Term Loans due under the terms of its
senior credit agreement (Senior Credit Agreement).
Pending
Acquisition of Bioniche Pharma Holdings Limited
On July 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to
acquire Bioniche Pharma Holdings Limited (Bioniche
Pharma), a privately held, global injectable
pharmaceutical company, for $550.0 million in cash. Most of
Bioniche Pharmas sales are derived in the
U.S. commercial marketplace. The company manufactures and
sells a diverse portfolio of products across several therapeutic
areas for the hospital setting, including
analgesics/anesthetics, orthopedics, oncology, and urology.
Mylan is not assuming any of Bioniche Pharmas outstanding
debt or acquiring the companys cash as part of the
transaction. Mylan expects to finance this transaction using a
combination of cash on hand and available borrowings. The
closing of this transaction is conditioned upon regulatory
approvals and other customary closing conditions and is expected
to occur within 60 days of signing the agreement.
Financial
Summary
For the three months ended June 30, 2010, Mylan reported
total revenues of $1.37 billion compared to
$1.27 billion for the three months ended June 30,
2009. This represents an increase in revenues of
$101.6 million, or 8.0%. Consolidated gross profit for the
current quarter was $541.9 million compared to
$527.8 million in the comparable prior year period, an
increase of $14.1 million, or 3%. For the current quarter,
earnings from operations of $194.6 million were realized
compared to $174.7 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2009. The impact of foreign currency translation
on consolidated sales for the current quarter was not
significant.
The net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
for the three months ended June 30, 2010 were
$51.5 million, which translates into earnings per diluted
share of $0.16. In the same prior year period, the net earnings
attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders were
$58.1 million, which translates into earnings per diluted
share of $0.19. A more detailed discussion of the companys
financial statements can be found below in the section titled
Results of Operations.
Included in the results for the three months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009 are the following items of note:
Three months ended June 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization, primarily related to purchased intangible assets
associated with acquisitions, of $71.3 million;
|
|
|
|
Interest of $13.5 million, primarily related to the
accretion of the discounts on our convertible debt instruments;
|
|
|
|
Charges, related to the refinancing, of $15.0 million,
primarily swap termination fees and the write-off of deferred
financing costs included in other (expense) income, net;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable litigation charges of $12.1 million;
|
|
|
|
Additional costs, primarily restructuring, totaling
$18.4 million; and
|
|
|
|
A tax effect of $53.1 million related to the above items
and other taxes.
|
Three months ended June 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization, primarily related to purchased intangible assets
associated with acquisitions, of $70.1 million;
|
|
|
|
Interest of $10.7 million relating to the accretion of the
discounts on our convertible debt instruments;
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
Net favorable litigation of $0.6 million;
|
|
|
|
A charge of $18.0 million related to an up-front payment
made with respect to the Companys execution of a
co-development agreement;
|
|
|
|
A net gain of approximately $10.4 million on the
termination of two joint ventures;
|
|
|
|
Additional costs, primarily restructuring, related to the
integration of acquired entities, and other costs, totaling
$11.0 million; and
|
|
|
|
A tax effect of $44.2 million related to the above items
and other taxes.
|
Mylans financial results for the six months ended
June 30, 2010 include total revenues of $2.66 billion
compared to $2.48 billion for the six months ended
June 30, 2009, representing an increase of
$184.0 million, or 7.4%. Translating total revenues for the
six months ended June 30, 2010 at prior year exchange rates
would have resulted in
year-over-year
growth, excluding the effect of foreign currency of
approximately $120 million, or 5%. Consolidated gross
profit for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was
$1.06 billion compared to $1.05 billion in the same
prior year period. For the six months ended June 30, 2010,
earnings from operations of $393.1 million were realized
compared to $402.1 million for the same prior year period.
The net earnings attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders
for the six months ended June 30, 2010 were
$112.6 million, which translates into earnings per diluted
share of $0.36. In the same prior year period, net earnings
attributable to Mylan Inc. common shareholders were
$129.4 million, which translates into earnings per diluted
share of $0.42. A more detailed discussion of the Companys
financial statements can be found below in the section titled
Results of Operations.
Included in the results for the six months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009 are the following items of note:
Six months ended June 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization, primarily related to purchased intangible assets
associated with acquisitions, of $143.0 million;
|
|
|
|
Interest of $24.4 million, primarily related to the
accretion of discounts on our convertible debt instruments;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable litigation charges of $12.8 million;
|
|
|
|
Charges, related to the refinancing, of $15.0 million,
primarily swap termination fees and the write-off of deferred
financing costs included in other (expense) income, net;
|
|
|
|
Additional costs, primarily restructuring, totaling
$30.5 million; and
|
|
|
|
A tax effect of $86.2 million related to the above items
and other taxes.
|
Six months ended June 30, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization, primarily related to purchased intangible assets
associated with acquisitions, of $139.1 million;
|
|
|
|
Other revenues of approximately $28.5 million resulting
from the cancellation of product development agreements for
which the revenue had been previously deferred;
|
|
|
|
Interest of $20.9 million relating to the accretion of the
discounts on our convertible debt instruments;
|
|
|
|
Net favorable litigation of $2.8 million;
|
|
|
|
A charge of $18.0 million related to an up-front payment
made with respect to the Companys execution of a
co-development agreement;
|
|
|
|
A net gain of approximately $10.4 million on the
termination of two joint ventures;
|
|
|
|
Additional costs, primarily restructuring, related to the
integration of acquired entities, and other costs, totaling
$35.1 million; and
|
|
|
|
A tax effect of $72.4 million related to the above items
and other taxes.
|
31
Results
of Operations
Three
Months Ended June 30, 2010, Compared to Three Months Ended
June 30, 2009
Total
Revenues and Gross Profit
For the current quarter, Mylan reported total revenues of
$1.37 billion compared to $1.27 billion in the
comparable prior year period. Total revenues include both net
revenues and other revenues from third parties. Third party net
revenues for the current quarter were $1.36 billion
compared to $1.26 billion for the same prior year period,
representing an increase of $100.7 million, or 8%. The
impact of foreign currency translation on consolidated sales for
the current quarter was not significant.
Other third party revenues for the current quarter were
$12.0 million compared to $11.2 million in the same
prior year period, an increase of $0.8 million.
Gross profit for the three months ended June 30, 2010 was
$541.9 million, and gross margins were 39.6%. For the three
months ended June 30, 2009, gross profit was
$527.8 million, and gross margins were 41.7%. Gross profit
for the current quarter is impacted by certain purchase
accounting related items recorded during the three months ended
June 30, 2010, of approximately $71.3 million, which
consisted primarily of amortization related to purchased
intangible assets associated with acquisitions. Excluding such
items, gross margins would have been approximately 44.8%. Prior
year gross profit is also impacted by similar purchase
accounting related items in the amount of $70.1 million.
Excluding such items, gross margins in the prior year would have
been approximately 47.2%.
The decrease in gross margins, excluding the items noted above,
can generally be attributed to the impact of the timing of
significant product launches. During the first quarter of 2009,
Mylan launched divalproex sodium extended-release
(divalproex ER) tablets, the generic version of
Abbott Laboratories
Depakote®
ER. Products generally contribute most significantly to gross
margin at the time of their launch and even more so in periods
of market exclusivity, as was the case with divalproex ER, or in
periods of limited generic competition.
Generics
Segment
For the current quarter, Generics third party net revenues were
$1.23 billion compared to $1.13 billion in the
comparable prior year period, an increase of $98.4 million,
or 8.7%. Translating Generics third party net revenues for the
current quarter at prior year comparative period exchange rates
would have resulted in
year-over-year
growth, excluding the effect of foreign currency of
approximately $96 million, or 8%. The impact of foreign
currency was not significant as the unfavorable impact of the
Euro devaluation was almost fully offset by the strengthening of
the Indian Rupee, Japanese Yen, Australian Dollar and Canadian
Dollar against the U.S. Dollar. Generics sales are
primarily in or from the U.S. and Canada (collectively
North America), Europe, Middle East and Africa
(collectively, EMEA) and India, Australia, Japan,
and New Zealand (collectively, Asia Pacific).
Third party net revenues from North America were
$588.8 million for the current quarter, compared to
$525.5 million for the comparable prior year period,
representing an increase of $63.3 million, or 12.0%.
However, excluding the effect of foreign currency, calculated as
described above, the increase was approximately
$59 million, or 11%. New products launched in the
U.S. and Canada contributed sales of $91.9 million.
Additionally, volume on certain existing products increased
primarily as a result of Mylans ability to remain a source
of stable supply as certain competitors experienced regulatory
and supply issues. Partially offsetting these increases was
unfavorable pricing on certain other existing products,
including divalproex ER. Additional generic competition on
divalproex ER entered the market in August 2009. As such, sales
of divalproex ER in the current quarter were significantly lower
than the comparable prior year quarter.
Fentanyl, our AB-rated generic alternative to
Duragesic®,
continued to contribute to both net revenues and gross profit
despite the entrance into the market of additional generic
competition. Sales of fentanyl have remained relatively strong
primarily due to Mylans ability to continue to be a stable
and reliable source of supply to the market. As is the case in
the generic industry, the entrance into the market of additional
competition generally has a negative impact on the volume and
pricing of the affected products. Competition on fentanyl in the
future could have an unfavorable impact on pricing and market
share.
32
Third party net revenues from EMEA were $378.6 million for
the three-month period ended June 30, 2010, compared to
$392.7 million for the comparable prior year period, a
decrease of $14.1 million, or 3.6%. However, foreign
currency translation had a negative impact on sales for the
current quarter, reflecting the weakening of the Euro against
the U.S. Dollar. Translating current quarter third party
net revenues from EMEA at prior year exchange rates would have
resulted in
year-over-year
growth excluding the effect of foreign currency of approximately
$11 million, or 3%. This increase was driven by new product
launches in several markets totaling approximately
$30.7 million, as well as favorable market dynamics in
certain countries, including, most significantly, Italy,
partially offset by unfavorable pricing in other European
markets.
In Italy, third party sales almost doubled on a constant
currency basis, driven by successful new product launches and
increased market penetration, which resulted in increased
volume, as well as certain regulatory changes that positively
affected pricing in the generics market.
In Spain, excluding the effect of foreign currency, new product
launches more than offset the impact of certain recent
regulatory actions that had a negative impact on pricing across
the portfolio. In France, however, competitive pressure resulted
in lower pricing which more than offset the favorable
contribution from new products and increased sales of existing
products, and resulted in a net decrease in third party local
currency sales.
Certain markets in which we do business have recently undergone
government-imposed price reductions, thereby increasing pricing
pressures on pharmaceutical products. This is true in Australia
as well as several European countries. Such measures, along with
the tender systems discussed below, are likely to have a
negative impact on sales and gross profit in these markets.
However, some pro-generic government initiatives in certain
markets could help to offset some of this unfavorability by
potentially increasing generic substitution.
A number of markets in which we operate have implemented or may
implement tender systems for generic pharmaceuticals in an
effort to lower prices. Generally speaking, tender systems can
have an unfavorable impact on revenue and profitability. Under
such tender systems, manufacturers submit bids which establish
prices for generic pharmaceutical products. Upon winning the
tender, the winning company will receive a preferential
reimbursement for a period of time. The tender system often
results in companies underbidding one another by proposing low
pricing in order to win the tender. While certain of our
subsidiaries, including those in the U.K. and the Netherlands,
have benefited from recent tenders, sales in Germany continue to
be negatively affected by the implementation of tender systems
in that country.
In Asia Pacific, third party net revenues were
$265.1 million for the three-month period ended
June 30, 2010, compared to $215.9 million for the
comparable prior year period, an increase of $49.2 million,
or 22.8%. However, excluding the effect of foreign currency,
calculated as described above, the increase was approximately
$27 million, or 12%. This increase is primarily driven by
higher third party sales in India and Japan.
In India, the increase in third party net revenues is due to
double-digit growth, excluding the effect of foreign currency,
in sales of both anti-retroviral (ARV) finished
dosage form (FDF) generic products, which are used
in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and API. In addition to third party
sales, the Asia Pacific region also supplies both FDF generic
products and API to Mylan subsidiaries in conjunction with
Mylans vertical integration strategy. Intercompany
revenues recognized by the Asia Pacific region were
$33.9 million for the three months ended June 30,
2010, compared to $10.0 million in the comparable prior
year period. These intercompany sales eliminate within and,
therefore, are not included in Generics or consolidated net
revenues.
Specialty
Segment
For the current quarter, Specialty reported third party net
revenues of $124.0 million, an increase of
$2.3 million, or 1.9%, over the comparable prior year
period of $121.7 million. The most significant contributor
to Specialty Segment revenues continues to be the
EpiPen®
Auto-injector, which is used in the treatment of severe allergic
reactions. Globally, the EpiPen Auto-injector is the number one
epinephrine auto-injector for the treatment of severe allergic
reactions with world-wide market share of approximately 91%. In
the U.S., the EpiPen Auto-injector is the number one prescribed
treatment for severe allergic reactions with market share of
approximately 96%.
33
Intercompany sales by Specialty totaled $17.2 million in
the current quarter compared to $7.1 million in the same
prior year period. The increase is due to the fact that,
beginning in 2010, certain generic products previously sold to
third parties by Specialty are now sold to Mylan subsidiaries in
North America who, in turn, sell the products to third parties.
Excluding the sale of such products from 2009 third party net
revenues would have resulted in an increase in third party net
revenues in the current quarter of $17.6 million or 14.0%.
Operating
Expenses
Research and development (R&D) expense for the
three months ended June 30, 2010 was $66.8 million,
compared to $74.0 million in the same prior year period, a
decrease of $7.2 million. This decrease was primarily the
result of a charge of $18.0 million in the prior year
related to an up-front payment made with respect to the
Companys execution of a co-development agreement.
Excluding this item, R&D expense increased, primarily in
Generics, as a result of increased product development activity.
Selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expense for the current quarter was $268.4 million,
compared to $279.7 million for the same prior year period,
a decrease of $11.3 million. This decrease is the result of
charges, recorded in the prior year, with respect to certain
restructuring initiatives, and the subsequent cost savings that
have resulted.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense for the three months ended June 30, 2010,
totaled $78.4 million, compared to $78.2 million for
the three months ended June 30, 2009. In March 2009, we
pre-paid all of our required 2010 principal payments on our term
debt, and in December 2009, we pre-paid all of our required 2011
principal payments on our term debt. The effect of the
pre-payments was offset by the effect of the debt offering in
the current period. Included in interest expense for the current
quarter and the comparable prior year period are
$11.4 million and $10.7 million of accretion of the
discounts on our convertible debt instruments.
Other
(Expense) Income, net
Other (expense) income, net, was expense of $15.2 million
in the current quarter compared to income of $25.3 million
in the comparable prior year period. Included in the current
quarter are charges associated with the termination of certain
interest rate swaps totaling $7.4 million and the write-off
of previously deferred financing fees of $7.6 million, in
conjunction with the debt offering during the quarter. In the
prior year quarter, other (expense) income consisted primarily
of a favorable adjustment of $13.9 million to the
restructuring reserve as a result of a reduction in the
estimated remaining spending on accrued projects, as well as a
net gain of $10.4 million realized on the termination of
two joint ventures.
Income
Tax Expense
We recorded income tax expense of $14.0 million in the
current quarter compared to $26.2 million in the prior year
quarter. The decrease in tax expense is driven by a decrease in
taxable income, as well as a decrease in the effective tax rate.
The effective rate for the current year quarter was 13.9%,
versus 21.4% in the comparable prior year period. The decrease
in the effective rate was largely due to reductions in certain
tax reserves stemming from statutory and other changes.
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2010, Compared to Six Months Ended
June 30, 2009
Total
Revenues and Gross Profit
For the current six-month period, Mylan reported total revenues
of $2.66 billion compared to $2.48 billion in the
comparable prior year period. Total revenues include both net
revenues and other revenues from third parties. Third party net
revenues for the current six months were $2.63 billion
compared to $2.42 billion for the same prior year period,
representing an increase of $210.5 million, or 8.7%. Sales
were favorably impacted by the effect of foreign currency
translation, primarily reflecting stronger functional currencies
in certain of Mylans subsidiaries, primarily those in
Australia, Japan, India and Canada, compared to the
U.S. Dollar. The impact of foreign currency
34
translation related to the Euro was insignificant between the
two comparative periods. Translating current year third party
net revenues at prior year exchange rates would have resulted in
year-over-year
growth excluding foreign currency of approximately
$146 million, or 6%.
Other revenues from third parties for the six months ended
June 30, 2010 were $26.3 million compared to
$52.7 million in the same prior year period, a decrease of
$26.5 million, or 50.2%. During the six months ended
June 30, 2009, within Generics, we recognized
$26.0 million of incremental revenue resulting from the
cancellation of product development agreements for which the
revenue had been previously deferred. There was no such revenue
recognized during the current year period.
Gross profit for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was
$1.06 billion, and gross margins were 39.8%. For the six
months ended June 30, 2009, gross profit was
$1.05 billion, and gross margins were 42.5%. Gross profit
for the current year to date period is impacted by certain
purchase accounting related items recorded during the six months
ended June 30, 2010, of approximately $143.0 million,
which consisted primarily of amortization related to purchased
intangible assets associated with acquisitions. Excluding such
items, gross margins would have been approximately 45.1%. Prior
year gross profit is also impacted by similar purchase
accounting related items in the amount of $139.1 million.
Excluding such items, gross margins in the prior year would have
been approximately 48.1%.
The decrease in gross margins, excluding the items noted above,
can generally be attributed to the impact of the timing of
significant product launches. During the first quarter of 2009,
Mylan launched divalproex ER. Products generally contribute most
significantly to gross margin at the time of their launch and
even more so in periods of market exclusivity, as was the case
with divalproex ER, or in periods of limited generic competition.
Generics
Segment
For the six months ended June 30, 2010, Generics reported
third party net revenues of $2.43 billion, compared to
$2.22 billion in the comparable prior year period, an
increase of $204.8 million, or 9.2%. Excluding the effect
of foreign currency, calculated as described above, the increase
was approximately $141 million, or 6%.
Third party net revenues from North America were
$1.14 billion for the six-month period, compared to
$1.07 billion for the comparable prior year period,
representing an increase of $66.3 million, or 6.2%.
Excluding the effect of foreign currency, calculated as
described above, the increase was approximately
$55 million, or 5%. This increase was driven by sales
contributed from new products in the U.S. and Canada in the
amount of $148.5 million, and increased revenues on certain
products as a result of Mylans ability to remain a source
of stable supply as certain competitors experienced regulatory
and supply issues. Partially offsetting these increases were
decreases in certain other existing products, such as divalproex
ER. Additional generic competition on divalproex ER entered the
market in August 2009. As such, sales of divalproex ER in the
current year were significantly lower than in the
prior year.
Fentanyl, our AB-rated generic alternative to
Duragesic®,
continued to contribute to both net revenues and gross profit
despite the entrance into the market of additional generic
competition. Sales of fentanyl have remained relatively strong
primarily due to Mylans ability to continue to be a stable
and reliable source of supply to the market. As is the case in
the generic industry, the entrance into the market of additional
competition generally has a negative impact on the volume and
pricing of the affected products. Competition on fentanyl in the
future could have an unfavorable impact on pricing and market
share.
Third party net revenues from EMEA were $785.5 million for
the six-month period ended June 30, 2010, compared to
$746.4 million for the comparable prior year period, an
increase of $39.1 million, or 5.2%. The increase in EMEA
third party net revenues was driven by new product launches in
several European markets, which totaled approximately
$61.1 million, as well as favorable market dynamics in
certain countries, particularly Italy and the U.K., partially
offset by unfavorable pricing. The impact of foreign currency
translation on EMEA sales for the current six-month period was
not significant.
In Italy, the increase in third party sales was driven by
successful new product launches and increased market
penetration, which resulted in increased volume, as well as
certain regulatory changes that positively affected pricing in
the generics market.
35
In the U.K., prior year third party sales were negatively
impacted by excess supply in the market at that time. Since the
second quarter of 2009, these supply issues have been resolved,
which led to the increases in revenue in the current year. Also
contributing to the increase in U.K. sales in the current year
was a successful bid on a recent government tender.
While the U.K. benefitted from its recent tender, sales in
Germany continue to be negatively affected by the implementation
of tender systems in that country. Current year to date revenues
were negatively impacted by the price reductions as a result of
these tenders, as well as general pricing pressure on its
non-tender business and the loss of exclusivity on certain
Statutory Health Insurance contracts.
In Spain, excluding the effect of foreign currency, new product
launches more than offset the impact of certain recent
regulatory actions that had a negative impact on pricing across
the portfolio.
In France, competitive pricing pressures drove a decrease in
third party sales in the current year versus the prior year
comparable period. The impact on pricing more than offset
increases due to new product launches and increased sales of
existing products.
Certain markets in which we do business have recently undergone
government-imposed price reductions, thereby increasing pricing
pressures on pharmaceutical products. This is true in Australia
as well as several European countries. Such measures, along with
the tender systems discussed above, are likely to have a
negative impact on sales and gross profit in these markets.
However, some pro-generic government initiatives in certain
markets could help to offset some of this unfavorability by
potentially increasing generic substitution.
In Asia Pacific, third party net revenues were
$501.2 million for the six-month period ended June 30,
2010, compared to $401.8 million for the comparable prior
year period, an increase of $99.4 million, or 24.7%.
However, excluding the effect of foreign currency, calculated as
described above, the increase was approximately
$47 million, or 12%. This increase is primarily driven by
higher third party sales from India and Japan.
In India, the increase in third party net revenues is due to
double-digit growth, excluding the effect of foreign currency,
in sales of both ARV FDF generic products and API. In addition
to third party sales, the Asia Pacific region also supplies both
FDF generic products and API to Mylan subsidiaries in
conjunction with Mylans vertical integration strategy.
Intercompany revenues recognized by the Asia Pacific region were
$64.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010,
compared to $20.2 million in the comparable prior year
period. These intercompany sales eliminate within and,
therefore, are not included in Generics or consolidated net
revenues.
Specialty
Segment
For the six months ended June 30, 2010, Specialty reported
third party net revenues of $206.7 million, an increase of
$5.7 million, or 2.8% over the comparable prior year period
of $201.0 million. The most significant contributor to
Specialty revenues continues to be the
EpiPen®
Auto-injector, which is used in the treatment of severe allergic
reactions. Globally, the EpiPen Auto-injector is the number one
epinephrine auto-injector for the treatment of severe allergic
reactions with world-wide market share of approximately 91%. In
the U.S., the EpiPen
Auto-injector
is the number one prescribed treatment for severe allergic
reactions with market share of approximately 96%.
Intercompany sales of product by Specialty totaled
$33.7 million in the current six-month period compared to
$11.4 million in the same prior year period. As in the
quarter, the increase is due to the fact that, beginning in
2010, certain generic products previously sold to third parties
by Specialty are now sold to Mylan subsidiaries in
North America who, in turn, sell the products to third
parties. Excluding the sale of such products from 2009 third
party net revenues would have resulted in an increase in third
party net revenues in the current year of $39.4 million or
18.7%.
In addition to the continued strong sales of the EpiPen
Auto-injector, the increase in third-party sales was driven by
increased sales of
Perforomist®
Solution, Deys maintenance therapy for patients with
moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
36
Operating
Expenses
R&D expense for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was
$128.1 million, compared to $132.9 million in the same
prior year period, a decrease of $4.8 million. This
decrease is primarily the result of an up-front payment of
$18.0 million made in the prior year, related to our
execution of a co-development agreement, offset partially by
increases in certain other R&D costs and an unfavorable
effect of foreign exchange.
SG&A expense for the six months ended June 30, 2010
was $524.1 million, compared to $521.3 million for the
same prior year period, an increase of $2.8 million. This
increase is due to the effect of foreign exchange. Excluding
this effect, SG&A decreased mainly due to fewer
restructuring costs in the current year and the cost savings
realized by previously implemented restructuring programs.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense for the six months ended June 30, 2010,
totaled $152.4 million, compared to $163.2 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2009. In March 2009, we
pre-paid all of our required 2010 principal payments on our term
debt, and in December 2009, we pre-paid all of our required 2011
principal payments on our term debt, which, along with lower
overall interest rates, drove the decrease in interest expense,
which was partially offset by the effect of the debt offering in
the current period. Included in interest expense for the current
six months and the comparable prior year period are
$22.4 million and $20.9 million of accretion of the
discounts on our convertible debt instruments.
Other
(Expense) Income, net
Other (expense) income, net was expense of $14.1 million in
the current six-month period compared to income of
$29.5 million in the comparable prior year period. Included
in the current year are charges associated with the termination
of certain interest rate swaps totaling $7.4 million and
the write-off of previously deferred financing fees of
$7.6 million, in conjunction with the debt offering during
the current period. The prior year period includes a favorable
adjustment of $13.9 million to the restructuring reserve as
a result of a reduction in the estimated remaining spending on
accrued projects, as well as a net gain of $10.4 million
realized on the termination of two joint ventures.
Income
Tax Expense
We recorded income tax expense of $45.3 million in the six
months ended June 30, 2010 compared to $63.6 million
in the comparable prior year period. The decrease in tax expense
is driven by a decrease in taxable income, as well as a decrease
in the effective tax rate. The effective rate for the current
year period was 20.0%, versus 23.7% in the comparable prior year
period. The decrease in the effective rate was largely due to
the utilization of certain foreign tax credits.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Our primary source of liquidity is cash provided by operations,
which was $359.1 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2010. Included in this amount is approximately
$98.8 million representing a tax refund received in the
first quarter. We believe that cash provided by operating
activities will continue to allow us to meet our needs for
working capital, capital expenditures, interest and principal
payments on debt obligations, preferred stock dividend payments
and other cash needs over the next several years. Nevertheless,
our ability to satisfy our working capital requirements and debt
service obligations, or fund planned capital expenditures, will
substantially depend upon our future operating performance
(which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions), and
financial, business and other factors, some of which are beyond
our control. During the six months ended June 30, 2010,
changes in operating assets and liabilities resulted in a net
cash outflow of $117.7 million, primarily due to the timing
of the collection of cash receipts from our customers.
Cash used in investing activities for the six months ended
June 30, 2010 was $54.4 million, consisting primarily
of capital expenditures. Capital expenditures were
$53.3 million, and were made primarily for equipment,
37
including a portion related to our previously announced planned
expansions and integration plans. Capital expenditures for the
year 2010 are expected to be approximately $250.0 million.
Cash provided by financing activities was $172.2 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2010. In May of 2010, we
completed a private placement of $550.0 million aggregate
principal amount of 7.625% Senior Notes due 2017 and
$700.0 million aggregate principal amount of
7.875% Senior Notes due 2020. We used $1.0 billion of
the net proceeds from the private placement to repay a portion
of our outstanding term loans. Additionally, we paid cash
dividends of $69.5 million on our 6.5% mandatory
convertible preferred stock. The preferred stock will
automatically convert into common stock on November 15,
2010, and the last dividend payment is expected on that date.
As of June 30, 2010, because the closing price of our
common stock for at least 20 trading days in the period of 30
consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day in the
June 30, 2010 period was more than 130% of the applicable
conversion reference price of $13.32 at June 30, 2010, the
$575.0 million of Cash Convertible Notes were currently
convertible. Although the Companys experience is that
convertible debentures are not normally converted by investors
until close to their maturity date, it is possible that
debentures could be converted prior to their maturity date if,
for example, a holder perceives the market for the debentures to
be weaker than the market for the common stock. Upon an
investors election to convert, the Company is required to
pay the full conversion value in cash. The amount payable per
$1,000 notional bond would be calculated as the product of
(1) the conversion reference rate and (2) the average
Daily Volume Weighted Average Price per share of common stock
for a specified period following the conversion date. Any
payment above the principal amount is matched by a convertible
note hedge.
We are involved in various legal proceedings that are considered
normal to our business. While it is not possible to predict the
outcome of such proceedings, an adverse outcome in any of these
proceedings could materially affect our financial position and
results of operations. Additionally, for certain contingencies
assumed in conjunction with the acquisition of the former Merck
Generics business, Merck KGaA, the seller, has indemnified
Mylan. The inability or denial of Merck KGaA to pay on an
indemnified claim could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2010 includes restructuring reserves of $23.4 million.
Spending against this balance, which consists primarily of
severance and related costs and costs associated with the
previously announced rationalization and optimization of our
global manufacturing and research and development platforms, is
expected to occur over the next two years, with the majority in
2010.
On July 19, 2010, the Company announced that a quarterly
dividend of $16.25 per share was declared, based on the annual
dividend rate of 6.5% and a liquidation preference of $1,000 per
share, payable on August 16, 2010, to the holders of
preferred stock of record as of August 1, 2010.
We are actively pursuing, and are currently involved in, joint
projects related to the development, distribution and marketing
of both generic and branded products. Many of these arrangements
provide for payments by us upon the attainment of specified
milestones. While these arrangements help to reduce the
financial risk for unsuccessful projects, fulfillment of
specified milestones or the occurrence of other obligations may
result in fluctuations in cash flows.
We are continuously evaluating the potential acquisition of
products, as well as companies, as a strategic part of our
future growth. Consequently, we may utilize current cash
reserves or incur additional indebtedness to finance any such
acquisitions, which could impact future liquidity. In addition,
on an ongoing basis, we review our operations including the
evaluation of potential divestitures of products and businesses
as part of our future strategy. Any divestitures could impact
future liquidity. In July 2010, we entered into an agreement to
acquire Bioniche Pharma, a privately held, global injectable
pharmaceutical company, for $550.0 million in cash. Though
the transaction remains subject to customary closing conditions,
we believe Bioniche Pharma will provide Mylan not only an
immediate entry into the North American injectables market but
also a platform for future growth opportunities.
At June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had
$83.2 million and $77.5 million, respectively,
outstanding under existing letters of credit. Additionally, as
of June 30, 2010, we had $46.7 million available under
the $100.0 million subfacility on our Senior Credit
Agreement for the issuance of letters of credit.
38
Mandatory minimum repayments remaining on the outstanding
borrowings under the term loans and notes at June 30, 2010,
excluding the discounts and conversion features, are as follows
for each of the periods ending December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
Euro
|
|
|
Senior
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tranche A
|
|
|
Tranche A
|
|
|
Tranche B
|
|
|
Tranche B
|
|
|
Convertible
|
|
|
Convertible
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
78,125
|
|
|
|
107,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,439
|
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
792,001
|
|
2013
|
|
|
78,125
|
|
|
|
107,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,439
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
192,001
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
|
605,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,058,988
|
|
2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
575,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
700,000
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
156,250
|
|
|
$
|
214,874
|
|
|
$
|
1,453,760
|
|
|
$
|
618,106
|
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
575,000
|
|
|
$
|
550,000
|
|
|
$
|
700,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,867,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Senior Credit Agreement contains customary affirmative
covenants for facilities of this type, including covenants
pertaining to the delivery of financial statements, notices of
default and certain other information, maintenance of business
and insurance, collateral matters and compliance with laws, as
well as customary negative covenants for facilities of this
type, including limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness
and liens, mergers and certain other fundamental changes,
investments and loans, acquisitions, transactions with
affiliates, dispositions of assets, payments of dividends and
other restricted payments, prepayments or amendments to the
terms of specified indebtedness and changes in lines of
business. The Senior Credit Agreement contains financial
covenants requiring maintenance of a minimum interest coverage
ratio and a senior leverage ratio, both of which are defined
within the agreement. We have been compliant with the financial
covenants during the six months ended June 30, 2010.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In October 2009, the FASB issued revised accounting guidance for
multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The amended guidance
requires that consideration received be allocated at the
inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the
relative selling price method and provides for expanded
disclosures related to such arrangements. It is effective for
revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in
fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The
Company is currently evaluating the impact of adoption on its
consolidated financial statements.
|
|
ITEM 3.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
For a discussion of the Companys market risk, see
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk in the Companys Annual Report
filed on
Form 10-K.
|
|
ITEM 4.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
An evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the
participation of the Companys management, including the
Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer,
of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of
June 30, 2010. Based upon that evaluation, the Principal
Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer concluded
that the Companys disclosure controls and procedures were
effective.
Management has not identified any changes in the Companys
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control
over financial reporting.
39
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
ITEM 1.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
While it is not possible to determine with any degree of
certainty the ultimate outcome of the following legal
proceedings, the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and
intends to vigorously defend its position. The Company is also
party to certain litigation matters, some of which are described
below, for which Merck KGaA has agreed to indemnify the Company,
under the terms by which Mylan acquired the former Merck
Generics business. An adverse outcome in any of these
proceedings, or the inability or denial of Merck KGaA to pay an
indemnified claim, could have a material adverse effect on the
Companys financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.
Lorazepam
and Clorazepate
On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI), and
co-defendants
Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the
amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been
accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its
co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and
Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply
agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier
(Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and
clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these
drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the
Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust
claims relating to Mylans 1998 price increases for
lorazepam and clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company
filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a
new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion
to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the
Companys motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion
for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were
denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the
plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that
request was granted on January 24, 2008. On
February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and
its co-defendants in the total amount of approximately
$69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the
plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the
original verdict (approximately $11 million in total) and,
in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of
the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus
doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages
assessed against each of the defendants (approximately
$58 million in total), some or all of which may be subject
to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also
seeking an award of attorneys fees and litigation costs in
unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately
$8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants have
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple
grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on
the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted.
Mylan intends to contest this ruling along with the liability
finding and other damages awards as part of its pending appeal,
which is proceeding in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. In connection with the Companys appeal of the
lorazepam judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond
underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of
$74.5 million. This surety bond is secured by a pledge of a
$40.0 million cash deposit (which is included as restricted
cash on the Companys Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets) and an irrevocable letter of credit for
$34.5 million issued under the Senior Credit Agreement.
Pricing
and Medicaid Litigation
Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI
and/or UDL
Laboratories Inc. (UDL), together with many other
pharmaceutical companies, have been named in civil lawsuits
filed by state attorneys general (AGs) and municipal
bodies within the state of New York alleging generally that the
defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly
reporting Average Wholesale Prices
and/or
Wholesale Acquisition Costs that exceeded the actual
selling price of the defendants prescription drugs,
causing state programs to overpay pharmacies and other
providers. To date, Mylan, MPI
and/or UDL
have been named as defendants in substantially similar civil
lawsuits filed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas,
Utah and Wisconsin and also by the city of New York and
approximately 40 counties across New York State. Several of
these cases have been transferred to the AWP
40
multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for
pretrial proceedings. Others of these cases will likely be
litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of
the cases seeks money damages, civil penalties
and/or
double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees and costs,
equitable relief
and/or
injunctive relief. Certain of these cases may go to trial in
2010. Mylan and its subsidiaries have denied liability and
intend to defend each of these actions vigorously. On
January 27, 2010, in the New York Counties cases, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment
as to liability under New York Social Services Law
§ 145-b against Mylan and several other defendants.
The District Court has not ruled on the remaining issues of
liability and damages. On February 8, 2010, Mylan, and a
majority of the other defendants, filed a motion to amend the
courts decision, requesting the court to certify a
question of New York state law pertaining to the courts
finding of requisite causation under the Social Services Law to
the First Circuit Court of Appeals, so that the defendants could
in turn request that the First Circuit Court of Appeals certify
the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The District
Court denied this motion on May 4, 2010.
In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a
private plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America,
against Mylan, MPI, UDL and several other generic manufacturers.
The original complaint was filed under seal in April 2000, and
Mylan, MPI and UDL were added as parties in February 2001. The
claims against Mylan, MPI, UDL and the other generic
manufacturers were severed from the April 2000 complaint (which
remains under seal) as a result of the federal governments
decision not to intervene in the action as to those defendants.
The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act and
sets forth allegations substantially similar to those alleged in
the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph and
purports to seek nationwide recovery of any and all alleged
overpayment of the federal share under the Medicaid
program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties. In
February 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle this case (except for the claims related to the
California federal share) and the Texas state action mentioned
above. This settlement is contingent upon the execution of
definitive settlement documents and court approval. The
settlement would resolve a significant portion of the damages
claims asserted against Mylan, MPI and UDL in the various
pending pricing litigations. In addition, Mylan has reached
agreement in principle to settle the Hawaii state action, which
settlement is contingent upon the execution of definitive
settlement documents. With regard to the remaining state
actions, the Company continues to believe that it has
meritorious defenses and will continue to vigorously defend
itself in those actions. The Company has accrued
$160 million in connection with the above-mentioned
settlement in principle and the remaining state actions. The
Company reviews the status of these actions on an ongoing basis,
and from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise
resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management
believes are in the best interests of the Company. There are no
assurances that settlements can be reached on acceptable terms
or that adverse judgments, if any, in the remaining litigation
will not exceed the amounts reserved.
In addition, by letter dated January 12, 2005, MPI was
notified by the U.S. Department of Justice of an
investigation concerning calculations of Medicaid drug rebates.
The investigation involved whether MPI and UDL may have violated
the False Claims Act by classifying certain authorized generics
as non-innovator rather than innovator drugs for purposes of
Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs on sales from
2000 through 2004. MPI and UDL denied the governments
allegations and denied that they engaged in any wrongful
conduct. On October 19, 2009, a lawsuit, filed in March
2004 by a private relator, in which the federal government
subsequently intervened, was unsealed by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. That same day, MPI and
UDL announced that they had entered into a settlement agreement
with the federal government, relevant states and the relator for
approximately $121.0 million, resolving both the lawsuit
and the U.S. Department of Justice investigation. A
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice has been filed with the
court. The resolution of the matter did not include any
admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of either MPI or
UDL. The Company has recovered approximately $50 million of
the settlement amount based on overpayments resulting from
adjusted net sales during the relevant timeframe.
Dey is a defendant currently in lawsuits brought by the state
AGs of California, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin, as well as three New York counties. Dey is also named
as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and
third-party payors. Dey has reached a settlement of these class
actions, which has been preliminarily approved by the court.
Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on
41
behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August
1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its
complaint-in-intervention
and the case was unsealed in September 2006. Deys motion
for partial summary judgment in that case is pending, as is the
Governments cross-motion. The Government has asserted that
Dey is jointly liable with a codefendant and seeks recovery of
alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil
penalties and equitable relief. These cases all generally allege
that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning
certain drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to
be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused
Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims.
Certain of these cases may go to trial in 2010. Dey intends to
defend each of these actions vigorously. The Company has
approximately $97.8 million recorded in other liabilities
related to the price-related litigation involving Dey. As stated
above, in conjunction with the acquisition of the former Merck
Generics business, Mylan is entitled to indemnification from
Merck KGaA. As a result, the Company has recorded approximately
$97.8 million in other assets.
Modafinil
Antitrust Litigation and FTC Inquiry
Beginning in April 2006, Mylan, along with four other drug
manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in civil lawsuits
filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Ohio and a lawsuit originally filed in Tennessee
state court by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and a
third-party payor and one action brought by Apotex, Inc., a
manufacturer of generic drugs, seeking approval to market a
generic modafinil product. These actions allege violations of
federal and state laws in connection with the defendants
settlement of patent litigation relating to modafinil. On
March 29, 2010, the Court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the defendants motions to dismiss.
Mylan intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. In
addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified
by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of
an investigation relating to the settlement of the modafinil
patent litigation. In its letter, the FTC requested certain
information from Mylan, MPI and Mylan Technologies, Inc.
pertaining to the patent litigation and the settlement thereof.
On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on
April 26, 2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand
to Mylan requesting additional information from the Company
relating to the investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with
the governments investigation and completed all requests
for information. On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a
lawsuit against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia and the case has subsequently been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC issued a
third party subpoena to Mylan requesting documents in connection
with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan is in the process of
responding to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in
the FTCs lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain
allegations pertaining to the Mylan/Cephalon settlement.
Digitek®
Recall
On April 25, 2008, Actavis Totowa LLC, a division of
Actavis Group, announced a voluntary, nationwide recall of all
lots and all strengths of Digitek (digoxin tablets USP). Digitek
was manufactured by Actavis and distributed in the United States
by MPI and UDL. The Company has tendered its defense and
indemnity in all lawsuits and claims arising from this event to
Actavis, and Actavis has accepted that tender, subject to a
reservation of rights. While the Company is unable to estimate
total potential costs with any degree of certainty, such costs
could be significant. There are approximately 1,008 cases
pending against Mylan, UDL and Actavis pertaining to the recall.
Most of these cases have been transferred to the multi-district
litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia for pretrial
proceedings. The remainder of these cases will likely be
litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Certain
of these cases may go to trial in 2010. An adverse outcome in
these lawsuits or the inability or denial of Actavis to pay on
an indemnified claim could have a materially negative impact on
the Companys financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.
EU
Commission Proceedings
On or around July 3, 2009, the European Commission (the
EU Commission or the Commission) stated
that it had initiated antitrust proceedings pursuant to
Article 11(6) of Regulation No. 1/2003 and
Article 2(1) of Regulation No. 773/2004 to
explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC and
Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement by Les Laboratoires
Servier (Servier) as well as possible infringement
of Article 81 EC by
42
Matrix and four other companies, each of which entered into
agreements with Servier relating to the product perindopril.
Matrix is cooperating with the EU Commission in connection with
the investigation. The EU Commission stated that the
initiation of proceedings does not imply that the
Commission has conclusive proof of an infringement but merely
signifies that the Commission will deal with the case as a
matter of priority. No statement of objections has been
filed against Matrix in connection with its investigation. On
August 5, 2009, Matrix and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received
requests for information from the EU Commission in connection
with this matter, and both companies have responded. By letters
dated February 17, 2010, the EU Commission served
additional requests for information on Matrix and Mylan S.A.S.
The companies have responded to these requests.
In addition, the EU Commission is conducting a pharmaceutical
sector inquiry involving approximately 100 companies
concerning the introduction of innovative and generic medicines.
Mylan S.A.S. has responded to the questionnaires received in
connection with the sector inquiry and has produced documents
and other information in connection with the inquiry.
On October 6, 2009, the Company received notice that the EU
Commission was initiating an investigation pursuant to
Article 20(4) of Regulation No. 1/2003 to explore
possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the
Company and its affiliates. Mylan S.A.S., acting on behalf of
its Mylan affiliates, has produced documents and other
information in connection with the inquiry. The Company and
Mylan S.A.S. received an additional request for information with
the same case reference on December 18, 2009 and have
responded to the questionnaire. An additional request was
received on March 18, 2010. Mylan S.A.S. has responded to
this request. Mylan is cooperating with the Commission in
connection with the investigation. No statement of objections
has been filed against Mylan in connection with the
investigation.
Other
Litigation
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that
are considered normal to its business, including certain
proceedings assumed as a result of the acquisition of the former
Merck Generics business. While it is not feasible to predict the
ultimate outcome of such other proceedings, the ultimate outcome
of any such proceeding is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.
The following risk factors could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial position or results of operations and
could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
These risk factors may not include all of the important factors
that could affect our business or our industry or that could
cause our future financial results to differ materially from
historic or expected results or cause the market price of our
common stock to fluctuate or decline.
CURRENT
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR INDUSTRY, BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE
MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
Over the past few years, the global economy has undergone a
period of unprecedented volatility, and the economic environment
may continue to be less favorable than that of past years. This
has led, and could further lead, to reduced consumer spending in
the foreseeable future, and this may include spending on
healthcare. While generic drugs present an ideal alternative to
higher-priced branded products, our sales could be negatively
impacted if patients forego obtaining healthcare. In addition,
reduced consumer spending may drive us and our competitors to
decrease prices. These conditions may adversely affect our
industry, business, financial position and results of operations
and may cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
43
OUR
INTEGRATION OF ACQUIRED BUSINESSES INVOLVES A NUMBER OF RISKS.
THESE RISKS COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
There are a number of operational risks associated with the
integration of acquired businesses, including Bioniche Pharma
(upon completion). These risks include, but are not limited to,
difficulties in achieving identified financial and operating
synergies, cost savings, revenue synergies and growth
opportunities; difficulties in consolidating information
technology platforms, business applications and corporate
infrastructure; our substantial indebtedness and assumed
liabilities; challenges in operating in other markets outside of
the U.S. that are new to us; and the unanticipated effects
of export controls, exchange rate fluctuations, domestic and
foreign political conditions or domestic and foreign economic
conditions.
These factors could impair our growth and ability to compete,
require us to focus additional resources on integration of
operations rather than other profitable areas, or otherwise
cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position and results of operations and could cause a decline in
the market value of our common stock.
WE
HAVE GROWN AT A VERY RAPID PACE. OUR INABILITY TO PROPERLY
MANAGE OR SUPPORT THIS GROWTH MAY HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT
ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
We have grown very rapidly over the past few years, through our
acquisitions of the former Merck Generics business and Matrix,
and we have recently announced the planned acquisition of
Bioniche Pharma. This growth has put significant demands on our
processes, systems and people. We expect to make further
investments in additional personnel, systems and internal
control processes to help manage our growth. Attracting,
retaining and motivating key employees in various departments
and locations to support our growth are critical to our
business, and competition for these people can be intense. If we
are unable to hire and retain qualified employees and if we do
not continue to invest in systems and processes to manage and
support our rapid growth, there may be a material adverse effect
on our business, financial position and results of operations,
and the market value of our common stock could decline.
OUR
GLOBAL FOOTPRINT EXPOSES US TO ADDITIONAL RISKS WHICH COULD HAVE
A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF
OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
Our operations extend to numerous countries outside the
U.S. Operating globally exposes us to certain additional
risks including, but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
compliance with a variety of national and local laws of
countries in which we do business, including restrictions on the
import and export of certain intermediates, drugs and
technologies;
|
|
|
|
changes in laws, regulations, and practices affecting the
pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare system, including but
not limited to imports, exports, manufacturing, cost, pricing,
reimbursement, approval, inspection, and delivery of healthcare;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in exchange rates for transactions conducted in
currencies other than the functional currency;
|
|
|
|
adverse changes in the economies in which we operate as a result
of a slowdown in overall growth, a change in government or
economic liberalization policies, or financial, political or
social instability in such countries that affects the markets in
which we operate, particularly emerging markets;
|
|
|
|
wage increases or rising inflation in the countries in which we
operate;
|
|
|
|
supply disruptions, and increases in energy and transportation
costs;
|
|
|
|
natural disasters, including droughts, floods and earthquakes in
the countries in which we operate;
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
communal disturbances, terrorist attacks, riots or regional
hostilities in the countries in which we operate; and
|
|
|
|
government uncertainty, including as a result of new or changed
laws and regulations.
|
We also face the risk that some of our competitors have more
experience with operations in such countries or with
international operations generally. Any of the above factors
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position and results of operations and could cause a decline in
the market value of our common stock.
MATRIX,
AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR BUSINESS, IS LOCATED IN INDIA AND
IT IS SUBJECT TO REGULATORY, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
UNCERTAINTIES IN INDIA. THESE UNCERTAINTIES CREATE RISKS WHICH
COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL
POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
In recent years, Matrix has benefited from many policies of the
Government of India and the Indian state governments in the
states in which it operates, which are designed to promote
foreign investment generally, including significant tax
incentives, liberalized import and export duties and
preferential rules on foreign investment and repatriation. There
is no assurance that such policies will continue. Various
factors, such as changes in the current federal government,
could trigger significant changes in Indias economic
liberalization and deregulation policies and disrupt business
and economic conditions in India generally and our business in
particular.
In addition, our financial performance may be adversely affected
by general economic conditions and economic and fiscal policy in
India, including changes in exchange rates and controls,
interest rates and taxation policies, as well as social
stability and political, economic or diplomatic developments
affecting India in the future. In particular, India has
experienced significant economic growth over the last several
years, but faces major challenges in sustaining that growth in
the years ahead. These challenges include the need for
substantial infrastructure development and improving access to
healthcare and education. Our ability to recruit, train and
retain qualified employees and develop and operate our
manufacturing facilities in India could be adversely affected if
India does not successfully meet these challenges.
Southern Asia has, from time to time, experienced instances of
civil unrest and hostilities among neighboring countries,
including India and Pakistan, and within the countries
themselves. Rioting, military activity or terrorist attacks in
the future could influence the Indian economy by disrupting
communications and making travel more difficult. Resulting
political tensions could create a greater perception that
investments in companies with Indian operations involve a high
degree of risk, and that there is a risk of disruption of
services provided by companies with Indian operations, which
could have a material adverse effect on the market for
Matrixs products. Furthermore, if India were to become
engaged in armed hostilities, particularly hostilities that were
protracted or involved the threat or use of nuclear weapons,
Matrix might not be able to continue its operations. We
generally do not have insurance for losses and interruptions
caused by terrorist attacks, military conflicts and wars. These
risks could cause a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
MOVEMENTS
IN FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
A significant portion of our revenues, indebtedness and our
costs are denominated in foreign currencies, including the
Australian Dollar, the British Pound, the Canadian Dollar, the
Euro, the Indian Rupee and the Japanese Yen. We report our
financial results in U.S. Dollars. Our results of
operations and, in some cases, cash flows, could be adversely
affected by certain movements in exchange rates. From time to
time, we may implement currency hedges intended to reduce our
exposure to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. However,
our hedging strategies may not be successful, and any of our
unhedged foreign exchange payments will continue to be subject
to market fluctuations. These risks could cause a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position and results
of operations and could cause the market value of our common
stock to decline.
45
WE ARE
SUBJECT TO THE U.S. FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT AND SIMILAR
WORLDWIDE ANTI-BRIBERY LAWS, WHICH IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS AND MAY
CARRY SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES. ANY VIOLATIONS OF THESE LAWS, OR
ALLEGATIONS OF SUCH VIOLATIONS, COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar
anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions generally prohibit
companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments
to officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.
Our policies mandate compliance with these anti-bribery laws,
which often carry substantial penalties. We operate in
jurisdictions that have experienced governmental corruption to
some degree, and, in certain circumstances, strict compliance
with anti-bribery laws may conflict with certain local customs
and practices. We cannot assure you that our internal control
policies and procedures always will protect us from reckless or
other inappropriate acts committed by our affiliates, employees
or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such
violations, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
OUR
FUTURE REVENUE GROWTH AND PROFITABILITY ARE DEPENDENT UPON OUR
ABILITY TO DEVELOP AND/OR LICENSE, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE, AND
INTRODUCE NEW PRODUCTS ON A TIMELY BASIS IN RELATION TO OUR
COMPETITORS PRODUCT INTRODUCTIONS. OUR FAILURE TO DO SO
SUCCESSFULLY COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
Our future revenues and profitability will depend, to a
significant extent, upon our ability to successfully develop
and/or
license, or otherwise acquire and commercialize, new generic and
patent or statutorily protected pharmaceutical products in a
timely manner. Product development is inherently risky,
especially for new drugs for which safety and efficacy have not
been established and the market is not yet proven. Likewise,
product licensing involves inherent risks including
uncertainties due to matters that may affect the achievement of
milestones, as well as the possibility of contractual
disagreements with regard to terms such as license scope or
termination rights. The development and commercialization
process, particularly with regard to new drugs, also requires
substantial time, effort and financial resources. We, or a
partner, may not be successful in commercializing any of such
products on a timely basis, if at all, which could adversely
affect our business, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
Before any prescription drug product, including generic drug
products, can be marketed, marketing authorization approval is
required by the relevant regulatory authorities
and/or
national regulatory agencies (for example the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and the
European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the EU). The
process of obtaining regulatory approval to manufacture and
market new and generic pharmaceutical products is rigorous, time
consuming, costly and largely unpredictable. Outside the U.S.,
the approval process may be more or less rigorous, and the time
required for approval may be longer or shorter than that
required in the U.S. Bioequivalency studies conducted in
one country may not be accepted in other countries, and the
approval of a pharmaceutical product in one country does not
necessarily mean that the product will be approved in another
country. We, or a partner, may be unable to obtain requisite
approvals on a timely basis for new generic or branded products
that we may develop, license or otherwise acquire. Moreover, if
we obtain regulatory approval for a drug it may be limited with
respect to the indicated uses and delivery methods for which the
drug may be marketed, which could in turn restrict our potential
market for the drug. Also, for products pending approval, we may
obtain raw materials or produce batches of inventory to be used
in efficacy and bioequivalence testing, as well as in
anticipation of the products launch. In the event that
regulatory approval is denied or delayed, we could be exposed to
the risk of this inventory becoming obsolete. The timing and
cost of obtaining regulatory approvals could adversely affect
our product introduction plans, business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
The approval process for generic pharmaceutical products often
results in the relevant regulatory agency granting final
approval to a number of generic pharmaceutical products at the
time a patent claim for a
46
corresponding branded product or other market exclusivity
expires. This often forces us to face immediate competition when
we introduce a generic product into the market. Additionally,
further generic approvals often continue to be granted for a
given product subsequent to the initial launch of the generic
product. These circumstances generally result in significantly
lower prices, as well as reduced margins, for generic products
compared to branded products. New generic market entrants
generally cause continued price and margin erosion over the
generic product life cycle.
In the U.S., the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, provides for a
period of 180 days of generic marketing exclusivity for
each abbreviated new drug application (ANDA)
applicant that is
first-to-file
an ANDA containing a certification of invalidity,
non-infringement or unenforceability related to a patent listed
with respect to a reference drug product, commonly referred to
as a Paragraph IV certification. During this exclusivity
period, which under certain circumstances may be required to be
shared with other applicable ANDA sponsors with
Paragraph IV certifications, the FDA cannot grant final
approval to other ANDA sponsors holding applications for the
same generic equivalent. If an ANDA containing a
Paragraph IV certification is successful and the applicant
is awarded exclusivity, the applicant generally enjoys higher
market share, net revenues and gross margin for that product.
Even if we obtain FDA approval for our generic drug products, if
we are not the first ANDA applicant to challenge a listed patent
for such a product, we may lose significant advantages to a
competitor that filed its ANDA containing such a challenge. The
same would be true in situations where we are required to share
our exclusivity period with other ANDA sponsors with
Paragraph IV certifications. Such situations could have a
material adverse effect on our ability to market that product
profitably and on our business, financial position and results
of operations, and the market value of our common stock could
decline.
In Europe, there is no exclusivity period for the first generic.
The European Medicines Agency or national regulatory agencies
may grant marketing authorizations to any number of generics.
However, if there are other relevant patents when the core
patent expires, for example, new formulations, the owner of the
original brand pharmaceutical may be able to obtain preliminary
injunctions in certain European jurisdictions preventing launch
of the generic product, if the generic company did not commence
proceedings in a timely manner to invalidate any relevant
patents prior to launch of its generic.
In addition, in other jurisdictions outside the U.S., we may
face similar regulatory hurdles and constraints. If we are
unable to navigate our products through all of the regulatory
hurdles we face in a timely manner it could adversely affect our
product introduction plans, business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
WE
EXPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESOURCES ON RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT MAY NOT LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT
INTRODUCTIONS. FAILURE TO SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCE PRODUCTS INTO
THE MARKET COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.
Much of our development effort is focused on technically
difficult-to-formulate
products
and/or
products that require advanced manufacturing technology. We
conduct research and development primarily to enable us to
manufacture and market approved pharmaceuticals in accordance
with applicable regulations. We also partner with third parties
to develop products. Typically, research expenses related to the
development of innovative compounds and the filing of marketing
authorization applications for innovative compounds (such NDAs
in the U.S.) are significantly greater than those expenses
associated with the development of and filing of marketing
authorization applications for generic products (such as ANDAs
in the U.S. and abridged applications in Europe). As we and
our partners continue to develop new products, our research
expenses will likely increase. Because of the inherent risk
associated with research and development efforts in our
industry, particularly with respect to new drugs, our, or a
partners, research and development expenditures may not
result in the successful introduction of new pharmaceutical
products approved by the relevant regulatory bodies. Also, after
we submit a marketing authorization application for a new
compound or generic product, the relevant regulatory authority
may request that we conduct additional studies and, as a result,
we may be unable to reasonably determine the total research and
development costs to develop a particular product. Finally, we
cannot be certain that any investment made in developing
products will be recovered, even if we are successful in
commercialization. To the extent that we expend significant
resources
47
on research and development efforts and are not able,
ultimately, to introduce successful new products as a result of
those efforts, our business, financial position and results of
operations may be materially adversely affected, and the market
value of our common stock could decline.
OUR
APPROVED PRODUCTS MAY NOT ACHIEVE EXPECTED LEVELS OF MARKET
ACCEPTANCE, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
PROFITABILITY, BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
Even if we are able to obtain regulatory approvals for our new
pharmaceutical products, generic or branded, the success of
those products is dependent upon market acceptance. Levels of
market acceptance for our new products could be impacted by
several factors, including but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
the availability of alternative products from our competitors;
|
|
|
|
the price of our products relative to that of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
the timing of our market entry;
|
|
|
|
the ability to market our products effectively to the retail
level; and
|
|
|
|
the acceptance of our products by government and private
formularies.
|
Some of these factors are not within our control. Additionally,
continuing studies of the proper utilization, safety and
efficacy of pharmaceutical products are being conducted by the
industry, government agencies and others. Such studies, which
increasingly employ sophisticated methods and techniques, can
call into question the utilization, safety and efficacy of
previously marketed products. In some cases, studies have
resulted, and may in the future result, in the discontinuance of
product marketing or other risk management programs such as the
need for a patient registry. These situations, should they
occur, could have a material adverse effect on our
profitability, business, financial position and results of
operations, and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
OUR
BUSINESS IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT UPON MARKET PERCEPTIONS OF US, OUR
BRANDS AND THE SAFETY AND QUALITY OF OUR PRODUCTS. OUR BUSINESS
OR BRANDS COULD BE SUBJECT TO NEGATIVE PUBLICITY, WHICH COULD
HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL
POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
Market perceptions of our business are very important to us,
especially market perceptions of our brands and the safety and
quality of our products. If we, or our brands, suffer from
negative publicity, or if any of our products or similar
products which other companies distribute are proven to be, or
are claimed to be, harmful to consumers, then this could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline. Also, because we are dependant on
market perceptions, negative publicity associated with illness
or other adverse effects resulting from our products could have
a material adverse impact on our business, financial position
and results of operations and could cause the market value of
our common stock to decline.
THE
ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION AND SALE BY THIRD PARTIES OF COUNTERFEIT
VERSIONS OF OUR PRODUCTS OR OF STOLEN PRODUCTS COULD HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR REPUTATION AND A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT
ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
The drug supply has been increasingly challenged by the
vulnerability of distribution channels to illegal counterfeiting
and the presence of counterfeit products in a growing number of
markets and over the Internet. The World Health Organization
estimates that more than 10% of medications being sold globally
are counterfeit.
Third parties may illegally distribute and sell counterfeit
versions of our products, which do not meet the rigorous
manufacturing and testing standards that our products undergo.
Counterfeit products are frequently unsafe
48
or ineffective, and can be potentially life-threatening.
Counterfeit medicines may contain harmful substances, the wrong
dose of the API or no API at all. However, to distributors and
users, counterfeit products may be visually indistinguishable
from the authentic version.
Reports of adverse reactions to counterfeit drugs or increased
levels of counterfeiting could materially affect patient
confidence in the authentic product. It is possible that adverse
events caused by unsafe counterfeit products will mistakenly be
attributed to the authentic product. In addition, thefts of
inventory at warehouses, plants or while in-transit which are
not properly stored and which are sold through unauthorized
channels could adversely impact patient safety, our reputation
and our business.
Public loss of confidence in the integrity of pharmaceutical
products as a result of counterfeiting or theft could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
IF WE
OR ANY PARTNER FAIL TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT OR ENFORCE OUR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, THEN WE COULD LOSE REVENUE UNDER
OUR LICENSING AGREEMENTS OR LOSE SALES TO GENERIC COPIES OF OUR
BRANDED PRODUCTS. THESE RISKS COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
Our success, particularly in our specialty business, depends in
part on our or any partners ability to obtain, maintain
and enforce patents, and protect trade secrets, know-how and
other proprietary information. Our ability to commercialize any
branded product successfully will largely depend upon our or any
partners ability to obtain and maintain patents of
sufficient scope to prevent third-parties from developing
substantially equivalent products. In the absence of patent and
trade secret protection, competitors may adversely affect our
branded products business by independently developing and
marketing substantially equivalent products. It is also possible
that we could incur substantial costs if we are required to
initiate litigation against others to protect or enforce our
intellectual property rights.
We have filed patent applications covering composition of,
methods of making,
and/or
methods of using, our branded products and branded product
candidates. We may not be issued patents based on patent
applications already filed or that we file in the future, and if
patents are issued, they may be insufficient in scope to cover
our branded products. The issuance of a patent in one country
does not ensure the issuance of a patent in any other country.
Furthermore, the patent position of companies in the
pharmaceutical industry generally involves complex legal and
factual questions and has been and remains the subject of much
litigation. Legal standards relating to scope and validity of
patent claims are evolving. Any patents we have obtained, or
obtain in the future, may be challenged, invalidated or
circumvented. Moreover, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office or any other governmental agency may commence
interference proceedings involving our patents or patent
applications. Any challenge to, or invalidation or circumvention
of, our patents or patent applications would be costly, would
require significant time and attention of our management, could
cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position and results of operations and could cause the market
value of our common stock to decline.
WE
FACE VIGOROUS COMPETITION FROM OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL
MANUFACTURERS THAT THREATENS THE COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND
PRICING OF OUR PRODUCTS. SUCH COMPETITION COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON
STOCK TO DECLINE.
The generic pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. We
face competition from many U.S. and foreign manufacturers,
some of whom are significantly larger than we are. Our
competitors may be able to develop products and processes
competitive with or superior to our own for many reasons,
including but not limited to the possibility that they may have:
|
|
|
|
|
proprietary processes or delivery systems;
|
|
|
|
larger research and development and marketing staffs;
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
larger production capabilities in a particular therapeutic area;
|
|
|
|
more experience in preclinical testing and human clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
more products; or
|
|
|
|
more experience in developing new drugs and greater financial
resources, particularly with regard to manufacturers of branded
products.
|
Any of these factors and others could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
THE
USE OF LEGAL, REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES BY
COMPETITORS, BOTH BRAND AND GENERIC, INCLUDING AUTHORIZED
GENERICS AND CITIZENS PETITIONS, AS WELL AS THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION, MAY INCREASE OUR COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OR MARKETING OF OUR GENERIC
PRODUCTS, COULD DELAY OR PREVENT SUCH INTRODUCTION AND/OR COULD
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OUR PROFIT POTENTIAL. THESE FACTORS COULD
HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL
POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
Our competitors, both branded and generic, often pursue
strategies to prevent or delay competition from generic
alternatives to branded products. These strategies include, but
are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
entering into agreements whereby other generic companies will
begin to market an authorized generic, a generic equivalent of a
branded product, at the same time generic competition initially
enters the market;
|
|
|
|
filing citizens petitions with the FDA or other regulatory
bodies, including timing the filings so as to thwart generic
competition by causing delays of our product approvals;
|
|
|
|
seeking to establish regulatory and legal obstacles that would
make it more difficult to demonstrate bioequivalence;
|
|
|
|
initiating legislative efforts to limit the substitution of
generic versions of brand pharmaceuticals;
|
|
|
|
filing suits for patent infringement that may delay regulatory
approval of many generic products;
|
|
|
|
introducing next-generation products prior to the
expiration of market exclusivity for the reference product,
which often materially reduces the demand for the first generic
product for which we seek regulatory approval;
|
|
|
|
obtaining extensions of market exclusivity by conducting
clinical trials of brand drugs in pediatric populations or by
other potential methods;
|
|
|
|
persuading regulatory bodies to withdraw the approval of brand
name drugs for which the patents are about to expire, thus
allowing the brand name company to obtain new patented products
serving as substitutes for the products withdrawn; and
|
|
|
|
seeking to obtain new patents on drugs for which patent
protection is about to expire.
|
In the U.S., some companies have lobbied Congress for amendments
to the Hatch-Waxman legislation that would give them additional
advantages over generic competitors. For example, although the
term of a companys drug patent can be extended to reflect
a portion of the time a new drug application is under regulatory
review, some companies have proposed extending the patent term
by a full year for each year spent in clinical trials rather
than the one-half year that is currently permitted.
If proposals like these in the U.S., Europe or in other
countries where we operate were to become effective, our entry
into the market and our ability to generate revenues associated
with new products may be delayed, reduced or eliminated, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position and results of operations and could cause the market
value of our common stock to decline.
50
OUR
COMPETITORS, INCLUDING BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, OR
OTHER THIRD PARTIES MAY ALLEGE THAT WE ARE INFRINGING THEIR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, FORCING US TO EXPEND SUBSTANTIAL
RESOURCES IN RESULTING LITIGATION, THE OUTCOME OF WHICH IS
UNCERTAIN. ANY UNFAVORABLE OUTCOME OF SUCH LITIGATION, INCLUDING
IN AN AT-RISK LAUNCH SITUATION, COULD HAVE A
MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR
COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
Companies that produce brand pharmaceutical products routinely
bring litigation against ANDA or similar applicants that seek
regulatory approval to manufacture and market generic forms of
their branded products. These companies allege patent
infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights
as the basis for filing suit against an ANDA or similar
applicant. Likewise, patent holders may bring patent
infringement suits against companies that are currently
marketing and selling their approved generic products.
Litigation often involves significant expense and can delay or
prevent introduction or sale of our generic products. If patents
are held valid and infringed by our products in a particular
jurisdiction, we would, unless we could obtain a license from
the patent holder, need to cease selling in that jurisdiction
and may need to deliver up or destroy existing stock in that
jurisdiction.
There may also be situations where the Company uses its business
judgment and decides to market and sell products,
notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent
infringement(s) have not been finally resolved by the courts
(i.e., an at-risk launch situation). The risk
involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies
available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include,
among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the
patent owner and not necessarily by the profits earned by the
infringer. In the case of a willful infringement, the definition
of which is subjective, such damages may be trebled. Moreover,
because of the discount pricing typically involved with
bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally
realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent
products. An adverse decision in a case such as this or in other
similar litigation could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
OUR
SPECIALTY BUSINESS DEVELOPS, FORMULATES, MANUFACTURES OR
IN-LICENSES AND MARKETS BRANDED PRODUCTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
RISKS. THESE RISKS COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
Our branded products developed, formulated, manufactured (or
alternatively, in-licensed) and marketed by our specialty
business may be subject to the following risks, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
limited patent life, or the loss of patent protection;
|
|
|
|
competition from generic products;
|
|
|
|
reductions in reimbursement rates by third-party payors;
|
|
|
|
importation by consumers;
|
|
|
|
product liability;
|
|
|
|
drug development risks arising from typically greater research
and development investments than generics; and
|
|
|
|
unpredictability with regard to establishing a market.
|
In addition, developing and commercializing branded products is
generally more costly than generic products. If such business
expenditures do not ultimately result in the launch of
commercially successful brand products, or if any of the risks
above were to occur, there could be a material adverse effect on
our business, financial position and results of operations and
the market value of our common stock could decline.
51
A
RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF PRODUCTS MAY REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF OUR NET REVENUES, GROSS PROFIT OR NET EARNINGS FROM
TIME TO TIME. IF THE VOLUME OR PRICING OF ANY OF THESE PRODUCTS
DECLINES, IT COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
Sales of a limited number of our products from time to time
represent a significant portion of our net revenues, gross
profit and net earnings. If the volume or pricing of our largest
selling products declines in the future, our business, financial
position and results of operations could be materially adversely
affected, and the market value of our common stock could decline.
A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR NET REVENUES IS DERIVED FROM SALES TO
A LIMITED NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS. ANY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF
BUSINESS WITH ANY OF THESE CUSTOMERS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD
DECLINE.
A significant portion of our net revenues is derived from sales
to a limited number of customers. If we were to experience a
significant reduction in or loss of business with one such
customer, or if one such customer were to experience difficulty
in paying us on a timely basis, our business, financial position
and results of operations could be materially adversely
affected, and the market value of our common stock could decline.
WE
DEPEND TO A LARGE EXTENT ON THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE RAW MATERIALS, PARTICULARLY THE CHEMICAL
COMPOUND(S) COMPRISING THE ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICAL INGREDIENT,
THAT WE USE TO MANUFACTURE OUR PRODUCTS AS WELL AS CERTAIN
FINISHED GOODS. A PROLONGED INTERRUPTION IN THE SUPPLY OF SUCH
PRODUCTS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE
MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
We typically purchase the active pharmaceutical ingredient
(i.e., the chemical compounds that produce the desired
therapeutic effect in our products) and other materials and
supplies that we use in our manufacturing operations, as well as
certain finished products, from many different foreign and
domestic suppliers.
Additionally, we maintain safety stocks in our raw materials
inventory and, in certain cases where we have listed only one
supplier in our applications with regulatory agencies, have
received regulatory agency approval to use alternative suppliers
should the need arise. However, there is no guarantee that we
will always have timely and sufficient access to a critical raw
material or finished product. A prolonged interruption in the
supply of a single-sourced raw material, including the active
ingredient, or finished product could cause our business,
financial position and results of operations to be materially
adversely affected, and the market value of our common stock
could decline. In addition, our manufacturing capabilities could
be impacted by quality deficiencies in the products which our
suppliers provide, which could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial position and results of operations, and
the market value of our common stock could decline.
We utilize controlled substances in certain of our current
products and products in development and therefore must meet the
requirements of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the
related regulations administered by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) in the U.S. as well as
similar laws in other countries where we operate. These laws
relate to the manufacture, shipment, storage, sale and use of
controlled substances. The DEA and other regulatory agencies
limit the availability of the active ingredients used in certain
of our current products and products in development and, as a
result, our procurement quota of these active ingredients may
not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical
trials. We must annually apply to the DEA and other regulatory
agencies for procurement quota in order to obtain these
substances. Any delay or refusal by the DEA or such regulatory
agencies in establishing our procurement quota for controlled
substances could delay or stop our clinical trials or product
launches, or could cause trade inventory disruptions for those
products that have already
52
been launched, which could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
WE
HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING FACILITIES PRODUCING A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF OUR PRODUCTS. PRODUCTION AT ANY ONE OF
THESE FACILITIES COULD BE INTERRUPTED, WHICH COULD HAVE A
MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR
COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
A substantial portion of our capacity as well as our current
production is attributable to a limited number of manufacturing
facilities. A significant disruption at any one of those
facilities, even on a short-term basis, could impair our ability
to produce and ship products to the market on a timely basis,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
WE MAY
EXPERIENCE DECLINES IN THE SALES VOLUME AND PRICES OF OUR
PRODUCTS AS THE RESULT OF THE CONTINUING TREND TOWARD
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN CUSTOMER GROUPS, SUCH AS THE WHOLESALE
DRUG DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL PHARMACY INDUSTRIES, AS WELL AS THE
EMERGENCE OF LARGE BUYING GROUPS. THE RESULT OF SUCH
DEVELOPMENTS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
A significant amount of our sales are to a relatively small
number of drug wholesalers and retail drug chains. These
customers represent an essential part of the distribution chain
of generic pharmaceutical products. Drug wholesalers and retail
drug chains have undergone, and are continuing to undergo,
significant consolidation. This consolidation may result in
these groups gaining additional purchasing leverage and
consequently increasing the product pricing pressures facing our
business. Additionally, the emergence of large buying groups
representing independent retail pharmacies and the prevalence
and influence of managed care organizations and similar
institutions potentially enable those groups to attempt to
extract price discounts on our products. The result of these
developments may have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
BECAUSE
THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IS HEAVILY REGULATED, WE FACE
SIGNIFICANT COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH OUR EFFORTS
TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. SHOULD WE FAIL TO COMPLY,
WE COULD EXPERIENCE MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON OUR BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.
The pharmaceutical industry is subject to regulation by various
governmental authorities. For instance, we must comply with
requirements of the FDA and similar requirements of similar
agencies in our other markets with respect to the manufacture,
labeling, sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, promotion
and development of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply
with regulations of the FDA and other regulators can result in
fines, disgorgement, unanticipated compliance expenditures,
recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of
production
and/or
distribution, suspension of the applicable regulators
review of our submissions, enforcement actions, injunctions and
criminal prosecution. Under certain circumstances, the
regulators may also have the authority to revoke previously
granted drug approvals. Although we have internal regulatory
compliance programs and policies and have had a favorable
compliance history, there is no guarantee that these programs,
as currently designed, will meet regulatory agency standards in
the future. Additionally, despite our efforts at compliance,
there is no guarantee that we may not be deemed to be deficient
in some manner in the future. If we were deemed to be deficient
in any significant way, our business, financial position and
results of operations could be materially affected and the
market value of our common stock could decline.
In Europe we must also comply with regulatory requirements with
respect to the manufacture, labeling, sale, distribution,
marketing, advertising, promotion and development of
pharmaceutical products. Some of these
53
requirements are contained in EU regulations and governed by the
EMA. Other requirements are set down in national laws and
regulations of the EU Member States. Failure to comply with the
regulations can result in a range of fines, penalties, product
recalls/suspensions or even criminal liability. Similar laws and
regulations exist in most of the markets in which we operate.
In addition to the new drug approval process, government
agencies also regulate the facilities and operational procedures
that we use to manufacture our products. We must register our
facilities with the FDA and other similar regulators. Products
manufactured in our facilities must be made in a manner
consistent with current good manufacturing practices or similar
standards in each territory in which we manufacture. Compliance
with such regulations requires substantial expenditures of time,
money and effort in such areas as production and quality control
to ensure full technical compliance. The FDA and other agencies
periodically inspect our manufacturing facilities for
compliance. Regulatory approval to manufacture a drug is
site-specific. Failure to comply with good manufacturing
practices at one of our manufacturing facilities could result in
an enforcement action brought by the FDA or other regulatory
bodies which could include withholding the approval of our
submissions or other product applications of that facility. If
any regulatory body were to require one of our manufacturing
facilities to cease or limit production, our business could be
adversely affected. Delay and cost in obtaining FDA or other
regulatory approval to manufacture at a different facility also
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position and results of operations and could cause the market
value of our common stock to decline.
We are subject, as are generally all manufacturers, to various
federal, state and local laws regulating working conditions, as
well as environmental protection laws and regulations, including
those governing the discharge of materials into the environment.
We are also required to comply with data protection and data
privacy rules in many countries. Although we have not incurred
significant costs associated with complying with environmental
provisions in the past, if changes to such environmental laws
and regulations are made in the future that require significant
changes in our operations or if we engage in the development and
manufacturing of new products requiring new or different
environmental controls, we may be required to expend significant
funds. Such changes could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
OUR
REPORTING AND PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE MEDICARE AND/OR
MEDICAID REBATE PROGRAM AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING AND
REBATE PROGRAMS ARE COMPLEX AND MAY INVOLVE SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS
THAT COULD CHANGE AS A RESULT OF NEW BUSINESS CIRCUMSTANCES, NEW
REGULATORY GUIDANCE, OR ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. ANY
DETERMINATION OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE OBLIGATIONS COULD
SUBJECT US TO PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS WHICH COULD HAVE A
MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
COULD DECLINE.
The regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations with
respect to Medicare
and/or
Medicaid reimbursement and rebates and other governmental
programs are complex. Because our processes for these
calculations and the judgments involved in making these
calculations involve, and will continue to involve, subjective
decisions and complex methodologies, these calculations are
subject to the risk of errors. In addition, they are subject to
review and challenge by the applicable governmental agencies,
and it is possible that such reviews could result in material
changes. Further, effective October 1, 2007, the Centers
for Medicaid and Medicare Services, or CMS, adopted new rules
for Average Manufacturers Price (AMP) based on
the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(DRA). While the matter remains subject to
litigation and proposed legislation, one potential significant
change as a result of the DRA is that AMP would need to be
disclosed to the public. AMP was historically kept confidential
by the government and participants in the Medicaid program.
Disclosing AMP to competitors, customers, and the public at
large could negatively affect our leverage in commercial price
negotiations.
In addition, as also disclosed herein, a number of state and
federal government agencies are conducting investigations of
manufacturers reporting practices with respect to Average
Wholesale Prices (AWP) in which they have suggested
that reporting of inflated AWP has led to excessive payments for
prescription drugs. We and numerous other pharmaceutical
companies have been named as defendants in various actions
relating to
54
pharmaceutical pricing issues and whether allegedly improper
actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to excessive
payments by Medicare
and/or
Medicaid.
Any governmental agencies that have commenced, or may commence,
an investigation of the Company could impose, based on a claim
of violation of fraud and false claims laws or otherwise, civil
and/or
criminal sanctions, including fines, penalties and possible
exclusion from federal health care programs including Medicare
and/or
Medicaid. Some of the applicable laws may impose liability even
in the absence of specific intent to defraud. Furthermore,
should there be ambiguity with regard to how to properly
calculate and report payments and even in the
absence of any such ambiguity a governmental
authority may take a position contrary to a position we have
taken, and may impose civil
and/or
criminal sanctions. Any such penalties or sanctions could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
WE MAY
EXPERIENCE REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVELS OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, HMOS OR
OTHER THIRD-PARTY PAYERS. IN ADDITION, THE USE OF TENDER SYSTEMS
COULD REDUCE PRICES FOR OUR PRODUCTS OR REDUCE OUR MARKET
OPPORTUNITIES. ANY SUCH REDUCTIONS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
Various governmental authorities (including the U.K. National
Health Service and the German statutory health insurance scheme)
and private health insurers and other organizations, such as
health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the U.S.,
provide reimbursement to consumers for the cost of certain
pharmaceutical products. Demand for our products depends in part
on the extent to which such reimbursement is available. In the
U.S., third-party payers increasingly challenge the pricing of
pharmaceutical products. This trend and other trends toward the
growth of HMOs, managed health care and legislative health care
reform create significant uncertainties regarding the future
levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. Further,
any reimbursement may be reduced in the future, perhaps to the
point that market demand for our products declines. Such a
decline could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
In addition, a number of markets in which we operate (including,
most recently, the Netherlands) have implemented or may
implement tender systems for generic pharmaceuticals in an
effort to lower prices. Under such tender systems, manufacturers
submit bids which establish prices for generic pharmaceutical
products. Upon winning the tender, the winning company will
receive a preferential reimbursement for a period of time. The
tender system often results in companies underbidding one
another by proposing low pricing in order to win the tender.
Certain other countries may consider the implementation of a
tender system. Even if a tender system is ultimately not
implemented, the anticipation of such could result in price
reductions. Failing to win tenders, or the implementation of
similar systems in other markets leading to further price
declines, could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
LEGISLATIVE
OR REGULATORY PROGRAMS THAT MAY INFLUENCE PRICES OF
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON
OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND
COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
Current or future federal, state or foreign laws and regulations
may influence the prices of drugs and, therefore, could
adversely affect the prices that we receive for our products.
For example, programs in existence in certain states in the
U.S. seek to set prices of all drugs sold within those
states through the regulation and administration of the sale of
prescription drugs. Expansion of these programs, in particular
state Medicare
and/or
Medicaid programs, or changes required in the way in which
Medicare
and/or
Medicaid rebates are calculated under such programs, could
adversely affect the prices we receive for our products and
could have a material adverse effect on our
55
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
In order to control expenditure on pharmaceuticals, most member
states in the EU regulate the pricing of products and, in some
cases, limit the range of different forms of pharmaceuticals
available for prescription by national health services. These
controls can result in considerable price differences between
member states.
Several countries in which we operate have implemented, or plan
to implement, government mandated price reductions, including
but not limited to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Japan and
Canada. When such price cuts occur, pharmaceutical companies
have generally experienced significant declines in revenues and
profitability and uncertainties continue to exist within the
market. Such price reductions could have an adverse effect on
our business, and as uncertainties are resolved or if other
countries in which we operate enact similar measures, they could
have a further material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
HEALTHCARE
REFORM LEGISLATION COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
In recent years, there have been numerous initiatives on the
federal and state levels for comprehensive reforms affecting the
payment for, the availability of and reimbursement for
healthcare services in the U.S., and it is likely that federal
and state legislatures and health agencies will continue to
focus on health care reform in the future. The Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Public Law
111-148)
(PPACA) and The Health Care and Education and
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which amends the PPACA
(collectively the Health Reform Laws), were signed
into law in March 2010. While the Health Reform Laws may
increase the number of patients who have insurance coverage for
our products, they also include provisions such as the
assessment of a pharmaceutical manufacturer fee and an increase
in the amount of rebates that manufacturers pay for coverage of
their drugs by Medicaid programs.
We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state
healthcare legislation. The Health Reform Laws and further
changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our
revenues or increase our costs could also have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations and cash flows, and could cause the market value
of our common stock to decline.
Additionally, we encounter similar regulatory and legislative
issues in most other countries. In the EU and some other
international markets, the government provides health care at
low cost to consumers and regulates pharmaceutical prices,
patient eligibility or reimbursement levels to control costs for
the government-sponsored health care system. This international
system of price regulations may lead to inconsistent prices.
Within the EU and in other countries, the availability of our
products in some markets at lower prices undermines our sales in
some markets with higher prices. Additionally, certain countries
set prices by reference to the prices in other countries where
our products are marketed. Thus, our inability to secure
adequate prices in a particular country may also impair our
ability to obtain acceptable prices in existing and potential
new markets, and may create the opportunity for third party
cross border trade.
If significant additional reforms are made to the
U.S. healthcare system, or to the healthcare systems of
other markets in which we operate, those reforms could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
WE ARE
INVOLVED IN VARIOUS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CERTAIN GOVERNMENT
INQUIRIES AND MAY EXPERIENCE UNFAVORABLE OUTCOMES OF SUCH
PROCEEDINGS OR INQUIRIES, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
We are involved in various legal proceedings and certain
government inquiries, including, but not limited to, patent
infringement, product liability, breach of contract and claims
involving Medicare
and/or
Medicaid
56
reimbursements, some of which are described in our periodic
reports, that involve claims for, or the possibility of fines
and penalties involving substantial amounts of money or other
relief. If any of these legal proceedings or inquiries were to
result in an adverse outcome, the impact could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position and results
of operations and could cause the market value of our common
stock to decline.
With respect to product liability, we maintain commercial
insurance to protect against and manage a portion of the risks
involved in conducting our business. Although we carry
insurance, we believe that no reasonable amount of insurance can
fully protect against all such risks because of the potential
liability inherent in the business of producing pharmaceuticals
for human consumption. To the extent that a loss occurs,
depending on the nature of the loss and the level of insurance
coverage maintained, it could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial position and results of operations and
could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
In addition, in limited circumstances, entities we acquired in
the acquisition of the former Merck Generics business are party
to litigation in matters under which we are entitled to
indemnification by Merck KGaA. However, there are risks inherent
in such indemnities and, accordingly, there can be no assurance
that we will receive the full benefits of such indemnification,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations and could cause the
market value of our common stock to decline.
IF THE
INTERCOMPANY TERMS OF CROSS BORDER ARRANGEMENTS WE HAVE AMONG
OUR SUBSIDIARIES ARE DETERMINED TO BE INAPPROPRIATE, OUR TAX
LIABILITY MAY INCREASE, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
We have potential tax exposures resulting from the varying
application of statutes, regulations and interpretations which
include exposures on intercompany terms of cross border
arrangements among our subsidiaries in relation to various
aspects of our business, including manufacturing, marketing,
sales and delivery functions. Although our cross border
arrangements between affiliates are based upon internationally
accepted standards, tax authorities in various jurisdictions may
disagree with and subsequently challenge the amount of profits
taxed in their country, which may result in increased tax
liability, including accrued interest and penalties, which would
cause our tax expense to increase. This could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position and results
of operations and could cause the market value of our common
stock to decline.
UNANTICIPATED
CHANGES IN OUR TAX PROVISIONS OR EXPOSURE TO ADDITIONAL INCOME
TAX LIABILITIES COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
We are subject to income taxes in the U.S. and many foreign
jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining
our worldwide provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course
of business, there are many transactions and calculations where
the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The final
determination of any tax audits or related litigation could be
materially different from our historical income tax provisions
and accruals. Additionally, changes in the effective tax rate as
a result of a change in the mix of earnings in countries with
differing statutory tax rates, changes in our overall
profitability, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets
and liabilities, the results of audits and the examination of
previously filed tax returns by taxing authorities and
continuing assessments of our tax exposures could impact our tax
liabilities and affect our income tax expense, which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial position
and results of operations and could cause the market value of
our common stock to decline.
57
CHANGES
IN INCOME TAX LAWS AND TAX RULINGS MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY
ADVERSE IMPACT ON OUR EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND INCOME TAX EXPENSE,
WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE
MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
In February 2010, the Obama administration released its fiscal
year 2011 budget, which reintroduced, in somewhat modified form,
several proposals originally proposed in May 2009 to change
U.S. income tax rules, including proposals for
U.S. international tax reform. The proposals would, among
other things, limit the use of foreign tax credits to reduce
residual U.S. income tax on
non-U.S. source
income and defer the deduction of interest attributable to
non-U.S. source
income of foreign subsidiaries. Each of these proposals would be
effective only for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2010. We cannot determine whether these
proposals will be enacted into law or what, if any, changes will
be made to such proposals prior to their being enacted into law.
If enacted, and depending on its precise terms, such legislation
could materially increase our overall effective income tax rate
and income tax expense. This could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
The Tax Extenders Act of 2009 includes legislation which would
extend, for one year, 49 expiring tax provisions. On
May 20, 2010, a new tax extenders bill, the American Jobs
and Tax Loophole Closing Act of 2010, was introduced. This bill
was passed by the House on May 28, 2010 and is now pending
action in the Senate. The total impact to the Company of an
extension of these expiring tax provisions is currently unknown
due to the potential impact of revenue offsets, which may be
included in the final version of this legislation, if enacted.
If enacted, and depending on its precise terms, such legislation
could materially increase our overall effective income tax rate
and income tax expense. This could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
WE
HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INDEBTEDNESS AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPLY A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF OUR CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS TO SERVICE
OUR INDEBTEDNESS. OUR SUBSTANTIAL INDEBTEDNESS COULD LEAD TO
ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON
OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND
COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
Our high level of indebtedness could have important
consequences, including but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and
industry conditions;
|
|
|
|
requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow
from operations and proceeds of any equity issuances to payments
on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of cash
flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions
and investments and other general corporate purposes;
|
|
|
|
making it difficult for us to optimally capitalize and manage
the cash flow for our businesses;
|
|
|
|
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to,
changes in our businesses and the markets in which we operate;
|
|
|
|
making it difficult for us to meet the leverage and interest
coverage ratios required by our Senior Credit Agreement;
|
|
|
|
limiting our ability to borrow money or sell stock to fund our
working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and debt
service requirements and other financing needs;
|
|
|
|
increasing our vulnerability to increases in interest rates in
general because a substantial portion of our indebtedness bears
interest at floating rates;
|
|
|
|
requiring us to sell assets in order to pay down debt;
|
|
|
|
restricting us from exploiting business opportunities;
|
|
|
|
increasing our cost of borrowings; and
|
|
|
|
placing us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors that
have less debt.
|
58
Our ability to service our indebtedness will depend on our
future operating performance and financial results, which will
be subject, in part, to factors beyond our control, including
interest rates and general economic, financial and business
conditions. If we do not have sufficient cash flow to service
our indebtedness, we may need to refinance all or part of our
existing indebtedness, borrow more money or sell securities,
some or all of which may not be available to us at acceptable
terms or at all. In addition, we may need to incur additional
indebtedness in the future in the ordinary course of business.
Although the terms of our Senior Credit Agreement allow us to
incur additional debt, this is subject to certain limitations
which may preclude us from incurring the amount of indebtedness
we otherwise desire. In addition, if we incur additional debt,
the risks described above could intensify. Furthermore, the
global credit markets are currently experiencing an
unprecedented contraction. If current pressures on credit
continue or worsen, future debt financing may not be available
to us when required or may not be available on acceptable terms,
and as a result we may be unable to grow our business, take
advantage of business opportunities, respond to competitive
pressures or satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness. Any
of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial position and results of operations and could
cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
WE MAY
DECIDE TO SELL ASSETS WHICH COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR PROSPECTS
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH, AND WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON
STOCK TO DECLINE.
We may from time to time consider selling certain assets if
(a) we determine that such assets are not critical to our
strategy, or (b) we believe the opportunity to monetize the
asset is attractive or for various reasons including we want to
reduce indebtedness. We have explored and will continue to
explore the sale of certain non-core assets. Although our
intention is to engage in asset sales only if they advance our
overall strategy, any such sale could reduce the size or scope
of our business, our market share in particular markets or our
opportunities with respect to certain markets, products or
therapeutic categories. We also continue to review the carrying
value of manufacturing and intangible assets for indications of
impairment as circumstances require. Future events and decisions
may lead to asset impairments
and/or
related costs. As a result, any such sale or impairment could
have an adverse effect on our business, prospects and
opportunities for growth, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
OUR
CREDIT FACILITIES, SENIOR UNSECURED NOTES, OTHER OUTSTANDING
INDEBTEDNESS AND ANY ADDITIONAL INDEBTEDNESS WE INCUR IN THE
FUTURE IMPOSE, OR MAY IMPOSE, SIGNIFICANT OPERATING AND
FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS, WHICH MAY PREVENT US FROM CAPITALIZING
ON BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES. THESE FACTORS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON
STOCK TO DECLINE.
Our credit facilities, senior unsecured notes, other outstanding
indebtedness and any additional indebtedness we incur in the
future impose, or may impose, significant operating and
financial restrictions on us. These restrictions limit our
ability to, among other things, incur additional indebtedness,
make investments, pay certain dividends, prepay other
indebtedness, sell assets, incur certain liens, enter into
agreements with our affiliates or restricting our
subsidiaries ability to pay dividends, merge or
consolidate. In addition, our Senior Credit Agreement requires
us to maintain specified financial ratios. We cannot assure you
that these covenants will not adversely affect our ability to
finance our future operations or capital needs or to pursue
available business opportunities. A breach of any of these
covenants or our inability to maintain the required financial
ratios could result in a default under the related indebtedness.
If a default occurs, the relevant lenders could elect to declare
our indebtedness, together with accrued interest and other fees,
to be immediately due and payable. These factors could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
59
THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF INDEBTEDNESS RELATED TO OUR OUTSTANDING CASH
CONVERTIBLE NOTES WILL INCREASE IF OUR STOCK PRICE
INCREASES. IN ADDITION, OUR OUTSTANDING SENIOR
NOTES SETTLEMENT VALUE INCREASES AS OUR STOCK PRICE
INCREASES, ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS AS AN INCREASE IN
INDEBTEDNESS. ALSO, WE HAVE ENTERED INTO NOTE HEDGES AND
WARRANT TRANSACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SENIOR CONVERTIBLE
NOTES AND CASH CONVERTIBLE NOTES IN ORDER TO HEDGE
SOME OF THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL INCREASE OF
INDEBTEDNESS AND SETTLEMENT VALUE. SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN
CONSUMMATED WITH CERTAIN COUNTERPARTIES, MAINLY HIGHLY RATED
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. ANY INCREASE IN INDEBTEDNESS, NET
EXPOSURE RELATED TO THE RISK OR FAILURE OF ANY COUNTERPARTIES TO
PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATIONS, COULD HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON US,
INCLUDING UNDER OUR DEBT AGREEMENTS, AND COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON
STOCK TO DECLINE.
Under applicable accounting rules, the cash conversion feature
that is a term of the Cash Convertible Notes must be recorded as
a liability on our balance sheet and periodically marked to fair
value. If our stock price increases, the liability associated
with the cash conversion feature would increase and, because
this liability must be periodically marked to fair value on our
balance sheet, the total amount of indebtedness related to the
notes that is shown on our balance sheet would also increase.
This could have adverse effects on us, including under our
existing and any future debt agreements. For example, our senior
credit facilities contain covenants that restrict our ability to
incur debt, make capital expenditures, pay dividends and make
investments if, among other things, our leverage ratio, exceeds
certain levels. In addition, the interest rate we pay under our
senior credit facilities increases if our leverage ratio
increases. Because the leverage ratio under our senior credit
facilities is calculated based on a definition of total
indebtedness as defined under accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), if
the amount of our total indebtedness were to increase, our
leverage ratio would also increase. As a result, we may not be
able to comply with such covenants in the future, which could,
among other things, restrict our ability to grow our business,
take advantage of business opportunities or respond to
competitive pressures. Any of the foregoing could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of the
notes and our common stock to decline.
Although the conversion feature under our Senior Convertible
Notes is not marked to market, the conversion feature also
increases as the price of our common stock increases. If our
stock price increases, the settlement value of the conversion
feature increases.
In connection with the issuance of the Cash Convertible Notes
and Senior Convertible Notes, we entered into note hedge and
warrant transactions with certain financial institutions, each
of which we refer to as a counterparty. The Cash Convertible
Note hedge is comprised of purchased cash-settled call options
that are expected to reduce our exposure to potential cash
payments required to be made by us upon the cash conversion of
the notes. The Senior Convertible Notes hedge is comprised of
call options that are expected to reduce our exposure to the
settlement value (issuance of common stock) upon the conversion
of the notes. We have also entered into respective warrant
transactions with the counterparties pursuant to which we will
have sold to each counterparty warrants for the purchase of
shares of our common stock. Together, each of the note hedges
and warrant transactions are expected to provide us with some
protection against increases in our stock price over the
conversion price per share. However, there is no assurance that
these transactions will remain in effect at all times. Also,
although we believe the counterparties are highly rated
financial institutions, there are no assurances that the
counterparties will be able to perform their respective
obligations under the agreement we have with each of them. Any
net exposure related to conversion of the notes or any failure
of the counterparties to perform their obligations under the
agreements we have with them could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial position and results of
operations and could cause the market value of our common stock
to decline.
60
ANY
FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OR DIVESTITURES WOULD INVOLVE A NUMBER OF
INHERENT RISKS. THESE RISKS COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE
EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK
TO DECLINE.
We may continue to seek to expand our product line through
complementary or strategic acquisitions of other companies,
including Bioniche Pharma, products or assets, including those
in rapidly developing economies, or through joint ventures,
licensing agreements or other arrangements or may determine to
divest certain products or assets. Any such acquisitions, joint
ventures or other business combinations may involve significant
challenges in integrating the new companys operations, and
divestitures could be equally challenging. Either process may
prove to be complex and time consuming and require substantial
resources and effort. It may also disrupt our ongoing
businesses, which may adversely affect our relationships with
customers, employees, regulators and others with whom we have
business or other dealings.
We may be unable to realize synergies or other benefits,
including tax, expected to result from any acquisitions,
including Bioniche Pharma, joint ventures or other transactions
or investments we may undertake, or be unable to generate
additional revenue to offset any unanticipated inability to
realize these expected synergies or benefits. Realization of the
anticipated benefits of acquisitions or other transactions could
take longer than expected, and implementation difficulties,
unforeseen expenses, complications and delays, market factors or
a deterioration in domestic and global economic conditions could
alter the anticipated benefits of any such transactions. We may
also compete for certain acquisition targets with companies
having greater financial resources than us or other advantages
over us that may prevent us from acquiring a target. These
factors could impair our growth and ability to compete, require
us to focus additional resources on integration of operations
rather than other profitable areas, or otherwise cause a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position and
results of operations and could cause the market value of our
common stock to decline.
WE
ENTER INTO VARIOUS AGREEMENTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS
WHICH PERIODICALLY INCORPORATE PROVISIONS WHEREBY WE INDEMNIFY
THE OTHER PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT. IN THE EVENT THAT WE WOULD
HAVE TO PERFORM UNDER THESE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS, IT COULD
HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL
POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET
VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into
employment, legal settlement, and other agreements which
incorporate indemnification provisions. We maintain insurance
coverage which we believe will effectively mitigate our
obligations under certain of these indemnification provisions.
However, should our obligation under an indemnification
provision exceed our coverage or should coverage be denied, our
business, financial position and results of operations could be
materially adversely affected and the market value of our common
stock could decline.
OUR
FUTURE SUCCESS IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON OUR CONTINUED ABILITY TO
ATTRACT AND RETAIN KEY PERSONNEL. ANY FAILURE TO ATTRACT AND
RETAIN KEY PERSONNEL COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR
BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD
CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
It is important that we attract and retain qualified personnel
in order to develop new products and compete effectively. If we
fail to attract and retain key scientific, technical or
management personnel, our business could be affected adversely.
Additionally, while we have employment agreements with certain
key employees in place, their employment for the duration of the
agreement is not guaranteed. If we are unsuccessful in retaining
our key employees, it could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial position and results of operations and
could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
61
WE ARE
IN THE PROCESS OF ENHANCING AND FURTHER DEVELOPING OUR GLOBAL
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED BUSINESS
APPLICATIONS. AS WITH ANY ENHANCEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMS,
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED COULD RESULT IN BUSINESS INTERRUPTIONS,
AND COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS,
FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE
MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.
We are enhancing and further developing our global enterprise
resource planning (ERP) systems and associated
applications to provide more operating efficiencies and
effective management of our business operations. Such changes to
ERP systems and related software carry risks such as cost
overruns, project delays and business interruptions and delays.
If we experience a material business interruption as a result of
our ERP enhancements, it could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial position and results of operations and
could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
WE
MUST MAINTAIN ADEQUATE INTERNAL CONTROLS AND BE ABLE, ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS, TO PROVIDE AN ASSERTION AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
SUCH CONTROLS. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE INTERNAL CONTROLS OR
TO IMPLEMENT NEW OR IMPROVED CONTROLS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL
ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON
STOCK TO DECLINE.
Effective internal controls are necessary for the Company to
provide reasonable assurance with respect to its financial
reports. We are spending a substantial amount of management time
and resources to comply with changing laws, regulations and
standards relating to corporate governance and public
disclosure. In the U.S. such changes include the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) regulations and the NASDAQ listing standards.
In particular, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 requires managements annual review and evaluation of
our internal control over financial reporting and attestations
as to the effectiveness of these controls by our independent
registered public accounting firm. If we fail to maintain the
adequacy of our internal controls, we may not be able to ensure
that we can conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective
internal control over financial reporting. Additionally,
internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect misstatements because of its inherent limitations,
including the possibility of human error, the circumvention or
overriding of controls, or fraud. Therefore, even effective
internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with
respect to the preparation and fair presentation of financial
statements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to
future periods are subject to the risk that the control may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate. If the Company fails to maintain the adequacy of
its internal controls, including any failure to implement
required new or improved controls, this could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position and results
of operations, and the market value of our common stock could
decline.
THERE
ARE INHERENT UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN ESTIMATES, JUDGMENTS AND
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GAAP. ANY FUTURE CHANGES IN ESTIMATES, JUDGMENTS
AND ASSUMPTIONS USED OR NECESSARY REVISIONS TO PRIOR ESTIMATES,
JUDGMENTS OR ASSUMPTIONS OR CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
COULD LEAD TO A RESTATEMENT OR REVISION TO PREVIOUSLY
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR CHARGES, INCLUDING
IMPAIRMENT CHARGES, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT
ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO
DECLINE.
The Consolidated and Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
included in the periodic reports we file with the SEC are
prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of financial
statements in accordance with GAAP involves making estimates,
judgments and assumptions that affect reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and income. Estimates,
judgments and assumptions are inherently subject to change in
the future and any necessary revisions to prior estimates,
judgments or assumptions could lead to a restatement.
62
Furthermore, although we have recorded reserves for lawsuits
based on estimates of probable future costs, such lawsuits could
result in substantial further costs. Also, any new or revised
accounting standards may require adjustments to previously
issued financial statements. Any such changes could result in
corresponding changes to the amounts of liabilities, revenues,
expenses and income. Any such changes could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position and results
of operations and could cause the market value of our common
stock to decline.
In addition, a significant amount of our total assets are
related to acquired intangible assets and goodwill. Such assets
require impairment testing periodically
and/or under
certain circumstances. Impairment testing requires the use of
significant estimates, judgments and assumptions, which involve
inherent uncertainty. Any future changes to estimates, judgments
and assumptions used in impairment testing could lead to
impairment charges, which could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial position and results of operations
and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
|
|
ITEM 5.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the
registrant, as amended to date, filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Bylaws of the registrant, as amended to date, filed as
Exhibit 3.2 to the Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(a)
|
|
Rights Agreement dated as of August 22, 1996, between the
registrant and American Stock Transfer &
Trust Company, filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on September 3, 1996, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(b)
|
|
Amendment to Rights Agreement dated as of November 8, 1999,
between the registrant and American Stock Transfer &
Trust Company, filed as Exhibit 1 to
Form 8-A/A
filed with the SEC on March 31, 2000, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(c)
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Rights Agreement dated as of
August 13, 2004, between the registrant and American Stock
Transfer & Trust Company, filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on August 16, 2004, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(d)
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Rights Agreement dated as of
September 8, 2004, between the registrant and American
Stock Transfer & Trust Company, filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on September 9, 2004, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(e)
|
|
Amendment No. 4 to Rights Agreement dated as of
December 2, 2004, between the registrant and American Stock
Transfer & Trust Company, filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on December 3, 2004, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1(f)
|
|
Amendment No. 5 to Rights Agreement dated as of
December 19, 2005, between the registrant and American
Stock Transfer & Trust Company, filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on December 19, 2005, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.2(a)
|
|
Indenture, dated as of July 21, 2005, between the
registrant and The Bank of New York, as trustee, filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on July 27, 2005, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.2(b)
|
|
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 1, 2007,
among the registrant, the Subsidiaries of the registrant listed
on the signature page thereto and The Bank of New York, as
trustee, filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on October 5, 2007, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2005,
among the registrant, the Guarantors party thereto and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, BNY
Capital Markets, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets (a Division of
McDonald Investments Inc.), PNC Capital Markets, Inc. and
SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc., filed as Exhibit 4.2 to the
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on July 27, 2005, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Indenture, dated as of September 15, 2008, among the
registrant, the guarantors named therein and Bank of New York
Mellon as trustee, filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on September 15, 2008, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
4
|
.5
|
|
Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2010, among the registrant,
the guarantors named therein and The Bank of New York Mellon as
trustee, filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on May 19, 2010, and incorporated herein
by reference.
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 12, 2010, among the
registrant, the guarantors named therein and Goldman,
Sachs & Co., as representative of the several
purchasers named therein.
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 14, 2010, by and
among Mylan Inc., Mylan Luxembourg L3 S.C.S., Bioniche Pharma
Holdings Limited, the shareholders party thereto and the
optionholders party thereto, filed as Exhibit 2.1 to the
Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on July 16, 2010, and incorporated
herein by reference.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
101
|
.INS
|
|
XBRL Instance Document
|
|
101
|
.SCH
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema
|
|
101
|
.CAL
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.LAB
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.PRE
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase
|
64
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Robert J. Coury
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
July 29, 2010
John D. Sheehan
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
July 29, 2010
Daniel C. Rizzo, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and
Corporate Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer)
July 29, 2010
65
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 12, 2010, among the
registrant, the guarantors named therein and Goldman,
Sachs & Co., as representative of the several
purchasers named therein.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
101
|
.INS
|
|
XBRL Instance Document
|
|
101
|
.SCH
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema
|
|
101
|
.CAL
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.LAB
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase
|
|
101
|
.PRE
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase
|
66