WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 888-775-4789 -- BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION -- FORM 10Q
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
QUARTERLY
REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION
13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008
|
Commission
File No. 1-11083
|
BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
(Exact
Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
DELAWARE
|
04-2695240
|
(State
of Incorporation)
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
ONE
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC PLACE, NATICK, MASSACHUSETTS 01760-1537
(Address
of Principal Executive Offices)
(508)
650-8000
(Registrant’s
Telephone Number)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Former
name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report)
________________
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: x
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.
Large
accelerated filer x
|
Accelerated
filer ¨
|
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 x
Indicate
the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common
stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Class
Common
Stock, $.01 par value
|
Shares
outstanding
as of October 31,
2008
1,501,523,735
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Page No.
PART
I
|
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
3
|
|
|
|
Item 1.
|
Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
6
|
|
|
|
Item 2.
|
Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
37
|
|
|
|
Item 3.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
64
|
|
|
|
Item 4.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
65
|
|
|
|
PART
II
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
66
|
|
|
|
Item 1.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
66
|
|
|
|
Item 1A.
|
Risk
Factors
|
66
|
|
|
|
Item
6.
|
Exhibits
|
66
|
|
|
|
SIGNATURE
|
|
67
|
PART
I
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
ITEM
1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions, except per share data)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
sales
|
|
$ |
1,978 |
|
|
$ |
2,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,204 |
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
|
655 |
|
|
|
575 |
|
|
|
1,839 |
|
|
|
1,706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
profit
|
|
|
1,323 |
|
|
|
1,473 |
|
|
|
4,209 |
|
|
|
4,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
1,925 |
|
|
|
2,205 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
|
|
835 |
|
Royalty
expense
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
Amortization
expense
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
467 |
|
Intangible
asset impairment charges
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased
in-process research and development
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Litigation-related
charges
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring
charges
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition-related
milestone
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Gain
on divestitures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Loss
on assets held for sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
352 |
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
1,620 |
|
|
|
3,297 |
|
|
|
4,082 |
|
Operating
income (loss)
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
912 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
(361 |
) |
|
|
(433 |
) |
Other,
net
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss)
income before income taxes
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
494 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Income
tax (benefit) expense
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
Net
(loss) income
|
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(272 |
) |
|
$ |
358 |
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
(loss) income per common share — basic
|
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
|
$ |
(0.02 |
) |
Net
(loss) income per common share — assuming dilution
|
|
$ |
(0.04 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
|
$ |
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average
shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
1,500.9 |
|
|
|
1,489.8 |
|
|
|
1,497.5 |
|
|
|
1,485.5 |
|
Assuming
dilution
|
|
|
1,500.9 |
|
|
|
1,489.8 |
|
|
|
1,504.4 |
|
|
|
1,485.5 |
|
See notes
to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.
BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(in
millions, except share data)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
1,734 |
|
|
$ |
1,452 |
|
Trade
accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
1,502 |
|
Inventories
|
|
|
854 |
|
|
|
725 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
995 |
|
|
|
679 |
|
Assets
held for sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,099 |
|
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
464 |
|
Total
current assets
|
|
|
5,287 |
|
|
|
5,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
1,716 |
|
|
|
1,735 |
|
Investments
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
317 |
|
Other
assets
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
Goodwill
and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
22,538 |
|
|
|
23,067 |
|
|
|
$ |
29,826 |
|
|
$ |
31,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS’
EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
256 |
|
Accounts
payable
|
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
Accrued
expenses
|
|
|
2,941 |
|
|
|
2,541 |
|
Taxes
payable
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Liabilities
associated with assets held for sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
Other
current liabilities
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
Total
current liabilities
|
|
|
3,538 |
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
|
6,767 |
|
|
|
7,933 |
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
2,324 |
|
|
|
2,284 |
|
Other
long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,507 |
|
|
|
2,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments
and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders’
equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred
stock, $ .01 par value - authorized 50,000,000 shares,
none issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
stock, $ .01 par value - authorized 2,000,000,000 shares
and issued 1,501,159,636 shares at September 30, 2008 and
1,491,234,911 shares at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Additional
paid-in capital
|
|
|
15,943 |
|
|
|
15,766 |
|
Accumulated
deficit
|
|
|
(337 |
) |
|
|
(693 |
) |
Other
stockholders’ equity
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
|
|
15,690 |
|
|
|
15,097 |
|
|
|
$ |
29,826 |
|
|
$ |
31,197 |
|
See notes
to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.
BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
1,162 |
|
|
$ |
626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
purchases of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
(245 |
) |
Proceeds
from sales of publicly traded and privately held equity securities
and collections
of notes receivable
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
Payments
for acquisitions of businesses, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(80 |
) |
Payments
relating to prior period acquisitions
|
|
|
(669 |
) |
|
|
(213 |
) |
Proceeds
from business divestitures
|
|
|
1,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payments
for investments in companies and acquisitions of certain
technologies
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
provided by (used for) investing activities
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
(436 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
payments on notes payable, capital leases and long-term
borrowings
|
|
|
(1,425 |
) |
|
|
(754 |
) |
Proceeds
from issuances of shares of common stock
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Excess
tax benefit from option exercises
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
used for financing activities
|
|
|
(1,353 |
) |
|
|
(624 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect
of foreign exchange rates on cash
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
(431 |
) |
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
1,452 |
|
|
|
1,668 |
|
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$ |
1,734 |
|
|
$ |
1,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental
Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
and stock equivalents issued for acquisitions
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
90 |
|
See notes
to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.
NOTES
TO THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
NOTE
A – BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Boston
Scientific Corporation have been prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States (U.S. GAAP) for interim
financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of
Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and
footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all
adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) considered
necessary for fair presentation have been included. Operating results for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 are not necessarily
indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31,
2008. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements
and footnotes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2007.
Certain
prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year
presentation. See Note N
- Segment Reporting for further details.
NOTE
B – FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
We
adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 157,
Fair Value
Measurements, as of January 1, 2008. Statement No. 157 defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with U.S.
GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Statement No. 157
does not require any new fair value measurements; rather, it applies to other
accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. In
February 2008, the FASB released Staff Position No. 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement
No. 157, which delays the effective date of Statement No. 157
for all nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except for those that
are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a
recurring basis. In accordance with Staff Position No. 157-2, we have not
applied the provisions of Statement No. 157 to the following nonfinancial assets
and nonfinancial liabilities:
|
·
|
Nonfinancial
assets and nonfinancial liabilities initially measured at fair value in a
business combination or other new basis event, but not measured at fair
value in subsequent reporting
periods;
|
|
·
|
Reporting
units and nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities measured at
fair value for our goodwill impairment test in accordance with FASB
Statement No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets;
|
|
·
|
Indefinite-lived
intangible assets measured at fair value for impairment assessment in
accordance with Statement No.
142;
|
|
·
|
Nonfinancial
long-lived assets or asset groups measured at fair value for impairment
assessment or disposal under FASB Statement No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets; and
|
|
·
|
Nonfinancial
liabilities associated with exit or disposal activities initially measured
at fair value under FASB Statement No. 146, Accounting for Costs
Associated with Exit or Disposal
Activities.
|
We will
be required to apply the provisions of Statement No. 157 to these nonfinancial
assets and nonfinancial liabilities as of January 1, 2009 and are currently
evaluating the impact of the application of Statement No. 157 as it
pertains to these items. The application of Statement No. 157 for financial
assets and
financial
liabilities did not have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
On a
recurring basis, we measure certain financial assets and financial liabilities
at fair value, including our U.S. Government money market funds,
available-for-sale investments, interest rate derivative instruments and foreign
currency derivative contracts. Statement No. 157 defines fair value as the price
that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an
orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. As
such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based
on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or
liability. We base fair value upon quoted market prices, where available. Where
quoted market prices or other observable inputs are not available, we apply
valuation techniques to estimate fair value.
Statement
No. 157 establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair
value measurements. The categorization of financial assets and financial
liabilities within the valuation hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of
input that is significant to the measurement of fair value. The three levels of
the hierarchy are defined as follows:
|
·
|
Level
1 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted market prices for
identical assets or
liabilities.
|
|
·
|
Level
2 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are other observable inputs,
including quoted market prices for similar assets or liabilities and
market-corroborated inputs.
|
|
·
|
Level
3 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable inputs based on
management’s best estimate of inputs market participants would use in
pricing the asset or liability at the measurement date, including
assumptions about risk.
|
Our
investments in U.S. Government money market funds, as well
as available-for-sale investments carried at fair value, are generally
classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are
valued using quoted market prices. Our U.S. Government money market funds are
classified as cash and cash equivalents within our accompanying unaudited
condensed consolidated balance sheets, in accordance with our accounting
policies, as these amounts are highly liquid and readily convertible to known
amounts of cash.
During
the first nine months of 2008, certain of our available-for-sale investments
were classified within Level 3 as they were subject to lock-up
agreements. We used an option pricing model to determine the
liquidity discount associated with these lock-up restrictions as a part of our
fair value measurement within the framework of Statement No. 157. In
addition, certain of our available-for-sale investments were classified within
Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, as they were marked to fair value based on
agreements to sell those investments to a third party. During the
third quarter of 2008, we completed the sale of these investments to the third
party (see Note D –
Investments and Notes Receivable for further discussion); in addition,
none of our available-for-sale securities were subject to lock-up agreements as
of September 30, 2008. Therefore, as of September 30, 2008, none of
our investments in available-for-sale securities were classified within Level 3.
Our cost method investments are recorded at fair value only when impairment
charges are recorded for other-than-temporary declines in value and are
determined using fair value criteria within the framework of Statement No.
157. As the inputs utilized for the impairment assessment are not
based on observable market data, these cost method investments are classified
within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy on a non-recurring
basis.
We
recognize all derivative financial instruments in our consolidated financial
statements at fair value in accordance with FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities. We determine the fair
value of these instruments using the framework prescribed by Statement No. 157,
by considering the estimated amount we would receive to sell or transfer these
agreements at the reporting date
and by
taking into account current interest rates, the creditworthiness of the
counterparty for assets, and our creditworthiness for liabilities. In
certain instances, we may utilize financial models to measure fair value.
Generally, we use inputs that include quoted prices for similar assets or
liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets or
liabilities in markets that are not active; other observable inputs for the
asset or liability; and inputs derived principally from, or corroborated by,
observable market data by correlation or other means. We have classified our
derivative assets and liabilities within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy
because these observable inputs are available for substantially the full term of
our derivative instruments.
Fair
Value Measured on a Recurring Basis
Financial
assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis
consist of the following as of September 30, 2008:
(in
millions)
|
|
Level
1
|
|
|
Level
2
|
|
|
Level
3
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Government money market funds
|
|
$ |
1,082 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,082 |
|
Available-for-sale
investments
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Currency
exchange contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
Interest
rate swap contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,089 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency
exchange contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
Interest
rate swap contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
In
addition to $1.082 billion invested in U.S. Government money market funds as of
September 30, 2008, we had $475 million of cash invested in short-term time
deposits, and $177 million in interest-bearing bank accounts.
For
assets measured at fair value using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) as
of September 30, 2008, the following table summarizes the change in balances
during the nine months ended September 30, 2008 (in
millions):
Balance
at January 1, 2008
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
Net
transfers into Level 3
|
|
|
31 |
|
Net
sales
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
Realized
losses related to investment impairments
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Change
in unrealized gains/losses related to market prices
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
Balance
at September 30, 2008
|
|
$ |
— |
|
Unrealized
gains/losses are included in other comprehensive income in our accompanying
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.
Fair
Value Measured on a Non-Recurring Basis
During
the first nine months of 2008, we recorded impairment charges on certain of our
cost method investments and adjusted the carrying amount of those investments to
fair value, as we deemed the decline in the value of those assets to be
other-than-temporary. These impairment charges relate primarily to
our investments in, and notes receivable from, certain entities that we agreed
to sell during the second quarter of 2008. See Note D – Investments and Notes
Receivable for further discussion. These cost method investments fall
within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, due to the use of significant
unobservable inputs to determine fair value, as the investments are in privately
held entities without quoted market prices. To determine the fair
value of those investments, we used all available financial information related
to the entities, including information based on recent third-party equity
investments in these entities and information from our
agreements
to sell certain of these investments. The following table summarizes
changes to the carrying amount of these investments during the nine months ended
September 30, 2008 (in millions).
Balance
at January 1, 2008
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
Net
transfers into Level 3
|
|
|
157 |
|
Net
sales
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
Other-than-temporary
impairments
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
Balance
at September 30, 2008
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
Statement
No. 159
In
February 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities, which allows an entity to elect to
record financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value upon their
initial recognition on a contract-by-contract basis. We adopted Statement No.
159 as of January 1, 2008 and, to date, have not elected the fair value option
for our eligible financial assets and financial liabilities.
NOTE
C – SUPPLEMENTAL BALANCE SHEET INFORMATION
The
following are the components of various balance sheet items at September 30,
2008 and December 31, 2007.
Inventories
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished
goods
|
|
$ |
566 |
|
|
$ |
454 |
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
Raw
materials
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
$ |
854 |
|
|
$ |
725 |
|
Sales of
our PROMUS™
everolimus-eluting stent systems represented approximately six percent of our
total net sales for the third quarter of 2008. We are reliant on Abbott
Laboratories for our supply of PROMUS stent systems. Any production or capacity
issues that affect Abbott’s manufacturing capabilities or the process for
forecasting, ordering and receiving shipments may impact our ability to increase
or decrease the level of supply to us in a timely manner; therefore, our PROMUS
stent system supply may not align with customer demand, which could have an
adverse effect on our operating results. At present, we believe that our supply
of PROMUS stent systems from Abbott is sufficient to meet our current launch
plans.
Property, plant and
equipment, net
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
3,090 |
|
|
$ |
2,925 |
|
Less:
accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
1,374 |
|
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,716 |
|
|
$ |
1,735 |
|
Goodwill and other
intangible assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$ |
15,125 |
|
|
$ |
15,103 |
|
Technology
- core
|
|
|
6,877 |
|
|
|
6,923 |
|
Other
intangible assets
|
|
|
2,416 |
|
|
|
2,481 |
|
|
|
|
24,418 |
|
|
|
24,507 |
|
Less:
accumulated amortization
|
|
|
1,880 |
|
|
|
1,440 |
|
|
|
$ |
22,538 |
|
|
$ |
23,067 |
|
During
the third quarter of 2008, following a recall of one of our products, we reduced
our future revenue and cash flow forecasts associated with certain of our
Peripheral Interventions-related intangible assets. Therefore, we
tested these intangible assets for impairment, in accordance with our accounting
policies, and determined that these assets were impaired, resulting in a $109
million charge to write down these intangible assets to their fair value. In
addition, as a result of significantly lower than forecasted sales of certain of
our other products, due to lower than anticipated market penetration, we
determined that certain of our Urology-related intangible assets were impaired,
resulting in a $46 million charge to write down these intangible assets to their
fair value. We have recorded these amounts in the intangible asset impairment
charges caption in our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements, and these amounts have been excluded from the determination of
segment income considered by management. The intangible asset category and
associated write down is as follows:
|
Technology
- core
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
Other
intangible assets
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
We used
the income approach to determine the fair values of the impacted intangible
assets. The income approach calculates fair value by estimating the after-tax
discounted cash flows attributable to the assets being assessed using
assumptions that marketplace participants would use.
Accrued
Warranties
Changes
in our product warranty accrual during the nine months ended September 30, 2008
consisted of the following (in millions):
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
Provision
|
|
|
43 |
|
Settlements
made
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
Balance
at September 30, 2008
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
NOTE
D – INVESTMENTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE
During
2007, in connection with our strategic initiatives described in Item 2 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, we announced our intent
to sell the majority of our investment portfolio in order to monetize those
investments determined to be non-strategic. In June 2008, we signed definitive
agreements to sell the majority of our investments in, and notes receivable
from, certain publicly traded and privately held entities for gross proceeds of
approximately $140 million.
During
the first nine months of 2008, we recognized net pre-tax losses of $90 million
related to our investment portfolio, as compared to $6 million for the first
nine months of 2007. The net losses in 2008 included $112 million of
other-than-temporary impairments on our cost method investments and notes
receivable and $10
million
of other-than-temporary impairments on our available-for-sale securities, which
were attributable primarily to our investment monetization initiatives. In
addition, we recorded losses of $13 million related to investments accounted for
under the equity method and other adjustments, and realized net gains of $45
million attributable to the sale of certain non-strategic
investments.
The net
losses in 2007 included $20 million of losses attributable to our investment
portfolio. In addition, during the first nine months of 2007, we recorded a gain
of $14 million associated with the collection of a note receivable from one of
our privately held investees, which had been written down in a prior
year.
NOTE
E – BORROWINGS AND CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS
We had
total debt of $6.774 billion at September 30, 2008 at an average interest rate
of 6.01 percent, as compared to total debt of $8.189 billion at
December 31, 2007 at an average interest rate of 6.36 percent. During
the first nine months of 2008, we prepaid $1.175 billion of our term loan. These
prepayments satisfied the remaining $300 million of our term loan due in 2009
and $875 million of our term loan due in 2010. In addition, in July 2008, we
repaid $250 million outstanding under our credit and security facility and
extended the maturity of this facility to August 2009. As of September 30, 2008,
the debt maturity schedule for our term loan, as well as scheduled
maturities of the other significant components of our debt
obligations, is as follows:
|
|
Payments
Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Term
loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
825 |
|
|
$ |
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,825 |
|
Abbott
Laboratories loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
900 |
|
Senior
notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
|
|
3,050 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
825 |
|
|
$ |
3,750 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
|
$ |
6,775 |
|
|
Note:
|
The
table above does not include capital leases, discounts associated
with our Abbott loan and senior notes, or non-cash gains related to
interest rate swaps used to hedge the fair value of certain of our senior
notes.
|
Our term
loan and revolving credit facility agreement requires that we maintain certain
financial covenants, including a ratio of total debt to EBITDA, as defined by
the agreement, as amended, for the preceding four consecutive
fiscal quarters of less than or equal to 4.5 to 1.0 through December 31,
2008. The maximum permitted ratio of total debt to EBITDA steps-down to 4.0 to
1.0 on March 31, 2009 and to 3.5 to 1.0 on September 30, 2009. The agreement
also requires that we maintain a ratio of EBITDA, as defined by the agreement,
as amended, to interest expense for the preceding four consecutive
fiscal quarters of greater than or equal to 3.0 to 1.0. As of September 30,
2008, we were in compliance with the required covenants. Exiting the quarter,
our ratio of total debt to EBITDA was approximately 2.8 to 1.0 and our ratio
of EBITDA to interest expense was approximately 4.9 to 1.0. If at any time
we are not able to maintain these covenants, we could be required to seek to
renegotiate the terms of our credit facilities or seek waivers from compliance
with these covenants, both of which could result in additional borrowing costs.
Further, there can be no assurance that our lenders would grant such
waivers.
Our term
loan and revolving credit facility provides for the borrowing of up to $2.0
billion. In October of 2008, we issued a $717 million surety bond backed by a
$702 million letter of credit and $15 million of cash to secure a damage award
related to the Johnson & Johnson patent infringement case pending appeal,
described in Note M –
Commitments and Contingencies, which reduced the credit availability
under the revolving facility to approximately $1.250 billion. In addition, we
maintain a $350 million credit and security facility secured by our U.S. trade
receivables. Use of the borrowings is unrestricted. Borrowing availability under
this facility changes based upon the amount of eligible receivables,
concentration of eligible receivables and other factors. There were no amounts
borrowed under this facility as of September 30, 2008.
Interest
Rate Hedges
We use
interest rate derivative instruments to manage our exposure to interest rate
movements on portions of our debt and to reduce borrowing costs by converting
floating-rate debt into fixed-rate debt or fixed-rate debt into floating-rate
debt. We designate these derivative instruments either as fair value or cash
flow hedges under Statement No. 133. We record changes in the fair value of
fair value hedges in other income (expense), which is offset by changes in the
fair value of the hedged debt obligation to the extent the hedge is effective.
Interest expense includes interest payments made or received under interest rate
derivative instruments. We record the effective portion of any change in the
fair value of cash flow hedges as other comprehensive income, net of tax, until
the hedged cash flow occurs, at which point the effective portion of any gain or
loss is reclassified to earnings.
During
the first quarter of 2008, we entered floating-to-fixed interest rate swaps
indexed to three-month LIBOR to hedge variability in interest payments on $2.0
billion of our LIBOR-indexed floating-rate term loan. These interest rate swap
agreements mature in December 2009. We designated these interest rate
swaps as cash flow hedges under Statement No. 133 and record fluctuations
in the fair value of these derivative instruments as unrealized gains or losses
in other comprehensive income, net of tax, and reclassify the gains or losses to
interest expense during the period in which the hedged interest payment
occurs.
NOTE
F – ACQUISITIONS
Purchased
In-Process Research and Development
In May
2008, we completed the acquisition of 100 percent of the fully diluted equity of
CryoCor, Inc., and paid a cash purchase price of $21 million. CryoCor is
developing products using cryogenic technology for use in treating atrial
fibrillation. The acquisition was intended to allow us to further pursue
therapeutic solutions for atrial fibrillation in order to advance our existing
Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) and Electrophysiology product lines. In
connection with the acquisition, during the second quarter of 2008, we recorded
purchased in-process research and development charges of $16 million, based on
the best information available at the time. In the third quarter of 2008, we
made certain purchase accounting adjustments related to changes in deferred
taxes and other accruals, which resulted in a credit of $8 million to amounts
allocated to purchased in-process research and development.
Our
policy is to record certain costs associated with strategic alliances as
purchased in-process research and development. In accordance with this policy,
we recorded $13 million of purchased in-process research and development in the
first nine months of 2008 associated with entering a licensing and development
arrangement for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-safe technology.
Payments
Related to Prior Period Acquisitions
During
the first nine months of 2008, we made payments of $669 million related to prior
period acquisitions, consisting primarily of a $650 million fixed payment made
to the principal former shareholders of Advanced Bionics Corporation in
connection with our 2007 amendment to the original merger agreement, which was
accrued at December 31, 2007. At September 30, 2008, we have accrued $487
million ($465 million as of December 31, 2007), representing the present value
of a $500 million final fixed payment to be made related to Advanced Bionics in
March 2009. In addition to this obligation, certain of our acquisitions involve
the payment of contingent consideration, which is generally contingent upon the
acquired companies’ reaching certain performance milestones, including attaining
specified revenue levels, achieving product development targets or obtaining
regulatory approvals. Consequently, we cannot currently determine the total
required payments; however, we have developed an estimate of the maximum
potential contingent consideration for each of our acquisitions with an
outstanding earn-out obligation. The estimated maximum potential amount of
future contingent consideration (undiscounted) that we could be required to make
associated with these acquisitions, some of which may be payable in common
stock, is approximately $1.1 billion. The milestones associated with the
contingent consideration must be reached in certain future periods ranging from
2008 through 2022 and the estimated cumulative specified revenue level
associated with these maximum future
contingent
payments is approximately $3.2 billion.
Acquisition-related
Milestone
In
connection with Abbott’s 2006 acquisition of Guidant Corporation’s vascular
intervention and endovascular solutions businesses, Abbott agreed to pay us a
milestone payment of $250 million upon receipt of FDA approval to sell an
everolimus-eluting stent in the U.S. In July 2008, Abbott received FDA approval
and launched its XIENCE™ V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the U.S.,
and paid us $250 million. We have recorded this payment as a gain in our
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations and
classified its receipt within cash flows from operations. Under the terms of the
agreement, we are entitled to receive a second milestone payment of $250 million
from Abbott upon receipt of an approval from the Japanese Ministry of Health,
Labour and Welfare to market the XIENCE V stent system in Japan.
NOTE
G – RESTRUCTURING-RELATED ACTIVITIES
In
October 2007, our Board of Directors approved, and we committed to, an expense
and head count reduction plan, which we anticipate will result in the
elimination of approximately 2,300 positions worldwide. We are providing
affected employees with severance packages, outplacement services and other
appropriate assistance and support. The plan is intended to bring expenses in
line with revenues as part of our initiatives to enhance short- and long-term
shareholder value. Key activities under the plan include the restructuring of
several businesses, corporate functions and product franchises in order to
better utilize resources, strengthen competitive positions, and create a more
simplified and efficient business model; the elimination, suspension or
reduction of spending on certain research and development (R&D) projects;
and the transfer of certain production lines from one facility to another. We
initiated these activities in the fourth quarter of 2007 and expect to be
substantially complete worldwide by the end of 2009.
We expect
that the execution of this plan will result in total pre-tax expenses of
approximately $425 million to $450 million. We are recording a
portion of these expenses as restructuring charges and the remaining portion
through other lines within our consolidated statements of operations. We
expect the plan to result in cash payments of approximately $375 million to $400
million. The following table provides a summary of our expected total
costs associated with the plan by major type of cost:
Type
of cost
|
Total
amount expected to be incurred
|
Restructuring
charges:
|
|
Termination
benefits
|
$230
million to $240 million
|
Asset
write-offs
|
$30
million
|
Other
(1)
|
$45
million
|
|
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
Retention
incentives
|
$75
million to $80 million
|
Accelerated
depreciation
|
$15
million to $20 million
|
Other
(2)
|
$30
million to $35 million
|
|
|
|
$425
million to $450 million
|
(1)
Consists primarily of consultant fees.
(2)
Consists primarily of costs to transfer product lines from one facility to
another.
In the
third quarter of 2008, we recorded $20 million of restructuring
charges. In addition, we recorded $14 million of expenses within
other lines of our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
related
to our restructuring initiatives. The following presents these costs by major
type and line item within our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of
operations:
(in
millions)
|
|
|
Termination
Benefits
|
|
|
Retention
Incentives
|
|
|
Accelerated
Depreciation
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Restructuring
charges
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
In the
first nine months of 2008, we recorded $59 million of restructuring
charges. In addition, we recorded $40 million of expenses within
other lines of our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
related to our restructuring initiatives. The following presents these costs by
major type and line item within our unaudited condensed consolidated statements
of operations:
(in
millions)
|
|
Termination
Benefits
|
|
|
Retention
Incentives
|
|
|
Accelerated
Depreciation
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Restructuring
charges
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
The
termination benefits recorded during the third quarter and first nine months of
2008 represent amounts incurred pursuant to our on-going benefit arrangements
and amounts for “one-time” involuntary termination benefits, and have been
recorded in accordance with FASB Statement No. 112, Employer’s Accounting for
Postemployment Benefits and FASB Statement No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with
Exit or Disposal Activities. We expect to record the additional
termination benefits in 2008 and 2009 when we identify with more specificity the
job classifications, functions and locations of the remaining head count to be
eliminated. Retention incentives represent cash incentives, which are
being recorded over the future service period during which eligible employees
must remain employed with us in order to retain the payment. The
other restructuring costs, which primarily represent consultant fees in 2008,
are being recognized and measured at their fair value in the period in which the
liability is incurred, in accordance with Statement No. 146.
We have
incurred cumulative restructuring and restructuring-related costs of $304
million since we committed to the plan in October 2007. The following presents
these costs by major type (in millions):
|
Termination
benefits
|
|
$ |
190 |
|
|
Retention
incentives
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
Intangible
asset write-offs
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Fixed
asset write-offs
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
Accelerated
depreciation
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
304 |
|
Costs
associated with restructuring and restructuring-related activities are excluded
from the determination of segment income, as they do not reflect expected
on-going future operating expenses and are not considered by management when
assessing operating performance.
In the
third quarter of 2008, we made cash payments of approximately $23 million
associated with our restructuring initiatives, which related to termination
benefits paid and other restructuring charges. We have made
cumulative cash payments of approximately $190 million since we committed to our
restructuring initiatives in October 2007. These payments were made using cash
generated from our operations. We expect to make the remaining cash
payments throughout the remainder of 2008 and 2009 using cash generated from
operations.
The
following is a rollforward of the liability associated with our restructuring
initiatives since the inception of the plan in the fourth quarter of 2007, which
is reported as a component of accrued expenses included in our accompanying
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.
(in
millions)
|
|
Termination
Benefits
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Charges
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
168 |
|
Cash
payments
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
Charges
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Cash
payments
|
|
|
(117 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(144 |
) |
Balance
at September 30, 2008
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
In
addition to the amounts in the rollforward above, we have incurred cumulative
charges of $77 million associated with retention incentives, asset write-offs
and accelerated depreciation; and have made cumulative cash payments of $16
million associated with retention incentives.
NOTE
H – DIVESTITURES
During
the first quarter of 2008, in connection with our strategic initiatives, we
completed the sale of our Auditory, Cardiac Surgery, Vascular
Surgery, Fluid Management and Venous Access businesses, as well as our
TriVascular Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) program. Each transaction is
discussed below in further detail.
Auditory
In
January 2008, we completed the sale of a controlling interest in our Auditory
business and drug pump development program, acquired with Advanced Bionics in
2004, to entities affiliated with the principal former shareholders of Advanced
Bionics for an aggregate purchase price of $150 million in cash. To adjust the carrying
value of the disposal group to its fair value, less costs to sell, we recorded a
loss of approximately $367 million (pre-tax) in 2007, representing primarily a
write-down of goodwill. In addition, we recorded a tax benefit of $6 million in
the first quarter of 2008 in connection with the closing of the transaction.
Under the
terms of
the agreement, we retained an equity interest in the limited liability companies
formed for purposes of operating the Auditory business and drug pump development
program. In accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 03-16,
Accounting for Investments in
Limited Liability Companies, we are accounting for these investments
under the equity method of accounting.
Cardiac
Surgery and Vascular Surgery
In
January 2008, we completed the sale of our Cardiac Surgery and Vascular Surgery
businesses to the Getinge Group for net cash proceeds of approximately $705
million. To adjust the carrying value of the Cardiac Surgery and Vascular
Surgery disposal group to its fair value, less costs to sell, we recorded a loss
of approximately $193 million in 2007, representing primarily the write-down of
goodwill. In addition, we recorded a tax expense of $56 million in the first
quarter of 2008 in connection with the closing of the
transaction.
Fluid
Management and Venous Access
In
February 2008, we completed the sale of our Fluid Management and Venous Access
businesses to Avista Capital Partners for net cash proceeds of approximately
$415 million. We recorded a pre-tax gain of $234 million ($129 million
after-tax) during the first quarter of 2008 and a tax benefit of $17 million in
the third quarter of 2008 associated with this transaction.
TriVascular
EVAR Program
In March
2008, we sold our EVAR program obtained in connection with our 2005 acquisition
of TriVascular, Inc. for $30 million in cash. We discontinued our EVAR program
in 2006. In connection with the sale, we recorded a pre-tax gain of $16 million
($35 million after-tax) in the first quarter of 2008.
NOTE
I – COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
The
following table provides a summary of our comprehensive income
(loss):
|
|
Three
Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Net
(loss) income
|
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(272 |
) |
|
$ |
358 |
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
Currency
translation adjustment
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
Net
change in derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
Net
change in equity investments
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive
income (loss)
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
416 |
|
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
NOTE
J – WEIGHTED-AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
The
following is a reconciliation of weighted-average shares outstanding for basic
and diluted earnings per share computations:
|
|
Three
Months Ended
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Weighted
average shares outstanding - basic
|
|
|
1,500.9 |
|
|
|
1,489.8 |
|
|
|
1,497.5 |
|
|
|
1,485.5 |
|
Net
effect of common stock equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
average shares outstanding - assuming dilution
|
|
|
1,500.9 |
|
|
|
1,489.8 |
|
|
|
1,504.4 |
|
|
|
1,485.5 |
|
Weighted-average
shares outstanding, assuming dilution, excludes the impact of 7.0 million common
stock equivalents for the third quarter of 2008, 12.5 million for third quarter
of 2007, and 14.5 million for the first nine months of 2007 due to our net loss
position in those periods.
Additionally,
weighted-average shares outstanding, assuming dilution, excludes the impact of
44.5 million stock options for the third quarter of 2008, 45.6 million for the
third quarter of 2007, 47.7 million for the first nine months of 2008, and 41.3
million for the first nine months of 2007 due to the exercise prices of these
stock options being greater than the average market price of our common stock
during those periods.
We issued
approximately 9.9 million shares of our common stock during the first nine
months of 2008, and 10.5 million during the first nine months of 2007 following
the exercise of the underlying stock options or vesting of the underlying
deferred stock units, or purchase under our employee stock purchase plan. In
addition, in the first quarter of 2007, we issued approximately five million
shares of our common stock in connection with our acquisition of EndoTex
Interventional Systems, Inc.
On May 6,
2008, our shareholders approved an amendment and restatement of our 2003
Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), increasing the number of shares of our common
stock available for issuance under the plan by 70 million shares.
NOTE
K – STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
The
following presents the impact of stock-based compensation expense on our
unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations:
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
Less:
income tax benefit
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
$ |
67 |
|
NOTE
L – INCOME TAXES
Tax
Rate
The
following table provides a summary of our reported tax rate:
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
|
Percentage
Point
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Reported
tax rate
|
|
|
8.8 %
|
|
|
|
(5.0) %
|
|
|
|
|
13.8 %
|
|
|
Impact
of certain charges*
|
|
|
18.7
%
|
|
|
|
18.0
%
|
|
|
|
|
0.7 %
|
|
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
|
Percentage
Point
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Reported
tax rate
|
|
|
27.5
%
|
|
|
|
237.0
%
|
|
|
|
|
(209.5)
%
|
|
|
Impact
of certain charges*
|
|
|
(4.2) %
|
|
|
|
(219.0)
%
|
|
|
|
|
214.8
%
|
|
*These
charges are taxed at different rates than our effective tax
rate.
The
changes in our reported tax rates for the third quarter of 2008 and the first
nine months of 2008, as compared to the same periods in the prior year, related
primarily to the impact of certain charges that are taxed at different rates
than our effective tax rate. In 2008, these charges included purchased
in-process research and development, restructuring-related costs, gains and
losses associated with the divestiture of certain non-strategic businesses and
investments, intangible asset impairment charges, litigation-related
charges, receipt of an acquisition-related milestone payment, and
discrete items associated with the resolution of uncertain tax positions and
changes to deferred taxes related to the enactment of Massachusetts state law
changes. In 2007, these charges included changes to the reserve for
uncertain tax positions relating to items originating in prior periods,
purchased in-process research and development, goodwill write-downs, and charges
related to our 2006 acquisition of Guidant Corporation.
Our
effective tax rate for 2008 increased as compared to 2007, due primarily to the
expiration of the U.S. Research and Development (R&D) tax credit at December
31, 2007 and changes in the geographic mix of our
revenues. Subsequent to the end of the third quarter of 2008, the
U.S. R&D tax credit was extended retroactively to January 1,
2008. Accordingly, our annual benefit for the R&D tax credit will
be reflected in the fourth quarter and will reduce our annual effective tax rate
for 2008 by approximately two percentage points.
Effective
January 1, 2007, we adopted the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes. At September 30, 2008, we had $1.072 billion of gross
unrecognized tax benefits, $403 million of which, if recognized, would affect
our effective tax rate in accordance with currently effective accounting
standards. At December 31, 2007, we had $1.180 billion of gross unrecognized tax
benefits, $392 million of which, if recognized, would affect our effective tax
rate in accordance with currently effective accounting standards. The net
reduction in our unrecognized tax benefits is attributable primarily to the
resolution of certain unrecognized tax positions in the first nine months of
2008.
We
recognize interest and penalties related to income taxes as a component of
income tax expense. We recognized interest expense of $21 million in the third
quarters of 2008 and 2007. The total amount of interest and penalties recognized
in our accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
was $32 million for the first nine months of 2008, including a net release in
the first quarter, and $53 million for the first nine months of
2007. We had $256 million accrued for gross interest and
penalties at September 30, 2008 and $264 million at December 31,
2007.
We are
subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income tax of multiple state and
foreign jurisdictions. We have concluded all U.S. federal income tax
matters through 2000 and substantially all material state, local, and foreign
income tax matters through 2001. During the first nine months of
2008, we resolved various matters in federal, state, and foreign jurisdictions
for Guidant and Boston Scientific for the years 1998 to 2005. We
settled multiple federal issues at the IRS examination and Appellate levels,
including issues related to
Guidant’s
acquisition of Intermedics, Inc.; received favorable foreign court decisions and
a favorable outcome related to our foreign research credit claims. As
a result, we decreased our reserve for uncertain tax positions, net of tax
payments, by $114 million, inclusive of $32 million of interest and penalties
during the first nine months of 2008.
During
the second quarter of 2008 we received the Revenue Agents Report for the Guidant
2001 – 2003 federal examination which contained a significant proposed
adjustment related primarily to the allocation of income between our U.S. and
foreign affiliates. We disagree with the proposed adjustment and
intend to continue to contest this matter through applicable IRS and judicial
procedures, as appropriate. Although the final resolution of
the proposed adjustments is uncertain, we believe that our income tax reserves
are adequate and that the resolution will not have a material impact on our
financial condition or results of operations.
It is
reasonably possible that within the next 12 months we will resolve multiple
issues including transfer pricing, research and development credit and
transactional related issues, with federal and state taxing authorities, in
which case we could record a reduction in our balance of unrecognized tax
benefits of up to approximately $158 million.
NOTE
M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The
medical device market in which we primarily participate
is largely technology driven. Physician customers, particularly in
interventional cardiology, have historically moved quickly to new products and
new technologies. As a result, intellectual property rights, particularly
patents and trade secrets, play a significant role in product development and
differentiation. However, intellectual property litigation to defend or create
market advantage is inherently complex and unpredictable. Furthermore, appellate
courts frequently overturn lower court patent decisions.
In
addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent
portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance
risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are
parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or
litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently
drive settlement not only of individual cases, but also of a series of pending
and potentially related and unrelated cases. In addition, although monetary and
injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally
not determined until the conclusion of the proceedings and are frequently
modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult
to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other
cases in other geographies.
Several
third parties have asserted that our current and former stent systems infringe
patents owned or licensed by them. We have similarly asserted that stent systems
or other products sold by our competitors infringe patents owned or licensed by
us. Adverse outcomes in one or more of the proceedings against us could limit
our ability to sell certain stent products in certain jurisdictions, or reduce
our operating margin on the sale of these products, and could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.
In the
normal course of business, product liability and securities claims are asserted
against us. Product liability and securities claims against us may be asserted
in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We
are substantially self-insured with respect to general and product liability
claims. We maintain insurance policies providing limited coverage against
securities claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage
increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions.
Product liability claims, product recalls, securities litigation and other
litigation in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.
We record
losses for claims in excess of the limits of purchased insurance in earnings at
the time and to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with
FASB Statement No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies,
we accrue anticipated costs of settlement and damages and, under certain
conditions, costs of defense, based on historical experience or to the extent
specific losses are probable and estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as
incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the
range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.
Our
accrual for legal matters that are probable and estimable was
$1.299 billion at September 30, 2008 and $994 million at
December 31, 2007, and includes estimated costs of settlement, damages and
defense. The increase in our accrual is due primarily to a pre-tax
charge of $334 million resulting from a ruling by a federal judge in a patent
infringement case brought against us by Johnson & Johnson, which we recorded
during the third quarter of 2008. The total amounts accrued relate primarily to
Guidant litigation and claims recorded as part of the Guidant purchase
price, and to on-going patent-related litigation. We continue to assess certain
litigation and claims to determine the amounts that
management believes will be paid as a result of such claims and litigation
and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued in the future, which could
adversely impact our operating results, cash flows and our ability to comply
with our debt covenants.
In
management’s opinion, we are not currently involved in any legal proceedings
other than those specifically identified below or as disclosed in our 2007
Annual Report on Form 10-K, which, individually or in the aggregate, could have
a material effect on our financial condition, operations and/or cash flows.
Unless included in our legal accrual or otherwise indicated below, a range of
loss associated with any individual material legal proceeding can not be
estimated. Except as disclosed below, there have been no material
developments with regards to any matters of litigation or other proceedings
disclosed in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Litigation
with Johnson & Johnson
On
October 22, 1997, Cordis Corporation, a subsidiary of Johnson &
Johnson, filed a suit for patent infringement against us and Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. (f/k/a SCIMED Life Systems, Inc.), our wholly owned
subsidiary, alleging that the importation and use of the NIR® stent infringes
two patents owned by Cordis. On April 13, 1998, Cordis filed another suit
for patent infringement against Boston Scientific Scimed and us, alleging that
our NIR® stent infringes two additional patents owned by Cordis. The suits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and that the patents be adjudged valid, enforceable
and infringed. A trial on both actions was held in late 2000. A jury found that
the NIR® stent does not infringe three Cordis patents, but does infringe one
claim of one Cordis patent and awarded damages of approximately
$324 million to Cordis. On March 28, 2002, the Court set aside the
damage award, but upheld the remainder of the verdict, and held that two of the
four patents had been obtained through inequitable conduct in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office. On May 27, 2005, Cordis filed an appeal on those two
patents and an appeal hearing was held on May 3, 2006. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the
trial court for further briefing and fact-finding by the Court. On
May 16, 2002, the Court also set aside the verdict of infringement,
requiring a new trial. On March 24, 2005, in a second trial, a jury found
that a single claim of the Cordis patent was valid and infringed. On March 27,
2006, the judge entered judgment in favor of Cordis, and on April 26, 2006, we
filed an appeal. A hearing on the appeal was held on October 3, 2007, and a
decision was rendered on January 7, 2008, upholding the lower court’s finding of
infringement and reversing the finding of invalidity of a second claim. On
February 4, 2008, we requested the Court of Appeals rehear the appeal and
reverse the lower court’s finding of infringement and/or remand the case to the
District Court for a new trial. On April 9, 2008, the Court of Appeals
denied our motion to rehear the appeal and remanded the case to
the District Court for consideration of damages and an outstanding invalidity
question. On May 8, 2008, Cordis filed a motion for final judgment with the
District Court. On July 8, 2008, we filed a Petition for Certiorari before the
United States Supreme Court with respect to the infringement decision. The
Petition was denied on October 16, 2008. On September 30, 2008, the District
Court entered final judgment against us and awarded Cordis $703 million in
damages and interest. On October 10, 2008, we appealed the damage award. As a
result of the Court’s ruling, we increased our accrual for litigation-related
matters by $334 million in the third quarter of 2008. This
accrual
is in addition to $365 million of previously established accruals.
On
April 2, 1997, Ethicon and other Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries
filed a cross-border proceeding in The Netherlands alleging that the NIR® stent
infringes a European patent licensed to Ethicon. In this action, the
Johnson & Johnson entities requested relief, including provisional
relief (a preliminary injunction). In October 1997, Johnson &
Johnson’s request for provisional cross-border relief on the patent was denied
by the Dutch Court, on the ground that it is “very likely” that the NIR® stent
will be found not to infringe the patent. Johnson & Johnson’s appeal of
this decision was denied. In January 1999, Johnson & Johnson
amended the claims of the patent and changed the action from a cross-border case
to a Dutch national action. On June 23, 1999, the Dutch Court affirmed that
there were no remaining infringement claims with respect to the patent. In late
1999, Johnson & Johnson appealed this decision. On March 11, 2004,
the Court of Appeals nullified the Dutch Court’s June 23, 1999 decision and
the proceedings have been returned to the Dutch Court. In accordance with its
1999 decision, the Dutch Court asked the Dutch Patent Office for technical
advice on the validity of the amended patent. On August 31, 2005, the Dutch
Patent Office issued its technical advice that the amended patent was valid but
left certain legal issues for the Dutch Court to resolve. A hearing was held on
April 25, 2008, and on October 8, 2008, the Dutch Court found the patent
valid.
On
August 22, 1997, Johnson & Johnson filed a suit for patent
infringement against us alleging that the sale of the NIR® stent infringes
certain Canadian patents owned by Johnson & Johnson. Suit was filed in
the federal court of Canada seeking a declaration of infringement, monetary
damages and injunctive relief. On December 2, 2004, the Court dismissed the
case, finding all patents to be invalid. On December 6, 2004,
Johnson & Johnson appealed the Court’s decision, and in May 2006, the
Court reinstated the patents. In August 2006, we appealed the Court’s decision
to the Supreme Court. On January 18, 2007, the Supreme Court denied our request
to review this matter. A trial began on January 21, 2008 and concluded on
February 29, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Court found that the NIR stent did not
infringe one patent of Johnson & Johnson and that the other Johnson &
Johnson patent was invalid. On May 30, 2008 Cordis filed an appeal.
On
February 14, 2002, we, and certain of our subsidiaries, filed suit for
patent infringement against Johnson & Johnson and Cordis alleging that
certain balloon catheters and stent delivery systems sold by Johnson &
Johnson and Cordis infringe five U.S. patents owned by us. The complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary and injunctive relief. On October 15, 2002, Cordis filed a
counterclaim alleging that certain balloon catheters and stent delivery systems
sold by us infringe three U.S. patents owned by Cordis and seeking monetary and
injunctive relief. On December 6, 2002, we filed an amended complaint
alleging that two additional patents owned by us are infringed by the Cordis’
products. A bench trial on interfering patent issues was held December 5,
2005 and on September 19, 2006, the Court found there to be no interference.
Trial began on October 9, 2007, and, on October 31, 2007, the jury found that we
infringe a patent of Cordis. The jury also found four of our patents invalid and
infringed by Cordis. No damages were determined because the judge found that
Cordis failed to submit evidence sufficient to enable a jury to make a damage
assessment. We filed a motion to overturn the jury verdict. A hearing on post
trial motions was held on February 15, 2008, and on February 19, 2008, the Court
denied all post-trial motions. We intend to appeal the decision. The Court also
ordered the parties to attempt to negotiate a reasonable royalty rate for future
sales of the products found to infringe or file further papers with the Court
regarding continued infringement. A hearing on prospective relief was held
on October 3, 2008.
On
March 26, 2002, we and our wholly owned subsidiary, Target
Therapeutics, Inc., filed suit for patent infringement against
Cordis alleging that certain detachable coil delivery systems infringe three
U.S. patents, owned by or exclusively licensed to Target. The complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary and injunctive relief. In 2004, the Court granted summary judgment in
our favor finding infringement of one of the patents. On November 14,
2005, the Court denied Cordis’ summary judgment motions with respect to the
validity of the patent. Cordis filed a motion for reconsideration and a hearing
was held on October 26, 2006. The Court ruled on Cordis’ motion for
reconsideration by modifying its claim construction order. On February 7, 2007,
Cordis filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with
respect to this patent. On July 27, 2007, the Court denied Cordis’
motion. The Court also modified its claim construction and vacated its
earlier summary judgment
order
finding infringement by the Cordis device. Summary judgment motions with
respect to this patent were renewed by both parties and on March 21, 2008, the
Court reinstated the order finding infringement. Also, on January 18, 2008, the
Court granted our motion for summary judgment that Cordis infringes a second
patent in the suit. Based on this order, we have filed a motion for
summary judgment of infringement of the third patent in the suit, as well as a
request to add infringement of certain additional claims of the second patent. A
hearing on this motion was held on May 9, 2008. On January 25, 2008, the Court
also ruled that two of the patents, including one on which summary judgment of
infringement had been granted, are not invalid based on prior public or
commercial use. On March 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
our motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct. On August 15, 2008,
the Court granted our motion for summary judgment relating to infringement.
Trial on validity and damages is scheduled to begin on February 25,
2009.
On
January 13, 2003, Cordis filed suit for patent infringement against Boston
Scientific Scimed and us, alleging that our Express 2™
coronary stent infringes a U.S. patent owned by Cordis. The suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking monetary and
injunctive relief. We answered the complaint, denying the allegations and filed
a counterclaim alleging that certain Cordis products infringe a patent owned by
us. On August 4, 2004, the Court granted a Cordis motion to add our
Liberté® coronary stent and two additional patents to the complaint. On
June 21, 2005, a jury found that our TAXUS® Express 2™,
Express
2 Express™ Biliary, and Liberté stents infringe a Johnson &
Johnson patent and that the Liberté stent infringes a second Johnson &
Johnson patent. The juries only determined liability; monetary damages will be
determined at a later trial. We filed a motion to set aside the verdict and
enter judgment in our favor as a matter of law. On May 11, 2006, our motion was
denied. With respect to our counterclaim, a jury found on July 1, 2005 that
Johnson & Johnson’s Cypher®, Bx Velocity®, Bx Sonic™ and Genesis™
stents infringe our patent. Johnson & Johnson filed a motion to set
aside the verdict and enter judgment in its favor as a matter of law. On May 11,
2006, the Court denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion. Johnson & Johnson
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on March 27, 2007. On April
17, 2007, Johnson & Johnson filed a second motion to set aside the verdict
and enter judgment in its favor as a matter of law or, in the alternative,
request a new trial on infringement. That motion was denied and judgment was
entered on September 24, 2007. Both parties have filed an appeal, and a hearing
has been scheduled for December 2, 2008.
On
March 13, 2003, Boston Scientific Scimed and we filed suit for patent
infringement against Johnson & Johnson and Cordis, alleging that its
Cypher drug-eluting stent infringes one of our patents. The suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking monetary and
injunctive relief. Cordis answered the complaint, denying the allegations, and
filed a counterclaim against us alleging that the patent is not valid and is
unenforceable. We subsequently filed amended and new complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Cypher
drug-eluting stent infringes an additional four of our patents (the Additional
Patents). In March 2005, we filed a stipulated dismissal as to three
of the four Additional Patents. On April 4, 2007, the Court granted summary
judgment of non-infringement of the remaining Additional Patent and the parties
entered a stipulated dismissal as to the claim of that patent on May 11, 2007.
On July 1, 2005, a jury found that Johnson & Johnson’s Cypher
drug-eluting stent infringes the original patent and upheld the validity of the
patent. The jury determined liability only; any monetary damages will be
determined at a later trial. Johnson & Johnson filed a motion to set aside
the verdict and enter judgment in its favor as a matter of law. On June 15,
2006, the Court denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion. Johnson & Johnson
moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. A summary judgment hearing as
to the remaining patent asserted in our amended complaint was held on June 14,
2006. A hearing on the reconsideration motion was held on August 10, 2007. On
September 24, 2007, the Court denied Cordis’ motion for reconsideration. The
Court entered judgment against Cordis and on October 19, 2007, Cordis filed an
appeal. A hearing on the appeal was held on November 5, 2008.
On
August 5, 2004, we (through our subsidiary Schneider Europe GmbH) filed
suit in the District Court of Brussels, Belgium against the Belgian subsidiaries
of Johnson & Johnson, Cordis and Janssen Pharmaceutica alleging that
Cordis’ Bx Velocity stent, Bx Sonic stent, Cypher stent, Cypher Select stent,
Aqua T3™ balloon and U-Pass balloon infringe one of our European patents and
seeking injunctive and monetary relief. A
hearing
was held on September 20 and 21, 2007, and a hearing to consider new evidence
was held on May 29, 2008. On September 12, 2008, the District Court ruled that a
technical expert be appointed. In December 2005, the Johnson &
Johnson subsidiaries filed a nullity action in France. On January 25, 2008, we
filed a counterclaim infringement action in France, and a hearing is scheduled
for April 6, 2009. In January 2006, the same Johnson & Johnson
subsidiaries filed nullity actions in Italy and Germany. On October 23, 2007,
the German Federal Patent Court found the patent valid. We have filed a
counterclaim infringement action in Italy and an infringement action in
Germany. On August 5, 2008, the District Court of Dusseldorf stayed the
proceedings in the German infringement action pending a decision from the
District Court of Brussels.
On
May 12, 2004, we filed suit against two of Johnson &
Johnson’s Dutch subsidiaries, alleging that Cordis’ Bx Velocity stent, Bx Sonic
stent, Cypher stent, Cypher Select stent, and Aqua T3 balloon delivery systems
for those stents, and U-Pass angioplasty balloon catheters infringe one of our
European patents. The suit was filed in the District Court of The Hague in The
Netherlands seeking injunctive and monetary relief. On June 8, 2005, the
Court found the Johnson & Johnson products infringe our patent and
granted injunctive relief. On June 23, 2005, the District Court in Assen,
The Netherlands stayed enforcement of the injunction. On October 12, 2005,
a Dutch Court of Appeals overturned the Assen court’s ruling and reinstated the
injunction against the manufacture, use and sale of the Cordis products in The
Netherlands. Damages for Cordis’ infringing acts in The Netherlands would be
determined at a later date. Cordis appealed the validity and infringement ruling
by The Hague Court. A hearing on this appeal was held on November 2, 2006 and a
decision was received on March 15, 2007, finding the patent valid but not
infringed. We appealed the Court’s decision. A hearing on the appeal is expected
during the first quarter of 2009.
On
October 15, 2004, Boston Scientific Scimed filed suit against a German
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson alleging the Cypher® drug-eluting stent
infringes one of our German utility models. The suit was filed in Mannheim,
Germany seeking monetary and injunctive relief. A hearing was held on
April 1, 2005 and on July 15, 2005, the Court indicated that it would
appoint a technical expert. The expert’s opinion was submitted to the Court on
September 19, 2006. A hearing was held on September 21, 2007 in Mannheim,
Germany. On August 26, 2008, we withdrew the suit.
On
December 30, 2004, Boston Scientific Scimed filed suit against a German
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson alleging the Cypher drug-eluting stent
infringes one of our German utility models. The suit was filed in Dusseldorf,
Germany seeking monetary and injunctive relief. A hearing was held on
December 1, 2005. In January 2006, the judge rendered a decision of
non-infringement. On January 29, 2006, Boston Scientific Scimed appealed
the judge’s decision. On February 15, 2007, the Court decided to appoint a
technical expert. On August 26, 2008, we withdrew the suit.
On
November 29, 2007, Boston Scientific Scimed filed suit against a German
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson alleging the Cypher and Cypher Select
drug-eluting stents infringe one of our European patents. The suit was filed in
Mannheim, Germany seeking monetary and injunctive relief. A hearing was held on
August 8, 2008. On October 17, 2008, the Court ruled that a court expert be
appointed to evaluate infringement.
On May 4,
2006, we filed suit against Conor Medsystems Ireland Ltd. alleging that its
Costar® paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent system infringes one of our balloon
catheter patents. The suit was filed in Ireland seeking monetary and injunctive
relief. On May 24, 2006, Conor responded, denying the allegations and filed
a counterclaim against us alleging that the patent is not valid and is
unenforceable. On January 14, 2008, the case was dismissed pursuant to a
settlement agreement between the parties.
On each
of May 25, June 1, June 22 and November 27, 2007, Boston Scientific Scimed and
we filed suit against Johnson & Johnson and Cordis in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity
of a specific U.S. patent owned by them and of non-infringement of the patent by
our PROMUS™ coronary stent system. On February 21, 2008, Cordis answered the
complaints, denying the allegations, and filed counterclaims for infringement
seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment of validity. Trials on all
four suits are scheduled to begin on August 3, 2009.
On
January 15, 2008, Johnson & Johnson Inc. filed a suit for patent
infringement against us alleging that the sale of the Express, Express2 and
TAXUS Express2 stent
delivery systems infringe two Canadian patents owned by Johnson &
Johnson. Suit was filed in The Federal Court of Canada seeking a
declaration of infringement, monetary damages and injunctive
relief.
On
January 28, 2008, Wyeth and Cordis Corporation filed suit against Boston
Scientific Scimed and us, alleging that our PROMUS coronary stent system, upon
launch in the United States, will infringe three U.S. patents owned by Wyeth and
licensed to Cordis. The suit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. We were
not formally served with the complaint and the lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice on June 20, 2008. On February 1, 2008, Wyeth and Cordis Corporation
filed an amended complaint against Abbott Laboratories, adding us and Boston
Scientific Scimed as additional defendants to the complaint. The suit alleges
that our PROMUS coronary stent system, upon launch in the United States, will
infringe the same three U.S. patents owned by Wyeth and licensed to
Cordis. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On March 17,
2008, we filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
on May 8, 2008, that motion was denied. On May 23, 2008, we answered denying
allegations of the complaint and asserting a counterclaim of invalidity. A trial
has not yet been scheduled.
On
October 17, 2008, Cordis Corporation filed a complaint for patent infringement
against us alleging that our TAXUS® Liberté® stent product, when launched in the
United States, will infringe a U.S. patent owned by them. The suit was filed in
the United States District Court of Delaware seeking monetary and injunctive
relief.
Litigation
with Medtronic, Inc.
On March
1, 2006, Medtronic Vascular, Inc. filed suit against Boston Scientific Scimed
and us, alleging that our balloon products infringe four U.S. patents owned by
Medtronic Vascular. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On April 25,
2006, we answered and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of
invalidity and non-infringement. A trial was held in May 2008. On May 27, 2008,
the Court found one of the patents not infringed. On the same date, the jury
found the other three patents valid and infringed, awarding Medtronic $250
million in damages. On July 11, 2008, the Court granted our motion that certain
accused products did not infringe one of the patents and ordered the parties to
submit a new damage calculation. On July 21, 2008, Medtronic and we agreed that
the Court’s ruling reduced the damages by approximately $64 million. On July 16,
2008, Medtronic moved for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. The Court heard
evidence on certain of our legal and equitable defenses on July 31, 2008. At the
hearing, the Court denied Medtronic’s motion for reconsideration. On August 29,
2008, the Court found two Medtronic patents unenforceable for inequitable
conduct and set new damages at $19 million. We plan to file an appeal on the
remaining issue.
On July
25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted our motion to intervene in an action filed February 15, 2006 by
Medtronic Vascular and certain of its affiliates against Advanced Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories. As a counterclaim plaintiff in this
litigation, we are seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and of
non-infringement by our PROMUS coronary stent system relating to two U.S.
patents owned by Medtronic. On July 30, 2008, Medtronic moved to amend its
complaint to add us as a defendant and to allege infringement by the sale of
PROMUS stent systems in the United States. A hearing on the motion was held on
September 3, 2008, and on September 5, 2008, we were added as a defendant. On
July 30, 2008, we filed a motion for summary judgment and on July 31, 2008,
Medtronic filed a motion for summary judgment. Both motions were heard on
September 24, 2008. Trial is scheduled to begin on July 27, 2009.
On August
12, 2008, we filed suit for patent infringement against Medtronic, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries alleging that the sale of certain balloon catheters
and stent delivery systems infringe four U.S. patents owned by us. The complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On October 2, 2008, Medtronic
filed its answer denying the
allegations,
along with the filing of a declaratory judgment counterclaim.
On August
12, 2008, we and Endovascular Technologies, Inc. filed suit for patent
infringement against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries alleging
that the sale of Medtronic’s AAA products infringe ten U.S. patents owned by the
us. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On
September 26, 2008, Medtronic filed its answer, denying the allegations. A trial
has been scheduled for March 1, 2010.
On August
13, 2008, Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries filed suit for patent
infringement against us, Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Abbott and certain of
Abbott’s subsidiaries alleging infringement of one U.S. patent owned by them.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Marshall Division, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On
September 2, 2008, Medtronic filed an amended complaint adding a second patent
to the suit. We expect to file our answer by December 1, 2008, denying the
allegations.
Litigation
with Medinol Ltd.
On
February 20, 2006, Medinol submitted a request for arbitration against us,
and our wholly owned subsidiaries Boston Scientific Ltd. and Boston
Scientific Scimed, Inc., under the Arbitration Rules of the World
Intellectual Property Organization pursuant to a settlement agreement between
Medinol and us dated September 21, 2005. The request for arbitration
alleges that the Company’s Liberté coronary stent system infringes two U.S.
patents and one European patent owned by Medinol. Medinol is seeking to have the
patents declared valid and enforceable and a reasonable royalty. The September
2005 settlement agreement provides, among other things, that Medinol may only
seek reasonable royalties and is specifically precluded from seeking injunctive
relief. As a result, we do not expect the outcome of this proceeding to have a
material impact on the continued sale of the Liberté® stent system
internationally or in the United States, the continued sale of the TAXUS®
Liberté® stent system internationally or the launch of the TAXUS® Liberté® stent
system in the United States. The arbitration hearing was held on September 17
through September 21, 2007. On May 2, 2008, the World Intellectual Property
Organization panel held that the Medinol patents were valid but not infringed by
our Liberté and TAXUS Liberté stent systems. On June 6, 2008, the parties agreed
not to appeal the decision.
On
September 25, 2002, we filed suit against Medinol alleging Medinol’s
NIRFlex™ and NIRFlex™ Royal products infringe a patent owned by us. The suit was
filed in the District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands seeking cross-border,
monetary and injunctive relief. On September 10, 2003, the Dutch Court
ruled that the patent was invalid. We appealed the Court’s decision in
December 2003. A hearing on the appeal was held on August 17, 2006. On
December 14, 2006, a decision was rendered upholding the trial court ruling. We
appealed the Court’s decision on March 14, 2007. On May 25, 2007, Medinol moved
to dismiss our appeal. We expect a decision on our appeal during the first
quarter of 2009.
On August
3, 2007, Medinol submitted a request for arbitration against us, and our wholly
owned subsidiaries Boston Scientific Ltd. and Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc., under the Arbitration Rules of the World Intellectual
Property Organization pursuant to a settlement agreement between Medinol and us
dated September 21, 2005. The request for arbitration alleges that our
PROMUS coronary stent system infringes five U.S. patents, three European patents
and two German patents owned by Medinol. Medinol is seeking to have the patents
declared valid and enforceable and a reasonable royalty. The September 2005
settlement agreement provides, among other things, that Medinol may only seek
reasonable royalties and is specifically precluded from seeking injunctive
relief. As a result, we do not expect the outcome of this proceeding to have a
material impact on the continued sale of the PROMUS stent system. On June 29,
2008, the parties agreed that we can sell PROMUS stent systems in the United
States supplied to us by Abbott. On July 31, 2008, Medinol filed a motion for
summary judgment alleging our PROMUS stent infringes certain claims of one
German patent and on the same day we filed a motion to dismiss. On October 6,
2008, both motions were denied. A hearing on the European and German patents is
scheduled to begin May 11, 2009.
Other
Patent Litigation
On
July 28, 2000, Dr. Tassilo Bonzel filed a complaint naming certain
of our Schneider Worldwide subsidiaries and Pfizer Inc. and certain of
its affiliates as defendants, alleging that Pfizer failed to pay Dr. Bonzel
amounts owed under a license agreement involving Dr. Bonzel’s patented
Monorail® balloon catheter technology. The suit was filed in the State District
Court in Minnesota seeking monetary relief. On September 26, 2001, we
reached a contingent settlement with Dr. Bonzel involving all but one
claim asserted in the complaint. The contingency was satisfied and the
settlement is final. On December 17, 2001, the remaining claim was
dismissed without prejudice with leave to refile the suit in Germany.
Dr. Bonzel filed an appeal of the dismissal of the remaining claim. On
July 29, 2003, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal,
and on October 24, 2003, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied
Dr. Bonzel’s petition for further review. On March 26, 2004,
Dr. Bonzel filed a similar complaint against us, certain of our
subsidiaries and Pfizer in the Federal District Court for the District of
Minnesota. We answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. We
filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the case was dismissed with prejudice
on November 2, 2004. On February 7, 2005, Dr. Bonzel
appealed the Court’s decision. On March 2, 2006, the Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision. On April 24, 2007, we
received a letter from Dr. Bonzel’s counsel alleging that the 1995 license
agreement with Dr. Bonzel may have been invalid under German law. On
May 11, 2007, we responded to Dr. Bonzel’s counsel’s letter asserting the
validity of the 1995 license agreement. On October 5, 2007, Dr. Bonzel filed a
complaint against us in Kassel, Germany, which was formally served in December
2007, alleging the 1995 license agreement is invalid under German law and
seeking monetary damages. On May 16, 2008, the company answered denying the
allegations in the complaint.
On
September 12, 2002, ev3 Inc. filed suit against The Regents of the
University of California and our wholly owned subsidiary, Boston Scientific
International, B.V., in the District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands,
seeking a declaration that ev3’s EDC II and VDS embolic coil products do not
infringe three patents licensed to us from The Regents. On October 22,
2003, the Court ruled that the ev3 products infringe the three patents. On
December 18, 2003, ev3 appealed the Court’s ruling. A hearing on the appeal
has not yet been scheduled. A damages hearing originally scheduled for June 15,
2007 has been postponed and not yet rescheduled. On October 30, 2007, we reached
an agreement in principle with ev3 to resolve this matter. On March 27, 2008,
the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement and the case has been
formally dismissed.
On
December 16, 2003, The Regents of the University of
California filed suit against Micro Therapeutics, Inc., a subsidiary
of ev3, and Dendron GmbH alleging that Micro Therapeutics’ Sapphire detachable
coil delivery systems infringe twelve patents licensed to us and owned by The
Regents. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On
January 8, 2004, Micro Therapeutics and Dendron filed a third-party
complaint to include Target Therapeutics and us as third-party defendants
seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement with respect to
the patents and antitrust violations. On February 17, 2004, we, as a
third-party defendant, filed a motion to dismiss us from the case. On
July 9, 2004, the Court granted our motion in part and dismissed Target and
us from the claims relating only to patent infringement, while denying dismissal
of an antitrust claim. On April 7, 2006, the Court denied Micro Therapeutics’
motion seeking unenforceability of The Regents’ patent and denied The Regents’
cross-motion for summary judgment of enforceability. A summary judgment hearing
was held on July 31, 2007 relating to the antitrust claim, and on August 22,
2007, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor and dismissed us from the
case. On October 30, 2007, we reached an agreement in principle with ev3 to
resolve this matter. On March 27, 2008, the parties signed a definitive
settlement agreement and on April 4, 2008, a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed
with the Court and the case was formally dismissed.
On
March 29, 2005, we and Boston Scientific Scimed, filed suit against ev3 for
patent infringement, alleging that ev3’s SpideRX® embolic protection device
infringes four U.S. patents owned by us. The complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking monetary and injunctive
relief. On May 9, 2005, ev3 answered the complaint, denying the
allegations, and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of
invalidity and unenforceability, and noninfringement of our patents in the suit.
On October 28,
2005, ev3
filed its first amended answer and counterclaim alleging that certain of our
embolic protection devices infringe a patent owned by ev3. On June 20, 2006, we
filed an amended complaint adding a claim of trade secret misappropriation and
claiming infringement of two additional U.S. patents owned by us. On June 30,
2006, ev3 filed an amended answer and counterclaim alleging infringement of two
additional U.S. patents owned by ev3. A trial has not yet been scheduled. On
October 30, 2007, we reached an agreement in principle with ev3 to resolve this
matter. On March 27, 2008, the parties signed a definitive settlement
agreement and the case has been formally dismissed.
On
September 27, 2004, Target Therapeutics and we filed suit for patent
infringement against Micrus Corporation alleging that certain detachable embolic
coil devices infringe two U.S. patents exclusively licensed to Target
Therapeutics. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking monetary and injunctive relief. On
November 16, 2004, Micrus answered and filed counterclaims seeking a
declaration of invalidity, unenforceability and noninfringement and included
allegations of infringement against us relating to three U.S. patents owned by
Micrus, and antitrust and state law violations. On January 10, 2005, we
filed a motion to dismiss certain of Micrus’ counterclaims, and on
February 23, 2005, the Court granted a request to stay the proceedings
pending a reexamination of our patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
On February 23, 2006, the stay was lifted. Subsequently, Micrus provided a
covenant not to sue us with respect to one of the Micrus patents. On March 21,
2008, the Court rendered its claim construction ruling regarding the various
patents at issue. On June 19, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in
part our motion to dismiss, and dismissed with leave to amend Micrus’s claims
for disparagement and intentional interference with economic advantages. On
August 6, 2008, we reached an agreement in principle with Micrus to resolve this
matter. On September 4, 2008, the parties signed a definitive settlement
agreement and on October 8, 2008, the case was formally dismissed.
On
April 4, 2005, Angiotech and we filed suit against Sahajanand Medical
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in The Hague, The Netherlands seeking a declaration
that Sahajanand’s drug-eluting stent products infringe patents owned by
Angiotech and licensed to us. On May 3, 2006, the Court found that the asserted
claims were infringed and valid, and provided for injunctive and monetary
relief. On July 13, 2006, Sahajanand appealed the Court’s decision. A hearing on
the appeal was held on March 13, 2008, and a decision has not yet been
rendered.
On
May 19, 2005, G. David Jang, M.D. filed suit against us alleging breach of
contract relating to certain patent rights covering stent technology. The suit
was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California seeking
monetary damages and rescission of the contract. On June 24, 2005, we
answered, denying the allegations, and filed a counterclaim. After a Markman
ruling relating to the Jang patent rights, Dr. Jang stipulated to the dismissal
of certain claims alleged in the complaint with a right to appeal. In February
2007, the parties agreed to settle the other claims of the case. On May 23,
2007, Jang filed an appeal with respect to the remaining patent claims. Oral
arguments were heard on April 8, 2008 and on July 11, 2008, the Court of Appeals
vacated the District Court’s consent judgment and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further clarification.
On April
4, 2007, SciCo Tec GmbH filed suit against us alleging certain of our balloon
catheters infringe a U.S. patent owned by SciCo Tec GmbH. The suit
was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking
monetary and injunctive relief. On May 10, 2007, SciCo Tec filed an amended
complaint based on similar allegations as those pled in the original complaint
and alleging certain additional balloon catheters and stent delivery systems
infringe the same patent. On May 14, 2007, we answered, denying the allegations
of the first complaint. On May 29, 2007, we responded to the amended complaint
and filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and
non-infringement with respect to the patent at issue. A trial has been
scheduled for February 9, 2009.
On April
19, 2007, SciCo Tec GmbH, filed suit against us and our subsidiary, Boston
Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, alleging certain of our balloon catheters
infringe a German patent owned by SciCo Tec GmbH. The suit was filed
in Mannheim, Germany. We answered the complaint, denying the allegations
and filed a nullity action against SciCo Tec relating to one of its German
patents. A hearing on the merits in the
infringement
action was held on February 12, 2008 and on April 1, 2008, the Court decided to
appoint a technical expert.
On
December 16, 2005, Bruce N. Saffran, M.D., Ph.D. filed suit against us
alleging that our TAXUS® Express coronary stent system infringes a patent owned
by Dr. Saffran. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. On
February 8, 2006, we filed an answer, denying the allegations of the
complaint. Trial began on February 5, 2008. On February 11, 2008, the jury found
that our TAXUS® Express and TAXUS® Liberté® stent products infringe Dr.
Saffran’s patent and that the patent is valid. No injunction was
requested, but the jury awarded damages of $431 million. The District Court
awarded Dr. Saffran $69 million in pre-judgment interest and entered judgment in
his favor. We believe the jury verdict is unsupported by both the evidence and
the law. On July 9, 2008, the Court denied our post trial motions to reverse the
jury verdict. On August 5, 2008, we filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. On February 21, 2008, Dr.
Saffran filed a new complaint alleging willful infringement by the continued
sale of the TAXUS stent products and on March 12, 2008, we answered denying the
allegations.
On
December 11, 2007, Wall Cardiovascular Technologies LLC filed suit against us
alleging that our TAXUS Express coronary stent system infringes a patent owned
by them. The complaint also alleges that Cordis Corporation’s drug-eluting
stent system infringes the patent. The suit was filed in the Eastern District
Court of Texas and seeks monetary and injunctive relief. We answered the
original complaint denying the allegations. On February 18, 2008, Wall
Cardiovascular Technologies filed a request, which has been granted by the
Court, to amend its complaint to add Medtronic, Inc. to the suit with respect to
Medtronic’s drug-eluting stent system. A Markman hearing has been scheduled for
November 3, 2010. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 4, 2011.
On August
6, 2008, Boston Scientific Scimed and we filed suit against Wall Cardiovascular
Technologies, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability due to
inequitable conduct and prosecution history laches of a U.S. patent owned by
them, and of non-infringement of the patent by our PROMUS coronary stent
system. On October 9, 2008, Wall filed a motion to dismiss.
On July
2, 2008, Cardio Access LLC filed suit against us alleging infringement of a
patent related to an intra-aortic balloon access cannula owned by them. The suit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking
monetary and injunctive relief. On October 31, 2008, Cardio Access dismissed its
case against us with prejudice.
On
October 15, 2007, CryoCath Technologies, Inc. filed suit for patent infringement
against CryoCor, Inc. (acquired by Boston Scientific Scimed on May 28, 2008)
alleging that cryoconsoles and cryoablation catheters sold by CryoCor infringe
certain of CryoCath’s patents. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On
December 5, 2007, CryoCor answered the complaint, denying allegations of
infringement and filing a counterclaim requesting a declaratory judgment that
the patents are not infringed, are invalid, and are unenforceable. On September
23, 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement and on September 25, 2008,
the suit was dismissed. Two of the patents asserted by CryoCath are also
involved in interference proceedings provoked by CryoCor. The interferences are
on-going at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
On
January 15, 2008, CryoCor and AMS Research Corporation (“AMS”) filed a statement
of claim in Canada alleging that CryoCath’s cryoablation catheters and
cryoconsole infringe certain Canadian patents licensed by CryoCor. The suit
seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. CryoCath answered on April 23,
2008, denying all allegations and raising other defenses. On September 23, 2008,
the parties signed a settlement agreement and on September 25, 2008, the suit
was dismissed.
On
January 15, 2008, CryoCor and AMS filed a suit for patent infringement against
CryoCath alleging that Cryocath’s cryosurgical products, including its
cryoconsole and cryoablation catheters, infringe three patents
exclusively
licensed to CryoCor. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. On
February 4, 2008, CryoCath answered the complaint, denying the allegations and
counterclaiming for a declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid and
non-infringed, as well as alleging antitrust violations, deceptive and unfair
business practices and patent infringement by CryoCor of a CryoCath patent. On
May 19, 2008, the parties stipulated to a stay of the action pending resolution
of a related proceeding in the International Trade Commission. On September 23,
2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement and on September 25, 2008, the
suit was dismissed.
On
February 28, 2008, CryoCor and AMS brought a complaint in the International
Trade Commission alleging that Cryocath’s cryosurgical products, including its
cryoconsole and cryoablation catheters, infringe three patents exclusively
licensed to CryoCor. CryoCor and AMS are seeking an order to exclude entry into
the United States of any of CryoCath’s products found to infringe the patents.
CryoCath filed an answer on April 29, 2008, denying all allegations in the
complaint. On September 23, 2008, the parties signed a settlement
agreement. On September 25, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion to
terminate the action, which became effective on November 6, 2008.
On August
7, 2008, Thermal Scalpel LLC filed suit against us and numerous other medical
device companies alleging infringement of a patent related to an electrically
heated surgical cutting instrument exclusively licensed to them. The suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking
monetary and other further relief. On October 15, 2008, we answered the
complaint denying the allegations.
Other
Proceedings
On
September 8, 2005, the Laborers Local 100 and 397 Pension Fund initiated a
putative shareholder derivative lawsuit on our behalf in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Superior Court Department for Middlesex County against our
directors, certain of our current and former officers, and us as nominal
defendant. The complaint alleged, among other things, that with regard to
certain matters of regulatory compliance, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to us and our shareholders in the management and affairs of our
business and in the use and preservation of our assets. The complaint also
alleged that as a result of the alleged misconduct and the purported failure to
publicly disclose material information, certain directors and officers sold our
stock at inflated prices in violation of their fiduciary duties and were
unjustly enriched. The suit was dismissed on September 11, 2006. The Board of
Directors thereafter received two letters from the Laborers Local 100 and 397
Pension Fund dated February 21, 2007. One letter demanded that the
Board of Directors investigate and commence action against the defendants named
in the original complaint in connection with the matters alleged in the original
complaint. The second letter (as well as subsequent letters from the Pension
Fund) made a demand for an inspection of certain books and records for the
purpose of, among other things, the investigation of possible breaches of
fiduciary duty, misappropriation of information, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On March 21,
2007, we rejected the request to inspect books and records on the ground that
Laborers Local 100 and 397 Pension Fund had not established a proper purpose for
the request. On July 31, 2008, the Board of Directors rejected the demand
in the first letter to commence action against the defendants.
On
September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a purported securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities during the period March 31,
2003 through August 23, 2005, alleging that we and certain of our officers
violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On
September 28, 2005, October 27, 2005, November 2, 2005 and
November 3, 2005, Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer and John
Ryan, respectively, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
filed additional purported securities class action suits in the same Court on
behalf of the same purported class. On February 15, 2006, the Court
ordered that the five class actions be consolidated and appointed the
Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that we made material misstatements and omissions by
failing to disclose the supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and
DOJ
investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON® Ranger with Sox stent recall,
problems with the TAXUS® drug-eluting coronary stent systems that led to product
recalls, and our ability to satisfy FDA regulations concerning medical device
quality. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
and attorneys’ fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on June 8, 2006, which was granted by the Court on March 30,
2007. The Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System Group appealed the
Court’s decision. On April 16, 2008, the First Circuit reversed the dismissal of
only plaintiff’s TAXUS stent recall related claims and remanded the matter for
further proceedings. A trial has not yet been scheduled.
On
January 19, 2006, George Larson filed a purported class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of our 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (401(k)
Plan) and GESOP alleging that we and certain of our officers and employees
violated certain provisions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA) and Department of Labor Regulations. Similar actions
were filed on January 26, February 8, February 14,
February 23 and March 3, 2006. On April 3, 2006, the Court issued an order
consolidating the actions. On August 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
purported class action complaint on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries
of our 401(k) Plan during the period May 7, 2004 through January 26, 2006
alleging that we, our 401(k) Administrative and Investment Committee (the
Committee), members of the Committee, and certain directors violated certain
provisions of ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan’s participants
because they knew or should have known that the value of the Company’s stock was
artificially inflated and was not a prudent investment for the 401(k) Plan. The
complaint seeks equitable and monetary relief. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on October 10, 2006, which was denied by the Court on August 27,
2007. On March 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ class certification motion on
May 28, 2008, and plaintiffs’ filed their reply on August 8, 2008. On June 30,
2008, Robert Hochstadt (who previously had withdrawn as an interim lead
plaintiff) filed a motion to intervene to serve as a proposed class
representative. Defendants filed their opposition to Hochstadt’s intervention
motion on July 14, 2008. On November 3, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiffs’
motion to certify a class, denied Hochstadt’s motion to intervene, and dismissed
the action.
On
June 12, 2003, Guidant announced that its subsidiary, EndoVascular
Technologies, Inc. (EVT), had entered into a plea agreement with the U.S.
Department of Justice relating to a previously disclosed investigation regarding
the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In
connection with the plea agreement, EVT entered into a five year Corporate
Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of the Inspector General of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services. A final annual report was
due on August 30, 2008, and was timely submitted. Subject to review of the final
annual report, the CIA effectively expired on June 30, 2008, in accordance with
its terms.
At the
time of the EVT plea agreement, Guidant had outstanding fourteen suits alleging
product liability related causes of action relating to the ANCURE System.
Subsequent to the EVT plea, Guidant was notified of additional claims and served
with additional complaints. From time to time, Guidant has settled certain of
the individual claims and suits for amounts that were not material to Guidant.
Currently, Guidant has 10 suits outstanding, and more suits may be filed. The
complaints seek damages, including punitive damages. The complaints are in
various stages of discovery. Two other suits in which the Court awarded Guidant
summary judgment are being appealed by the plaintiffs. Additionally, Guidant has
been notified of over 130 unfiled claims that are pending. The cases generally
allege the plaintiffs suffered injuries, and in certain cases died, as a result
of purported defects in the device or the accompanying warnings and
labeling.
Although
insurance may reduce Guidant’s exposure with respect to ANCURE System claims,
one of Guidant’s carriers, Allianz Insurance Company (Allianz), filed suit in
the Circuit Court, State of Illinois, County of DuPage, seeking to rescind or
otherwise deny coverage and alleging fraud. Additional carriers have
intervened in the case and Guidant affiliates, including EVT, are also named as
defendants. Guidant and its affiliates also initiated suit against certain
of their insurers, including Allianz, in the Superior Court, State of
Indiana, County of Marion, in order to preserve Guidant’s rights to coverage. A
trial has not yet been
scheduled
in either case. On March 23, 2007, the Court in the Indiana lawsuit granted
Guidant and its affiliates’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding
Allianz’s duty to defend, finding that Allianz breached its duty to defend 41
ANCURE lawsuits. On April 19, 2007, Allianz filed a notice of appeal of
that ruling. The Indiana appeal was heard on March 25, 2008, and on April 17,
2008, the Court of Appeals reversed the partial summary judgment ruling finding
instead that Allianz did not have a duty to defend. Guidant will seek
review from the Indiana Supreme Court. On July 11, 2007, the Illinois court
entered a final partial summary judgment ruling in favor of Allianz.
Guidant appealed the Court’s ruling on August 9, 2007. Both lawsuits are
currently partially stayed in the trial courts pending the outcome of the
respective appeals. Oral argument for the appeal before the Illinois Court of
Appeals is presently set for December 2, 2008.
Shareholder
derivative suits relating to the ANCURE System were pending in the Southern
District of Indiana and in the Superior Court of the State of Indiana, County of
Marion. The suits, purportedly filed on behalf of Guidant, initially alleged
that Guidant’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by taking improper
steps or failing to take steps to prevent the ANCURE and EVT related matters
described above. The complaints sought damages and other equitable relief. The
state court derivative suits were stayed in favor of the federal derivative
action. On March 9, 2007, the Superior Court granted the parties’ joint motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing in one of the
pending state derivative actions. On May 1, 2006, the defendants moved to
dismiss the federal derivative case. On March 27, 2008, the District Court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of all defendants.
The time period in which plaintiffs may appeal has expired. On July 11, 2008,
the Superior Court granted the parties’ joint motion to lift the stay of
proceedings and dismiss the complaint with prejudice in the final pending state
derivative action.
In July
2005, a purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of participants in
Guidant’s employee pension benefit plans. This action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Guidant and its
directors. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §
1132. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Guidant fiduciaries
concealed adverse information about Guidant’s defibrillators and imprudently
made contributions to Guidant’s 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan in
the form of Guidant stock. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory
and injunctive relief, monetary damages, the imposition of a constructive trust,
and costs and attorneys’ fees. A second, similar complaint was filed and
consolidated with the initial complaint. A consolidated, amended complaint was
filed on February 8, 2006. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, and on September 15, 2006, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. In October 2006, the Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In June 2007, the
Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the District
Court. The Court of Appeals specifically instructed the District Court to
consider potential problems with the Plaintiffs’ ability to prove damages or a
breach of fiduciary duty. In September 2007, we filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. In June 2008, the District
Court dismissed the complaint in part, but ruled that certain of the plaintiffs’
claims may go forward to discovery.
Approximately
76 product liability class action lawsuits and more than 2,260 individual
lawsuits involving approximately 5,551 individual plaintiffs are pending in
various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant alleging personal
injuries associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in the 2005 and
2006 product communications. The majority of the cases in the United States
are pending in federal court but approximately 244 cases are currently pending
in state courts. On November 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation established MDL-1708 (MDL) in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to preside over all the
cases in the MDL. In April 2006, the personal injury plaintiffs and certain
third-party payors served a Master Complaint in the MDL asserting claims for
class action certification, alleging claims of strict liability, negligence,
fraud, breach of warranty and other common law and/or statutory claims and
seeking punitive damages. The majority of claimants allege no physical injury,
but are suing for medical monitoring and anxiety. On July 12, 2007, we
reached an agreement to settle certain claims associated with the 2005 and 2006
product communications, which was amended on November 19, 2007. Under the terms
of the amended agreement, subject to certain conditions, we will pay a
total of
up to $240 million covering up to 8,550 patient claims, including all of the
claims that have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other filed and unfiled
claims throughout the United States. On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota Supreme
Court appointed a single judge to preside over all Minnesota state court
lawsuits involving cases arising from the product communications. The plaintiffs
in those cases are eligible to participate in the settlement, and activities in
all Minnesota State court cases are currently stayed pending individual
plaintiff’s decisions whether to participate in the settlement. We have made
payments of $20 million related to the MDL settlement and, if certain
agreed-upon requirements are met, may make substantially all of the remaining
$220 million payment during the fourth quarter of 2008.
We are
aware of more than eighteen (18) Guidant product liability lawsuits pending
internationally associated with defibrillators or pacemakers involved in the
2005 and 2006 product communications. Six of those suits pending in Canada are
putative class actions. A hearing on whether the first of these putative
class actions should be certified as a class was held in mid-January 2008 and on
April 10, 2008, the Court certified a class of all persons in whom
defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family members with
derivative claims. Guidant has moved for leave to appeal the Court’s
class-certification decision, and a hearing was held on Guidant’s motion on
August 15, 2008. The second of these putative class actions encompasses all
persons in whom pacemakers were implanted in Canada and involves claims similar
to the defibrillator class action. A hearing on whether the pacemaker putative
class action should be class certified has been rescheduled and will likely take
place in December 2008.
Between
March and July 2005, sixty-nine former employees filed charges against Guidant
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that
Guidant discriminated against the former employees on the basis of their age
when Guidant terminated their employment in the fall of 2004 as part of a
reduction in force. In September 2006, the EEOC found probable cause to support
the allegations in the charges pending before it. On March 24, 2008, the EEOC
began dismissing the charges, with the final charges dismissed on April 4, 2008,
in light of the litigation pending in Minnesota District Court described in the
following paragraph.
In April
2006, sixty-one former employees sued Guidant in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging that Guidant discriminated against the former
employees on the basis of their age when it terminated their employment in the
fall of 2004 as part of a reduction in force. All but one of the plaintiffs in
the federal court action signed a full and complete release of claims that
included any claim based on age discrimination, shortly after their employments
ended in 2004. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue
of validity of the releases. A hearing was held on February 21, 2007. On April
4, 2007, the Court issued a decision in which it held that the releases did not
bar the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims of age discrimination against
Guidant. On April 30, 2007, Guidant moved the District Court for permission to
appeal this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, but on July 18, 2007, the Court of Appeals declined to accept our
appeal. In August 2007, counsel for the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of
their clients from the case, leaving a total of fifty-nine individual
plaintiffs, and moved the District Court for preliminary certification of the
matter as a class action. On September 28, 2007, the Court granted
plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification of their proposed
class. Following the preliminary certification, notice was communicated to
other potential class members of their right to join the class and 47 former
employees of Guidant have exercised that right. Two of these additional
plaintiffs have since dismissed their claims from the lawsuit. As a result, the
class currently consists of 104 individual plaintiffs. Discovery was
substantially completed on July 31, 2008 and the deadline for a motion to
decertify the class and any additional motions for summary judgment is May 1,
2009. The case is to be ready for trial on August 1, 2009. On October 8 and
9, 2008, we negotiated a tentative settlement with plaintiffs’ counsel subject
to preparation of a definitive settlement agreement and consent of the
plaintiffs.
On
November 3, 2005, a securities class action complaint was filed on behalf
of purchasers of Guidant stock between December 1, 2004 and October 18, 2005 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, against Guidant
and several of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed adverse information about Guidant’s defibrillators and
pacemakers and sold stock in violation of federal securities laws. The complaint
seeks a declaration that the lawsuit can be maintained as a class action,
monetary
damages, and injunctive relief. Several additional, related securities class
actions were filed in November 2005 and January 2006. The Court issued an order
consolidating the complaints and appointed the Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan and David Fannon as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint. In August 2006, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2008, the District Court granted the
motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in favor of all defendants. On
March 13, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to amend the final
judgment to permit the filing of a further amended complaint. On March 28, 2008,
defendants opposed the motion. On May 21, 2008, the District Court denied
plaintiffs motion to amend the judgment. On June 6, 2008, plaintiffs appealed
the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.
On July
1, 2008, Guidant Sales Corporation received a subpoena from the Maryland office
of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.
This subpoena seeks information concerning payments to physicians, primarily
related to the training of sales representatives. We are cooperating with this
request.
On July
17, 2006, Carla Woods and Jeffrey Goldberg, as Trustees of the Bionics Trust and
Stockholders’ Representative, filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that we
breached the Agreement and Plan of Merger among us, Advanced Bionics
Corporation, the Bionics Trust, Alfred E. Mann, Jeffrey H. Greiner, and David
MacCallum, collectively in their capacity as Stockholders’ Representative, and
others dated May 28, 2004 (the Merger Agreement) or, alternatively, the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks injunctive and other relief.
On February 20, 2007, the district court entered a preliminary injunction
prohibiting us from taking certain actions until we complete specific actions
described in the Merger Agreement. We appealed the preliminary injunction order
on March 16, 2007. On April 17, 2007, the District Court issued a permanent
injunction. On May 7, 2007, we appealed the permanent injunction order. A
hearing on the appeal was held on July 13, 2007. On August 24, 2007, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court
in part and vacated the order in part. In connection with an amendment to the
Merger Agreement and the execution of related agreements in August 2007, the
parties agreed to a resolution to this litigation contingent upon the closing of
the Amendment and related agreements. On January 3, 2008, the closing
contemplated by the amendment and related agreements occurred and on January 9,
2008, the District Court entered a joint stipulation vacating the injunction and
dismissed the case with prejudice.
On
January 16, 2007, the French Competition Council (Conseil de la Concurrence
which is one of the bodies responsible for the enforcement of
antitrust/competition law in France) issued a Statement of Objections alleging
that Guidant France SAS (“Guidant France”) had agreed with the four other main
suppliers of implantable cardiac defibrillators (“ICDs”) in France to
collectively refrain from responding to a 2001 tender for ICDs conducted by a
group of seventeen (17) University Hospital Centers in France. This alleged
collusion is alleged to be contrary to the French Commercial Code and Article 81
of the European Community Treaty. Guidant France filed a response to the
Statement of Objections on March 29, 2007. On June 25, 2007, a further report by
the case handler at the Competition Council was issued addressing the
defendants’ responses and recommending that the Council pursue the alleged
violation of competition law. Guidant France filed its full defense with the
Council in August 2007. A hearing before the Council was held on October 11,
2007. On December 19, 2007, the Council found that the suppliers had
violated competition law and assessed monetary fines, however, each of the
suppliers were fined amounts considerably less than originally
recommended. Guidant France did not appeal the decision of the Competition
Council but other defendants did. In reaction, the French Ministry of the
Economy and Finance filed an incidental recourse seeking aggravated sanctions
against all defendants. On February 26, 2008, Guidant France joined the
appellate proceedings. Written arguments are now due to the appellate court by
January 14, 2009. A trial has been scheduled for February 17, 2009.
In
December 2007, we were informed by the Department of Justice that it is
conducting an investigation of allegations that we and other suppliers
improperly promoted biliary stents for off-label uses. On June 26, 2008,
the Department of Justice issued a subpoena to us under the Health Insurance
Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 requiring the production of
documents to the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of
Massachusetts. We are cooperating with the investigation.
On
February 26, 2008, fifteen pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers,
including Boston Scientific, received a letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley,
ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance regarding their
plans to enhance the transparency of financial relationships with physicians and
medical organizations. On March 7, 2008, we responded to the
Senator.
On
October 16, 2008, we received a letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley, ranking
member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance and Senator Herb Kohl,
Chairman, United States Senate Special Committee on Aging,
requesting information regarding payments made to the Cardiovascular
Research Foundation, Columbia University and certain affiliated individuals.
Additionally, the letter requests information regarding the COURAGE trial. We
are cooperating with the request.
On
October 23, 2008, we received a letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley, ranking
member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance, requesting certain
information regarding payments made to certain psychiatrists, including those
who may serve as leaders of professional societies or those who may serve as
authorities for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental
illness. We are cooperating with the request.
On June
27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a complaint against us and ninety-two other
defendants in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the defendants acted improperly in connection with the
sale of products under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. The complaint
alleges RICO violations, conspiracy to commit fraud and the making of false
statements and improper payments, and seeks monetary and punitive damages. We
have not yet been served with the complaint, but intend to vigorously defend
against its allegations.
On May 8,
2008, certain shareholders of CryoCor, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, against CryoCor, its
directors and us. The lawsuit alleged that the directors of CryoCor breached
their fiduciary duties to their shareholders by approving the sale of the
company to us and that we aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties.
On September 19, 2008, the suit was dismissed by the Court. Plaintiffs have
agreed not to appeal the decision and we have agreed not to seek to recover
costs.
On July
14, 2008, we received a subpoena from the State of New Hampshire, Office of the
Attorney General, requesting information in connection with our refusal to sell
medical devices or equipment intended to be used in the administration of spinal
cord stimulation trials to practitioners other than practicing medical doctors.
We are cooperating with the request.
On
October 17, 2008, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, requesting information related
to the alleged use of a skin adhesive in certain of our products. We are
cooperating with the request.
On October 24, 2008, we
received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) informing us of an
investigation relating to surgical cardiac ablation system devices to treat
atrial fibrillation. We intend to cooperate with the investigation.
FDA
Warning Letters
In
January 2006, legacy Boston Scientific received a corporate warning letter from
the FDA notifying us of serious regulatory problems at three of our
facilities and advising us that our corporate-wide corrective action plan
relating to three site-specific warning letters issued to us in 2005 was
inadequate. We have identified solutions to the quality system issues cited by
the FDA and have made significant progress in transitioning our organization to
implement those solutions. The FDA reinspected a number of our facilities
and, in October 2008, informed us that our quality system is now in substantial
compliance with its Quality System
Regulations.
The FDA has approved the majority of our requests for final approval of Class
III submissions previously on hold due to the corporate warning letter and is
currently reviewing our requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments (CFGs).
The corporate warning letter remains in place pending final remediation of
certain Medical Device Report (MDR) filing issues, which we are actively working
with the FDA to resolve.
In August
2007, we received a warning letter from the FDA regarding the conduct of
clinical investigations associated with our abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)
stent-graft program acquired from TriVascular, Inc. We implemented a
comprehensive plan of corrective actions regarding the conduct of our clinical
trials and informed the FDA that we have finalized commitments made as part of
our response. On July 31, 2008, the FDA notified Boston Scientific that no
further actions were required relative to this warning letter. We
terminated the TriVascular AAA development program in 2006.
NOTE
N – SEGMENT REPORTING
In the
first quarter of 2008, we reorganized our international structure in order to
allow for better utilization of infrastructure and resources. Accordingly, we
have revised our reportable segments to reflect the way we currently manage and
view our business. We now have three reportable segments based on geographic
regions: the United States; EMEA, consisting of Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and Inter-Continental. We combined our Middle East and Africa
operations, previously included in our Inter-Continental segment, with Europe to
form a new EMEA region and merged our former Asia Pacific region into our
Inter-Continental segment. Each of our reportable segments generates revenues
from the sale of medical devices. The reportable segments represent an aggregate
of all operating divisions within each segment. We measure and evaluate our
reportable segments based on segment income. We exclude from segment income
certain corporate and manufacturing-related expenses, as our corporate and
manufacturing functions do not meet the definition of a segment, as defined by
FASB Statement No. 131, Disclosures about Segments of an
Enterprise and Related Information. In addition, certain transactions or
adjustments that our Chief Operating Decision Maker considers to be
non-recurring and/or non-operational, such as amounts related to acquisitions,
divestitures, litigation, restructuring activities, and intangible asset
impairment charges, as well as amortization expense, are excluded from
segment income. Although we exclude these amounts from segment income, they are
included in reported consolidated net income (loss) and are included in the
reconciliation below.
We manage
our international operating segments on a constant currency basis. Sales
generated from reportable segments and divested businesses, as well as operating
results of reportable segments and expenses from manufacturing operations, are
based on internally derived standard currency exchange rates, which may differ
from year to year and do not include intersegment profits. We have restated the
segment information for 2007 net sales and operating results based on our
standard currency exchange rates used for 2008 in order to remove the impact of
currency fluctuations. In addition, we have reclassified previously reported
2007 segment results to be consistent with the 2008 presentation. Because of the
interdependence of the reportable segments, the operating profit as presented
may not be representative of the geographic distribution that would occur if the
segments were not interdependent. A reconciliation of the totals reported for
the reportable segments to the applicable line items in our unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of operations is as follows:
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
$ |
1,125 |
|
|
$ |
1,111 |
|
|
$ |
3,330 |
|
|
$ |
3,397 |
|
EMEA
|
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
1,344 |
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
Inter-Continental
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
1,094 |
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
Net
sales allocated to reportable segments
|
|
|
1,911 |
|
|
|
1,914 |
|
|
|
5,768 |
|
|
|
5,832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
generated from divested businesses
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
408 |
|
Currency
exchange
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
$ |
1,978 |
|
|
$ |
2,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss)
income before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
$ |
778 |
|
|
$ |
906 |
|
EMEA
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
644 |
|
|
|
699 |
|
Inter-Continental
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
577 |
|
|
|
577 |
|
Operating
income allocated to reportable segments
|
|
|
635 |
|
|
|
707 |
|
|
|
1,999 |
|
|
|
2,182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing
operations
|
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(290 |
) |
|
|
(460 |
) |
Corporate
expenses and currency exchange
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
(278 |
) |
|
|
(381 |
) |
Acquisition-,
divestiture-, litigation-, restructuring-related and intangible
asset impairment net charges
|
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
(438 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
(458 |
) |
Amortization
expense
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
(467 |
) |
Operating
income (loss)
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
912 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
Other
expense
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
(389 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
$ |
(259 |
) |
|
$ |
494 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
NOTE
O – NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Statement
No. 141(R)
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141(R), Business Combinations, a
replacement for Statement No. 141. Statement No. 141(R) retains the fundamental
requirements of Statement No. 141, but requires the recognition of all assets
acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination at their fair values
as of the acquisition date. It also requires the recognition of assets acquired
and liabilities assumed arising from contractual contingencies at their
acquisition date fair values. Additionally, Statement No. 141(R) supersedes FASB
Interpretation No. 4, Applicability of FASB Statement No.
2 to Business Combinations Accounted for by the Purchase Method, which
required research and development assets acquired in a business combination that
had no alternative future use to be measured at their fair values and expensed
at the acquisition date. Statement No. 141(R) now requires that purchased
research and development be recognized as an intangible asset. We are required
to adopt Statement No. 141(R) prospectively for any acquisitions on or after
January 1, 2009 and are currently evaluating the impact that Statement No.
141(R) will have on our consolidated financial statements.
Statement
No. 161
In March
2008, the FASB issued Statement No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, which amends Statement No. 133 by
requiring expanded disclosures about an entity’s derivative instruments and
hedging activities. Statement No. 161 requires increased qualitative,
quantitative, and credit-risk disclosures, including (a) how and why an entity
uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged
items are accounted for under Statement No. 133 and its related interpretations,
and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s
financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. We are
required to adopt Statement No. 161 for our first quarter ending March 31,
2009.
ITEM
2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
Introduction
Boston
Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and marketer of
medical devices that are used in a broad range of interventional medical
specialties. Our mission is to improve the quality of patient care and the
productivity of healthcare delivery through the development and advocacy of
less-invasive medical devices and procedures. We accomplish this mission through
the continuing refinement of existing products and procedures and the
investigation and development of new technologies that can reduce risk, trauma,
cost, procedure time and the need for aftercare. Our approach to innovation
combines internally developed products and technologies with those we obtain
externally through our acquisitions and alliances. The growth and success of our
organization is dependent upon the shared values of our people. Our quality
policy, applicable to all employees, is “I improve the quality of patient care
and all things Boston Scientific.” This personal commitment connects our people
with the vision and mission of Boston Scientific.
Financial
Summary
Three
Months Ended September 30, 2008
Our net
sales for the third quarter of 2008 were $1.978 billion, as compared to $2.048
billion for the third quarter of 2007, a decrease of $70 million or three
percent. See Quarterly Results
section below for a discussion of our net sales. Our reported net loss
for the third quarter of 2008 was $62 million, or $0.04 per share, as compared
to a net loss of $272 million, or $0.18 per share, for the third quarter of
2007. Our reported results for the third quarter of 2008 included
litigation-related charges, acquisition- and divestiture-related net credits,
restructuring charges and restructuring-related costs, and intangible asset
impairments (after-tax) of $211 million consisting of:
·
|
a
$266 million ($334 million pre-tax) charge resulting from a ruling by a
federal judge in a patent infringement case brought against us by Johnson
& Johnson;
|
·
|
a
$184 million ($250 million pre-tax) gain related to the receipt of an
acquisition-related milestone payment from Abbott
Laboratories;
|
·
|
an
$8 million credit, on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis, to purchased
in-process research and
development;
|
·
|
a
$17 million income tax benefit associated with our previous sale of
non-strategic businesses;
|
·
|
$25
million ($34 million pre-tax) of costs associated with our
restructuring-related activities;
and
|
·
|
$129
million ($155 million pre-tax) of intangible asset impairment
charges.
|
Our
reported results for the third quarter of 2007 included acquisition- and
divestiture-related charges (after-tax) of $435 million, consisting of: a loss
of approximately $352 million (on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis)
attributable principally to the writedown of goodwill in connection with the
sale of our auditory and drug pump businesses; $75 million (on both a pre-tax
and after-tax basis) of in-process research and development acquired from Remon
Medical Technologies, Inc. during the quarter; and $8 million ($10 million
pre-tax) of integration costs related to our 2006 acquisition of Guidant
Corporation.
Nine
Months Ended September 30, 2008
Our net
sales for the first nine months of 2008 were $6.048 billion, as compared to
$6.204 billion for the first nine months of 2007, a decrease of $156 million or
three percent. See Quarterly
Results section below for a discussion of our net sales. Our reported net
income for the first nine months of 2008 was $358 million, or $0.24 per share,
as compared to a net loss of $37 million, or $0.02 per share, for the first nine
months of 2007. Our reported results for the first nine months of 2008 included
litigation-related charges, acquisition- and divestiture-related net credits,
restructuring charges and restructuring-related costs and intangible asset
impairments (after-tax) of $172 million, consisting of:
·
|
a
$266 million charge ($334 million pre-tax) resulting from a ruling by a
federal judge in a patent infringement case brought against us by Johnson
& Johnson;
|
·
|
a
$184 million gain ($250 million pre-tax) related to the receipt of an
acquisition-related milestone payment from Abbott
Laboratories;
|
·
|
$21
million, on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis, of purchased in-process
research and development;
|
·
|
$132
million ($250 million pre-tax) of net gains associated with the sale of
our non-strategic businesses;
|
·
|
$72
million ($99 million pre-tax) of costs associated with our
restructuring-related activities;
and
|
·
|
$129
million ($155 million pre-tax) of intangible asset impairment
charges.
|
Our
reported results for the first nine months of 2007 included acquisition- and
divestiture-related charges (after-tax) of $456 million, consisting of: a loss
of approximately $352 million (on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis)
attributable principally to the writedown of goodwill in connection with the
sale of our auditory and drug pump businesses; $72 million (on both a pre-tax
and after-tax basis) of purchased in-process research and development charges;
and $34 million ($42 million pre-tax) in Guidant acquisition-related charges,
including integration costs and a fair value adjustment to the sharing of
proceeds feature of the Abbott stock purchase, discussed in further detail in
our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Business
and Market Overview
Coronary
Stent Business
Coronary
stent revenue represented approximately 23 percent of our consolidated net sales
during the third quarter of 2008, as compared to 25 percent in the third quarter
of 2007. We estimate that the worldwide coronary stent market will
approximate $4.8 billion in 2008, as compared to approximately $5.0 billion
in 2007, and estimate that drug-eluting stents will represent approximately
80 percent of the dollar value of worldwide coronary stent market sales in
2008, as they did in 2007. Market size is driven primarily by the number of
percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures performed; the number of
devices used per procedure; average drug-eluting stent selling prices; and the
drug-eluting stent penetration rate (a measure of the mix between bare-metal and
drug-eluting stents used across procedures). Uncertainty regarding the safety
and efficacy of drug-eluting stents, as well as the increased perceived risk of
late stent thrombosis1 following the use of drug-eluting stents, has
contributed to a decline in the worldwide drug-eluting stent market size as
compared to prior years. However, more recent data addressing the risk of late
stent thrombosis and supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent systems appear
to have had a favorable effect on the size of the drug-eluting stent market, as
cardiologists regain confidence in this technology. The third quarter of 2008
represented the third consecutive quarter of increasing penetration rates in the
U.S., estimated to be 70 percent for the third quarter of 2008. In addition,
U.S. PCI procedural volume increased five percent during the third quarter of
2008, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. We believe that these trends
indicate that the health of the U.S. drug-eluting stent market is steadily
improving.
1 Late stent thrombosis is the formation
of a clot, or thrombus, within the stented area one year or more after
implantation of the stent.
(in
millions)
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30, 2008
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30, 2007
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Drug-eluting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TAXUS®
|
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
271 |
|
|
$ |
240 |
|
|
$ |
201 |
|
|
$ |
441 |
|
PROMUS™
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
448 |
|
Bare-metal
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
$ |
228 |
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
446 |
|
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
$ |
239 |
|
|
$ |
507 |
|
In July
of 2008, Abbott Laboratories launched its XIENCE™ V everolimus-eluting coronary
stent system, and, simultaneously, we launched our PROMUS™ everolimus-eluting
coronary stent system, supplied to us by Abbott. As of the closing of Abbott’s
acquisition of Guidant’s vascular intervention and endovascular solutions
businesses, we obtained a perpetual license to use the intellectual
property used in Guidant’s drug-eluting stent system program purchased
by Abbott. We believe
that being the only company to offer two distinct drug-eluting stent platforms
provides us a considerable advantage in the drug-eluting stent market and has
enabled us to sustain our worldwide leadership position. However, under the
terms of our supply arrangement with Abbott, the gross profit margin of a PROMUS
stent system is significantly lower than that of our TAXUS stent system.
Therefore, if sales of our PROMUS stent system continue to increase in relation
to our total drug-eluting stent system sales, our gross profit margins will
continue to decrease. In addition, we are reliant on Abbott for our supply of
PROMUS stent systems. Any production or capacity issues that affect Abbott’s
manufacturing capabilities or the process for forecasting, ordering and
receiving shipments may impact our ability to increase or decrease the level of
supply to us in a timely manner; therefore, our PROMUS stent system supply may
not align with customer demand, which could have an adverse effect on our
operating results. At present, we believe that our supply of PROMUS stent
systems from Abbott is sufficient to meet our current launch
plans.
Further,
our supply agreement with Abbott for PROMUS stent systems extends through the
fourth quarter of 2009 in Europe (subject to a possible extension by the
European Commission) and through the end of the second quarter of 2012 in the
U.S. and Japan. We are incurring incremental costs and expending incremental
resources in order to develop and commercialize additional products utilizing
everolimus-eluting stent technology and to support an internally developed and
manufactured next-generation everolimus-eluting stent system. We expect that
this stent system, the PROMUS™ Element™ stent system,
will have gross profit margins more comparable to our TAXUS stent system and
will improve our overall gross profit margin once launched. We expect to launch
PROMUS Element in Europe in late-2009 and in the U.S. and Japan during mid-2012.
Our product pipeline also includes the TAXUS® Liberté® and TAXUS® Element™ coronary stent
systems. We received FDA approval for our TAXUS Liberté stent system in October
2008. We plan to launch the TAXUS Liberté stent system in the U.S. in the fourth
quarter of 2008, following the launch of our new TAXUS Express2™ Atom™
drug-eluting coronary stent system, which was approved by the FDA in September
2008. We expect to launch our TAXUS Liberté drug-eluting stent system in Japan
during the first half of 2009, and our first-generation PROMUS
everolimus-eluting coronary stent system during the second half of 2009 in
Japan. We expect to launch our TAXUS Element stent system in Europe during the
fourth quarter of 2009 and in the U.S. in mid-2011.
During
the third quarter of 2008, U.S. sales of our drug-eluting stent systems declined
$31 million, or 13 percent, to $209 million from $240 million during the third
quarter of 2007, due primarily to a decrease in our share of the market as a
result of recent competitive launches, including the XIENCE V stent system in
July 2008 and Medtronic, Inc.’s Endeavor® zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent
system in the first quarter of 2008. We believe that our share of the U.S.
drug-eluting stent market was 45 percent for the third quarter of 2008, as
compared to 56 percent for the third quarter of 2007. In addition,
the average selling price of our TAXUS stent system in the U.S. for the third
quarter of 2008 declined approximately seven percent as compared to the
same
period in the prior year. We expect that unit prices may continue to be impacted
as a result of increased competition. Our international drug-eluting stent
system net sales decreased $21 million, or ten percent, for the third quarter of
2008 as compared to the third quarter of 2007. The decrease was driven primarily
by declines in our share of the drug-eluting stent market in Japan. The third
quarter of 2007 represented the first full quarter of sales of our TAXUS
Express2
drug-eluting stent system in Japan, resulting in significant initial
market share gains. Our market share declined in the fourth quarter of 2007, but
has remained stable at approximately 45 percent in Japan for the last three
consecutive quarters.
Historically,
the worldwide coronary stent market has been dynamic and highly competitive with
significant market share volatility. In addition, in the ordinary course of our
business, we conduct and participate in numerous clinical trials with a variety
of study designs, patient populations and trial end points. Unfavorable or
inconsistent clinical data from existing or future clinical trials conducted by
us, by our competitors or by third parties, or the market’s perception of these
clinical data, may adversely impact our position in, and share of the
drug-eluting stent market and may contribute to increased volatility in the
market. In addition, the FDA has informed stent manufacturers of new
requirements for clinical trial data for pre-market approval (PMA) applications
and post-market surveillance studies for drug-eluting stent products, which
could affect our new product launch schedules and increase the cost of product
approval and compliance.
We
believe that we can sustain our leadership position within the worldwide
drug-eluting stent market for a variety of reasons, including:
·
|
our
two drug-eluting stent platform strategy, including our TAXUS®
paclitaxel-eluting and PROMUS™ everolimus-eluting coronary stent
systems;
|
·
|
the
broad and consistent long-term results of our TAXUS clinical trials,
including up to five years of clinical follow up, and the favorable
results of the XIENCE/PROMUS clinical trials to
date;
|
·
|
the
performance benefits of our current and future
technology;
|
·
|
the
strength of our pipeline of drug-eluting stent products, including
opportunities to expand indications for
use;
|
·
|
our
overall position in the worldwide interventional medicine market and our
experienced interventional cardiology sales force;
and
|
·
|
the
strength of our clinical, marketing and manufacturing
capabilities.
|
However,
a further decline in revenues from our drug-eluting stent systems could continue
to have a significant adverse impact on our operating results and operating cash
flows. The most significant variables that may impact the size of the
drug-eluting stent market and our position within this market
include:
·
|
the
entry of additional competitors into the market, including the recent
approval of two competitive products in the
U.S.;
|
·
|
our
ability to successfully launch next-generation products and technology
features, including our TAXUS® Liberté® paclitaxel-eluting
stent system, in the U.S. market;
|
·
|
physician
and patient confidence in our technology and attitudes toward drug-eluting
stents, including the continued abatement of prior concerns regarding the
risk of late stent thrombosis;
|
·
|
changes
in drug-eluting stent penetration rates, the overall number of PCI
procedures performed, average number of stents used per procedure, and
average selling prices of drug-eluting stent
systems;
|
·
|
variations
in clinical results or perceived product performance of our or our
competitors’ products;
|
·
|
delayed
or limited regulatory approvals and unfavorable reimbursement
policies;
|
·
|
the
outcomes of intellectual property
litigation;
|
·
|
our
ability to retain key members of our sales force and other key personnel;
and
|
·
|
changes
in FDA clinical trial data and post-market surveillance requirements and
the associated impact on new product launch schedules and the cost of
product approvals and compliance.
|
Cardiac
Rhythm Management Products
Cardiac
rhythm management (CRM) product revenue represented approximately 29 percent of
our consolidated net sales for the third quarter of 2008, as compared to
approximately 25 percent for the third quarter of 2007. We estimate that the
worldwide CRM market will approximate $10.8 billion in 2008, as compared to
approximately $10.1 billion in 2007, and estimate that U.S. implantable
cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) system sales will represent approximately 40
percent of the worldwide CRM market in 2008, as they did in 2007.
The
following are the components of our worldwide CRM product sales:
(in
millions)
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30, 2008
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30, 2007
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
International
|
|
|
Total
|
|
ICD
systems
|
|
$ |
291 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
423 |
|
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
111 |
|
|
$ |
372 |
|
Pacemaker
systems
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
$ |
195 |
|
|
$ |
572 |
|
|
$ |
343 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
517 |
|
Our U.S.
sales of CRM products for the third quarter of 2008 increased $34 million, or 10
percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. Our U.S. sales
benefited from growth in the U.S. CRM market and from the successful launch of
our next-generation COGNIS™ cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator
(CRT-D) and TELIGEN™ ICD systems in August, as well as the launches of our
CONFIENT™ ICD system, the LIVIAN CRT-D system, and the ALTRUA™ family of
pacemaker systems earlier in the year. Our international ICD system sales
increased $21 million, or 19 percent, in the third quarter of 2008, as compared
to the third quarter of 2007, due primarily to an increase in the size of the
international ICD market. However, our net sales and market share in
Japan have been negatively impacted as we move to a direct sales model in Japan
and, until we fully implement this model, our net sales and market share in
Japan may continue to be negatively impacted.
Worldwide
CRM market growth rates over the past two years, including the U.S. ICD market,
have been below those experienced in prior years, resulting primarily from
previous industry field actions and from a lack of new indications for use.
While we have begun to see increased rates of market growth and expect that
growth rates in the worldwide CRM market will improve over time, there can be no
assurance that the market will return to its historical growth rates or
that we will be able to increase net sales in a timely manner, if at all. The
most significant variables that may impact the size of the CRM market and our
position within that market include:
·
|
our
ability to increase the trust and confidence of the implanting physician
community, the referring physician community and prospective patients in
our technology;
|
·
|
future
product field actions or new physician advisories by us or our
competitors;
|
·
|
our
ability to successfully launch next-generation products and technology in
the U.S. market, including our next-generation INGENIO™ pacemaker
system;
|
·
|
the
successful conclusion and positive outcomes of on-going clinical trials
that may provide opportunities to expand indications for
use;
|
·
|
variations
in clinical results, reliability or product performance of our and our
competitors’ products;
|
·
|
delayed
or limited regulatory approvals and unfavorable reimbursement
policies;
|
·
|
our
ability to retain key members of our sales force and other key
personnel;
|
·
|
new
competitive launches;
|
·
|
average
selling prices and the overall number of procedures performed;
and
|
·
|
the
outcome of legal proceedings related to our CRM
business.
|
We
continue to execute on our product pipeline, with more than a dozen new CRM
product approvals thus far in 2008. We plan to launch our next-generation
pacemaker, the INGENIO™ pacemaker system
in both the U.S. and Europe in the second half of 2010 or first half of 2011. We
believe that these launches position us for sustainable growth within the
worldwide CRM market.
Regulatory
Compliance
In
January 2006, legacy Boston Scientific received a corporate warning letter from
the FDA notifying us of serious regulatory problems at three of our
facilities and advising us that our corporate-wide corrective action plan
relating to three site-specific warning letters issued to us in 2005 was
inadequate. We have identified solutions to the quality system issues cited by
the FDA and have made significant progress in transitioning our organization to
implement those solutions. The FDA reinspected a number of our facilities and,
in October 2008, informed us that our quality system is now in substantial
compliance with its Quality System Regulations. The FDA has approved the
majority of our requests for final approval of Class III product submissions
previously on hold due to the corporate warning letter and is currently
reviewing our requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments (CFGs). We have
since received approval to market the following new products in the
U.S.:
·
|
TAXUS®
Express2™
Atom™ Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System, designed for treating
small coronary vessels;
|
·
|
TAXUS®
Liberté®
Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System, our second-generation
drug-eluting stent system; and
|
·
|
Carotid
WALLSTENT®
Monorail®
Endoprosthesis, a less-invasive alternative to surgery for treating
carotid artery disease.
|
In
addition, the FDA approved the use of our TAXUS®
Express2™
Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System for the treatment of in-stent
restenosis2 (ISR) in bare-metal stents, the first ISR
approval granted by the FDA.
The
corporate warning letter remains in place pending final remediation of certain
Medical Device Report (MDR) filing issues, which we are actively working with
the FDA to resolve. This remediation will result in
2 In-stent restenosis is re-narrowing of the vessel inside a
stent.
incremental
medical device and vigilance reporting, which could adversely impact physician
perception of our products.
Strategic
Initiatives
In 2007,
we announced several new initiatives designed to enhance short- and long-term
shareholder value, including the restructuring of several of our businesses and
product franchises; the sale of non-strategic businesses and investments; and
significant expense and head count reductions. Our goal is to better align
expenses with revenues, while preserving our ability to make needed investments
in quality, research and development (R&D), capital improvements and our
people that are essential to our long-term success. We expect these initiatives
to help provide better focus on our core businesses and priorities, which will
strengthen Boston Scientific for the future and position us for increased,
sustainable and profitable sales growth. Our plan is to reduce R&D and
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses by $475 million to $525
million against a $4.1 billion baseline, which represented our estimated annual
R&D and SG&A expenses at the time we committed to these initiatives in
2007. This range represents the annualized run rate amount of reductions we
expect to achieve as we exit 2008, as the implementation of these initiatives is
taking place throughout the year; however, we expect to realize the majority of
these savings in 2008. In addition, we expect to reduce our R&D and SG&A
expenses by an additional $25 million to $50 million in
2009.
Restructuring
In
October 2007, our Board of Directors approved, and we committed to, an expense
and head count reduction plan, which we anticipate will result in the
elimination of approximately 2,300 positions worldwide. The plan is intended to
bring expenses in line with revenues as a part of our initiatives to enhance
short- and long-term shareholder value. We initiated activities under the plan
in the fourth quarter of 2007 and expect to be substantially complete worldwide
by the end of 2009. Refer to Quarterly Results and
Note G – Restructuring-related
Activities to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for information on
restructuring-related activities and costs.
Divestitures
During
2007, we determined that our Auditory, Vascular Surgery, Cardiac Surgery, Venous
Access and Fluid Management businesses were no longer strategic to our on-going
operations. Therefore, we initiated the process of selling these businesses in
2007, and completed their sale in 2008, as discussed below. We received pre-tax
proceeds of approximately $1.3 billion from the sale of these businesses and our
TriVascular Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) program, and eliminated an
additional 2,000 positions in connection with these divestitures.
In
January 2008, we completed the sale of a controlling interest in our Auditory
business and drug pump development program, acquired with Advanced Bionics
Corporation in 2004, to entities affiliated with the principal former
shareholders of Advanced Bionics for an aggregate purchase price of $150 million
in cash. In
connection with the sale, we recorded a loss of $367 million (pre-tax) in 2007,
attributable primarily to the write-down of goodwill. In addition, we recorded a
tax benefit of $6 million in the first quarter of 2008 in connection with the
closing of the transaction. Also in January 2008, we completed the sale of our
Cardiac Surgery and Vascular Surgery businesses for net cash proceeds of
approximately $705 million. In connection with the sale, we recorded a pre-tax
loss of $193 million in 2007, representing primarily a write-down of goodwill.
In addition, we recorded a tax expense of $56 million in the first quarter of
2008 in connection with the closing of the transaction. In February 2008, we
completed the sale of our Fluid Management and Venous Access businesses for net
cash proceeds of approximately $415 million. We recorded a pre-tax
gain of $234 million ($129 million after-tax) during the first quarter of 2008
and a tax benefit of $17 million in the third quarter of 2008 associated with
this transaction.
Further,
in March 2008, we sold our EVAR program obtained in connection with our 2005
acquisition of TriVascular, Inc. for $30 million in cash. We discontinued our
EVAR program in 2006. In connection with the
sale, we
recorded a pre-tax gain of $16 million ($35 million after-tax) in the first
quarter of 2008.
In June
2008, as part of our initiative to monetize non-strategic investments, we signed
definitive agreements to sell the majority of our investments in, and notes
receivable from, certain publicly traded and privately held entities for gross
proceeds of approximately $140 million. In connection with this investment
monetization initiative and the sale of other non-strategic investments, we
recognized net pre-tax gains of $15 million ($9 million after-tax) in the third
quarter of 2008, partially offsetting pre-tax losses of $96 million recognized
in the second quarter. Refer to our Other, net discussion, as
well as Note D – Investments
and Notes Receivable to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more information on
our investment portfolio activity.
Quarterly
Results
Net
Sales
In the
first quarter of 2008, we reorganized our international structure in order to
allow for better utilization of infrastructure and resources. Accordingly, we
have revised our reportable segments to reflect the way we currently manage and
view our business. We now have three reportable segments based on geographic
regions: the United States; EMEA, consisting of Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and Inter-Continental. We combined our Middle East and Africa
operations, previously included in our Inter-Continental segment, with Europe to
form a new EMEA region and merged our former Asia Pacific region into our
Inter-Continental segment. We exclude net sales related to divested businesses
from the net sales of our reportable segments. The following tables provide our
third quarter and year to date net sales by region and the relative changes on
an as reported and constant currency basis. We have reclassified previously
reported 2007 results to be consistent with the 2008 presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
|
|
|
As
Reported
|
|
|
Constant
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
$ |
1,125 |
|
|
$ |
1,111 |
|
|
|
1% |
|
|
|
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EMEA
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
4% |
|
Inter-Continental
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
(2%) |
|
|
|
(8%) |
|
International
|
|
|
841 |
|
|
|
804 |
|
|
|
5% |
|
|
|
(2%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-total
|
|
|
1,966 |
|
|
|
1,915 |
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divested
Businesses
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Worldwide
|
|
$ |
1,978 |
|
|
$ |
2,048 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
|
|
As
Reported
|
|
|
Constant
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
$ |
3,330 |
|
|
$ |
3,397 |
|
|
|
(2%) |
|
|
|
(2%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EMEA
|
|
|
1,509 |
|
|
|
1,352 |
|
|
|
12% |
|
|
|
1% |
|
Inter-Continental
|
|
|
1,147 |
|
|
|
1,048 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
(1%) |
|
International
|
|
|
2,656 |
|
|
|
2,400 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-total
|
|
|
5,986 |
|
|
|
5,797 |
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
(1%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divested
Businesses
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
407 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Worldwide
|
|
$ |
6,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,204 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(7%) |
|
The
following tables provide our third quarter and year to date worldwide net sales
by division and the relative changes on an as reported and constant currency
basis. In addition to the sale of certain of our businesses in the first quarter
of 2008, we began integrating our Electrophysiology business with our CRM
business in order to better serve the needs of electrophysiologists by creating
a more efficient organization. Further, we integrated our remaining Oncology
franchises into other business units. We have reclassified previously reported
2007 results to be consistent with the 2008 presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
|
|
|
As
Reported
|
|
|
Constant
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interventional
Cardiology
|
|
$ |
694 |
|
|
$ |
740 |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
|
|
(9%) |
|
Peripheral
Interventions
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
Cardiovascular
|
|
|
837 |
|
|
|
887 |
|
|
|
(5%) |
|
|
|
(9%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neurovascular
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
|
2% |
|
Peripheral
Embolization
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
Neurovascular
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
5% |
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cardiac
Rhythm Management
|
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
517 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
8% |
|
Electrophysiology
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
10% |
|
|
|
8% |
|
Cardiac
Rhythm Management
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Endoscopy
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
6% |
|
Urology
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
8% |
|
Endosurgery
|
|
|
347 |
|
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neuromodulation
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
15% |
|
|
|
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
1,966 |
|
|
|
1,915 |
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divested
Businesses
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Worldwide
|
|
$ |
1,978 |
|
|
$ |
2,048 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
|
|
As
Reported
|
|
|
Constant
|
|
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
Basis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interventional
Cardiology
|
|
$ |
2,158 |
|
|
$ |
2,257 |
|
|
|
(4%) |
|
|
|
(9%) |
|
Peripheral
Interventions
|
|
|
452 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
1% |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
Cardiovascular
|
|
|
2,610 |
|
|
|
2,702 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(8%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neurovascular
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
4% |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
Peripheral
Embolization
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(6%) |
|
Neurovascular
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
(4%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cardiac
Rhythm Management
|
|
|
1,715 |
|
|
|
1,580 |
|
|
|
9% |
|
|
|
5% |
|
Electrophysiology
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
|
4% |
|
Cardiac
Rhythm Management
|
|
|
1,831 |
|
|
|
1,689 |
|
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Endoscopy
|
|
|
710 |
|
|
|
637 |
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
6% |
|
Urology
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
6% |
|
Endosurgery
|
|
|
1,028 |
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
10% |
|
|
|
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neuromodulation
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
24% |
|
|
|
23% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
5,986 |
|
|
|
5,797 |
|
|
|
3% |
|
|
|
(1%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divested
Businesses
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
407 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Worldwide
|
|
$ |
6,048 |
|
|
$ |
6,204 |
|
|
|
(3%) |
|
|
|
(7%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We manage
our international operating regions and divisions excluding the affect of
changes in foreign currency, and we manage market risk from currency exchange
rate changes at the corporate level. To calculate revenue growth rates that
exclude the impact of currency exchange, we convert actual current-period net
sales from local currency to U.S. dollars using standard foreign exchange rates.
The regional constant currency growth rates in the table above can be
recalculated from our net sales by reportable segment as presented in Note N – Segment Reporting to
our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in Item 1 of
this Quarterly Report. Growth rates are based on actual, non-rounded amounts and
may not recalculate precisely.
U.S.
Net Sales
During
the third quarter of 2008, our U.S. net sales increased by $14 million, or one
percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. The increase related
primarily to an increase in CRM product sales of $34 million, driven by market
growth and new product launches during 2008, including the COGNIS™ CRT-D and
TELIGEN™ ICD systems in August, as well as the launches of our CONFIENT™ ICD
system, the LIVIAN CRT-D system, and the ALTRUA™ family of pacemaker systems
earlier in the year. Further, we increased net sales from our Endosurgery
division by $14 million driven by growth in both the Endoscopy and Urology
franchises, as well as $6 million in our Neuromodulation division due to market
growth and continued physician adoption of the Precision Plus™ spinal cord
stimulation technology. Partially offsetting these increases was a decrease
in Cardiovascular division sales of $44 million, due primarily to lower sales of
our drug-eluting coronary stent systems. See the Business and Market Overview
section for a more detailed discussion of the drug-eluting stent market and our
position within that market.
During
the first nine months of 2008, our U.S. net sales decreased by $67 million, or
two percent, as compared to the first nine months of 2007. The decrease related
primarily to a decrease in Cardiovascular division sales of $201 million, due
primarily to lower sales of our drug-eluting coronary stent systems. This
decrease was partially offset by an increase in CRM product sales of $77
million, driven by market growth as well as new product launches during 2008,
including the COGNIS™ CRT-D and TELIGEN™ ICD systems in August, as well as the
launches of our CONFIENT™ ICD system, the LIVIAN CRT-D system, and the ALTRUA™
family
of
pacemaker systems earlier in the year. Further, we increased sales from our
Endosurgery division by $34 million, driven by growth in both the Endoscopy and
Urology franchises, as well as $30 million in our Neuromodulation division, due
to market growth and continued physician adoption of the Precision Plus™ spinal
cord stimulation technology.
International
Net Sales
During
the third quarter of 2008, our international net sales increased by $37 million,
or five percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. The increase was
attributable primarily to the favorable impact of currency exchange rates, which
contributed $54 million to net sales. Within our international business, sales
of our CRM products increased $21 million and our Endosurgery sales increased
$16 million. Our Cardiovascular division’s sales decreased $5 million, with
lower sales of our drug-eluting coronary stent systems largely offsetting
increased sales of other Cardiovascular products. See the Business and Market Overview
section for a more detailed discussion of the drug-eluting stent market and our
position within that market.
During
the first nine months of 2008, our international net sales increased by $256
million, or 11 percent, as compared to the first nine months of 2007. The
increase was attributable entirely to the favorable impact of currency exchange
rates, which contributed $258 million to our sales growth for the first nine
months of 2008, as compared to the same period in the prior year. Within our
international business, our Cardiovascular division’s sales increased $109
million. We also increased sales of CRM products by $65 million and Endosurgery
sales by $62 million.
Gross
Profit
For the
third quarter of 2008, our gross profit was $1.323 billion, as compared to
$1.473 billion for the same period in the prior year. Our gross profit margin
for the third quarter of 2008 decreased to 66.9 percent from 71.9 percent for
the third quarter of 2007. For the first nine months of 2008, our gross profit
was $4.209 billion, as compared to $4.498 billion for the same period in the
prior year. Our gross profit margin for the first nine months of 2008 decreased
to 69.6 percent from 72.5 percent for the first nine months of 2007. The
following is a reconciliation of our gross profit margin and a description of
the drivers of the change from period to period:
|
|
Three
Months
|
|
|
Nine
Months
|
|
Gross
profit margin - period ended September 30, 2007
|
|
|
71.9% |
|
|
|
72.5%
|
|
Shifts
in product sales mix
|
|
|
(3.6)% |
|
|
|
(2.5)% |
|
Net
impact of foreign currency
|
|
|
(1.6)% |
|
|
|
(1.0)% |
|
Impact
of inventory charges
|
|
|
(1.6)% |
|
|
|
(0.5)% |
|
Reduced
Project Horizon spending
|
|
|
0.5% |
|
|
|
0.8% |
|
Reduced
manufacturing variances and scrap charges
|
|
|
0.8% |
|
|
|
0.0% |
|
All
other
|
|
|
0.5% |
|
|
|
0.3% |
|
Gross
profit margin - period ended September 30, 2008
|
|
|
66.9%
|
|
|
|
69.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
primary factor contributing to a shift in product sales mix toward lower margin
products was a decrease in sales of our higher margin TAXUS® drug-eluting stent
system during the third quarter and first nine months of 2008. During the third
quarter of 2008, the shift in sales away from TAXUS stent systems was primarily
due to increased sales of PROMUS™ stent systems in
the U.S., following the July 2008 approval of PROMUS. Under the terms of our
supply arrangement with Abbott, the gross profit margin of a PROMUS stent system
is significantly lower than that of our TAXUS stent system. For the third
quarter of 2008, sales of our PROMUS stent system represented 32 percent of our
worldwide drug-eluting stent system sales, as compared to two percent for the
third quarter of 2007.
In
addition, our gross profit margin for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2008, as compared to
the same
periods in the prior year, was negatively impacted by the settlement of foreign
currency hedge contracts on intercompany and third party transactions offsetting
the benefit of foreign currency fluctuations. Our gross profit margin for the
third quarter of 2008 was also negatively impacted by inventory charges during
the third quarter of 2008, consisting of a $23 million charge related to an FDA
warning letter received by one of our third party sterilizers, and a $9 million
charge related to a free technology offering to certain CRM patients. Partially
offsetting these decreases was lower spending associated with Project Horizon,
our corporate-wide initiative to improve and harmonize our overall quality
processes and systems, which ended as a formal program as of December 31,
2007. In addition, our gross profit margin was positively impacted by
lower manufacturing variances and favorable absorption of manufacturing
variances, and lower levels of scrap related to certain of our
products.
Operating
Expenses
In 2007,
we announced several new initiatives designed to enhance short- and long-term
shareholder value, including the restructuring of several of our businesses and
product franchises; the sale of non-strategic businesses and investments; and
significant expense and head count reductions. Refer to the Business and Market Overview
section for more on our cost improvement initiatives, including the anticipated
cost reductions and expenses associated with these initiatives.
The
following table provides a summary of certain of our operating
expenses:
|
|
Three
Months Ended September 30,
|
|
Nine
Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
$
|
%
of
Net
Sales
|
|
$
|
%
of
Net
Sales
|
|
$
|
%
of
Net
Sales
|
|
$
|
%
of
Net
Sales
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
610
|
30.8%
|
|
719
|
35.1%
|
|
1,925
|
31.8%
|
|
2,205
|
35.5%
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
252
|
12.7%
|
|
271
|
13.2%
|
|
749
|
12.4%
|
|
835
|
13.5%
|
Royalty
expense
|
|
51
|
2.6%
|
|
48
|
2.3%
|
|
144
|
2.4%
|
|
151
|
2.4%
|
Amortization
expense
|
|
131
|
6.6%
|
|
155
|
7.6%
|
|
410
|
6.8%
|
|
467
|
7.5%
|
Selling,
General and Administrative (SG&A) Expenses
During
the third quarter of 2008, our SG&A expenses decreased $109 million, or 15
percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. As a percentage of net sales,
our SG&A expenses decreased to 30.8 percent of net sales, as compared to
35.1 percent for the same period in the prior year. A decrease in our SG&A
expenses of approximately $120 million was attributable primarily to lower head
count and spending as a result of our business divestitures and expense and head
count reduction plan. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in
SG&A expenses of $12 million attributable to foreign currency
exchange.
During
the first nine months of 2008, our SG&A expenses decreased $280 million, or
13 percent, as compared to the first nine months of 2007. As a percentage of net
sales, our SG&A expenses decreased to 31.8 percent of net sales, as compared
to 35.5 percent for the same period in the prior year. A decrease in our
SG&A expenses of $340 million was attributable primarily to lower head count
and spending as a result of our business divestitures and expense and head count
reduction plan. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in SG&A
expenses of $60 million attributable to foreign currency exchange.
Research
and Development (R&D) Expenses
prior
year. The decrease related primarily to lower spending as a result of our
business divestitures. We remain committed to advancing medical technologies and
investing in meaningful R&D projects in all of our businesses in order to
maintain a healthy pipeline of new products that will help restore our short-
and long-term profitable sales growth.
Our
R&D spending for the first nine months of 2008 decreased $86 million or ten
percent, as compared to the first nine months of 2007. As a percentage of our
net sales, R&D expenses decreased to 12.4 percent for the first nine months
of 2008, as compared to 13.5 percent for the same period in the prior year. This
decrease related primarily to lower spending as a result of our business
divestitures and the prioritization of R&D activities, including lower
spending of $12 million associated with the cancellation of our Endovations™ single-use
endoscope program in the second quarter of 2007. Partially offsetting these
decreases was an increase of $12 million attributable to foreign currency
exchange.
Royalty
Expense
For the
third quarter of 2008, our royalty expense increased by $3 million, or six
percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2007. This increase was due
primarily to the launch of the PROMUS™ stent system in
the U.S. in July 2008, which resulted in an increase in royalty expense of $14
million. This increase offset decreases in royalty expense of $11 million
attributable to year-over-year declines in sales of our TAXUS stent system. As a
percentage of our net sales, royalty expense increased slightly to 2.6 percent
for the third quarter of 2008 from 2.3 percent for the same period in the prior
year.
For the
first nine months of 2008, our royalty expense decreased by $7 million, or five
percent, as compared to the first nine months of 2007. This decrease was due
primarily to lower sales of our TAXUS stent system, which resulted in a decrease
in royalty expense of $20 million, as well as lower royalties associated with
products from businesses divested in the first quarter of 2008. However, these
decreases were partially offset by increases of $18 million, which were
attributable primarily to the launch of the PROMUS stent system in the U.S. in
July 2008. As a percentage of our net sales, royalty expense was consistent at
2.4 percent for the first nine months of 2008 and 2007.
Amortization
Expense
Amortization
expense for the third quarter of 2008 decreased $24 million, or 15 percent, as
compared to the third quarter of 2007 and amortization expense for the first
nine months of 2008 decreased $57 million, or 12 percent, as compared to the
same period in the prior year. The decreases were due primarily to the disposal
of $552 million of amortizable intangible assets in connection with our first
quarter 2008 business divestitures and to certain interventional
cardiology-related intangible assets reaching the end of their accounting useful
life during 2008.
Intangible
Asset Impairment Charges
We review
intangible assets subject to amortization quarterly to determine if any adverse
conditions exist or a change in circumstances has occurred that would indicate
impairment or a change in their remaining useful life. In addition, we review
our indefinite-lived intangible assets at least annually for impairment and
reassess their classification as indefinite-lived assets. Based on these
reviews, we recorded pre-tax intangible asset impairment charges of $155 million
($129 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2008. We do not believe that
the write-down of these assets will have a material impact on future
operations. Refer
to Note C – Supplemental
Balance Sheet Information to our unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more
information.
Purchased In-Process Research and
Development
During
the third quarter of 2008, we recorded an $8 million credit to purchased
in-process research and development as a result of certain purchase accounting
adjustments related to our second quarter acquisition
of
CryoCor, Inc. In the third quarter of 2007, we recorded $75 million of
in-process research and development attributable to our acquisition of Remon
Medical Technologies, Inc.
During
the first nine months of 2008, we recorded $21 million of net purchased
in-process research and development charges, including a net $8 million
attributable to our acquisition of CryoCor, and $13 million associated with
entering a licensing and development arrangement for magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)-safe technology. During the first
nine months of 2007, we recorded $72 million of net purchased in-process
research and development charges. This amount consisted primarily of $75 million
relating to the acquisition of Remon Medical Technologies, Inc. Further, our
policy is to record certain costs associated with our strategic alliances as
purchased in-process research and development. In accordance with this policy,
we recorded $12 million of purchased in-process research and development in the
first nine months of 2007 in conjunction with payments made for certain
early-stage CRM technology. Additionally, we recognized a credit to purchased
in-process research and development of approximately $15 million during the
second quarter of 2007 as a result of the termination of a product development
agreement.
Litigation-related
Charges
In the
third quarter of 2008, we recorded a pre-tax charge of $334 million ($266
million after-tax) as a result of a ruling by a federal judge in a patent
infringement case brought against us by Johnson & Johnson. Refer to Note M - Commitments and
Contingencies to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more
information.
Restructuring
Charges and Restructuring-related Activities
In
October 2007, our Board of Directors approved, and we committed to, an expense
and head count reduction plan, which we anticipate will result in the
elimination of approximately 2,300 positions worldwide. We are providing
affected employees with severance packages, outplacement services and other
appropriate assistance and support. The plan is intended to bring
expenses in line with revenues as part of our initiatives to enhance short-
and long-term shareholder value. Key activities under the plan include the
restructuring of several businesses, corporate functions and product franchises
in order to better utilize resources, strengthen competitive positions, and
create a more simplified and efficient business model; the elimination,
suspension or reduction of spending on certain R&D projects; and the
transfer of certain production lines from one facility to another. We initiated
these activities in the fourth quarter of 2007 and expect to be substantially
complete worldwide by the end of 2009.
We expect
that the execution of this plan will result in total pre-tax expenses of
approximately $425 million to $450 million. We are recording a
portion of these expenses as restructuring charges and the remaining portion
through other lines within our consolidated statements of operations. We
expect the plan to result in cash payments of approximately $375 million to $400
million. The following table provides a summary of our expected total
costs associated with the plan by major type of cost:
Type
of cost
|
Total
amount expected to be incurred
|
Restructuring
charges:
|
|
Termination
benefits
|
$230
million to $240 million
|
Asset
write-offs
|
$30
million
|
Other
(1)
|
$45
million
|
|
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
Retention
incentives
|
$75
million to $80 million
|
Accelerated
depreciation
|
$15
million to $20 million
|
Other
(2)
|
$30
million to $35 million
|
|
|
|
$425
million to $450 million
|
(1)
Consists primarily of consultant fees.
(2)
Consists primarily of costs to transfer product lines from one facility to
another.
In the
third quarter of 2008, we recorded $20 million of restructuring
charges. In addition, we recorded $14 million of expenses within
other lines of our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
related to our restructuring initiatives. The following presents these costs by
major type and line item within our unaudited condensed consolidated statements
of operations:
(in
millions)
|
|
|
Termination
Benefits
|
|
|
Retention
Incentives
|
|
|
Accelerated
Depreciation
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Restructuring
charges
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
In the
first nine months of 2008, we recorded $59 million of restructuring
charges. In addition, we recorded $40 million of expenses within
other lines of our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
related to our restructuring initiatives. The following presents these costs by
major type and line item within our unaudited condensed consolidated statements
of operations:
(in
millions)
|
|
Termination
Benefits
|
|
|
Retention
Incentives
|
|
|
Accelerated
Depreciation
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Restructuring
charges
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
Restructuring-related
expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of products sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Research
and development expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
The
termination benefits recorded during the third quarter and first nine months of
2008 represent amounts incurred pursuant to our on-going benefit arrangements
and amounts for “one-time” involuntary termination
benefits,
and have been recorded in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Statement No. 112, Employer’s Accounting for
Postemployment Benefits and FASB Statement No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with
Exit or Disposal Activities. We expect to record the additional
termination benefits in 2008 and 2009 when we identify with more specificity the
job classifications, functions and locations of the remaining head count to be
eliminated. Retention incentives represent cash incentives, which are
being recorded over the future service period during which eligible employees
must remain employed with us in order to retain the payment. The
other restructuring costs, which primarily represent consultant fees in 2008,
are being recognized and measured at their fair value in the period in which the
liability is incurred in accordance with FASB Statement No. 146.
We have
incurred cumulative restructuring and restructuring-related costs of $304
million since we committed to the plan in October 2007. The following presents
these costs by major type (in millions):
|
Termination
benefits
|
|
$ |
190 |
|
|
Retention
incentives
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
Intangible
asset write-offs
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Fixed
asset write-offs
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
Accelerated
depreciation
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
304 |
|
In the
third quarter of 2008, we made cash payments of approximately $23 million
associated with our restructuring initiatives, which related to termination
benefits paid and other restructuring charges. We have made
cumulative cash payments of approximately $190 million since we committed to our
restructuring initiatives in October 2007. These payments were made using cash
generated from our operations. We expect to make the remaining cash
payments throughout the remainder of 2008 and 2009 using cash generated from
operations.
As a
result of our restructuring initiatives, we expect to reduce R&D and
SG&A expenses by $475 million to $525 million against a $4.1 billion
baseline, which represented our estimated annual R&D and SG&A expenses
at the time we committed to these initiatives in 2007. This range represents the
annualized run rate amount of reductions we expect to achieve as we exit 2008,
as the implementation of these initiatives will take place throughout the year;
however, we expect to realize the majority of these savings in 2008. In
addition, we expect to reduce our R&D and SG&A expenses by an additional
$25 million to $50 million in 2009.
Acquisition-related
Milestone
In
connection with Abbott Laboratories’ 2006 acquisition of Guidant Corporation’s
vascular intervention and endovascular solutions businesses, Abbott agreed to
pay us a milestone payment of $250 million upon receipt of FDA approval to sell
an everolimus-eluting stent in the U.S. In July 2008, Abbott received FDA
approval and launched its XIENCE™ V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in
the U.S., and paid us $250 million. Under the terms of the agreement, we are
entitled to receive a second milestone payment of $250 million from Abbott upon
receipt of an approval from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfare to market the XIENCE V stent system in Japan.
Gain
on Divestitures
During
the first quarter of 2008, we recorded a $250 million pre-tax gain in connection
with the sale of our Fluid Management and Venous Access businesses and our
TriVascular EVAR program. Refer to the Strategic Initiatives section
and Note H – Divestitures
to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in
Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more information on these
transactions.
Loss
on Assets Held for Sale
In the
third quarter of 2007, we recorded a $352 million loss attributable primarily to
the writedown of goodwill associated with the sale of our auditory and drug pump
businesses to principal former shareholders of Advanced Bionics. Refer to Note H – Divestitures to our
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contained in this
Quarterly Report for more information on the transaction.
Interest
Expense
Interest
expense for the third quarter of 2008 was $112 million, as compared to $147
million for the third quarter of 2007, a decrease of $35 million, or 24 percent.
This decrease related primarily to a decrease in our average debt levels due to
debt prepayments of $1.425 billion during the first nine months of 2008, as well
as lower average interest rates.
Interest
expense for the first nine months of 2008 was $361 million, as compared to $433
million for the first nine months of 2007, a decrease of $72 million, or 17
percent. This decrease related primarily to a decrease in our average debt
levels, as well as lower average interest rates.
Other,
net
Our
other, net reflected income of $16 million for the third quarter of 2008, as
compared to $35 million for the third quarter of 2007. Other, net included
interest income of $11 million for the third quarter of 2008 and $19 million for
the third quarter of 2007, a decrease of $8 million or 42 percent, attributable
primarily to lower average investment rates. In addition, other, net included
income of $14 million for the third quarters of 2008 and 2007 associated with
net gains attributable to our investment portfolio. Refer to Note D – Investments and Notes
Receivable to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more information regarding our
investment activity. Further, our other, net for the third quarter of 2008
included certain other expenses of $9 million.
Our
other, net reflected expense of $57 million for the first nine months of 2008,
as compared to income of $44 million for the first nine months of 2007. Other,
net included interest income of $39 million for the first nine months of 2008
and $61 million for the same period in the prior year, a decrease of $22 million
or 36 percent, attributable primarily to lower average investment rates. In
addition, other, net included net losses of $90 million for the first nine
months of 2008 and $6 million for the first nine months of 2007 attributable to
our investment portfolio. Further, our other, net for the first nine months of
2007 included expense of $8 million representing a decrease in fair value of the
sharing of proceeds feature of the Abbott stock purchase discussed in further
detail in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Tax
Rate
The
following table provides a summary of our reported tax rate:
|
|
|
Three
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
|
Percentage
Point
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Reported
tax rate
|
|
|
8.8 %
|
|
|
|
(5.0) %
|
|
|
|
|
13.8 %
|
|
|
Impact
of certain charges*
|
|
|
18.7
%
|
|
|
|
18.0
%
|
|
|
|
|
0.7 %
|
|
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
|
|
Percentage
Point
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|
|
Reported
tax rate
|
|
|
27.5
%
|
|
|
|
237.0
%
|
|
|
|
|
(209.5)
%
|
|
|
Impact
of certain charges*
|
|
|
(4.2) %
|
|
|
|
(219.0)
%
|
|
|
|
|
214.8
%
|
|
*These
charges are taxed at different rates than our effective tax
rate.
The
changes in our reported tax rates for the third quarter of 2008 and the first
nine months of 2008, as compared to the same periods in the prior year, related
primarily to the impact of certain charges that are taxed at different rates
than our effective tax rate. In 2008, these charges included purchased
in-process research and development, restructuring-related costs, gains and
losses associated with the divestiture of certain non-strategic businesses
and investments, intangible asset impairment charges, litigation-related
charges, receipt of an acquisition-related milestone payment, and
discrete items associated with the resolution of uncertain tax positions and
changes to deferred taxes related to the enactment of Massachusetts state law
changes. In 2007, these charges included changes to the reserve for
uncertain tax positions relating to items originating in prior periods,
purchased in-process research and development, goodwill impairment, and charges
related to our 2006 acquisition of Guidant Corporation.
We are
subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income tax of multiple state and
foreign jurisdictions. We have concluded all U.S. federal income tax
matters through 2000 and substantially all material state, local, and foreign
income tax matters through 2001. During the first nine months of
2008, we resolved various matters in federal, state, and foreign jurisdictions
for Guidant and Boston Scientific for the years 1998 to 2005. We
settled multiple federal issues at the IRS examination and Appellate levels,
including issues related to Guidant’s acquisition of Intermedics,
Inc.; received favorable foreign court decisions and a favorable outcome
related to our foreign research credit claims. As a result, we
decreased our reserve for uncertain tax positions, net of tax payments, by $114
million, inclusive of $32 million of interest and penalties during the first
nine months of 2008.
During
the second quarter of 2008 we received the Revenue Agents Report for the Guidant
2001 – 2003 federal examination which contained a significant proposed
adjustment related primarily to the allocation of income between our US and
foreign affiliates. We disagree with the proposed adjustment and we
intend to continue to contest this matter through applicable IRS and judicial
procedures, as appropriate. Although the final resolution of
the proposed adjustments is uncertain, we believe that our income tax reserves
are adequate and that the resolution will not have a material impact on our
financial condition or results of operations.
It is
reasonably possible that within the next 12 months we will resolve multiple
issues including transfer pricing, research and development credit and
transactional related issues, with federal and state taxing authorities, in
which case we could record a reduction in our balance of unrecognized tax
benefits of up to approximately $158 million.
Critical
Accounting Policies
Our
financial results are affected by the selection and application of accounting
policies and methods. As of January 1, 2008, we adopted FASB Statement
No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements and FASB Statement No. 159, The Fair Value Option for
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. Refer to Note B – Fair Value Measurements
to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in
Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for a discussion of our adoption of these
standards.
There
were no other material changes in the nine months ended September 30, 2008 to
the application of critical accounting policies as described in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
The
following provides a summary of key performance indicators that we use to assess
our liquidity and operating performance.
|
|
September
30,
|
|
|
December
31,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
256 |
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
|
6,767 |
|
|
|
7,933 |
|
Total
debt
|
|
|
6,774 |
|
|
|
8,189 |
|
Less:
cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
1,734 |
|
|
|
1,452 |
|
Net
debt
|
|
$ |
5,040 |
|
|
$ |
6,737 |
|
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Net
income (loss)
|
|
$ |
358 |
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
Interest
income
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
(61 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
433 |
|
Income
tax expense
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
648 |
|
|
|
683 |
|
EBITDA
|
|
$ |
1,464 |
|
|
$ |
1,082 |
|
Cash
Flow
|
|
Nine
Months Ended
September
30,
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Cash
provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
1,162 |
|
|
$ |
626 |
|
Cash
provided by (used for) investing activities
|
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
(436 |
) |
Cash
used for financing activities
|
|
|
(1,353 |
) |
|
|
(624 |
) |
Operating
Activities
Cash
generated by our operating activities continues to be a major source of funds
for servicing our outstanding debt obligations and investing in our growth. Our
operating cash flow for the first nine months of 2008 includes the receipt of a
$250 million acquisition-related milestone payment from Abbott. In addition,
improvements in working capital increased our operating cash flow by
approximately $100 million during the first nine months of
2008. Further, we made lower tax payments of approximately $100
million during the first nine months of 2008, as compared to the first nine
months of 2007, due primarily to a significant one-time tax payment of
approximately $400 million in the prior year related to Guidant’s sale of its
vascular intervention and endovascular solutions businesses to Abbott, which was
partially offset by tax payments in 2008 related to the divestment of our
non-strategic businesses. In addition, our operating cash flow for the
3 Management uses net debt to monitor and
evaluate cash and debt levels and believes it is a measure that provides
valuableinformation
regarding our net financial position and interest rate exposure. Users of our
financial statements should consider thisnon-GAAP financial information in
addition to, not as a substitute for, nor as superior to, financial information
prepared in accordance
with GAAP.
4 Management uses EBITDA to assess
operating performance and believes that it may assist users of our financial
statements inanalyzing the
underlying trends in our business over time. In addition, management considers
adjusted EBITDA as a component ofthe financial covenants included in our
credit agreements. Users of our financial statements should consider this
non-GAAP financial information in addition to, not as a
substitute for, nor as superior to, financial information prepared in accordance
with GAAP. Our EBITDA
included litigation-related charges, acquisition- and divestiture-related net
credits, restructuring-related charges and intangible asset impairments (pre-tax)
of $109 million for the first nine months of 2008 and charges of $466 million
for the first nine months
of 2007. See Financial
Summary for a description
of these (credits) charges.
first
nine months of 2008 increased approximately $75 million as compared to the same
period in the prior year as a result of lower interest payments.
During
the fourth quarter of 2008, if the plaintiffs satisfy certain agreed upon
requirements, we anticipate making payments of up to $220 million in accordance
with our Multi-District Litigation (MDL) agreement related to product liability
claims associated with defibrillators or pacemakers sold by Guidant prior to our
acquisition of them. We have previously accrued for this payment as
part of the Guidant purchase price accounting. Refer to Note M – Commitments and
Contingencies, to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements contained in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more information
regarding the MDL agreement.
Investing
Activities
We made
capital expenditures of $208 million in the first nine months of 2008 and
$273 million during the first nine months of 2007. We expect to incur capital
expenditures of approximately $325 million for the full year 2008, including
capital expenditures to further upgrade our quality systems and information
systems infrastructure, to enhance our manufacturing capabilities in order to
support a second drug-eluting stent platform, and to support continuous growth
in our business units.
In
addition, we received cash proceeds of $110 million during the first nine months
of 2008, as compared to $149 million during the first nine months of 2007, from
sales of non-strategic equity investments in and collections of notes receivable
from certain of our investment portfolio companies. Refer to Note D – Investments and Notes
Receivable to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements
included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for more
information.
Financing
Activities
Our cash
flows from financing activities reflect issuances and repayments of debt and
proceeds from stock issuances related to our equity incentive
programs.
Debt
We had
total debt of $6.774 billion at September 30, 2008 at an average interest rate
of 6.01 percent, as compared to total debt of $8.189 billion at
December 31, 2007 at an average interest rate of 6.36 percent. During
the first nine months of 2008, we prepaid $1.175 billion of our term loan. These
prepayments satisfied the remaining $300 million of our term loan due in 2009
and $875 million of our term loan due in 2010. In addition, in July 2008, we
repaid $250 million outstanding under our credit and security facility and
extended the maturity of this facility to August 2009. As of September 30, 2008,
the debt maturity schedule for our term loan, as well as scheduled
maturities of the other significant components of our debt
obligations, is as follows:
|
|
Payments
Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
(in
millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Term
loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
825 |
|
|
$ |
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,825 |
|
Abbott
Laboratories loan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
900 |
|
Senior
notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
|
|
3,050 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
825 |
|
|
$ |
3,750 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
|
$ |
6,775 |
|
|
Note:
|
The
table above does not include capital leases, discounts associated
with our Abbott loan and senior notes, or non-cash gains related to
interest rate swaps used to hedge the fair value of certain of our senior
notes.
|
Our term
loan and revolving credit facility agreement requires that we maintain certain
financial covenants, including a ratio of total debt to EBITDA, as defined by
the agreement, as amended, for the preceding four consecutive
fiscal quarters of less than or equal to 4.5 to 1.0 through December 31,
2008. The maximum permitted ratio of total debt to EBITDA steps-down to 4.0 to
1.0 on March 31, 2009 and to 3.5 to 1.0 on September 30, 2009. The agreement
also requires that we maintain a ratio of EBITDA, as defined by the agreement,
as amended, to interest expense for the preceding four consecutive
fiscal quarters of greater than or equal to 3.0 to 1.0. As of September 30,
2008, we were in compliance with the required covenants. Exiting the quarter,
our ratio of total debt to EBITDA was approximately 2.8 to 1.0 and our ratio
of EBITDA to interest expense was approximately 4.9 to 1.0. If at any time
we are not able to maintain these covenants, we could be required to seek to
renegotiate the terms of our credit facilities or seek waivers from compliance
with these covenants, both of which could result in additional borrowing costs.
Further, there can be no assurance that our lenders would grant such
waivers.
Our term
loan and revolving credit facility provides for the borrowing of up to $2.0
billion. In October of 2008, we issued a $717 million surety bond backed by a
$702 million letter of credit and $15 million of cash to secure the damage award
related to the Johnson & Johnson patent infringement case pending appeal,
described in Note M - Commitments and
Contingencies, which reduced the credit availability under the revolving
facility to approximately $1.250 billion. In addition, we maintain a $350
million credit and security facility secured by our U.S. trade receivables. Use
of the borrowings is unrestricted. Borrowing availability under this facility
changes based upon the amount of eligible receivables, concentration of eligible
receivables and other factors. There were no amounts borrowed under this
facility as of September 30, 2008.
Equity
During
the first nine months of 2008, we received $68 million in proceeds from stock
issuances related to our stock option and employee stock purchase plans, as
compared to $122 million for the same period in the prior year. Proceeds from
the exercise of employee stock options and employee stock purchases vary from
period to period based upon, among other factors, fluctuations in the exercise
and stock purchase patterns of employees.
Contractual
Obligations and Commitments
Certain
of our acquisitions involve the payment of contingent consideration. See Note F – Acquisitions to our
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in Item 1 of this
Quarterly Report for the estimated potential amount of future contingent
consideration we could be required to pay associated with our prior
acquisitions.
There
have been no material changes to our contractual obligations and commitments as
reported in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Legal
Matters
The
medical device market in which we primarily participate is largely technology
driven. Physician customers, particularly in interventional cardiology, have
historically moved quickly to new products and new technologies. As a result,
intellectual property rights, particularly patents and trade secrets, play a
significant role in product development and differentiation. However,
intellectual property litigation to defend or create market advantage is
inherently complex and unpredictable. Furthermore, appellate courts frequently
overturn lower court patent decisions.
In
addition, competing parties frequently file multiple suits to leverage patent
portfolios across product lines, technologies and geographies and to balance
risk and exposure between the parties. In some cases, several competitors are
parties in the same proceeding, or in a series of related proceedings, or
litigate multiple features of a single class of devices. These forces frequently
drive settlement not only of individual cases, but also of a series of pending
and potentially related and unrelated cases. In addition, although monetary and
injunctive relief is typically sought, remedies and restitution are generally
not determined until the conclusion of the proceedings and are frequently
modified on appeal. Accordingly, the outcomes of individual cases are difficult
to time, predict or quantify and are often dependent upon the outcomes of other
cases in other geographies.
Several
third parties have asserted that our current and former stent systems infringe
patents owned or licensed by them. We have similarly asserted that stent systems
or other products sold by our competitors infringe patents owned or licensed by
us. Adverse outcomes in one or more of these proceedings could limit our ability
to sell certain stent products in certain jurisdictions, or reduce our operating
margin on the sale of these products and could have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.
In the
normal course of business, product liability and securities claims are asserted
against us. Product liability and securities claims may be asserted against us
in the future related to events not known to management at the present time. We
are substantially self-insured with respect to general and product liability
claims, and maintain insurance policies providing limited coverage against
securities claims. The absence of significant third-party insurance coverage
increases our potential exposure to unanticipated claims or adverse decisions.
Product liability claims, product recalls, securities litigation, and other
litigation in the future, regardless of their outcome, could have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.
We record
losses for claims in excess of purchased insurance in earnings at the time and
to the extent they are probable and estimable. In accordance with FASB Statement
No. 5, Accounting for
Contingencies, we accrue anticipated costs of settlement, damages, losses
for product liability claims and, under certain conditions, costs of defense,
based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and
estimable. Otherwise, we expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a
probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, we
accrue the minimum amount of the range. Refer to Note M - Commitments and
Contingencies to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report for material
developments with regard to any matters of litigation disclosed in our 2007
Annual Report on Form 10-K or instituted since December 31, 2007.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Statement
No. 141(R)
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141(R), Business Combinations, a
replacement for Statement No. 141. Statement No. 141(R) retains the fundamental
requirements of Statement No. 141, but requires the recognition of all assets
acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination at their fair values
as of the acquisition date. It also requires the recognition of assets acquired
and liabilities assumed arising from contractual contingencies at their
acquisition date fair values. Additionally, Statement No. 141(R) supersedes FASB
Interpretation No. 4, Applicability of FASB Statement No.
2 to Business Combinations Accounted for by the
Purchase Method, which
required research and development assets acquired in a business combination that
had no alternative future use to be measured at their fair values and expensed
at the acquisition date. Statement No. 141(R) now requires that purchased
in-process research and development be recognized as an intangible asset. We are
required to adopt Statement No. 141(R) prospectively for any acquisitions on or
after January 1, 2009 and are currently evaluating the impact that Statement No.
141(R) will have on our consolidated financial statements.
Statement
No. 161
In March
2008, the FASB issued Statement No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, which amends Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, by requiring expanded disclosures
about an entity’s derivative instruments and hedging activities. Statement No.
161 requires increased qualitative, quantitative, and credit-risk disclosures,
including (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how
derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under
Statement No. 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative
instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position,
financial performance, and cash flows. We are required to adopt
Statement No. 161 for our first quarter ending March 31, 2009.
Cautionary
Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements
Certain
statements that we may make from time to time, including statements contained in
this report and information incorporated by reference into this report,
constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements may be identified by
words like “anticipate,” “expect,” “project,” “believe,” “plan,” “estimate,”
“intend” and similar words and include, among other things, statements regarding
our financial performance, our growth strategy, timing of regulatory approvals
and our regulatory and quality compliance, expected research and development
efforts, product development and new product launches, our market position and
competitive changes in the marketplace for our products, the effect of new
accounting pronouncements, the outcome of matters before taxing authorities,
intellectual property and litigation matters, our capital needs and
expenditures, the effectiveness of our expense reduction initiatives, our
ability to meet the financial covenants required by our credit facilities or to
renegotiate the terms of our credit facilities or obtain waivers for compliance
with those covenants, and potential acquisitions and divestitures. These
forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and estimates
using information available to us at the time and are not intended to be
guarantees of future events or performance. If our underlying assumptions turn
out to be incorrect, or if certain risks or uncertainties materialize, actual
results could vary materially from the expectations and projections expressed or
implied by our forward-looking statements. As a result, investors are cautioned
not to place undue reliance on any of our forward-looking
statements.
We do not
intend to update the forward-looking statements below even if new information
becomes available or other events occur in the future. We have identified these
forward-looking statements below in order to take advantage of the safe harbor
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Certain
factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
expressed in forward-looking statements are contained below.
Coronary
Stent Business
-
Our ability to launch our next-generation drug-eluting stent system, the
TAXUS® Liberté® coronary stent system, in the U.S., and to maintain or expand
our worldwide market positions through reinvestment in our two drug-eluting
stent programs, including PROMUS
™ Element and
TAXUS
®
Element;
-
Our
ability to manage the mix of our PROMUS™ stent system
revenue relative to our total drug-eluting stent revenue and to launch
on-schedule a next-generation everolimus-eluting stent system with gross
profit margins more comparable to our TAXUS® stent system, and to maintain our
overall profitability as a percentage of revenue;
-
Our
share of the worldwide drug-eluting stent market, the impact of concerns
relating to late stent thrombosis on the size of the coronary stent market,
the distribution of share within the coronary stent market in the U.S. and
around the world, the average number of stents used per procedure and average
selling prices;
-
The
overall performance of, and continued physician confidence in, our and other
drug-eluting stent systems, our ability to adequately address concerns
regarding the perceived risk of late stent thrombosis, and the results of
drug-eluting stent clinical trials undertaken by us, our competitors or other
third parties;
CRM
Products
-
The
overall performance of, and referring physician, implanting physician and
patient confidence in, our and our competitors’ CRM products and technologies,
including our COGNIS CRT-D and TELIGEN ICD systems;
Litigation
and Regulatory Compliance
-
Any
conditions imposed in resolving, or any inability to resolve, our corporate
warning letter or other FDA matters, as well as risks generally associated
with our regulatory compliance and quality systems;
-
The
impact of our stockholder derivative and class action, patent, product
liability, contract and other litigation, governmental investigations and
legal proceedings;
Innovation
-
Our
ability to complete planned clinical trials successfully, to obtain regulatory
approvals and to develop and launch products on a timely basis within cost
estimates, including the successful completion of in-process projects from
purchased research and development;
-
Our
ability to prioritize our internal research and development project portfolio
and our external investment portfolio to keep expenses in line with expected
revenue levels, or our decision to sell, discontinue, write down or reduce the
funding of certain of these projects without significantly adversely affecting
our new product pipeline;
-
Our
decision to exercise, or not to exercise, options to purchase certain
companies with which we have alliances and our ability to fund with cash or
common stock these and other acquisitions, or to fund contingent payments
associated with these alliances;
International
Markets
Liquidity
-
Our
ability to implement, fund, and achieve sustainable cost improvement measures,
including our expense and head count reduction initiatives and restructuring
program, intended to better align operating expenses with expected revenue
levels and reallocate resources to better support growth
initiatives;
-
Our
ability to generate sufficient cash flow to fund operations, capital
expenditures, and strategic investments, as well as to effectively manage our
debt levels and minimize the impact of interest rate fluctuations on our
earnings and cash flows;
Other
-
Risks
associated with our acquisition of Guidant, including, among other things, the
indebtedness we have incurred and the integration costs and challenges we will
continue to face;
-
Our
ability to maintain management focus on core business activities while also
concentrating on resolving the corporate warning letter; managing the
challenges of the financial and credit market upheaval; and executing
strategic initiatives, including expense and head count reductions and our
restructuring program; in order to streamline our operations and reduce our
debt obligations.
Several
important factors, in addition to the specific factors discussed in connection
with each forward-looking statement individually could affect our future results
and growth rates and could cause those results and rates to differ materially
from those expressed in the forward-looking statements and the risk factors
contained in this report. These additional factors include, among other things,
future economic, competitive, reimbursement and regulatory conditions, new
product introductions, demographic trends, intellectual property, financial
market conditions and future business decisions made by us and our competitors,
all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which
are beyond our control. We discuss those and other important risks and
uncertainties that may affect our future operations in Part I, Item IA- Risk Factors in our most
recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and may update that discussion in Part II,
Item 1A – Risk Factors
in this or another Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q we file hereafter. Therefore,
we wish to caution each reader of this report to consider carefully these
factors as well as the specific factors discussed with each forward-looking
statement and risk factor in this report and as disclosed in our filings with
the SEC. These factors, in some cases, have affected and in the future (together
with other factors) could affect our ability to implement our business strategy
and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the
statements expressed in this report.
ITEM
3.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET
RISK
|
We
develop, manufacture and sell medical devices globally and our earnings and cash
flows are exposed to market risk from changes in currency exchange rates and
interest rates. We address these risks through a risk management program that
includes the use of derivative financial instruments. We operate the program
pursuant to documented corporate risk management policies. We do not enter
derivative transactions for speculative purposes. Gains and losses on derivative
financial instruments substantially offset losses and gains on underlying hedged
exposures. Furthermore, we manage our exposure to counterparty risk on
derivative instruments by entering into contracts with a diversified group of
major financial institutions and by monitoring outstanding
positions.
Our
currency risk consists primarily of foreign currency denominated firm
commitments, forecasted foreign currency denominated intercompany and third
party transactions and net investments in certain subsidiaries. We use both
nonderivative (primarily European manufacturing operations) and derivative
instruments to manage our earnings and cash flow exposure to changes in currency
exchange rates. We had currency derivative instruments outstanding in the
contract amount of $4.552 billion at September 30, 2008 and $4.135 billion
at December 31, 2007. We recorded $76 million of other assets and $39
million of other liabilities to recognize the fair value of these derivative
instruments at September 30, 2008 as compared to $19 million of other
assets and $118 million of other liabilities recorded at December 31,
2007. A ten percent appreciation in the U.S. dollar’s value relative to the
hedged currencies would increase the derivative instruments’ fair value by $301
million at September 30, 2008 and $293 million at December 31, 2007. A
ten percent depreciation in the U.S. dollar’s value relative to the hedged
currencies would decrease the derivative instruments’ fair value by $368 million
at September 30, 2008 and $355 million at December 31, 2007. Any increase
or decrease in the fair value of our currency exchange rate sensitive derivative
instruments would be substantially offset by a corresponding decrease or
increase in the fair value of the hedged underlying asset, liability or
forecasted transaction.
Our
interest rate risk relates primarily to U.S. dollar borrowings partially offset
by U.S. dollar cash investments. We did not record material assets or
liabilities to recognize the fair value of our outstanding interest rate
derivative instruments at September 30, 2008, as compared to $17 million of
other liabilities recorded at December 31, 2007. We use
interest rate derivative instruments to manage the risk of interest rate changes
either by converting floating-rate borrowings into fixed-rate borrowings or
fixed-rate borrowings into floating-rate borrowings. We had
interest rate derivative instruments outstanding in the notional amount of
$2.750 billion at September 30, 2008 and $1.500 billion at December 31, 2007.
The notional amount increase is due to new hedge contracts of $2.0 billion
entered into during the first quarter of 2008, partially offset by a scheduled
hedge reduction of $750 million on our existing contracts. A one
percentage-point increase in interest rates would increase the derivative
instruments’ fair value by $20 million at September 30, 2008 and $9 million at
December 31, 2007. A one percentage-point decrease in interest rates would
decrease the derivative instruments’ fair value by $21 million at September 30,
2008 and $9 million at December 31, 2007. Any increase or decrease in the
fair value of our interest rate derivative instruments would be substantially
offset by a corresponding decrease or increase in the fair value of the hedged
interest payments related to our LIBOR-indexed floating rate loans. As of
September 30, 2008, $5.295 billion of our outstanding debt obligations was at
fixed interest rates or had been converted to fixed interest rates through the
use of interest rate derivative instruments, representing 78 percent of our
total debt or 105 percent of our net debt balance.
ITEM
4. CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our
management, with the participation of our President and Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President - Finance and
Information Systems, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures as of September 30, 2008 pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act. Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to
ensure that material information required to be disclosed by us in the reports
that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and
forms and ensure that such material information is accumulated and communicated
to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Based on their evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that as of September 30, 2008, our disclosure controls and
procedures were effective.
Changes
in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting
During
the quarter ended September 30, 2008, there were no changes in our internal
control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
PART
II
OTHER
INFORMATION
ITEM
1. LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
Note M - Commitments and
Contingencies to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements contained elsewhere in this Quarterly Report is incorporated herein
by reference.
ITEM
1A. RISK
FACTORS
In
addition to the risk factors set forth below and the other information set forth
in this report, you should carefully consider the factors discussed in “Part II,
Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our June 30, 2008 and March 31, 2008 Quarterly Reports
filed on Form 10-Q and “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our 2007 Annual
Report filed on Form 10-K, which could materially affect our business, financial
condition or future results.
Recent
deterioration in the economy and credit markets may adversely affect our future
results of operations.
Recently,
the credit markets and the financial services industry have been experiencing a
period of upheaval characterized by the bankruptcy, failure, collapse or sale of
various financial institutions and an unprecedented level of intervention from
the United States federal government. While the ultimate outcome of these events
cannot be predicted, it may have a material adverse effect on the Company and
our ability to borrow money in the credit markets and potentially to draw on our
revolving credit facility or otherwise. Similarly, our customers may
be unable to borrow money to fund their operations which may adversely impact
their ability to purchase our products or to pay for our products they do
purchase on a timely basis, if at all.
Our
share price will fluctuate.
Stock
markets in general and our common stock in particular have experienced
significant price and volume volatility over the past year. The market price and
trading volume of our common stock may continue to be subject to significant
fluctuations due not only to general stock market conditions but also to
variability in the prevailing sentiment regarding our operations or business
prospects, as well as potential further sales of our common stock due to margin
calls on loans secured by pledges of our common stock.
ITEM
6. EXHIBITS
10.1
|
Boston
Scientific Corporation Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan,
as Amended and Restated,effective as of January 1,
2009.
|
31.1
|
Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
31.2
|
Certification
of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
32.1
|
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, President and
Chief Executive Officer
|
32.2
|
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Executive Vice
President – Finance and Information Systems and Chief Financial
Officer
|
SIGNATURE
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 on November 7, 2008.
|
BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Sam
R. Leno |
|
|
|
Name: Sam
R. Leno |
|
|
|
Title: Chief
Financial Officer and Executive VicePresident - Finance and
Information Systems |
|
|
|
|
|