e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark one)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number
000-50646
Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or other
jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
61-1430858
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
150 Independence Drive
Menlo Park, California
(Address of principal
executive offices)
|
|
94025-1136
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(650) 323-4100
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $0.001 par value
|
|
The NASDAQ Global Market LLC
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer (as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Act). (Check one):
Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated
filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined by
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting stock
held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing
sale price of the Registrants common stock on
June 30, 2006, as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market, was
approximately $121.0 million. Shares of common stock held
by each executive officer and director and by each person who
may be deemed to be an affiliate of the Registrant have been
excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate
status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive
determination for other purposes.
Number of shares of the registrants common stock
outstanding as of February 28, 2007: 21,174,510
Portions of the registrants definitive proxy statement to
be delivered to stockholders in connection with the 2007 annual
meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K.
PART I
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements regarding future events and
our future results. These statements are based on current
expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about the
industries in which we operate and the beliefs and assumptions
of our management. Words such as expects,
anticipates, targets, goals,
projects, intends, plans,
believes, seeks, estimates,
continues, may, variations of such
words, and similar expressions are intended to identify such
forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements
include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the
following: projections of our financial performance, our
anticipated growth and trends in our business, levels of capital
expenditures, the adequacy of our capital resources to fund
operations and growth, our ability to compete effectively with
our competitors, our strategies and ability to protect our
intellectual property, future acquisitions, customer demand, our
manufacturing and procurement process, employee matters,
supplier relations, foreign operations (including our operations
in China), the legal and regulatory backdrop (including
environmental regulation), our exposure to market risks and
other characterizations of future events or circumstances
described in this Annual Report. Readers are cautioned that
these forward-looking statements are only predictions and are
subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are
difficult to predict, including those identified below, under
Risk Factors, and elsewhere herein. Therefore,
actual results may differ materially and adversely from those
expressed in any forward-looking statements. We undertake no
obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements
for any reason.
Overview
We are a leading developer and supplier of critical subsystems,
primarily for the semiconductor capital equipment industry. We
develop, design, prototype, engineer, manufacture and test
subsystems which are highly specialized and tailored to specific
steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process. Currently, our
revenue is derived primarily from the sale of Gas Delivery
Systems. We have recently increased our revenue from the sale of
other non-gas delivery subsystems (Other Critical Subsystems)
including chemical mechanical planarization (CMP)
sub-systems,
chemical delivery modules, top-plate assemblies, frame
assemblies and process modules. Revenue from Other Critical
Subsystems was 31.9% of annual revenue in 2006 compared with
7.8% of annual revenue in 2005. Due to the recent acquisition of
Sieger Engineering, Inc., a California corporation
(Sieger), in June 2006, we believe the results of
our most recently completed quarter are the most indicative
period for understanding the realignment and evolution of our
revenue base. In the fourth quarter of 2006, revenue from Sieger
and revenue from Other Critical Subsystems other than Sieger
represented 24.8% and 19.3%, respectively or 44.1% on a combined
basis. In the fourth quarter of 2005, revenue from Sieger and
revenue from Other Critical Subsystems other than Sieger
represented 0.0% and 11.4%, respectively.
Our primary customers are semiconductor equipment manufacturers.
We provide our customers complete subsystem solutions that
combine our expertise in design, test, component
characterization and highly flexible manufacturing operations
with quality control and financial stability. This combination
helps us to drive down total manufacturing costs, reduce
design-to-delivery
cycle times and maintain high quality standards for our
customers. We believe these characteristics, as well as our
standing as a leading supplier of Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems, place us in a strong position to benefit
from the growing demand for subsystem outsourcing.
We had sales of $337.2 million, $147.5 million and
$184.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004, respectively. Our three largest customers in 2006
were Applied Materials, Inc., Lam Research Corporation and
Novellus Systems, Inc. To date, we have shipped substantially
all of our products to customers in the United States. Our
international sales represented 4.9%, 5.5% and 3.2% of sales for
the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively. We conduct our operating activities primarily
through our three wholly owned subsidiaries, Ultra Clean
Technology Systems and Service, Inc., UCT-Sieger Engineering
LLC, and Ultra Clean Technology (Shanghai) Co., LTD.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. was founded in November 2002 for the
purpose of acquiring Ultra Clean Technology Systems and
Services, Inc. Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc.
was founded in 1991 by Mitsubishi Corporation and was operated
as a subsidiary of Mitsubishi until November 2002, when it was
acquired by Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc. became a publicly traded company in March 2004. In June
2006, we completed the acquisition of Sieger through our wholly
owned subsidiary UCT-Sieger
1
Engineering LLC (UCT-Sieger). The total purchase
price was approximately $53.5 million and was comprised of
cash consideration of $32.4 million, including acquisition
costs of $1.4 million, and stock consideration of
$21.1 million. Our subsidiary, UCT-Sieger, is a supplier of
CMP modules and Other Critical Subsystems to the semiconductor,
solar and flat panel capital equipment industries. We believe
that the acquisition has enhanced our strategic position as a
semiconductor equipment subsystem supplier.
Our
Solution
We are a leading developer and supplier of critical subsystems
primarily for the semiconductor capital equipment industry. Our
products enable our original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
customers to realize lower manufacturing costs and reduced
design-to-delivery
cycle times while maintaining quality. We offer our customers:
An integrated outsourced solution for Gas Delivery Systems
and Other Critical Subsystems. We provide our OEM
customers a complete outsourced solution for the development,
design, prototyping, engineering, manufacturing and testing of
advanced Gas Delivery Systems. We also provide outsourced
solutions for Other Critical Subsystems including CMP modules,
chemical delivery modules, top-plate assemblies, frame
assemblies and process modules. We combine highly specialized
engineering and manufacturing capabilities to produce high
performance products that are customized to meet the needs of
our customers, as well as their respective end users. We manage
supply chain logistics in an effort to reduce the overall number
of suppliers and inventory levels that our customers would
otherwise be required to manage. We also believe we are often in
a position to negotiate reduced component prices due to our
large volume orders.
Improved
design-to-delivery
cycle times. Our strong relationships with our
customers and intimate familiarity with their products and
requirements help us reduce
design-to-delivery
cycle times for Gas Delivery Systems or Other Critical
Subsystems. We have optimized our supply chain management,
design and manufacturing coordination and controls to respond
rapidly to order requests, enabling us to decrease
design-to-delivery
cycle times for our customers.
Component neutral design and manufacturing. We
do not manufacture any of the components within our Gas Delivery
Systems and Other Critical Subsystems ourselves. Our component
neutral position enables us to recommend components on the basis
of technology, performance and cost and to optimize our
customers overall designs based on these criteria.
Furthermore, our neutral approach allows us to maintain close
relationships with a wide range of component suppliers.
Component testing capabilities. We utilize our
engineering expertise to test and characterize key components
and subsystems. We have made significant investments in advanced
analytical and automated test equipment to test and qualify key
components. We can perform diagnostic tests, design verification
and failure analysis for customers and suppliers. Our analytical
and testing capabilities enable us to evaluate multiple supplier
component technologies and provide customers with a wide range
of appropriate component and design choices for their subsystems.
Increased integration with OEMs through local
presence. Our local presence in close proximity
to the facilities of most of our OEM customers enables us to
remain closely integrated with their design, development and
implementation teams. This level of integration enables us to
respond quickly and efficiently to customer changes and requests.
Precision machining capabilities. We
manufacture high quality, precision machined parts using state
of the art equipment capable of efficiently providing complex
parts with exacting tolerance. Our diverse precision fabrication
equipment enables us to manufacture a broad range of machined
parts using a broad range of materials, from exotic metals to
basic plastics. Our manufacturing capabilities include
horizontal and vertical milling, turning and welding.
Our
Strategy
Our objective is to maintain our position as a leading developer
and supplier of Gas Delivery Systems and become a leading
developer and supplier of Other Critical Subsystems, primarily
for the semiconductor capital equipment, flat panel and solar
industries. As additional opportunities present themselves, we
intend to increase our
2
presence in other high-growth industries, including the medical
device industry. Our strategy is comprised of the following key
elements:
Continue to expand our market share with
OEMs. We believe that the increase in outsourcing
among OEMs creates a significant market opportunity for us to
grow our business with existing and new customers. We believe
that our continued focus on efficient manufacturing, reduced
design-to-delivery
cycle times and quality and reliability will also allow us to
gain market share.
Leverage our expanding geographic presence in lower cost
manufacturing regions. In March 2005, we
completed construction of a manufacturing facility in Shanghai,
China, allowing us to expand production in a low cost region. In
February 2007, we began expanding our presence in China by
leasing a second facility to house our precision machined parts
and subsystem assembly operations. These facilities put us in
close proximity to the manufacturing facilities of potential
customers and their end users.
Drive profitable growth with our flexible cost
structure. We implement cost containment and
capacity enhancement initiatives throughout the semiconductor
capital equipment demand cycle and benefit greatly from our
supply chain efficiencies. In addition, we believe our Shanghai
facilities position us to respond effectively to future business
demands.
Continue to selectively pursue strategic
acquisitions. On June 29, 2006, with the
Sieger acquisition, we:
|
|
|
|
|
Increased our presence in the subsystem market, adding CMP to
our addressable market;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanded existing key customer relationships and added strategic
new customers;
|
|
|
|
Increased our size and scope;
|
|
|
|
Increased the operating leverage derived from our existing
presence in China; and,
|
|
|
|
Acquired a company which benefited our earnings per share.
|
We may choose to further accelerate the growth of our business
by selectively pursuing additional new strategic acquisitions.
We will continue to consider acquisitions that will enable us to
expand our geographic presence, secure new customers and
diversify into complementary products and markets as well as
broaden our technological capabilities in semiconductor capital
equipment manufacturing.
Products
We develop, design, prototype, engineer, manufacture and test
subsystems, primarily for the semiconductor capital equipment
industry. A majority of our products consist of Gas Delivery
Systems that enable the precise delivery of numerous specialty
gases used in a majority of the key steps in the semiconductor
manufacturing process, including deposition, etch, cleaning and
annealing. Our Gas Delivery Systems control the flow, pressure,
sequencing and mixing of specialty gases into and out of the
reaction chambers of semiconductor manufacturing tools. Our
products also include Other Critical Subsystems, including
chemical mechanical planarization modules, chemical delivery
modules, top-plate assemblies, frame assemblies and process
modules.
Gas Delivery Systems: A typical Gas Delivery
System consists of one or more gas lines, comprised of several
filters, mass flow controllers, regulators, pressure transducers
and valves, associated interconnect tubing and an integrated
electronic
and/or
pneumatic control system. These systems are mounted on a pallet
and are typically enclosed in a sheet metal encasing. Our Gas
Delivery System designs are developed in collaboration with our
customers and are customized to meet the needs of specific OEMs.
We do not sell standard systems. Our customers either specify
the particular brands of components they want incorporated into
a particular system or rely on our design expertise and
component characterization capabilities to help them select the
appropriate components for their particular system.
Chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) electro-mechanical
subsystems: CMP is a process used to polish off
high spots on wafers or films deposited on wafers. CMP equipment
represents the front end polishing step in
semiconductor manufacturing. We produce over 40 different CMP
subsystem modules for one of our largest customers.
3
Chemical delivery modules: Chemical delivery
modules deliver gases and reactive chemicals from a centralized
subsystem to the reaction chamber and may include Gas Delivery
Systems, as well as liquid and vapor delivery systems.
Top-plate assemblies: Top-plate assemblies
form the top portion of the reaction chamber within which gases
controlled by our Gas Delivery Systems react to form thin films
or etch films on the wafer.
Frame assemblies: Frame assemblies are steel
tubing that form the support structure to which all other
assemblies are attached and include pneumatic harnesses and
cables that connect Other Critical Subsystems together.
Process modules: Process modules refer to the
larger subsystems of semiconductor manufacturing tools that
process integrated circuits onto wafers. Process modules include
several smaller subsystems such as the frame assembly, top-plate
assembly and gas and chemical delivery modules, as well as the
chamber and electronic, pneumatic and mechanical subsystems.
Customers
We sell our products to semiconductor capital equipment
manufacturers. This industry is highly concentrated and we are
therefore highly dependent upon a small number of customers. Our
three largest customers in 2006 were Applied Materials, Inc.,
Lam Research Corporation and Novellus Systems, Inc. and each
accounted for more than 10% of our total sales in 2006. As a
percentage of total revenue, sales to our three largest
customers were 86%, 89% and 93% for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In addition
to reinforcing and expanding our relationship with all of our
existing customers, the Sieger acquisition brought with it a
supply relationship with a number of new, potentially
significant customers.
We have successfully qualified as a supplier with each of our
customers. This lengthy qualification process involves the
inspection and audit of our facilities and evaluation by our
customers of our engineering, documentation, manufacturing and
quality control processes and procedures before that customer
places orders for our products. Our customers generally place
orders with suppliers who have met and continue to meet their
qualification criteria.
Sales and
Support
We sell our products through our direct sales force which, as of
December 31, 2006, consisted of a total of 30 sales
directors, account managers and sales support staff. Our sales
directors are responsible for establishing sales strategy and
setting the objectives for specific customer accounts. Each
account manager is dedicated to a specific customer account and
is responsible for the
day-to-day
management of that customer. Account managers work closely with
customers and in many cases provide
on-site
support. Account managers often attend customers internal
meetings related to production and engineering design and
quality to ensure that customer expectations are interpreted and
communicated properly to our operations group. Account managers
also work with our customers to identify and meet their cost and
design-to-delivery
cycle time objectives.
We have dedicated account managers responsible for new business
development for Gas Delivery Systems and Other Critical
Subsystems. Our new business development account managers
initiate and develop long-term, multilevel relationships with
customers and work closely with customers on new business
opportunities throughout the
design-to-delivery
cycle. Our sales force includes technical sales support for
order placement, spare parts quotes and production status
updates. We have a technical sales representative located at
each of our manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have
developed a service and support infrastructure to provide our
customers with service and support 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. Our dedicated field service engineers provide
customer support through the performance of
on-site
installation, servicing and repair of our subsystems.
Technology
Development
We engage in ongoing technology development efforts in order to
remain a technology leader for Gas Delivery Systems and to
further develop our expertise in Other Critical Subsystems. We
have a technology development group which, as of
December 31, 2006, consisted of six individuals, two of
whom hold doctoral degrees. In addition,
4
our design engineering and new product engineering groups
support our technology development activities. Our technology
development group works closely with our customers to identify
and anticipate changes and trends in next-generation
semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Our technology
development group participates in customer technology
partnership programs that focus on process application
requirements for Gas Delivery Systems and Other Critical
Subsystems. These development efforts are designed to meet
specific customer requirements in the areas of subsystem design,
materials, component selection and functionality. Our technology
development group also works directly with our suppliers to help
them identify new component technologies and make necessary
changes in, and enhancements to, the components that we
integrate into our products. Our analytical and testing
capabilities enable us to evaluate multiple supplier component
technologies and provide customers with a wide range of
appropriate component and design choices for their Gas Delivery
Systems and Other Critical Subsystems. Our analytical and
testing capabilities also help us anticipate technological
changes and the requirements in component features for
next-generation Gas Delivery Systems and Other Critical
Subsystems. We are also developing additional features to
improve the performance and functionality of our Gas Delivery
Systems and Other Critical Subsystems. Our technology
development and new product engineering expenses were
approximately $3.1 million, $2.4 million and
$2.4 million for 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. We
perform our technology development activities principally at our
facilities in Menlo Park, California.
Intellectual
Property
Our success depends in part on our ability to maintain and
protect our proprietary technology and to conduct our business
without infringing the proprietary rights of others. Our
business is largely dependent upon our design, engineering,
manufacturing and testing know-how. We also rely on a
combination of trade secrets and confidentiality provisions, and
to a much lesser extent, patents, copyrights and trademarks, to
protect our proprietary rights. As of December 31, 2006, we
had five issued United States patents, all of which expire in
2018, and we had six United States patent applications pending.
None of our issued patents is material to our business.
Intellectual property that we develop on behalf of our customers
is generally owned exclusively by those customers.
We routinely require our employees, suppliers and potential
business partners to enter into confidentiality and
non-disclosure agreements before we disclose to them any
sensitive or proprietary information regarding our products,
technology or business plans. We require employees to assign to
us proprietary information, inventions and other intellectual
property they create, modify or improve.
Competition
Our industry is highly fragmented. When we compete for new
business, we face competition from other suppliers of Gas
Delivery Systems and Other Critical Subsystems as well as the
internal manufacturing groups of OEMs. In addition, OEMs that
have elected to outsource their Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems could elect in the future to develop and
manufacture these subsystems internally, leading to further
competition. Our principal competitors for our Gas Delivery
Systems are Celerity Group, Inc., Integrated Flow Systems, LLC,
Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. and Wolfe Engineering, Inc., and our
principal competitors for Other Critical Subsystems are Allegro
MicroSystems, Inc., Flextronics International Ltd., Fox Semicon
Integrated Tech Inc. and Sanmina-SCI Corporation. Some of these
competitors have substantially greater financial, technical,
manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. We expect our
competitors to continue to improve the performance of their
current products and to introduce new products or new
technologies that could adversely affect sales of our current
and future products. In addition, the limited number of
potential customers in our industry further intensifies
competition. The primary competitive factors in our industry are
price, technology, quality,
design-to-delivery
cycle time, reliability in meeting product demand, service and
historical customer relationships. We anticipate that increased
competitive pressures will cause intensified price-based
competition and we may have to reduce the prices of our
products. In addition, we expect to face new competitors as we
enter new markets.
Employees
As of December 31, 2006, we had 1,005 employees, of which
198 were temporary. Of our total employees, there were 89 in
engineering, 6 in technology development, 30 in sales and
support, 467 in direct manufacturing, 345 in indirect
manufacturing and 68 in executive and administrative functions.
These figures include
5
134 employees in Shanghai, China. None of our employees is
represented by a labor union and we have not experienced any
work stoppages.
Governmental
Regulation and Environmental Matters
Our operations are subject to federal, state and local
regulatory requirements and foreign laws relating to
environmental, waste management and health and safety matters,
including measures relating to the release, use, storage,
treatment, transportation, discharge, disposal and remediation
of contaminants, hazardous substances and wastes, as well as
practices and procedures applicable to the construction and
operation of our facilities. Our past or future operations may
result in exposure to injury or claims of injury by employees or
the public which may result in material costs and liabilities to
us. Although some risk of costs and liabilities related to these
matters is inherent in our business, we believe that our
business is operated in substantial compliance with applicable
regulations. However, new, modified or more stringent
requirements or enforcement policies could be adopted, which
could adversely affect us.
Available
Information
We file with the SEC annual reports on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q
and current reports on
Form 8-K
pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. You may
read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the public
reference facilities maintained by the SEC at Room 1024,
Judiciary Plaza, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20549. You may also request copies of all or any portion of such
material from the SEC at prescribed rates. Please call the SEC
at
1-800-SEC-0330
for further information on the operation of the public reference
room. In addition, materials filed electronically with the SEC
are available at the SECs website at http://www.sec.gov.
In addition, we make available free of charge, on or through our
website at http://www.uct.com, our annual, quarterly and current
reports and any amendments to those reports, as soon as
reasonably practicable after electronic filing such reports
with, or furnishing them to, the SEC. This website address is
intended to be an inactive textual reference only; none of the
information contained on our website is part of this report or
is incorporated by reference herein.
Executive
Officers
Set forth below is information concerning our executive officers
as of February 28, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Clarence L. Granger
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Chairman & Chief
Executive Officer
|
Leonid Mezhvinsky
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
President
|
Jack Sexton
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|
Bruce Wier
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Senior Vice President of
Engineering
|
Deborah Hayward
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Senior Vice President of Sales
|
Sowmya Krishnan, Ph.D.
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
Vice President of Technology and
Chief Technology Officer
|
Clarence L. Granger has served as our Chairman &
Chief Executive Officer since October 2006, as our Chief
Executive Officer since November 2002, as Chief Operating
Officer since March 1999 and as a member of our board of
directors since May 2002. Mr. Granger served as our
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from
January 1998 to March 1999 and as our Executive Vice President
of Operations from April 1996 to January 1998. Prior to joining
Ultra Clean in April 1996, he served as Vice President of Media
Operations for Seagate Technology from 1994 to 1996. Prior to
that, Mr. Granger worked for HMT Technology as Chief
Executive Officer from 1993 to 1994, as Chief Operating Officer
from 1991 to 1993 and as President from 1989 to 1994. Prior to
that, Mr. Granger worked for Xidex as Vice President and
General Manager, Thin Film Disk Division, from 1988 to 1989, as
Vice President, Santa Clara Oxide Disk Operations, from 1987 to
1988, as Vice President, U.S. Tape Operations, from 1986 to
1987 and as Director of Engineering from 1983 to 1986.
Mr. Granger holds a master of
6
science degree in industrial engineering from Stanford
University and a bachelor of science degree in industrial
engineering from the University of California at Berkeley.
Leonid Mezhvinsky has served as our President since June
2006 following our acquisition of Sieger Engineering, Inc. He
has more than two decades of management experience and in depth
knowledge of machine shop, electro mechanical assemblies and
system integration utilized in semiconductor, medical and
biotech OEM products. Prior to joining Ultra Clean,
Mr. Mezhvinsky was President and Chief Executive Officer of
Sieger Engineering, Inc. which he joined in 1982.
Mr. Mezhvinsky holds the equivalent of a Bachelors of
Science in Industrial Automation from College of Industrial
Automation, Odessa, Ukraine.
Jack Sexton has served as our Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer since May 2005. Before joining Ultra Clean,
Mr. Sexton was Corporate Controller of Credence Systems
Corporation, a manufacturer of test equipment and diagnostics
and failure analysis products used for testing semiconductor
integrated circuits. He was Controller and Chief Accounting
Officer of NPTest from May 2002 until its sale to Credence in
May 2004. Prior to NPTest, Mr. Sexton was Worldwide
Controller for Schlumberger Resource Management Services, now
Actaris Metering Systems. Mr. Sexton joined Schlumberger in
1990, prior to which he was a plant operations controller for
Texas Instruments. Mr. Sexton holds two Bachelor of Science
degrees, in finance and accounting from the Carroll School of
Management at Boston College, where he graduated magna cum
laude. He is also a Certified Public Accountant.
Bruce Wier has served as our Senior Vice President of
Engineering since January 2007 and Vice President of Engineering
since February 2000. Mr. Wier served as our Director of
Design Engineering from July 1997 to February 2000. Prior to
joining Ultra Clean in July 1997, Mr. Wier was the
Engineering Manager for the Oxide Etch Business Unit at Lam
Research from April 1993 to June 1997. Prior to that,
Mr. Wier was the Senior Project Engineering Manager at
Genus from May 1990 to April 1993, the Mechanical Engineering
Manager at Varian Associates from November 1985 to May 1990, and
the Principal Engineer/ Project Manager at Eaton Corporation
from February 1981 to November 1985. Mr. Wier is also on
the board of directors of, and is the Chief Financial Officer
for, Acorn Travel, a travel company formed by his wife in 1999.
Mr. Wier holds a bachelor of science degree cum laude
in mechanical engineering from Syracuse University.
Deborah Hayward has served as our Senior Vice President
of Sales since January 2007 and Vice President of Sales since
October 2002. Ms. Hayward served as our Senior Sales
Director from May 2001 to October 2002, as Sales Director from
February 1998 to May 2001 and as a major account manager from
October 1995 to February 1998. Prior to joining Ultra Clean in
1995, she was a customer service manager and account manager at
Brooks Instruments from 1985 to 1995.
Sowmya Krishnan, Ph.D. has served as our Vice
President of Technology since January 2004 and as our Chief
Technology Officer since February 2001. Dr. Krishnan served
as our Director of Technology Development from January 1998 to
January 2001, as Manager of Technology Development from January
1995 to December 1997 and as manager of a joint evaluation
program between Ultra Clean and VLSI Technology from February
1994 to December 1994. Dr. Krishnan holds a master of
science degree in chemical engineering and a doctorate degree in
chemical engineering from Clarkson University.
The
highly cyclical nature of the semiconductor capital equipment
industry and general economic slowdowns could harm our operating
results.
Our business and operating results depend in significant part
upon capital expenditures by manufacturers of semiconductors,
which in turn depend upon the current and anticipated market
demand for semiconductors. Historically, the semiconductor
industry has been highly cyclical, with recurring periods of
over-supply of semiconductor products that have had a severe
negative effect on the demand for capital equipment used to
manufacture semiconductors. We have experienced and anticipate
that we will continue to experience significant fluctuations in
customer orders for our products. Our sales were
$337.2 million in 2006, $147.5 million in 2005 and
$184.2 million in 2004. Historically, semiconductor
industry slowdowns have had, and future slowdowns may have, a
material adverse effect on our operating results.
7
In addition, uncertainty regarding the growth rate of economies
throughout the world has from time to time caused companies to
reduce capital investment and may in the future cause reduction
of such investments. These reductions have often been
particularly severe in the semiconductor capital equipment
industry.
We
rely on a small number of customers for a significant portion of
our sales, and any impairment of our relationships with these
customers would adversely affect our business.
A relatively small number of OEM customers has historically
accounted for a significant portion of our sales, and we expect
this trend to continue. Applied Materials, Inc., Lam Research
Corporation and Novellus Systems, Inc. as a group accounted for
86% of our sales in 2006, 89% of our sales in 2005 and 93% of
our sales in 2004. Because of the small number of OEMs in our
industry, most of which are already our customers, it would be
difficult to replace lost revenue resulting from the loss of, or
the reduction, cancellation or delay in purchase orders by, any
one of these customers. Consolidation among our customers or a
decision by any one or more of our customers to outsource all or
most manufacturing and assembly work to a single equipment
manufacturer may further concentrate our business in a limited
number of customers and expose us to increased risks relating to
dependence on an even smaller number of customers.
In addition, by virtue of our customers size and the
significant portion of revenue that we derive from them, they
are able to exert significant influence and pricing pressure in
the negotiation of our commercial agreements and the conduct of
our business with them. We may also be asked to accommodate
customer requests that extend beyond the express terms of our
agreements in order to maintain our relationships with our
customers. If we are unable to retain and expand our business
with these customers on favorable terms, our business and
operating results will be adversely affected.
We have had to qualify, and are required to maintain our status,
as a supplier for each of our customers. This is a lengthy
process that involves the inspection and approval by a customer
of our engineering, documentation, manufacturing and quality
control procedures before that customer will place volume
orders. Our ability to lessen the adverse effect of any loss of,
or reduction in sales to, an existing customer through the rapid
addition of one or more new customers is minimal because of
these qualification requirements. Consequently, our business,
operating results and financial condition would be adversely
affected by the loss of, or any reduction in orders by, any of
our significant customers.
We
have significant existing debts; the restrictive covenants under
some of our debt agreements may limit our ability to expand or
pursue our business strategy; if we are forced to prepay some or
all of this indebtedness our financial position would be
severely and adversely affected.
We have a significant amount of outstanding indebtedness. At
December 31, 2006, our long-term debt was
$27.4 million and our short-term debt was
$4.2 million, for an aggregate total of $31.6 million.
Our loan agreement requires compliance with certain financial
covenants, including a leverage and fixed charge coverage target
and a requirement that we maintain $5.0 million of
unrestricted cash and cash equivalents during the term. The
covenants contained in our line of credit with the bank also
restrict our ability to take certain actions, including our
ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
pay dividends and make distributions in respect of our capital
stock;
|
|
|
|
redeem capital stock;
|
|
|
|
make investments or other restricted payments outside the
ordinary course of business;
|
|
|
|
engage in transactions with shareholders and affiliates;
|
|
|
|
create liens;
|
|
|
|
sell or otherwise dispose of assets;
|
|
|
|
make payments on our debt, other than in the ordinary course; and
|
|
|
|
engage in mergers and acquisitions.
|
8
While we are currently in compliance with the financial
covenants in our loan agreement, we cannot assure you that we
will meet these financial covenants in subsequent periods. If we
are unable to meet any covenants, we cannot assure you that the
bank will grant waivers and amend the covenants, or that the
bank will not terminate the agreement, preclude further
borrowings or require us to repay any outstanding borrowings. As
long as our indebtedness remains outstanding, the restrictive
covenants could impair our ability to expand or pursue our
business strategies or obtain additional funding. Forced
prepayment of some or all of our indebtedness would reduce our
available cash balances and have an adverse impact on our
operating and financial performance.
We may
not be able to integrate efficiently the operations of past and
future acquired businesses.
We have made, and may in the future, consider making additional
acquisitions of, or significant investments in, businesses that
offer complementary products, services, technologies or market
access. For example, we acquired Sieger Engineering, Inc. in
June 2006. If we are to realize the anticipated benefits of past
and future acquisitions or investments, the operations of these
companies must be integrated and combined efficiently with our
own. The process of integrating supply and distribution
channels, computer and accounting systems, and other aspects of
operations, while managing a larger entity, will continue to
present a significant challenge to our management. In addition,
it is not certain that we will be able to incorporate different
financial and reporting controls, processes, systems and
technologies into our existing business environment. The
difficulties of integration may increase because of the
necessity of combining personnel with varied business
backgrounds and combining different corporate cultures and
objectives. We may assume substantial debt and incur substantial
costs associated with these activities and we may suffer other
material adverse effects from these integration efforts which
could materially reduce our earnings, even over the long-term.
We may not succeed with the integration process and we may not
fully realize the anticipated benefits of the business
combinations. The dedication of management resources to such
integration or divestitures may detract attention from the
day-to-day
business, and we may need to hire additional management
personnel to manage our acquisitions successfully.
In addition, we frequently evaluate acquisitions of, or
significant investments in, complementary companies, assets,
businesses and technologies. Even if an acquisition or other
investment is not completed, we may incur significant cost in
evaluating such acquisition or investment, which has in the past
had, and could in the future have, an adverse effect on our
results of operations.
We
have identified deficiencies in the internal controls of Sieger
that existed prior to our acquisition of Sieger, and the
identification of any deficiencies in the future could affect
our ability to ensure timely and reliable financial
reports.
We have identified deficiencies in the internal controls
associated with Sieger. These deficiencies existed at the time
of our acquisition of Sieger. We are in the process of
implementing changes to strengthen the internal controls of
UCT-Sieger. However, additional measures may be necessary. The
measures we expect to take to improve the internal controls of
UCT-Sieger may not be sufficient to address the issues
identified by us or ensure that the internal controls of
UCT-Sieger are effective. Due to the timing of the acquisition,
we have excluded the operations of UCT-Sieger from our
Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX
404) attestation process at December 31, 2006.
However, we will include UCT-Sieger in our SOX 404 attestation
process at December 31, 2007 and there can be no assurance
that these deficiencies will be sufficiently remediated by that
time.
We
have established, and intend to expand, our operations in China,
which exposes us to risks associated with operating in a foreign
country.
We are exposed to political, economic, legal and other risks
associated with operating in China, including:
|
|
|
|
|
foreign currency exchange fluctuations;
|
|
|
|
political, civil and economic instability;
|
|
|
|
tariffs and other barriers;
|
|
|
|
timing and availability of export licenses;
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
disruptions to our and our customers operations due to the
outbreak of communicable diseases, such as SARS and avian flu;
|
|
|
|
disruptions in operations due to the weakness of Chinas
domestic infrastructure, including transportation and energy;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in developing relationships with local suppliers;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in attracting new international customers;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in accounts receivable collections;
|
|
|
|
difficulties in staffing and managing a distant international
subsidiary and branch operations;
|
|
|
|
the burden of complying with foreign and international laws and
treaties;
|
|
|
|
difficulty in transferring funds to other geographic locations;
and
|
|
|
|
potentially adverse tax consequences.
|
Over the past several years the Chinese government has pursued
economic reform policies, including the encouragement of private
economic activity and greater economic decentralization, the
Chinese government may not continue these policies or may
significantly alter them to our detriment from time to time
without notice. Changes in laws and regulations or their
interpretation, the imposition of confiscatory taxation
policies, new restrictions on currency conversion or limitations
on sources of supply could materially and adversely affect our
Chinese operations, which could result in the partial or total
loss of our investment in that country and materially and
adversely affect our future operating results. Total assets in
China at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were $17.4 million
and $5.2 million, respectively.
Our
quarterly revenue and operating results fluctuate significantly
from period to period, and this may cause volatility in our
common stock price.
Our quarterly revenue and operating results have fluctuated
significantly in the past, and we expect them to continue to
fluctuate in the future for a variety of reasons which may
include:
|
|
|
|
|
demand for and market acceptance of our products as a result of
the cyclical nature of the semiconductor industry or otherwise,
often resulting in reduced sales during industry downturns and
increased sales during periods of industry recovery;
|
|
|
|
changes in the timing and size of orders by our customers;
|
|
|
|
cancellations and postponements of previously placed orders;
|
|
|
|
pricing pressure from either our competitors or our customers,
resulting in the reduction of our product prices;
|
|
|
|
disruptions or delays in the manufacturing of our products or in
the supply of components or raw materials that are incorporated
into or used to manufacture our products, thereby causing us to
delay the shipment of products;
|
|
|
|
decreased margins for several or more quarters following the
introduction of new products, especially as we introduce new
subsystems;
|
|
|
|
delays in
ramp-up in
production, low yields or other problems experienced at our new
manufacturing facility in China;
|
|
|
|
changes in
design-to-delivery
cycle times;
|
|
|
|
inability to reduce our costs quickly in step with reductions in
our prices or in response to decreased demand for our products;
|
|
|
|
changes in our mix of products sold;
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
write-offs of excess or obsolete inventory;
|
|
|
|
one-time expenses or charges associated with failed acquisition
negotiations or completed acquisitions;
|
|
|
|
announcements by our competitors of new products, services or
technological innovations, which may, among other things, render
our products less competitive; and
|
|
|
|
geographic mix of worldwide earnings.
|
As a result of the foregoing, we believe that
quarter-to-quarter
comparisons of our revenue and operating results may not be
meaningful and that these comparisons may not be an accurate
indicator of our future performance. Changes in the timing or
terms of a small number of transactions could disproportionately
affect our operating results in any particular quarter.
Moreover, our operating results in one or more future quarters
may fail to meet the expectations of securities analysts or
investors. If this occurs, we would expect to experience an
immediate and significant decline in the trading price of our
common stock.
Third
parties have claimed and may in the future claim we are
infringing their intellectual property, which could subject us
to litigation or licensing expenses, and we may be prevented
from selling our products if any such claims prove
successful.
We have received a claim of infringement from Celerity, Inc.
that is currently pending, and we may receive notices of other
such claims in the future. In addition, we may be unaware of
intellectual property rights of others that may be applicable to
our products. Any litigation regarding patents or other
intellectual property could be costly and time-consuming and
divert our management and key personnel from our business
operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on
our business and results of operations. The complexity of the
technology involved in our products and the uncertainty of
intellectual property litigation increase these risks. Claims of
intellectual property infringement may also require us to enter
into costly license agreements. However, we may not be able to
obtain licenses on terms acceptable to us, or at all. We also
may be subject to significant damages or injunctions against the
development, manufacture and sale of certain of our products if
any such claims prove successful. See
Item 3 Legal Proceedings in
Part I.
We are
subject to order and shipment uncertainties and any significant
reductions, cancellations or delays in customer orders could
cause our revenue to decline and our operating results to
suffer.
Our revenue is difficult to forecast because we generally do not
have a material backlog of unfilled orders and because of the
short time frame within which we are often required to design,
produce and deliver products to our customers. Most of our
revenue in any quarter depends on customer orders for our
products that we receive and fulfill in the same quarter. We do
not have long-term purchase orders or contracts that contain
minimum purchase commitments from our customers. Instead, we
receive non-binding forecasts of the future volume of orders
from our customers. Occasionally, we order and build component
inventory in advance of the receipt of actual customer orders.
Customers may cancel order forecasts, change production
quantities from forecasted volumes or delay production for
reasons beyond our control. Furthermore, reductions,
cancellations or delays in customer order forecasts occur
without penalty to, or compensation from, the customer.
Reductions, cancellations or delays in forecasted orders could
cause us to hold inventory longer than anticipated, which could
reduce our gross profit, restrict our ability to fund our
operations and cause us to incur unanticipated reductions or
delays in revenue. If we do not obtain orders as we anticipate,
we could have excess component inventory for a specific product
that we would not be able to sell to another customer, likely
resulting in inventory write-offs, which could have a material
adverse affect on our business, financial condition and
operating results. In addition, because many of our costs are
fixed in the short term, we could experience deterioration in
our gross profit when our production volumes decline.
The
manufacturing of our products is highly complex, and if we are
not able to manage our manufacturing and procurement process
effectively, our business and operating results will
suffer.
The manufacturing of our products is a highly complex process
that involves the integration of multiple components and
requires effective management of our supply chain while meeting
our customers
design-to-delivery
cycle time requirements. Through the course of the manufacturing
process, our customers may modify design
11
and system configurations in response to changes in their own
customers requirements. In order to rapidly respond to
these modifications and deliver our products to our customers in
a timely manner, we must effectively manage our manufacturing
and procurement process. If we fail to manage this process
effectively, we risk losing customers and damaging our
reputation. In addition, if we acquire inventory in excess of
demand or that does not meet customer specifications, we would
incur excess or obsolete inventory charges. These risks are even
greater as we expand our business beyond Gas Delivery Systems
into new subsystems. As a result, this could limit our growth
and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and operating results.
OEMs
may not continue to outsource Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems, which would adversely impact our operating
results.
The success of our business depends on OEMs continuing to
outsource the manufacturing of Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems for their semiconductor capital equipment.
Most of the largest OEMs have already outsourced production of a
significant portion of their Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems. If OEMs do not continue to outsource Gas
Delivery Systems and Other Critical Subsystems for their capital
equipment, our revenue would be significantly reduced, which
would have a material adverse affect on our business, financial
condition and operating results. In addition, if we are unable
to obtain additional business from OEMs, even if they continue
to outsource their production of Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems, our business, financial condition and
operating results could be adversely affected.
If our
new products are not accepted by OEMs or if we are unable to
maintain historical margins on our new products, our operating
results would be adversely impacted.
We design, develop and market Gas Delivery Systems and Other
Critical Subsystems to OEMs. Sales of these new products are
expected to make up an increasing part of our total revenue. The
introduction of new products is inherently risky because it is
difficult to foresee the adoption of new standards, to
coordinate our technical personnel and strategic relationships
and to win acceptance of new products by OEMs. We may not be
able to recoup design and development expenditures if our new
products are not accepted by OEMs. Newly introduced products
typically carry lower gross margins for several or more quarters
following their introduction. If any of our new subsystems is
not successful in the market, or if we are unable to obtain
gross margins on new products that are similar to the gross
margins we have historically achieved, our business, operating
results and financial condition could be adversely affected.
We may
not be able to manage our future growth
successfully.
Our ability to execute our business plan successfully in a
rapidly evolving market requires an effective planning and
management process. We have increased, and plan to continue to
increase, the scope of our operations. Our 2006 revenues
increased 128.6% over our 2005 revenues, in significant part due
to the acquisition of Sieger. Due to the cyclical nature of the
semiconductor industry, however, future growth is difficult to
predict. Our expansion efforts could be expensive and may strain
our managerial and other resources. To manage future growth
effectively, we must maintain and enhance our financial and
operating systems and controls and manage expanded operations.
Although we occasionally experience reductions in force, over
time the number of people we employ has generally grown and we
expect this number to continue to grow when our operations
expand. The addition and training of new employees may lead to
short-term quality control problems and place increased demands
on our management and experienced personnel. If we do not manage
growth properly, our business, operating results and financial
condition could be adversely affected.
Our
business is largely dependent on the know-how of our employees,
and we generally do not have a protected intellectual property
position.
Our business is largely dependent upon our design, engineering,
manufacturing and testing know-how. We rely on a combination of
trade secrets and contractual confidentiality provisions and, to
a much lesser extent, patents, copyrights and trademarks, to
protect our proprietary rights. Accordingly, our intellectual
property position is more vulnerable than it would be if it were
protected by patents. If we fail to protect our proprietary
rights successfully, our competitive position could suffer,
which could harm our operating results. We may be required to
spend
12
significant resources to monitor and protect our proprietary
rights, and, in the event we do not detect infringement of our
proprietary rights, we may lose our competitive position in the
market if any such infringement occurs. In addition, competitors
may design around our technology or develop competing
technologies and know-how.
If we
do not keep pace with developments in the semiconductor industry
and with technological innovation generally, our products may
not be competitive.
Rapid technological innovation in semiconductor manufacturing
requires the semiconductor capital equipment industry to
anticipate and respond quickly to evolving customer requirements
and could render our current product offerings and technology
obsolete. Technological innovations are inherently complex. We
must devote resources to technology development in order to keep
pace with the rapidly evolving technologies used in
semiconductor manufacturing. We believe that our future success
will depend upon our ability to design, engineer and manufacture
products that meet the changing needs of our customers. This
requires that we successfully anticipate and respond to
technological changes in design, engineering and manufacturing
processes in a cost-effective and timely manner. If we are
unable to integrate new technical specifications into
competitive product designs, develop the technical capabilities
necessary to manufacture new products or make necessary
modifications or enhancements to existing products, our business
prospects could be harmed.
The timely development of new or enhanced products is a complex
and uncertain process which requires that we:
|
|
|
|
|
design innovative and performance-enhancing features that
differentiate our products from those of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
identify emerging technological trends in the semiconductor
industry, including new standards for our products;
|
|
|
|
accurately identify and design new products to meet market needs;
|
|
|
|
collaborate with OEMs to design and develop products on a timely
and cost-effective basis;
|
|
|
|
ramp-up
production of new products, especially new subsystems, in a
timely manner and with acceptable yields;
|
|
|
|
successfully manage development production cycles; and
|
|
|
|
respond effectively to technological changes or product
announcements by others.
|
The
industry in which we participate is highly competitive and
rapidly evolving, and if we are unable to compete effectively,
our operating results would be harmed.
Our competitors are primarily companies that design and
manufacture Gas Delivery Systems for semiconductor capital
equipment. Although we have not faced competition in the past
from the largest subsystem and component manufacturers in the
semiconductor capital equipment industry, these suppliers could
compete with us in the future. Increased competition has in the
past resulted, and could in the future result, in price
reductions, reduced gross margins or loss of market share, any
of which would harm our operating results. We are subject to
pricing pressure as we attempt to increase market share with our
existing customers. Competitors may introduce new products for
the markets currently served by our products. These products may
have better performance, lower prices and achieve broader market
acceptance than our products. Further, OEMs typically own the
design rights to their products and may provide these designs to
other subsystem manufacturers. If our competitors obtain
proprietary rights to these designs such that we are unable to
obtain the designs necessary to manufacture products for our OEM
customers, our business, financial condition and operating
results could be adversely affected.
Our competitors may have greater financial, technical,
manufacturing and marketing resources than we do. As a result,
they may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging
technologies and changes in customer requirements, devote
greater resources to the development, promotion, sale and
support of their products, and reduce prices to increase market
share. Moreover, there may be merger and acquisition activity
among our competitors and potential competitors that may provide
our competitors and potential competitors an advantage
13
over us by enabling them to expand their product offerings and
service capabilities to meet a broader range of customer needs.
Further, if one of our customers develops or acquires the
internal capability to develop and produce Gas Delivery Systems
or Other Critical Subsystems that we produce, the loss of that
customer could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and operating results. The introduction of
new technologies and new market entrants may also increase
competitive pressures.
We
must achieve design wins to retain our existing customers and to
obtain new customers.
New semiconductor capital equipment typically has a lifespan of
several years, and OEMs frequently specify which systems,
subsystems, components and instruments are to be used in their
equipment. Once a specific system, subsystem, component or
instrument is incorporated into a piece of semiconductor capital
equipment, it will likely continue to be incorporated into that
piece of equipment for at least several months before the OEM
switches to the product of another supplier. Accordingly, it is
important that our products are designed into the new
semiconductor capital equipment of OEMs, which we refer to as a
design win, in order to retain our competitive position with
existing customers and to obtain new customers.
We incur technology development and sales expenses with no
assurance that our products will ultimately be designed into an
OEMs semiconductor capital equipment. Further, developing
new customer relationships, as well as increasing our market
share at existing customers, requires a substantial investment
of our sales, engineering and management resources without any
assurance from prospective customers that they will place
significant orders. We believe that OEMs often select their
suppliers and place orders based on long-term relationships.
Accordingly, we may have difficulty achieving design wins from
OEMs that are not currently our customers. Our operating results
and potential growth could be adversely affected if we fail to
achieve design wins with leading OEMs.
We may
not be able to respond quickly enough to increases in demand for
our products.
Demand shifts in the semiconductor industry are rapid and
difficult to predict, and we may not be able to respond quickly
enough to an increase in demand. Our ability to increase sales
of our products depends, in part, upon our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
mobilize our supply chain in order to maintain component and raw
material supply;
|
|
|
|
optimize the use of our design, engineering and manufacturing
capacity in a timely manner;
|
|
|
|
deliver our products to our customers in a timely fashion;
|
|
|
|
expand, if necessary, our manufacturing capacity; and
|
|
|
|
maintain our product quality as we increase production.
|
If we are unable to respond to rapid increases in demand for our
products on a timely basis or to manage any corresponding
expansion of our manufacturing capacity effectively, our
customers could increase their purchases from our competitors,
which would adversely affect our business.
Our
dependence on our suppliers may prevent us from delivering an
acceptable product on a timely basis.
We rely on both single-source and sole-source suppliers some of
whom are relatively small, for many of the components we use in
our products. In addition, our customers often specify
components of particular suppliers that we must incorporate into
our products. Our suppliers are under no obligation to provide
us with components. As a result, the loss of or failure to
perform by any of these providers could adversely affect our
business and operating results. In addition, the manufacturing
of certain components and subsystems is an extremely complex
process. Therefore, if a supplier were unable to provide the
volume of components we require on a timely basis and at
acceptable prices, we would have to identify and qualify
replacements from alternative sources of supply. The process of
qualifying new suppliers for these complex components is lengthy
and could delay our production, which would adversely affect our
business, operating results and financial condition. We may also
experience difficulty in obtaining sufficient supplies of
components and raw materials in times of significant growth in
our business. For example, we have in the past experienced
shortages in supplies of various components, such as mass flow
controllers, valves and regulators, and certain prefabricated
parts, such as sheet metal enclosures, used in the
14
manufacture of our products. In addition, one of our competitors
manufactures mass flow controllers that may be specified by one
or more of our customers. If we are unable to obtain these
particular mass flow controllers from our competitor or convince
a customer to select alternative mass flow controllers, we may
be unable to meet that customers requirements, which could
result in a loss of market share.
Defects
in our products could damage our reputation, decrease market
acceptance of our products, cause the unintended release of
hazardous materials and result in potentially costly
litigation.
A number of factors, including design flaws, material and
component failures, contamination in the manufacturing
environment, impurities in the materials used and unknown
sensitivities to process conditions, such as temperature and
humidity, as well as equipment failures, may cause our products
to contain undetected errors or defects. Problems with our
products may:
|
|
|
|
|
cause delays in product introductions and shipments;
|
|
|
|
result in increased costs and diversion of development resources;
|
|
|
|
cause us to incur increased charges due to unusable inventory;
|
|
|
|
require design modifications;
|
|
|
|
decrease market acceptance of, or customer satisfaction with,
our products, which could result in decreased sales and product
returns; or
|
|
|
|
result in lower yields for semiconductor manufacturers.
|
If any of our products contain defects or have reliability,
quality or compatibility problems, our reputation might be
damaged and customers might be reluctant to buy our products. We
may also face a higher rate of product defects as we increase
our production levels. Product defects could result in the loss
of existing customers, or impair our ability to attract new
customers. In addition, we may not find defects or failures in
our products until after they are installed in a semiconductor
manufacturers fabrication facility. We may have to invest
significant capital and other resources to correct these
problems. Our current or potential customers also might seek to
recover from us any losses resulting from defects or failures in
our products. Hazardous materials flow through and are
controlled by our products and an unintended release of these
materials could result in serious injury or death. Liability
claims could require us to spend significant time and money in
litigation or pay significant damages.
The
technology labor market is very competitive, and our business
will suffer if we are unable to hire and retain key
personnel.
Our future success depends in part on the continued service of
our key executive officers, as well as our research,
engineering, sales, manufacturing and administrative personnel,
most of whom are not subject to employment or non-competition
agreements. In addition, competition for qualified personnel in
the technology industry is intense, and we operate in geographic
locations in which labor markets are particularly competitive.
Our business is particularly dependent on expertise which only a
very limited number of engineers possess. The loss of any of our
key employees and officers, including our Chief Executive
Officer, Vice President of Engineering, Vice President of Sales
and Vice President of Technology, or the failure to attract and
retain new qualified employees, would adversely affect our
business, operating results and financial condition.
We may
not be able to fund our future capital requirements from our
operations, and financing from other sources may not be
available on favorable terms or at all.
We made capital expenditures of $4.0 million in 2006, most
of which was for facility cleanroom expansion and improvements
and the implementation of our new ERP system, and
$1.1 million in 2005, most of which was for facility
leasehold improvements and equipment in connection with the
establishment of a manufacturing facility in Shanghai, China. We
made capital expenditures of $3.3 million in 2004. We have
recently leased a second manufacturing facility in Shanghai,
China in close proximity to our existing facility. We expect to
invest
15
approximately $6.5 million in this additional facility over
the next four years with $2.1 million of this investment
scheduled for 2007. The amount of our future capital
requirements will depend on many factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the cost required to ensure access to adequate manufacturing
capacity;
|
|
|
|
the timing and extent of spending to support product development
efforts;
|
|
|
|
the timing of introductions of new products and enhancements to
existing products;
|
|
|
|
changing manufacturing capabilities to meet new customer
requirements; and
|
|
|
|
market acceptance of our products.
|
Although we currently have a credit facility, we may need to
raise additional funds through public or private equity or debt
financing if our current cash and cash flow from operations are
insufficient to fund our future activities. Our loan agreement
terminates on June 29, 2009 and we may not be able renew it
on favorable terms. Future equity financings could be dilutive
to holders of our common stock, and debt financings could
involve covenants that restrict our business operations. If we
cannot raise funds on acceptable terms, if and when needed, we
may not be able to develop or enhance our products, take
advantage of future opportunities, grow our business or respond
to competitive pressures or unanticipated requirements, any of
which could adversely affect our business, operating results and
financial condition.
Fluctuations
in currency exchange rates may adversely affect our financial
condition and results of operations.
Our international sales are denominated primarily, though not
entirely, in U.S. dollars. Many of the costs and expenses
associated with our Shanghai subsidiary are paid in Chinese
Renminbi, and we expect our exposure to Chinese Renminbi to
increase as we ramp up production in that facility. In addition,
purchases of some of our components are denominated in Japanese
Yen. Changes in exchange rates among other currencies in which
our revenue or costs are denominated and the U.S. dollar
may affect our revenue, cost of sales and operating margins.
While fluctuations in the value of our revenue, cost of sales
and operating margins as measured in U.S. dollars have not
materially affected our results of operations historically, we
do not currently hedge our exchange exposure, and exchange rate
fluctuations could have an adverse effect on our financial
condition and results of operations in the future.
If
environmental contamination were to occur in one of our
manufacturing facilities, we could be subject to substantial
liabilities.
We use substances regulated under various foreign, domestic,
federal, state and local environmental laws in our manufacturing
facilities. Our failure or inability to comply with existing or
future environmental laws could result in significant
remediation liabilities, the imposition of fines or the
suspension or termination of the production of our products. In
addition, we may not be aware of all environmental laws or
regulations that could subject us to liability.
If our
facilities were to experience catastrophic loss due to natural
disasters, our operations would be seriously
harmed.
Our facilities could be subject to a catastrophic loss caused by
natural disasters, including fires and earthquakes. We have
facilities in areas with above average seismic activity, such as
our manufacturing facility in South San Francisco,
California and our manufacturing and headquarters facilities in
Menlo Park, California. If any of our facilities were to
experience a catastrophic loss, it could disrupt our operations,
delay production and shipments, reduce revenue and result in
large expenses to repair or replace the facility. In addition,
we have in the past experienced, and may in the future
experience, extended power outages at our South
San Francisco and Menlo Park, California facilities.
We do not carry insurance policies that cover potential losses
caused by earthquakes or other natural disasters or power loss.
16
We may
not be able to continue to secure adequate facilities to house
our operations, and any move to a new facility could be
disruptive to our operations.
On January 19, 2006, we extended the lease for our Menlo
Park headquarters and manufacturing facility through
December 31, 2007. If we are unable to renew our lease on
favorable terms after this date we will be forced to relocate
all manufacturing, engineering, sales and marketing and
administrative functions currently housed in Menlo Park to new
facilities. This move could disrupt our operations and we would
incur additional costs associated with relocation to new
facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations.
We
must maintain effective controls, and our auditors will report
on them.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires, among other things,
that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting. As of
December 31, 2006 we are classified as an Accelerated
Filer, as defined in Exchange Act
Rule 12b-2
effective as of the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2006. As
a result, our auditors were required to audit and report on the
effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting
beginning with our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006. In order to maintain
and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting,
significant resources and management oversight will be required.
As a result, our managements attention might be diverted
from other business concerns, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
operating results. Any failure by us to maintain adequate
controls or to adequately implement new controls could harm our
operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting
obligations. Inferior internal controls could also cause
investors to lose confidence in our reported financial
information, which could adversely affect the trading price of
our common stock. In addition, we might need to hire additional
accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company
experience and technical accounting knowledge, and we might not
be able to do so in a timely fashion. We will be required to
report results in our
Form 10-K
and 10-Q in
an abbreviated timeframe, which will increase the time burden on
our management. The concluding process related to our internal
control assessment consumed more time than anticipated
contributing to a delay in the filing of this
Form 10-K.
The
market for our stock is subject to significant
fluctuation.
The size of our public market capitalization is relatively
small, and the volume of our shares that are traded is low. The
market price of our common stock could be subject to significant
fluctuations. Among the factors that could affect our stock
price are:
|
|
|
|
|
quarterly variations in our operating results;
|
|
|
|
our ability to successfully introduce new products and manage
new product transitions;
|
|
|
|
changes in revenue or earnings estimates or publication of
research reports by analysts;
|
|
|
|
speculation in the press or investment community;
|
|
|
|
strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions
or restructurings;
|
|
|
|
announcements relating to any of our key customers, significant
suppliers or the semiconductor manufacturing and capital
equipment industry generally;
|
|
|
|
general market conditions;
|
|
|
|
the effects of war and terrorist attacks; and
|
|
|
|
domestic and international economic factors unrelated to our
performance.
|
The stock markets in general, and the markets for technology
stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility that
has often been unrelated to the operating performance of
particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may
adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.
17
Provisions
of our charter documents could discourage potential acquisition
proposals and could delay, deter or prevent a change in
control.
The provisions of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation and bylaws could deter, delay or prevent a third
party from acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our
stockholders. These provisions include:
|
|
|
|
|
a requirement that special meetings of stockholders may be
called only by our board of directors, the chairman of our board
of directors, our president or our secretary;
|
|
|
|
advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and
director nominations; and
|
|
|
|
the authority of our board of directors to issue, without
stockholder approval, preferred stock with such terms as our
Board of Directors may determine.
|
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
Our headquarters is located in Menlo Park, California, where we
lease approximately 64,000 square feet of commercial space
under a term lease that expires on December 31, 2007. We
use this space for our principal administrative, sales and
support, engineering and technology development facilities and
for manufacturing purposes. Approximately 6,500 square feet
at our Menlo Park facility is a clean room manufacturing
facility. We have manufacturing and engineering facilities in
South San Francisco and Sacramento as a result of the
acquisition of Sieger in June 2006. In South San Francisco
we lease approximately 102,000 square feet under 6 leases
with varying expiration dates and extension periods.
Approximately 12,300 square feet in South
San Francisco is a neat room facility and 1,300 square
feet is a clean room manufacturing facility. In Sacramento, we
lease approximately 20,000 square feet under a lease that
expires in August of 2010 with one five-year extension. We also
have manufacturing facilities in Austin, Texas, Tualatin, Oregon
and Shanghai, China. In Austin, we lease approximately
44,000 square feet of commercial space under a lease that
expires on October 31, 2008, subject to renewal for up to
three years at our option. Approximately 6,800 square feet
in Austin is a clean room manufacturing facility. In Tualatin,
we lease approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial
space under a lease that expires on November 7, 2007,
subject to renewal for up to five years at our option.
Approximately 6,800 square feet in Tualatin is a clean room
manufacturing facility. In Shanghai, we lease approximately
132,000 square feet of commercial space under 2 leases
which expire on June 30, 2009 and February 28, 2011.
Approximately 11,000 square feet of this space is a clean
room facility.
The table below lists our properties as of February 28,
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Principal Use
|
|
Square Footage
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
Menlo Park, California
|
|
Headquarters, manufacturing,
sales, engineering, technology development
|
|
|
64,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
South San Francisco, California
|
|
Manufacturing, engineering
|
|
|
102,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
*
|
Sacramento, California
|
|
Manufacturing
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
Austin, Texas
|
|
Manufacturing, engineering
|
|
|
44,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
Tualatin, Oregon
|
|
Manufacturing, engineering
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
Shanghai, China
|
|
Manufacturing, customer support
|
|
|
132,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
As part of the acquisition of Sieger, the Company leases a
facility from an entity controlled by one of the Companys
executive officers. From the time of acquisition to
December 31, 2006, the Company incurred rent expense
resulting from the lease of this facility of $0.1 million. |
18
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
On September 2, 2005, we filed suit in the federal court
for the Northern District of California against Celerity, Inc.,
or Celerity, seeking a declaratory judgment that our new
substrate technology does not infringe certain of
Celeritys patents and/or that Celeritys patents are
invalid. On September 13, 2005, Celerity filed suit in the
federal court of Delaware alleging that we have infringed seven
patents by developing and marketing products that use
Celeritys fluid distribution technology. The complaint by
Celerity seeks injunction against future infringement of its
patents and compensatory and treble damages. The Delaware
litigation was transferred to the Northern District of
California on October 19, 2005 and on December 12,
2005 was consolidated with our previously filed declaratory
judgment action. The Court issued its claim construction order
on September 29, 2006, and discovery is nearly complete in
the case. We have filed motions for summary judgments of
non-infringement and invalidity with the Court, and those
motions are currently pending. Trial in this matter is currently
scheduled for June 2007. We believe that the claims made by
Celerity are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously. However, litigation can be costly and time consuming
regardless of the outcome.
From time to time, we are also subject to various legal
proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that
arise in the ordinary course of business.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder
Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
COMPARISON
OF 33 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc., The NASDAQ Composite Index
And The RDG Semiconductor Composite Index
|
|
|
* |
|
$100 invested on
3/25/04 in
stock or on
2/28/04 in
index-including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending
December 31. |
19
Our common stock has been traded on the NASDAQ Global Market
under the symbol UCTT since March 25, 2004. The
following table sets forth for the periods indicated the high
and low closing sales prices per share of our common stock as
reported by the NASDAQ Global Market:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Fiscal year 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
6.80
|
|
|
$
|
5.79
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
7.96
|
|
|
$
|
6.03
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
7.41
|
|
|
$
|
5.55
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
7.63
|
|
|
$
|
5.95
|
|
Fiscal year 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
9.80
|
|
|
$
|
7.10
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
9.45
|
|
|
$
|
7.44
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
11.10
|
|
|
$
|
7.36
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
14.08
|
|
|
$
|
10.02
|
|
To date, we have not declared or paid cash dividends to our
stockholders and we do not intend to do so for the foreseeable
future in order to retain earnings for use in our business. As
of February 28, 2007, we had approximately 19 stockholders
of record.
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Consolidated Financial Data
|
You should read the following tables in conjunction with other
information contained under Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, our consolidated financial statements and
related notes and other financial information contained
elsewhere in this Annual Report.
Statements
of Income Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 16,
|
|
|
January 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Through
|
|
|
Through
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
November 15,
|
|
|
|
2006(2)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
337,228
|
|
|
$
|
147,535
|
|
|
$
|
184,204
|
|
|
$
|
77,520
|
|
|
$
|
7,916
|
|
|
$
|
76,338
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
286,542
|
|
|
|
127,459
|
|
|
|
154,995
|
|
|
|
67,313
|
|
|
|
7,972
|
|
|
|
66,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit (loss)
|
|
|
50,686
|
|
|
|
20,076
|
|
|
|
29,209
|
|
|
|
10,207
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
9,352
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
25,352
|
|
|
|
17,515
|
|
|
|
15,761
|
|
|
|
8,409
|
|
|
|
2,282
|
|
|
|
8,846
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
25,334
|
|
|
|
2,561
|
|
|
|
13,448
|
|
|
|
1,798
|
|
|
|
(2,338
|
)
|
|
|
506
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
(1,758
|
)
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
(387
|
)
|
|
|
(1,458
|
)
|
|
|
(178
|
)
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
23,576
|
|
|
|
2,708
|
|
|
|
13,061
|
|
|
|
340
|
|
|
|
(2,516
|
)
|
|
|
330
|
|
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
|
|
7,266
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
|
|
4,511
|
|
|
|
232
|
|
|
|
(667
|
)
|
|
|
642
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
16,310
|
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
|
$
|
8,550
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
|
$
|
(1,849
|
)
|
|
$
|
(312
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
(0.21
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.83
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
(0.21
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
Shares used in
computation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
16,241
|
|
|
|
14,605
|
|
|
|
9,976
|
|
|
|
8,668
|
|
|
|
3,680
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
19,649
|
|
|
|
17,169
|
|
|
|
15,542
|
|
|
|
10,711
|
|
|
|
8,668
|
|
|
|
3,680
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The results for the period January 1
November 15, 2002 represent the financial data for Ultra
Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc. (Predecessor). |
20
|
|
|
(2) |
|
The results for the year ended December 31, 2006 include
the activity of UCT-Sieger beginning June 30, 2006, the
date of acquisition. |
Consolidated
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
23,321
|
|
|
|
10,663
|
|
|
|
11,440
|
|
|
|
6,035
|
|
|
|
6,237
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
71,587
|
|
|
|
33,889
|
|
|
|
29,861
|
|
|
|
17,519
|
|
|
|
16,067
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
187,047
|
|
|
|
75,009
|
|
|
|
67,698
|
|
|
|
50,155
|
|
|
|
48,836
|
|
Bank borrowings and long term debt
|
|
|
31.564
|
|
|
|
2.343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short and long-term capital lease
and other long-term obligations
|
|
|
379
|
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
528
|
|
|
|
558
|
|
|
|
662
|
|
Debt to related parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,013
|
|
|
|
29,812
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
107,168
|
|
|
|
55,281
|
|
|
|
52,475
|
|
|
|
8,320
|
|
|
|
8,089
|
|
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
Business
Combination
On June 29, 2006, we completed the acquisition of Sieger
Engineering, Inc, a privately-held contract manufacturing
company based in South San Francisco, California
(UCT-Sieger). The total purchase price was
approximately $53.5 million and was comprised of cash
consideration of $32.4 million, including acquisition costs
of $1.4 million, and stock consideration of
$21.1 million. Our subsidiary, UCT-Sieger, is a supplier of
chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) modules and Other
Critical Subsystems to the semiconductor, solar and flat panel
capital equipment industries. We believe that the acquisition
has enhanced our strategic position as a semiconductor equipment
subsystem supplier. We have accounted for the acquisition of
UCT-Sieger as a business combination and the operating results
of UCT-Sieger have been included in our consolidated financial
statements from the date of acquisition. (See Note 2 in
Item 8 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
General
We are a leading developer and supplier of critical subsystems,
primarily for the semiconductor capital equipment industry. We
develop, design, prototype, engineer, manufacture and test
subsystems which are highly specialized and tailored to specific
steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process. Currently, our
revenue is derived primarily from the sale of Gas Delivery
Systems. We have recently increased our revenue related to the
sale of Other Critical Subsystems, including CMP modules,
chemical delivery modules, top-plate assemblies, frame
assemblies and process modules. Our primary customers are
semiconductor equipment manufacturers.
Historically the majority of semiconductor equipment
manufacturers were vertically integrated. However, as they place
greater emphasis on their core competencies, process development
and innovation, they rely more heavily on outsourcing the
design, development and manufacturing of many of the subsystems
that comprise the semiconductor manufacturing equipment they
produce. As the requirements they place on their subsystem
suppliers increase and the scope of the subsystems they
outsource expands, semiconductor equipment manufacturers seek to
consolidate their supplier relationships into a reduced number
of integrated solution providers.
We provide our customers complete subsystem solutions that
combine our expertise in design, test, component
characterization and highly flexible manufacturing operations
with quality control and financial stability. This combination
helps us drive down total manufacturing costs, reduce
design-to-delivery
cycle times and maintain high quality standards for our
customers. We believe these characteristics, as well as our
standing as a leading supplier of Gas Delivery Systems, place us
in a strong position to benefit from the growing demand for
subsystem outsourcing.
The majority of our products consist of Gas Delivery Systems.
Our Other Critical Subsystems, related to semiconductor
manufacturing equipment, include CMP modules, chemical delivery
modules, top-plate assemblies,
21
frame assemblies and process modules. We operate clean room
manufacturing facilities in Menlo Park and South
San Francisco, California; Austin, Texas; Tualatin, Oregon;
and Shanghai, China.
We have in the past considered and will continue to consider
acquisitions that will enable us to expand our geographic
presence, secure new customers and diversify into complementary
products and markets as well as broaden our technological
capabilities in semiconductor capital equipment manufacturing.
FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C., an entity controlled by Francisco
Partners, L.P., owned a controlling interest in our outstanding
common stock until the first quarter of 2006. Pursuant to an
amended and restated stockholders agreement with FP-Ultra
Clean, L.L.C. and former Sieger shareholders, as long as
FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C. owned a certain percentage of our
outstanding common stock, they were entitled to certain
financial information from us. As of February 21, 2007,
FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C. had 0.0% holdings in our outstanding
common stock.
Cyclical
Business
Our business and operating results depend in significant part
upon capital expenditures by manufacturers of semiconductors,
which in turn depend upon the current and anticipated market
demand for semiconductors. Historically, the semiconductor
industry has been highly cyclical, with recurring periods of
over-supply of semiconductor products that have had a severe
negative effect on the demand for capital equipment used to
manufacture semiconductors. During these periods, we have
experienced significant fluctuations in customer orders for our
products. Our sales were $337.2 million in 2006,
$147.5 million in 2005 and $184.2 million in 2004. In
periods where supply exceeds demand for semiconductor capital
equipment, we generally experience significant reductions in
customer orders for our products. Sharp decreases in demand for
semiconductor capital equipment may lead our customers to cancel
order forecasts, change production quantities from forecasted
volumes or delay production, which may negatively impact our
gross profit, as we may be unable to quickly reduce costs and
may be required to hold inventory longer than anticipated. In
periods where demand for semiconductor capital equipment exceeds
supply, we generally need to quickly increase our production of
Gas Delivery Systems and Other Critical Subsystems, requiring us
to order additional inventory, effectively manage our component
supply chain, hire additional employees and expand, if
necessary, our manufacturing capacity.
Customer
and Geographic Concentration
A relatively small number of OEM customers have historically
accounted for a significant portion of our revenue, and we
expect this trend to continue. Applied Materials, Inc., Lam
Research Corporation and Novellus Systems, Inc. as a group
accounted for 86% of our sales in 2006, 89% of our sales in 2005
and 93% of our sales in 2004. Because of the small number of
OEMs in our industry, most of whom are already our customers, it
would be difficult to replace lost revenue resulting from the
loss of, reduction in, cancellation of or delay in purchase
orders by, any one of these customers. Consolidation among our
customers may further concentrate our business in a limited
number of customers and expose us to increased risks relating to
dependence on a small number of customers. In addition, any
significant pricing pressure exerted by a key customer could
adversely affect our operating results.
We have had to qualify, and are required to maintain our status,
as a supplier for each of our customers. This is a lengthy
process that involves the inspection and approval by a customer
of our engineering, documentation, manufacturing and quality
control procedures before that customer will place volume
orders. Our ability to lessen the adverse effect of any loss of
or reduction in sales to an existing customer through the rapid
addition of one or more new customers is minimal because of
these qualification requirements. Consequently, our business,
operating results and financial condition would be adversely
affected by the loss of, or any reduction in orders by, any of
our significant customers.
In 2006, 2005 and 2004, 4.9%, 5.5% and 3.2%, respectively, of
our total sales were derived from sales outside the United
States, based upon the location to which our products were
shipped.
22
Critical
Accounting Policies, Significant Judgments and
Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States, which requires us to make estimates and judgments
that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue
and expenses and related disclosure at the date of our financial
statements. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates and
judgments, including those related to sales, inventories,
intangible assets, stock compensation and income taxes. We base
our estimates and judgments on historical experience and on
various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis of our
judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results
may differ from these estimates. We consider certain accounting
policies related to revenue recognition, inventory valuation,
accounting for income taxes, business combinations, valuation of
intangible assets and goodwill and equity incentives to
employees to be critical policies due to the estimates and
judgments involved in each.
Revenue
Recognition
Our revenue is concentrated in a few OEM customers in the
semiconductor capital equipment and flat panel display industry.
Our standard arrangement for our customers includes a signed
purchase order or contract, no right of return of delivered
products and no customer acceptance provisions. Revenue from
sales of products is recognized when:
|
|
|
|
|
we enter into a legally binding arrangement with a customer;
|
|
|
|
we ship the products;
|
|
|
|
customer payment is deemed fixed or determinable and free of
contingencies or significant uncertainties; and
|
|
|
|
collection is probable.
|
Revenue is generally recognized upon shipment of the product. In
arrangements which specify title transfer upon delivery, revenue
is not recognized until the product is delivered. In addition,
if we have not substantially completed a product or fulfilled
the terms of the agreement at the time of shipment, revenue
recognition is deferred until completion. Determination of
criteria in the third and fourth bullet points above is based on
our judgment regarding the fixed nature of the amounts charged
for the products delivered and the collectability of those
amounts.
We assess collectability based on the creditworthiness of the
customer and past transaction history. We perform on-going
credit evaluations of, and do not require collateral from, our
customers. We have not experienced significant collection losses
in the past. A significant change in the liquidity or financial
position of any one customer could make it more difficult for us
to assess collectability.
Inventory
Valuation
We value the majority of our inventories at the lesser of
standard cost, determined on a
first-in,
first-out basis, or market. We value inventory from our recently
acquired subsidiary, UCT-Sieger, at the lesser of actual cost or
market. We assess the valuation of all inventories, including
raw materials,
work-in-process,
finished goods and spare parts on a periodic basis. Obsolete
inventory or inventory in excess of our estimated usage is
written-down to its estimated market value less costs to sell,
if less than its cost. The inventory write-downs are recorded as
an inventory valuation allowance established on the basis of
obsolete inventory or specific identified inventory in excess of
established usage. Inherent in our estimates of market value in
determining inventory valuation are estimates related to
economic trends, future demand for our products and
technological obsolescence of our products. If actual market
conditions are less favorable than our projections, additional
inventory write-downs may be required. If the inventory value is
written down to its net realizable value, and subsequently there
is an increased demand for the inventory at a higher value, the
increased value of the inventory is not realized until the
inventory is sold either as a component of a subsystem or as
separate inventory. For the years ended December 31, 2006
and 2005 we wrote off $0.8 million and $0.9 million,
respectively, in inventory determined to be obsolete.
23
Accounting
for Income Taxes
The determination of our tax provision is subject to judgments
and estimates. The carrying value of our net deferred tax
assets, which is made up primarily of tax deductions, assumes we
will be able to generate sufficient future income to fully
realize these deductions. In determining whether the realization
of these deferred tax assets may be impaired, we make judgments
with respect to whether we are likely to generate sufficient
future taxable income to realize these assets. We have not
recorded any valuation allowance to impair our tax assets
because, based on the available evidence, we believe it is more
likely than not that we will be able to utilize all of our
deferred tax assets in the future. If we do not generate
sufficient future income, the realization of these deferred tax
assets may be impaired, resulting in an additional income tax
expense. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting
FIN 48 and are therefore unable to estimate the impact on
our Consolidated Financial Statements at this time.
Business
Combinations
In accordance with business combination accounting, we allocate
the purchase price of acquired companies to the tangible and
intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on
their estimated fair values. We engage third-party appraisal
firms to assist management in determining the fair values of
acquired intangible assets such as trade name and customer
relationships. Such valuations require management to make
significant estimates and assumptions. Management makes
estimates of fair value based upon assumptions believed to be
reasonable. These estimates are based on historical experience
and information obtained from the management of the acquired
companies and are inherently uncertain.
When evaluating the Sieger acquisition, customer relationships
were valued using the income approach and assumptions about cash
flows from these relationships. Other assumptions include a 9%
attrition rate for larger customers, a 25% attrition rate for
smaller customers and a discount rate of 16%.
The trademark and trade name were valued using the relief from
royalty method, based on a royalty rate of 1% of gross revenues,
a useful life of 1 year, and a discount rate of 16%.
Unanticipated events and circumstances may occur which may
affect the accuracy or validity of such assumptions, estimates
or actual results.
Valuation
of Intangible Assets and Goodwill
We periodically evaluate our intangible assets and goodwill in
accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 142 (SFAS No. 142), Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, for indications of impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the
carrying value may not be recoverable. Intangible assets include
goodwill, customer lists and tradename. Factors we consider
important that could trigger an impairment review include
significant under-performance relative to historical or
projected future operating results, significant changes in the
manner of our use of the acquired assets or the strategy for our
overall business, or significant negative industry or economic
trends. The provisions of SFAS No. 142 also require a
goodwill impairment test annually or more frequently if
impairment indicators arise. In testing for a potential
impairment of goodwill, the provisions of SFAS No. 142
require the application of a fair value based test at the
reporting unit level. We operate in one segment and have one
reporting unit. Therefore, all goodwill is considered enterprise
goodwill and the first step of the impairment test prescribed by
SFAS No. 142 requires a comparison of our fair value
to our book value. If the estimated fair value is less than the
book value, SFAS No. 142 requires an estimate of the
fair value of all identifiable assets and liabilities of the
business, in a manner similar to a purchase price allocation for
an acquired business. This estimate requires valuations of
certain internally generated and unrecognized intangible assets
such as in-process research and development and developed
technology. Potential goodwill impairment is measured based upon
this two-step process. We performed the annual goodwill
impairment test as of December 31, 2006 and determined that
goodwill was not impaired.
24
Equity
Incentives to Employees
On January 1, 2006, we began to account for our employee
stock purchase plan (ESPP) and employee stock-based compensation
plan in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial
Account Standards 123(R) Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation, (SFAS 123(R)), which
requires recognition of the fair value of stock-based
compensation. The fair value of stock options was estimated
using a Black-Scholes option valuation model. This methodology
requires the use of subjective assumptions in implementing
SFAS 123(R), including expected stock price volatility and
the estimated life of each award. The fair value of stock-based
compensation awards less the estimated forfeitures is amortized
over the service period of the award, and we have elected to use
the straight-line method. We make quarterly assessments of the
adequacy of the tax credit pool to determine if there are any
deficiencies that require recognition in the consolidated income
statements.
Prior to the implementation of SFAS 123(R), we accounted
for stock options and ESPP shares under the provisions of
Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,
(APB 25), and FASB Interpretation
(FIN), No. 44, Accounting for Certain
Transactions Involving Stock Compensation,
(FIN 44) and made footnote disclosures as
required by SFAS 148, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation Transition and Disclosure,
(SFAS 148). Accordingly, no compensation was recognized for
purchase rights issued through the employee stock purchase plan
or employee stock-based awards granted with exercise prices
equal to the fair value of the underlying common stock at the
date of grant. Rather, we disclosed pro forma net income and pro
forma net income per share in the footnotes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements as required by SFAS 148. The pro forma
income calculations were estimated using a Black-Scholes option
valuation model.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth income statement data for the
periods indicated as a percentage of revenue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
85.0
|
%
|
|
|
86.4
|
%
|
|
|
84.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
|
|
15.9
|
%
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Sales and marketing
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
Interest and other income
(expense), net
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before provision for income
taxes
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
Income tax provision
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
Ended December 31, 2006 Compared With Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Sales
Sales for the year ended December 31, 2006 increased 128.6%
to $337.2 million from $147.5 million for the year
ended December 31, 2005. The increase reflects, primarily,
a rebound in demand that began during the first quarter of 2006
and, to a lesser extent, incremental revenue derived from the
acquisition of Sieger. Included in the $337.2 million in
sales for the year ended December 31, 2006 is
$107.5 million related to sales of products other than Gas
Delivery Systems, including chemical delivery modules, CMP
modules, top-plate assemblies, frame
25
assemblies and process modules. Although revenue from Other
Critical Subsystems was 31.9% of annual revenue in 2006 compared
with 7.8% of annual revenue in 2005, due to the recent
acquisition of Sieger in June 2006, we believe the results of
our most recently completed quarter are the most indicative
period for understanding the realignment and evolution of our
revenue base. In the fourth quarter of 2006, revenue from
UCT-Sieger and revenue from Other Critical Subsystems other than
UCT-Sieger represented 24.8% and 19.3%, respectively or 44.1% on
a combined basis. In the fourth quarter of 2005, revenue from
UCT-Sieger and revenue from Other Critical Subsystems other than
UCT-Sieger represented 0.0% and 11.4%, respectively.
Historically, a relatively small number of OEM customers have
accounted for a significant portion of our sales. Applied
Materials, Inc., Lam Research Corporation and Novellus Systems,
Inc. are our three largest customers and each has greater than
10% of our total sales. As a percentage of total revenue, sales
to our three largest customers were 86%, 89% and 93% and for the
years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Gross
Profit
Cost of goods sold consists primarily of purchased materials,
labor and overhead, including depreciation, associated with the
design and manufacture of products sold. Gross profit for the
year ended December 31, 2006 increased to
$50.7 million, or 15.0% of sales, from $20.1 million,
or 13.6% of sales, for the year ended December 31, 2005.
The increase in gross profit was due primarily to an increase in
the percentage of revenue generated from our Shanghai facility,
as well as improved margins from our U.S. operations. This
increase was partially offset by SFAS 123(R) stock-based
compensation expense of $0.4 million.
Research
and Development Expense
Research and development expense consists primarily of
activities related to new component testing and evaluation, test
equipment, design and implementation, new product design and
testing and other product development activities. Research and
development expense increased to $3.1 million or 0.9% of
sales for the year ended December 31, 2006 from
$2.4 million, or 1.6% of sales for the year ended 2005. The
increase in absolute dollars was due primarily to an increase in
engineering activity related to new product design and other
product development activity and $0.1 million of
SFAS 123(R)stock-based compensation expenses. The decrease
as a percentage of sales was due primarily to a higher revenue
base in 2006 as compared to 2005.
Sales and
Marketing Expense
Sales and marketing expense consists primarily of salaries and
commissions paid to our sales and service employees, salaries
paid to our engineers who work with our sales and service
employees to help determine the components and configuration
requirements for new products and other costs related to the
sales of our products. Sales and marketing expense was
$4.6 million and $3.4 million for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The increased
spending was due primarily to approximately $1.1 million in
additional compensation expense as a result of increases in
commissions and sales and service headcount to support higher
revenue and the balance of the increase was primarily attributed
to increased travel expense and $0.1 million of
SFAS 123(R) stock compensation expenses. As a percentage of
sales, sales and marketing expense decreased to 1.4% for the
year ended December 31, 2006 compared to 2.3% of sales for
the year ended December 31, 2005. The decrease as a
percentage of sales was due primarily to a higher revenue base
in 2006 as compared to 2005.
General
and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expense consists primarily of
salaries and overhead of our administrative staff, and
professional fees. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as
new rules subsequently implemented by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or SEC, the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, or PCAOB, and the NASDAQ Global Market, have
required changes in the corporate governance practices of public
companies. These new rules and regulations have substantially
increased our legal and financial compliance costs and made our
legal, accounting and administrative activities more
time-consuming and costly. In particular, beginning with this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2006, we were required to
report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over
financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the
effectiveness of our disclosure
26
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting, significant resources and management oversight were
and will continue to be required. We experienced additional
costs in 2006 and expect to incur additional costs in fiscal
2007. General and administrative expense increased to
$17.7 million, or 5.2% of sales, for the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $11.8 million, or 8.0% of
sales, for the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase
in spending was due to accounting and consulting costs relating
to SOX 404 compliance, $1.5 million of amortization of
certain intangible assets acquired through the Sieger
acquisition, legal fees related to legal proceedings described
above in
Item 3 Legal
Proceedings, $1.2 million of SFAS 123(R) stock
compensation expenses and the addition of UCT-Sieger
administrative personnel. The decrease as a percentage of sales
was due primarily to a higher revenue base in 2006 as compared
to 2005.
Interest
and Other Income (Expense), net
Interest and other income (expense) for the year ended
December 31, 2006 decreased to $(1.8) million compared
to $0.1 million in 2005. The decrease in interest and other
income (expense), net over the comparable prior period is
attributable primarily to the interest expense incurred for debt
financing related to the Sieger acquisition.
Income
Tax Provision
Our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2006
was 30.8% compared to 26.0% for the year ended December 31,
2005. Our effective tax rate is substantially impacted by
several items including the extraterritorial income exclusion
(ETI), which is a U.S. tax benefit associated with the
exclusion of certain export sales income, Section 199
deduction for domestic production activities and the effect of
foreign operations. The increased rate in 2006 reflects
primarily a decrease in the tax benefit associated with the ETI
exclusion and a change in our geographic mix of worldwide
earnings that contributed to a year-end adjustment related to
transfer pricing.
Year
Ended December 31, 2005 Compared With Year Ended
December 31, 2004
Sales
Sales for the year ended December 31, 2005 decreased 19.9%
to $147.5 million from $184.2 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004. The decrease reflected softening
demand among semiconductor capital equipment manufacturers as
the industry coped with weakness in end-market demand. Included
in the $147.5 million in sales for the year ended
December 31, 2005 is $11.5 million related to sales of
products other than Gas Delivery Systems, including chemical
delivery modules, top-plate assemblies, frame assemblies and
process modules.
Gross
Profit
Gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2005 decreased
to $20.1 million, or 13.6% of sales, from
$29.2 million, or 15.9% of sales, for the year ended
December 31, 2004. The decrease in gross profit was due
primarily to lower factory absorption.
Research
and Development Expense
Research and development expense was approximately
$2.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2004. As a percentage of sales, research and development expense
increased to 1.6% of sales for the year ended December 31,
2005 compared to 1.3% of sales for the year ended
December 31, 2004. This increase was due primarily to a
lower revenue base in 2005 as compared to 2004.
Sales and
Marketing Expense
Sales and marketing expense was $3.4 million and
$3.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2004, respectively. As a percentage of sales, sales and
marketing expense increased to 2.3% of sales for the year ended
December 31, 2005 compared to 2.0% of sales for the year
ended December 31, 2004. The increase was due primarily to
a lower revenue base in 2005 as compared to 2004.
27
General
and Administrative Expense
General and administrative expense increased to
$11.8 million, or 8.0% of sales, for the year ended
December 31, 2005 from $9.8 million, or 5.3% of sales,
for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was due
to the addition of administrative personnel in China, accounting
and consulting costs relating to
Sarbanes-Oxley
404 compliance, severance costs associated with the departure of
our former Chief Financial Officer, and expenses related to a
potential acquisition, discussions with which were terminated
during the fourth quarter of 2005. The increase was partially
offset by a decrease in stock and deferred compensation charges
attributable to the absence of stock charges related to the
vesting of our Series A Senior Notes following our initial
public offering in 2004.
Interest
and Other Income (Expense), net
Interest and other income (expense) for the year ended
December 31, 2005 increased to $0.1 million compared
to $(0.4) million in 2004. The increase in interest and
other income (expense), net over the comparable prior periods is
attributable primarily to increased income earned on higher cash
balances and a decline in interest expense as a result of the
retirement of all of our outstanding Series A Senior Notes
in 2004.
Income
Tax Provision
Our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2005
was 26.0% compared to 34.5% for the year ended December 31,
2004. Our effective tax rate is substantially impacted by
several items including the extraterritorial income exclusion,
Section 199 deduction for domestic production activities
and the effect of foreign operations. The decreased rate in 2005
reflects primarily a change in our geographic mix of worldwide
earnings and tax benefits associated with the extraterritorial
income exclusion.
Unaudited
Quarterly Financial Results
The following tables set forth statement of operations data, in
thousands, for the periods indicated. The information for each
of these periods is unaudited and has been prepared on the same
basis as our audited consolidated financial statements included
herein and includes all adjustments, consisting only of normal
recurring adjustments that we consider necessary for a fair
presentation of our unaudited operations data for the periods
presented. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of
the results to be expected in the future (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
Fiscal
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Year
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
57,195
|
|
|
$
|
68,469
|
|
|
$
|
104,065
|
|
|
$
|
107,499
|
|
|
$
|
337,228
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
$
|
8,191
|
|
|
$
|
10,710
|
|
|
$
|
15,371
|
|
|
$
|
16,414
|
|
|
$
|
50,686
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
2,131
|
|
|
$
|
3,957
|
|
|
$
|
5,560
|
|
|
$
|
4,662
|
|
|
$
|
16,310
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
41,924
|
|
|
$
|
39,289
|
|
|
$
|
27,540
|
|
|
$
|
38,782
|
|
|
$
|
147,535
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
$
|
6,649
|
|
|
$
|
5,591
|
|
|
$
|
2,573
|
|
|
$
|
5,263
|
|
|
$
|
20,076
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$
|
1,194
|
|
|
$
|
692
|
|
|
$
|
(566
|
)
|
|
$
|
683
|
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
Our operating results for fiscal 2006 reflect a recovery of the
semiconductor capital equipment industry beginning in the first
quarter of 2006 as well as, and to a lesser extent, incremental
revenue derived from the addition of UCT-Sieger operations in
June 2006. As a result, revenues and gross margins for the year
ended December 31, 2006 increased in comparison with year
ended December 31, 2005. Sales for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased 128.6% to $337.2 million
from $147.5 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. Gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2006
also increased to $50.6 million, or 15.0% of sales, from
$20.1 million, or 13.6% of sales, for the year ended
December 31, 2005. As a result, net income of
$16.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
increased 714.3% from $2.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005.
28
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
With the exception of the Sieger acquisition, which was funded
by third-party debt, historically, we have required capital
principally to fund our working capital needs, satisfy our debt
obligations, maintain our equipment and purchase new capital
equipment. As of December 31, 2006, we had cash of
$23.3 million as compared to $10.7 million as of
December 31, 2005.
For the year ended December 31, 2006 we generated cash from
operating activities of $7.7 million compared to a use of
cash of $3.2 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. Cash flow in 2006 was favorably impacted by net income,
depreciation and amortization and an increase in accounts
payable of $16.3 million, $3.9 million and
$8.7 million respectively, offset in part by increases in
accounts receivable and inventory of $10.7 million and
$14.1 million, respectively.
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased $35.8 million to
$36.3 million. The increase was due primarily to our
acquisition of Sieger and higher levels of capital expenditures
relating to domestic cleanroom expansion activities and
investment in a new ERP system. In addition to our normal
general capital expenditures, in 2007, we expect to invest
approximately $2.1 million for leasehold and capital
equipment for our second manufacturing facility in Shanghai,
China. Cash for this investment will be provided from existing
cash and operations.
Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended
December 31, 2006 increased $38.4 million to
$41.3 million from $2.9 million in the year ended
December 31, 2005. We generated cash primarily through bank
borrowings and stock issuance, including approximately
$10.5 million in net proceeds from our secondary stock
offering of 1.6 million shares of common stock conducted in
March 2006. Cash provided by financing activities was used
primarily to fund the acquisition of Sieger.
We anticipate that our operating cash flow, together with
available borrowings under our revolving credit facility, will
be sufficient to meet our working capital requirements, capital
lease obligations, expansion plans and technology development
projects for at least the next twelve months. The adequacy of
these resources to meet our liquidity needs beyond that period
will depend on our growth, the cyclical expansion or contraction
of the semiconductor capital equipment industry and capital
expenditures required to meet possible increased demand for our
products.
Borrowing
Arrangements
In connection with our acquisition of UCT-Sieger in the second
quarter of 2006, we entered into a borrowing arrangement and an
equipment loan with two commercial banks. The loan agreement
under the borrowing arrangement with one bank provides senior
secured credit facilities in an aggregate principal amount of up
to $32.5 million, consisting of a $25.0 million
revolving line of credit ($10.0 million of which may be
used for the issuance of letters of credit) and a
$7.5 million term loan. The aggregate amount of the credit
facilities is also subject to a borrowing base equal to 80.0% of
eligible accounts receivable and is secured by substantially all
of our assets. Each of the credit facilities will expire on
June 29, 2009 and contain certain financial covenants,
including minimum profitability and liquidity ratios. In
addition, the term loan is subject to monthly amortization
payments in 36 equal installments. The interest rate on one of
the outstanding loans under the credit facilities is based on a
financial ratio established by the lender and provides an
interest rate at Prime plus 0.50% or Prime plus 0.75%. Interest
rates under the credit facilities ranged from 7.7% to 8.3% per
annum during the year ended December 31, 2006, and ranged
from 7.7% to 8.3% per annum as of December 31, 2006. The
equipment loan is a 5 year, $5.0 million loan that is
secured by certain equipment. The interest rate on the equipment
loan was 7.3% per annum as of December 31, 2006 The
balances owing on the borrowing arrangement and equipment loan
at December 31, 2006 were $26.5 million and
$4.5 million, respectively.
Obligations under the loan agreement are secured by a lien on
substantially all of the assets of our domestic subsidiaries.
The obligations are guaranteed by us, and such guarantees are
secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets.
During the first quarter of 2005, we entered into a loan and
security agreement providing for a borrowing facility of up to
$3.0 million with a bank in China. The borrowing facility
is secured by our standby letter of credit
29
issued under our credit facility. Interest rates on this
borrowing facility ranged from 5.0% to 6.3% during the year
ended December 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2006, the
balance outstanding under the facility was $0.6 million
repayable at an interest rate of 6.3% per annum.
Capital
Expenditures
We made capital expenditures of $4.0 million in the year
ended December 31, 2006, the majority of which was used for
domestic cleanroom expansion activities and the purchase and
implementation of a new ERP system. Capital expenditures in the
year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 were
$1.1 million and $3.3 million, respectively, the
majority of which was for facility leasehold improvements and
equipment in connection with the establishment of a
manufacturing facility in Shanghai, China.
Contractual
Obligations
Other than operating leases for certain equipment and real
estate, we have no off-balance sheet transactions, unconditional
purchase obligations or similar instruments and, other than the
revolving credit facility described above, are not a guarantor
of any other entities debt or other financial obligations.
The following table summarizes our future minimum lease payments
and principal payments under debt obligations as of
December 31, 2006 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Capital lease (1)
|
|
$
|
61
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
Operating lease (2)
|
|
|
2,123
|
|
|
|
1,422
|
|
|
|
948
|
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
595
|
|
|
|
5,516
|
|
Borrowing arrangements
|
|
|
4,206
|
|
|
|
3,464
|
|
|
|
22,288
|
|
|
|
1,116
|
|
|
|
490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,564
|
|
Purchase obligations
|
|
|
53,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
59,885
|
|
|
$
|
4,920
|
|
|
$
|
23,249
|
|
|
$
|
1,329
|
|
|
$
|
705
|
|
|
$
|
595
|
|
|
$
|
90,683
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Capital lease obligations presented in this table are presented
net of interest of $5,000, $1,000 and $0 for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2008 and thereafter, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Operating lease expense reflects the fact that (a) the
lease for our headquarters facility in Menlo Park, California
expires on December 31, 2007; (b) the lease for our
manufacturing facility in Portland, Oregon expires on
November 7, 2007; (c) the leases for our manufacturing
facilities in South San Francisco expire in 2007, 2008,
2009 and 2010. We have options to renew our lease in Portland
and two of our leases in South San Francisco, which we
expect to exercise. The exercise of the renewal options on the
South San Francisco leases has been included in the schedule
above. Operating lease expense set forth above may increase upon
renewal of these leases. |
Recently
Issued Accounting Standards
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109
(FIN 48), which clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income tax positions. This Interpretation
requires that we recognize in the consolidated financial
statements the impact of a tax position that is more likely than
not to be sustained upon examination based on the technical
merits of the position. The provisions of FIN 48 will be
effective as of the beginning of the our 2007 fiscal year, with
the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle
recorded as an adjustment to opening retained earnings. We are
currently evaluating the impact of adopting FIN 48 on our
consolidated financial statements.
In June 2006, the FASB issued Emerging Issues Tax Force
(EITF) Issue
No. 06-3,
How Sales Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income
Statement (That Is, Gross Versus Net Presentation),
(EITF
06-3).
EITF 06-3
requires disclosure of accounting policy regarding the gross or
net presentation of
point-of-sales
taxes such as sales tax and value-added tax. If taxes included
in gross revenues are significant, the amount of such taxes for
each period for which an income statement is presented should
also be disclosed. EITF
06-3 will be
effective for the first annual or interim reporting period after
30
December 15, 2006. We do not expect that the adoption of
EITF 06-3
will have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued
Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 108,
Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when
Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial
Statements (SAB 108). SAB 108
provides guidance on how prior year misstatements should be
taken into consideration when quantifying misstatements in
current year financial statements for purposes of determining
whether the current years financial statements are
materially misstated. SAB 108 permits registrants to record
the cumulative effect of initial adoption by recording the
necessary correcting adjustments to the carrying
values of assets and liabilities as of the beginning of that
year with the offsetting adjustment recorded to the opening
balance of retained earnings only if material under the dual
method. SAB 108 is effective for fiscal years ending on or
after November 15, 2006. The adoption of SAB 108 did
not impact our consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS 157), which defines
fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in
generally accepted accounting principles, and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 does
not require any new fair value measurements; rather, it applies
under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit
fair value measurements. The provisions of SFAS 157 are to
be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the fiscal year
in which this statement is initially applied, with any
transition adjustment recognized as a cumulative-effect
adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings.
SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim
periods within those fiscal years. We will adopt
SFAS No. 157 as required. We are currently evaluating
the impact of SFAS 157 on our consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Market risk represents the risk of changes in value of a
financial instrument caused by fluctuations in interest rates,
foreign exchange rates or equity prices.
Foreign
Exchange Rates
During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, we entered into a loan
and security agreement providing for revolver loans of up to
$3.0 million with a bank in China. As of December 31,
2006, the balance outstanding under a revolver loan was
$0.6 million. If we enter into future borrowing
arrangements or borrow under our existing revolving credit
facility, we may seek to manage our exposure to interest rate
changes by using a mix of debt maturities and variable- and
fixed-rate debt, together with interest rate swaps where
appropriate, to fix or lower our borrowing costs. We do not make
material sales in currencies other than the United States Dollar
or have material purchase obligations outside of the United
States, except in China where we have purchase commitments
totaling $3.0 million in United States Dollar equivalents.
We have performed a sensitivity analysis assuming a hypothetical
10-percent movement in foreign currency exchange rates and
interest rates applied to the underlying exposures described
above. As of December 31, 2006, the analysis indicated that
such market movements would not have a material effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations. Although
we do not anticipate any significant fluctuations, there can be
no assurance that foreign currency exchange risk will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations
or cash flow in the future.
Interest
Rates
Our interest rate risk relates primarily to our third party debt
which totals $31.6 million and carries interest rates
pegged to the LIBOR and PRIME rates. An immediate increase in
interest rates of 100 basis points would increase our
interest expense by approximately $78,000 per quarter. This
would be partially offset by increased interest income on our
invested cash. Conversely, an immediate decline of
100 basis points in interest rates would decrease our
interest expense by approximately $78,000 per quarter. This
would be partially offset by decreased interest income on our
invested cash.
31
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and
the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2006. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
As described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), Share
Based Payment, effective January 1, 2006.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
March 29, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting and an
unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Jose, California
March 29, 2007
32
Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share data)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
23,321
|
|
|
$
|
10,663
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of
allowance of $287 and $0
|
|
|
44,543
|
|
|
|
19,528
|
|
Inventory, net
|
|
|
47,914
|
|
|
|
19,106
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
4,186
|
|
|
|
2,294
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
1,672
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
121,267
|
|
|
|
53,263
|
|
Equipment and leasehold
improvements, net
|
|
|
9,433
|
|
|
|
4,312
|
|
Long-term assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
33,490
|
|
|
|
6,084
|
|
Purchased intangibles
|
|
|
22,112
|
|
|
|
8,987
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,132
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
745
|
|
|
|
231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
187,047
|
|
|
$
|
75,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES &
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank borrowings
|
|
|
4,206
|
|
|
|
2,343
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
37,583
|
|
|
|
14,188
|
|
Accrued compensation and related
benefits
|
|
|
4,021
|
|
|
|
769
|
|
Capital lease obligations, current
portion
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
2,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
1,454
|
|
|
|
2,004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
49,680
|
|
|
|
19,374
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
27,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liability, net
|
|
|
2,523
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations and
other liabilities
|
|
|
318
|
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
79,879
|
|
|
|
19,728
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (See
note 13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock
$0.001 par value, 10,000,000 authorized; none outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
$0.001 par value, 90,000,000 authorized; 21,080,540 and
16,501,363 shares issued and outstanding, in 2006 and 2005,
respectively
|
|
|
82,198
|
|
|
|
46,819
|
|
Deferred stock-based compensation
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
|
|
(350
|
)
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
25,122
|
|
|
|
8,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
107,168
|
|
|
|
55,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
187,047
|
|
|
$
|
75,009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See notes to consolidated financial statements)
33
Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
337,228
|
|
|
$
|
147,535
|
|
|
$
|
184,204
|
|
Cost of goods sold
|
|
|
286,542
|
|
|
|
127,459
|
|
|
|
154,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
50,686
|
|
|
|
20,076
|
|
|
|
29,209
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
3,051
|
|
|
|
2,360
|
|
|
|
2,413
|
|
Sales and marketing
|
|
|
4,644
|
|
|
|
3,357
|
|
|
|
3,569
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
17,657
|
|
|
|
11,798
|
|
|
|
9,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
25,352
|
|
|
|
17,515
|
|
|
|
15,761
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
25,334
|
|
|
|
2,561
|
|
|
|
13,448
|
|
Interest and other income
(expense), net
|
|
|
(1,758
|
)
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
(387
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before provision for income
taxes
|
|
|
23,576
|
|
|
|
2,708
|
|
|
|
13,061
|
|
Income tax provision
|
|
|
7,266
|
|
|
|
705
|
|
|
|
4,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,310
|
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
|
$
|
8,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.83
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
Shares used in computing net
income per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
16,241
|
|
|
|
14,605
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
19,649
|
|
|
|
17,169
|
|
|
|
15,542
|
|
(See notes to consolidated financial statements)
34
Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Stock-based
|
|
|
(Accumulated
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Deficit)
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
10,245,395
|
|
|
$
|
10,377
|
|
|
$
|
(316
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,741
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,320
|
|
Sale of common stock
|
|
|
6,000,000
|
|
|
|
35,162
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,162
|
|
Issuance of restricted common
stock to employees
|
|
|
62,500
|
|
|
|
438
|
|
|
|
(438
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net issuance under employee stock
plans, including tax benefits of $30
|
|
|
58,571
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
Amortization of deferred
stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,550
|
|
|
|
8,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004
|
|
|
16,366,466
|
|
|
|
46,237
|
|
|
|
(571
|
)
|
|
|
6,809
|
|
|
|
52,475
|
|
Net issuance under employee stock
plans, including tax benefits of $116
|
|
|
134,897
|
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
598
|
|
Amortization of deferred
stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
2,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2005
|
|
|
16,501,363
|
|
|
|
46,819
|
|
|
|
(350
|
)
|
|
|
8,812
|
|
|
|
55,281
|
|
Issuance of common stock for
business acquisition
|
|
|
2,599,393
|
|
|
|
21,071
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,071
|
|
Sale of common stock
|
|
|
1,600,000
|
|
|
|
10,510
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,510
|
|
Net issuance under employee stock
plans, including tax benefits of $1,060
|
|
|
379,784
|
|
|
|
2,089
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,089
|
|
Stock-based compensation from
SFAS 123(R)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,709
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,709
|
|
Amortization of deferred
stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,310
|
|
|
|
16,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
21,080,540
|
|
|
$
|
82,198
|
|
|
$
|
(152
|
)
|
|
$
|
25,122
|
|
|
$
|
107,168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See notes to consolidated financial statements)
35
Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,310
|
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
|
$
|
8,550
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income
to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,871
|
|
|
|
2,167
|
|
|
|
1,605
|
|
Loss on sale of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
(2,002
|
)
|
|
|
(318
|
)
|
|
|
(575
|
)
|
Excess tax benefit from stock-based
compensation
|
|
|
(1,060
|
)
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
1,907
|
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
760
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(10,719
|
)
|
|
|
(5,743
|
)
|
|
|
(2,061
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(14,073
|
)
|
|
|
(3,973
|
)
|
|
|
(6,010
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
|
|
(1,750
|
)
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
8,749
|
|
|
|
1,770
|
|
|
|
2,497
|
|
Accrued compensation and related
benefits
|
|
|
1,524
|
|
|
|
(777
|
)
|
|
|
699
|
|
Income taxes payable (receivable)
|
|
|
2,944
|
|
|
|
(865
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
1,990
|
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities
|
|
|
7,685
|
|
|
|
(3,176
|
)
|
|
|
4,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of equipment and
leasehold improvements
|
|
|
(3,941
|
)
|
|
|
(1,126
|
)
|
|
|
(3,323
|
)
|
Net cash used in acquisition
|
|
|
(32,353
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition related tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
533
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
|
|
(36,294
|
)
|
|
|
(454
|
)
|
|
|
(3,323
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on capital lease
obligations
|
|
|
(45
|
)
|
|
|
(72
|
)
|
|
|
(124
|
)
|
Proceeds from bank borrowings and
long term debt, net of deferred loan costs
|
|
|
31,991
|
|
|
|
2,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(3,278
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,593
|
)
|
Excess tax benefit from stock-based
compensation
|
|
|
1,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common
stock
|
|
|
11,539
|
|
|
|
582
|
|
|
|
35,423
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
41,267
|
|
|
|
2,853
|
|
|
|
4,706
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash
|
|
|
12,658
|
|
|
|
(777
|
)
|
|
|
5,405
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
|
|
10,663
|
|
|
|
11,440
|
|
|
|
6,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of
period
|
|
$
|
23,321
|
|
|
$
|
10,663
|
|
|
$
|
11,440
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
$
|
5,256
|
|
|
$
|
510
|
|
|
$
|
6,724
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid
|
|
$
|
1,307
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
$
|
508
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash investing and financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of equipment under
capital lease
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accretion of Series A notes
issued to employees
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
580
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock issued
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
438
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock issued in acquisition
|
|
$
|
21,071
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See notes to consolidated financial statements)
36
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
|
|
1.
|
Organization
and Significant Accounting Policies
|
Organization Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) is a developer and supplier of critical
delivery subsystems, primarily for the semiconductor capital
equipment industry, producing primarily Gas Delivery Systems and
Other Critical Subsystems, including chemical mechanical
planarization (CMP) subsystems, chemical delivery modules, frame
and top plate assemblies and process modules. The Companys
products improve efficiency and reduce the costs of our
customers design and manufacturing processes. The
Companys customers are primarily original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) of semiconductor capital
equipment. On June 29, 2006, the Company completed the
acquisition of Sieger Engineering, Inc. (Sieger)
which was renamed UCT-Sieger Engineering LLC
(UCT-Sieger).
Basis of Presentation The consolidated
financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its
wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant inter-company
accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
This financial information reflects all adjustments which are,
in the opinion of the Company, normal, recurring and necessary
to present fairly the statements of financial position, results
of operations and cash flows for the dates and periods presented.
Use of Accounting Estimates The presentation
of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States of America requires
management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosures of
contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements
and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period. The Company bases its estimates and judgments
on historical experience and on various other assumptions that
it believes are reasonable under the circumstances. However,
future events are subject to change and the best estimates and
judgments routinely require adjustment. Actual amounts may
differ from those estimates.
Certain Significant Risks and Uncertainties
The Company operates in a dynamic industry and, accordingly, can
be affected by a variety of factors. For example, any of the
following areas could have a negative effect on the Company in
terms of its future financial position, results of operations or
cash flows: the highly cyclical nature of the semiconductor
industry; reliance on a small number of customers; ability to
obtain additional financing; pursuing acquisition opportunities;
regulatory changes; fundamental changes in the technology
underlying semiconductor manufacturing processes or
semiconductor manufacturing equipment; the hiring, training and
retention of key employees; successful and timely completion of
product design efforts; and new product design introductions by
competitors.
Concentration of Credit Risk Financial
instruments which subject the Company to concentrations of
credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents and
accounts receivable. The Company sells its products to
semiconductor capital equipment manufacturers in the United
States. The Company performs credit evaluations of its
customers financial condition and generally requires no
collateral.
The Company had significant sales to three customers, each
accounting for 10% or more of sales: Applied Materials, Inc.,
Lam Research Corporation and Novellus Systems, Inc. Sales to
each of these customers as a percentage of total sales were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Customer A
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
Customer B
|
|
|
32
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
Customer C
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
18
|
%
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
When combined, these same significant customers represented 74%
and 72% of accounts receivable at December 31, 2006 and
2005, respectively.
37
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Fair Value of Financial Instruments Our
financial instruments consist of cash and cash equivalents,
accounts receivable, accounts payable and bank borrowings. The
carrying value of these instruments approximates their fair
value because of their short-term nature.
Fiscal Year The Company uses a
52-53 week
fiscal year ending on the Friday nearest December 31. In
2006, our fiscal year ended on December 29, 2006. In 2005,
our fiscal year ended on December 30, 2005. For
presentation purposes, the Company presents each fiscal period
as if it ended on the last day of the month. All references to
quarters refer to fiscal quarters and all references to years
refer to fiscal years.
Inventories Inventories are generally stated
at the lower of standard cost (which approximates actual cost on
a first-in,
first-out basis) or market. The Company evaluates the valuation
of all inventories, including raw materials,
work-in-process,
finished goods and spare parts on a periodic basis. Obsolete
inventory or inventory in excess of managements estimated
usage is written-down to its estimated market value less costs
to sell, if less than its cost. Inherent in the estimates of
market value are managements estimates related to economic
trends, future demand for products, and technological
obsolescence of the Companys products.
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, inventory balances of
$47.9 million and $19.1 million, respectively, were
net of write-downs. The inventory write-downs are recorded as an
inventory valuation allowance established on the basis of
obsolete inventory or specific identified inventory in excess of
estimated usage.
Equipment and Leasehold Improvements
Equipment and leasehold improvements are stated at cost, or, in
the case of equipment under capital leases, the present value of
future minimum lease payments at inception of the related lease.
Depreciation and amortization are computed using the
straight-line method over the lesser of the estimated useful
lives of the assets or the terms of the leases. Useful lives
range from 3 to 15 years.
Product Warranty The Company provides a
warranty on its products for a period of up to two years, and
provides for warranty costs at the time of sale based on
historical activity. The determination of such provisions
requires the Company to make estimates of product return rates
and expected costs to repair or replace the products under
warranty. If actual return rates
and/or
repair and replacement costs differ significantly from these
estimates, adjustments to recognize additional cost of sales may
be required in future periods. The warranty reserve is included
in other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.
Warranty cost activity consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Beginning Balance
|
|
$
|
76
|
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
$
|
88
|
|
Adjustment for acquisition
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions related to sales
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
Warranty costs incurred
|
|
|
(322
|
)
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending Balance
|
|
$
|
344
|
|
|
$
|
76
|
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Taxes Income taxes are reported under
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes, (SFAS 109)
and, accordingly, deferred taxes are recognized using the asset
and liability method, whereby deferred tax assets and
liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequence
attributable to differences between the financial statement
carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their
respective tax base, and operating loss and tax credit
carry-forwards. Valuation allowances are provided if it is more
likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will
not be recognized.
Stock-based
compensation and deferred stock-based compensation
The Company maintains stock-based compensation plans which allow
for the issuance of stock options to executives and certain
employees. The Company also maintains an employee stock purchase
plan (ESPP) that
38
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
provides for the issuance of shares to all eligible employees of
the Company at a discounted price. Prior to fiscal year 2006,
the Company accounted for the plans under the recognition and
measurement provisions of Accounting Principles Board
(APB) Opinion 25, Accounting for Stock
Issued to Employees, and related Interpretations.
Accordingly, because stock options granted had an exercise price
equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the
date of the grant, no expense related to employee stock options
was recognized. Also, as the employee stock purchase plan was
considered non-compensatory, no expense related to this plan was
recognized. In accordance with SFAS 123 (SFAS 123),
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, as amended by
SFAS No. 148 (SFAS 148), Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation Transition and
Disclosure, the Company provided pro forma net income and
net income per share disclosures for each period prior to the
adoption of Statement of Accounting Standards 123R
(SFAS 123(R)), Share-Based Payment, as if it had
applied the fair value-based method in measuring compensation
expense for its share-based compensation plans.
Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair
value recognition provisions of SFAS 123(R) using the
modified prospectus method. This statement applies to all awards
granted after the effective date and to modifications,
repurchases or cancellations of existing awards. Additionally,
under the modified prospective transition method of adoption,
the Company recognizes compensation expense for equity-based
awards granted after January 1, 2006, plus the portion of
outstanding awards on the adoption date for which the requisite
service period has not yet been rendered based on the grant-date
fair value of those awards calculated under SFAS 123, as
amended by SFAS 148. Under this method of implementation,
no restatement of prior periods has been made.
Stock-based compensation expense from stock options and the
related income tax benefit from the expense recognized under
SFAS 123(R) were $1.7 million and $0.5 million,
respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2006. The
estimated fair value of the Companys equity-based awards,
net of expected forfeitures, is amortized over the awards
vesting period on a straight-line basis over a weighted average
period of 4 years and will be adjusted for subsequent
changes in estimated forfeitures and future option grants. The
implementation of SFAS 123(R) reduced basic and fully
diluted earnings per share by $0.06 for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Comparable
Disclosures
The following table illustrates the effect on the Companys
net income and net income per share for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004 as if it had applied the fair
value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to
share-based compensation using the Black-Scholes valuation model
(in thousands, except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Net income as reported
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
|
$
|
8,550
|
|
Add: stock-based employee
compensation included in reported net income, net of tax
|
|
|
151
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
Less: total stock-based
compensation determined under the fair value-based method for
all awards, net of tax
|
|
|
(828
|
)
|
|
|
(423
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income
|
|
$
|
1,326
|
|
|
$
|
8,246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
Pro forma
|
|
$
|
0.08
|
|
|
$
|
0.56
|
|
Diluted net income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
Pro forma
|
|
$
|
0.08
|
|
|
$
|
0.53
|
|
39
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Determining
Fair Value
Valuation and amortization method. The Company
estimates the fair value of stock options granted using the
Black-Scholes option valuation model and a single option award
approach. All options are amortized over the requisite service
periods of the awards, which are generally the vesting periods,
and are amortized using the straight-line basis method.
Expected term. The expected term of options
granted represents the period of time that they are expected to
be outstanding. The Company estimates the expected term of
options granted based on historical exercise patterns, which the
Company believes are representative of future behavior.
Expected volatility. The Company estimates the
volatility of its common stock in the Black-Scholes option
valuation at the date of grant based on historical volatility
rates over the expected term, consistent with
SFAS 123(R)and Staff Accounting Bulletin 107
(SAB 107), Share-Based Payment.
Risk-free interest rate. The Company bases the
risk-free interest rate in the Black-Scholes option valuation
model on the implied yield in effect at the time of option grant
on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with equivalent
remaining term.
Dividend yield. The Company has never paid any
cash dividends on its common stock and does not anticipate
paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
Consequently, the Company uses an expected dividend yield of
0.0% in the Black-Scholes option valuation model.
Forfeiture rate. SFAS No. 123(R)
requires the Company to estimate forfeitures at the time of
grant and revise those estimates in subsequent periods if actual
forfeitures differ from those estimates. The Company uses
historical data to estimate pre-vesting option forfeitures and
records share-based compensation expense only for those awards
that are expected to vest. For purposes of calculating pro forma
information under SFAS No. 123 for periods prior to
fiscal year 2006, the Company accounted for forfeitures only as
they occurred.
The exercise price of each stock option equals the market price
of the Companys stock on the date of grant. The weighted
average estimated fair value of employee stock option grants for
the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $4.41,
$3.51 and $3.98, respectively. Most options are scheduled to
vest over four years and expire no later than ten years from the
grant date. The fair value for the options granted during the
years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was estimated
at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing
model. The weighted average assumptions used in the model are
outlined in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
50.0
|
%
|
|
|
57.9
|
%
|
|
|
66.0
|
%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
Forfeiture rate
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected life (in years)
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
40
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the Companys restricted
stock award activity for the year ended December 31, 2006
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Unvested stock at January 1,
2006
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To comply with the pro forma reporting requirements of
SFAS No. 123, compensation cost is also estimated for
the fair value of future employee stock purchase plan issuances,
which is included in the pro forma totals above. In anticipation
of the required implementation of SFAS 123(R) in January
2006, the Company modified the terms of its ESPP plan in
November 2005 to eliminate the look-back feature and reduce the
discount on purchased shares from 15% to 5%. The fair value of
purchase rights granted under the purchase plan is estimated on
the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model
using the following weighted average assumptions and resulting
in the weighted-average fair value:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
46.5
|
%
|
|
|
47.9
|
%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.1
|
%
|
Expected life (in years)
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
the Company recorded $1.3 million, $0.2 million and
$0.1 million, respectively, of stock-based compensation
expense, net of tax, associated with employee and director stock
options and employee stock purchase plan programs. As of
December 31, 2006, there was $5.5 million, net of
forfeitures of $1.6 million, of unrecognized compensation
cost related to employee and director stock options and employee
stock purchase plan programs which is expected to be recognized
on a straight-line basis over a weighted average period of
approximately 4 years, and will be adjusted for subsequent
changes in estimated forfeitures and future option grants.
Total stock-based compensation during the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, to various
operating expense categories was as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Cost of goods sold*
|
|
$
|
376
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Sales and marketing
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
1,339
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
187
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,907
|
|
|
|
205
|
|
|
|
187
|
|
Income tax benefit
|
|
|
(586
|
)
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(68
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net stock-based compensation
expense
|
|
$
|
1,321
|
|
|
$
|
151
|
|
|
$
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
As of December 31, 2006, there were no stock-based
compensation expenses capitalized in inventory. |
41
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R), we presented all tax
benefits of deductions resulting from the exercise of stock
options as operating cash flows in our statement of cash flows.
In accordance with SFAS 123(R), the cash flows resulting
from excess tax benefits (tax benefits related to the excess of
proceeds from employees exercises of stock options over
the stock-based compensation cost recognized for those options)
are classified as financing cash flows. During the year ended
December 31, 2006, we recorded $1.1 million of excess
tax benefits as a financing cash inflow.
Purchased Intangibles and
Goodwill Purchased intangibles consist of
tradenames and customer relationships acquired as part of a
purchase business combination.
As part of the Sieger acquisition in June 2006, the Company
allocated the purchase price to the tangible and intangible
assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated
fair values. A third-party appraisal firm assisted management in
determining the fair values of the intangible assets acquired.
The intangible assets acquired from Sieger are stated at cost
less accumulated amortization and are being amortized on a
straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives of
6 months to 10.7 years.
Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc. was founded in
1991 by Mitsubishi Corporation and was operated as a subsidiary
of Mitsubishi until November 2002, when it was acquired by the
Company. As part of the Ultra Clean Technology Systems and
Services acquisition in November 2002, the Company allocated the
purchase price to the tangible and intangible assets acquired,
liabilities assumed, and in-process research and development
based on their estimated fair values. A third-party appraisal
firm assisted management in determining the fair values of the
assets acquired and the liabilities assumed. Such valuations
required management to make significant estimates and
assumptions, especially with respect to intangible assets.
Critical estimates in valuing certain intangible assets include,
but are not limited to: future expected cash flows from customer
contracts; acquired developed technologies and patents; expected
costs to develop the in-process research and development into
commercially viable products and estimated cash flows from the
projects when completed; the market position of the acquired
products; and assumptions about the period of time the trade
name will continue to be used in the Companys product
portfolio. Based upon these estimates, the tradenames asset was
assigned an indefinite life.
Managements estimates of fair value are based upon
assumptions believed to be reasonable, but which are inherently
uncertain.
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the
fair value of tangible and identifiable intangible assets
acquired. SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations,
and SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets requires that all business combinations be accounted
for under the purchase method and addresses the initial
recognition and measurement of goodwill and other intangible
assets acquired in a business combination. Goodwill amounts are
not amortized, but rather are tested for impairment. The
provisions of SFAS No. 142 require an annual goodwill
impairment test or more frequently if impairment indicators
arise. In testing for a potential impairment of goodwill, the
provisions of SFAS No. 142 require the application of
a fair value based test at the reporting unit level. The Company
operates in one reporting segment which has one reporting unit.
Therefore, all goodwill is considered enterprise goodwill and
the first step of the impairment test prescribed by
SFAS No. 142 requires a comparison of fair value to
book value of the Company. If the estimated fair value of the
Company is less than the book value, SFAS No. 142
requires an estimate of the fair value of all identifiable
assets and liabilities of the business, in a manner similar to a
purchase price allocation for an acquired business. This
estimate requires valuations of certain internally generated and
unrecognized intangible assets such as in-process research and
development and developed technology. Potential goodwill
impairment is measured based upon this two-step process.
Management performed the annual goodwill impairment test as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005 and determined that goodwill was
not impaired. In the event that the Company determines that the
value of goodwill has become impaired, the Company will incur an
accounting charge for the amount of impairment during the fiscal
quarter in which such determination is made.
42
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Long-Lived Assets In accordance with
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, the Company evaluates the
impairment of long-lived assets, based on the projection of
undiscounted cash flows whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such assets
may not be recoverable. In the event such cash flows are not
expected to be sufficient to recover the recorded value of the
assets, the assets are written down to their estimated fair
values.
Revenue Recognition Revenue from the sale of
Gas Delivery Systems is generally recorded upon shipment. In
arrangements which specify title transfer upon delivery, revenue
is not recognized until the product is delivered. The Company
recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement
exists, shipment has occurred, price is fixed or determinable
and collectability is reasonably assured. If the Company has not
substantially completed a product or fulfilled the terms of a
sales agreement at the time of shipment, revenue recognition is
deferred until completion. Our standard arrangement for our
customers includes a signed purchase order or contract, no right
of return of delivered products and no customer acceptance
provisions.
The Company assesses collectability based on the credit
worthiness of the customer and past transaction history. The
Company performs on-going credit evaluations of customers and
does not require collateral from customers.
Research and Development Costs Research and
development costs are expensed as incurred.
Net Income per Share Basic net income per
share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average
number of shares outstanding for the period. Diluted net income
per share earnings is calculated by dividing net income by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding and common
equivalent shares from dilutive stock options and restricted
stock using the treasury stock method, except when antidilutive
(see Note 9).
Comprehensive Income In accordance with
SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive Income,
the Company reports by major components and as a single total,
the change in its net assets during the period from non-owner
sources. Comprehensive income for all periods presented was the
same as net income.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157),
which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring
fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and
expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157
does not require any new fair value measurements; rather, it
applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or
permit fair value measurements. The provisions of SFAS 157
are to be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the
fiscal year in which this statement is initially applied, with
any transition adjustment recognized as a cumulative-effect
adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings.
SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim
periods within those fiscal years. The Company will adopt
SFAS No. 157 as required in January 2008. The Company
is currently evaluating the impact of SFAS 157 on its
consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering
the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying
Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements
(SAB 108). SAB 108 provides guidance on
how prior year misstatements should be taken into consideration
when quantifying misstatements in current year financial
statements for purposes of determining whether the current
years financial statements are materially misstated.
SAB 108 permits registrants to record the cumulative effect
of initial adoption by recording the necessary
correcting adjustments to the carrying values of
assets and liabilities as of the beginning of that year with the
offsetting adjustment recorded to the opening balance of
retained earnings only if material under the dual method.
SAB 108 is effective for fiscal years ending on or after
November 15, 2006. The adoption of SAB 108 did not
impact the Companys consolidated financial statements.
In June 2006, the FASB issued Emerging Issues Tax Force
(EITF) Issue
No. 06-3,
How Sales Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income
Statement (That Is, Gross Versus Net Presentation),
(EITF
06-3).
EITF 06-3
requires disclosure of accounting
43
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
policy regarding the gross or net presentation of
point-of-sales
taxes such as sales tax and value-added tax. If taxes included
in gross revenues are significant, the amount of such taxes for
each period for which an income statement is presented should
also be disclosed. EITF
06-3 will be
effective for the first annual or interim reporting period after
December 15, 2006. The Company does not expect that the
adoption of EITF
06-3 will
have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
In June 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109
(FIN 48), which clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income tax positions. This Interpretation
requires that the Company recognize in the consolidated
financial statements the impact of a tax position that is more
likely than not to be sustained upon examination based on the
technical merits of the position. The provisions of FIN 48
will be effective as of the beginning of the Companys 2007
fiscal year, with the cumulative effect of the change in
accounting principle recorded as an adjustment to opening
retained earnings. The Company is currently evaluating the
impact of adopting FIN 48 and is therefore unable to
estimate the impact on the consolidated financial statements at
this time.
In June 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of Sieger, a
supplier of CMP modules and Other Critical Subsystems to the
semiconductor, solar and flat panel capital equipment
industries. The total purchase price was approximately
$53.5 million and was comprised of cash consideration of
$32.4 million, including acquisition costs of
$1.4 million, and stock consideration of
$21.1 million. The Company has accounted for the
acquisition of Sieger as a business combination and the
operating results of Sieger have been included in the
Companys consolidated financial statements from the date
of acquisition. The allocation of the purchase price to the
assets acquired and liabilities assumed is as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Tangible assets, net
|
|
$
|
11,445
|
|
Customer lists
|
|
|
13,800
|
|
Tradename
|
|
|
800
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
27,406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
53,451
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recognized approximately $1.5 million of
amortization expense related to purchased intangibles for the
year ended December 31, 2006. The weighted average useful
life of customer lists was determined to be 10.7 years. The
weighted average useful life of the tradename was determined to
be six months and therefore was fully amortized by
December 31, 2006.
Pro Forma Results The following unaudited pro
forma financial information presents the combined results of
operations of the Company and UCT-Sieger as if the acquisition
had occurred as of the beginning of the periods presented. The
unaudited pro forma financial information is not intended to
represent or be indicative of the consolidated results of
operations or financial condition of the Company that would have
been reported had the acquisition been completed as of the dates
presented, and should not be taken as being representative of
the future consolidated results of operations or financial
condition of the Company (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Sales
|
|
$
|
396,610
|
|
|
$
|
234,005
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
18,825
|
|
|
$
|
2,047
|
|
Basic net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.92
|
|
|
$
|
0.11
|
|
Diluted net income per share
|
|
$
|
0.90
|
|
|
$
|
0.10
|
|
44
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Inventory consisted of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
30,234
|
|
|
$
|
15,376
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
19,240
|
|
|
|
5,796
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
2,537
|
|
|
|
457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,011
|
|
|
|
21,629
|
|
Reserve for obsolescence
|
|
|
(4,097
|
)
|
|
|
(2,523
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
47,914
|
|
|
$
|
19,106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Equipment
and Leasehold Improvements, Net
|
Equipment and leasehold improvements, net, consisted of the
following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Computer equipment and software
|
|
$
|
4,008
|
|
|
$
|
1,834
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
570
|
|
|
|
308
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
6,201
|
|
|
|
2,960
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
5,677
|
|
|
|
4,171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,456
|
|
|
|
9,273
|
|
Accumulated depreciation and
amortization
|
|
|
(7,023
|
)
|
|
|
(4,961
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
9,433
|
|
|
$
|
4,312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Purchased
Intangibles and Goodwill
|
The following tables provide a summary of the carrying amounts
of purchased intangibles that continue to be amortized (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer list
|
|
$
|
13,800
|
|
|
$
|
(675
|
)
|
|
$
|
13,125
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
Tradenames
|
|
|
9,787
|
|
|
|
(800
|
)
|
|
|
8,987
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
23,587
|
|
|
$
|
(1,475
|
)
|
|
$
|
22,112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tradenames
|
|
$
|
8,987
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,987
|
|
|
|
Indefinite
|
|
|
|
* |
Tradename associated with UCT-Sieger has a weighted average life
of six months and, as of December 31, 2006, has been fully
amortized. Trade name associated with Ultra Clean Technology
Systems and Service, Inc. has an indefinite life.
|
Amortization expense related to purchased intangibles was
$1.5 million, $0.0 and $0.0 in fiscal 2006, fiscal 2005 and
fiscal 2004, respectively. The total expected future
amortization related to purchased intangibles will be
45
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
approximately $1.4 million, $1.4 million,
$1.4 million, $1.3 million and $1.2 million in
fiscal years 2007 through 2011, respectively, and
$6.4 million thereafter.
The change in the carrying amount of goodwill during the year
ended December 31, 2006 is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Goodwill, as of December 31,
2005
|
|
$
|
6,084
|
|
Sieger acquisition goodwill
|
|
|
27,406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill, as of December 31,
2006
|
|
$
|
33,490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Debt and
Lease Obligations
|
In connection with the acquisition of Sieger in the second
quarter of 2006, the Company entered into a borrowing
arrangement and an equipment loan with two commercial banks. The
loan agreement under the borrowing arrangement with one bank
provides senior secured credit facilities in an aggregate
principal amount of up to $32.5 million, consisting of a
$25.0 million revolving line of credit ($10.0 million
of which may be used for the issuance of letters of credit) and
a $7.5 million term loan. The aggregate amount of the
credit facilities is also subject to a borrowing base equal to
80% of eligible accounts receivable and is secured by
substantially all of the Companys assets. Each of the
credit facilities will expire on June 29, 2009 and contain
certain financial covenants, including minimum profitability and
liquidity ratios. As of December 31, 2006, the Company was
in compliance with all loan covenants. In addition, the term
loan is subject to monthly amortization payments in 36 equal
installments. The interest rate on one of the outstanding loans
under the credit facilities is based on a financial ratio
established by the lender and provides an interest rate at Prime
plus 0.50% or Prime plus 0.75%. Interest rates under the credit
facilities ranged from 7.7% to 8.3% per annum during the year
ended December 31, 2006, and ranged from 7.7% to 8.3% per
annum as of December 31, 2006. The equipment loan is a
5 year, $5.0 million loan that is secured by certain
equipment. The interest rate on the equipment loan was 7.3% per
annum as of December 31, 2006. The balances outstanding on
the borrowing arrangement and equipment loan at
December 31, 2006 were $26.5 million and
$4.5 million, respectively.
During the first quarter of 2005, the Company entered into a
loan and security agreement providing for a borrowing facility
of up to $3.0 million with a bank in China. The borrowing
facility is secured by our standby letter of credit issued under
our credit facility. Interest rates on this borrowing facility
ranged from 5.0% to 6.3% per annum during the year ended
December 31, 2006. As of December 31, 2006, the
balance outstanding under the facility was $0.6 million
repayable at an interest rate of 6.3% per annum.
The Company leases certain equipment under capital lease
arrangements. In addition, the Company leases its corporate and
regional offices as well as some of its office equipment under
non-cancelable operating leases. The Company has a renewal
option for its leased facilities in South San Francisco and
Sacramento, California; Austin, Texas; Tualatin, Oregon; and
Shanghai, China.
The following table summarizes our future minimum lease payments
and principal payments under debt obligations as of
December 31, 2006 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease (1)
|
|
$
|
61
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating lease (2)
|
|
|
2,123
|
|
|
|
1,422
|
|
|
|
948
|
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
215
|
|
|
|
595
|
|
|
|
5,516
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowing arrangements
|
|
|
4,206
|
|
|
|
3,464
|
|
|
|
22,288
|
|
|
|
1,116
|
|
|
|
490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,564
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,390
|
|
|
$
|
4,920
|
|
|
$
|
23,249
|
|
|
$
|
1,329
|
|
|
$
|
705
|
|
|
$
|
595
|
|
|
$
|
37,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Capital lease obligations presented in this table are presented
net of interest of $5,000, $1,000 and $0 for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2008 and thereafter, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Operating lease expense reflects the fact that (a) the
lease for the Companys headquarters facility in
Menlo Park, California expires on December 31, 2007;
(b) the lease for a manufacturing facility in Portland,
Oregon expires on November 7, 2007; (c) the leases for
manufacturing facilities in South San Francisco expire in
2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Company has options to renew the
lease in Portland and two of the leases in South
San Francisco, which the Company expects to exercise. The
exercise of the renewal options on the South San Francisco
leases has been included in the schedule above. Operating lease
expense set forth above may increase upon renewal of these
leases. |
The cost of equipment under the capital leases included in
property and equipment at December 31, 2006 and 2005 was
approximately $0.3 million and $0.5 million. Net book
value of leased equipment at December 31, 2006 and 2005 was
approximately $0.1 million.
Rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005
and 2004 was approximately $2.0 million, $1.3 million
and $1.1 million, respectively. Included within capital
lease obligations and other liabilities in 2006 and 2005 were
$6,600 and $11,000 of deferred rent, respectively.
The provision for taxes on income consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
7,389
|
|
|
$
|
707
|
|
|
$
|
4,099
|
|
State
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
|
|
324
|
|
|
|
987
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
|
|
|
9,323
|
|
|
|
1,031
|
|
|
|
5,086
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(2,111
|
)
|
|
|
(226
|
)
|
|
|
(579
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred
|
|
|
(2,057
|
)
|
|
|
(326
|
)
|
|
|
(575
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision
|
|
$
|
7,266
|
|
|
$
|
705
|
|
|
$
|
4,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Significant components of net deferred tax assets and deferred
tax liabilities for federal and state income taxes were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Net current deferred tax asset:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory valuation and basis
difference
|
|
$
|
2,848
|
|
|
$
|
2,048
|
|
Other accrued expenses
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
State taxes
|
|
|
617
|
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,186
|
|
|
|
2,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net non-current deferred tax
liability (asset):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Other accrued expenses
|
|
|
(843
|
)
|
|
|
(144
|
)
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
(2,180
|
)
|
|
|
(2,308
|
)
|
State taxes
|
|
|
502
|
|
|
|
325
|
|
Purchased intangibles
|
|
|
5,047
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,523
|
|
|
|
(2,132
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
1,663
|
|
|
$
|
4,426
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effective tax rate differs from the federal statutory tax
rate as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Federal income tax provision at
statutory rate
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
|
34.0
|
%
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
State income taxes, net of federal
benefit
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
Effect of foreign operations
|
|
|
(7.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)%
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Exempt income
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)%
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(5.9
|
)%
|
Other
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
|
|
30.8
|
%
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
|
34.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All foreign earnings are considered to be permanently reinvested
under APB Opinion No. 23, Accounting for Income
Taxes Special Areas.
Stock Options On February 20, 2003, the
Company adopted the 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2003
Incentive Plan) which was subsequently amended and
restated. The Company has reserved 3,774,783 shares of its
common stock for issuance under the 2003 Incentive Plan, as
amended and restated. The 2003 Incentive Plan provides for the
issuance of options and other stock-based awards. Options are
generally granted at fair value at the date of grant as
determined by the Board of Directors, have terms up to ten years
and generally vest over four years. At December 31, 2006,
373,984 shares were available for future grants under the
2003 Incentive Plan.
48
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Option activity under the 2003 Incentive Plan is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2003
|
|
|
1,055,250
|
|
|
$
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
569,000
|
|
|
|
6.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(14,020
|
)
|
|
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(37,816
|
)
|
|
|
2.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,572,414
|
|
|
|
3.01
|
|
|
|
8.63
|
|
|
$
|
5,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
859,000
|
|
|
|
6.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(48,180
|
)
|
|
|
1.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(262,797
|
)
|
|
|
5.76
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,120,437
|
|
|
|
4.17
|
|
|
|
8.25
|
|
|
$
|
6,546
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,257,500
|
|
|
|
9.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(373,296
|
)
|
|
|
2.44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(89,997
|
)
|
|
|
6.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding, December 31, 2006
|
|
|
2,914,644
|
|
|
$
|
6.41
|
|
|
|
8.29
|
|
|
$
|
17,543
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information with respect to
options outstanding and exercisable at December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Range of Exercise Price
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Life (Years)
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
$1.00 - 3.99
|
|
|
641,224
|
|
|
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
602,072
|
|
|
$
|
1.00
|
|
$4.00 - 6.99
|
|
|
679,948
|
|
|
|
8.33
|
|
|
|
6.42
|
|
|
|
251,974
|
|
|
|
6.41
|
|
$7.00 - 7.99
|
|
|
364,211
|
|
|
|
7.76
|
|
|
|
7.08
|
|
|
|
186,554
|
|
|
|
7.08
|
|
$8.00 - 8.49
|
|
|
669,011
|
|
|
|
9.53
|
|
|
|
8.02
|
|
|
|
8,590
|
|
|
|
8.02
|
|
$8.50 - 14.08
|
|
|
560,250
|
|
|
|
9.51
|
|
|
|
10.22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grand Total
|
|
|
2,914,644
|
|
|
|
8.29
|
|
|
$
|
6.41
|
|
|
|
1,049,190
|
|
|
$
|
3.44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Stock Purchase Plan In 2004 the
Company adopted an Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(ESPP) and is authorized to issue
555,343 shares of common stock under the ESPP. The ESPP
permits employees to purchase common stock at a discount through
payroll withholdings at certain specified dates (purchase
period) within a defined offering period. The purchase price is
95% of the fair market value of the common stock at the end of
the purchase period and is intended to qualify as an
employee stock purchase plan under Section 423
of the Internal Revenue Code. There were 19,994 shares
issued under the ESPP during the year ended December 31,
2006.
Common Stock On March 24, 2004, the
Company sold 6,000,000 shares of its common stock at a
price to the public of $7.00 per share in an initial public
offering (IPO). After deducting the underwriting
discount of $0.49 per share, the net proceeds to the
Company were approximately $39.1 million. Of the net
proceeds, approximately $31.1 million was used to redeem
the Companys outstanding Series A Senior Notes plus
accrued interest.
49
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On April 21, 2004, as part of the Companys IPO,
FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C., the Companys principle stockholder
sold 720,350 shares of the Companys common stock in
connection with the exercise by the underwriters of an
over-allotment option. The Company did not receive any of the
proceeds from the exercise of the over-allotment option.
On March 9, 2006, the Company sold 1,600,000 shares of
its common stock to the public in a secondary offering. After
deducting the underwriting discount and other costs of the
offering, the net proceeds to the Company were approximately
$10.5 million. As of December 31, 2006, FP-Ultra
Cleans ownership of the Company was approximately 9.5%.
Restricted Stock On November 26, 2002,
the Company granted 268,525 shares of common stock to
certain key employees and on March 1, 2004, the Company
granted 62,500 shares of common stock to a board member
under the 2003 Incentive Plan. These restricted shares vest, in
equal installments, over a four year period from the date of
grant.
For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, the
Company charged $0.2 million, $0.2 million and
$0.1 million and respectively, to compensation expense
related to the vesting of restricted stock. The unvested amount
is subject to forfeiture, until the common stock is fully
vested. At December 31, 2006, 31,250 shares were
subject to repurchase.
The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and
denominators used in computing basic and diluted net income per
share (in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,310
|
|
|
$
|
2,003
|
|
|
$
|
8,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in
computation basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding
|
|
|
19,271
|
|
|
|
16,417
|
|
|
|
14,851
|
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding subject to repurchase
|
|
|
(51
|
)
|
|
|
(176
|
)
|
|
|
(246
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in computing basic net
income per share
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
16,241
|
|
|
|
14,605
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in
computation diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares
outstanding
|
|
|
19,220
|
|
|
|
16,241
|
|
|
|
14,605
|
|
Dilutive effect of common shares
outstanding subject to repurchase
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
195
|
|
Dilutive effect of options
outstanding
|
|
|
378
|
|
|
|
799
|
|
|
|
742
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in computing diluted
net income per share
|
|
|
19,649
|
|
|
|
17,169
|
|
|
|
15,542
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share
basic
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
Net income per share
diluted
|
|
$
|
0.83
|
|
|
$
|
0.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.55
|
|
The Company had securities outstanding which could potentially
dilute basic earnings per share in the future, but the
incremental shares from the assumed exercise of these securities
were excluded in the computation of
50
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
diluted net income per share, as their effect would have been
anti-dilutive. Such outstanding securities consist of the
following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Shares of common stock subject to
repurchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Outstanding options
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
925
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
Deferred Stock Compensation During the year
ended December 31, 2003, the Company issued 1,067,000
common stock options to employees at a weighted average exercise
price of $1.00 per share. The weighted average exercise
price was below the weighted average deemed fair value of the
Companys common stock which ranged from $1.00 to
$4.97 per share. In connection with these options, the
Company recorded deferred stock-based compensation of
approximately $0.1 million and amortized approximately
$27,000, $29,000 and $33,000, as an expense during the years
ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
|
|
10.
|
Employee
Benefit Plan
|
The Company sponsors a 401(k) savings and profit sharing plan
(the 401(k) Plan) for all employees who meet certain
eligibility requirements. Participants could elect to contribute
to the 401(k) Plan, on a pre-tax basis, from 2-19% of their
salary up to a maximum of $15,500. The Company may make matching
contributions of up to 6% of employee contributions based upon
eligibility. The Company made approximately $0.5 million,
$0.3 million, and $0.3 million discretionary employer
contributions to the 401(k) Plan in the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
|
|
11.
|
Related
Party Transactions
|
As part of the acquisition of Sieger, the Company leases a
facility from an entity controlled by one of the Companys
executive officers. From the time of acquisition to
December 31, 2006, the Company incurred rent expense
resulting from the lease of this facility of $0.1 million.
The wife of one of the Companys executives is the sole
owner of the Companys primary travel agency. The Company
incurred fees for travel-related services, including the cost of
airplane tickets, of $0.3 million, $0.2 million and
$0.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005, and 2004, respectively.
The sister, son and
daughter-in-law
of one of the Companys executives work for the Company.
These employees were employees of Sieger prior to the date of
acquisition. From the date of acquisition to December 31,
2006, aggregate payments by the Company to the aforementioned
individuals have totaled $84,000.
In November 2002, the Company entered into an agreement with a
key executive of the Company to defer payment of $265,000 in
compensation until November 15, 2009. Under this
arrangement the Company pays interest of 2.7% per annum, payable
on June 30 and December 31 of each year. The amounts
owed under this arrangement may be prepaid by the Company at the
discretion of the board of directors. The principal amount owed
under this arrangement is contained within Capital lease
obligations and other liabilities on the balance sheet of the
Company.
|
|
12.
|
Industry
and Segment Information
|
The Company operates in one reportable segment and is engaged in
the development, manufacture and supply of critical subsystems
for the semiconductor capital equipment industry. The nature of
the Companys products and production processes as well as
type of customers and distribution methods is consistent among
all of the Companys products. The Companys foreign
operations are conducted primarily through its wholly-owned
subsidiary in China. The Companys principal markets
include North America, Europe and Asia. Sales by geographic area
represent sales to unaffiliated customers.
51
ULTRA
CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
All information on sales by geographic area is based upon the
location to which the products were shipped. The following table
sets forth revenue by geographic area (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
Sales
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
320,662
|
|
|
$
|
139,363
|
|
|
$
|
178,260
|
|
Export sales to Europe and Asia
|
|
|
16,566
|
|
|
|
8,172
|
|
|
|
5,944
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
337,228
|
|
|
$
|
147,535
|
|
|
$
|
184,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006, and 2005, approximately
$2.1 million and $1.9 million, respectively, of the
Companys long-lived assets were located in China and the
balances were located in the United States.
|
|
13.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
In connection with letters of credit required for the leases of
certain facilities, the Company held approximately
$0.2 million on deposit in restricted cash accounts as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The restricted
cash balance is included within prepaid expenses and other
assets and other non-current assets.
The Company had commitments to purchase inventory totaling
approximately $53.5 million at December 31, 2006.
On September 2, 2005, the Company filed suit in the federal
court for the Northern District of California against Celerity,
Inc., or Celerity, seeking a declaratory judgment that our new
substrate technology does not infringe certain of
Celeritys patents
and/or that
Celeritys patents are invalid. On September 13, 2005,
Celerity filed suit in the federal court of Delaware alleging
that the Company has infringed seven patents by developing and
marketing products that use Celeritys fluid distribution
technology. The complaint by Celerity seeks injunction against
future infringement of its patents and compensatory and treble
damages. The Delaware litigation was transferred to the Northern
District of California on October 19, 2005 and on
December 12, 2005 was consolidated with the Companys
previously filed declaratory judgment action. The Court issued
its claim construction order on September 29, 2006, and
discovery is nearly complete in the case. The Company has filed
motions for summary judgments of non-infringement and invalidity
with the Court, and those motions are currently pending. Trial
in this matter is currently scheduled for June 2007. The Company
believes that the claims made by Celerity are without merit and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
From time to time, the Company is also subject to various legal
proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that
arise in the ordinary course of business.
52
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
Not Applicable
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the
participation of our Disclosure Committee and our management,
including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), of the effectiveness of the design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (Disclosure
Controls) pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(e).
Disclosure Controls are procedures that are designed to ensure
that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), such as this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified by the SEC.
The evaluation of our Disclosure Controls included a review of
their objectives and design, our implementation of them and
their effect on the information generated for use in this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
In the course of the controls evaluation, we reviewed any data
errors or control problems that we had identified and sought to
confirm that appropriate corrective actions, including process
improvements, were being undertaken. This type of evaluation is
performed on a quarterly basis so that the conclusions of
management, including our CEO and CFO, concerning the
effectiveness of the Disclosure Controls can be reported in our
periodic reports on
Form 10-K
and
Form 10-Q.
Many of the components of our Disclosure Controls are also
evaluated on an ongoing basis by our finance department. The
overall goals of these various evaluation activities are to
monitor our Disclosure Controls and to modify them as necessary.
We intend to maintain the Disclosure Controls as dynamic systems
that we adjust as circumstances merit.
Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that as of
December 31, 2006, our Disclosure Controls were effective
to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to
be disclosed in our SEC reports (i) is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC
rules and forms, and (ii) is accumulated and communicated
to our management, including our CEO and CFO, as appropriate to
allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
We intend to review and evaluate the design and effectiveness of
our Disclosure Controls on an ongoing basis and to correct any
material deficiencies that we may discover. Our goal is to
ensure that our senior management has timely access to material
information that could affect our business.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f).
On June 29, 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of
Sieger Engineering, Inc. (Sieger) which was renamed
UCT-Sieger Engineering LLC (UCT-Sieger). Our
evaluation of Internal Controls was exclusive of the operations
of our recently acquired subsidiary, UCT-Sieger. Under the
supervision and with the participation of management, including
our CEO and CFO, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness
of our internal controls over financial reporting based on the
framework in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
Based on our evaluation under the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, management has
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was
effective as of December 31, 2006 to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external reporting
purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. As a result of such evaluation, there
were no significant changes in our internal controls over
financial reporting identified during the most recent fiscal
year that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Our managements assessment of the design and effectiveness
of our internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006 has been audited by Deloitte &
Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as
stated in their attestation report which is included below.
53
Management
Certifications
The certifications of our CEO and CFO required in accordance
with Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are
attached as exhibits to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
The disclosures set forth in this Item 9A contain
information concerning (i) the evaluation of our Disclosure
Controls referred to in paragraph 4 of the certifications,
and (ii) material weaknesses in the design or operation of
our internal control over financial reporting referred to in
paragraph 5 of the certifications. Those certifications
should be read in conjunction with this Item 9A for a more
complete understanding of the matters covered by the
certifications.
Inherent
Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls
Our management, including our CEO and CFO, do not expect that
our Disclosure Controls or our internal control over financial
reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control
system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide
only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of
the control system are met. Further, the design of a control
system must reflect the fact that there are resource
constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered
relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in
all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide
absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of
fraud, if any, within a company have been detected. These
inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in
decision making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur
because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can
be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people or by management override of the
controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in
part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies
or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent
limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
54
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.
Menlo Park, California
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting, that Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the Company) maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. As described in Managements Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting, management excluded from its
assessment the internal control over financial reporting at
Sieger Engineering, Inc., which was acquired on June 29,
2006 and whose financial statements constitute 39% and 38% of
net and total assets, respectively, 16% of revenues, and 32% of
net income of the consolidated financial statement amounts as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Accordingly, our
audit did not include the internal control over financial
reporting at Sieger Engineering, Inc. The Companys
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys board of directors, management, and other
personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on the criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and our report dated March 29, 2007
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements
and included an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123
(revised 2004), Share Based Payment.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Jose, California
March 29, 2007
55
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART III
Pursuant to Paragraph G(3) of the General Instructions to
Form 10-K,
portions of the information required by Part III of
Form 10-K
are incorporated by reference from our definitive Proxy
Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with our 2007
Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors
and Executive Officers of the Registrant
|
The information required by this item concerning directors,
including our audit committee financial expert, is incorporated
by reference to the section entitled, Election of
Directors in the our definitive Proxy Statement for the
2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
For information with respect to Executive Officers, see
Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
under Executive Officers.
The information required by the item with respect to
Section 16(a) beneficial reporting compliance is
incorporated by reference to the section entitled,
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Compliance in our definitive Proxy Statement for the 2007
Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
We have adopted a code of ethics that is designed to qualify as
a code of ethics within the meaning of
Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the rules
promulgated thereunder. This code of ethics is available on our
website at www.uct.com. To the extent required by law,
any amendments to, or waivers from, any provision of the code of
ethics will be promptly disclosed to the public. To the extent
permitted by such legal requirements, we intend to make such
public disclosure by posting the relative material on our
website in accordance with SEC rules.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the sections entitled Executive
Compensation and Election of Directors in the
Companys definitive Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the sections entitled Security Ownership of
Certain Beneficial Owners and Management in the
Companys definitive Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
This table summarizes our equity plan information as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
for Future Issuance
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Under Equity
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Compensation Plans
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
(Excluding
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
|
Securities Reflected
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
and Rights
|
|
|
in Column (a))
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by security holders:(1)
|
|
|
2,914,644
|
|
|
$
|
6.41
|
|
|
|
860,139
|
|
Equity compensation plans not
approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,914,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
860,139
|
|
56
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists of the Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan and,
for purposes of column (c), the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
The number of shares available under our Amended and Restated
Stock Incentive Plan automatically increases each year,
beginning January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2014, by
an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 370,228 shares,
(ii) 2% of the number of shares of the common stock
outstanding on the date of the increase or (iii) an amount
determined by the Board of Directors. |
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
|
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the section entitled Certain Relationships
and Related Transactions in the Companys definitive
Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The information required by this item is incorporated by
reference to the section entitled Ratification of
Independent Accountants in the Companys definitive
Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
Part IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) The following documents are filed as part of this
Form 10-K:
1. Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Form 10-K
|
|
|
Page No.
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
2. Financial statement schedules not listed have been
omitted because they are not applicable or required, or the
information required to be set forth therein is included in the
Consolidated Financial Statements or Notes thereto.
3. Exhibits
57
Exhibit Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of October 30, 2002, among Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.,
Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc., Mitsubishi
Corporation, Mitsubishi International Corporation and Clean
Merger Company(a)
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization dated as of June 29, 2006 by and among
Sieger Engineering, Inc., Leonid Mezhvinsky, Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc., Bob Acquisition Inc., Pete Acquisition LLC,
Leonid and Inna Mezhvinsky as trustees of the Revocable
Trust Agreement of Leonid Mezhvinsky and Inna Mezhvinsky
dated April 26, Joe and Jenny Chen as trustees of the Joe
Chen and Jenny Chen Revocable Trust dated 2002, Victor
Mezhvinsky, Victor Mezhvinsky as trustee of the Joshua
Mezhvinsky 2004 Irrevocable Trust under Agreement dated
June 4, 2004, David Hongyu Wu and Winnie Wei Zhen Wu as
trustees of the Chen Minors Irrevocable Trust, Frank Moreman and
Leonid Mezhvinsky as Sellers Agent(i)
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.(c)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.(c)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006
among Ultra Clean, FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C. and the Sieger
Shareholders(i)
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Form of Restricted Securities
Purchase Agreement dated November 26, 2002 with Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.(a)
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Amended and Restated Registration
Rights Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 among Ultra
Clean, FP-Ultra Clean L.L.C. and the Sieger Shareholders(i)
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Restricted Stock Purchase
Agreement dated as of February 20, 2003 between Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc. and Clarence L. Granger(b)
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Employment Agreement dated
November 15, 2002 between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.(a)
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Employment Agreement dated
June 21, 2005 between Jack Sexton and Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc.(h)
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Employment Agreement dated as of
June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean and Leonid Mezhvinsky(i)
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Agreement to Preserve Corporate
Opportunity dated as of June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean
and Leonid Mezhvinsky(i)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lock-Up
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean and
the Sieger Shareholders(i)
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
Amended and Restated 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan(e)
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement(d)
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Loan and Security Agreement dated
as of June 29, 2006 among Silicon Valley Bank, Ultra Clean
Technology Systems and Service, Inc., Bob Acquisition Inc. and
Pete Acquisition LLC(i)
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
Unconditional Guaranty by Ultra
Clean in favor of Silicon Valley Bank dated as of June 29,
2006(i)
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Securities Pledge Agreement dated
as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley Bank and Ultra
Clean(i)
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Intellectual Property Security
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley
Bank and Ultra Clean(i)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Intellectual Property Security
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley
Bank and Ultra Clean Technology(i)
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(Restated as of October 21, 2004)(f)
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement
between Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and each of its directors and
executive officers(c)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Employment
Agreement between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc. dated March 2,2004(c)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Employment
Agreement between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra Clean Holding,
Inc. dated May 9, 2005(g)
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
Form of Award Agreement(d)
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Description
|
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on
signature page)
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Registration
Statement on Form
S-1 (File
No. 333-11904),
filed January 14, 2004. |
|
(b) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 1 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed February 17, 2004. |
|
(c) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 2 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed March 2, 2004. |
|
(d) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 3 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed March 8, 2004. |
|
(e) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Registration
Statement on Form
S-8 (File
No. 333-114051),
filed March 30, 2004. |
|
(f) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the three months ended September 30, 2004. |
|
(g) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed May 13, 2005. |
|
(h) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed June 22, 2005. |
|
(i) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed July 6, 2006. |
59
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Clarence
L. Granger
|
Clarence L. Granger
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 29, 2007
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person
whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Clarence
L. Granger and Jack Sexton, and each of them, as his true and
lawful
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and re-substitution,
for him in any and all capacities, to sign any and all
amendments to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission hereby ratifying and confirming that each of
said
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ Clarence
L. Granger
Clarence
L. Granger
|
|
Chairman & Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Leonid
Mezhvinsky
Leonid
Mezhvinsky
|
|
President and Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jack
Sexton
Jack
Sexton
|
|
Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Brian
R. Bachman
Brian
R. Bachman
|
|
Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Susan
H. Billat
Susan
H. Billat
|
|
Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kevin
C. Eichler
Kevin
C. Eichler
|
|
Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David
T. ibnAle
David
T. ibnAle
|
|
Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
M. Rohrs
Thomas
M. Rohrs
|
|
Director
|
|
March 29, 2007
|
60
Exhibit Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Description
|
|
|
2
|
.1
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of October 30, 2002, among Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.,
Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc.,
Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsubishi International Corporation and
Clean Merger Company(a)
|
|
2
|
.2
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization dated as of June 29, 2006 by and among
Sieger Engineering, Inc., Leonid Mezhvinsky, Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc., Bob Acquisition Inc., Pete Acquisition LLC,
Leonid and Inna Mezhvinsky as trustees of the Revocable
Trust Agreement of Leonid Mezhvinsky and Inna Mezhvinsky
dated April 26, Joe and Jenny Chen as trustees of the Joe
Chen and Jenny Chen Revocable Trust dated 2002, Victor
Mezhvinsky, Victor Mezhvinsky as trustee of the Joshua
Mezhvinsky 2004 Irrevocable Trust under Agreement dated
June 4, 2004, David Hongyu Wu and Winnie Wei Zhen Wu as
trustees of the Chen Minors Irrevocable Trust, Frank Moreman and
Leonid Mezhvinsky as Sellers Agent(i)
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation of Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.(c)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.(c)
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006
among Ultra Clean, FP-Ultra Clean, L.L.C. and the Sieger
Shareholders(i)
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Form of Restricted Securities
Purchase Agreement dated November 26, 2002 with Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.(a)
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Amended and Restated Registration
Rights Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 among Ultra
Clean, FP-Ultra Clean L.L.C. and the Sieger Shareholders(i)
|
|
4
|
.4
|
|
Restricted Stock Purchase
Agreement dated as of February 20, 2003 between Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc. and Clarence L. Granger(b)
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Employment Agreement dated
November 15, 2002 between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc.(a)
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Employment Agreement dated
June 21, 2005 between Jack Sexton and Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc.(h)
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Employment Agreement dated as of
June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean and Leonid Mezhvinsky(i)
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Agreement to Preserve Corporate
Opportunity dated as of June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean
and Leonid Mezhvinsky(i)
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lock-Up
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Ultra Clean and
the Sieger Shareholders(i)
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
Amended and Restated 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan(e)
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement(d)
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Loan and Security Agreement dated
as of June 29, 2006 among Silicon Valley Bank, Ultra Clean
Technology Systems and Service, Inc., Bob Acquisition Inc. and
Pete Acquisition LLC(i)
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
Unconditional Guaranty by Ultra
Clean in favor of Silicon Valley Bank dated as of June 29,
2006(i)
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Securities Pledge Agreement dated
as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley Bank and Ultra
Clean(i)
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Intellectual Property Security
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley
Bank and Ultra Clean(i)
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Intellectual Property Security
Agreement dated as of June 29, 2006 between Silicon Valley
Bank and Ultra Clean Technology(i)
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(Restated as of October 21, 2004)(f)
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement
between Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and each of its directors and
executive officers(c)
|
|
10
|
.15
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Employment
Agreement between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra Clean Holdings,
Inc. dated March 2,2004(c)
|
|
10
|
.16
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Employment
Agreement between Clarence L. Granger and Ultra Clean Holding,
Inc. dated May 9, 2005(g)
|
|
10
|
.17
|
|
Form of Award Agreement(d)
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on
signature page)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
Description
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Registration
Statement on Form
S-1 (File
No. 333-11904),
filed January 14, 2004. |
|
(b) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 1 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed February 17, 2004. |
|
(c) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 2 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed March 2, 2004. |
|
(d) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to Amendment No. 3 to the
Registrants Registration Statement on
Form S-1/A
(File
No. 333-11904),
filed March 8, 2004. |
|
(e) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Registration
Statement on Form
S-8 (File
No. 333-114051),
filed March 30, 2004. |
|
(f) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the three months ended September 30, 2004. |
|
(g) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed May 13, 2005. |
|
(h) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed June 22, 2005. |
|
(i) |
|
Filed as an exhibit to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed July 6, 2006. |