e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal
year ended March 31,
2011
|
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
000-19672
American Superconductor
Corporation
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
04-2959321
(IRS Employer
Identification Number)
|
64 Jackson Road
Devens, Massachusetts
(Address of Principal
Executive Offices)
|
|
01434
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(978) 842-3000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par value, NASDAQ Global Select
Market
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned
issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by checkmark 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 whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such
files). Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 232.405) is not contained herein, and will not be
contained, to the best of the 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 checkmark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act (Check one):
|
|
|
|
Large
accelerated
filer þ
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting
company o
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the registrants Common Stock
held by non-affiliates of the registrant on September 30,
2010, based on the closing price of the shares of Common Stock
on the Nasdaq Global Market on that date ($31.10 per share) was
$1,391.9 million.
Number of shares outstanding of the registrants Common
Stock, as of September 15, 2011 was 50,868,708.
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
FORM 10-K
EXPLANATORY NOTE
American Superconductor Corporation (the Company or
AMSC) is filing this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and its Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 after the due date for
such filing. The Company is concurrently filing Amendments to
its Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC) with respect to the quarterly periods ended
September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010 to restate
its unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements,
related notes, key financial data and managements
discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of
operations to correct accounting errors in those periods.
Readers are strongly urged to read this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
Amendments to our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly periods ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 and the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 together for a more
complete understanding of the Companys financial condition.
The Company amended the Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
and delayed filing of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
as a result of its determination that revenues were incorrectly
recorded during the periods covered by the reports.
Specifically, the Company determined that at the time of certain
product shipments to certain of its customers in China during
the second and third quarters of the Companys fiscal year
ended March 31, 2011, the fees related to the shipments in
some cases were not fixed or determinable or collectability was
not reasonably assured. As a result, the Company should have
recognized the revenues related to those shipments on a cash
basis of accounting with cash applied first against accounts
receivable balances, as in the case of Sinovel as of
September 30, 2010, then costs of shipments (inventory and
value added taxes) before recognizing any gross margin. The
Company has restated the applicable revenues, cost of goods
sold, inventory, accounts receivable and other accounts during
the periods affected.
The Company recorded $155.3 million of charges in the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011. The
details of the charges and their impact on the consolidated
financial statements are described in Note 17,
Quarterly Financial Data (unaudited), to the
consolidated financial statements included in Part II,
Item 8 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
In connection with the errors identified by the Company
resulting in the restatement of the Companys quarterly
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, the
Company identified control deficiencies in its internal control
over financial reporting that constitute material weaknesses.
The Company determined that its disclosure controls and
procedures were ineffective as of September 30, 2010,
December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and June 30,
2011. For a discussion of managements consideration of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and the
material weaknesses identified, see Part II, Item 9A,
Controls and Procedures, of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act). For this purpose, any
statements contained herein that relate to future events or
conditions, including without limitation, the statements in
Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and in
Part II under Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and located elsewhere herein regarding industry
prospects or our prospective results of operations or financial
position, may be deemed to be forward-looking statements.
Without limiting the foregoing, the words believes,
anticipates, plans, expects,
and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking
statements. Such forward-looking statements represent
managements current expectations and are inherently
uncertain. There are a number of important factors that could
materially impact the value of our common stock or cause actual
results to differ materially from those indicated by such
forward-looking statements. Such factors include: a significant
portion of our revenues has been derived from Sinovel Wind Group
Co. Ltd., (Sinovel), which has stopped accepting
scheduled deliveries and refused to pay amounts outstanding; the
disruption in our relationship with Sinovel has materially and
adversely affected our business and results of operations and
if, as we expect, Sinovel continues to refuse to accept
shipments from us, our business and results of operations will
be further materially and adversely affected; we will require
significant additional funding and may be unable to raise
capital when needed, which could force us to delay, reduce or
eliminate planned activities, including the planned acquisition
of The Switch Engineering Oy (The Switch); we have a
history of operating losses, and we may incur additional losses
in the future; our operating results may fluctuate significantly
from quarter to quarter and may fall below expectations in any
particular fiscal quarter; if we fail to complete the planned
acquisition of The Switch, our operating results and financial
condition could be harmed and the price of our common stock
could decline; completion of the planned acquisition of The
Switch could present certain risks to our business; adverse
changes in
domestic and global economic conditions could adversely affect
our operating results; changes in exchange rates could adversely
affect our results from operations; we have identified material
weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and
if we fail to remediate these weaknesses and maintain proper and
effective internal controls over financial reporting, our
ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements
could be impaired and may lead investors and other users to lose
confidence in our financial data; if we fail to implement our
business strategy successfully, our financial performance could
be harmed; we may not realize all of the sales expected from our
backlog of orders and contracts; many of our revenue
opportunities are dependent upon subcontractors and other
business collaborators; our products face intense competition,
which could limit our ability to acquire or retain customers;
our success is dependent upon attracting and retaining qualified
personnel and our inability to do so could significantly damage
our business and prospects; we may acquire additional
complementary businesses or technologies, which may require us
to incur substantial costs for which we may never realize the
anticipated benefits; our international operations are subject
to risks that we do not face in the United States, which could
have an adverse effect on our operating results; we depend on
sales to customers in China, and global conditions could
negatively affect our operating results or limit our ability to
expand our operations outside of China; changes in Chinas
political, social, regulatory and economic environment may
affect our financial performance; many of our customer
relationships outside of the United States are, either directly
or indirectly, with governmental entities, and we could be
adversely affected by violations of the United States Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws
outside the United States; we rely upon third party suppliers
for the components and subassemblies of many of our Wind and
Grid products, making us vulnerable to supply shortages and
price fluctuations, which could harm our business; we are
becoming increasingly reliant on contracts that require the
issuance of performance bonds; problems with product quality or
product performance may cause us to incur warranty expenses and
may damage our market reputation and prevent us from achieving
increased sales and market share; our success in addressing the
wind energy market is dependent on the manufacturers that
license our designs; growth of the wind energy market depends
largely on the availability and size of government subsidies and
economic incentives; there are a number of technological
challenges that must be successfully addressed before our
superconductor products can gain widespread commercial
acceptance, and our inability to address such technological
challenges could adversely affect our ability to acquire
customers for our products; we have not manufactured our
Amperium wire in commercial quantities, and a failure to
manufacture our Amperium wire in commercial quantities at
acceptable cost and quality levels would substantially limit our
future revenue and profit potential; the commercial uses of
superconductor products are limited today, and a widespread
commercial market for our products may not develop; we have
limited experience in marketing and selling our superconductor
products and system-level solutions, and our failure to
effectively market and sell our products and solutions could
lower our revenue and cash flow; our contracts with the
U.S. government are subject to audit, modification or
termination by the U.S. government and include certain
other provisions in favor of the government; the continued
funding of such contracts remains subject to annual
congressional appropriation which, if not approved, could reduce
our revenue and lower or eliminate our profit; we may be unable
to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other
proprietary information; we have filed a demand for arbitration
and other lawsuits against Sinovel regarding amounts we contend
are due and owing and are in dispute; we cannot be certain as to
the outcome of the proceedings against Sinovel; we have been
named as a party to purported stockholder class actions and
shareholder derivative complaints, and we may be named in
additional litigation, all of which will require significant
management time and attention, result in significant legal
expenses and may result in an unfavorable outcome, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results and financial condition; our technology and products
could infringe intellectual property rights of others, which may
require costly litigation and, if we are not successful, could
cause us to pay substantial damages and disrupt our business;
our patents may not provide meaningful protection for our
technology, which could result in us losing some or all of our
market position; third parties have or may acquire patents that
cover the materials, processes and technologies we use or may
use in the future to manufacture our Amperium products, and our
success depends on our ability to license such patents or other
proprietary rights; and our common stock has experienced, and
may continue to experience, significant market price and volume
fluctuations, which may prevent our stockholders from selling
our common stock at a profit and could lead to costly litigation
against us that could divert our managements attention.
These and the important factors discussed under the caption
Risk Factors in Part 1. Item 1A of this
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, among others,
could cause actual results to differ materially from those
indicated by forward-looking statements made herein and
presented elsewhere by management from time to time. Any such
forward-looking statements represent managements estimates
as of the date of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
While we may elect to update such forward-looking statements at
some point in the future, we disclaim any obligation to do so,
even if subsequent events cause our views to change. These
forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as
representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
PART I
Overview
We are a leading provider of megawatt-scale solutions that lower
the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of the power
grid. In the wind power market, we enable manufacturers to field
wind turbines through our advanced engineering, support services
and power electronics products. In the power grid market, we
enable electric utilities and renewable energy project
developers to connect, transmit and distribute power through our
transmission planning services and power electronics and
superconductor based products. Our wind and power grid products
and services provide exceptional reliability, security,
efficiency and affordability to our customers.
Since our inception, we have served more than ten wind turbine
manufacturing customers including Dongfang Turbine Company in
China, Inox Wind in India, Hyundai Heavy Industries in South
Korea and TECO in Taiwan. We have also served over 100 customers
in the grid market since our inception, including American
Electric Power and Long Island Power Authority in the United
States, EDF Group in France and Ergon Energy in Australia. We
serve customers globally through a localized sales and field
service presence in our core target markets.
Our wind and power grid solutions help to improve energy
efficiency, alleviate power grid capacity constraints and
increase the adoption of renewable energy generation. Demand for
our solutions is driven by the growing needs for renewable
sources of electricity, such as wind and solar energy, and for
modernized smart grids that improve power reliability and
quality. Concerns about these factors have led to increased
spending by corporations as well as supportive government
regulations and initiatives on local, state and national levels,
including renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives and
international treaties. We estimate that the total addressable
global market for our wind and grid solutions is approximately
$10 billion.
On March 12, 2011, we entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire The Switch Engineering Oy, headquartered in Vantaa,
Finland. The Switch designs, manufactures and markets wind power
products, including permanent magnet generators and power
converter systems, as well as grid products such as commercial
and small utility-scale solar inverters to customers in Asia,
including China, Europe and North America.
As of April 1, 2011, we are segmenting our operations into
two new market-facing business units: Wind and Grid. We believe
this market-centric structure enables us to more effectively
anticipate and meet the needs of wind turbine manufacturers,
power generation project developers and electric utilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Wind. Through our Windtec brand, our Wind
business enables manufacturers to field wind turbines with
exceptional power output, reliability and affordability. We
license our highly engineered wind turbine designs, provide
extensive customer support services and supply advanced power
electronics and control systems to wind turbine manufacturers.
Our design portfolio includes a broad range of drive trains and
power ratings up to 10 megawatts. We believe our unique
engineering capabilities, ranging from bearings to advanced
synchronous generators to blades, enables us to provide our
partners with highly-optimized wind turbine platforms.
Furthermore, these designs and support services typically lead
to sales of our power electronics and software-based control
systems, which are designed for optimized performance,
efficiency and grid compatibility.
|
|
|
|
Grid. Our Grid segment enables electric
utilities and renewable energy project developers to connect,
transmit and distribute power with exceptional efficiency,
reliability and affordability. We provide transmission planning
services that allow us to identify power grid congestion, poor
power quality and other risks, which help us determine how our
solutions can improve network performance. These services often
lead to sales of grid interconnection solutions for wind farms
and solar power plants, power quality systems and transmission
and distribution cable systems.
|
Prior to April 1, 2011, we segmented our operations through
two technology-centric business units: AMSC Power Systems and
AMSC Superconductors. AMSC Power Systems included all of our
Wind products, as well as Grid products that regulate voltage
for wind farm voltage electric utilities, renewable generation
project developers
1
and industrial operations. Solutions from our AMSC
Superconductors business unit have been incorporated into our
Grid business unit.
Our fiscal year begins on April 1 and ends on March 31.
When we refer to a particular fiscal year, we are referring to
the fiscal year beginning on April 1 of that same year. For
example, fiscal 2010 refers to the fiscal year beginning on
April 1, 2010. Other fiscal years follow similarly.
Competitive
Strengths
We believe our competitive strengths position us well to execute
on our growth plans in the markets we serve.
|
|
|
|
|
Unique Solutions for the Wind and Grid
Markets. We believe we are the only company in
the world that provides wind turbine manufacturers with an
integrated approach of wind turbine design and engineering,
customer support services and power electronics and control
systems. We also believe we are the only company in the world
that is able to provide transmission planning services, grid
interconnection and voltage control systems as well as
superconductor-based transmission and distribution systems for
power grid operators. This unique scope of supply provides us
with greater insight into our customers evolving needs and
greater cross-selling opportunities as our company grows.
|
|
|
|
Differentiated Technologies. Our
PowerModuletm
power converters are based on proprietary software and hardware
combinations and are used in a broad array of applications,
including our
D-VAR®
grid interconnection and voltage control systems, as well as our
wind turbine core electrical components and electrical control
systems. Our proprietary
Amperiumtm
wire was engineered to allow us to tailor the product via
laminations to meet the electrical and mechanical performance
requirements of widely varying end-use applications, including
power cables and fault current limiters for the Grid market and
generators for the Wind market.
|
|
|
|
Highly Scalable, Low-Cost Manufacturing
Platform. We can increase the production of our
proprietary power electronics and superconductor technologies at
costs that we believe are low relative to our competitors. Our
proprietary manufacturing technique for
Amperiumtm
wires is modular in nature, which allows us to expand
manufacturing capacity at a relatively low incremental cost.
|
|
|
|
Robust Patent Position and Engineering
Expertise. As of March 31, 2011, we owned
more than 610 patents and patent applications worldwide,
and had rights through exclusive and non-exclusive licenses to
more than 320 additional patents and patent applications. We
believe our technology and manufacturing knowledge base,
customer and product expertise and patent portfolio provide a
strong competitive position.
|
|
|
|
Experienced Team. Our senior management team
has extensive energy experience and is composed of veterans of
the electrical equipment, utility and wind power markets. As of
March 31, 2011, management was supported by
848 employees worldwide, 32 of whom hold Ph.Ds in materials
science, physics, metallurgy, engineering or other fields. In
August 2011, we initiated a restructuring plan to reorganize
global operations, streamline various functions of the business,
and reduce our global workforce to match the demand for our
products. As of August 31, 2011, we employed
599 persons.
|
Strategy
Building on these competitive strengths, we will continue to
focus on driving revenue growth and enhancing our operating
results through the objectives defined below.
|
|
|
|
|
Provide Solutions from Power Generation to
Delivery. From the generation source to the
consumer, we focus on providing
best-in-class
engineering, support services, technologies and solutions that
make the worlds power supplies cleaner, smarter and
stronger.
|
|
|
|
Focus on Megawatt-Scale Power
Offerings. Our research, product development and
sales efforts focus on megawatt-scale offerings ranging from
designs of and power electronics for large wind turbine
platforms to systems that stabilize power flows, integrate
renewable power into the grid and carry power to and from
transmission and distribution substations.
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
Pursue Emerging Overseas Markets and Serve Key Markets
Locally. We focus our sales efforts on overseas
markets that are investing aggressively in renewable energy and
power grid projects, and we have been particularly successful in
targeting key Asian markets, including China, India and South
Korea. As part of our strategy, we serve our key target markets
with local sales and field service personnel, which enables us
to understand market dynamics and more effectively anticipate
customer needs while also reducing response time. We currently
have operations in target markets such as Australia, China,
India and South Korea, and we plan to open additional offices in
the future.
|
|
|
|
Product Innovation. We have a strong record of
developing unique solutions for megawatt-scale power
applications and will continue our focus on investing in
innovation. In recent years, our product development efforts
have included wind power-specific power converters,
utility-scale solar grid interconnection systems and
superconductor-based generators for 10 megawatt-scale wind
turbines.
|
|
|
|
Pursue Targeted Strategic Acquisitions and
Alliances. We will continue to pursue strategic
business relationships and acquisitions that complement our
product portfolio and increase our rate of growth. We have built
strategic alliances and close corporate relationships with many
industry leaders (including LS Cable, Nexans, Siemens and
Vestas) to develop and commercialize our products.
|
Market
Opportunities
Our solutions address two substantial global demands:
|
|
|
|
|
the demand for renewable sources of electricity, and
|
|
|
|
the demand for modernized, smart power grid infrastructure that
alleviates capacity constraints and improves the reliability,
security and efficiency.
|
Wind
Market Overview
The market for wind-generated, zero-emission electricity has
been growing dramatically for more than a decade. According to
the Global Wind Energy Council (the GWEC), more than
38,000 megawatts (MW) of wind generation capacity
were added worldwide in 2010, as compared to 33,000 MW in
2009. China represented the largest source of growth, with a
year-over-year
increase in installed capacity base of 70%, for a total
installed capacity of 44,733 MW as of December 31,
2010. We expect that the rate of global wind power installations
in 2011 will be roughly equivalent with 2010.
Several factors are driving growth in the wind power market,
including substantial government incentives and mandates that
have been established globally, technological improvements,
turbine cost reductions and increasing cost competitiveness with
existing power generation technologies. According to GWEC, by
early 2011, at least 119 countries had some form of
national policy support for renewable energy, more than double
the 55 countries that provided such support in 2005.
Technological advances, declining turbine production cost and
increasing prices for fossil fuels continue to increase the
competitiveness of wind versus traditional power generation
technologies.
The vast majority of the wind power capacity installed worldwide
to date is onshore. In the future, industry analysts anticipate
rapid growth in the offshore wind market due to its advantages
in terms of both wind patterns and real estate availability.
Industry research firm IHS Emerging Energy Research expects the
installed base of offshore wind power to increase from
approximately 3,000 MW at the end of 2010 to nearly
50,000 MW by the end of 2020 as wind turbine power ratings
and performance continue to improve and project costs decline.
Our
Solutions for the Wind Market
We address the challenges of the wind energy market by designing
and engineering wind turbines, providing extensive support
services to wind turbine manufacturers and manufacturing and
selling critical components for wind turbines.
|
|
|
|
|
Wind Turbine Designs. We design and develop
entire
state-of-the-art
onshore and offshore wind turbines up to 10 megawatts for
manufacturers who are in the business of producing wind turbines
or who plan to enter the business of manufacturing wind
turbines. These customers typically pay us licensing fees for
wind
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
turbine designs and purchase from us the core electrical
components or complete electrical control systems needed to
operate the wind turbines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer Support Services. We provide
extensive customer support services to wind turbine
manufacturers. These services range from providing designs for
customers wind turbine manufacturing plants to
establishing and localizing their supply chains and training
their employees on proper wind turbine installation and
maintenance. We believe these services enable customers to
accelerate their entry into the wind turbine manufacturing
market and lower the cost of their wind turbine platforms.
|
|
|
|
Electrical Control Systems. We provide full
electrical control systems or a subset of those systems
(core electrical components) to manufacturers of
wind turbines. These power electronics regulate voltage, control
power flows and maximize wind turbine efficiency, among other
functions. To date, we have shipped enough core electrical
components and complete electrical control systems to power more
than 10,000 MW of wind power. We believe our electrical
control systems represent approximately 10% of a wind
turbines bill of materials, representing an addressable
market in excess of $3 billion annually in 2010.
|
Our unique approach to the wind energy markets allows our
customers to use our world-class turbine engineering
capabilities while minimizing their research and development
costs. These services and our advanced electrical control
systems and core electrical components provide our customers the
ability to produce standardized or next-generation wind turbines
at scale for their local market or the global market quickly and
cost-effectively. Our team of highly experienced engineers works
with clients to customize a turbine design specifically tailored
to local markets while providing ongoing access to field
services support and future technological advances. We have
designed wind turbines for, or have licensed wind turbines to,
more than ten manufacturers in Europe and Asia.
Grid
Market Overview
Until the early part of the previous decade, transmission grid
investment in the United States experienced a prolonged decline
caused by uncertainty regarding the ownership of and return on
transmission grid investments. This period of underinvestment
resulted in an increasing number of grid disturbances and
blackouts. A study conducted by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory found that electric power outages and
blackouts cost the United States approximately $80 billion
annually. These events and statistics have prompted broad
recognition worldwide of the need to modernize and enhance the
security of power grids. An increasing number of nations,
including China, South Korea and the United States, are
promoting the adoption of new smart grid technologies and
programs to enhance grid capacity, efficiency and reliability.
Power grid operators worldwide face various challenges,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
Stability. Power grid operators are
confronting power quality and stability issues arising from
intermittent renewable energy sources and from the capacity
limitations of transmission and overhead distribution lines and
underground cables.
|
|
|
|
Reliability. Traditional transmission lines
and cables often reach their reliable voltage limit well below
their thermal threshold. Driving more power through a power grid
when some lines and cables are operating above their voltage
stability limit at peak demand times causes either low voltage
in the power grid (a brownout) or risk of a sudden,
uncontrollable voltage collapse (a blackout).
|
|
|
|
Capacity. The traditional way to increase
power grid capacity without losing voltage stability is to
install more overhead power lines and underground cables.
However, permitting new transmission and distribution lines can
take 10 years or more due to various public policy issues,
such as environmental, aesthetic and health concerns. In urban
and metropolitan areas, installing additional conventional
underground copper cables is similarly challenging, since many
existing underground corridors carrying power distribution
cables are already filled to their physical capacity and cannot
accommodate any additional conventional cables. In addition,
adding new conduits requires expanding or securing new corridors
and excavating to lay new conduit, which are costly and
disruptive.
|
|
|
|
Efficiency. Most overhead lines and
underground cables use traditional conductors such as copper and
aluminum, which lose power due to electrical resistance. At
transmission voltage, electrical losses average
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
about 7% in the United States and other developed nations, but
can exceed 20% in some locations due to the distance of the line
and the power grids architecture and characteristics,
among other factors.
|
Our
Solutions for the Grid Market
We address these challenges in the Grid market by providing
services and solutions designed to increase the power
grids capacity, reliability, security and efficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission Planning Services. We provide
transmission planning services that identify power grid
constraints and determine how our solutions might improve
network performance. These services often lead to sales of grid
interconnection solutions for wind farms and solar power plants,
power quality systems and transmission and distribution cable
systems.
|
|
|
|
D-VAR®
Systems. The power that flows through
alternating current (AC) networks comprises both
real power, measured in watts, and reactive power, measured in
Volt Amp Reactives (VARs). In simple terms, reactive
power is required to support voltage in the power network.
D-VAR®
systems can provide the reactive power needed to stabilize
voltage on the grid. These systems also can be used to connect
wind farms and solar power plants to the power grid seamlessly.
Global Industry Analysts estimates that the global market for
Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) such as
D-VAR®
was $1.5 billion in 2009.
|
|
|
|
SolarTie Grid Interconnection Systems. To use
power from photovoltaic panels, electric utilities or other
operators must convert, or invert, the direct current
(DC) power that is produced by solar panels into AC
power used by the grid. Megawatt-scale solar power plants also
typically require reactive power to remain connected to the
power grid. SolarTie Grid Interconnection Systems provide the
inversion and reactive compensation necessary to connect
megawatt-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants
to the power grid, increasing grid stability and reliability.
According to IMS Research, large commercial and utility-scale PV
system installations are projected to increase from
approximately 7.5 GW in 2010 to more than 22 GW in 2015. As a
result, we believe annual spending on inverters for large
commercial and utility-scale PV will roughly double from
approximately $1.6 billion in 2010 to approximately
$3.0 billion in 2015.
|
|
|
|
Superconductor Wire. Conventional conductors
of electricity, such as aluminum and copper wire, lose energy
due to resistance. Using a compound of yttrium barium copper
oxide (YBCO), we manufacture and provide
superconductor wire that can conduct many times more electricity
than conventional conductors with no power loss. This wire can
be incorporated into a variety of applications, including
motors, generators, fault current limiters and, most
importantly, power cables.
|
|
|
|
Power Cables. Underground cables, rather than
overhead power lines, transmit an increasing amount of the
worlds power, particularly in urban and metropolitan
areas. As power demands grow, grid capacity and reliability
issues can arise. With their ability to carry up to ten times
more power than conventional power cables, superconductor cables
can effectively break this bottleneck. We offer cable systems
that are manufactured by third parties and also offer turnkey
project management services to electric utilities. We believe
the market for medium, high and extra-high voltage power cables
exceeds $5 billion annually.
|
Core
Technologies
Superconductors
Our second generation (2G) superconductor wire
technology helps us address the smart grid infrastructure market
opportunity by providing components and solutions designed to
increase the power grids capacity, reliability, security
and efficiency. Our 2G high-temperature superconductor
(HTS) wire, known as
Amperiumtm,
conducts electricity with zero resistance below about -297
degrees Fahrenheit. The technology can be used in many
applications including electricity transmission cables,
superconducting generators, voltage regulators and degaussing
systems for naval vessels. Superconductor power cables, which
are a class of high-capacity, environmentally-benign and
easy-to-install
transmission and distribution cables, address power grid
capacity issues by increasing the thermal limit of existing or
new corridors. Superconductor power cables are cylindrically
shaped systems consisting of HTS wires (which conduct
electricity) surrounded by electrical insulation encased in a
metal or polymeric jacket.
5
Currently, power cables are made primarily using copper wires.
Power cables incorporating our
Amperiumtm
wire are able to carry up to ten times the electrical current of
copper cables of the same diameter. These new cable systems also
bring efficiency advantages. Traditional cable systems heat up
due to the electrical resistance of copper, causing electrical
losses. Electrical losses at transmission voltage average about
7% in the United States and other developed nations, but can
exceed 20% in some locations due to the distance of the line and
the power grids architecture and characteristics, among
other factors. Conversely, HTS materials can carry direct
current (DC) with 100% efficiency and alternating
current (AC) with nearly 100% efficiency when they
are cooled below a critical temperature. As a result, AC HTS
power cables lose significantly less power to resistive heating
than copper cables, and DC HTS power cables have no energy
losses due to resistive heating.
PowerModule
Power Converters
Our family of
PowerModuletm
power electronic converters incorporates power semiconductor
devices that switch, control and move large amounts of power
faster and with far less disruption than the electromechanical
switches historically used. While our family of
PowerModuletm
systems today are used primarily in wind and power grid
applications, they also have been incorporated into electric
motor drives, distributed and dispersed generation devices
(micro-turbines, fuel cells and PVs), power quality solutions,
batteries and flywheel-based uninterruptible power supplies.
Our wind turbine electrical control systems and core electrical
components, as well as our
D-VAR®
and SolarTie systems for power grid application incorporate our
PowerModuletm
technology.
Customers
Since our inception, we have served more than ten Wind
customers, including CSR-ZELRI, Dongfang Turbine Company, Doosan
Heavy Industries, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Inox Wind, Shenyang
Blower Works, XJ Group and JCNE. During this period we have also
served over 100 Grid customers, including Alliant Energy, Areva,
Basin Electric, Keys Energy, Long Island Power Authority and
TransCanada.
Facilities
and Manufacturing
Our AMSC Power Systems business currently operates out of
manufacturing facilities in New Berlin and Middleton, Wisconsin;
and Suzhou, China, as well as an engineering center in
Klagenfurt, Austria. In New Berlin, Wisconsin, we design,
develop, assemble and test our
PowerModuletm
power electronic converters,
D-VAR®
RT and SolarTie Grid Interconnection systems. We also
manufacture and test our
PowerModuletm
family of products at our Suzhou, China manufacturing facility.
We outsource the manufacture of components of our
PowerModuletm
power converters, allowing us to focus on our core competency of
design and final assembly and testing of
PowerModuletm
systems. This also provides us with the flexibility to use
best-of-breed
subcomponents in the assembly of our converters. We assemble and
test components and
PowerModuletm
power converters for use in our grid reliability, power quality
and interconnection, products such as
D-VAR®
and systems in our Middleton, Wisconsin facility. Personnel
supporting our Windtec brand operate out of Klagenfurt, Austria,
which houses our wind turbine core engineering, design and sales
teams. Our AMSC Superconductors business unit currently operates
out of a facility in Devens, Massachusetts.
As of April 1, 2011, the New Berlin, Middleton and Devens
facilities primarily support our Grid business and the Suzhou
and Klagenfurt facilities primarily support our Wind business.
Sales
and Marketing
Our strategy is to serve customers locally in our core target
markets through a direct sales force operating out of sales
offices worldwide. The sales force also leverages business
development staff for our various offerings as well as our team
of wind turbine engineers and power grid transmission planners,
all of whom help to ensure that we have an in-depth
understanding of customer needs and provide cost-effective
solutions for those needs.
Sinovel represented approximately 68%, 70% and 67% of our total
revenue for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Sinovel was the only customer representing more than 10% of our
total revenue for those fiscal
6
years. See Item 7, Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
for further discussion of the Sinovel customer relationship.
The portion of total revenue recognized from customers located
outside the United States was 93%, 87% and 84% for fiscal years
2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Of the revenue recognized
from customers outside the United States, we recognized 82%, 88%
and 86% from customers in China in fiscal years 2010, 2009 and
2008, respectively. For additional financial information, see
the notes to consolidated financial statements included herein,
including Note 16, Business Segment and Geographic
Information, regarding our business segments.
Backlog
Excluding Sinovel, we had backlog at March 31, 2011 of
approximately $228.4 million from government and commercial
customers, compared to $206.7 million at March 31,
2010. Backlog represents the value of contracts and purchase
orders received less the revenue recognized to date on those
contracts and purchase orders. Of our $228.4 million in
backlog as of March 31, 2011, approximately 25% was
scheduled for shipment to our customers during fiscal 2011 based
on contractually
agreed-upon
terms.
Including Sinovel, we had backlog at March 31, 2011 of
approximately $921.5 million, compared to
$588.3 million at March 31, 2010. On March 31,
2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments of
1.5-MW and
3-MW wind
turbine core electrical components and spare parts that we were
prepared to deliver. As a result, we have not made shipments to
Sinovel since February 2011. If Sinovel continues not to accept
these shipments, or terminates, reduces or defers firm orders,
we will not be able to complete these shipments and we may not
generate the revenue supported by contracts.
Competition
We face competition in various aspects of our technology and
product development. We believe that competitive performance in
the marketplace depends upon several factors, including
technical innovation, range of products, range of services,
product quality and reliability, customer service and technical
support.
Wind
We face competition for the supply of wind turbine engineering
design services from design engineering firms such as Garrad
Hassan, and from licensors of wind turbine systems such as
Aerodyn, AventisEnergy and Fuhrlander.
We face competition from companies offering power electronic
converters for use in applications for which we expect to sell
our
PowerModuletm
products. These companies include ABB, Inverpower, SatCon,
Semikron and Xantrex (a subsidiary of Schneider Electric).
We face competition from companies offering wind turbine
electrical system components, which include ABB, Converteam,
Guotong Electric, Ingeteam, Mita-Teknik, Woodward and Xantrex.
We also face indirect competition in the wind energy market from
manufacturers of wind energy systems, such as Gamesa, General
Electric, Suzlon and Vestas.
Grid
We face competition from other companies offering FACTS systems
similar to our
D-VAR®
and SVC solutions. These include SVCs from ABB, Alstrom, AREVA,
Mitsubishi Electric and Siemens; adaptive VAR compensators and
STATCOMs produced by S&C Electric; DVRs produced by
companies such as ABB and S&C Electric; and flywheels and
battery-based UPS systems offered by various companies around
the world.
We face competition both from vendors of traditional wires made
from materials such as copper and from companies who are
developing HTS wires. We also face competition for our
Amperiumtm
wire from a number of companies in the United States and abroad
who are developing 2G HTS wire technology. These include Innova,
MetOx, Superconductor Technologies and Superpower (a subsidiary
of Royal Philips Electronics) in the United States;
Fujikura, Furukawa, Showa and Sumitomo in Japan; SuNAM in South
Korea; and Bruker, evico
7
GmbH and Nexans in Europe. Certain companies, including evico
GmbH, Furukawa, Nexans, Showa and Sumitomo Electric, have been
focusing their research programs more recently on the
development of 2G HTS wire made by the same or similar processes
we have chosen to use to manufacture our
Amperiumtm
wire.
Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial
resources, research and development, manufacturing and marketing
capabilities than we do. In addition, as our target markets
develop, other large industrial companies may enter these fields
and compete with us.
Patents,
Licenses and Trade Secrets
Patent
Background
An important part of our business strategy is to develop a
strong worldwide patent position in all of our technology areas.
Our intellectual property (IP) portfolio includes
both patents we own and patents we license from others. We
devote substantial resources to building a strong patent
position, and we believe that we have significantly strengthened
our position in the past several years. As of March 31,
2011, we owned (either solely or jointly) 120 U.S. patents
and more than 45 U.S. patent applications on file. We also
hold licenses from third parties covering more than 115 issued
U.S. patents and patent applications. Together with the
international counterparts of each of these patents and patent
applications, we own more than 610 patents and patent
applications worldwide, and have rights through exclusive and
non-exclusive licenses to more than 320 additional patents and
patent applications. We believe that our current patent
position, together with our expected ability to obtain licenses
from other parties to the extent necessary, will provide us with
sufficient proprietary rights to develop and sell our products.
However, for the reasons described below, we cannot assure you
that this will be the case.
Despite the strength of our patent position, a number of
U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications of third
parties relate to our current products, to products we are
developing, or to technology we are now using in the development
or production of our products. We may need to acquire licenses
to those patents, contest the scope or validity of those
patents, or design around patented processes or applications as
necessary. If companies holding patents or patent applications
that we need to license are competitors, we believe the strength
of our patent portfolio will significantly improve our ability
to enter into license or cross-license arrangements with these
companies. We have already successfully negotiated
cross-licenses with several competitors. We may be required to
obtain licenses to some patents and patent applications held by
companies or other institutions, such as national laboratories
or universities, not directly competing with us. Those
organizations may not be interested in cross-licensing or, if
willing to grant licenses, may charge unreasonable royalties. We
have successfully obtained licenses related to HTS wire from a
number of such organizations with royalties we consider
reasonable. Based on historical experience, we expect that we
will be able to obtain other necessary licenses on commercially
reasonable terms. However, we cannot assure you that we will be
able to obtain all necessary licenses from competitors on
commercially reasonable terms, or at all.
Failure to obtain all necessary patents, licenses and other IP
rights upon reasonable terms could significantly reduce the
scope of our business and have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations. We do not now know the likelihood of
successfully contesting the scope or validity of patents held by
others. In any event, we could incur substantial costs in
challenging the patents of other companies. Moreover, third
parties could challenge some of our patents or patent
applications, and we could incur substantial costs in defending
the scope and validity of our own patents or patent applications
whether or not a challenge is ultimately successful.
There are no patents that we own or license expiring during
fiscal 2011 that we consider material to our business or
competitiveness.
Wind
and Grid Patents
We have received patents and filed a significant number of
additional patent applications on power quality and reliability
systems, including our
D-VAR®
system. Our products are covered by more than 95 patents and
patents pending worldwide on both our systems and power
converter products. The patents and applications focus on
inventions that significantly improve product performance and
reduce product costs, thereby providing a competitive advantage.
One invention of note allows for a reduction in the number of
power inverters required in the
8
system by optimally running the inverters in overload mode,
thereby significantly reducing overall system costs. Another
important invention uses inverters to offset transients due to
capacitor bank switching, which provides improved system
performance.
Under our Windtec brand, we design a variety of wind turbine
systems and license these designs, including expertise and
patent rights, to third parties for an upfront fee. Windtec wind
turbine designs are covered by more than 100 patents and patents
pending worldwide on wind turbine technology. We have patent
coverage on the unique design features of our blade pitch
control system, which ensures optimal aerodynamic flow
conditions on the turbine blades and improves system efficiency
and performance. The pitch system includes a patented
SafetyLOCKtm
feature that causes the blades to rotate to a feathered position
to prevent the rotor blades from spinning during a fault.
We recognize the importance of IP protection in China and
believe that China is steadily moving toward recognizing and
acting in accordance with international norms for IP. As such,
we have incorporated China in our patent strategy for all of our
various products. Nevertheless, we recognize that the risk of IP
piracy is still higher in China than in most other
industrialized countries, and so we are careful to limit the
technology we provide through our product sales and other
expansion plans in China. While we take the steps necessary to
ensure the safety of our IP, we cannot assure you that these
measures will be fully successful. For example, see Part I,
Item 3, Legal Proceedings, for more information
regarding legal proceedings that we have initiated against
Sinovel alleging the illegal use of our intellectual property.
HTS
Patents
Since the discovery of high temperature superconductors in 1986,
rapid technical advances have characterized the HTS industry,
which in turn have resulted in a large number of patents,
including overlapping patents, relating to superconductivity. As
a result, the patent situation in the field of HTS technology
and products is unusually complex. We have obtained licenses to
patents and patent applications covering some HTS materials.
However, we may have to obtain additional licenses to HTS
materials.
We are focusing on the production of our
Amperiumtm
wire, and we intend to continue to obtain a proprietary position
in 2G HTS wire through a combination of patents, licenses and
proprietary expertise. In addition to our owned patents and
patent applications in 2G HTS wire, we have obtained licenses
from (i) MIT for the MOD process we use to deposit the YBCO
layer, Alcatel-Lucent, on the YBCO material, and (ii) the
University of Tennessee/Battelle to the
RABiTS®
process we use for the substrate and buffer layers for this
technology. If alternative processes become more promising in
the future, we will also seek to develop a proprietary position
in these alternative processes.
We have a significant number of patents and patents pending
covering applications of HTS wire, such as HTS fault current
limiters,
FaultBlockertm
technology (including both HTS power cables and fault current
limiting capability) and HTS rotating machines. Since the
superconductor rotating machine and
FaultBlockertm
applications are relatively new, we are building a particularly
strong patent position in these areas. At present, we believe we
have the broadest and most fundamental patent position in
superconductor rotating machines technology. We have also filed
a series of patents on our concept for our proprietary
FaultBlockertm
technology. However, there can be no assurance that that these
patents will be sufficient to assure our freedom of action in
these fields without further licensing from others.
Trade
Secrets
Some of the important technology used in our operations and
products is not covered by any patent or patent application
owned by or licensed to us. However, we take steps to maintain
the confidentiality of this technology by requiring all
employees and all consultants to sign confidentiality agreements
and by limiting access to confidential information. We cannot
assure you that these measures will prevent the unauthorized
disclosure or use of that information. For example, see
Part I, Item 3, Legal Proceedings, for
more information regarding legal proceedings that we have
initiated against Sinovel alleging the illegal use of our
intellectual property. In addition, we cannot assure you that
others, including our competitors, will not independently
develop the same or comparable technology that is one of our
trade secrets.
9
Employees
As of March 31, 2011, we employed 848 persons, 32 of
whom have a Ph.D. in materials science, physics or other fields.
None of our employees is represented by a labor union. Retaining
our key employees is important for achieving our goals, and we
are committed to developing a working environment that motivates
and rewards our employees.
In August 2011, we initiated a restructuring plan to reorganize
global operations, streamline various functions of the business,
and reduce our global workforce to match the demand for our
products. From April 1, 2011 through the date of this
filing, we have reduced our global workforce by approximately
30%, which is expected to result in annual savings of
approximately $30 million. As of August 31, 2011, we
employed 599 persons.
Available
Information
We file reports, proxy statements and other documents with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). You
may read and copy any document we file at the SEC Headquarters
at Office of Investor Education and Assistance,
100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. You
should call
1-800-SEC-0330
for more information on the public reference room. Our SEC
filings are also available to you on the SECs Internet
site at www.sec.gov.
Our internet address is www.amsc.com. We are not including the
information contained in our website as part of, or
incorporating it by reference into, this document. We make
available free of charge through our web site our annual reports
on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K
and amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
materials with, or furnish such materials to, the SEC.
We intend to disclose on our website any amendments to our Code
of Business Conduct and Ethics that are required to be disclosed
pursuant to the SEC rules.
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The table and biographical summaries set forth below contain
information with respect to our executive officers as of the
date of this filing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
Timothy D. Poor
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Executive Vice President, Sales, Business Development and Wind
Segment
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Corporate Administration
|
Daniel P. McGahn joined us in December 2006 and has been
chief executive officer since June 2011. He previously served as
president and chief operating officer from December 2009 to June
2011, as senior vice president and general manager of our AMSC
Superconductors business unit from May 2008 until December 2009,
as vice president from January 2008 to May 2008 and as vice
president of strategic planning and development from December
2006 to January 2008. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. McGahn served
as executive vice president and chief marketing officer of
Konarka Technologies.
David A. Henry joined us in July 2007 as senior vice
president, chief financial officer and treasurer. He previously
served as chief financial officer of AMIS Holdings, Inc., the
parent company of AMI Semiconductor, from April 2004 to July
2007. For the previous seven years, Mr. Henry worked at
Fairchild Semiconductor International as vice president finance,
worldwide operations from November 2002 to April 2004 and as
corporate controller from March 1997 to November 2002. He was
appointed vice president, corporate controller in August 1999.
Timothy D. Poor joined us in September 2001 and served as
senior vice president, global sales and business development,
responsible for our global sales, business development and
marketing from March 2008 until May
10
2011, when he was appointed executive vice president, sales,
business development and wind segment. From May 2007 to March
2008, Mr. Poor was the vice president and deputy general
manager, AMSC Power Systems. From September 2001 to May of 2007,
Mr. Poor held the position of director, AMSC Power Systems
sales & business development. He was promoted to
managing director in March 2006. Prior to joining our company,
Mr. Poor worked at General Electric (GE) in the
GE Industrial Systems division for seven years in various sales,
six sigma, and sales management positions. Prior to GE,
Mr. Poor was an engineering consultant at Arthur
Andersen & Company.
Susan J. DiCecco was appointed senior vice president,
corporate administration in May 2011, having served as vice
president, corporate administration since August 2009 and is
responsible for worldwide human resources, information
technologies and environmental health and safety.
Mrs. DiCecco joined us in 2000 and was named vice president
of human resources in 2006. Previously, Mrs. DiCecco held a
number of human resources and operational positions at W.A.Wilde
Company, Kidde Fenwal Company and General Motors among others.
11
Risks
Related to Our Business and Industry
A
significant portion of our revenues has been derived from a
single customer and as of March 31, 2011 that customer has
stopped accepting scheduled deliveries and refused to pay
amounts outstanding as of that date. The disruption in our
relationship with Sinovel has materially and adversely affected
our business and results of operations and if, as we expect,
Sinovel continues to refuse to accept shipments from us, our
business and results of operations will be further materially
and adversely affected.
Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. (Sinovel) has been our
largest customer, accounting for 68% of our total revenue for
fiscal 2010, 70% of our total revenue for fiscal 2009 and 67% of
our total revenue for fiscal 2008. We derived our revenues from
Sinovel from the sale of core electrical components as well as
development contracts for the design of wind turbines. We had
approximately $62.0 million of receivables (excluding value
added tax), some aged over six months, outstanding as of
March 31, 2011 from Sinovel. Of this amount, approximately
$56 million was due to AMSC China. The last payment
received from Sinovel was in early March 2011. On March 31,
2011, Sinovel informed us that they would not accept scheduled
shipments, which had a potential revenue value of approximately
$65.2 million, nor pay amounts outstanding as of that date.
While we have had several discussions with Sinovel since
March 31, 2011, as of the date of this filing, we have not
received payment for any outstanding receivables nor have we
been notified as to when, if ever, they will accept contracted
shipments that were scheduled for delivery after March 31,
2011. Additionally, based in part upon evidence obtained through
an internal investigation and a criminal investigation by
Austrian authorities regarding the actions of a former employee
of our AMSC Windtec subsidiary, we believe that Sinovel
illegally obtained and used our intellectual property in
violation of civil and criminal intellectual property laws. On
September 13, 2011, we commenced a series of legal actions
in China against Sinovel. We filed a claim for arbitration in
Beijing, China to compel Sinovel to pay us for past product
shipments and to accept all contracted but not yet delivered
core electrical components and spare parts under all existing
contracts with us. The arbitration claim was filed with the
Beijing Arbitration Commission in accordance with the terms of
our supply contracts with Sinovel. In addition, we are in the
process of filing civil and criminal complaints in China against
Sinovel and on September 16, 2011, we filed a civil
complaint against other parties, including Dalian Guotong
Electric Co., Ltd. The complaints allege the illegal use of our
intellectual property. We are seeking to compel Sinovel and the
other parties to cease and desist from infringing our
intellectual property and are also seeking monetary damages to
compensate us for our economic losses resulting from the
infringement. We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome
of these legal actions. We intend to manage our business going
forward assuming that Sinovel is no longer a customer. For more
information about these legal proceedings, see Part I,
Item 3, Legal Proceedings.
We cannot be certain when, if ever, our dispute with Sinovel
will be resolved in a manner that would be acceptable to Sinovel
and us or if Sinovel will resume accepting shipments or make any
payments to us, if at all. The disruption in our relationship
with Sinovel has materially and adversely affected our business
and results of operations and if, as we expect, Sinovel
continues to refuse to accept shipments from us, our business
and results of operations will be further materially and
adversely affected. Because Sinovel has accounted for more than
two-thirds of our revenues over each of the past three fiscal
years, it will be difficult to replace the related revenues in
the foreseeable future, if we are able to replace the revenues
at all. As a result, in future periods, we may have
significantly lower revenues, we may generate significant
operating losses and negative cash flows from operations and the
price of our common stock may decline significantly, all of
which makes it difficult to evaluate our business and future
prospects. We cannot be certain what additional impact there
will be on our customers,
sub-contractors,
suppliers and partners in China as a result of the disruption in
our relationship with Sinovel.
We
will require significant additional funding and may be unable to
raise capital when needed, which could force us to delay, reduce
or eliminate planned activities, including the planned
acquisition of The Switch Engineering Oy.
As of June 30, 2011, we had approximately
$166.2 million of cash, cash equivalents, marketable
securities and restricted cash. We will need additional capital
in order to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch
Engineering Oy (The Switch) and fund our working
capital, capital expenditures and other cash requirements.
12
Any financing for such purpose may occur through public or
private equity offerings, debt financings, or other financing
alternatives. Shareholders may suffer additional dilution if we
raise capital through a sale of equity. If we raise additional
capital through debt financing, earnings per share will be
negatively impacted due to additional interest expense.
Additional equity or debt financing may not be available on
acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, debt financing, if
available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or
our ability to incur additional debt. If we are unsuccessful in
raising additional funds, we may be required to delay, reduce or
eliminate plans or programs relating to our business. We may
also be unable or unwilling to consummate the planned
acquisition of The Switch, which could subject us to liability.
Our obligation to consummate the planned acquisition of The
Switch is subject to the condition that we have secured
sufficient financing to consummate the planned acquisition of
The Switch and leave us with $100 million for working
capital. If we fail to raise sufficient additional funds and
terminate the purchase agreement for the planned acquisition of
The Switch, we will likely forfeit the $20.6 million cash
advance payment we paid to the shareholders of The Switch on
June 29, 2011. In the event we fail to consummate the
planned acquisition of The Switch, the price of our common stock
may decline.
We
have a history of operating losses, and we may incur additional
losses in the future. Our operating results may fluctuate
significantly from quarter to quarter and may fall below
expectations in any particular fiscal quarter.
While we achieved profitable results in fiscal 2009, we recorded
a net loss in fiscal 2010 and we are unlikely to be profitable
in fiscal 2011 given the disruption in our relationship with
Sinovel. We cannot be certain that we will regain profitability
in fiscal 2012 or thereafter. We incurred net losses in each
year since our inception through fiscal 2008, driven primarily
by the research and development activities in what was formerly
our AMSC Superconductors business segment.
There is currently substantial uncertainty in our business,
particularly as it relates to our relationship with Sinovel, our
ability to raise additional funds and complete the planned
acquisition of The Switch, and our restatement of our financial
statements for the second and third quarters of fiscal 2010. All
of these factors make it difficult to evaluate our business and
future prospects. In addition, our operating results
historically have been difficult to predict and have at times
fluctuated from quarter to quarter due to a variety of factors,
many of which are outside of our control. As a result of all of
these factors, comparing our operating results on a
period-to-period
basis may not be meaningful, and you should not rely on our past
results as an indication of our future performance. If our
revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of
investors or any securities analysts that follow our company in
any period, the trading price of our common stock would likely
decline.
Our operating expenses do not always vary directly with revenue
and may be difficult to adjust in the short term. As a result,
if revenue for a particular quarter is below our expectations,
we may not be able to proportionately reduce operating expenses
for that quarter, and therefore such a revenue shortfall would
have a disproportionate effect on our operating results for that
quarter.
If we
fail to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch, our
operating results and financial condition could be harmed and
the price of our common stock could decline.
On March 12, 2011, we entered into a Share Purchase
Agreement with the shareholders of The Switch, which we amended
on June 29, 2011. We cannot assure you that the closing
conditions for the completion of the planned acquisition of The
Switch will be satisfied or waived. In connection with closing
the planned acquisition of The Switch, we will be subject to
several risks, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the occurrence of any effect, event, development or change that
could give rise to the termination of the Share Purchase
Agreement;
|
|
|
|
the inability to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch
due to the failure to satisfy closing conditions; and
|
|
|
|
our failure to obtain the necessary financing arrangements
required to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch, and
the amount of the costs, fees, expenses and charges related to
the actual terms of any such financing.
|
13
If we fail to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch,
our operating results and financial condition could be harmed
and the price of our common stock could decline.
Completion
of the planned acquisition of The Switch could present certain
risks.
If we consummate the acquisition of The Switch, we will be
subject to several risks, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
revenues of The Switch are highly dependent on one customer,
Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd., which
represented approximately 87% of the total revenue of The Switch
for the year ended December 31, 2010;
|
|
|
|
substantially all of the revenues of The Switch are derived from
customers located in China, which customers represented
approximately 93% of the total revenue of The Switch for the
year ended December 31, 2010;
|
|
|
|
if we incur debt to finance the planned acquisition of The
Switch, we will be required to make significant interest and
principal payments to service the indebtedness;
|
|
|
|
mistaken assumptions about volumes, revenue and costs, including
synergies;
|
|
|
|
the risk that The Switchs current plans and operations
will be disrupted, which may make it difficult to retain its
employees; and
|
|
|
|
the risk that we will not be able to effectively integrate the
operations of The Switch and, as a result, we may not realize
the synergies from the planned acquisition of The Switch that we
planned.
|
Furthermore, the planned acquisition of The Switch could expose
us to additional unknown and contingent liabilities. We have
performed a certain level of diligence in connection with the
planned acquisition of The Switch and have attempted to verify
the representations made by The Switch, but there may be unknown
and contingent liabilities related to The Switch of which we are
unaware.
There is a risk that we could ultimately be liable for unknown
obligations relating to The Switch for which indemnification is
not available. In addition, any disruption arising from the
planned acquisition of The Switch may make it more difficult for
us to maintain relationships with our customers, employees or
suppliers.
Finally, the planned acquisition of The Switch may not be
accretive to our earnings and may negatively impact our results
of operations as a result of, among other things, the incurrence
of debt, write-offs of goodwill and amortization expenses of
other intangible assets.
Any of these events could adversely affect our operating results
and financial condition and could lower the price of our common
stock.
Adverse
changes in domestic and global economic conditions could
adversely affect our operating results.
We have become increasingly subject to the risks arising from
adverse changes in domestic and global economic conditions. The
state of both the domestic and global economies is uncertain due
to the difficulty in obtaining credit, weak economic recovery,
and financial market volatility. If credit continues to be
difficult to obtain, some customers may delay or reduce
purchases. This could result in reductions in sales of our
products, longer sales cycles, slower adoption of new
technologies, increased accounts receivable and inventory
write-offs and increased price competition. Any of these events
would likely harm our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
Changes
in exchange rates could adversely affect our results from
operations.
Currency exchange rate fluctuations could have an adverse effect
on our revenues and results of operations, and we could
experience losses with respect to hedging activities. In fiscal
2010, 93% of our revenues were recognized from sales outside the
United States. Unfavorable currency fluctuations could require
us to increase prices to foreign customers, which could result
in lower revenues from such customers. Alternatively, if we do
not adjust the prices for our products in response to
unfavorable currency fluctuations, our results of operations
could be
14
adversely affected. In addition, most sales made by our foreign
subsidiaries are denominated in the currency of the country in
which these products are sold, and the currency they receive in
payment for such sales could be less valuable at the time of
receipt as a result of exchange rate fluctuations. From time to
time, we enter into derivative instruments, including forward
foreign exchange contracts and currency options to reduce
currency exposure arising from intercompany sales of inventory
and exposures arising from the sale of products denominated in
one currency while costs are denominated in another. However, we
cannot be certain that our efforts will be adequate to protect
us against significant currency fluctuations or that such
efforts will not expose us to additional exchange rate risks.
We
have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over
financial reporting and if we fail to remediate these weaknesses
and maintain proper and effective internal controls over
financial reporting, our ability to produce accurate and timely
financial statements could be impaired and may lead investors
and other users to lose confidence in our financial
data.
Maintaining effective internal controls over financial reporting
is necessary for us to produce reliable financial statements. In
evaluating the effectiveness of our internal controls over
financial reporting as of March 31, 2011, management
concluded that there were material weaknesses in internal
control over financial reporting related to our revenues and
accounts receivable balances as fees were not fixed or
determinable or collectability was not reasonably assured at the
time revenue was recognized, and outstanding accounts receivable
balances were uncollectable. The specific material weaknesses
are:
|
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain adequately designed controls to ensure
accurate recognition of revenue in accordance with GAAP.
Specifically, controls were not effective to ensure that
deviations from contractually established payment terms were
identified, communicated and authorized;
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain adequate controls to ensure proper
monitoring and evaluation of customer creditworthiness,
including the collectability of amounts due from customers and
appropriate revenue recognition;
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain a sufficient complement of personnel
involved with business in our foreign locations with the
appropriate level of knowledge, experience and training in the
application of GAAP to ensure revenue transactions were
appropriately reflected in the financial statements based on the
terms and conditions of the sales contracts; and
|
|
|
|
we did not establish and maintain, procedures to ensure proper
oversight and review, by senior management, of customer
relationships to ensure appropriate communication of relevant
considerations to determine accounting judgments with respect to
revenue recognition.
|
The errors related to control deficiencies led the audit
committee of our board of directors to conclude that the
financial statements contained in our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarters ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 should no longer be relied upon.
Specifically, we determined that at the time of certain product
shipments to certain of our customers in China during the second
and third quarters of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011,
the fees related to the shipments in some cases were not fixed
or determinable or collectability was not reasonably assured. As
a result, we restated our financial statements for the fiscal
quarters ended September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2010 and were delayed in filing our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and our Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.
Although our restated financial statements have been filed with
the SEC, we are in the process of remediating the material
weaknesses identified above by, among other things, establishing
formal, written policies and procedures governing the customer
credit process, improving procedures to ensure the proper review
and documentation of customer creditworthiness, establishing a
new worldwide revenue manager position in finance with GAAP
experience to ensure accuracy of revenue recognition, improving
procedures to ensure the proper communication, approval and
accounting review of deviations from sales contracts and
providing additional and on-going training to product managers
and others involved in negotiating contractual arrangements and
accounting for revenue transactions, in order to heighten
awareness of revenue recognition concepts under GAAP. We do not
know the specific time frame needed to fully remediate the
material weaknesses identified. If we fail to
15
remediate these material weaknesses or fail to otherwise
maintain effective controls over financial reporting in the
future, we might not be able to prevent or detect on a timely
basis a material misstatement of our financial statements, which
could cause investors and other users to lose confidence in our
financial data.
If we
fail to implement our business strategy successfully, our
financial performance could be harmed.
Our future financial performance and success are dependent in
large part upon our ability to implement our business strategy
successfully. Our business strategy envisions several
initiatives, including driving revenue growth and enhancing
operating results by increasing customer adoption of our
products by targeting high-growth segments with commercial
products, pursuing overseas markets, anticipating customer needs
in the development of system-level solutions, strengthening our
technology leadership while lowering cost and pursuing targeted
strategic acquisitions and alliances such as the planned
acquisition of The Switch. We may not be able to implement our
business strategy successfully or achieve the anticipated
benefits of our business plan. If we are unable to do so, our
long-term growth and profitability may be adversely affected.
Even if we are able to implement some or all of the initiatives
of our business plan successfully, our operating results may not
improve to the extent we anticipate, or at all. Our ability to
address the disruption in our relationship with Sinovel or
implement our business strategy could also be affected by a
number of factors beyond our control, such as increased
competition, legal developments, government regulation, general
economic conditions or increased operating costs or expenses. In
addition, to the extent we have misjudged the nature and extent
of industry trends or our competition, we may have difficulty in
achieving our strategic objectives. Any failure to implement our
business strategy successfully may adversely affect our
business, financial condition and results of operations. In
addition, we may decide to alter or discontinue certain aspects
of our business strategy at any time.
This risk is magnified by the current substantial uncertainty in
our business, particularly as it relates to the pending
arbitration and civil and potential criminal proceedings with
Sinovel, our ability to raise additional funds and close the
planned acquisition of The Switch, the remediation of the
material weaknesses identified in our internal controls and our
recent restatement of our financial statements, all of which is
diverting managements attention from operating our
business. Management has and is continuing to invest
considerable time addressing these issues, which has been a
substantial diversion of managements time and attention
and could lead to disruptions in operations and delay in the
implementation of our strategy, all of which could negatively
impact our business and results of operations.
We may
not realize all of the sales expected from our backlog of orders
and contracts.
Although we have generally reported significant backlog, we
cannot assure you that we will realize the revenue we expect to
generate from this backlog in the periods we expect to realize
such revenue, or at all. For example, on March 31, 2011,
Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments of 1.5 MW
and 3 MW wind turbine core electrical components and spare
parts that we were prepared to deliver. We have outstanding
payments due from Sinovel for products and services delivered,
not including value added taxes, of $62.0 million which
have not yet been reported as revenue or accounts receivable. We
have initiated arbitration and civil proceedings against Sinovel
and we have submitted evidence of criminal acts by Sinovel to
the Chinese authorities in order to initiate criminal
proceedings. As a result, Sinovel may not accept any further
shipments or pay for any past shipments. For more information
about these legal proceedings, see Part I, Item 3,
Legal Proceedings.
In addition, the backlog of orders, if realized, may not result
in profitable revenue. Backlog represents the value of contracts
and purchase orders received, less the revenue recognized to
date on those contracts and purchase orders. Our customers have
the right under some circumstances and with some penalties or
consequences to terminate, reduce or defer firm orders that we
have in backlog. In addition, our government contracts are
subject to the risks described below. If our customers
terminate, reduce or defer firm orders, we may be protected from
certain costs and losses, but our sales will nevertheless be
adversely affected and we may not generate the revenue we expect.
Although we strive to maintain ongoing relationships with our
customers, there is an ongoing risk that they may cancel orders
or reschedule orders due to fluctuations in their business needs
or purchasing budgets.
16
Many
of our revenue opportunities are dependent upon subcontractors
and other business collaborators.
Many of the revenue opportunities for our business involve
projects, such as the installation of superconductor cables in
power grids and electrical system hardware in wind turbines, in
which we collaborate with other companies, including suppliers
of cryogenic systems, manufacturers of electric power cables and
manufacturers of wind turbines. As a result, most of our current
and planned revenue-generating projects involve business
collaborators on whose performance our revenue is dependent. If
these business partners fail to deliver their products or
perform their obligations on a timely basis or fail to generate
sufficient demand for the systems they manufacture, our revenue
from the project may be delayed or decreased, and we may not be
successful in selling our products.
Our
products face intense competition, which could limit our ability
to acquire or retain customers.
The markets for our products are intensely competitive and many
of our competitors have substantially greater financial
resources, research and development, manufacturing and marketing
capabilities than we do. In addition, as our target markets
develop, other large industrial companies may enter these fields
and compete with us.
Our Wind business faces competition for the supply of wind
turbine engineering design services from design engineering
firms such as Garrad Hassan, and from licensors of wind turbine
systems such as Aerodyn, AventisEnergy and Fuhrlander.
Our Wind business also faces competition from companies offering
power electronic converters for use in applications for which we
expect to sell our PowerModule products. These companies include
ABB, Inverpower, SatCon, Semikron and Xantrex (a subsidiary of
Schneider Electric).
Finally, our Wind business faces competition from companies
offering wind turbine electrical system components, including
ABB, Converteam, Guotong Electric, Ingeteam, Mita-Teknik,
Woodward and Xantrex. We also face indirect competition in the
wind energy market from manufacturers of wind energy systems,
such as Gamesa, General Electric, Suzlon and Vestas.
Our Grid business faces competition from companies offering
FACTS systems similar to our D-VAR and SVC solutions. These
include SVCs from ABB, Alstrom, AREVA, Mitsubishi Electric and
Siemens; adaptive VAR compensators and STATCOMs produced by
S&C Electric; dynamic voltage restorers (DVRs)
produced by companies such as ABB and S&C Electric; and
flywheels and battery-based UPS systems offered by various
companies around the world.
Our Grid business also faces competition both from vendors of
traditional wires made from materials such as copper and from
companies who are developing HTS wires.
Finally, our Grid business faces competition for our Amperium
wire from a number of companies in the United States and
abroad who are developing 2G HTS wire technology. These include
Innova, MetOx, Superconductor Technologies and Superpower (a
subsidiary of Royal Philips Electronics) in the United States;
Fujikura, Furukawa, Showa and Sumitomo in Japan; SuNAM in South
Korea; and Bruker, evico GmbH and Nexans in Europe. Certain
companies, including evico GmbH, Furukawa, Nexans, Showa and
Sumitomo Electric, have been focusing their research programs
more recently on the development of 2G HTS wire made by the same
or similar processes we have chosen to use to manufacture our
Amperium wire.
As the HTS wire, superconductor electric motors and generators,
and power electronic systems markets develop, other large
industrial companies may enter those fields and compete with us.
If we are unable to compete successfully, it may harm our
business, which in turn may limit our ability to acquire or
retain customers.
Our
success is dependent upon attracting and retaining qualified
personnel and our inability to do so could significantly damage
our business and prospects.
We have attracted a highly skilled management team and
specialized workforce, including scientists, engineers,
researchers, manufacturing, marketing and sales professionals.
If we were to lose the services of any of our executive officers
or key employees, our business could be materially and adversely
impacted.
17
Hiring and retaining good personnel for our business is
challenging, and highly qualified technical personnel are likely
to remain a limited resource for the foreseeable future despite
current economic conditions and high unemployment levels. We may
not be able to hire the necessary personnel to implement our
business strategy, or we may need to provide higher compensation
or more training to our personnel than we currently anticipate.
Moreover, any officer or employee can terminate his or her
relationship with us at any time.
From April 1, 2011 through the date of this filing,
including the restructuring plan we announced in August 2011, we
have reduced our global workforce by approximately 30% in order
to reorganize our global operations, streamline various
functions of the business, and reduce our global workforce to
match the demand for our products. Employee retention may be a
particularly challenging issue following reductions in workforce
and organizational changes since we also must continue to
motivate employees and keep them focused on our strategies and
goals, which may be particularly difficult. If we lose the
services of any key personnel, our business, results of
operations and financial condition could be materially adversely
affected.
We may
acquire additional complementary businesses or technologies,
which may require us to incur substantial costs for which we may
never realize the anticipated benefits.
Our prior acquisitions required substantial integration and
management efforts and we expect the planned acquisition of The
Switch to require similar efforts. As a result of any
acquisition we pursue, managements attention and resources
may be diverted from our other businesses. An acquisition may
also involve the payment of a significant purchase price, which
could reduce our cash position or dilute our stockholders, and
require significant transaction-related expenses.
Achieving the benefits of any acquisition involves additional
risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
difficulty assimilating acquired operations, technologies and
personnel;
|
|
|
|
inability to retain management and other key personnel of the
acquired business;
|
|
|
|
changes in management or other key personnel that may harm
relationships with the acquired businesss customers and
employees;
|
|
|
|
unforeseen liabilities of the acquired business;
|
|
|
|
diversion of managements and employees attention
from other business matters as a result of the integration
process;
|
|
|
|
mistaken assumptions about volumes, revenue and costs, including
synergies;
|
|
|
|
limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller;
|
|
|
|
mistaken assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt
used to finance the acquisition; and
|
|
|
|
unforeseen difficulties operating in new product areas, with new
customers, or in new geographic areas.
|
We cannot assure you that we will realize any of the anticipated
benefits of any acquisition, including without limitation, the
planned acquisition of The Switch, and if we fail to realize
these anticipated benefits, our operating performance could
suffer.
Our
international operations are subject to risks that we do not
face in the United States, which could have an adverse effect on
our operating results.
In recent years, a substantial majority of our consolidated
revenues were recognized from customers outside of the United
States. For example, 93% of our revenues in fiscal 2010 and 87%
of our revenues in fiscal 2009 were recognized from sales
outside the United States. Our international operations are
subject to a variety of risks that we do not face in the United
States, including:
|
|
|
|
|
potentially longer payment cycles for sales in foreign countries
and difficulties in collecting accounts receivable, particularly
from customers in China;
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
difficulties in staffing and managing our foreign offices and
the increased travel, infrastructure and legal compliance costs
associated with multiple international locations;
|
|
|
|
additional withholding taxes or other taxes on our foreign
income and repatriated cash, and tariffs or other restrictions
on foreign trade or investment, including export duties and
quotas, trade and employment restrictions;
|
|
|
|
imposition of, or unexpected adverse changes in, foreign laws or
regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
|
increased exposure to foreign currency exchange rate risk;
|
|
|
|
reduced protection for intellectual property rights in some
countries; and
|
|
|
|
political unrest, war or acts of terrorism.
|
Our overall success in international markets depends, in part,
upon our ability to succeed in differing legal, regulatory,
economic, social and political conditions. We may not be
successful in developing and implementing policies and
strategies that will be effective in managing these risks in
each country where we do business or conduct operations. Our
failure to manage these risks successfully could harm our
international operations and reduce our international sales,
thus lowering our total revenue and reducing or eliminating our
profits.
We
depend on sales to customers in China, and global conditions
could negatively affect our operating results or limit our
ability to expand our operations outside of China. Changes in
Chinas political, social, regulatory and economic
environment may affect our financial performance.
A significant portion of our total revenues has been derived
from customers in China and, in particular, from Sinovel. With
respect to China, our financial performance may be affected by
changes in Chinas political, social, regulatory and
economic environment. For example, new grid standards are being
proposed in China to include a requirement for low-voltage ride
through (LVRT) capability in wind turbines. Until
these standards are finalized, the Chinese wind market will be
subject to substantial uncertainty, which may cause our
customers to delay or cancel orders.
The role of the Chinese central and local governments in the
Chinese economy is significant. For example, the economy of the
Peoples Republic of China differs from the economies of
most developed countries in many respects, including the:
|
|
|
|
|
higher level of government involvement;
|
|
|
|
early stage of development of the market-oriented sector of the
economy;
|
|
|
|
rapid growth rate;
|
|
|
|
higher level of control over foreign exchange; and
|
|
|
|
government influence over the allocation of resources.
|
Chinese policies toward economic liberalization, and laws and
policies affecting foreign companies, currency exchange rates
and other matters could change, resulting in greater
restrictions on our ability to do business in China. Any
imposition of surcharges or any increase in Chinese tax rates
could hurt our operating results. The Chinese government could
revoke, terminate or suspend our license for national security
and similar reasons without compensation to us. If the
government of China were to take any of these actions, we would
be prevented from conducting all or part of our business. Any
failure on our part to comply with governmental regulations
could result in the loss of our ability to market our products
in China.
Further, we may be impacted by issues with managing foreign
sales operations including long payment cycles, potential
difficulties in accounts receivable collection and, especially
from significant customers, fluctuations in the timing and
amount of orders and the adverse effect of any of these issues
on our business could be increased due to the concentration of
our business with a small number of customers. The Chinese
government is currently restricting lending from banks to
companies in China as a means to fight inflation, resulting in a
limitation of access to credit. In addition, we believe that
many of our customers in China have high levels of inventory and
high
19
accounts payable balances. Problems with collections from, or
sales to, any one of those customers could reduce our revenue
and harm our financial performance. We intend to mitigate the
accounts receivable collection risk in the future by requiring
our customers in China either to pay us in cash upon shipment or
provide us with a letter of credit or bank guarantee to support
their orders from us. However, we might not be successful in
these efforts. If these arrangements are not acceptable to our
customers, we may lose customers and our business and results of
operations would be adversely affected. Operations in foreign
countries including China also expose us to risks relating to
difficulties in enforcing our proprietary rights, currency
fluctuations and adverse or deteriorating economic conditions.
If we experience problems with obtaining registrations,
compliance with foreign country or applicable U.S. laws, or
if we experience difficulties in payments or intellectual
property matters in foreign jurisdictions, or if significant
political, economic or regulatory changes occur, our results of
operations would be adversely affected.
Many
of our customer relationships outside of the United States are,
either directly or indirectly, with governmental entities, and
we could be adversely affected by violations of the United
States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide
anti-bribery laws outside the United States.
The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar
worldwide anti-bribery laws in
non-U.S. jurisdictions
generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from
making improper payments to
non-U.S. officials
for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Many of our
customer relationships outside of the United States are, either
directly or indirectly, with governmental entities and are
therefore subject to such anti-bribery laws. Our policies
mandate compliance with these anti-bribery laws. We operate in
many parts of the world that have experienced governmental
corruption to some degree, and in certain circumstances strict
compliance with anti-bribery laws may conflict with local
customs and practices. Our internal control policies and
procedures may not always protect us from reckless or criminal
acts committed by our employees or agents. Violations of these
laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our
business and result in a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations and financial condition.
We
rely upon third party suppliers for the components and
subassemblies of many of our Wind and Grid products, making us
vulnerable to supply shortages and price fluctuations, which
could harm our business.
Many of our components and subassemblies are currently
manufactured for us by a limited number of suppliers. Any
interruption in the supply of components or subassemblies, or
our inability to obtain substitute components or subassemblies
from alternate sources at acceptable prices in a timely manner,
could impair our ability to meet the demand of our customers,
which would have an adverse effect on our business and operating
results.
We are producing certain Wind products in our manufacturing
facility in China. In order to minimize costs and time to
market, we have and will continue to identify local suppliers
that meet our quality standards to produce certain of our
subassemblies and components. These efforts may not be
successful. In addition, any event which negatively impacts our
supply, including, among others, wars, terrorist activities,
natural disasters and outbreaks of infectious disease, could
delay or suspend shipments of products or the release of new
products or could result in the delivery of inferior products.
Our revenues from the affected products would decline or we
could incur losses until such time as we are able to restore our
production processes or put in place alternative contract
manufacturers or suppliers. Even though we carry business
interruption insurance policies, we may suffer losses as a
result of business interruptions that exceed the coverage
available under our insurance policies.
We are
becoming increasingly reliant on contracts that require the
issuance of performance bonds.
While we have been required to provide performance bonds in the
form of surety bonds or other forms of security in the past, the
size of the bonds was not material. In recent years, we have
entered into contracts that require us to post bonds of
significant magnitude. In some instances, we may be required to
deposit cash in escrow accounts as collateral for these
instruments, which is unavailable to us for general use for
significant periods of time. Should we be unable to obtain
performance bonds in the future, significant future potential
revenue could become
20
unavailable to us. Further, should our working capital situation
deteriorate, we would not be able to access the escrowed cash to
meet working capital requirements.
Problems
with product quality or product performance may cause us to
incur warranty expenses and may damage our market reputation and
prevent us from achieving increased sales and market
share.
Consistent with customary practice in our industry, we warrant
our products
and/or
services to be free from defects in material and workmanship
under normal use and service. We generally provide a one to
three year warranty on our products, commencing upon
installation. A provision is recorded upon revenue recognition
to cost of revenues for estimated warranty expense based on
historical experience. The possibility of future product
failures or issues related to services we provided could cause
us to incur substantial expenses to repair or replace defective
products or re-perform such services. Furthermore, widespread
product failures may damage our market reputation and reduce our
market share and cause sales to decline.
Our
success in addressing the wind energy market is dependent on the
manufacturers that license our designs.
Because an important element of our strategy for addressing the
wind energy market involves the license of our wind turbine
designs to manufacturers of those systems, the financial
benefits to us from our products for the wind energy market are
dependent on the success of these manufacturers in selling wind
turbines based on our designs. We may not be able to enter into
marketing or distribution arrangements with third parties on
financially acceptable terms, or at all, and third parties may
not be successful in selling our products or applications
incorporating our products.
Growth
of the wind energy market depends largely on the availability
and size of government subsidies and economic
incentives.
At present, the cost of wind energy exceeds the cost of
conventional power generation in many locations around the
world. Various governments have used different policy
initiatives to encourage or accelerate the development and
adoption of wind energy and other renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy policies are in place in the European Union,
certain countries in Asia, including China, Japan and South
Korea, and many of the states in Australia and the United
States. Examples of government- sponsored financial incentives
include capital cost rebates, feed-in tariffs, tax credits, net
metering and other incentives to end-users, distributors, system
integrators and manufacturers of wind energy products to promote
the use of wind energy and to reduce dependency on other forms
of energy. Governments may decide to reduce or eliminate these
economic incentives for political, financial or other reasons.
Reductions in, or eliminations of, government subsidies and
economic incentives before the wind energy industry reaches a
sufficient scale to be cost-effective in a non-subsidized
marketplace could reduce demand for our products and adversely
affect our business prospects and results of operations.
There
are a number of technological challenges that must be
successfully addressed before our superconductor products can
gain widespread commercial acceptance, and our inability to
address such technological challenges could adversely affect our
ability to acquire customers for our products.
Many of our superconductor products are in the early stages of
commercialization, while others are still under development.
There are a number of technological challenges that we must
successfully address to complete our development and
commercialization efforts for superconductor products. We also
believe that several years of further demonstration in the
cable, fault current limiter and motor industries may be
necessary before a substantial commercial market could develop.
We will also need to improve the performance and reduce the cost
of our Amperium wire to expand the number of commercial
applications for it. We may be unable to meet such technological
challenges or to sufficiently improve the performance and reduce
the costs of our Amperium wire. Delays in development, as a
result of technological challenges or other factors, may result
in the introduction or commercial acceptance of our
superconductor products later than anticipated.
21
We
have not manufactured our Amperium wire in commercial
quantities, and a failure to manufacture our Amperium wire in
commercial quantities at acceptable cost and quality levels
would substantially limit our future revenue and profit
potential.
We are developing commercial-scale manufacturing processes for
our Amperium wire, which are very different from our 1G HTS wire
manufacturing processes and are complex and challenging. In
November 2007, we started initial production of our Amperium
wire on a new manufacturing line that was designed for an annual
capacity of 720,000 meters. However, in order to be able to
offer our wire at pricing that we believe will be commercially
competitive, we estimate that we will need to increase such
capacity to millions of meters annually. We may not be able to
manufacture satisfactory commercial quantities of Amperium wire
of consistent quality with an acceptable yield and cost. Failure
to successfully scale up manufacturing of our Amperium wire
would result in a significant limitation of our ability to
achieve broad market acceptance of our HTS products and of our
future revenue and profit potential.
The
commercial uses of superconductor products are limited today,
and a widespread commercial market for our products may not
develop.
To date, there has been no widespread commercial use of HTS
products. Even if the technological hurdles currently limiting
commercial uses of HTS products are overcome, it is uncertain
whether a robust commercial market for those new and unproven
products will ever develop. To date, many projects to install
superconductor cables and products in power grids have been
funded or subsidized by the governmental authorities. If this
funding is curtailed, grid operators may not continue to use
superconductor cables and products in their projects.
In addition, we believe in-grid demonstrations of superconductor
power cables are necessary to convince utilities and power grid
operators of the benefits of this technology. Even if a project
is funded, completion of projects can be delayed as a result of
other factors. For example, a delay in the completion of the
development and deployment of our FaultBlocker technology in
Manhattan occurred due to a delay in construction by
Consolidated Edison of a substation to which the cable system
would be connected to.
It is possible that the market demands we currently anticipate
for our Amperium products will not develop and that they will
never achieve widespread commercial acceptance. In such event,
we would not be able to implement our strategy, and our profits
could be reduced or eliminated.
We
have limited experience in marketing and selling our
superconductor products and system-level solutions, and our
failure to effectively market and sell our products and
solutions could lower our revenue and cash flow.
To date, we have limited experience marketing and selling our
superconductor products and system-level solutions, and there
are few people who have significant experience marketing or
selling superconductor products and system-level solutions. Once
our products and solutions are ready for widespread commercial
use, we will have to develop a marketing and sales organization
that will effectively demonstrate the advantages of our products
over both more traditional products and competing superconductor
products or other technologies. We may not be successful in our
efforts to market this new technology, and we may not be able to
establish an effective sales and distribution organization.
We may decide to enter into arrangements with third parties for
the marketing or distribution of our products, including
arrangements in which our products, such as Amperium wire, are
included as a component of a larger product, such as a power
cable system or a wind turbine generator. By entering into
marketing and sales alliances, the financial benefits to us of
commercializing our products are dependent on the efforts of
others.
22
Our
contracts with the U.S. government are subject to audit,
modification or termination by the U.S. government and
include certain other provisions in favor of the government. The
continued funding of such contracts remains subject to annual
congressional appropriation which, if not approved, could reduce
our revenue and lower or eliminate our profit.
As a company that contracts with the U.S. government, we
are subject to financial audits and other reviews by the
U.S. government of our costs and performance, accounting
and general business practices relating to these contracts.
Based on the results of these audits, the U.S. government
may adjust our contract-related costs and fees. We cannot be
certain that adjustments arising from government audits and
reviews would not have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations.
Our U.S. government contracts customarily contain other
provisions that give the government substantial rights and
remedies, many of which are not typically found in commercial
contracts, including provisions that allow the government to:
|
|
|
|
|
obtain certain rights to the intellectual property that we
develop under the contract;
|
|
|
|
decline to award future contracts if actual or apparent
organizational conflicts of interest are discovered, or to
impose organizational conflict mitigation measures as a
condition of eligibility for an award;
|
|
|
|
suspend or debar us from doing business with the government or a
specific government agency; and
|
|
|
|
pursue criminal or civil remedies under the False Claims Act,
False Statements Act and similar remedy provisions unique to
government contracting.
|
All of our U.S. government contracts can be terminated by
the U.S. government for its convenience.
Termination-for-convenience
provisions provide only for our recovery of costs incurred or
committed, and for settlement of expenses and profit on work
completed prior to termination. In addition to the right of the
U.S. government to terminate its contracts with us,
U.S. government contracts are conditioned upon the
continuing approval by the U.S. Congress of the necessary
spending to honor such contracts. Congress often appropriates
funds for a program on a fiscal-year basis even though contract
performance may take more than one year. Consequently, at the
beginning of many major governmental programs, contracts often
may not be fully funded, and additional monies are then
committed to the contract only if, as and when appropriations
are made by the U.S. Congress for future fiscal years. We
cannot be certain that our U.S. government contracts will
not be terminated or suspended in the future. The
U.S. governments termination of, or failure to fully
fund, one or more of our contracts would have a negative impact
on our operating results and financial condition. Further, in
the event that any of our government contracts are terminated
for cause, it could affect our ability to obtain future
government contracts which could, in turn, seriously harm our
ability to develop our technologies and products.
Risks
Related to Our Intellectual Property And Legal Matters
We may
be unable to adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and
other proprietary information.
We rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary
technologies, especially where we do not believe patent
protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets
are difficult to protect. We rely in part on confidentiality
agreements with our employees, contractors, consultants, outside
scientific collaborators and other advisors to protect our trade
secrets and other proprietary information. These agreements may
not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information
and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of
unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In
addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets or
independently develop processes or products that are similar or
identical to our trade secrets, and courts outside the United
States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Costly and
time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and
determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to
obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely
affect our competitive business position.
For example, based in part upon evidence obtained through an
internal investigation and a criminal investigation conducted by
Austrian authorities regarding the actions of a former employee
of our AMSC Windtec subsidiary, we believe that Sinovel
illegally obtained and used our intellectual property in
violation of civil and criminal intellectual property laws. In
July 2011, the former employee was arrested in Austria and is
23
currently awaiting trial on charges of economic espionage and
fraudulent manipulation of data. On September 13, 2011, we
commenced a series of legal actions in China against Sinovel and
other parties alleging the illegal use of our intellectual
property. We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of
these legal actions. This or future litigation with Sinovel
could result in substantial costs and divert managements
attention and resources, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, operating results and financial
condition. In addition, such proceedings may make it more
difficult to finance our operations. If we are unsuccessful in
this litigation and fail to maintain adequate protection of this
intellectual property, our competitive business position would
be adversely affected. For more information about these legal
proceedings, see Part I, Item 3, Legal
Proceedings.
We
have filed a demand for arbitration and other lawsuits against
our former largest customer, Sinovel, regarding amounts we
contend are due and owing and are in dispute. We cannot be
certain as to the outcome of these proceedings.
On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted
scheduled shipments with a revenue value of approximately
$65.2 million. In addition, as of March 31, 2011, we
had approximately $62.0 million of receivables (excluding
value added tax) outstanding from Sinovel. We have not received
payment from Sinovel for these outstanding receivables that are
now past due, nor have we been notified as to when, if ever,
they will accept contracted shipments that were scheduled for
delivery after March 31, 2011. No payment has been received
from Sinovel since early March 2011. Because Sinovel did not
give us notice that it intended to delay deliveries as required
under the contracts, we believe that these actions constitute
material breaches of our contracts. Additionally, we believe
that Sinovel illegally obtained and used our intellectual
property in violation of civil and criminal intellectual
property laws.
On September 13, 2011, we filed a claim for arbitration
against Sinovel in Beijing, China to compel Sinovel to pay us
for past product shipments and to accept all contracted but not
yet delivered core electrical components and spare parts under
all existing contracts with us. In addition, we have filed or
are in the process of filing civil and criminal complaints in
China against Sinovel alleging the illegal use of our
intellectual property. For more information about these legal
proceedings, see Part I, Item 3, Legal
Proceedings.
We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of these legal
actions or that, if we prevail, we ultimately will be able to
collect any amounts awarded. Sinovel may bring claims against us
alleging that our conduct has damaged it. As the legal
proceedings continue, we and Sinovel may identify additional
amounts in dispute. These legal proceedings could result in the
incurrence of significant legal and related expenses, which may
not be recoverable depending on the outcome of the litigation.
An award by the arbitration panel or court in favor of Sinovel
and/or the
incurrence of significant legal fees which are not recoverable
could adversely impact our operating results.
We
have been named as a party to purported stockholder class
actions and stockholder derivative complaints, and we may be
named in additional litigation, all of which will require
significant management time and attention, result in significant
legal expenses and may result in an unfavorable outcome, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results and financial condition.
A number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed
against us on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock.
The complaints generally include allegations that we violated
federal securities laws by, among other things, knowingly making
materially false and misleading statements and omitting
important facts regarding our dealings with Sinovel, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
complaints seek monetary damages, costs, attorneys fees
and other equitable and injunctive relief. Securities class
action suits and derivative suits are often brought against
companies following periods of volatility in the market price of
their securities. In addition, stockholder derivative actions
have been initiated against us and certain of our directors and
officers. These complaints purport to seek relief on behalf of
the company to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
other misconduct by the defendants.
We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. We cannot assure
you, however, that we will be successful. Also, our insurance
coverage may be insufficient, our assets may be insufficient to
cover any amounts that exceed
24
our insurance coverage, and we may have to pay damage awards or
otherwise may enter into settlement arrangements in connection
with such claims. Any such payments or settlement arrangements
in this current litigation or any future litigation could have
material adverse effects on our business, operating results or
financial condition. Even if the plaintiffs claims are not
successful, this or future litigation could result in
substantial costs and significantly and adversely impact our
reputation and divert managements attention and resources,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
operating results or financial condition. In addition, such
lawsuits may make it more difficult to finance our operations.
Our
technology and products could infringe intellectual property
rights of others, which may require costly litigation and, if we
are not successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages
and disrupt our business.
In recent years, there has been significant litigation involving
patents and other intellectual property rights in many
technology-related industries. There may be patents or patent
applications in the United States or other countries that are
pertinent to our products or business of which we are not aware.
The technology that we incorporate into and use to develop and
manufacture our current and future products, including the
technologies we license, may be subject to claims that they
infringe the patents or proprietary rights of others. The
success of our business will also depend on our ability to
develop new technologies without infringing or misappropriating
the proprietary rights of others. Third parties may allege that
we infringe patents, trademarks or copyrights, or that we
misappropriated trade secrets. These allegations could result in
significant costs and diversion of the attention of management.
If a successful claim were brought against us and we are found
to infringe a third partys intellectual property rights,
we could be required to pay substantial damages, including
treble damages if it is determined that we have willfully
infringed such rights, or be enjoined from using the technology
deemed to be infringing or using, making or selling products
deemed to be infringing. If we have supplied infringing products
or technology to third parties, we may be obligated to indemnify
these third parties for damages they may be required to pay to
the patent holder and for any losses they may sustain as a
result of the infringement. In addition, we may need to attempt
to license the intellectual property right from such third party
or spend time and money to design around or avoid the
intellectual property. Any such license may not be available on
reasonable terms, or at all. An adverse determination may
subject us to significant liabilities
and/or
disrupt our business.
Our
patents may not provide meaningful protection for our
technology, which could result in us losing some or all of our
market position.
We own or have licensing rights under many patents and pending
patent applications. However, the patents that we own or license
may not provide us with meaningful protection of our
technologies and may not prevent our competitors from using
similar technologies, for a variety of reasons, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
the patent applications that we or our licensors file may not
result in patents being issued;
|
|
|
|
any patents issued may be challenged by third parties; and
|
|
|
|
others may independently develop similar technologies not
protected by our patents or design around the patented aspects
of any technologies we develop.
|
Moreover, we could incur substantial litigation costs in
defending the validity of or enforcing our own patents. We also
rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how to protect our
intellectual property. However, our non-disclosure agreements
and other safeguards may not provide meaningful protection for
our trade secrets and other proprietary information. If the
patents that we own or license or our trade secrets and
proprietary know-how fail to protect our technologies, our
market position may be adversely affected.
Third
parties have or may acquire patents that cover the materials,
processes and technologies we use or may use in the future to
manufacture our Amperium products, and our success depends on
our ability to license such patents or other proprietary
rights.
We expect that some or all of the HTS materials, processes and
technologies we use in designing and manufacturing our products
are or will become covered by patents issued to other parties,
including our
25
competitors. The owners of these patents may refuse to grant
licenses to us, or may be willing to do so only on terms that we
find commercially unreasonable. If we are unable to obtain these
licenses, we may have to contest the validity or scope of those
patents or re-engineer our products to avoid infringement claims
by the owners of these patents. It is possible that we will not
be successful in contesting the validity or scope of a patent,
or that we will not prevail in a patent infringement claim
brought against us. Even if we are successful in such a
proceeding, we could incur substantial costs and diversion of
management resources in prosecuting or defending such a
proceeding.
Risks
Related to Owning Our Common Stock
Our
common stock has experienced, and may continue to experience,
significant market price and volume fluctuations, which may
prevent our stockholders from selling our common stock at a
profit and could lead to costly litigation against us that could
divert our managements attention.
The market price of our common stock has historically
experienced significant volatility and may continue to
experience such volatility in the future. Factors such as our
financial performance, technological achievements by us and our
competitors, the establishment of development or strategic
relationships with other companies, strategic acquisitions such
as the planned acquisition of The Switch, new customer orders
and contracts, our exposure to, and the disruption in our
relationship with Sinovel, and our introduction of commercial
products may have a significant effect on the market price of
our common stock. For example, after we announced on
April 5, 2011 that our largest customer, Sinovel, had
refused shipments on March 31, 2011, our stock price
dropped significantly. In addition, the stock market in general,
and the stock of high technology companies in particular, have
in recent years experienced extreme price and volume
fluctuations, which are often unrelated to the performance or
condition of particular companies. Such broad market
fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of our
common stock. Due to these factors, the price of our common
stock may decline and investors may be unable to resell their
shares of our common stock for a profit. Following periods of
volatility in the market price of a particular companys
securities, securities class action litigation has often been
brought against that company. Currently a number of purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against us on behalf of
certain purchasers of our common stock, which we are prepared to
rigorously defend. If we become subject to additional litigation
of this kind in the future, it could result in additional
substantial litigation costs, a damages award against us and the
further diversion of our managements attention.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
Not applicable.
Our corporate headquarters and
Amperiumtm
wire manufacturing operations are located in a
355,000-square-foot facility owned by us and located in Devens,
Massachusetts.
We also occupy leased facilities located in Middleton and New
Berlin, Wisconsin; Suzhou and Beijing, China; and Klagenfurt,
Austria with a combined total of approximately
341,000 square feet of space. These leases have varying
expiration dates through February 2016 which can generally be
terminated at our request after a six month advance notice. Our
other locations focus primarily on applications engineering,
sales and/or
field service and do not have significant leases or physical
presence. We believe all of these facilities are well-maintained
and suitable for their intended uses.
26
The following table summarizes information regarding our
significant leased and owned properties, as of March 31,
2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Square Footage
|
|
Owned/Leased
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devens, Massachusetts
|
|
|
355,000
|
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
Middleton, Wisconsin
|
|
|
95,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
New Berlin, Wisconsin
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suzhou
|
|
|
124,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
Beijing
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
Austria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Klagenfurt
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
|
|
Item 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
Between April 6, 2011 and April 29, 2011, six putative
securities class action complaints were filed against us and two
of our officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On May 12, 2011, an additional
complaint was filed against us, our officers and directors, and
the underwriters who participated in our November 12, 2010
securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated
these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al. Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On June 16, 2011, the court appointed the law firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel and the
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiff. On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint against us, our officers and
directors, and the underwriters who participated in our
November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the relevant class
period, we and our officers omitted to state material facts and
made materially false and misleading statements relating to,
among other things, our projected and recognized revenues and
earnings, as well as our relationship with Sinovel Wind Group
Co., Ltd. that artificially inflated the value of our stock
price. The complaint further alleges that our November 12,
2010 securities offering contained untrue statements of material
facts and omitted to state material facts required to be stated
therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of
our November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys fees.
On April 27, 2011, a putative shareholder derivative
complaint was filed against us (as a nominal defendant) and each
of our current directors in Superior Court for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Worcester County. The case is captioned
Segel v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-0787.
Between May 4, 2011 and June 17, 2011, four additional
putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against us and certain of our directors and officers. The cases
are captioned Weakley v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784;
Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al.,
Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10825;
Connors v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10910;
and Hurd v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-11102.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint and refiled its complaint in Superior
Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County,
on June 3, 2011. The case is now captioned Marlborough
Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The Superior Court in Worcester County granted the
plaintiffs motion to transfer in Segel v. Yurek et
al. to the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23, 2011, and that
matter is now captioned Segel v. Yurek et al.,
Docket
No. 11-2269.
On July 5, 2011, the Weakley, Connors and
Hurd actions were consolidated in United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. That matter is now
captioned In re American Superconductor Corporation
Derivative Litigation, Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint and, on June 3, 2011, refiled its
complaint in Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The Superior Court in Worcester
County granted the plaintiffs motion to transfer in
Segel v. Yurek et al. to the Superior Court for the
27
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23,
2011. On September 7, 2011, the Marlborough and
Segel actions were consolidated in Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The case is now
captioned Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek,
et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The allegations of the derivative complaints mirror the
allegations made in the putative class action complaints
described above. The plaintiffs purport to assert claims against
the director defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of us, as well as an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys fees.
If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, we estimate and
disclose the possible loss or range of loss. With respect to the
above referenced litigation matters, such an estimate cannot be
made. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to
meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this
stage of these litigation matters, including that: the
proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are
significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information
obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the
methodology for calculation of rescission and the related
statutory interest rate. In addition, with respect to claims
where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or
damages has been specified. Therefore, we are unable at this
time to estimate possible losses. We believe that these
litigations are without merit, and we intend to defend these
actions vigorously.
On September 13, 2011, we commenced a series of legal
actions in China against Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd.
(Sinovel). Our Chinese subsidiary, Suzhou AMSC
Superconductor Co. Ltd. (AMSC China), filed a claim
for arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission in
accordance with the terms of our supply contracts with Sinovel.
On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted
shipments of 1.5 megawatt (MW) and 3 MW wind turbine core
electrical components and spare parts that we were prepared to
deliver. We allege that these actions constitute material
breaches of our contracts because Sinovel did not give us notice
that it intended to delay deliveries as required under the
contracts. Moreover, we allege that Sinovel has refused to pay
past due amounts for prior shipments of core electrical
components and spare parts. We are seeking compensation for past
product shipments (including interest) and monetary damages due
to Sinovels breaches of our contracts. We are also seeking
specific performance of our existing contracts as well as
reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses with respect
to the arbitration.
We also submitted a civil action application to the Beijing
No. 1 Intermediate Peoples Court against Sinovel for
software copyright infringement. The application alleges
Sinovels unauthorized use of portions of our wind turbine
control software source code developed for Sinovels 1.5MW
wind turbines and the binary code, or upper layer, of our
software for the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines.
In July 2011, a former employee of our AMSC Windtec GmbH
subsidiary was arrested in Austria and is currently awaiting
trial on charges of economic espionage and fraudulent
manipulation of data. As a result of our internal investigation
and a criminal investigation conducted by Austrian authorities,
we believe that this former employee was contracted by Sinovel
through an intermediary while employed by us and improperly
obtained and transferred to Sinovel portions of our wind turbine
control software source code developed for Sinovels 1.5MW
wind turbines. Moreover, we believe the former employee
illegally used source code to develop for Sinovel a software
modification to circumvent the encryption and remove technical
protection measures on the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind
turbines in the field. We are seeking a cease and desist order
with respect to the unauthorized copying, installation and use
of our software, monetary damages for our economic losses and
reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The court
must accept the application in order for the case to proceed,
and there can be no assurance that the court will do so.
We submitted a civil action application to the Beijing Higher
Peoples Court against Sinovel and certain of its employees
for trade secret infringement. The application alleges the
defendants unauthorized use of portions of our wind
turbine control software source code developed for
Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines as described above with
respect to the Copyright Action. We are seeking monetary damages
for the trade secret infringement as well as reimbursement of
all costs and reasonable expenses. The court must accept the
application in order for the case to proceed, and there can be
no assurance that the court will do so.
28
On September 16, 2011, we filed a civil copyright
infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1
Intermediate Peoples Court against Dalian Guotong Electric
Co. Ltd. (Guotong), a supplier of power converter
products to Sinovel, and Huaneng Hainan Power, Inc., a wind farm
operator that has purchased Sinovel wind turbines containing
Goutong power converter products. The application alleges that
our PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind turbines have been
replaced by converters produced by Guotong. Because the Guotong
converters are being used in wind turbines containing our wind
turbine control software, we believe that our copyrighted
software is being infringed. We are seeking a cease and desist
order with respect to the unauthorized use of our software,
monetary damages for our economic losses (with respect to
Guotong only) and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable
expenses.
|
|
Item 4.
|
[Removed
and Reserved]
|
29
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Market
Information
Our common stock has been listed on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the symbol AMSC since 1991. The
following table sets forth the high and low sales price per
share of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global
Select Market for the two most recent fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
34.21
|
|
|
$
|
24.35
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
|
33.10
|
|
|
|
25.59
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
|
38.88
|
|
|
|
27.41
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
|
30.42
|
|
|
|
21.70
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
30.25
|
|
|
$
|
16.99
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
|
37.58
|
|
|
|
21.31
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
|
43.41
|
|
|
|
28.76
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
|
43.95
|
|
|
|
25.13
|
|
After we announced on April 5, 2011 that our largest
customer, Sinovel, had refused shipments on March 31, 2011,
our stock price dropped significantly. During the three months
ended June 30, 2011, the high and low sales price per share
of our common stock was $25.19 and $7.40, respectively.
Holders
The number of holders of record of our common stock on
September 15, 2011 was 431.
Dividend
Policy
We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock. We
currently intend to retain earnings, if any, to fund the
development and growth of our business and do not anticipate
paying cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Payment of
future cash dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our
board of directors after taking into account various factors,
including our financial condition, operating results, current
and anticipated cash needs and plans for expansion.
30
Stock
Performance Graph
The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder
return on our common stock from March 31, 2006 to
March 31, 2011 with the cumulative total return of
(i) the Russell 2000 Index and (ii) the S&P 500
Index. This graph assumes the investment of $100.00 on
March 31, 2006 in our common stock, the Russell 2000 Index
and the S&P 500 Index, and assumes any dividends are
reinvested. Measurement points are March 31, 2007;
March 31, 2008; March 31, 2009; March 31, 2010;
and March 31, 2011.
COMPARISON
OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
Among American Superconductor Corporation, the Russell 2000
Index
and the S&P 500 Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company/Index
|
|
3/31/2006
|
|
3/31/2007
|
|
3/31/2008
|
|
3/31/2009
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
3/31/2011
|
|
American Superconductor Corporation
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
118.68
|
|
|
|
204.32
|
|
|
|
152.51
|
|
|
|
254.63
|
|
|
|
219.12
|
|
Russell 2000 Index
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
105.91
|
|
|
|
92.14
|
|
|
|
57.58
|
|
|
|
254.63
|
|
|
|
117.90
|
|
S&P 500 Index
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
111.83
|
|
|
|
106.15
|
|
|
|
65.72
|
|
|
|
98.43
|
|
|
|
113.83
|
|
31
|
|
Item 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
The following selected financial data reflects the results of
operations and balance sheet data for the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2007 to 2011. The information set forth below is
not necessarily indicative of results of future operations and
should be read in conjunction with Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, and the consolidated
financial statements and notes thereto included in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of this
Form 10-K,
in order to understand further the factors that may affect the
comparability of the financial data presented below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
286,603
|
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
$
|
182,755
|
|
|
$
|
112,396
|
|
|
$
|
52,183
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
|
16,248
|
|
|
|
(16,635
|
)
|
|
|
(25,447
|
)
|
|
|
(34,675
|
)
|
Net (loss) income per common share basic
|
|
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
|
0.37
|
|
|
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
(0.65
|
)
|
|
|
(1.04
|
)
|
Net (loss) income per common share diluted
|
|
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
|
0.36
|
|
|
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
(0.65
|
)
|
|
|
(1.04
|
)
|
Total assets
|
|
|
441,209
|
|
|
|
400,184
|
|
|
|
309,106
|
|
|
|
261,234
|
|
|
|
132,433
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
174,625
|
|
|
|
158,234
|
|
|
|
131,187
|
|
|
|
124,334
|
|
|
|
34,942
|
|
Cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and restricted cash
|
|
|
245,475
|
|
|
|
155,118
|
|
|
|
117,207
|
|
|
|
119,404
|
|
|
|
35,324
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
292,855
|
|
|
|
280,965
|
|
|
|
221,861
|
|
|
|
208,452
|
|
|
|
101,621
|
|
Net loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 was
primarily attributable to events surroundings our largest
customer, Sinovel, a manufacturer of wind energy systems in
China. Sinovel refused to accept scheduled shipments on
March 31, 2011. This action, combined with aged outstanding
receivables from Sinovel and other Chinese customers prompted
management to review whether revenue was properly recorded in
prior periods. As a result of this review, accounting errors
were identified that affected the Companys reported
results for the quarters ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010. In addition, fourth quarter fiscal 2010
results were negatively impacted by a judgment that the customer
relationship with Sinovel would no longer continue, which
impacted the valuation of assets, including inventory and
goodwill, as well as the accrual of losses on adverse purchase
commitments associated with the purchase of materials to support
the manufacture of product for Sinovel. See Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, for further
discussion of the Sinovel customer relationship and the
accounting errors and their impact to the consolidated financial
statements.
Working capital for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011
included the November 2010 issuance of 4,600,000 shares of
common stock at a price of $35.50 per share in a public equity
offering, which resulted in net proceeds to the Company of
approximately $155.2 million, after deducting the
underwriting costs and offering expenses of $8.1 million.
Also included in the net loss for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011 was $13.4 million in employee
stock-based compensation expense. Net income for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010 included $13.5 million in
employee stock-based compensation expense and a
$0.5 million charge primarily for restructuring related to
our decision to consolidate our Massachusetts operations into
one facility in Devens, Massachusetts. Net loss for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2009 included $9.7 million in
employee stock-based compensation expense and a
$1.0 million charge primarily for restructuring related to
our decision to consolidate our Massachusetts operations into
one facility in Devens, Massachusetts. Net loss for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2008 included $5.7 million in
employee stock-based compensation expense, a $6.7 million
charge for restructuring and $0.8 million in long-lived
asset impairments. Net loss for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2007 included $3.7 million in employee
stock-based compensation expense and a $0.7 million charge
for restructuring and long-lived asset impairments related to
our decision to re-align the AMSC Wires and AMSC SuperMachines
business units into the newly formed AMSC Superconductors
business unit.
On January 5, 2007, we acquired Windtec Consulting GmbH, a
corporation organized under the laws of Austria, which was
renamed AMSC Windtec GmbH (AMSC Windtec). AMSC
Windtec develops and sells
32
electrical systems for wind turbines. AMSC Windtec also provides
technology transfer for the manufacturing of wind turbines;
documentation services; and training and support regarding the
assembly, installation, commissioning, and service of wind
turbines. The acquisition agreement included an earn-out
provision for the issuance of up to an additional
1,400,000 shares of common stock upon AMSC Windtecs
achievement of specified revenue objectives during the first
four fiscal years following closing of the acquisition. During
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, we recorded
contingent consideration of $10.0 million to goodwill and
additional paid-in capital representing 350,000 shares
earned. These 350,000 shares are expected to be issued in
the second quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31,
2012. As of March 31, 2011, we have recorded contingent
consideration up to the maximum amount of shares that could be
earned under the agreement. Beginning on January 5, 2007,
Windtecs results of operations are included in our
consolidated financial statements.
On April 27, 2007, we acquired Power Quality Systems, Inc.
(PQS), a Pennsylvania corporation. Pursuant to the merger
agreement, we acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares
of PQS, for which we issued 295,329 shares of our common
stock. We valued the acquisition at approximately
$4.3 million (excluding acquisition costs) using a value of
$14.73 per share, which represents the
five-day
average closing price of the common stock from the two trading
days before through two trading days after the signing of the
merger agreement and the public announcement of the acquisition.
The all-stock transaction also included an earn-out opportunity.
with the potential for up to an additional 475,000 shares
of our common stock to be issued to PQSs former owners
based on the achievement of certain order growth targets for
existing PQS products for fiscal 2007 and 2008. As of
March 31, 2009, an additional 150,000 shares were
earned based on achieving the order growth targets for fiscal
2007 and fiscal 2008. These shares were valued at approximately
$3.0 million, and were recorded to goodwill. As a result of
this transaction, PQS is operated by AMSC Power Systems. The
results of PQSs operations are included in our
consolidated results from the date of acquisition of
April 27, 2007.
The impact of the above mentioned acquisitions is discussed
further in Note 8, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, to the consolidated financial statements included
in Item 8 herein.
33
|
|
Item 7.
|
MANAGEMENT
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
Readers are strongly urged to read the Amendments to our
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly periods ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 and this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 together for a
more complete understanding of the Companys financial
condition.
Executive
Overview
American Superconductor Corporation was founded in 1987. We are
a leading provider of megawatt-scale solutions that lower the
cost of wind power and enhance the performance of the power
grid. In the wind power market, we enable manufacturers to field
wind turbines through our advanced engineering, support services
and power electronics products. In the power grid market, we
enable electric utilities and renewable energy project
developers to connect, transmit and distribute power through our
transmission planning services and power electronics and
superconductor based products. Our wind and power grid products
and services provide exceptional reliability, security,
efficiency and affordability to our customers.
Our wind and power grid solutions help to improve energy
efficiency, alleviate power grid capacity constraints and
increase the adoption of renewable energy generation. Demand for
our solutions is driven by the growing needs for renewable
sources of electricity, such as wind and solar energy, and for
modernized smart grids that improve power reliability and
quality. Concerns about these factors have led to increased
spending by corporations as well as supportive government
regulations and initiatives on local, state, national and global
levels, including renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives
and international treaties.
We manufacture products using two proprietary core technologies:
PowerModuletm
programmable power electronic converters and our
Amperiumtm
HTS wires. These technologies and our system-level solutions are
protected by a broad and deep intellectual property portfolio
consisting of hundreds of patents and licenses worldwide.
On March 12, 2011, we entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire The Switch Engineering Oy, headquartered in Vantaa,
Finland. The Switch designs, manufactures and markets wind power
products, including permanent magnet generators and power
converter systems, as well as grid products such as commercial
and small utility-scale solar inverters to customers in Asia,
including China, Europe and North America.
As of April 1, 2011, we are segmenting our operations into
two new market-facing business units: Wind and Grid. We believe
this market-centric structure enables us to more effectively
anticipate and meet the needs of wind turbine manufacturers,
power generation project developers and electric utilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Wind. Through our Windtec brand, our Wind
business enables manufacturers to field wind turbines with
exceptional power output, reliability and affordability. We
license our highly engineered wind turbine designs, provide
extensive customer support services and supply advanced power
electronics and control systems to wind turbine manufactures.
Our design portfolio includes a broad range of drive trains and
power ratings up to 10 megawatts. We believe our unique
engineering capabilities, ranging from bearings to advanced
synchronous generators to blades, enables us to provide our
partners with highly-optimized wind turbine platforms.
Furthermore, these designs and support services typically lead
to sales of our power electronics and software-based control
systems, which are designed for optimized performance,
efficiency and grid compatibility.
|
|
|
|
Grid. Our Grid segment enables electric
utilities and renewable energy project developers to connect,
transmit and distribute power with exceptional efficiency,
reliability and affordability. We provide transmission planning
services that allow us to identify power grid congestion, poor
power quality and other risks, which help us determine how our
solutions can improve network performance. These services often
lead to sales of grid interconnection solutions for wind farms
and solar power plants, power quality systems and transmission
and distribution cable systems.
|
34
Prior to April 1, 2011, we segmented our operations through
two technology-centric business units: AMSC Power Systems and
AMSC Superconductors. AMSC Power Systems included all of our
Wind products, as well as Grid products that regulate voltage
for wind farm voltage electric utilities, renewable generation
project developers and industrial operations. Solutions from our
AMSC Superconductors business unit have been incorporated into
our Grid business unit.
Our fiscal year begins on April 1 and ends on March 31.
When we refer to a particular fiscal year, we are referring to
the fiscal year beginning on April 1 of that same year. For
example, fiscal 2010 refers to the fiscal year beginning on
April 1, 2010. Other fiscal years follow similarly.
Our cash requirements depend on numerous factors, including
successful completion of our product development activities,
ability to commercialize our product prototypes, rate of
customer and market adoption of our products, collecting
receivables according to established terms, and the continued
availability of U.S. government funding during the product
development phase. Significant deviations to our business plan
with regard to these factors, which are important drivers to our
business, could have a material adverse effect on our operating
performance, financial condition, and future business prospects.
We expect to pursue the expansion of our operations through
internal growth and potential strategic alliances and
acquisitions.
Sinovel has been our largest customer, accounting for 68%, 70%
and 67% of our total revenue for fiscal 2010, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and was the only customer accounting for more than
10% of our total revenue for those fiscal years. We derived our
revenues from Sinovel through sales of core electrical
components as well as development contracts for the design of
wind turbines. On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept
contracted scheduled shipments with a revenue value of
approximately $65.2 million. In addition, we had
approximately $62.0 million of receivables (excluding value
added tax), some aged over six months, outstanding as of
March 31, 2011 from Sinovel. The last payment received from
Sinovel was in early March 2011. These factors, combined with
aged receivables from other smaller Chinese customers, prompted
management to review prior periods to determine if revenue had
been properly recognized. The results of that review are more
fully discussed in Restatements below.
During March 2011, we engaged in discussions with Sinovel
regarding the acceptance of its scheduled shipments, outstanding
receivables, and the delivery of a custom solution desired by
Sinovel for low voltage ride through (LVRT) that
required a modification to our existing LVRT design. The custom
design required modified software and additional hardware.
Toward the end of March, Sinovel requested that we provide them
with the additional hardware without additional cost. On
March 31, 2011, we proposed to Sinovel that we would
provide the additional hardware without additional cost if
Sinovel would accept the scheduled shipments. Sinovel rejected
this proposal due to what we were told was excess inventory of
our components. Since Sinovel did not give us the requisite
notice under our contracts that they intended to delay
deliveries, we believe that these actions constitute material
breaches of our contracts.
While we have had several discussions with Sinovel since
March 31, 2011, as of the date of this filing, we have not
received payment for any outstanding receivables nor have we
been notified as to when, if ever, they will accept contracted
shipments that were scheduled for delivery after March 31,
2011. Additionally, based in part upon evidence obtained through
an internal investigation and a criminal investigation conducted
by Austrian authorities regarding the actions of a former
employee of our AMSC Windtec subsidiary, we believe that Sinovel
illegally obtained and used our intellectual property in
violation of civil and criminal intellectual property laws. In
July 2011, the former employee was arrested in Austria and is
currently awaiting trial on charges of economic espionage and
fraudulent manipulation of data. As a result of the
investigations, we believe that this former employee was
contracted by Sinovel through an intermediary while employed by
us and improperly obtained and transferred to Sinovel portions
of our wind turbine control software source code developed for
Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines. Except for portions of this
1.5 MW wind turbine software, we do not believe that the
source code for any other turbines, such as the 3MW, 5MW and 6MW
wind turbines that were designed by and co-developed with us
have been transferred to Sinovel. Moreover, we believe the
former employee illegally used source code to develop for
Sinovel a software modification to circumvent the encryption and
remove technical protection measures on the PM3000 power
converters in 1.5MW wind turbines in the field. We believe that
only the binary code, or upper layer, of the PM3000 software
developed to circumvent the encryption and remove technical
protection measures was
35
transferred to Sinovel. We do not believe that any PM3000 source
code was transferred to Sinovel. These actions potentially
enable Sinovel to deploy, independent of us, wind turbine
control software, including a low voltage ride through solution,
on all of its 1.5MW wind turbines in the field. In addition, by
having the wind turbine control source code, Sinovel could
potentially modify the source code to allow the use of core
electrical components, including power converters, from other
manufacturers.
On September 13, 2011, we commenced a series of legal
actions in China against Sinovel. We filed a claim for
arbitration in Beijing, China to compel Sinovel to pay us for
past product shipments and to accept all contracted but not yet
delivered core electrical components and spare parts under all
existing contracts with us. The arbitration claim was filed with
the Beijing Arbitration Commission in accordance with the terms
of our supply contracts with Sinovel. We are also in the process
of filing civil and criminal complaints against Sinovel. On
September 16, 2011, we filed a civil complaint in China
against Dalian Guotong Electric, Co., Ltd. and other parties.
The complaints allege the illegal use of our intellectual
property. We are seeking to compel Sinovel and the other parties
to cease and desist from infringing our intellectual property
and are also seeking monetary damages to compensate us for our
economic losses resulting from the infringement.
We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of these legal
actions. We are now operating our business under the assumption
that Sinovel will not be a customer.
Restatements
The refusal by Sinovel to accept scheduled shipments from us on
March 31, 2011, as well as aging receivables from Sinovel
and certain of our other customers in China, prompted us to
re-evaluate our accounting judgments around revenue recognition
and, accounts receivable. This re-evaluation included an
internal review of documents and interviews with management and
other personnel with the assistance of external counsel. As a
result, we determined that revenues and accounts receivable were
incorrectly recorded in the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2010 for certain of our customers in China as
the fee for shipments of products to these customers was not
fixed or determinable or collectability was not reasonably
assured at the time of shipment. Further, as a result of aging
receivables and other negative events surrounding the customer
relationship, we concluded that revenue related to shipments to
Sinovel in the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010 was
incorrectly recorded since collectability was not reasonably
assured at the time of shipment. For these customers, we have
restated revenues based on a cash basis of accounting with cash
applied first against accounts receivable balances, as in the
case of Sinovel as of September 30, 2010, then costs of
shipments (inventory and value added taxes) before recognizing
any gross margin. We had previously recognized revenues in the
quarters ended September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2010 based on the receipt of shipments by these customers but
prior to our receipt of payment for such shipments. Accordingly,
our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for
the three and six months ended September 30, 2010 and the
three and nine months ended December 31, 2010 have been
restated to reflect restatement adjustments to record revenues
on a cash basis for these certain customers in China as well as
the related effects to accounts receivable, inventory, deferred
taxes, stockholders equity, cost of revenues, operating
expenses, income taxes and other accounts on the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements.
36
The effects of the restatement on the Companys unaudited
condensed consolidated statements of income for the three and
six months ended September 30, 2010 are as follows (in
thousands, except share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
September 30, 2010
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Restated
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
101,529
|
|
|
$
|
(3,456
|
)
|
|
$
|
98,073
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
60,226
|
|
|
|
(810
|
)
|
|
|
59,416
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
17,127
|
|
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
17,346
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
85,584
|
|
|
|
(591
|
)
|
|
|
84,993
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
15,945
|
|
|
|
(2,865
|
)
|
|
|
13,080
|
|
Income before income tax expense
|
|
|
18,584
|
|
|
|
(2,865
|
)
|
|
|
15,719
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
8,596
|
|
|
|
(716
|
)
|
|
|
7,880
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
9,988
|
|
|
$
|
(2,149
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,839
|
|
Net income per common share basic
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
Net income per common share diluted
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
September 30, 2010
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Restated
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
198,739
|
|
|
$
|
(3,456
|
)
|
|
$
|
195,283
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
118,450
|
|
|
|
(810
|
)
|
|
|
117,640
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
32,310
|
|
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
32,529
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
166,714
|
|
|
|
(591
|
)
|
|
|
166,123
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
32,025
|
|
|
|
(2,865
|
)
|
|
|
29,160
|
|
Income before income tax expense
|
|
|
35,010
|
|
|
|
(2,865
|
)
|
|
|
32,145
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
15,853
|
|
|
|
(716
|
)
|
|
|
15,137
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
19,157
|
|
|
$
|
(2,149
|
)
|
|
$
|
17,008
|
|
Net income per common share basic
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Net income per common share diluted
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
Included in the restatement adjustments for the three months
ended September 30, 2010, is an increase in the provision
for excess and obsolete inventory of $0.6 million and a
write-off of certain prepaid value added taxes of
$0.2 million that relate to amounts due from certain of its
customers in China which the Company determined were not
recoverable as of September 30, 2010. In addition, the
Company recorded an adjustment of $1.8 million to increase
property, plant and equipment and accrued expenses related to
the implementation of the Companys new enterprise resource
planning system.
37
The effects of the restatement on the Companys unaudited
condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three
and nine months ended December 31, 2010 are as follows (in
thousands, except share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Restated
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
114,193
|
|
|
$
|
(82,623
|
)
|
|
$
|
31,570
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
67,709
|
|
|
|
(36,181
|
)
|
|
|
31,528
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
9,057
|
|
|
|
(640
|
)
|
|
|
8,417
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
15,564
|
|
|
|
(1,372
|
)
|
|
|
14,192
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
92,723
|
|
|
|
(38,193
|
)
|
|
|
54,530
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
21,470
|
|
|
|
(44,430
|
)
|
|
|
(22,960
|
)
|
(Loss) income before income tax expense
|
|
|
23,779
|
|
|
|
(44,432
|
)
|
|
|
(20,653
|
)
|
Income tax (benefit) expense
|
|
|
7,775
|
|
|
|
(10,270
|
)
|
|
|
(2,495
|
)
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
16,004
|
|
|
$
|
(34,162
|
)
|
|
$
|
(18,158
|
)
|
Net (loss) earnings per common share basic
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
|
$
|
(0.71
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.38
|
)
|
Net (loss) earnings per common share diluted
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
|
$
|
(0.71
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Restated
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
312,932
|
|
|
$
|
(86,079
|
)
|
|
$
|
226,853
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
186,160
|
|
|
|
(36,993
|
)
|
|
|
149,167
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
24,249
|
|
|
|
(639
|
)
|
|
|
23,610
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
47,874
|
|
|
|
(1,150
|
)
|
|
|
46,724
|
|
Total cost and operating expenses
|
|
|
259,437
|
|
|
|
(38,782
|
)
|
|
|
220,655
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
53,495
|
|
|
|
(47,297
|
)
|
|
|
6,198
|
|
(Loss) income before income tax expense
|
|
|
58,789
|
|
|
|
(47,297
|
)
|
|
|
11,492
|
|
Income tax (benefit) expense
|
|
|
23,628
|
|
|
|
(10,986
|
)
|
|
|
12,642
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
35,161
|
|
|
$
|
(36,311
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,150
|
)
|
Net (loss) earnings per common share basic
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.78
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
Net (loss) earnings per common share diluted
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.78
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
Included in the restatement adjustments for the three months
ended December 31, 2010, is an increase in the provision
for excess and obsolete inventory of $2.1 million and a
write-off of certain prepaid value added taxes of
$0.1 million that relate to amounts due from certain of its
customers in China which the Company determined were not
recoverable as of December 31, 2010. Additionally, we
determined that the achievement of certain Company performance
measures would not be met as of December 31, 2010 with
revenue for certain customers now being recorded on a cash basis
and we recorded a restatement adjustment to reduce our bonus
accrual by $1.4 million and stock-based compensation
expenses by $1.2 million. The Company also recorded an
adjustment of $0.6 million to increase property, plant and
equipment and accrued expenses related to the implementation of
the Companys new enterprise resource planning system. In
addition, the Company identified and corrected minor errors in
the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of cash flows for
the nine months ended December 31, 2010.
38
Fiscal
2010 Annual Report
The Company recorded the following material charges in the
fourth quarter of its consolidated financial statements for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on loss before income tax expense for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in provision for excess and obsolete inventory
|
|
$
|
61,216
|
|
Loss on purchase commitments
|
|
|
38,763
|
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment
|
|
|
49,955
|
|
Write-off of prepaid value added taxes
|
|
|
5,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impact on loss before income tax expenses for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
155,289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results
of Operations
As discussed above, prior to April 1, 2011, we operated and
reported our financial results to the Chief Executive Officer in
two reportable business units: AMSC Power Systems and AMSC
Superconductors.
Our AMSC Power Systems business unit designs, develops,
manufactures and markets power electronic products, systems and
solutions that generate and rapidly switch, control and modulate
power. This business unit also provides proprietary wind turbine
designs and extensive support services to wind turbine
manufacturers. Our AMSC Power Systems business unit offers
products that meet the needs of customers in a broad array of
industries, including the transmission and distribution, wind
power and manufacturing industries
Our AMSC Superconductors business unit designs, develops,
manufactures and sells
Amperiumtm
wire and products made with
Amperiumtm
wire. We sell wire to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
that incorporate
Amperiumtm
wire into value-added products, which are, in turn, sold to
electric utilities, ship integrators and industrial end-users,
among others. We also develop power cable systems, fault current
limiters and rotating machines (including electric motors,
generators and synchronous condensers) based on our
Amperiumtm
wire. In addition, the business unit manages projects that
utilize these value-added HTS products to create market demand
for
Amperiumtm
wire.
Fiscal
Years Ended March 31, 2011 and March 31,
2010
Revenues
Total revenues decreased by 9% to $286.6 million in fiscal
2010 from $316.0 million for fiscal 2009. Our revenues are
summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
276,440
|
|
|
$
|
304,276
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
10,163
|
|
|
|
11,679
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
286,603
|
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues in our AMSC Power Systems business unit consist of
revenues from wind turbine electrical systems and core
components, wind turbine license and development contracts as
well as
D-VAR®,
D-VAR®
RT, SVC and
PowerModuletm
product sales, service contracts and consulting arrangements. We
also engineer, install and commission our products on a turnkey
basis for some customers. Our AMSC Power Systems business unit
accounted for 96% of total revenues for both fiscal 2010 and
2009. Revenues in the AMSC Power Systems business unit decreased
9% to $276.4 million in fiscal 2010 from
$304.3 million in fiscal 2009. The decrease in AMSC Power
Systems business unit revenues were negatively impacted by the
March 31, 2011 refusal by Sinovel to accept contracted
shipments of 1.5 megawatt (MW) and 3 MW wind turbine core
electrical components and spare parts that we were prepared to
deliver with a potential revenue value of approximately
$65.2 million. Further, AMSC Power Systems revenues were
negatively impacted by the net effect of restatement adjustments
described above. In
39
conjunction with the application of cash basis accounting for
certain of our other customers in China beginning in the three
months ended September 30, 2010 and Sinovel beginning in
the three months ended December 31, 2010, cash received is
applied first against accounts receivable balances, as in the
case of Sinovel as of September 30, 2010, then costs of
shipments (inventory and value added taxes) before recognizing
any gross margin. This resulted in decreases in revenue
recognized from Sinovel and certain of our other customers in
China during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011. Revenues
from Sinovel were $194.8 million and $221.8 million in
fiscal 2010 and 2009, respectively. As discussed above, we are
now operating our business assuming that Sinovel will not be a
customer.
Based on the average Euro and Renminbi exchange rates in fiscal
2010, revenues denominated in these foreign currencies
translated into U.S. dollars were $2.1 million higher
compared to the translation of these revenues using the average
exchange rates of these currencies for fiscal 2009.
Revenues in our AMSC Superconductors business unit consist of
contract revenues, HTS wire sales, revenues under
government-sponsored electric utility projects, and other
prototype development contracts. AMSC Superconductors business
unit revenue is primarily recorded using the
percentage-of-completion
method. AMSC Superconductors accounted for 4% revenues for both
fiscal 2010 and 2009. AMSC Superconductors revenue decreased 13%
to $10.2 million in fiscal 2010 from $11.7 million in
fiscal 2009. Revenues from significant AMSC Superconductors
government-funded contract revenues are summarized as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Earned for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Earned
|
|
|
the Year
|
|
|
|
Expected Total
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
Ended March 31,
|
|
Project Name
|
|
Contract Value
|
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
HYDRA
|
|
$
|
24,908
|
|
|
$
|
10,552
|
|
|
$
|
979
|
|
|
$
|
1,721
|
|
LIPA I and II
|
|
|
40,141
|
|
|
|
38,401
|
|
|
|
4,050
|
|
|
|
3,616
|
|
DOE-FCL
|
|
|
7,898
|
|
|
|
6,553
|
|
|
|
2,147
|
|
|
|
1,403
|
|
NAVSEA Motor Study
|
|
|
6,511
|
|
|
|
6,492
|
|
|
|
280
|
|
|
|
332
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
79,458
|
|
|
$
|
61,998
|
|
|
$
|
7,456
|
|
|
$
|
7,072
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These significant projects represented 73% and 61% of our AMSC
Superconductors business units revenue for fiscal 2010 and
2009, respectively.
Project HYDRA is a project with Consolidated Edison, Inc. which
is being partially funded by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). DHS is expected to invest up to a total of
$24.9 million in the development of a new HTS power grid
technology called
FaultBlockertm
cable systems.
FaultBlockertm
cable systems are designed to utilize customized
Amperiumtm
HTS wires, and ancillary controls to deliver more power through
the grid while also being able to suppress power surges that can
disrupt service. Of the total $24.9 million in funding
expected from DHS, it has committed funding of
$12.6 million to us as of March 31, 2011. Consolidated
Edison and Southwire Company are our subcontractors on this
project.
LIPA I, completed in the first quarter of fiscal 2009, was
a project to install an HTS power cable system at transmission
voltage using our first generation HTS wire for the Long Island
Power Authority. LIPA II is a project to install an HTS power
cable using our
Amperiumtm
wire for the Long Island Power Authority. DOE-FCL is a project
to develop and demonstrate a transmission voltage SuperLimiter
fault current limiter (FCL). The NAVSEA Motor Study
is a project designed to test the 36.5 MW superconductor
motor developed for the U.S. Navy.
Cost
of Revenues and Gross Margin
Cost of revenues increased by 53% to $308.2 million for
fiscal 2010, compared to $201.0 million for fiscal 2009.
Gross margin decreased to (7.5)% in fiscal 2010 from 36.4% in
fiscal 2009. The significant decrease in gross margin in fiscal
2010 as compared to fiscal 2009 was primarily attributed to the
restatement adjustments, inventory write-offs and losses on
adverse purchase commitments described above. In conjunction
with the application of cash basis accounting for Sinovel and
certain of our other customers in China beginning in the three
months ended December 31, 2010, cash received is applied
first against accounts receivable balances, as in the case of
Sinovel as of September 30, 2010, then costs of shipments
(inventory and value added taxes) before recognizing any gross
40
margin. This resulted in decreases in cost of revenues and gross
margin from Sinovel and certain of our other customers in China
during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.
Based on the average Euro and Renminbi exchange rates in fiscal
2010, costs of revenues denominated in these foreign currencies
translated into U.S. dollars were $3.8 million higher
compared to the translation of these cost of revenues using the
average exchange rates of these currencies for fiscal 2009.
Operating
Expenses
Research
and development
A portion of our R&D expenditures related to externally
funded development contracts has been classified as cost of
revenues (rather than as R&D expenses). Additionally, a
portion of R&D expenses was offset by cost-sharing funding.
Our R&D expenditures are summarized as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
R&D expenses per consolidated statements of operations
|
|
$
|
32,517
|
|
|
$
|
23,593
|
|
R&D expenditures reclassified as cost of revenues
|
|
|
18,012
|
|
|
|
14,869
|
|
R&D expenditures offset by cost-sharing funding
|
|
|
440
|
|
|
|
971
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregated R&D expenses
|
|
$
|
50,969
|
|
|
$
|
39,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R&D expenses (exclusive of amounts classified as cost of
revenues and amounts offset by cost-sharing funding) increased
by 38% to $32.5 million, or 11% of revenue, for fiscal 2010
from $23.6 million, or 7% of revenue, for fiscal 2009. The
increase in R&D expenses was driven primarily by increased
headcount and related labor spending, as well as added material
and overhead spending to support new product development in our
AMSC Power Systems business unit. The increase in R&D
expenditures reclassified to cost of revenue was a result of
increased efforts under license and development contracts for
wind turbine designs at AMSC Windtec compared to the prior year.
Aggregated R&D expenses, which include amounts classified
as cost of revenues and amounts offset by cost-sharing funding,
increased 29% to $51.0 million, or 18% of revenue, for
fiscal 2010, compared to $39.4 million, or 12% of revenue,
for fiscal 2009. The increase in fiscal 2010 was driven
primarily by the net impact of the factors described above.
We present aggregated R&D, which is a measure (a
non-GAAP measure) not calculated in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of
America (GAAP), because we believe it provides
useful information on our aggregate R&D spending and
because R&D expenses as reported on the consolidated
statements of income have been, and may in the future be,
subject to significant fluctuations solely as a result of
changes in the level of externally funded contract development
work, resulting in significant changes in the amount of the
costs recorded as costs of revenues rather than as R&D
expenses, as discussed above.
Selling,
general, and administrative
SG&A expenses increased by 43% to $72.4 million, or
25% of revenue, in fiscal 2010 from $50.4 million, or 16%
of revenue, in fiscal 2009. The increase in SG&A expenses
was primarily attributed to write-offs of certain prepaid value
added taxes due to collectability not being reasonably assured
for prior shipments to certain customers in China, as well as
higher labor and related costs driven by headcount growth and
costs incurred related to the implementation of our new
enterprise resource planning system. Also included in the
accompanying consolidated statements of operations for the year
ended March 31, 2011 are acquisition-related costs of
approximately $1.0 million related to the planned
acquisition of The Switch.
We have taken certain actions to reduce our expenses and are in
the process of implementing plans to better align spending with
near-term revenues while continuing to maintain a high level of
service and support for our customers. From April 1, 2011
through the date of this filing, we have reduced our global
workforce by approximately 30%, which is expected to result in
annual savings of approximately $30 million. For the
portion of these actions that occurred in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2011, we expect to recognize
41
restructuring charges of $3 million to $4 million.
These charges primarily relate to severance costs and are
expected to be paid through fiscal 2012.
Amortization
of acquisition related intangibles
We recorded $1.5 million in fiscal 2010 and
$1.8 million in fiscal 2009 in amortization related to our
contractual relationships/backlog, customer relationships, core
technology and know-how, trade names and trademark intangible
assets. These intangible assets are a result of our AMSC Windtec
and PQS acquisitions.
Restructuring
and impairments
We performed our annual assessment of goodwill of the Windtec
and PSNA reporting units on March 31, 2011. As a result of
reductions in our revenue and operating forecasts related to
Sinovel and certain of our other customers in China, we
determined that the goodwill related to both the Windtec and
PSNA reporting units was fully impaired. Accordingly, we
recorded impairment charges of $42.1 million and
$6.9 million for the Windtec and PSNA reporting units,
respectively, during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010.
In connection with the assessment of the goodwill of the Windtec
and PSNA reporting units, we performed an evaluation of our
long-lived assets and intangible assets for potential impairment
during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010. As a result of
reductions in our revenue and operating forecasts related to
Sinovel and certain of our other customers in China, we
determined that certain of our property, plant and equipment and
intangible assets were impaired. Accordingly, we recorded
impairment charges of $1.0 million during the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2010.
On October 25, 2007, our Board of Directors approved a
restructuring plan (the Fiscal 2007 Plan) to reduce
operating costs through the closure of our last remaining
facility in Westborough, Massachusetts and the consolidation of
operations there, including our corporate headquarters, into our
Devens, Massachusetts facility. No headcount reductions were
associated with this plan. Aggregate restructuring charges
associated with the Fiscal 2007 Plan were $7.9 million, of
which $0.5 million was recorded in fiscal 2009 related to
the closure of our Westborough, Massachusetts facility. All
restructuring charges associated with the Fiscal 2007 Plan have
resulted in cash disbursements and had been completed at the end
of the second quarter of fiscal 2009. Cash paid under this plan
was $0 in fiscal 2010 and $2.6 million in fiscal 2009.
Operating
income
Our operating income is summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
(138,490
|
)
|
|
$
|
77,604
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
(25,911
|
)
|
|
|
(24,432
|
)
|
Unallocated corporate expenses
|
|
|
(13,582
|
)
|
|
|
(14,511
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(177,983
|
)
|
|
$
|
38,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems generated an operating loss of $138.5 in
fiscal 2010 compared to operating income of $77.6 million
in fiscal 2009. The decrease in fiscal 2010 was primarily
attributable to Sinovels refusal to accept shipments on
March 31, 2011 and the restatement adjustments and the
material charges recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010,
as described above. In conjunction with the application of cash
basis accounting for Sinovel as of September 30, 2010, and
certain of our other customers in China beginning in the three
months ended December 31, 2010, cash received is applied
first against accounts receivable balances, as in the case of
Sinovel, then costs of shipments (inventory and value added
taxes) before recognizing any gross margin.
AMSC Superconductors operating loss increased to
$25.9 million in fiscal 2010 from $24.4 million in
fiscal 2009. The increase in operating loss for fiscal 2010 is
primarily due to lower sales, as described above.
42
Unallocated corporate expenses include stock-based compensation
expense of $13.4 million for fiscal 2010 compared to
$13.5 million for fiscal 2009. Unallocated corporate
expenses also include $0.5 million of restructuring charges
in fiscal 2009 related primarily to the closure of our facility
in Westborough, Massachusetts.
Interest
income, net
Interest income, net, was $0.8 million for both fiscal
years 2010 and 2009, respectively. Due to recent economic
conditions and the United States monetary policy intended to
promote growth, the yields of our interest bearing assets are
low as compared to prior periods.
Other
income (expense), net
Other income (expense), net, was $6.8 million in fiscal
2010, compared to a loss, net of $2.7 million in fiscal
2009. The increase in other income (expense), net was due
primarily to net foreign exchange and hedging gains in fiscal
2010, compared to losses in fiscal 2009. The primary components
of other income (expense), net include net foreign currency
translation and hedging gains, of $8.0 million and
aggregate losses on minority investments in Blade Dynamics and
Tres Amigas of $1.4 million for fiscal 2010.
Income
Taxes
We recorded income tax expense of $16.0 million during
fiscal 2010 and $20.5 million during fiscal 2009. Income
tax expense in both periods was driven by income generated in
foreign jurisdictions. Certain asset write-offs in our foreign
jurisdictions such as goodwill are considered permanent
differences and are not tax deductible. Other asset write-offs,
such as inventory and prepaid value added taxes in China, are
not currently deductible and result in deferred tax assets. Due
to uncertainty around the realizability of these deferred tax
assets, they have been fully reserved as of March 31, 2011.
Please refer to the Risk Factors section in
Part I, Item 1A for a discussion of certain factors
that may affect our future results of operations and financial
condition.
Fiscal
Years Ended March 31, 2010 and March 31,
2009
Revenues
Total revenues increased by 73% to $316.0 million in fiscal
2009, from $182.8 million for fiscal 2008. Our revenues are
summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
304,276
|
|
|
$
|
168,008
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
11,679
|
|
|
|
14,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
$
|
182,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales to Sinovel represented 70% and 67% of our total revenues
for fiscal 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Our AMSC Power Systems business unit accounted for 96% of total
revenues for fiscal 2009 and 92% of total revenues in fiscal
2008. Revenues in the AMSC Power Systems business unit increased
81% to $304.3 million in fiscal 2009 from
$168.0 million in fiscal 2008. The increases in our AMSC
Power Systems business unit revenues were primarily due to
higher sales of wind turbine electrical systems and core
components, primarily to customers in China, higher
D-VAR®
system shipments, as well as shipments of our
D-VAR®
RT product to ACCIONA Energy in Spain. Changes in foreign
exchange rates from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009 had a de minimis
effect on revenue in fiscal 2009.
Our AMSC Superconductors business unit accounted for 4% of total
revenues for fiscal 2009 and 8% of total revenues in fiscal
2008. AMSC Superconductors revenue decreased 21% to
$11.7 million in fiscal 2009 from
43
$14.7 million in fiscal 2008. Revenues from significant
AMSC Superconductors government funded contract revenues are
summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Earned
|
|
|
Revenue Earned for the Year
|
|
|
|
Expected Total
|
|
|
through
|
|
|
Ended March 31,
|
|
Project name
|
|
Contract Value
|
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
HYDRA
|
|
$
|
24,908
|
|
|
$
|
9,573
|
|
|
$
|
1,721
|
|
|
$
|
4,207
|
|
LIPA I and II
|
|
|
40,141
|
|
|
|
34,351
|
|
|
|
3,616
|
|
|
|
2,934
|
|
DOE-FCL
|
|
|
7,898
|
|
|
|
4,406
|
|
|
|
1,403
|
|
|
|
2,080
|
|
NAVSEA Motor Study
|
|
|
6,511
|
|
|
|
6,212
|
|
|
|
332
|
|
|
|
2,940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
79,458
|
|
|
$
|
54,542
|
|
|
$
|
7,072
|
|
|
$
|
12,161
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These significant projects represented 61% and 82% of our AMSC
Superconductors business units revenue for fiscal 2009 and
2008, respectively.
The decrease in AMSC Superconductors business unit revenue for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 was driven primarily
by lower HYDRA project revenues due to delays in project
milestones and the completion of the NAVSEA Motor Study. With
respect to the contract with ConEdison for Project HYDRA,
$24.9 million in funding is expected from DHS and it has
committed funding of $12.6 million to us as of
March 31, 2010. We recognized $1.7 million in revenue
related to the Project HYDRA during fiscal 2009, compared to
$4.2 million in fiscal 2008. ConEdison and Southwire
Company are subcontractors to us on this project. On
April 1, 2010, we received a modification to the contract
that re-aligns the project funding to correlate with our current
project plans to do further development and testing until
parties can evaluate future in-grid cable demonstration options.
Cost
of Revenues and Gross Margin
Cost of revenues increased by 54% to $201.0 million for
fiscal 2009, compared to $130.9 million for fiscal 2008.
Gross margin was 36.4% for fiscal 2009, compared to 28.4% for
fiscal 2008. The increase in gross margin in fiscal 2009 as
compared to fiscal 2008 was due primarily to a shift in mix
towards higher margin wind turbine core electrical component
shipments and material cost reductions, primarily resulting from
the localization of component supply in China for our power
electronic converters which are now manufactured there.
During the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010, we adjusted our cost of revenues by
$0.7 million for an understatement of cost of revenues of
$0.4 million and $0.3 million, net of tax, in the
second and third quarters, respectively. The adjustment had no
impact to the full year results for the year ended
March 31, 2010. We evaluated this adjustment taking into
account both qualitative and quantitative factors and considered
the impact of this adjustment in relation to the fourth quarter
of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. Management
believes this adjustment was immaterial to both the consolidated
quarterly and annual financial statements for all periods
affected.
Operating
Expenses
Research
and development
A portion of our R&D expenditures related to externally
funded development contracts has been classified as cost of
revenues (rather than as R&D expenses). Additionally, a
portion of R&D expenses was offset by cost-sharing funding.
Our R&D expenditures are summarized as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
R&D expenses per consolidated statements of operations
|
|
$
|
23,593
|
|
|
$
|
19,675
|
|
R&D expenditures reclassified as cost of revenues
|
|
|
14,869
|
|
|
|
18,720
|
|
R&D expenditures offset by cost-sharing funding
|
|
|
971
|
|
|
|
1,129
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregated R&D expenses
|
|
$
|
39,433
|
|
|
$
|
39,524
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44
R&D expenses (exclusive of amounts classified as cost of
revenues and amounts offset by cost-sharing funding) increased
by 20% to $23.6 million, or 7% of revenue, for fiscal 2009
from $19.7 million, or 11% of revenue, for fiscal 2008. The
increase in R&D expenses was driven primarily by increased
headcount and related labor spending, as well as added material
and overhead spending to support new product development in our
AMSC Power Systems business unit. The decrease in R&D
expenditures reclassified to cost of revenues was a result of
decreased efforts under our government funded contracts in our
AMSC Superconductors business unit compared to the prior year
periods. Aggregated R&D expenses, which include amounts
classified as cost of revenues and amounts offset by
cost-sharing funding, remained flat at $39.4 million or 12%
of revenue, for fiscal 2009, compared to $39.5 million, or
22% of revenue, for fiscal 2008.
Selling,
general, and administrative
SG&A expenses increased by 34% to $50.4 million, or
16% of revenue, in fiscal 2009 from $37.5 million, or 21%
of revenue, for fiscal 2008. The increase in SG&A expenses
was due primarily to higher stock-based compensation expense and
higher labor and related costs driven by headcount growth in
fiscal 2009, partially offset by a reduction in bad debt expense.
Amortization
of acquisition related intangibles
In both fiscal 2009 and 2008, we recorded $1.8 million in
amortization related to our contractual relationships/backlog,
customer relationships, core technology and know-how, trade
names and trademark intangible assets. These intangible assets
are a result of our Windtec and PQS acquisitions.
Restructuring
and impairments
Aggregate restructuring charges associated with the Fiscal 2007
Plan were $7.9 million, of which $0.5 million was
recorded in fiscal 2009 and $1.0 million in fiscal 2008
related to the closure of our Westborough, Massachusetts
facility.
All restructuring charges associated with the Fiscal 2007 Plan
have resulted in cash disbursements and had been completed at
the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2009. Cash payments
under this plan were $2.6 million in fiscal 2009 and
$3.9 million in fiscal 2008.
Operating
income (loss)
Our operating income (loss) is summarized as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
77,604
|
|
|
$
|
26,492
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
(24,432
|
)
|
|
|
(23,655
|
)
|
Unallocated corporate expenses
|
|
|
(14,511
|
)
|
|
|
(11,033
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
38,661
|
|
|
$
|
(8,196
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems operating income increased to
$77.6 million in fiscal 2009 from $26.5 million in
fiscal 2008. The increase in fiscal 2009 was primarily the
result of higher sales and gross margin, as described above.
AMSC Superconductors operating loss increased to
$24.4 million in fiscal 2009 from $23.7 million in
fiscal 2008. The increase in operating loss for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010 is primarily due to lower sales and
higher expensed material costs.
Unallocated corporate expenses include stock-based compensation
expense of $13.5 million for fiscal 2009 compared to
$9.7 million for fiscal 2008. Unallocated corporate
expenses also include restructuring charges related primarily to
the closure of our facility in Westborough, Massachusetts of
$0.5 million for fiscal 2009 and $1.0 million for 2008.
45
Interest
income, net
Interest income, net, decreased to $0.8 million income, net
for fiscal 2009 from $2.8 million income, net in fiscal
2008, primarily due to lower interest rates, as we invested in
more conservative assets due to the economic environment.
Other
income (expense), net
Other income (expense), net, was $2.7 million in fiscal
2009, compared to $2.5 million in fiscal 2008. Other income
(expense), net, for fiscal 2009 primarily relates to net foreign
currency transaction and translation gains and losses as well as
net realized and unrealized gains and losses on hedging
contracts. Other income (expense), net, for fiscal 2008
primarily relates to net foreign currency transaction and
translation gains and losses as well as $1.3 million
charged to expense from
mark-to-market
adjustments on a warrant that had been held by Provident Premier
Master Fund.
Income
Taxes
We recorded income tax expense of $20.5 million during
fiscal 2009 and $8.7 million during fiscal 2008. Income tax
expense in both periods was driven by income generated in
foreign jurisdictions. We incurred losses in the United States
in fiscal 2009 and 2008 for which no tax benefit was recognized.
Non-GAAP Measures
Generally, a non-GAAP financial measure is a numerical measure
of a companys performance, financial position or cash flow
that either excludes or includes amounts that are not normally
excluded or included in the most directly comparable measure
calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP. The non-GAAP
measures included in this
Form 10-K,
however, should be considered in addition to, and not as a
substitute for or superior to the comparable measure prepared in
accordance with GAAP.
We define non-GAAP net (loss) income as net (loss) income before
amortization of acquisition-related intangibles, restructuring
and impairments, stock-based compensation, other unusual charges
and any tax effects related to these items. We believe non-GAAP
net (loss) income assists management and investors in comparing
our performance across reporting periods on a consistent basis
by excluding these non-cash or non-recurring charges that we do
not believe are indicative of our core operating performance. We
also regard non-GAAP net (loss) income as a useful measure of
operating performance which more closely aligns net (loss)
income with cash used in/provided by continuing operations. In
addition, we use non-GAAP net (loss) income as a factor in
evaluating managements performance when determining
incentive compensation and to evaluate the effectiveness of our
business strategies. A reconciliation of non-GAAP to GAAP net
(loss) income is set forth in the table below (in thousands,
except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,248
|
|
|
$
|
(16,635
|
)
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment
|
|
|
49,955
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
Provision for excess and obsolete inventory
|
|
|
63,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses on purchase commitments
|
|
|
38,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write-off of prepaid value added taxes
|
|
|
5,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
13,412
|
|
|
|
13,494
|
|
|
|
9,672
|
|
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles
|
|
|
1,549
|
|
|
|
1,827
|
|
|
|
1,848
|
|
Re-valuation of warrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,335
|
|
Tax effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(367
|
)
|
|
|
(373
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(12,818
|
)
|
|
$
|
31,653
|
|
|
$
|
(3,123
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP (loss) earnings per share
|
|
$
|
(0.27
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.70
|
|
|
$
|
(0.07
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding*
|
|
|
47,104
|
|
|
|
45,290
|
|
|
|
42,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Diluted shares are used for periods where net income is
generated. |
46
We generated non-GAAP net loss of ($12.8) million, or
($0.27) per share, for fiscal 2010, compared to
$31.7 million, or $0.70 per share, for fiscal 2009 and a
non-GAAP net loss of ($3.1) million, or ($0.07) per share,
for fiscal 2008. The decrease in non-GAAP net income in fiscal
2010 over 2009 was primarily related to an increased expense
base assuming a normalized business relationship with Sinovel
and shipments of $65.9 million to certain Chinese customers
in fiscal 2010 not recognized as revenue as collectability was
not reasonably assured and in some cases, the fee for shipments
of products to these customers was not fixed or determinable at
the time of shipment. The increase in non-GAAP net income in
fiscal 2009 over 2008 was driven primarily by higher net income.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
At March 31, 2011, we had cash, cash equivalents,
marketable securities and restricted cash of
$245.5 million, compared to $155.1 million at
March 31, 2010, an increase of $90.4 million. Our
cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and restricted
cash are summarized as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
123,783
|
|
|
$
|
87,594
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
116,126
|
|
|
|
61,811
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
5,566
|
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and
restricted cash
|
|
$
|
245,475
|
|
|
$
|
155,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities
and restricted cash was due primarily to the net proceeds of
$155.2 million from our public equity offering of common
stock which closed in November 2010, (see Note 11,
Stockholders Equity, to our consolidated
financial statements, for further discussion), offset by an
increase in cash used by operations and capital expenditures
made in support of our effort to scale up our
Amperiumtm
wire capacity.
For fiscal 2010, net cash used in operating activities was
$22.8 million, compared to cash provided by operating
activities of $40.7 million in fiscal 2009. The increase in
cash used by operations is due primarily to a decrease in net
income of $202.5 million due primarily to the impact of the
restatement and other material charges recorded in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2010 described above, an increase in the cash
used in working capital of $28.9 million, partially offset
by non-cash asset write-offs, including goodwill and long-lived
asset impairment of $50.0 million, an increase in the
provisions for excess and obsolete inventory of
$63.9 million, an increase in losses on purchase
commitments of $38.8 million and a write-off of certain
prepaid value added taxes of $5.9 million.
For fiscal 2010, net cash used in investing activities was
$104.8 million, compared to $40.0 million used in
fiscal 2009. The increase in cash used in investing activities
was driven primarily by an increase in the net purchases of
marketable securities of $30.5 million, an increase in
capital expenditures of $24.3 and an increase of
$8.9 million used to purchase minority investments.
For fiscal 2010, cash provided by financing activities was
$163.1 million, compared to $19.0 million provided in
fiscal 2009. The increase in cash provided by financing
activities is primarily due to the net proceeds from our public
equity offering of $155.2 million offset by a decrease in
proceeds from the exercise of employee stock options of
$11.2 million.
As of March 31, 2011, we had nine performance bonds on
behalf of AMSC Windtec and our wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary,
Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co. Ltd (AMSC China), in
support of customer contracts to guarantee supply of core
components and software. The total value of the outstanding
performance bonds is $2.6 million and they expire at
various dates through March 2014. In the event that the payment
is made in accordance with the requirements of any of these
performance bonds, we would record the payment as an offset to
revenue.
At March 31, 2011 and 2010, we had $5.6 million and
$5.7 million, respectively, of restricted cash included in
current assets, which includes the restricted cash securing
letters of credit for various supply contracts. We also had an
additional $10.3 million and $1.8 million in bank
guarantees and letters of credit supported by unsecured lines of
credit, at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
47
We had unused, unsecured lines of credit consisting of RMB
114.8 million (approximately $17.5 million in China
and 1.6 million (approximately $2.3 million in
Austria as of March 31, 2011. In July 2011, the Bank of
China informed us that our unsecured credit line of
approximately RMB 100.0 million (approximately
$15.2 million), which expired in August 2011, would not be
renewed.
At March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, we had cash, cash
equivalents, marketable securities and restricted cash of
$245.5 million and $166.2 million, respectively. Our
business plan anticipates a substantial decline in revenues and
a substantial use of cash from operations in our fiscal year
ending March 31, 2012, particularly in light of the
difficult and uncertain current economic environment, the
significant restructuring actions undertaken and the uncertainty
surrounding Sinovel and certain of our other customers in China.
Our plan includes a significant restructuring undertaken in
August 2011, resulting in the elimination of approximately 150
positions worldwide. Since April 1, 2011, we have
eliminated approximately 30% of our workforce and we expect to
save approximately $30 million annually as a result of
these reductions. Additional actions include further monitoring
of our operating results against expectations and, if required,
further reducing operating costs and capital spending if events
warrant in order to enhance liquidity. Due to the disruption in
our relationship with Sinovel, we will need to raise additional
capital in order to complete the planned acquisition of The
Switch in order to have sufficient cash to fund our working
capital, capital expenditures and other cash requirements. We
may seek this financing through public or private equity
offerings, debt financings, or other financing alternatives,
however, there can be no assurance that financing will be
available on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to raise
sufficient additional funds and terminate the purchase agreement
for the acquisition of The Switch, we will likely forfeit the
$20.6 million cash advance payment we paid to the
shareholders of The Switch on June 29, 2011. In the event
that we do not receive any additional payments from Sinovel and
we neither complete the planned acquisition of The Switch, nor
raise additional capital, we believe that our available cash,
together with additional reductions in operating costs and
capital expenditures as necessary will be sufficient to fund our
operations, capital expenditures and other cash requirements
through at least March 31, 2012. Our long-term liquidity is
dependent on our ability to profitably grow our revenues or
raise additional capital as required.
Between April 6, 2011 and April 29, 2011, six putative
securities class action complaints were filed against us and two
of our officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On May 12, 2011, an additional
complaint was filed against us, our officers and directors, and
the underwriters who participated in our November 12, 2010
securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated
these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al. Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On June 16, 2011, the court appointed the law firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel and the
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiff. On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint against us, our officers and
directors, and the underwriters who participated in our
November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the relevant class
period, we and our officers omitted to state material facts and
made materially false and misleading statements relating to,
among other things, our projected and recognized revenues and
earnings, as well as our relationship with Sinovel Wind Group
Co., Ltd. that artificially inflated the value of our stock
price. The complaint further alleges that our November 12,
2010 securities offering contained untrue statements of material
facts and omitted to state material facts required to be stated
therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of
our November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys fees.
On April 27, 2011, a putative shareholder derivative
complaint was filed against us (as a nominal defendant) and each
of our current directors in Superior Court for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Worcester County. The case is captioned
Segel v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-0787.
Between May 4, 2011 and June 17, 2011, four additional
putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against us and certain of our directors and officers. The cases
are captioned Weakley v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784;
Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al.,
Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10825;
Connors v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10910;
and Hurd v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-11102.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint
48
and refiled its complaint in Superior Court for the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, on June 3, 2011. The
case is now captioned Marlborough Family Revocable
Trust v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The Superior Court in Worcester County granted the
plaintiffs motion to transfer in Segel v. Yurek et
al. to the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23, 2011, and that
matter is now captioned Segel v. Yurek et al.,
Docket
No. 11-2269.
On July 5, 2011, the Weakley, Connors and
Hurd actions were consolidated in United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. That matter is now
captioned In re American Superconductor Corporation
Derivative Litigation, Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint and, on June 3, 2011, refiled its
complaint in Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The Superior Court in Worcester
County granted the plaintiffs motion to transfer in
Segel v. Yurek et al. to the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23,
2011. On September 7, 2011, the Marlborough and
Segel actions were consolidated in Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The case is now
captioned Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek,
et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The allegations of the derivative complaints mirror the
allegations made in the putative class action complaints
described above. The plaintiffs purport to assert claims against
the director defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of us, as well as an award of
costs and expenses, including attorneys fees.
If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, we estimate and
disclose the possible loss or range of loss. With respect to the
above referenced litigation matters, such an estimate cannot be
made. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to
meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this
stage of these litigation matters, including that: the
proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are
significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information
obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the
methodology for calculation of rescission and the related
statutory interest rate. In addition, with respect to claims
where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or
damages has been specified. Therefore, we are unable at this
time to estimate possible losses. We believe that these
litigations are without merit, and we intend to defend these
actions vigorously.
On September 13, 2011, we commenced a series of legal
actions in China against Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd.
(Sinovel). Our Chinese subsidiary, Suzhou AMSC
Superconductor Co. Ltd. (AMSC China), filed a claim
for arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration Commission in
accordance with the terms of our supply contracts with Sinovel.
On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to accept contracted
shipments of 1.5 megawatt (MW) and 3 MW wind turbine core
electrical components and spare parts that we were prepared to
deliver. We allege that these actions constitute material
breaches of our contracts because Sinovel did not give us notice
that it intended to delay deliveries as required under the
contracts. Moreover, we allege that Sinovel has refused to pay
past due amounts for prior shipments of core electrical
components and spare parts. We are seeking compensation for past
product shipments (including interest) and monetary damages due
to Sinovels breaches of our contracts. We are also seeking
specific performance of our existing contracts as well as
reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses with respect
to the arbitration.
We also submitted a civil action application to the Beijing
No. 1 Intermediate Peoples Court against Sinovel for
software copyright infringement. The application alleges
Sinovels unauthorized use of portions of our wind turbine
control software source code developed for Sinovels 1.5MW
wind turbines and the binary code, or upper layer, of our
software for the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines.
In July 2011, a former employee of our AMSC Windtec GmbH
subsidiary was arrested in Austria and is currently awaiting
trial on charges of economic espionage and fraudulent
manipulation of data. As a result of our internal investigation
and a criminal investigation conducted by Austrian authorities,
we believe that this former employee was contracted by Sinovel
through an intermediary while employed by us and improperly
obtained and transferred to Sinovel portions of our wind turbine
control software source code developed for Sinovels 1.5MW
wind turbines. Moreover, we believe the former employee
illegally used source code to develop for Sinovel a software
modification to circumvent the encryption and remove technical
protection measures on the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind
turbines in the field. We are seeking a cease and desist order
with respect to the unauthorized copying, installation and use
of our software, monetary damages for our economic losses and
reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses.
49
The court must accept the application in order for the case to
proceed, and there can be no assurance that the court will do so.
We submitted a civil action application to the Beijing Higher
Peoples Court against Sinovel and certain of its employees
for trade secret infringement. The application alleges the
defendants unauthorized use of portions of our wind
turbine control software source code developed for
Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines as described above with
respect to the Copyright Action. We are seeking monetary damages
for the trade secret infringement as well as reimbursement of
all costs and reasonable expenses. The court must accept the
application in order for the case to proceed, and there can be
no assurance that the court will do so.
On September 16, 2011, we filed a civil copyright
infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1
Intermediate Peoples Court against Dalian Guotong Electric
Co. Ltd. (Guotong), a supplier of power converter
products to Sinovel, and Huaneng Hainan Power, Inc., a wind farm
operator that has purchased Sinovel wind turbines containing
Goutong power converter products. The application alleges that
our PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind turbines have been
replaced by converters produced by Guotong. Because the Guotong
converters are being used in wind turbines containing our wind
turbine control software, we believe that our copyrighted
software is being infringed. We are seeking a cease and desist
order with respect to the unauthorized use of our software,
monetary damages for our economic losses (with respect to
Guotong only) and reimbursement of all costs and reasonable
expenses.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined
under SEC rules, except as with respect to the performance bonds
discussed below. We occasionally enter into construction
contracts that include a performance bond. As these contracts
progress, we continually assess the probability of a payout from
the performance bond. Should we determine that such a payout is
probable, we would record a liability.
In addition, we have various contractual arrangements in which
minimum quantities of goods or services have been committed to
be purchased on an annual basis.
Contractual
Obligations
Contractual obligations represent future cash commitments and
liabilities under agreements with third parties. Operating
leases include minimum payments under leases for our facilities
and certain equipment, see Item 2, Properties.
Purchase commitments represent enforceable and legally binding
agreements with suppliers to purchase goods or services. As of
March 31, 2011, we are committed to make the following
payments under contractual obligations (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
Purchase commitments
|
|
$
|
87,079
|
|
|
$
|
83,553
|
|
|
$
|
3,526
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Operating leases (rent)
|
|
|
6,577
|
|
|
|
2,511
|
|
|
|
2,394
|
|
|
|
1,402
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
Operating leases (other)
|
|
|
287
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual obligations
|
|
$
|
93,943
|
|
|
$
|
86,161
|
|
|
$
|
6,110
|
|
|
$
|
1,402
|
|
|
$
|
270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During fiscal 2010, we recorded losses on the purchase
commitments noted above of $38.8 million to cost of
revenues as a result of commitments to purchase materials that
were in excess of our estimated future proceeds from sales to
certain of our customers in China.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In October 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2009-13,
Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, pertaining to
the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple
deliverables. Specifically, the new standard requires an entity
to allocate consideration at the inception of an arrangement to
all of its deliverables based on their relative selling prices.
In the absence of the vendor-specific objective evidence
50
or third-party evidence of the selling prices, consideration
must be allocated to the deliverables based on managements
best estimate of the selling prices. In addition, the new
standard eliminates the use of the residual method of
allocation. The new accounting standard supersedes the prior
multiple element revenue arrangement accounting rules that were
previously used. We adopted this new accounting standard on
April 1, 2010 using the prospective method and the adoption
did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
In January 2010, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU)
No. 2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This
standard amends the disclosure guidance with respect to fair
value measurements for both interim and annual reporting
periods. Specifically, this standard requires new disclosures
for significant transfers of assets or liabilities between
Level 1 and Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy;
separate disclosures for purchases, sales, issuance and
settlements of Level 3 fair value items on a gross, rather
than net basis; and more robust disclosure of the valuation
techniques and inputs used to measure Level 2 and
Level 3 assets and liabilities. We have included these new
disclosures, as applicable, in Note 3, Marketable
Securities and Fair Value Disclosures, of our consolidated
financial statements.
In December 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2010-29,
Business Combinations (Topic 805), Disclosure of
Supplementary Pro forma Information for Business Combinations a
consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force (ASC
2010-29).
This amendment clarifies the periods for which pro forma
financial information is presented. The disclosures include pro
forma revenue and earnings of the combined entity for the
current reporting period as though the acquisition date for all
business combinations that occurred during the year had been as
of the beginning of the annual reporting period. If comparative
financial statements are presented, the pro forma revenue and
earnings of the combined entity for the comparable prior
reporting period should be reported as though the acquisition
date for all business combinations that occurred during the
current year had been as of the beginning of the comparable
prior annual reporting period. ASU
2010-29 is
effective prospectively for business combinations that occur on
or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period
beginning after December 15, 2010. We do not expect the
adoption of ASU
2011-04 to
have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows.
In June 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU)
No. 2011-05,
Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of
Comprehensive Income. ASU
2011-05
requires entities to present net income and other comprehensive
income in either a single continuous statement or in two
separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other
comprehensive income. ASU
2011-05 is
effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2011. We do not expect the adoption of ASU
2011-04 to
have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, financial condition, or cash flows.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires
that we make estimates and judgments that affect the reported
amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, and
related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We base
our estimates on historical experience and various other
assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results
may differ under different assumptions or conditions. Our
accounting policies that involve the most significant judgments
and estimates are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue recognition;
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable;
|
|
|
|
Inventory;
|
|
|
|
Purchase commitments;
|
|
|
|
Goodwill;
|
|
|
|
Valuation of long-lived assets;
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes;
|
|
|
|
Acquisition accounting;
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation;
|
|
|
|
Derivatives;
|
|
|
|
Contingencies; and
|
|
|
|
Product warranty
|
Revenue
recognition
We recognize revenue for product sales upon customer acceptance,
which can occur at the time of delivery, installation, or
post-installation, where applicable, provided persuasive
evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the
sales price is fixed or determinable and collectability is
reasonably assured. Existing customers are subject to ongoing
credit evaluations based on payment history and other factors.
If it is determined during the arrangement that collectability
is not reasonably assured, revenue is recognized on a cash basis
of accounting. Certain of our contracts involve retention
amounts which are contingent upon meeting certain performance
requirements through the expiration of the contract warranty
periods. For contractual arrangements that involve retention, we
recognize revenue for these amounts when upon the expiration of
the warranty period, meeting the performance requirements and
when collection of the fee is reasonably assured.
During fiscal 2010, we determined that revenues from certain of
our customers in China during the second and third quarters were
incorrectly recorded as the fee was not fixed or determinable or
collectability was not reasonably assured at the time of
shipment. For these customers, we restated revenues based on a
cash basis of accounting with cash applied first against
accounts receivable balances, as in the case of Sinovel as of
September 30, 2010, then costs of shipments (inventory and
value added taxes) before recognizing any gross margin. We had
previously recognized revenues in the quarters ended
September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010 based on the
receipt of shipments by these customers but prior to the receipt
of payment for such shipments.
For certain arrangements, such as prototype development
contracts and certain product sales, we record revenues using
the
percentage-of-completion
method, measured by the relationship of costs incurred to total
estimated contract costs.
Percentage-of-completion
revenue recognition accounting is predominantly used on certain
turnkey power systems installations for electric utilities and
long-term prototype development contracts with the
U.S. government. We follow this method since reasonably
dependable estimates of the revenues and costs applicable to
various stages of a contract can be made. However, the ability
to reliably estimate total costs at completion is challenging,
especially on long-term prototype development contracts, and
could result in future changes in contract estimates. For
contracts where reasonably dependable estimates of the revenues
and costs cannot be made, we follow the completed-contract
method.
For sales that involve the delivery of multiple elements, we
allocate revenue to each undelivered element based on the
elements fair value as determined by vendor-specific
objective evidence (VSOE), which is the price
charged when that element is sold separately, or third-party
evidence (TPE). When VSOE and TPE are unavailable,
fair value is based on our best estimate of selling price. When
our estimates are used to determine fair value, management makes
its estimates using reasonable and objective evidence to
determine the price. We review VSOE and TPE at least annually.
If we conclude we are unable to establish fair values for one or
more undelivered elements within a multiple-element arrangement
using VSOE then we use TPE or our best estimate of the selling
price for that unit of accounting, being the price at which the
vendor would transact if the unit of accounting were sold by the
vendor regularly on a standalone basis. We adopted this new
accounting standard on April 1, 2010 using the prospective
method, and the adoption did not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
We occasionally enter into construction contracts that include a
performance bond or similar security. As these contracts
progress, we continually assess the probability of a payout from
these securities. Should we determine that such a payout is
likely, we would record a liability and reduce revenue to the
extent a liability is recorded.
52
We enter into certain arrangements to license our technologies
and to provide training services. We have determined that the
license has no stand alone value to the customer and is not
separable from the training. Accordingly, we account for these
arrangements as a single unit of accounting, following the
revenue recognition pattern of the last deliverable of the
arrangement and recognize revenue over the period of our
performance and milestones that have been achieved. Costs for
these arrangements are expensed as incurred.
We have elected to record taxes collected from customers on a
net basis and do not include tax amounts in revenue or costs of
revenue.
Customer deposits received in advance of revenue recognition are
recorded as deferred revenue until customer acceptance is
received. Deferred revenue also represents the amount billed to
and/or
collected from commercial and government customers on contracts
which permit billings to occur in advance of contract
performance/revenue recognition.
Accounts
Receivable
Accounts receivable consist of amounts owed by commercial
companies and government agencies. Accounts receivable are
stated net of allowances for doubtful accounts. Our accounts
receivable relate principally to a limited number of customers.
Changes in the financial condition or operations of our
customers may result in increased delayed payments or
non-payments which would adversely impact our cash flows from
operating activities
and/or our
results of operations. As such we may require collateral,
advanced payment or other security based upon the customer
history
and/or
creditworthiness. In determining the allowance for doubtful
accounts, we evaluate the collectability of accounts receivable
based primarily on the probability of recoverability based on
historical collection and write-off experience, the age of past
due receivables, specific customer circumstances, and current
economic trends. If the financial condition of our customers
were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability
to make payment, additional allowances may be required. Failure
to accurately estimate the losses for doubtful accounts and
ensure that payments are received on a timely basis could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
Inventory
Inventories include material, direct labor and related
manufacturing overhead, and are stated at the lower of cost or
market determined on a
first-in,
first-out basis. We record inventory when we take delivery and
title to the product.
Program costs may be deferred and recorded as inventory on
contracts on which costs are incurred in excess of approved
contractual amounts
and/or
funding, if future recovery of the costs is deemed probable.
At each balance sheet date, we evaluate our ending inventories
for excess quantities and obsolescence. Inventories that
management consider excess or obsolete are written down.
Management considers forecasted demand in relation to the
inventory on hand, competitiveness of product offerings, market
conditions and product life cycles when determining excess and
obsolescence and net realizable value adjustments. Once
inventory is written down and a new cost basis is established,
it is not written back up if demand increases.
We recorded an inventory write-down of approximately
$63.9 million during fiscal 2010 based on our evaluation of
forecasted demand in relation to the inventory on hand and
market conditions surrounding its products as a result of the
assumption that Sinovel and certain other customers in China
will fail to meet its contractual obligations and demand that
was previously forecasted will fail to materialize. If in any
period we are able to sell inventories that were not valued or
that had been written down in a previous period, related
revenues would be recorded without any offsetting charge to cost
of revenues, resulting in a net benefit to its gross margin in
that period.
Purchase
commitments
We periodically enter into non-cancelable purchase contracts in
order to ensure the availability of materials to support
production of our products. Any commitments for products ordered
but not yet received is included as purchase commitments in our
contractual obligations table. We periodically assess the need
to provide for
53
impairment on these purchase contracts and record a loss on
purchase commitments when required. During fiscal 2010, we
recorded losses of $38.8 million to cost of revenues as a
result of commitments to purchase materials that were in excess
of our estimated future demand from certain of our customers in
China.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of cost over net assets of
acquired businesses that are consolidated. We perform our annual
assessment of goodwill on March 31 each fiscal year and whenever
events or changes in circumstances or a triggering event
indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable.
Determining whether a triggering event has occurred often
involves significant judgment from management. The applicable
accounting guidance requires that a two-step impairment test be
performed on goodwill. In the first step, the fair value of each
reporting unit is compared to its carrying value. If the fair
value of a reporting unit exceeds the carrying value of that
unit, goodwill is not impaired and no further testing is
required. If the carrying value of the reporting unit exceeds
the fair value of that unit, then a second step must be
performed to determine the implied fair value of the reporting
entitys goodwill. The second step of the goodwill
impairment analysis requires the allocation of the fair value of
the reporting unit to all of the assets and liabilities of that
reporting unit as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a
business combination. If the carrying value of a reporting
units goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, then an
impairment loss equal to the difference is recorded.
We have determined that we have two reporting units to which
goodwill is allocated Windtec, China and
International Subsidiaries (Windtec) and Power
Systems North America (PSNA). The Superconductor
reporting unit does not have goodwill. Determining the fair
value of a reporting unit is judgmental in nature, and involves
the use of significant estimates and assumptions. These
estimates and assumptions may include revenue growth rates and
operating margins used to calculate projected future cash flows,
risk-adjusted discount rates, future economic and market
conditions, the determination of appropriate market comparables
as well as the fair value of individual assets and liabilities.
Consistent with prior years, we used an income approach,
specifically a discounted cash flow (DCF) method, to
establish the fair value of the reporting units as of
March 31, 2011. As in prior years, we used the most recent
five year strategic plan approved by the Board of Directors as
the initial basis of our analysis. Currently, we are not able to
estimate additional cash flows to replace the loss of Sinovel
revenues. As a result, the DCF for both reporting units yielded
a negative fair value. In order to more appropriately consider
fair values of the reporting units, we assessed the fair value
of our Windtec and PSNA reporting units using a net asset
approach whereby we estimated the fair value of the assets and
liabilities attributable to each of the reporting units. Under
this approach, the fair value of each asset and liability within
Windtec and PSNA were determined based on the methodology we
believe is most appropriate for each asset and liability.
Significant estimates and judgments were involved in this
assessment. Those estimates and judgments include the use of
valuation methods for determining the fair value of the
intangible assets assigned to each of the reporting units and
the applicable assumptions included in those valuation methods
such as financial projections, discount rates, royalty rates,
tax rates and other related assumptions. Other significant
estimates and judgments include the assumptions utilized to
arrive at the market values of the fixed assets assigned to
these reporting units and the realizability of other assets
assigned to the reporting units.
We performed our annual assessment of goodwill of the Windtec
and PSNA reporting units on March 31, 2011. Our annual
assessment date corresponded with a triggering event caused by
the refusal by Sinovel to accept scheduled shipments from us on
March 31, 2011. As a result of reductions in our revenue
and operating forecasts related to Sinovel and certain of our
other customers in China, we determined that the goodwill
related to both the Windtec and PSNA reporting units were fully
impaired. Accordingly, we recorded impairment charges of
$42.1 million and $6.9 million for the Windtec and
PSNA reporting units, respectively, during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2010.
Valuation
of long-lived assets
We periodically evaluate our long-lived assets consisting
principally of fixed and amortizable intangible assets for
potential impairment. In accordance with the applicable
accounting guidance for the treatment of long-lived assets, we
review the carrying value of our long-lived assets or asset
group that is held and used, including intangible assets subject
to amortization, for impairment whenever events and
circumstances indicate that the carrying value of
54
the assets may not be recoverable. Under the held and used
approach, the asset or asset group to be tested for impairment
should represent the lowest level for which identifiable cash
flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups
of assets and liabilities. The determination of our asset groups
involves a significant amount of judgment, assumptions, and
estimates. We have three asset groups, PSNA, Windtec and
Superconductor based on the fact that the individual subsidiary
companies that support each reporting unit are dependent on one
another such that the lowest level of largely independent cash
flows is the reporting unit level. We evaluate our long-lived
assets whenever events or circumstances suggest that the
carrying amount of an asset or group of assets may not be
recoverable from the estimated undiscounted future cash flows.
Our judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators
are based on market and operational performance. Indicators of
potential impairment include:
|
|
|
|
|
a significant change in the manner in which an asset is used;
|
|
|
|
a significant decrease in the market value of an asset;
|
|
|
|
identification of other impaired assets within a reporting unit;
|
|
|
|
a significant adverse change in its business or the industry in
which it is sold;
|
|
|
|
a current period operating cash flow loss combined with a
history of operating or cash flow losses or a projection or
forecast that demonstrates continuing losses associated with the
asset; and
|
|
|
|
significant advances in our technologies that require changes in
our manufacturing process.
|
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, as a result of reductions
in our revenue and cash flow forecasts related to Sinovel and
certain of our other customers in China as well as potential
goodwill impairment, we concluded that there were indicators of
potential impairment of certain long-lived assets. As a result,
we conducted an assessment of the recoverability of these
assets. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparison
of the carrying value of the assets to the undiscounted cash
flows estimated to be generated by those assets over their
remaining book useful lives. Based on the initial impairment
testing, which indicated that the assets were not recoverable,
there was an indication that our Windtec asset group and our
corporate long-lived assets were impaired and, as a result, we
performed additional analysis. An evaluation of the level of
impairment, was made with respect to the Windtec asset group and
the corporate long-lived assets by comparing the fair value of
the long-lived assets in the Windtec asset group against their
carrying value and by comparing the fair value of all of our
long-lived assets against their carrying value.
The fair values of our property and equipment were based on what
we could reasonably expect to sell each asset for in an orderly
liquidation setting. The determination of the fair values of our
property and equipment includes estimates and judgments
regarding the marketability and ultimate sales price of
individual assets. We utilized market data and approximations
from comparable analyses to arrive at the estimated fair values
of our property and equipment. The fair values of amortizable
intangible assets related to completed technology and trade
names were determined using the relief-from-royalty method over
the estimated economic lives of those assets from the
perspective of a market participant. The fair values of
amortizable intangible assets related to customer relationships
and backlog were determined using the excess earnings method
over the estimated economic lives of those assets from the
perspective of a market participant. The determination of the
fair values of our amortizable intangible assets involves
significant judgments, assumptions, and estimates, including
projections of future cash flows, the percentage of future
revenues and cash flows attributable to the intangible assets
and asset lives used to generate future cash flows. We used a
revised five year plan based on the assumption that Sinovel will
not be a customer. Future cash flows are based upon revenue
growth rate assumptions consistent with industry expectations
for the markets that our asset groups operate in.
As a result of our evaluation of the recoverability of our
long-lived assets and amortizable intangible assets during the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, we determined that certain of our
property, plant and equipment and intangible assets in our
Windtec asset group were impaired as their carrying value
exceeded their fair value. Accordingly, we recorded an
impairment charge of $1.0 million during the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2010 of which $0.6 million related to our
property and equipment and $0.4 million related to our
customer-related intangibles.
55
Further, we determined through this analysis that our corporate
long-lived assets were not impaired as the fair values of all of
our long-lived assets exceeded their carrying values.
Income
taxes
Our provision for income taxes is composed of a current and a
deferred portion. The current income tax provision is calculated
as the estimated taxes payable or refundable on tax returns for
the current year. The deferred income tax provision is
calculated for the estimated future tax effects attributable to
temporary differences and carryforwards using expected tax rates
in effect in the years during which the differences are expected
to reverse.
We regularly assess our ability to realize our deferred tax
assets. Assessments of the realization of deferred tax assets
require that management consider all available evidence, both
positive and negative, and make significant judgments about many
factors, including the amount and likelihood of future taxable
income. Based on all the available evidence, we have recorded
valuation allowances to reduce our deferred tax assets to the
amount that is more likely than not to be realizable due to the
taxable losses that have been incurred since our inception and
uncertainty around our future profitability.
Accounting for income taxes requires a two-step approach to
recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions. The first
step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by
determining if, based on the technical merits, it is more likely
than not that the position will be sustained upon audit,
including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes,
if any. The second step is to measure the tax benefit as the
largest amount that is more than 50% likely of being realized
upon ultimate settlement. We re-evaluate these uncertain tax
positions on a quarterly basis. This evaluation is based on
factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts or
circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues
under audit and new audit activity. Any changes in these factors
could result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an
additional charge to the tax provision. We include interest and
penalties related to gross unrecognized tax benefits within the
provision for income taxes, (See Note 10, Income
Taxes, of our consolidated financial statements for
further information regarding our income tax assumptions and
expenses.)
Acquisition
accounting
Acquisitions completed prior to April 1, 2009 were
accounted for using the purchase method per GAAP. Acquisitions
completed subsequent to April 1, 2009 will be accounted for
under the acquisition method. Under the purchase method,
contingent consideration is recorded as goodwill only in the
period in which the consideration is earned. Under the
acquisition method, we are required to estimate the fair value
of contingent consideration as an assumed liability on the
acquisition date by estimating the amount of the consideration
and probability of the contingencies being met. This estimate is
recorded as goodwill on the acquisition date and its value is
assessed at each reporting date. Any subsequent change to the
estimated fair value is reflected in earnings and not in
goodwill. Under the purchase method, we were able to record
transaction costs related to the completion of the acquisition
as goodwill. Under the acquisition method, we are required to
expense these costs as they are incurred. We have not completed
an acquisition subsequent to April 1, 2009.
Stock-based
compensation
We measure compensation cost arising from the grant of
share-based payments to employees at fair value and recognize
such cost over the period during which the employee is required
to provide service in exchange for the award, usually the
vesting period. Total stock-based compensation expense
recognized during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011,
2010, and 2009 was $13.4 million, $13.5 million, and
$9.7 million, respectively. For awards with service
conditions only, we recognize compensation cost on a
straight-line basis over the requisite service/vesting period.
We use the lattice model to value market condition awards. For
awards with market conditions with a single cliff vest feature,
we recognize compensation costs on a straight-line basis over
the requisite service period. For awards with performance
condition, accruals of compensation cost are made based on the
probable outcome of the performance conditions. The cumulative
effect of changes in the probability outcomes are recorded in
the period in which the changes occur.
56
Determining the appropriate fair value model and calculating the
fair value of share-based payment awards requires the input of
highly subjective assumptions, including the expected life of
the share-based payment awards and stock price volatility.
Management determined that expected volatility rates should be
estimated based on historical and implied volatilities of our
common stock. The expected term represents the average time that
the options that vest are expected to be outstanding based on
the vesting provisions and our historical exercise, cancellation
and expiration patterns. The assumptions used in calculating the
fair value of share-based payment awards represent
managements best estimates, but these estimates involve
inherent uncertainties and the application of management
judgment. As a result, if circumstances change and we use
different assumptions, our stock-based compensation expense
could be materially different in the future. In addition, we are
required to estimate an expected forfeiture rate and only
recognize expense for those shares expected to vest. If our
actual forfeiture rate is materially different from our
estimate, the stock-based compensation expense could be
significantly different from what we have recorded in the
current period, (See Note 11, Stockholders
Equity, of our consolidated financial statements for
further information regarding our stock-based compensation
assumptions and expenses.)
Derivatives
Our foreign currency risk management strategy is principally
designed to mitigate the potential financial impact of changes
in the value of transactions and balances denominated in foreign
currency resulting from changes in foreign currency exchange
rates. Our foreign currency hedging program uses both forward
contracts and currency options to manage the foreign currency
exposures that exist as part of its ongoing business operations.
We recognize all derivatives, including forward
currency-exchange contracts, in the balance sheet at fair value.
We hedge a portion of our intercompany sales of inventory over a
maximum period of 15 months using forward foreign currency
exchange contracts, accounted for as cash flow hedges, to
mitigate the impact of volatility associated with foreign
currency transactions.
For forward foreign exchange contracts that are designated as
cash flow hedges, if they are effective in offsetting the
variability of the hedged cash flows, and otherwise meet the
hedge accounting criteria, changes in the derivatives value are
not included in current earnings but are included in other
comprehensive income in stockholders equity. The changes
in fair value will subsequently be reclassified into earnings as
a component of cost of revenues, as applicable, when the
forecasted transaction occurs. Effectiveness is assessed at the
inception of the hedge and on a quarterly basis. To the extent
that a previously forecasted transaction is no longer an
effective hedge, any ineffectiveness measured in the hedging
relationship is recorded in earnings in the period the
ineffectiveness occurs. Realized gains and losses resulting from
these cash flow hedges offset the foreign exchange gains and
losses on the underlying transactions being hedged. Gains and
losses on derivatives not designated for hedge accounting or
representing either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components
excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in
other income (expense), net. The assessments determine whether
derivatives designated as qualifying hedges continue to be
highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows of
hedged items. Any ineffective portion of the change in fair
value is included in current period earnings. Cash flow hedge
accounting is deemed ineffective when the forecasted transaction
is no longer probable of occurring on the originally forecasted
date, or 60 days thereafter. We discontinued hedge
accounting for the forward foreign exchange contracts
outstanding designated as cash flow hedges as of March 31,
2011 based on our determination that the original forecasted
transactions were not probable of occurring by the end of the
originally specified time period. As a result, we reclassified
accumulated gains of $1.6 million from accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) to other income (expense), net, in
the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. At
March 31, 2011, the fair value of these forward foreign
exchange contracts was $2.0 million.
In addition to cash flow hedges, we also enter into foreign
currency forward exchange contracts to mitigate the impact of
foreign exchange risk related to non-functional currency
receivable balances in its foreign entities. We do not elect
hedge accounting treatment for these hedges and consequently,
changes in the fair value of these contracts are recorded within
other income (expense), net, in the period which they occur.
57
Contingencies
From time to time, we are involved in legal and administrative
proceedings and claims of various types. We record a liability
in our consolidated financial statements for these matters when
a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. We review these estimates each accounting
period as additional information is known and adjusts the loss
provision when appropriate. If the loss is not probable or
cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in
its consolidated financial statements. If, with respect to a
matter, it is not both probable to result in liability and the
amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, an estimate of
possible loss or range of loss shall be disclosed unless such an
estimate cannot be made. We do not recognize gain contingencies
until they are realized. Legal costs incurred in connection with
loss contingencies are expensed as incurred.
Product
Warranty
Warranty obligations are incurred in connection with the sale of
our products. We generally provide a one to three year warranty
on our products, commencing upon installation. The costs
incurred to provide for these warranty obligations are estimated
and recorded as an accrued liability at the time of sale. Future
warranty costs are estimated based on historical performance
rates and related costs to repair given products. The accounting
estimate related to product warranty involves judgment in
determining future estimated warranty costs. Should actual
performance rates or repair costs differ from estimates,
revision to the estimated warranty liability would be required.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
We face exposure to financial market risks, including adverse
movements in foreign currency exchange rates and changes in
interest rates. These exposures may change over time as our
business practices evolve and could have a material adverse
impact on our financial results.
Cash and
cash equivalents
Our exposure to market risk through financial instruments, such
as investments in marketable securities, is limited to interest
rate risk and is not material. Our investments in marketable
securities consist primarily of government-backed securities and
commercial paper and are designed, in order of priority, to
preserve principal, provide liquidity, and maximize income.
Investments are monitored to limit exposure to mortgage-backed
securities and similar instruments responsible for the recent
turmoil in the credit markets. Interest rates are variable and
fluctuate with current market conditions. We do not believe that
a 10% change in interest rates would have a material impact on
our financial position or results of operations.
Foreign
currency exchange risk
The functional currency of each of our foreign subsidiaries is
the U.S. dollar, except for AMSC Windtec, for which the
local currency (Euro) is the functional currency, and AMSC
China, for which the local currency (Renminbi) is the functional
currency. The assets and liabilities of AMSC Windtec and AMSC
China, are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange
rate in effect at the balance sheet date and income and expense
items are translated at average rates for the period. Cumulative
translation adjustments are excluded from net income (loss) and
shown as a separate component of stockholders equity.
We face exposure to movements in foreign currency exchange rates
whenever we, or any of our subsidiaries, enter into transactions
with third parties that are denominated in currencies other than
our functional currency. Intercompany transactions between
entities that use different functional currencies also expose us
to foreign currency risk. Gross margins of products we
manufacture in the U.S and sell in currencies other than the
U.S. dollar are also affected by foreign currency exchange
rate movements. In addition, a portion of our earnings is
generated by our foreign subsidiaries, whose functional
currencies are other than the U.S. dollar, and our revenues
and earnings could be materially impacted by movements in
foreign currency exchange rates upon the translation of the
earnings of such subsidiaries into the U.S. dollar.
58
Foreign currency transaction gains (losses), net of hedging
activities, are included in net income and were
$8.0 million, ($2.5) million and ($1.1) million
for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
Cash
Flow Hedges
At March 31, 2011, we had forward contracts outstanding to
hedge cash flow exposure at our wholly-owned Austrian
subsidiary, AMSC Windtec, with aggregate U.S. dollar
equivalent notional amounts of $40.9 million. These
contracts expire at various dates through March 2012. We
discontinued hedge accounting for the forward foreign exchange
contracts outstanding as of March 31, 2011 based on our
determination that the original forecasted transactions were no
longer considered probable of occurring by the end of the
originally specified time period. As a result, we reclassified
accumulated gains of $1.6 million from accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) to other income (expense), net, in
the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. At
March 31, 2011, the fair value of these forward foreign
exchange contracts was $2.0 million.
Balance
Sheet Hedges
In addition to cash flow hedges, we also enter into foreign
currency forward exchange contracts to mitigate the impact of
foreign exchange risk related to non-functional currency
receivable balances in our foreign entities. We do not elect
hedge accounting treatment for these hedges and consequently,
changes in the fair value of these contracts are recorded within
other income (expense), net, in the period which they occur. At
March 31, 2011, we had forward contracts outstanding with
aggregate U.S. dollar equivalent notional amounts of
$125.5 million. These contracts expired on April 29,
2011. At March 31, 2011 and 2010, the fair value of these
forward foreign exchange contracts was $1.1 million and
$0.2 million, respectively.
59
|
|
Item 8.
|
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
|
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
American Superconductor Corporation:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and
the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
(loss) income, stockholders equity and cash flows present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
American Superconductor Corporation and its subsidiaries at
March 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended March 31, 2011 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement
schedule listed in the index appearing under Item 15(a)(2)
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set
forth therein when read in conjunction with the related
consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the
Company did not maintain, in all material respects, effective
internal control over financial reporting as of March 31,
2011, based on criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO) because material weaknesses in internal control over
financial reporting related to revenue recognition, including
(i) identifying deviations from contractually established
payment terms, (ii) evaluation of the collectability of
amounts due from customers, (iii) insufficient compliment
of personnel involved with business in foreign locations with
the appropriate training in revenue recognition in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and
(iv) improper oversight and review of customer
relationships by senior management existed as of that date. A
material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such
that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will
not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material
weaknesses referred to above are described in Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing
under Item 9A. We considered these material weaknesses in
determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests
applied in our audit of the 2011 consolidated financial
statements and our opinion regarding the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting does
not affect our opinion on those consolidated financial
statements. The Companys management is responsible for
these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting included in managements report
referred to above. Our responsibility is to express opinions on
these financial statements, on the financial statement schedule,
and on the Companys internal control over financial
reporting based on our integrated 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 audits to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement and whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audits of the financial statements included
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial
reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a
material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the
assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed 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 (i) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (ii) 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 (iii) provide
reasonable
60
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 its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
September 22, 2011
61
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
(In
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
123,783
|
|
|
$
|
87,594
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
116,126
|
|
|
|
54,469
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
17,233
|
|
|
|
57,290
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
25,828
|
|
|
|
35,858
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
30,785
|
|
|
|
20,294
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
5,566
|
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
484
|
|
|
|
1,776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
319,805
|
|
|
|
262,994
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
96,494
|
|
|
|
64,315
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,696
|
|
Intangibles, net
|
|
|
7,054
|
|
|
|
7,770
|
|
Marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,342
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
5,840
|
|
|
|
3,043
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
12,016
|
|
|
|
18,024
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
441,209
|
|
|
$
|
400,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
$
|
90,273
|
|
|
$
|
84,319
|
|
Adverse purchase commitments
|
|
|
38,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
10,304
|
|
|
|
19,970
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
5,840
|
|
|
|
471
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
145,180
|
|
|
|
104,760
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
2,181
|
|
|
|
13,302
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
484
|
|
|
|
777
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
509
|
|
|
|
380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
148,354
|
|
|
|
119,219
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 100,000,000 shares
authorized, 50,719,827 and 44,845,541 shares issued and
outstanding at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively
|
|
|
507
|
|
|
|
448
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
885,704
|
|
|
|
698,417
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
3,817
|
|
|
|
(7,011
|
)
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(597,173
|
)
|
|
|
(410,889
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
292,855
|
|
|
|
280,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
441,209
|
|
|
$
|
400,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
62
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
(In
thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
286,603
|
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
$
|
182,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
308,183
|
|
|
|
200,977
|
|
|
|
130,882
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
32,517
|
|
|
|
23,593
|
|
|
|
19,675
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
72,382
|
|
|
|
50,446
|
|
|
|
37,516
|
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment
|
|
|
49,955
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of acquisition related intangibles
|
|
|
1,549
|
|
|
|
1,827
|
|
|
|
1,848
|
|
Restructuring
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
1,030
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
464,586
|
|
|
|
277,294
|
|
|
|
190,951
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
(177,983
|
)
|
|
|
38,661
|
|
|
|
(8,196
|
)
|
Interest income, net
|
|
|
830
|
|
|
|
788
|
|
|
|
2,785
|
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
6,822
|
|
|
|
(2,693
|
)
|
|
|
(2,489
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income before income tax expense
|
|
|
(170,331
|
)
|
|
|
36,756
|
|
|
|
(7,900
|
)
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
15,953
|
|
|
|
20,508
|
|
|
|
8,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,248
|
|
|
$
|
(16,635
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
47,103
|
|
|
|
44,445
|
|
|
|
42,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
47,103
|
|
|
|
45,290
|
|
|
|
42,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
63
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Cash flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,248
|
|
|
$
|
(16,635
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash (used in)
provided by operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
11,300
|
|
|
|
9,789
|
|
|
|
8,403
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
13,412
|
|
|
|
13,494
|
|
|
|
9,672
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense non-employee
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
48,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of long-lived and intangible assets
|
|
|
996
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for excess and obsolete inventory
|
|
|
63,882
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses on purchase commitments
|
|
|
38,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(523
|
)
|
|
|
1,495
|
|
Write-off of prepaid value added taxes
|
|
|
5,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-valuation of warrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,335
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
3,660
|
|
|
|
(2,717
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-cash items
|
|
|
2,345
|
|
|
|
1,155
|
|
|
|
826
|
|
Changes in operating asset and liability accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
63,175
|
|
|
|
(16,993
|
)
|
|
|
(17,563
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(51,942
|
)
|
|
|
(656
|
)
|
|
|
(24,382
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
(15,428
|
)
|
|
|
(10,051
|
)
|
|
|
(7,559
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(222
|
)
|
|
|
23,775
|
|
|
|
27,210
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
(21,398
|
)
|
|
|
7,021
|
|
|
|
14,765
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
|
|
|
(22,821
|
)
|
|
|
40,680
|
|
|
|
(2,426
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(40,862
|
)
|
|
|
(16,541
|
)
|
|
|
(6,532
|
)
|
Purchase of marketable securities
|
|
|
(157,905
|
)
|
|
|
(81,980
|
)
|
|
|
(89,576
|
)
|
Proceeds from the maturity of marketable securities
|
|
|
104,830
|
|
|
|
59,387
|
|
|
|
88,605
|
|
Change in restricted cash
|
|
|
247
|
|
|
|
1,602
|
|
|
|
5,699
|
|
Purchase of intangible assets
|
|
|
(2,514
|
)
|
|
|
(1,516
|
)
|
|
|
(1,120
|
)
|
Purchase of minority investments
|
|
|
(9,765
|
)
|
|
|
(848
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Change in other assets
|
|
|
1,136
|
|
|
|
(100
|
)
|
|
|
(566
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(104,833
|
)
|
|
|
(39,996
|
)
|
|
|
(3,490
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from public equity offering, net
|
|
|
155,240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of employee stock options and ESPP
|
|
|
7,818
|
|
|
|
19,003
|
|
|
|
12,463
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
163,058
|
|
|
|
19,003
|
|
|
|
12,463
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
785
|
|
|
|
(2,767
|
)
|
|
|
(3,707
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
36,189
|
|
|
|
16,920
|
|
|
|
2,840
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
|
|
|
87,594
|
|
|
|
70,674
|
|
|
|
67,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
|
|
$
|
123,783
|
|
|
$
|
87,594
|
|
|
$
|
70,674
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental schedule of cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes
|
|
$
|
16,434
|
|
|
$
|
12,387
|
|
|
$
|
5,269
|
|
Non-cash contingent consideration in connection with acquisitions
|
|
|
10,004
|
|
|
|
10,828
|
|
|
|
11,008
|
|
Non-cash issuance of common stock
|
|
|
842
|
|
|
|
1,915
|
|
|
|
556
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
64
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
(In
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
Accumulated Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Par
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Contract
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Costs-Warrant
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Balance at April 1, 2008
|
|
|
41,542
|
|
|
$
|
415
|
|
|
$
|
615,025
|
|
|
$
|
(8
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,522
|
|
|
$
|
(410,502
|
)
|
|
$
|
208,452
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
738
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
12,167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,174
|
|
Exercise of warrants
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
4,339
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,341
|
|
Issuance of common stock ESPP
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
289
|
|
Issuance of common stock restricted shares
|
|
|
404
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,672
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,672
|
|
Non-employee stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Issuance of stock for calendar 2008 401(k) match
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
556
|
|
Contingent consideration
|
|
|
424
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
11,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,008
|
|
Amortization of deferred warrant costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Net unrealized losses on investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,896
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,896
|
)
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,635
|
)
|
|
|
(16,635
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2009
|
|
|
43,298
|
|
|
$
|
433
|
|
|
$
|
653,054
|
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,487
|
)
|
|
$
|
(427,137
|
)
|
|
$
|
221,861
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
810
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
18,632
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,640
|
|
Issuance of common stock ESPP
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363
|
|
Issuance of common stock restricted shares
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,494
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,494
|
|
Non-employee stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
Issuance of stock for calendar 2009 401(k) match
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
858
|
|
Contingent consideration
|
|
|
426
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
10,824
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,828
|
|
Minority interest investment
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,057
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,057
|
|
Amortization of deferred warrant costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Net unrealized losses on investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,487
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,487
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,248
|
|
|
|
16,248
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
44,846
|
|
|
$
|
448
|
|
|
$
|
698,417
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(7,011
|
)
|
|
$
|
(410,889
|
)
|
|
$
|
280,965
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
7,198
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,204
|
|
Issuance of common stock ESPP
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
614
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
614
|
|
Issuance of common stock restricted shares
|
|
|
301
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,412
|
|
Non-employee stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Issuance of stock for calendar 2010 401(k) match
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
841
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
841
|
|
Issuance of common stock- follow-on public offering, net of costs
|
|
|
4,600
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
155,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,240
|
|
Contingent consideration
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,004
|
|
Net unrealized losses on investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
Cumulative translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,918
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,918
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
50,719
|
|
|
$
|
507
|
|
|
$
|
885,704
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,817
|
|
|
$
|
(597,173
|
)
|
|
$
|
292,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
65
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
(In
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,248
|
|
|
$
|
(16,635
|
)
|
Other comprehensive (loss) income, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation gains (losses)
|
|
|
10,918
|
|
|
|
(2,487
|
)
|
|
|
(7,896
|
)
|
Unrealized gains on cash flow hedges
|
|
|
1,170
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassification of ineffective hedge gains to net income
|
|
|
(1,170
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized losses on investments
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
|
|
10,828
|
|
|
|
(2,524
|
)
|
|
|
(8,009
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(175,456
|
)
|
|
$
|
13,724
|
|
|
$
|
(24,644
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements.
66
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
|
|
1.
|
Nature of
the Business and Operations
|
American Superconductor Corporation (the Company or
AMSC) was founded in 1987. The Company is a leading
provider of megawatt-scale solutions that lower the cost of wind
power and enhance the performance of the power grid. In the wind
power market, the Company enables manufacturers to field wind
turbines through its advanced engineering, support services and
power electronics products. In the power grid market, the
Company enables electric utilities and renewable energy project
developers to connect, transmit and distribute power through our
transmission planning services and power electronics and
superconductor based products. The Companys wind and power
grid products and services provide exceptional reliability,
security, efficiency and affordability to its customers. The
Company operates in two business units: AMSC Power Systems and
AMSC Superconductors.
At March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, the Company had
cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and restricted
cash of $245.5 million and $166.2 million,
respectively. The Companys business plan anticipates a
substantial decline in revenues and a substantial use of cash
from operations in its fiscal year ending March 31, 2012,
particularly in light of the difficult and uncertain current
economic environment, the significant restructuring actions
undertaken and the uncertainty surrounding Sinovel Wind Group
Co. Ltd. (Sinovel), which has historically accounted
for more than two-thirds of the Companys revenues, and
certain of its other customers in China. The Companys plan
includes a significant restructuring undertaken in August 2011,
resulting in the elimination of approximately 150 positions
worldwide. Since April 1, 2011, the Company has eliminated
approximately 30% of its workforce and it expects to save
approximately $30 million annually as a result of these
reductions. See Note 18, Subsequent Events.
Additional actions include further monitoring of its operating
results against expectations and, if required, further reducing
operating costs and capital spending if events warrant in order
to enhance liquidity. Due to the disruption in its relationship
with Sinovel, the Company will need to raise additional capital
in order to complete the planned acquisition of The Switch, a
power technologies company headquartered in Finland (see
Note 18) in order to have sufficient cash to fund its
working capital, capital expenditures and other cash
requirements. The Company may seek this financing through public
or private equity offerings, debt financings, or other financing
alternatives, however, there can be no assurance that financing
will be available on acceptable terms or at all. If the Company
fails to raise sufficient additional funds and terminates the
purchase agreement for the acquisition of The Switch, it will
likely forfeit the $20.6 million cash advance payment it
paid to the shareholders of The Switch on June 29, 2011. In
the event that the Company does not receive any additional
payments from Sinovel and it neither completes the planned
acquisition of The Switch, nor raises additional capital, the
Company believes that its available cash, together with
additional reductions in operating costs and capital
expenditures as necessary will be sufficient to fund its
operations, capital expenditures and other cash requirements
through at least March 31, 2012. The Companys
long-term liquidity is dependent on its ability to profitably
grow its revenues or raise additional capital as required.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Basis
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant
intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated. Certain
reclassifications of prior years amounts have been made to
conform to the current year presentation. These
reclassifications had no effect on net income, cash flows from
operating activities or stockholders equity.
The Companys fiscal year begins on April 1 and ends on
March 31. When the Company refers to a particular fiscal
year, it is referring to the fiscal year beginning on April 1 of
that same year. For example, fiscal 2010 refers to the fiscal
year beginning on April 1, 2010. Other fiscal years follow
similarly.
67
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Restatements
of Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements
The Company previously restated its unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal quarters ended
September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010 as reflected
in amended Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the applicable periods. The restatements related to the
Companys determination that revenues were incorrectly
recorded in the second quarter of fiscal 2010 for certain of the
Companys customers in China as the fee for shipments of
products to these customers was not fixed or determinable or
collectability was not reasonably assured at the time of
shipment. Further, as a result of aging receivables and other
negative events surrounding the customer relationship, the
Company concluded that revenue related to shipments to Sinovel,
was incorrectly recorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2010 as
collectability was not reasonably assured at the time of
shipments. As a result, accounting errors were identified that
affected the Companys reported results for the quarters
ended September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010. For
these customers, the Company has restated revenues based on a
cash basis of accounting with cash applied first against
accounts receivable balances, as in the case of Sinovel as of
September 30, 2010, then costs of shipments (inventory and
value added taxes) before recognizing any gross margin. For
certain Chinese customers other than Sinovel, the Company has
determined that this method of accounting should have been
applied for shipments after August 31, 2010. For Sinovel,
the Company has determined that this method of accounting should
have been applied for shipments after September 30, 2010.
The Company had previously recognized revenues in the quarters
ended September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010 based
on the receipt of shipments by these customers but prior to the
Companys receipt of payment for such shipments.
In connection with the errors identified by the Company
resulting in the restatement of the Companys unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly
periods ending September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2010, the Company identified control deficiencies in its
internal controls that constitute material weaknesses. The
deficiencies center on its controls over its revenue and
accounts receivable balances, as fees were not fixed or
determinable or collectability was not reasonably assured at the
time revenue was recognized. As a result of these deficiencies,
the Company determined that its disclosure controls and
procedures were ineffective as of September 30, 2010,
December 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, and June 30,
2011.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles of the United States of
America, (GAAP) requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the
reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting
period. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience
and various other factors believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making
judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities
that are not readily apparent from other sources. On an ongoing
basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those
related to revenue recognition, collectability of receivables,
realizability of inventory, goodwill and intangible assets,
warranty provisions, stock-based compensation, tax reserves, and
deferred tax assets. Provisions for depreciation are based on
their estimated useful lives using the straight-line method.
Some of these estimates can be subjective and complex and,
consequently, actual results may differ from these estimates
under different assumptions or conditions. While for any given
estimate or assumption made by the Companys management
there may be other estimates or assumptions that are reasonable,
the Company believes that, given the current facts and
circumstances, it is unlikely that applying any such other
reasonable estimate or assumption would materially impact the
financial statements.
Cash
Equivalents
The Company considers all highly liquid debt instruments with
original maturities of three months or less to be cash
equivalents. Cash equivalents consist principally of
certificates of deposits and money market accounts.
68
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Marketable
Securities
Marketable securities consist primarily of government-backed
securities and commercial paper. The Companys marketable
securities generally have maturities of greater than three
months from original purchase date but less than twelve months
from the date of the balance sheet. The Company determines the
appropriate classification of its marketable securities at the
time of purchase and re-evaluates such classification as of each
balance sheet date. All marketable securities are considered
available-for-sale
and are carried at fair value. Fair values are based on quoted
market prices. The unrealized gains and losses related to these
securities are included in accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss). When securities are sold, the cost is determined
based on the specific identification method and realized gains
and losses are included in interest income, net. The Company
periodically reviews the realizability of each short and
long-term marketable security when impairment indicators exist
with respect to the security. If an
other-than-temporary
impairment of value of the security exists, the carrying value
of the security is written down to its estimated fair value.
Accounts
Receivable
Accounts receivable consist of amounts owed by commercial
companies and government agencies. Accounts receivable are
stated net of allowances for doubtful accounts. The
Companys accounts receivable relate principally to a
limited number of customers. Changes in the financial condition
or operations of our customers may result in increased delayed
payments or non-payments which would adversely impact its cash
flows from operating activities
and/or its
results of operations. As such the Company may require
collateral, advanced payment or other security based upon the
customer history
and/or
creditworthiness. In determining the allowance for doubtful
accounts, the Company evaluates the collectability of accounts
receivable based primarily on the probability of recoverability
based on historical collection and write-off experience, the age
of past due receivables, specific customer circumstances, and
current economic trends. If the financial condition of the
Companys customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an
impairment of their ability to make payment, additional
allowances may be required. Failure to accurately estimate the
losses for doubtful accounts and ensure that payments are
received on a timely basis could have a material adverse effect
on the Companys business, financial condition and results
of operations.
As of March 31, 2011 and 2010, Sinovel represented 0% and
61% of the total accounts receivable balance, respectively.
Inventory
Inventories include material, direct labor and related
manufacturing overhead, and are stated at the lower of cost or
market determined on a
first-in,
first-out basis. The Company records inventory when it takes
delivery and title to the product.
Program costs may be deferred and recorded as inventory on
contracts on which costs are incurred in excess of approved
contractual amounts
and/or
funding, if future recovery of the costs is deemed probable.
At each balance sheet date, the Company evaluates its ending
inventories for excess quantities and obsolescence. Inventories
that management consider excess or obsolete are written down.
Management considers forecasted demand in relation to the
inventory on hand, competitiveness of product offerings, market
conditions and product life cycles when determining excess and
obsolescence and net realizable value adjustments. Once
inventory is written down and a new cost basis is established,
it is not written back up if demand increases.
The Company recorded an inventory write-down of approximately
$63.9 million during fiscal 2010 based on its evaluation of
forecasted demand in relation to the inventory on hand and
market conditions surrounding its products as a result of the
assumption that Sinovel and certain other customers in China
will fail to meet their contractual obligations and demand that
was previously forecasted will fail to materialize. If in any
period the Company is able to sell inventories that had been
written down in a previous period, related revenues would be
69
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
recorded without any offsetting charge to cost of revenues,
resulting in a net benefit to its gross margin in that period.
Purchase
Commitments
The Company periodically enters into non-cancelable purchase
contracts in order to ensure the availability of materials to
support production of its products. The Company periodically
assesses the need to provide for impairment on these purchase
contracts and record a loss on purchase commitments when
required. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company
recorded losses of $38.8 million to cost of revenues as a
result of commitments to purchase materials that were in excess
of its estimated future demand from certain of its customers in
China.
Derivatives
The Companys foreign currency risk management strategy is
principally designed to mitigate the potential financial impact
of changes in the value of transactions and balances denominated
in foreign currency resulting from changes in foreign currency
exchange rates. The Companys foreign currency hedging
program uses both forward contracts and currency options to
manage the foreign currency exposures that exist as part of its
ongoing business operations. The Company does not enter into
derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.
Cash Flow
Hedges
The Company hedges a portion of its intercompany sales of
inventory over a maximum period of 15 months using forward
foreign currency exchange contracts, accounted for as cash flow
hedges, to mitigate the impact of volatility associated with
foreign currency transactions.
For forward foreign exchange contracts that are designated as
cash flow hedges, if they are effective in offsetting the
variability of the hedged cash flows, and otherwise meet the
hedge accounting criteria, changes in the derivatives value are
not included in current earnings but are included in other
comprehensive income in stockholders equity. The changes
in fair value will subsequently be reclassified into earnings as
a component of cost of revenues, as applicable, when the
forecasted transaction occurs. Effectiveness is assessed at the
inception of the hedge and on a quarterly basis. To the extent
that a previously forecasted transaction is no longer an
effective hedge, any ineffectiveness measured in the hedging
relationship is recorded in earnings in the period the
ineffectiveness occurs. Realized gains and losses resulting from
these cash flow hedges offset the foreign exchange gains and
losses on the underlying transactions being hedged. Gains and
losses on derivatives not designated for hedge accounting or
representing either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge components
excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in
other income (expense), net. The assessments determine whether
derivatives designated as qualifying hedges continue to be
highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows of
hedged items. Any ineffective portion of the change in fair
value is included in current period earnings. Cash flow hedge
accounting is deemed ineffective when the forecasted transaction
is no longer probable of occurring on the originally forecasted
date, or 60 days thereafter.
Balance
Sheet Hedges
In addition to cash flow hedges, the Company also enters into
foreign currency forward exchange contracts to mitigate the
impact of foreign exchange risk related to certain
non-functional currency receivable balances in its foreign
entities. The Company does not elect hedge accounting treatment
for these hedges and consequently, changes in the fair value of
these contracts are recorded within other income (expense), net,
in the period which they occur.
All derivatives, whether designated in a hedging relationship or
not, are required to be recorded on the balance sheet at fair
value. This guidance also requires that changes in the
derivatives fair value be recognized currently in
70
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met, and
that the Company formally document, designate, and assess the
effectiveness of transactions that receive hedge accounting. The
effectiveness of the derivative as a hedging instrument is based
on changes in its market value being highly correlated with
changes in the market value of the underlying hedged item.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are carried at cost less
accumulated depreciation and amortization. The Company accounts
for depreciation and amortization using the straight-line method
to allocate the cost of property, plant and equipment over their
estimated useful lives as follows:
|
|
|
Asset Classification
|
|
Estimated Useful Life in Years
|
|
Building
|
|
40
|
Process upgrades to the building
|
|
10-40
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
3-10
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
3-5
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
Shorter of the estimated useful life or the
remaining lease term
|
Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are expensed as
incurred. Upon retirement or other disposition of assets, the
costs and related accumulated depreciation are eliminated from
the accounts and the resulting gain or loss is reflected in
operating expenses.
Goodwill
The Company tests goodwill for impairment at least annually and
more frequently upon the occurrence of certain events, which may
indicate that impairment has occurred. The provisions of the
accounting guidance for goodwill require that a two-step
impairment test be performed on goodwill. In the first step, the
Company compares the fair value, which is usually determined by
the use of a discounted cash flow technique, of the reporting
unit to its carrying value. If the fair value of the reporting
unit exceeds the carrying value of the net assets of that
reporting unit, goodwill is not impaired and the Company is not
required to perform further testing. If the carrying value of
the net assets assigned to the reporting unit exceeds the fair
value of that unit, then the Company must perform the second
step of the impairment test in order to determine the implied
fair value of the reporting unit goodwill. If the carrying value
of a reporting units goodwill exceeds it implied fair
value, the Company records an impairment loss equal to the
difference.
The Company has determined that it has two reporting units to
which goodwill is allocated Windtec, China and
International Subsidiaries (Windtec) and Power
Systems North America (PSNA). The Superconductor
reporting unit does not have goodwill. Determining the fair
value of a reporting unit is judgmental in nature, and usually
involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions. These
estimates and assumptions may include revenue growth rates and
operating margins used to calculate projected future cash flows,
risk-adjusted discount rates, future economic and market
conditions, the determination of appropriate market comparables
as well as the fair value of individual assets and liabilities.
Consistent with prior years, the Company used an income
approach, specifically a discounted cash flow (DCF)
method, to establish the fair value of the reporting units as of
March 31, 2011. As in prior years, the Company used the
most recent five year strategic plan approved by the Board of
Directors as the initial basis of its analysis. Currently, the
Company is not able to estimate additional cash flows to replace
the loss of Sinovel revenues. As a result, the DCF for both
reporting units yielded a negative fair value. In order to more
appropriately consider fair values of the reporting units, the
Company assessed the fair value of its Windtec and PSNA
reporting units using a net asset approach whereby it estimated
the fair value of the assets and liabilities attributable to
each of the reporting units. Under this approach, the fair value
of each asset and liability within Windtec and PSNA were
determined based on the methodology the Company believes is most
appropriate
71
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
for each asset and liability. Significant estimates and
judgments were involved in this assessment. Those estimates and
judgments include the use of valuation methods for determining
the fair value of the intangible assets assigned to each of the
reporting units and the applicable assumptions included in those
valuation methods such as financial projections, discount rates,
royalty rates, tax rates and other related assumptions. Other
significant estimates and judgments include the assumptions
utilized to arrive at the market values of the fixed assets
assigned to these reporting units and the realizability of other
assets assigned to the reporting units.
The Company performed its annual assessment of goodwill of the
Windtec and PSNA reporting units on March 31, 2011. The
Companys annual assessment date corresponded with a
triggering event caused by the refusal by Sinovel to accept
scheduled shipments from the Company on March 31, 2011. As
a result of reductions in its internal revenue and operating
forecasts related to Sinovel and certain of its other customers
in China, the Company determined that the goodwill related to
both the Windtec and PSNA reporting units were fully impaired.
Accordingly, the Company recorded impairment charges of
$42.1 million and $6.9 million for the Windtec and
PSNA reporting units, respectively during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2010.
Valuation
of Long-Lived Assets
The Company periodically evaluates its long-lived assets
consisting principally of fixed and amortizable intangible
assets for potential impairment. In accordance with the
applicable accounting guidance for the treatment of long-lived
assets, the Company reviews the carrying value of its long-lived
assets or asset group that is held and used, including
intangible assets subject to amortization, for impairment
whenever events and circumstances indicate that the carrying
value of the assets may not be recoverable. Under the held and
used approach, the asset or asset group to be tested for
impairment should represent the lowest level for which
identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash
flows of other groups of assets and liabilities. The
determination of asset groups involves a significant amount of
judgment, assumptions, and estimates. The Company has three
asset groups, PSNA, Windtec and Superconductor based on the fact
that the individual subsidiary companies that support each
reporting unit are dependent on one another such that the lowest
level of largely independent cash flows is the reporting unit
level. The Company evaluates its long-lived assets whenever
events or circumstances suggest that the carrying amount of an
asset or group of assets may not be recoverable from the
estimated undiscounted future cash flows.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, as a result of reductions
in the Companys revenue and cash flow forecasts related to
Sinovel and certain of its other customers in China as well as
potential goodwill impairment, the Company concluded that there
were indicators of potential impairment of certain long-lived
assets. As a result, the Company conducted an assessment of the
recoverability of these assets. Recoverability of these assets
is measured by comparison of the carrying value of the assets to
the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those
assets over their remaining book useful lives. Based on the
initial impairment testing, which indicated that the assets were
not recoverable, there was an indication that the Companys
Windtec asset group and its corporate long-lived assets were
impaired and, as a result, the Company performed additional
analysis. An evaluation of the level of impairment, was made
with respect to the Windtec asset group and the corporate
long-lived assets by comparing the fair value of the long-lived
assets in the Windtec asset group against their carrying value
and by comparing the fair value of all of the Companys
long-lived assets against their carrying value.
The fair values of the Companys property and equipment
were based on what it could reasonably expect to sell each asset
for in an orderly liquidation setting. The determination of the
fair values of the Companys property and equipment
includes estimates and judgments regarding the marketability and
ultimate sales price of individual assets. The Company utilized
market data and approximations from comparable analyses to
arrive at the estimated fair values of its property and
equipment. The fair values of amortizable intangible assets
related to completed technology and trade names were determined
using the relief-from-royalty method over the estimated economic
lives of those assets from the perspective of a market
participant. The fair values of amortizable intangible assets
related to customer relationships and backlog were determined
using the excess earnings method over the estimated
72
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
economic lives of those assets from the perspective of a market
participant. The determination of the fair values of the
Companys amortizable intangible assets involves
significant judgments, assumptions, and estimates, including
projections of future cash flows, the percentage of future
revenues and cash flows attributable to the intangible assets
and asset lives used to generate future cash flows. The Company
used a revised five year plan based on the assumption that
Sinovel will not be a customer. Future cash flows are based upon
revenue growth rate assumptions consistent with industry
expectations for the markets that its asset groups operate in.
As a result of the Companys evaluation of the
recoverability of its long-lived assets and amortizable
intangible assets during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the
Company determined that certain of its property, plant and
equipment and intangible assets in its Windtec asset group were
impaired as their carrying value exceeded their fair value.
Accordingly, the Company recorded an impairment charge of
$1.0 million during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010 of
which $0.6 million related to its property and equipment
and $0.4 million related to its customer-related
intangibles. Further, the Company determined through this
analysis that its corporate long-lived assets were not impaired
as the fair values of all of its long-lived assets exceeded
their carrying values.
Acquisition
Accounting
Acquisitions completed prior to April 1, 2009 were
accounted for using the purchase method per GAAP. Acquisitions
completed subsequent to April 1, 2009 will be accounted for
under the acquisition method. Under the purchase method,
contingent consideration is recorded as goodwill only in the
period in which the consideration is earned. Under the
acquisition method we are required to estimate the fair value of
contingent consideration as an assumed liability on the
acquisition date by estimating the amount of the consideration
and probability of the contingencies being met. This estimate is
recorded as goodwill on the acquisition date and its value is
assessed at each reporting date. Any subsequent change to the
estimated fair value is reflected in earnings and not in
goodwill. Under the purchase method we were able to record
transaction costs related to the completion of the acquisition
as goodwill. Under the acquisition method we are required to
expense these costs as they are incurred. The Company has not
completed an acquisition subsequent to April 1, 2009.
Equity
Method Investments
The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments
in entities in which it has an ownership interest in which it
does not exercise a controlling interest in the operating and
financial policies of an investee. Under this method, an
investment is carried at the acquisition cost, plus the
Companys equity in undistributed earnings or losses since
acquisition.
Revenue
Recognition
The Company recognizes revenue for product sales upon customer
acceptance, which can occur at the time of delivery,
installation or post-installation, provided persuasive evidence
of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price
is fixed or determinable and the collectability is reasonably
assured. Existing customers are subject to ongoing credit
evaluations based on payment history and other factors. If it is
determined during the arrangement that collectability is not
reasonably assured, revenue is recognized on a cash basis of
accounting.
During fiscal 2010, the Company determined that revenues from
certain of its customers in China during the second and third
quarters were incorrectly recorded as the fee was not fixed or
determinable or collectability was not reasonably assured at the
time of shipment. For these customers, the Company has restated
revenues based on a cash basis of accounting with cash applied
first against accounts receivable balances, as in the case of
Sinovel as of September 30, 2010, then costs of shipments
(inventory and value added taxes) before recognizing any gross
margin. The Company had previously recognized revenues in the
quarters ended September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2010 based on the receipt of shipments by these customers but
prior to its receipt of payment for such shipments.
73
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For certain arrangements, such as contracts to perform research
and development, prototype development contracts and certain
product sales, the Company records revenues using the
percentage-of-completion
method, measured by the relationship of costs incurred to total
estimated contract costs.
Percentage-of-completion
revenue recognition accounting is predominantly used on
long-term prototype development contracts with the
U.S. government and certain commercial turnkey contracts.
The Company follows this method since reasonably dependable
estimates of the revenues and costs applicable to various stages
of a contract can be made. However, the ability to reliably
estimate total costs at completion is challenging, especially on
long-term prototype development contracts, and could result in
future changes in contract estimates. For contracts where
reasonably dependable estimates of the revenues and costs cannot
be made, the Company follows the completed-contract method.
Certain of the Companys contracts involve retention
amounts which are contingent upon meeting certain performance
requirements through the expiration of the contract warranty
periods. For contractual arrangements that involve retention,
the Company recognizes revenue for these amounts when upon the
expiration of the warranty period, meeting the performance
requirements and when collection of the fee is reasonably
assured.
For sales that involve the delivery of multiple elements, we
allocate revenue to each undelivered element based on the
elements fair value as determined by vendor-specific
objective evidence (VSOE), which is the price
charged when that element is sold separately, or third-party
evidence (TPE). When VSOE and TPE are unavailable,
fair value is based on our best estimate of selling price. When
our estimates are used to determine fair value, management makes
its estimates using reasonable and objective evidence to
determine the price. We review VSOE and TPE at least annually.
If we conclude we are unable to establish fair values for one or
more undelivered elements within a multiple-element arrangement
using VSOE then we use TPE or our best estimate of the selling
price for that unit of accounting, being the price at which the
vendor would transact if the unit of accounting were sold by the
vendor regularly on a standalone basis. We adopted this new
accounting standard on April 1, 2010 using the prospective
method, and the adoption did not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
The Company occasionally enters into construction contracts that
include a performance bond. As these contracts progress, the
Company continually assesses the probability of a payout from
the performance bond. Should the Company determine that such a
payout is likely, the Company would record a liability. The
Company would reduce revenue to the extent a liability is
recorded.
The Company enters into certain arrangements to license its
technologies and to provide training services. The Company has
determined that the license has no stand alone value to the
customer and is not separable from the training. Accordingly,
the Company accounts for these arrangements as a single unit of
accounting, following the revenue recognition pattern of the
last deliverable of the arrangement and recognizes revenue over
the period of the Companys performance and milestones that
have been achieved. Costs for these arrangements are expensed as
incurred.
The Company has elected to record taxes collected from customers
on a net basis and does not include tax amounts in revenue or
costs of revenue.
Customer deposits received in advance of revenue recognition are
recorded as deferred revenue until customer acceptance is
received. Deferred revenue also represents the amount billed to
and/or
collected from commercial and government customers on contracts
which permit billings to occur in advance of contract
performance/revenue recognition.
Product
Warranty
Warranty obligations are incurred in connection with the sale of
the Companys products. The Company generally provides a
one to three year warranty on its products, commencing upon
installation. The costs incurred to provide for these warranty
obligations are estimated and recorded as an accrued liability
at the time of sale. Future
74
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
warranty costs are estimated based on historical performance
rates and related costs to repair given products. The accounting
estimate related to product warranty involves judgment in
determining future estimated warranty costs. Should actual
performance rates or repair costs differ from estimates,
revision to the estimated warranty liability would be required.
Research
and Development Costs
Research and development costs are expensed as incurred.
Income
Taxes
The Companys provision for income taxes is composed of a
current and a deferred portion. The current income tax provision
is calculated as the estimated taxes payable or refundable on
tax returns for the current year. The deferred income tax
provision is calculated for the estimated future tax effects
attributable to temporary differences and carryforwards using
expected tax rates in effect in the years during which the
differences are expected to reverse.
Deferred income taxes are recognized for the tax consequences in
future years of differences between the tax bases of assets and
liabilities and their financial reporting amounts at each fiscal
year end based on enacted tax laws and statutory tax rates
applicable to the periods in which the differences are expected
to affect taxable income. Valuation allowances are established
when necessary to reduce net deferred tax assets to the amount
expected to be realized. The Company has provided a valuation
allowance against its deferred income tax assets since the
Company believes that it is more likely than not that these
deferred tax assets are not currently realizable due to the net
operating losses incurred by the Company since its inception and
uncertainty around profitability in the future.
Accounting for income taxes requires a two-step approach to
recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions. The first
step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by
determining if, based on the technical merits, it is more likely
than not that the position will be sustained upon audit,
including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes,
if any. The second step is to measure the tax benefit as the
largest amount that is more than 50% likely of being realized
upon ultimate settlement. The Company reevaluates these
uncertain tax positions on a quarterly basis. This evaluation is
based on factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts
or circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues
under audit and new audit activity. Any changes in these factors
could result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an
additional charge to the tax provision. The Company includes
interest and penalties related to gross unrecognized tax
benefits within the provision for income taxes.
Stock-Based
Compensation
The Company accounts for stock-based payment transactions using
a fair value-based method and recognizes the related expense in
the results of operations.
Stock-based compensation is estimated at the grant date based on
the fair value of the award and is recognized as expense over
the requisite service period of the award. The fair value of
restricted stock awards is determined by reference to the fair
market value of the Companys common stock on the date of
grant. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model
to estimate the fair value of awards with service and
performance conditions. For awards with service conditions only,
the Company recognizes compensation cost on a straight-line
basis over the requisite service/vesting period. The Company
uses the lattice model to value market condition awards. For
awards with market conditions with a single cliff vest feature,
the Company recognizes compensation costs on a straight-line
basis over the requisite service period. For awards with
performance condition, accruals of compensation cost are made
based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions. The
cumulative effect of changes in the probability outcomes are
recorded in the period in which the changes occur.
Determining the appropriate fair value model and related
assumptions requires judgment, including estimating stock price
volatilities of the Companys common stock and expected
terms. The expected volatility rates are
75
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
estimated based on historical and implied volatilities of the
Companys common stock. The expected term represents the
average time that the options that vest are expected to be
outstanding based on the vesting provisions and the
Companys historical exercise, cancellation and expiration
patterns.
The Company estimates pre-vesting forfeitures when recognizing
compensation expense based on historical and forward-looking
factors. Changes in estimated forfeiture rates and differences
between estimated forfeiture rates and actual experience may
result in significant, unanticipated increases or decreases in
stock-based compensation expense from period to period. The
termination of employment of certain employees who hold large
numbers of stock-based awards may also have a significant,
unanticipated impact on forfeiture experience and, therefore, on
stock-based compensation expense. The Company will update these
assumptions on at least an annual basis and on an interim basis
if significant changes to the assumptions are warranted.
Computation
of Net (Loss) Income per Common Share
Basic net (loss) income per share (EPS) is computed
by dividing net (loss) income by the weighted-average number of
common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS is
computed by dividing the net (loss) income by the
weighted-average number of common shares and dilutive common
equivalent shares outstanding during the period, calculated
using the treasury stock method. Common equivalent shares
include the effect of restricted stock, exercise of stock
options and warrants and contingently issuable shares. For the
fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, common
equivalent shares of 2,631,251, 688,300, and 3,316,629,
respectively, were not included in the calculation of diluted
EPS as they were considered antidilutive. The following table
reconciles the numerators and denominators of the EPS
calculation for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011,
2010, and 2009 (in thousands except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
$
|
(186,284
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,248
|
|
|
$
|
(16,635
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding
|
|
|
47,750
|
|
|
|
44,493
|
|
|
|
43,323
|
|
Weighted-average shares subject to repurchase
|
|
|
(647
|
)
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
(605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in per-share calculation basic
|
|
|
47,103
|
|
|
|
44,445
|
|
|
|
42,718
|
|
Dilutive effect of employee equity incentive plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares used in per-share calculation diluted
|
|
|
47,103
|
|
|
|
45,290
|
|
|
|
42,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income per share basic
|
|
$
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.37
|
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income per share diluted
|
|
$
|
(3.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.36
|
|
|
$
|
(0.39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign
Currency Translation
The functional currency of all the Companys foreign
subsidiaries is the U.S. dollar, except for AMSC Windtec,
for which the local currency (Euro) is the functional currency,
and AMSC China, for which the local currency (Renminbi) is the
functional currency. The assets and liabilities of AMSC Windtec
and AMSC China are translated into U.S. dollars at the
exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date and income and
expense items are translated at average rates for the period.
Cumulative translation adjustments are excluded from net income
(loss) and shown as a separate component of stockholders
equity. Net foreign currency transaction and hedging gains
(losses), are included in net (loss) income and were
$8.0 million, ($2.5) million and ($1.1) million
for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009
respectively. The Company has no restrictions on the foreign
exchange activities of its foreign subsidiaries, including the
payment of dividends and other distributions.
76
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Risks
and Uncertainties
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could
materially differ from those estimates and would impact future
results of operations and cash flows.
The Company invests its available cash with high-credit, quality
financial instruments and invests primarily in investment
grade-marketable securities, including, but not limited to,
government obligations, money market funds and corporate debt
instruments.
Several of the Companys government contracts are being
funded incrementally, and as such, are subject to the future
authorization, appropriation, and availability of government
funding. The Company has a history of successfully obtaining
financing under incrementally-funded contracts with the
U.S. government and it expects to continue to receive
additional contract modifications in the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2012 and beyond as incremental funding is
authorized and appropriated by the government.
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company may be involved in legal and
administrative proceedings and claims of various types. The
Company records a liability in its consolidated financial
statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered
probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Management
reviews these estimates in each accounting period as additional
information is known and adjusts the loss provision when
appropriate. If the loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably
estimated, a liability is not recorded in the consolidated
financial statements. If, with respect to a matter, it is not
both probable to result in liability and the amount of loss
cannot be reasonably estimated, an estimate of possible loss or
range of loss shall be disclosed unless such an estimate cannot
be made. The Company does not recognize gain contingencies until
they are realized. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss
contingencies are expensed as incurred. (See Note 12,
Commitments and Contingencies, for further
information regarding the Companys pending litigation.)
Disclosure
of Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Companys financial instruments consist principally of
cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts
receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses. The carrying
amounts of these instruments approximate fair value.
|
|
3.
|
Marketable
Securities and Fair Value Disclosures
|
Marketable
Securities
The Companys marketable securities are classified as
available-for-sale
securities and, accordingly, are recorded at fair value. The
difference between amortized cost and fair value is included in
stockholders equity. At March 31, 2011 and 2010,
respectively, there were investments with an immaterial gross
unrealized loss.
The following is a summary of marketable securities at
March 31, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
Gross
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Cost at
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Value at
|
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
Gains
|
|
Losses
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
Short-term government-backed securities
|
|
$
|
76,368
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
(18
|
)
|
|
$
|
76,371
|
|
Short-term commercial paper
|
|
|
39,728
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
39,755
|
|
77
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
Gross
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Cost at
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
Value at
|
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
Gains
|
|
Losses
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
Short-term government-backed securities
|
|
$
|
54,438
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
|
$
|
54,469
|
|
Long-term government-backed securities
|
|
|
7,267
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,342
|
|
Fair
Value Hierarchy
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) issued guidance related to disclosures of
fair value measurements. The guidance requires gross
presentation of activity within the Level 3 measurement
roll-forward and details of transfers in and out of Level 1
and 2 measurements. It also clarifies two existing disclosure
requirements on the level of disaggregation of fair value
measurements and disclosures on inputs and valuation techniques.
A change in the hierarchy of an investment from its current
level will be reflected in the period during which the pricing
methodology of such investment changes. Disclosure of the
transfer of securities from Level 1 to Level 2 or
Level 3 will be made in the event that the related security
is significant to total cash and investments. The Company did
not have any transfers of assets and liabilities between
Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value measurement
hierarchy during fiscal 2010.
A valuation hierarchy for disclosure of the inputs to valuation
used to measure fair value has been established. This hierarchy
prioritizes the inputs into three broad levels as follows:
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
Inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability
to access at the measurement date.
|
|
|
Level 2
|
Inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities
in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets
or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than
quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability,
and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by
observable market data by correlation or other means (market
corroborated inputs).
|
|
|
Level 3
|
Unobservable inputs that reflect the Companys assumptions
that market participants would use in pricing the asset or
liability. The Company develops these inputs based on the best
information available, including its own data.
|
A financial assets or liabilitys classification
within the hierarchy is determined based on the lowest level
input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried
at fair value, measured as of March 31, 2011 and 2010 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
Using Significant
|
|
Using Significant
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Active Markets
|
|
Other Observable
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
Value
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
Inputs (Level 2)
|
|
Inputs (Level 3)
|
|
March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
49,837
|
|
|
$
|
49,837
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Short-term government-backed securities
|
|
|
76,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term commercial paper
|
|
|
39,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
3,087
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,087
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
Using Significant
|
|
Using Significant
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
Active Markets
|
|
Other Observable
|
|
Unobservable
|
|
|
Value
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
Inputs (Level 2)
|
|
Inputs (Level 3)
|
|
March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
29,054
|
|
|
$
|
29,054
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Short-term government-backed securities
|
|
|
54,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term government-backed securities
|
|
|
7,342
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,342
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation
Techniques
Cash
Equivalents
Cash equivalents consist of highly liquid instruments with
maturities of three months or less that are regarded as high
quality, low risk investments and are measured using such inputs
as quoted prices, and are classified within Level 1 of the
valuation hierarchy. Cash equivalents consist principally of
certificate of deposits and money market accounts.
Marketable
Securities
Marketable securities consist primarily of government-backed
securities and commercial paper and are measured using such
inputs as quoted prices for identical or similar assets in
markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices
that are observable for the asset (for example, interest rates
and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals), and
inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by
observable market data by correlation or other means, and are
classified within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy.
Short-term marketable securities generally have maturities of
greater than three months from original purchase date but less
than twelve months from the date of the balance sheet. The
Company determines the appropriate classification of its
marketable securities at the time of purchase and re-evaluates
such classification as of each balance sheet date. All
marketable securities are considered
available-for-sale
and are carried at fair value. The Company periodically reviews
the realizability of each short-term and long-term marketable
security when impairment indicators exist with respect to the
security. If an
other-than-temporary
impairment of value of the security exists, the carrying value
of the security is written down to its estimated fair value.
Derivatives
The derivatives entered into by the Company are valued using
over-the-counter
quoted market prices for similar instruments, and are classified
within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy.
|
|
4.
|
Derivative
Financial Instruments
|
The Companys foreign currency risk management strategy is
principally designed to mitigate the potential financial impact
of changes in the value of transactions and balances denominated
in foreign currency resulting from changes in foreign currency
exchange rates. The Companys foreign currency hedging
program uses forward contracts to manage the foreign currency
exposures that exist as part of its ongoing business operations.
The Company does not enter into derivative instruments for
trading or speculative purposes.
79
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Cash
Flow Hedges
The Company hedges a portion of its intercompany sales of
inventory over a maximum period of 15 months using forward
foreign exchange contracts accounted for as cash flow hedges to
mitigate the impact of volatility associated with foreign
currency transactions.
For forward foreign exchange contracts that are designated as
cash flow hedges, if they are effective in offsetting the
variability of the hedged cash flows, and otherwise meet the
hedge accounting criteria, changes in the derivatives value are
not included in current earnings but are included in other
comprehensive income in stockholders equity. The changes
in fair value will subsequently be reclassified into earnings as
a component of cost of revenues, as applicable, when the
forecasted transaction occurs. To the extent that a previously
forecasted transaction is no longer an effective hedge, any
ineffectiveness measured in the hedging relationship is recorded
in earnings in the period it occurs. Realized gains and losses
resulting from these cash flow hedges offset the foreign
exchange gains and losses on the underlying transactions being
hedged. Gains and losses on derivatives not designated for hedge
accounting or representing either hedge ineffectiveness or hedge
components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are
recognized in other income (expense), net. Effectiveness is
assessed at the inception of the hedge and on a quarterly basis.
The assessments determine whether derivatives designated as
qualifying hedges continue to be highly effective in offsetting
changes in the cash flows of hedged items. Any ineffective
portion of the change in fair value is included in current
period earnings. Cash flow hedge accounting is discontinued when
the forecasted transaction is no longer probable of occurring on
the originally forecasted date, or 60 days thereafter, or
when the hedge is no longer effective.
At March 31, 2011, the Company had forward contracts
outstanding to hedge cash flow exposure at the Companys
wholly-owned Austrian subsidiary, AMSC Windtec GmbH (AMSC
Windtec), with aggregate U.S. dollar equivalent
notional amounts of $40.9 million. These contracts expire
at various dates through March 2012. The Company discontinued
hedge accounting for the forward foreign exchange contracts
outstanding as of March 31, 2011 based on the
Companys determination that the original forecasted
transactions were not probable of occurring by the end of the
originally specified time period. As a result, the Company
reclassified accumulated gains of $1.6 million from
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to other income
(expense), net, in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. At March 31, 2011, the fair value of these
forward foreign exchange contracts was $2.0 million.
The fair value amounts of asset derivatives included in prepaid
expenses and other current assets and liability derivatives
included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the
consolidated balance sheets related to forward foreign exchange
contracts as of March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Forward foreign exchange contract derivatives not designated as
cash flow hedges
|
|
$
|
2,008
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recognized the following pre-tax gains in other
comprehensive income related to forward foreign exchange
contracts designated as cash flow hedges (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Gains recognized in other comprehensive income
|
|
$
|
1,560
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gains reclassified from other comprehensive income to other
income (expense), net due to ineffective hedges
|
|
|
(1,560
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company recognized the following pre-tax gains (losses)
related to forward foreign exchange contracts in the
consolidated statements of income (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Gains (losses) recognized in other income (expense), net
|
|
$
|
3,206
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Gains (losses) recognized in cost of revenues
|
|
|
1,514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains reclassified from other comprehensive income to other
income (expense) on discontinued cash flow hedges
|
|
|
1,560
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
6,280
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance
Sheet Hedges
In addition to cash flow hedges, the Company also enters into
foreign currency forward exchange contracts to mitigate the
impact of foreign exchange risk related to non-functional
currency receivable balances in its foreign entities. The
Company does not elect hedge accounting treatment for these
hedges and consequently, changes in the fair value of these
contracts are recorded within other income (expense), net, in
the period which they occur. At March 31, 2011, the Company
had forward contracts outstanding with aggregate
U.S. dollar equivalent notional amounts of
$125.5 million.
The fair value amounts of asset derivatives included in prepaid
expenses and other current assets and liability derivatives
included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the
consolidated balance sheets related to forward foreign exchange
contracts related to non-functional currency receivable balances
as of March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives
|
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Forward foreign exchange contracts related to
non-functional
currency receivable balances
|
|
$
|
1,079
|
|
|
$
|
168
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recognized the following pre-tax gains (losses)
related to forward foreign exchange contracts related to
non-functional currency receivable balances in the consolidated
statements of income (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Gains (losses) recognized in other income (expense), net
|
|
$
|
6,666
|
|
|
$
|
(3,345
|
)
|
|
$
|
(171
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable at March 31, 2011 and 2010 consisted of
the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Accounts receivable (billed)
|
|
$
|
12,912
|
|
|
$
|
47,751
|
|
Accounts receivable (unbilled)
|
|
|
5,004
|
|
|
|
10,305
|
|
Less: Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(683
|
)
|
|
|
(766
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
$
|
17,233
|
|
|
$
|
57,290
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The overall reduction in accounts receivable as of
March 31, 2011 reflects the effects of cash basis
accounting for certain of the Companys customers in China.
The Company recorded net long-term receivables of
$14.1 million in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
that were classified within other assets and long-term deferred
revenue on the consolidated balance sheet. During the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2011, the Company reversed amounts
previously classified as net long-term receivables and the
associated long-term deferred revenue as these fees were no
longer deemed to be fixed or determinable.
Inventory at March 31, 2011 and 2010 consisted of the
following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
17,100
|
|
|
$
|
18,065
|
|
Work-in-progress
|
|
|
2,881
|
|
|
|
7,318
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
3,466
|
|
|
|
7,879
|
|
Deferred program costs
|
|
|
2,381
|
|
|
|
2,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
$
|
25,828
|
|
|
$
|
35,858
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2011, finished goods inventory includes
$1.1 million representing costs of product shipped to
customers in China on contracts for which revenue will not be
recognized until cash is received or payment is otherwise
assured.
The Company recorded an inventory write-down of approximately
$63.9 million based on its evaluation of forecasted demand
in relation to the inventory on hand and market conditions
surrounding its products as a result of the assumption that
Sinovel and certain other customers in China will fail to meet
their contractual obligations under existing supply agreements
and demand that was previously forecasted will fail to
materialize.
Deferred program costs as of March 31, 2011 and 2010
primarily represent costs incurred on D-VAR turnkey projects and
programs accounted for under contract accounting where the
Company needs to complete development programs before revenue
and costs will be recognized, respectively.
|
|
7.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
|
The cost and accumulated depreciation of property and equipment
at March 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
4,022
|
|
|
$
|
4,022
|
|
Construction in progress equipment
|
|
|
25,968
|
|
|
|
13,099
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
36,852
|
|
|
|
36,599
|
|
Equipment and software
|
|
|
57,151
|
|
|
|
34,980
|
|
Furniture and fixtures
|
|
|
1,807
|
|
|
|
1,502
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
5,024
|
|
|
|
3,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, Plant and equipment, gross
|
|
|
130,824
|
|
|
|
93,591
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(34,330
|
)
|
|
|
(29,276
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
96,494
|
|
|
$
|
64,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Depreciation and amortization expense was $8.4 million,
$7.1 million, and $5.6 million for the fiscal years
ended March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
|
|
8.
|
Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets
|
Goodwill
The Company tests goodwill for impairment at least annually and
more frequently upon the occurrence of certain events, which may
indicate that impairment has occurred. The provisions of the
accounting guidance for goodwill require that a two-step
impairment test be performed on goodwill. In the first step, the
Company compares the fair value, which is determined by the use
of a discounted cash flow technique, of the reporting unit to
its carrying value. If the fair value of the reporting unit
exceeds the carrying value of the net assets of that reporting
unit, goodwill is not impaired and the Company is not required
to perform further testing. If the carrying value of the net
assets assigned to the reporting unit exceeds the fair value of
that unit, then the Company must perform the second step of the
impairment test in order to determine the implied fair value of
the reporting entitys goodwill. If the carrying value of a
reporting units goodwill exceeds it implied fair value,
the Company records an impairment loss equal to the difference.
The Company performed its annual assessment of goodwill of the
Windtec and PSNA reporting units on March 31, 2011. The
Companys annual assessment date corresponded with a
triggering event caused by the refusal by Sinovel to accept
scheduled shipments from the Company on March 31, 2011. As
a result of reductions in its revenue and operating forecasts
related to Sinovel and certain of its other customers in China,
the Company determined that the goodwill related to both the
Windtec and PSNA reporting units was fully impaired.
Accordingly, the Company recorded impairment charges of
$42.1 million and $6.9 million for the Windtec and
PSNA reporting units, respectively during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2010.
The following table presents goodwill for the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2011 and 2010 is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at April 1, 2009
|
|
$
|
26,233
|
|
Contingent consideration
|
|
|
10,828
|
|
Net foreign exchange rate impact
|
|
|
(365
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
36,696
|
|
Contingent consideration
|
|
|
10,004
|
|
Impairment of goodwill
|
|
|
(48,959
|
)
|
Net foreign exchange rate impact
|
|
|
2,259
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
|
|
83
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Intangible
Assets
Intangible assets at March 31, 2011 and 2010 consisted of
the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Net Book
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Net Book
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
Licenses
|
|
$
|
2,908
|
|
|
$
|
(2,100
|
)
|
|
$
|
808
|
|
|
$
|
1,924
|
|
|
$
|
(1,690
|
)
|
|
$
|
234
|
|
|
7
|
Patents
|
|
|
9,038
|
|
|
|
(4,891
|
)
|
|
|
4,147
|
|
|
|
7,531
|
|
|
|
(3,965
|
)
|
|
|
3,566
|
|
|
7
|
Contractual relationships/ backlog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,463
|
|
|
|
(3,416
|
)
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
2
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,638
|
|
|
|
(1,908
|
)
|
|
|
730
|
|
|
3 - 5
|
Trade names and trademarks
|
|
|
1,281
|
|
|
|
(778
|
)
|
|
|
503
|
|
|
|
1,223
|
|
|
|
(568
|
)
|
|
|
655
|
|
|
7
|
Core technology and know-how
|
|
|
5,841
|
|
|
|
(4,245
|
)
|
|
|
1,596
|
|
|
|
5,646
|
|
|
|
(3,108
|
)
|
|
|
2,538
|
|
|
5 - 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
$
|
19,068
|
|
|
$
|
(12,014
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,054
|
|
|
$
|
22,425
|
|
|
$
|
(14,655
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recorded intangible amortization expense of
$2.9 million, $2.7 million, and $2.8 million for
the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009,
respectively and impairment charges of $0.4 million for the
year ended March 31, 2011. During fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011, certain fully amortized or impaired
intangible assets were removed from the gross and related
accumulated amortization accounts.
Expected future amortization expense related to intangible
assets is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2012
|
|
$
|
2,444
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,442
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,027
|
|
2015
|
|
|
672
|
|
2016
|
|
|
574
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,054
|
|
The geographic composition of goodwill and intangible assets is
as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Goodwill by geography:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,861
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,835
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
36,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Intangible assets by geography:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$
|
5,210
|
|
|
$
|
4,475
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
1,844
|
|
|
|
3,295
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,054
|
|
|
$
|
7,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The business segment composition of intangible assets is as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Intangible assets by business segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
4,002
|
|
|
$
|
5,034
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
3,052
|
|
|
|
2,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,054
|
|
|
$
|
7,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Accounts
Payable and Accrued Expenses
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses consisted of the following
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
40,074
|
|
|
$
|
33,762
|
|
Accrued miscellaneous expenses
|
|
|
20,981
|
|
|
|
9,047
|
|
Accrued subcontractor program costs
|
|
|
1,190
|
|
|
|
5,671
|
|
Accrued compensation
|
|
|
8,174
|
|
|
|
8,938
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
11,947
|
|
|
|
20,470
|
|
Accrued warranty
|
|
|
7,907
|
|
|
|
6,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
90,273
|
|
|
$
|
84,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product
Warranty
The Company generally provides a one to three year warranty on
its products, commencing upon installation. A provision is
recorded upon revenue recognition to cost of revenues for
estimated warranty expense based on historical experience. The
following is a summary of accrued warranty activity (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
6,431
|
|
|
$
|
4,749
|
|
Accruals for warranties during the period
|
|
|
4,994
|
|
|
|
5,547
|
|
Settlements during the period
|
|
|
(3,519
|
)
|
|
|
(3,865
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
7,907
|
|
|
$
|
6,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Income (loss) before income taxes for the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 are provided in the table as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income tax expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$
|
(61,436
|
)
|
|
$
|
(43,672
|
)
|
|
$
|
(38,802
|
)
|
Foreign
|
|
|
(108,895
|
)
|
|
|
80,428
|
|
|
|
30,902
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(170,331
|
)
|
|
$
|
36,756
|
|
|
$
|
(7,900
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of income tax expense (benefit) attributable to
continuing operations consist of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
State
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
12,438
|
|
|
|
23,215
|
|
|
|
8,589
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
|
|
|
12,438
|
|
|
|
23,215
|
|
|
|
8,589
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(221
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
State
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
3,770
|
|
|
|
(2,742
|
)
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred
|
|
|
3,515
|
|
|
|
(2,707
|
)
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
$
|
15,953
|
|
|
$
|
20,508
|
|
|
$
|
8,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reconciliation between the statutory federal income tax rate
and the Companys effective income tax rate is shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Statutory federal income tax rate
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
State income taxes, net of federal benefit
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
State rate change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
Foreign income tax rate differential
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
Stock options
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Nondeductible expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development credit
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Goodwill Impairment
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
56
|
%
|
|
|
111
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following is a summary of the principal components of the
Companys deferred tax assets and liabilities (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
$
|
194,216
|
|
|
$
|
176,028
|
|
Research and development and other credits
|
|
|
9,324
|
|
|
|
7,439
|
|
Accruals and reserves
|
|
|
45,917
|
|
|
|
4,664
|
|
Fixed assets and intangibles
|
|
|
3,042
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Other
|
|
|
20,277
|
|
|
|
9,373
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax assets
|
|
|
272,776
|
|
|
|
197,567
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(220,596
|
)
|
|
|
(187,358
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
|
52,180
|
|
|
|
10,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangibles from acquisitions
|
|
|
(378
|
)
|
|
|
(710
|
)
|
Intercompany debt
|
|
|
(33,872
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(17,720
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed assets and intangibles
|
|
|
(210
|
)
|
|
|
(5,946
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
(52,180
|
)
|
|
|
(6,656
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,553
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has provided a full valuation allowance against its
net deferred income tax assets since it is more likely than not
that its deferred tax assets are not currently realizable due to
the net operating losses incurred by the Company since its
inception and net operating losses forecasted in the future. The
Company has recorded a deferred tax asset of approximately
$14.9 million reflecting the benefit of deductions from the
exercise of stock options. This deferred tax asset has been
fully reserved since it is more likely than not that the tax
benefit from the exercise of stock options will not be realized.
The tax benefit will be recorded as a credit to additional
paid-in capital if realized.
At March 31, 2011, the Company has aggregate net operating
loss carryforwards in the U.S. for federal and state income
tax purposes of approximately $539 million and
$295 million, respectively, which expire in the years
ending March 31, 2012 through 2031. Also included in the
U.S. net operating losses is approximately
$0.7 million and $3.7 million of acquired losses from
Superconductivity, Inc. and Power Quality Systems, Inc.,
respectively. Of this amount, $52.3 million results from
excess tax deductions from stock option exercised in 2006
through 2011. Pursuant to the guidance on accounting for
stock-based compensation, the deferred tax asset relating to
excess tax benefits from these exercises was not recognized for
financial statement purposes. The future benefit from these
deductions will be recorded as a credit to additional paid-in
capital when realized. Research and development and other tax
credit carryforwards amounting to approximately
$7.2 million and $3.2 million are available to offset
federal and state income taxes, respectively, and will expire in
the fiscal years ending March 31, 2012 through 2031.
For the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company incurred a
net operating loss (NOL) in its Austrian operation
of approximately $65 million which can be carried forward
indefinitely subject to certain annual limitations and
immaterial amounts of current and net operating loss
carryforwards for its other foreign operations, excluding China
which incurred taxable income, which can be carried forward
indefinitely.
Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the IRC), provides limits on the extent to
which a corporation that has undergone an ownership change (as
defined) can utilize any NOL and general business
87
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
tax credit carryforwards it may have. The Company performed a
study to determine whether Section 382 could limit the use
of its carryforwards in this manner. After completing this
study, the Company has concluded that the limitation will not
have a material impact on its ability to utilize its net
operating loss carryforwards.
For the year ended March 31, 2011, a portion of the
deferred tax liabilities created by goodwill in prior years as a
result of an U.S. acquisition has been written off. As a
result, a deferred tax asset has been recorded with a
corresponding increase to the Companys valuation allowance
since it is more likely than not that the tax benefit from the
deduction will not be realized. As a result of the impairment of
goodwill, this deferred tax liability was reversed as of
March 31, 2011. This deferred tax liability was
approximately $0.3 million for the year ended
March 31, 2010.
The estimated amount of undistributed earnings of our foreign
subsidiaries is approximately $118 million at
March 31, 2011. No amount for U.S. income tax has been
provided on the undistributed earnings of our foreign
subsidiaries because the Company considers such earnings to be
permanently reinvested. In the event of distribution of those
earnings in the form of dividends or otherwise, the Company
would be subject to U.S. income taxes, subject to an
adjustment, if any, for foreign tax credits. Determination of
the amount of U.S. income tax liability that would be
incurred is not practicable because of the complexities
associated with this hypothetical calculation.
Accounting for income taxes requires a two-step approach to
recognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions. The first
step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by
determining if, based on the technical merits, it is more likely
than not that the position will be sustained upon audit,
including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes,
if any. The second step is to measure the tax benefit as the
largest amount that is more than 50% likely of being realized
upon ultimate settlement. The Company reevaluates these
uncertain tax positions on a quarterly basis. This evaluation is
based on factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts
or circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues
under audit and new audit activity. Any changes in these factors
could result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an
additional charge to the tax provision. The Company has gross
unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $0.3 million and
$0.2 million at March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
These amounts represent the amount of unrecognized tax benefits
that, if recognized, would result in a reduction of the
Companys effective tax rate.
A tabular roll forward of the Companys uncertainties in
income tax provision liability is presented below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
105
|
|
Increase for tax positions related to fiscal 2009
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
195
|
|
Increase for tax positions related to fiscal 2010
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company accounts for interest and penalties related to
uncertain tax positions as part of its provision for federal and
state income taxes. Any unrecognized tax benefits, if
recognized, would favorably affect its effective tax rate in any
future period. The Company does not expect that the amounts of
unrecognized benefits will change significantly within the next
12 months. Interest and penalties were recorded beginning
in fiscal 2010 but were immaterial amounts.
The Company conducts business globally and, as a result, its
subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal
jurisdiction and various state and foreign jurisdictions. Major
tax jurisdictions include the U.S., China and Austria. All
U.S. income tax filings for fiscal years ending
March 31, 1995 through 2011 remain open and subject to
examination and all years from calendar year 2003 through fiscal
2010 remain open and subject to examination in Austria. Tax
filings in China for calendar years 2008 through 2010 will
remain open and subject to examination.
88
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Public
Offering
In November 2010, the Company issued 4,600,000 shares of
common stock at a price of $35.50 per share in a public equity
offering, which resulted in net proceeds to the Company of
approximately $155.2 million, after deducting the
underwriting costs and offering expenses of $8.1 million.
Stock-Based
Compensation
The components of employee stock-based compensation for the
fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Stock options
|
|
$
|
6,374
|
|
|
$
|
5,895
|
|
|
$
|
3,599
|
|
Restricted stock and stock awards
|
|
|
6,919
|
|
|
|
7,535
|
|
|
|
6,022
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense
|
|
$
|
13,412
|
|
|
$
|
13,494
|
|
|
$
|
9,672
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated fair value of the Companys stock-based
awards, less expected annual forfeitures, is amortized over the
awards service period. The total unrecognized compensation
cost for unvested outstanding stock options was
$10.3 million and $11.5 million for the fiscal years
ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. This expense
will be recognized over a weighted-average expense period of
approximately 2.3 years. The total unrecognized
compensation cost for unvested outstanding restricted stock was
$6.3 million and $6.2 million for the fiscal years
ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. This expense
will be recognized over a weighted-average expense period of
approximately 1.4 years.
The following table summarizes employee stock-based compensation
expense by financial statement line item for the fiscal years
ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
$
|
1,188
|
|
|
$
|
1,199
|
|
|
$
|
1,350
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
1,977
|
|
|
|
2,023
|
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
10,247
|
|
|
|
10,272
|
|
|
|
6,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense
|
|
$
|
13,412
|
|
|
$
|
13,494
|
|
|
$
|
9,672
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the information concerning
currently outstanding and exercisable employee and non-employee
options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Options/
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic Value
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Term
|
|
|
(Thousands)
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
2,715,916
|
|
|
$
|
21.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted at fair value
|
|
|
287,600
|
|
|
|
28.73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(567,375
|
)
|
|
|
12.71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancelled/Forfeited
|
|
|
(431,416
|
)
|
|
|
31.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
2,004,725
|
|
|
$
|
22.29
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
$
|
9,584
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exerciseable at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
968,579
|
|
|
$
|
16.35
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
$
|
8,668
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fully vested and expected to vest at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
1,911,562
|
|
|
$
|
21.85
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
$
|
9,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted-average grant-date fair value of stock option
awards granted during the fiscal years ended March 31,
2011, 2010 and 2009 was $17.43 per share, $28.29 per share and
$13.85 per share, respectively. Intrinsic value represents the
amount by which the market price of the common stock exceeds the
exercise price of the options. The aggregate intrinsic value of
exercisable options at March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was
$8.7 million, $16.4 million and $6.4 million,
respectively. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercised
at March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $13.0 million,
$11.4 million and $20.5 million, respectively.
The weighted average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes
valuation model for stock options granted during the fiscal
years ended March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
64.2
|
%
|
|
|
68.9
|
%
|
|
|
61.5
|
%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
The expected volatility rate was estimated based on an equal
weighting of the historical volatility of the Companys
common stock and the implied volatility of the Companys
traded options. The expected term was estimated based on an
analysis of the Companys historical experience of
exercise, cancellation, and expiration patterns. The risk-free
interest rate is based on the average of the five and seven year
U.S. Treasury rates.
90
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the employee and non-employee
restricted stock activity for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
(Thousands)
|
|
|
Outstanding at April 1, 2010
|
|
|
508,374
|
|
|
$
|
27.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
356,625
|
|
|
|
29.29
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(180,337
|
)
|
|
|
26.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(58,135
|
)
|
|
|
30.29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
626,527
|
|
|
$
|
29.22
|
|
|
$
|
15,581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total fair value of restricted stock that was granted during
the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was
$10.4 million, $6.8 million and $12.0 million,
respectively. The total fair value of restricted stock that
vested during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010
and 2009 was $5.5 million, $8.4 million and
$1.8 million, respectively.
The restricted stock granted during the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011 includes approximately 105,950 shares
of performance-based restricted stock, which would vest upon
achievement of certain financial performance measurements. At
March 31, 2011, the Company determined that the performance
measures were not met. As a result, the Company reversed
$1.8 million that had been recorded as stock-based
compensation expense related to performance-based awards. Such
shares were cancelled in May 2011. Included in the table above
is 8,000 shares of restricted units.
The remaining shares granted vest upon the passage of time. For
awards that vest upon the passage of time, expense is being
recorded over the vesting period.
Stock-Based
Compensation Plans
As of March 31, 2011, the Company had two active stock
plans: the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2007 Plan)
and the 2007 Director Stock Option Plan (the
2007 Director Plan). The 2007 Plan replaced the
Companys 2004 Stock Incentive Plan upon the approval by
the Companys stockholders on August 3, 2007. The
2007 Director Plan replaced the Second Amended and Restated
1997 Director Stock Option Plan, which expired pursuant to
its terms on May 2, 2007.
The Plans provide for the issuance of restricted stock,
incentive stock options and non-qualified stock options to
purchase the Companys common stock. In the case of
incentive stock options, the exercise price shall be equal to at
least the fair market value of the common stock, as determined
by the Board of Directors, on the date of grant. The contractual
life of options is generally 10 years. Options generally
vest over a 3-5 year period while restricted stock
generally vests over a 2-5 year period. The
2007 Director Plan is for members of the Board of Directors
who are not also employees of the Company (outside directors).
Under an amendment to the 2007 Director Plan effective
April, 2009, outside directors are entitled to receive an annual
award of 3,000 fully-vested shares of common stock.
As of March 31, 2011, the 2007 Plan had
3,339,884 shares and the 2007 Director Plan had
226,000 shares available for future issuance.
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
The Company has an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) which
provides employees with the opportunity to purchase shares of
common stock at a price equal to the market value of the common
stock at the end of the offering period, less a 15% purchase
discount. The Company recognized compensation expense of
$0.1 million for each of the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively, related to
the ESPP. The Company issued
91
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
26,223 shares of common stock related to the ESPP during
the year ended March 31, 2011. As of March 31, 2011,
the ESPP had 527,757 shares available for future issuance.
|
|
12.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Commitments
Purchase
Commitments
The Company periodically enters into non-cancelable purchase
contracts in order to ensure the availability of materials to
support production of its products. Purchase commitments
represent enforceable and legally binding agreements with
suppliers to purchase goods or services. The Company
periodically assesses the need to provide for impairment on
these purchase contracts and record a loss on purchase
commitments when required. During fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011, the Company recorded losses of
$38.8 million to cost of revenues as a result of
commitments to purchase materials that were in excess of its
estimated future demand from certain of its customers in China.
Lease
Commitments
Operating leases include minimum payments under leases for our
facilities and certain equipment, see Item 2,
Properties. The Companys primary leased
facilities are located in Middleton and New Berlin, Wisconsin;
Suzhou and Beijing, China; and Klagenfurt, Austria with a
combined total of approximately 341,000 square feet of
space. These leases have varying expiration dates between August
2011 and February 2016 which can generally be terminated at our
request after a six month advance notice. The Company leases
other locations which focus primarily on applications
engineering, sales
and/or field
service and do not have significant leases or physical presence.
Minimum future lease commitments at March 31, 2011 were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2012
|
|
$
|
2,607
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,471
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,114
|
|
2015
|
|
|
708
|
|
2016
|
|
|
694
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
6,864
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent expense under the operating leases mentioned above was as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
Rent expense
|
|
$
|
2,947
|
|
|
$
|
2,153
|
|
|
$
|
1,777
|
|
Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is involved in legal and
administrative proceedings and claims of various types. The
Company records a liability in its consolidated financial
statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered
probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company
reviews these estimates each accounting period as additional
information is known and adjusts the loss provision when
appropriate. If the
92
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a
liability is not recorded in its consolidated financial
statements.
Between April 6, 2011 and April 29, 2011, six putative
securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company and two of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 12, 2011,
an additional complaint was filed against the Company, its
officers and directors, and the underwriters who participated in
the Companys November 12, 2010 securities offering.
On June 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts consolidated these actions under the
caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation,
et al. Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On June 16, 2011, the court appointed the law firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel and the
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiff. On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriters who participated in the
Companys November 12, 2010 securities offering,
asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the relevant class
period, the Company and its officers omitted to state material
facts and made materially false and misleading statements
relating to, among other things, the Companys projected
and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as the
Companys relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd.
that artificially inflated the value of the Companys stock
price. The complaint further alleges that the Companys
November 12, 2010 securities offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated therein. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, rescindment of the Companys November 12,
2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorneys fees.
On April 27, 2011, a putative shareholder derivative
complaint was filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant)
and each of its current directors in Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Worcester County. The case is
captioned Segel v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-0787.
Between May 4, 2011 and June 17, 2011, four additional
putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the Company and certain of its directors and officers.
The cases are captioned Weakley v. Yurek, et al.,
Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784;
Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al.,
Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10825;
Connors v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10910;
and Hurd v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 1:11-cv-11102.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint and refiled its complaint in Superior
Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County,
on June 3, 2011. The case is now captioned Marlborough
Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The Superior Court in Worcester County granted the
plaintiffs motion to transfer in Segel v. Yurek et
al. to the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23, 2011, and that
matter is now captioned Segel v. Yurek et al.,
Docket
No. 11-2269.
On July 5, 2011, the Weakley, Connors and
Hurd actions were consolidated in United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. That matter is now
captioned In re American Superconductor Corporation
Derivative Litigation, Docket
No. 1:11-cv-10784.
On June 1, 2011, the plaintiff in Marlborough Family
Revocable Trust v. Yurek, et al. moved to voluntarily
dismiss its complaint and, on June 3, 2011, refiled its
complaint in Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The Superior Court in Worcester
County granted the plaintiffs motion to transfer in
Segel v. Yurek et al. to the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County on June 23,
2011. On September 7, 2011, the Marlborough and
Segel actions were consolidated in Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County. The case is now
captioned Marlborough Family Revocable Trust v. Yurek,
et al., Docket
No. 11-1961.
The allegations of the derivative complaints mirror the
allegations made in the putative class action complaints
described above. The plaintiffs purport to assert claims against
the director defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, as well as an
award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees.
93
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company
estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss. With
respect to the above referenced litigation matters, such an
estimate cannot be made. There are numerous factors that make it
difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of
loss at this stage of these litigation matters, including that:
the proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are
significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information
obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the
methodology for calculation of rescission and the related
statutory interest rate. In addition, with respect to claims
where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or
damages has been specified. Therefore, the Company is unable at
this time to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that
these litigations are without merit, and it intends to defend
these actions vigorously.
On September 13, 2011, the Company commenced a series of
legal actions in China against Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd.
(Sinovel). The Companys Chinese subsidiary,
Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co. Ltd. (AMSC China),
filed a claim for arbitration with the Beijing Arbitration
Commission in accordance with the terms of the Companys
supply contracts with Sinovel. On March 31, 2011, Sinovel
refused to accept contracted shipments of 1.5 megawatt (MW) and
3 MW wind turbine core electrical components and spare
parts that the Company was prepared to deliver. The Company
alleges that these actions constitute material breaches of its
contracts because Sinovel did not give the Company notice that
it intended to delay deliveries as required under the contracts.
Moreover, the Company alleges that Sinovel has refused to pay
past due amounts for prior shipments of core electrical
components and spare parts. The Company is seeking compensation
for past product shipments (including interest) and monetary
damages due to Sinovels breaches of its contracts. The
Company is also seeking specific performance of our existing
contracts as well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable
expenses with respect to the arbitration.
The Company also submitted a civil action application to the
Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Peoples Court against
Sinovel for software copyright infringement. The application
alleges Sinovels unauthorized use of portions of the
Companys wind turbine control software source code
developed for Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines and the binary
code, or upper layer, of the Companys software for the
PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines. In July 2011, a
former employee of the Companys AMSC Windtec GmbH
subsidiary was arrested in Austria and is currently awaiting
trial on charges of economic espionage and fraudulent
manipulation of data. As a result of the Companys internal
investigation and a criminal investigation conducted by Austrian
authorities, the Company believes that this former employee was
contracted by Sinovel through an intermediary while employed by
the Company and improperly obtained and transferred to Sinovel
portions of its wind turbine control software source code
developed for Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines. Moreover, the
Company believes that the former employee illegally used source
code to develop for Sinovel a software modification to
circumvent the encryption and remove technical protection
measures on the PM3000 power converters in 1.5MW wind turbines
in the field. The Company is seeking a cease and desist order
with respect to the unauthorized copying, installation and use
of its software, monetary damages for our economic losses and
reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The court
must accept the application in order for the case to proceed,
and there can be no assurance that the court will do so.
The Company submitted a civil action application to the Beijing
Higher Peoples Court against Sinovel and certain of its
employees for trade secret infringement. The application alleges
the defendants unauthorized use of portions of the
Companys wind turbine control software source code
developed for Sinovels 1.5MW wind turbines as described
above with respect to the Copyright Action. The Company is
seeking monetary damages for the trade secret infringement as
well as reimbursement of all costs and reasonable expenses. The
court must accept the application in order for the case to
proceed, and there can be no assurance that the court will do so.
On September 16, 2011, the Company filed a civil copyright
infringement complaint in the Hainan Province No. 1
Intermediate Peoples Court against Dalian Guotong Electric
Co. Ltd. (Guotong), a supplier of power converter
products to Sinovel, and Huaneng Hainan Power, Inc., a wind farm
operator that has purchased Sinovel wind turbines containing
Goutong power converter products. The application alleges that
the Companys PM1000 converters in certain Sinovel wind
turbines have been replaced by converters produced by Guotong.
Because the
94
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Guotong converters are being used in wind turbines containing
its wind turbine control software, the Company believes that its
copyrighted software is being infringed. The Company is seeking
a cease and desist order with respect to the unauthorized use of
its software, monetary damages for its economic losses (with
respect to Guotong only) and reimbursement of all costs and
reasonable expenses.
Other
The Company enters into long-term construction contracts with
customers that require the Company to obtain performance bonds.
The Company is required to deposit an amount equivalent to some
or all the face amount of the performance bonds into an escrow
account until the termination of the bond. When the performance
conditions are met, amounts deposited as collateral for the
performance bonds are returned to the Company. In addition, the
Company has various contractual arrangements in which minimum
quantities of goods or services have been committed to be
purchased on an annual basis.
As of March 31, 2011, the Company had nine performance
bonds on behalf of AMSC Windtec and its wholly-owned Chinese
subsidiary, Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co. Ltd (AMSC
China), in support of customer contracts to guarantee
supply of core components and software. The total value of the
outstanding performance bonds is $2.6 million and they
expire between July 2011 and March 2014. In the event that the
payment is made in accordance with the requirements of any of
these performance bonds, the Company would record the payment as
an offset to revenue.
At March 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company had
$5.6 million and $5.7 million, respectively, of
restricted cash included in current assets, which includes the
restricted cash securing letters of credit for various supply
contracts. The Company also had an additional $10.3 million
and $1.8 million in bank guarantees and letters of credit
supported by unsecured lines of credit, at March 31, 2011
and 2010, respectively.
The Company had unused, unsecured lines of credit consisting of
$17.5 million (approximately RMB 114.8 million)
in China and $2.3 million (approximately
1.6 million) in Austria as of March 31, 2011. In
July 2011, the Bank of China informed the Company that its
unsecured credit line of approximately
RMB 100.0 million (approximately $15.2 million),
which expired in August 2011, would not be renewed.
|
|
13.
|
Employee
Benefit Plans
|
The Company has implemented a deferred compensation plan (the
Plan) under Section 401(k) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Any contributions made by the Company to the Plan
are discretionary. The Company has a stock match program under
which the Company matched, in the form of Company common stock,
50% of the first 6% of eligible contributions. The Company
recorded expense of $0.8 million, $0.7 million, and
$0.6 million for the fiscal years ended March 31,
2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively, and recorded corresponding
charges to additional paid-in capital related to this program.
Investment
in Tres Amigas
On October 9, 2009, the Company made an investment in Tres
Amigas LLC, (Tres Amigas), a merchant transmission
company, for $1.8 million, consisting of $0.8 million
in cash and $1.0 million in AMSC common stock. On
January 6, 2011 and May 20, 2011, the Company
increased its minority position in Tres Amigas by an additional
$1.8 million on each date. As of June 30, 2011, the
Company holds a 37% ownership interest.
The Company determined that Tres Amigas is a variable interest
entity (VIE) and that the Company is not the primary
beneficiary of the VIE. Therefore, the Company has not
consolidated Tres Amigas as of June 30, 2011. The
investment is carried at the acquisition cost, plus the
Companys equity in undistributed earnings or losses. The
Companys maximum exposure to loss is limited to the
Companys recorded investment in this VIE. The
95
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Companys investment in Tres Amigas is included in other
assets on the consolidated balance sheet and the equity in
undistributed losses of Tres Amigas is included in other income
(expense), net, on the consolidated statements of operations.
The net investment activity for the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2011 and 2010 is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at April 1, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
Purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
1,809
|
|
Minority interest in net losses
|
|
|
(59
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
1,750
|
|
Purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
1,765
|
|
Minority interest in net losses
|
|
|
(489
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
3,026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
in Blade Dynamics Ltd.
On August 12, 2010, the Company acquired (through AMSC
Windtec), a minority ownership position in Blade Dynamics Ltd.
(Blade Dynamics), a designer and manufacturer of
advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and
structural technologies, for $8.0 million in cash. The
Company uses the equity method of accounting for this investment
since it does not have a controlling ownership interest in the
operating and financial policies of Blade Dynamics. As such, the
investment is carried at the acquisition cost, plus the
Companys equity in undistributed earnings or losses. The
Companys investment is included in other assets on the
consolidated balance sheet and the minority interest in net
losses of Blade Dynamics is included in other income (expense),
net, on the consolidated statements of operations. As of
March 31, 2011, the Company holds a 25% ownership interest.
The net investment activity for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011 is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at April 1, 2010
|
|
$
|
|
|
Purchase of minority investment
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
Minority interest in net losses
|
|
|
(908
|
)
|
Net foreign exchange rate impact
|
|
|
811
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
7,903
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During fiscal 2007, the Companys Board of Directors
approved a restructuring plan (the Fiscal 2007 Plan)
to reduce operating costs through the closure its last remaining
facility in Westborough, Massachusetts, and the consolidation of
operations there, including its corporate headquarters, into its
Devens, Massachusetts, facility. The Companys
restructuring charges for the fiscal years ended March 31,
2010, and 2009 were $0.5 million, and $1.0 million,
respectively.
|
|
16.
|
Business
Segment and Geographic Information
|
Prior to April 1, 2011, the Company reported its financial
results in two reportable business segments: AMSC Power Systems
and AMSC Superconductors.
AMSC Power Systems produces a broad range of products to
increase electrical grid capacity and reliability; supplies
electrical systems used in wind turbines; sells power electronic
products that regulate wind farm voltage to enable their
interconnection to the power grid; licenses proprietary wind
turbine designs to manufacturers of such systems; provides
consulting services to the wind industry; and offers products
that enhance power quality for industrial operations.
96
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
AMSC Superconductors focuses on manufacturing HTS wire and
coils; designs and develops superconductor products, such as
power cables, fault current limiters and motors; and manages
large-scale superconductor projects.
The operating results for the two business segments are as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
Revenues
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
276,440
|
|
|
$
|
304,276
|
|
|
$
|
168,008
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
10,163
|
|
|
|
11,679
|
|
|
|
14,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
286,603
|
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
$
|
182,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
(138,490
|
)
|
|
$
|
77,604
|
|
|
$
|
26,492
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
(25,911
|
)
|
|
|
(24,432
|
)
|
|
|
(23,655
|
)
|
Unallocated corporate expenses
|
|
|
(13,582
|
)
|
|
|
(14,511
|
)
|
|
|
(11,033
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(177,983
|
)
|
|
$
|
38,661
|
|
|
$
|
(8,196
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total business segments assets are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
AMSC Power Systems
|
|
$
|
97,885
|
|
|
$
|
179,873
|
|
AMSC Superconductors
|
|
|
66,422
|
|
|
|
32,978
|
|
Corporate assets
|
|
|
276,902
|
|
|
|
187,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
441,209
|
|
|
$
|
400,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accounting policies of the business segments are the same as
those for the consolidated Company. Certain corporate expenses
which the Company does not believe are specifically attributable
or allocable to either of the two business segments have been
excluded from the segment operating income.
Unallocated corporate expenses include stock-based compensation
expense of $13.4 million, $13.5 million and
$9.7 million for the fiscal years ended March 31,
2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. For the fiscal years ended
March 31, 2010 and 2009, unallocated corporate expenses
also included $0.5 million and $1.0 million,
respectively, of restructuring charges related primarily to the
closure of the Companys Westborough, Massachusetts
facility.
Geographic information about revenue, based on shipments to
customers by region, is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$
|
18,642
|
|
|
$
|
40,750
|
|
|
$
|
29,826
|
|
Other North America
|
|
|
6,670
|
|
|
|
4,434
|
|
|
|
6,256
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
10,289
|
|
|
|
14,755
|
|
|
|
5,123
|
|
Asia-Pacific
|
|
|
251,002
|
|
|
|
256,016
|
|
|
|
141,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
286,603
|
|
|
$
|
315,955
|
|
|
$
|
182,755
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009,
93%, 87% and 84% of the Companys revenues, respectively,
were recognized from sales outside the United States. Of the
revenue recognized from customers
97
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
outside the United States, 82%, 88% and 86% were recognized from
customers in China in the fiscal years ended March 31,
2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The Company maintains
operations in Austria, China and the United States and
sales and service support centers around the world.
For the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009,
the Company had one customer, Sinovel, which represented
approximately 68%, 70% and 67% of total revenue, respectively.
As of March 31, 2011 and 2010, Sinovel represented 0% and
61% of the total accounts receivable balance, respectively.
Geographic information about property, plant and equipment
associated with particular regions is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
U.S and other North America
|
|
$
|
86,971
|
|
|
$
|
58,538
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
5,895
|
|
|
|
3,602
|
|
Asia-Pacific
|
|
|
3,628
|
|
|
|
2,175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
96,494
|
|
|
$
|
64,315
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to more effectively increase and diversify its
revenues, as of April 1, 2011, the Company resegmented its
business into two new market-facing business segments: Wind and
Grid. The Company believes that this more market-centric
structure will enable it to more effectively anticipate and meet
the needs of its core wind turbine manufacturing, power
generation project development and electric utility customers.
Through March 31, 2011, the Company continued to report on
the AMSC Power Systems and AMSC Superconductors business
segments.
|
|
17.
|
Quarterly
Financial Data (Unaudited)
|
As disclosed in Note 2, the Company restated its unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for the fiscal
quarters ended September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2010 as reflected in amended Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q/A
for the applicable periods and is reflected in the information
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2011:
|
(In thousands, except per share amount)
|
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
March 31,
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
2010
|
|
(Restated)
|
|
(Restated)
|
|
2011
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
97,209
|
|
|
$
|
98,073
|
|
|
$
|
31,570
|
|
|
$
|
59,751
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
16,081
|
|
|
|
13,080
|
|
|
|
(22,960
|
)
|
|
|
(184,184
|
)
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
9,170
|
|
|
|
7,839
|
|
|
|
(18,158
|
)
|
|
|
(185,135
|
)
|
Net income (loss) per common share basic
|
|
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
(3.67
|
)
|
Net income (loss) per common share diluted
|
|
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
(0.38
|
)
|
|
|
(3.67
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 31,
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
73,000
|
|
|
$
|
74,672
|
|
|
$
|
80,659
|
|
|
$
|
87,624
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
6,391
|
|
|
|
10,330
|
|
|
|
10,440
|
|
|
|
11,500
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
1,792
|
|
|
|
4,340
|
|
|
|
5,179
|
|
|
|
4,937
|
|
Net income per common share basic
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
0.12
|
|
|
|
0.11
|
|
Net income per common share diluted
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
0.11
|
|
|
|
0.11
|
|
98
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company recorded the following material charges in the
fourth quarter of its consolidated financial statements for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on loss before income tax expense for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in provision for excess and obsolete inventory
|
|
$
|
61,216
|
|
Loss on purchase commitments
|
|
|
38,763
|
|
Goodwill and long-lived asset impairment
|
|
|
49,955
|
|
Write-off of prepaid value added taxes
|
|
|
5,355
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impact on loss before income tax expenses for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
155,289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has performed an evaluation of subsequent events
through the time of filing this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
with the SEC.
NASDAQ
Notices
On June 17, 2011, the Company received notice from the
NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ) stating that the
Company is not in compliance with Listing Rule 5250(c)(1)
for continued listing due to the Companys inability to
file with the SEC the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the Initial
Delinquent Filing) on a timely basis. The notification was
issued in accordance with standard NASDAQ procedures and has no
immediate effect on the listing or trading of the Companys
common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. On
August 16, 2011, the Company received notice from the
NASDAQ stating that the Company is not in compliance with
Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) for continued listing (i) due
to the Companys inability to file with the SEC the
Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2011, and (ii) because
the Company remained delinquent in filing the Companys
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the period ended March 31, 2011. The notification was
issued in accordance with standard NASDAQ procedures and had no
immediate effect on the listing or trading of the Companys
common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Pursuant to
NASDAQs letter dated June 17, 2011, which was
disclosed in the Companys Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on June 21, 2011, the Company had until
August 16, 2011 to submit a plan to regain compliance with
respect to the Initial Delinquent Filing. The NASDAQ letter
dated August 16, 2011 indicated that the Company had until
August 30, 2011 to submit an updated plan explaining how it
expected to regain compliance. On August 16, 2011, the
Company submitted its plan to regain compliance. On
August 31, 2011, the Company was informed that NASDAQ had
granted an exception to its rules to enable the Company to
regain compliance by September 30, 2011. With the filing of
the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2011 and the Amended Quarterly
Reports on
Form 10-Q
as of and for the quarters ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 and subject to receipt of a confirmation
of compliance, the Company will be in compliance with the NASDAQ
listing requirements.
Planned
Acquisition of The Switch
On March 12, 2011, the Company entered into a Share
Purchase Agreement (the Agreement), by and among the
Company and the shareholders of The Switch Engineering Oy, a
power technologies company headquartered in Finland (The
Switch).
On June 29, 2011, the Company entered into an amendment
agreement (the Amendment), by and among the Company
and the shareholders (the Shareholders) of The
Switch, amending the Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, as
amended by the Amendment, the Company has agreed to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of The Switch for an aggregate
purchase price (based on an exchange rate of $1.44 per Euro) of
(i) $273.6 million, payable
99
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
as follows: (1) $20.6 million in cash in the form of
an advance payment (the Advance Payment), which was
paid on June 29, 2011 and is classified as advance payment
for planned acquisition on the unaudited condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2011,
(2) $171.0 million in cash at the closing of the
acquisition and (3) the issuance at the closing of the
acquisition shares of our common stock, $0.01 par value per
share, with a value of $82.1 million based on the average
closing price of the common stock during the 20 trading days
preceding the second business day prior to the closing of the
acquisition and the U.S. dollar to euro exchange rate on
the second business day prior to the closing of the acquisition,
and (ii) in the event closing occurs after
September 1, 2011, interest at an annual rate of 4% on
$171.0 million, accruing from September 1, 2011 to and
including the closing date, payable in cash at the closing of
the acquisition. In the event that the total number of shares of
common stock issuable to the shareholders of The Switch exceeds
19.9% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding
prior to such issuance, in lieu of the issuance of such excess
shares, the Company agreed to pay additional cash at the closing
to the Minor Sellers (as defined in the Agreement) and issue to
the remaining shareholders unsecured promissory notes for such
excess amount, payable on the first business day after the first
anniversary of the closing date.
Pursuant to the Amendment, the parties agreed that the escrow
would terminate on June 10, 2012 rather than twelve months
after the closing date. The parties also agreed that the closing
would take place on the tenth business day after the date on
which the Company informs the Shareholders that a financing
resulting in post-acquisition net cash available to the Company
of at least $100 million has been completed, provided that
all other closing conditions have been satisfied or waived. In
addition, pursuant to the Amendment, the parties agreed that the
Advance Payment shall constitute a termination fee payable to
the Shareholders in the event the Agreement, as amended by the
Amendment, is terminated should the closing not take place on or
before September 30, 2011 (subject to extension for up to
two one-month periods, as described in Section 6.6), or 10
business days thereafter in the case of a breach
and/or
failure to remedy by the Shareholders under Section 6.3.1,
(i) by the Shareholders pursuant to Section 6.6(i), or
(ii) the Company pursuant to Section 6.6(ii) (which,
in the case of Sections 6.6(i) and 6.6(ii), includes upon
the occurrence of a Failed Financing Event (as defined in the
Amendment) and, in the case of Section 6.6(ii), upon the
occurrence of a Material Adverse Effect (as defined in the Share
Purchase Agreement)). Upon any such termination and retention by
the Shareholders of the Advance Payment, the parties shall have
no right to make any further claims against each other.
The Company will require proceeds from an additional financing
to finance the planned acquisition of The Switch. Closing of the
transaction, which has been approved by both companies
Boards of Directors, is subject to customary closing conditions.
Chief
Executive Officer Transition
On May 24, 2011, the Company announced that Daniel P.
McGahn, President and Chief Operating Officer, had been
appointed Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of
Directors, effective June 1, 2011. Mr. McGahn succeeds
Gregory J. Yurek, who resigned from his position as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, effective on June 1,
2011. In connection with his retirement and resignation, the
Company entered into a retirement and services agreement (the
Agreement) with Mr. Yurek pursuant to which
Mr. Yurek will serve as a senior advisor to the Company for
up to 24 months. The Agreement includes a general release
of claims and customary non-compete and non-solicit covenants
for the three-year period ending May 31, 2014. Pursuant to
this agreement, Mr. Yurek is entitled to receive the
following payments and benefits: (i) a total of
$2.0 million in cash, of which $83,333 is payable on the
final day of each month from June 2011 to August 2012, $50,000
is payable on the final day of September 2012, and $50,000 is
payable on the final day of each month from April 2013 to May
2014; and (ii) continued group medical, dental and vision
insurance coverage through May 31, 2014. In accordance with
the terms of Mr. Yureks outstanding stock option and
restricted stock agreements, the outstanding restricted stock
that is unvested as of June 1, 2011 will be forfeited and
the outstanding stock options will continue to vest for so long
as he continues to serve as an advisor to the Company.
Thereafter, any remaining unvested portions of
Mr. Yureks stock options will be cancelled for no
consideration. Mr. Yurek agreed to remain as Chairman of
the Board until the
100
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
annual meeting of stockholders or August 15, 2011,
whichever occurred first; and will not stand for reelection to
the Board at the annual meeting. Mr. Yurek ceased serving
as our Chairman of the Board on August 15, 2011. The
Agreement replaces and supersedes the Amended and Restated
Executive Severance Agreement, dated as of December 23,
2008, between the Company and Mr. Yurek.
The Company recorded costs of $2.7 million within selling,
general and administrative expenses of the unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended
June 30, 2011 which consist of $2.1 million severance
benefits under the Agreement and $0.6 million of stock
compensation expense related to outstanding stock options.
Restructuring
The Company initiated a restructuring plan in August 2011 (the
2011 Plan) to reorganize global operations,
streamline various functions of the business, and reduce its
global workforce to match the demand for its products. The 2011
Plan resulted in a headcount reduction of approximately
150 employees. Coinciding with the 2011 Plan, on
August 8, 2011, the Company and Charles W. Stankiewicz,
Executive Vice President, Operations and Grid Segment, and
Angelo R. Santamaria, Senior Vice President, Global
Manufacturing Operations, mutually agreed to end their
employment effective on August 23, 2011 and August 12,
2011, respectively. From April 1, 2011 through the date of
this filing, the Company has reduced its global workforce by
approximately 30%, which is expected to result in annual savings
of approximately $30.0 million. As a result of the 2011
Plan, the Company expects to recognize restructuring charges of
$3.0 million to $4.0 million in the second quarter of
fiscal 2011. These charges primarily relate to severance costs
and are expected to be paid through fiscal 2012.
|
|
19.
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
|
In October 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2009-13,
Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, pertaining to
the accounting for revenue arrangements with multiple
deliverables. Specifically, the new standard requires an entity
to allocate consideration at the inception of an arrangement to
all of its deliverables based on their relative selling prices.
In the absence of the vendor-specific objective evidence or
third-party evidence of the selling prices, consideration must
be allocated to the deliverables based on managements best
estimate of the selling prices. In addition, the new standard
eliminates the use of the residual method of allocation. The new
accounting standard supersedes the prior multiple element
revenue arrangement accounting rules that were previously used
by the Company. The Company adopted this new accounting standard
on April 1, 2010 using the prospective method and the
adoption did not have a material impact on its consolidated
financial statements.
In January 2010, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. This
standard amends the disclosure guidance with respect to fair
value measurements for both interim and annual reporting
periods. Specifically, this standard requires new disclosures
for significant transfers of assets or liabilities between
Level 1 and Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy;
separate disclosures for purchases, sales, issuance and
settlements of Level 3 fair value items on a gross, rather
than net basis; and more robust disclosure of the valuation
techniques and inputs used to measure Level 2 and
Level 3 assets and liabilities. The Company has included
these new disclosures, as applicable, in Note 3,
Marketable Securities and Fair Value Disclosures, of
the consolidated financial statements.
In December 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2010-29,
Business Combinations (Topic 805), Disclosure of
Supplementary Pro forma Information for Business Combinations a
consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force (ASC
2010-29).
This amendment clarifies the periods for which pro forma
financial information is presented. The disclosures include pro
forma revenue and earnings of the combined entity for the
current reporting period as though the acquisition date for all
business combinations that occurred during the year had been as
of the beginning of the annual reporting period. If comparative
financial
101
AMERICAN
SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
statements are presented, the pro forma revenue and earnings of
the combined entity for the comparable prior reporting period
should be reported as though the acquisition date for all
business combinations that occurred during the current year had
been as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual
reporting period. ASU
2010-29 is
effective prospectively for business combinations that occur on
or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period
beginning after December 15, 2010. The Company does not
expect the adoption of ASU
2011-04 to
have a material impact on the Companys consolidated
results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.
In June 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU)
No. 2011-05,
Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of
Comprehensive Income. ASU
2011-05
requires entities to present net income and other comprehensive
income in either a single continuous statement or in two
separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other
comprehensive income. ASU
2011-05 is
effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect the adoption
of ASU
2011-04 to
have a material impact on the Companys consolidated
results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.
102
|
|
Item 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
Not Applicable.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Overview
On March 31, 2011, Sinovel, our largest customer, refused
to accept scheduled shipments from us. This action, combined
with aging receivables from Sinovel and certain of our other
customers in China, prompted us to re-evaluate our accounting
judgments around revenue recognition and accounts receivable and
the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting. This re-evaluation included an internal review of
documents and interviews with management and other personnel
with the assistance of external counsel. As a result, we
determined that revenues and accounts receivable were
incorrectly recorded in the second quarter of fiscal 2010 for
certain of our customers in China as the fee for shipments of
products to these customers was not fixed or determinable or
collectability was not reasonably assured at the time of
shipment. Further, we concluded that revenue and accounts
receivable related to shipments to Sinovel were incorrectly
recorded in the third quarter of fiscal 2010 as collectability
was not reasonably assured at the time of shipment. As a result
of this re-evaluation, on July 6, 2011 the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors concluded that the financial
statements contained in our previously filed Quarterly Reports
on
Form 10-Q
for the quarters ended September 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2010 should no longer be relied upon.
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness
of our disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31,
2011. The term disclosure controls and procedures,
as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Exchange Act, means controls and other procedures of a
company that are designed to ensure that information required to
be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or
submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the
SECs rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures
include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to
ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in
the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is
accumulated and communicated to the companys management,
including its principal executive and principal financial
officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure. Management recognizes that any controls and
procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can
provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives
and management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating
the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and
procedures. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of
March 31, 2011 because of the material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting discussed below.
Notwithstanding the material weaknesses described below,
management believes that the consolidated financial statements
included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position
of American Superconductor Corporation and subsidiaries at
March 31, 2011 and 2010 and their consolidated results of
operations and cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended March 31, 2011 in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States
(GAAP).
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined
in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f) of
the Exchange Act. Internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and 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 assets;
103
(2) Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with GAAP, and that receipts and
expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of management and directors; and
(3) Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition
of assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Under the supervision and with participation of our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, an evaluation was conducted over the effectiveness of
our internal control over financial reporting as of
March 31, 2011. Managements assessment of internal
control over financial reporting was conducted using the
criteria in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations. Based on that evaluation, management concluded
that our internal control over financial reporting was not
effective as of March 31, 2011 due to the material
weaknesses in internal control described below.
The effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of March 31, 2011 has been audited
by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, as stated in their report, which is included in
Item 8 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Material
Weaknesses
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such
that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will
not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
We did not maintain effective controls over our revenues and
accounts receivable balances as fees were not fixed or
determinable or collectability was not reasonably assured at the
time revenue was recognized. These errors resulted in the
restatement of our unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements for each of the quarters ended September 30,
2010 and December 31, 2010. In addition, the filing of our
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 and Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 was delayed.
Additionally, these control deficiencies could result in
misstatements of the aforementioned account balances and
disclosures that would result in material misstatement of the
consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or
detected. Accordingly, our management has determined that each
of these control deficiencies constitutes a material weakness.
The specific material weaknesses are:
|
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain adequately designed controls to ensure
accurate recognition of revenue in accordance with GAAP.
Specifically, controls were not effective to ensure that
deviations from contractually established payment terms were
identified, communicated and authorized;
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain adequate controls to ensure proper
monitoring and evaluation of customer creditworthiness,
including the collectability of amounts due from customers and
appropriate revenue recognition;
|
|
|
|
we did not maintain a sufficient complement of personnel
involved with business in our foreign locations with the
appropriate level of knowledge, experience and training in the
application of GAAP to ensure revenue transactions were
appropriately reflected in the financial statements based on the
terms and conditions of the sales contracts; and
|
|
|
|
we did not establish and maintain, procedures to ensure proper
oversight and review, by senior management, of customer
relationships to ensure appropriate communication of relevant
considerations to determine accounting judgments with respect to
revenue recognition.
|
104
Remediation
Plan
We are in the process of developing a detailed plan for
remediation of the above material weaknesses and have undertaken
the following initiatives:
|
|
|
|
|
establishing formal, written policies and procedures governing
the customer credit process;
|
|
|
|
improving procedures to ensure the proper review and
documentation of customer creditworthiness;
|
|
|
|
establishing a new worldwide revenue manager position in finance
with GAAP experience to ensure accuracy of revenue recognition;
|
|
|
|
improving procedures to ensure the proper communication,
approval and accounting review of deviations from sales
contracts;
|
|
|
|
providing additional and on-going training to product managers
and others involved in negotiating contractual arrangements and
accounting for revenue transactions, in order to heighten
awareness of revenue recognition concepts under GAAP; and
|
|
|
|
improving the internal communication process for senior
management. During monthly operations reviews time will be
devoted to senior management review of pending operational and
accounting issues for the current quarter.
|
Management is committed to a strong internal control environment
and believes that, when fully implemented and tested, the
measures described above will improve our internal control over
financial reporting. We will continue to assess the
effectiveness of our remediation efforts in connection with our
future assessments of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Other than the material weaknesses described above, there have
been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting
during the quarter ended March 31, 2011 that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
105
|
|
Item 10.
|
DIRECTORS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
|
Information
About Directors and Officers
Information regarding our executive officers is included in
Part I of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
under the heading Executive Officers of the
Registrant, as permitted by Instruction 3 to
Item 401(b) of
Regulation S-K.
Set forth below, for each director, are his or her name and age,
his or her positions (if any) with us, his or her principal
occupation and business experience during the past five years,
the names of other public companies of which he or she has
served as a director during the past five years, the specific
experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the
conclusion that the person should serve as a director and the
year of the commencement of his or her term as a director of
American Superconductor.
Daniel P. McGahn, age 40, has been our chief
executive officer since June 2011 and president since December
2009. Mr. McGahn also served as chief operating officer
from December 2009 until May 2011, as senior vice president and
general manager of our AMSC Superconductors business unit from
May 2008 until December 2009 and vice president of our AMSC
Superconductors business unit from January 2008 to May 2008.
Previously, Mr. McGahn was vice president of strategic
planning and development from December 2006 to January 2008.
From 2003 to 2006, Mr. McGahn served as executive vice
president and chief marketing officer of Konarka Technologies,
which develops and commercializes Konarka Power
Plastic®,
a material that converts light to electricity. We believe
Mr. McGahns qualifications to sit on our Board
include his extensive experience with the Company, including
serving as our president since December 2009, experience in the
power electronics industry and strategic planning expertise
gained while working in senior management and as a consultant
for other public and private companies. Mr. McGahn has been
a director of the Company since June 2011.
John W. Wood, Jr., age 67, has been chairman of
our Board since August 2011 and is currently an independent
consultant. He served as chief executive officer of Analogic
Corporation, a designer and manufacturer of medical imaging and
security systems, from 2003 through 2006. Prior to joining
Analogic, he held senior executive positions over a
22-year
career at Thermo Electron Corporation. Most recently,
Mr. Wood served as president of Peek Ltd., a division of
Thermo Electron Corporation, and as a senior vice president of
the parent company. He previously served as president and chief
executive officer of Thermedics, a subsidiary of Thermo
Electron. Mr. Wood is a director of FLIR Systems, Inc.,
which is a publicly traded company, and ESCO Corporation, which
is a privately held company. We believe Mr. Woods
qualifications to sit on our Board include his extensive
executive-level management experience and significant financial
experience. Mr. Wood has been a director of the Company
since December 2006.
Vikram S. Budhraja, age 63, has been president of
Electric Power Group, LLC, a Pasadena, California-based
consulting firm that provides management and strategic
consulting services, synchrophasor technology applications, and
power grid reliability monitoring solutions to the electric
power industry, since January 2000. From 1977 to January 2000,
Mr. Budhraja served in several key senior management
positions at Edison International, the parent company of
Southern California Edison, including: president of Edison
Technology Solutions; senior vice president and head of the
Power Grid Business Unit of Southern California Edison; and vice
president of System Planning, Fuels and Operations of Southern
California Edison. He is a founding member of the Consortium for
Electric Reliability Technology Solutions (CERTS) and worked
with the
U.S.-Canadian
Power Systems Outage Task Force that was formed to investigate
the root causes of the August 14, 2003 power blackout in
the Northeast. Mr. Budhraja has previously served as a
director of several organizations, including the California
Independent System Operator Corporation and SoftSwitching
Technologies. We believe Mr. Budhrajas qualifications
to sit on our Board include his extensive operational knowledge
of, and executive level management experience in, the electric
power industry. Mr. Budhraja has been a director of the
Company since 2004.
Peter O. Crisp, age 78, served as vice chairman of
Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc., a financial services firm,
from December 1997 until September 2004. From 1969 to 1997, he
was a general partner of Venrock Associates, a venture capital
firm based in New York. Mr. Crisp served as a director of
United States Trust Corporation until August
106
2004. He is currently a director of several private companies.
We believe Mr. Crisps qualifications to sit on our
Board include his valuable corporate governance experience
gained while serving as a director for 43 public and private
companies, as well as his strategic planning expertise gained
while counseling numerous Fortune 500 companies.
Mr. Crisp has been a director of the Company since 1987.
Richard Drouin, age 79, is counsel at McCarthy
Tétrault LLP, a Canadian law firm. Mr. Drouin was the
chairman and chief executive officer of Hydro-Quebec, a public
electric utility based in Canada, from April 1988 to September
1995. From September 1999 to February 2009, he was also chairman
of the North American Electric Reliability Organization which
oversees the reliability of the Bulk Power Transmission Systems
in North America. He is chairman of the board of Stonebridge
Financial. He is a director of the British Airport Authority in
London, Gesca Limitée in Montreal, and Presidents
Choice Bank in Toronto. He was also chairman of the board of the
World Energy Congress which was held in Montreal in September
2010. He is Honorary Consul for Great Britain in Quebec. We
believe Mr. Drouins qualifications to sit on our
Board include his experience serving as a director for other
public and private companies and his extensive legal skill and
expertise developed as counsel to public and private companies
over the past 35 years. Mr. Drouin has been a director
of the Company since 1996.
Pamela F. Lenehan, age 59, has been president of
Ridge Hill Consulting, a strategy and financial consulting firm,
since June 2002. From September 2001 until June 2002,
Ms. Lenehan was self-employed as a private investor. From
March 2000 until September 2001, she served as vice president
and chief financial officer of Convergent Networks, Inc., a
manufacturer of switching equipment. From February 1995 until
January 2000, she was senior vice president of corporate
development and treasurer of Oak Industries, Inc., a
manufacturer of telecommunications components until it was
acquired by Corning. Prior to that time, Ms. Lenehan was a
Managing Director in Credit Suisse First Bostons
Investment Banking division and a vice president of Corporate
Banking at Chase Manhattan Bank. Ms. Lenehan is currently a
director of publicly traded Spartech Corporation and Monotype
Imaging Holdings Inc., and privately held National Mentor
Holdings. She previously served as a director of Avid
Technology. We believe Ms. Lenehans qualifications to
sit on our Board include her experience serving as a director
for other public and private companies, her extensive financial
and strategic management experience, and her particular
knowledge of equity and debt financing and mergers and
acquisitions. She also holds an Advanced Professional Director
Certification from the American College of Corporate Directors,
a national public company director education organization.
Ms. Lenehan has been a director of the Company since March
2011.
David R. Oliver, Jr., age 69, has been
executive vice president and chief operating officer, European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Company North America (EADS NA), a
large European aerospace corporation, since January 2008.
Mr. Oliver served as chief executive officer of the defense
division of EADS NA for most of the four years preceding January
2008 except when he was running the EADS portion of the capture
effort for the Air Force Tanker program (one of the largest
Defense programs ever competed). Before joining EADS NA,
Mr. Oliver was stationed in Baghdad as Director of
Management and Budget for the Coalition Forces. Prior to that,
he served as the United States Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Mr. Oliver also previously held management positions at
both Westinghouse Electric and Northrop Grumman. In the Navy, he
commanded both diesel and nuclear submarines as well as two
submarine groups in the Cold War. His last Navy appointment was
as Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition. Rear Admiral (retired)
Olivers military decorations include the Defense and Navy
Distinguished Service Medals as well as six awards of the Legion
of Merit. Mr. Oliver is a director of EADS NA, which is a
publicly traded entity, and Pittsburgh Electric Engineering
Company, which is a privately held entity. We believe
Mr. Olivers qualifications to sit on our Board
include his extensive leadership, management and budgeting
experience gained while serving as a senior officer in the
United States Navy. Mr. Oliver has been a director of the
Company since September 2006.
John B. Vander Sande, age 67, co-founded American
Superconductor, but has never had
day-to-day
operational responsibilities at our company. Dr. Vander
Sande is the Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, emeritus, at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), specializing in
the analysis of the microstructure of materials. He was
Associate Dean and Acting Dean of Engineering at MIT from 1992
to 1999 and was founding Executive Director of the Cambridge
(England)-MIT Institute from 1999 to 2003. He was Acting Provost
at Reykjavik University, Iceland in
2009-10.
107
We believe Dr. Vander Sandes qualifications to sit on
our Board include his extensive knowledge of materials, the
power technologies industry and his long-time tenure as a
professor and administrator at a leading research university.
Dr. Vander Sande has been a director of the Company since
1990.
Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a written Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
that applies to our directors, officers and employees, including
our principal executive officer and principal financial and
accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions. We
have posted a current copy of the code in the
Governance section of the Investors page
of our website, www.amsc.com. In addition, we intend to
post on our website all disclosures that are required by law or
NASDAQ Stock Market listing standards concerning any amendments
to, or waivers from, any provision of our code.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our officers,
directors and holders of more than 10% of our common stock to
file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and reports of
changes in ownership of our common stock. Based solely on review
of the copies of such reports furnished to us and written
representations regarding the filing of required reports, we are
not aware that any of our officers, directors or holders of 10%
or more of our common stock failed to comply in a timely manner
during and with respect to fiscal 2010 with Section 16(a)
filing requirements, except that, due to an administrative
oversight, a Form 5 for Dr. Yurek reporting a gift of
500 shares was filed two weeks late.
Audit
Committee
We have a standing Audit Committee of the Board of Directors,
which was established in accordance with
Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The current
members of the Audit Committee are Ms. Lenehan (chairman),
Dr. Vander Sande, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Wood. Our
Board has determined that each of these directors is an
independent director as defined under
Rule 5605(a)(2) of the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. Listing
Rules and
Rule 10A-3(c)
promulgated under the Exchange Act. Our Board has determined
that Ms. Lenehan is an audit committee financial
expert as defined in applicable SEC rules.
Director
Nomination Process
There have not been any material changes to the procedures by
which security holders may recommend nominees to our Board from
those described in our companys Definitive Proxy Statement
with respect to the Annual Meeting of Stockholders for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.
|
|
Item 11.
|
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Introduction
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis
(CD&A) describes the principles of our
executive compensation program, how we applied those principles
in compensating our named executive officers for fiscal 2010 and
how our compensation program drives performance.
Our named executive officers for fiscal 2010 are:
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek, who was our Chief Executive Officer until
May 31, 2011 and Chairman until August 15, 2011;
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer;
|
|
|
|
John R. Collett, Senior Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer;
|
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz, Executive Vice President, Operations and
Grid Segment; and
|
108
|
|
|
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco, Senior Vice President, Corporate
Administration.
|
We also present information for Daniel P. McGahn, who became our
Chief Executive Officer on June 1, 2011, has been our
president since December 2009 and was our Chief Operating
Officer until May 2011. We refer to these six officers as our
named executive officers.
In this CD&A, we first provide an executive summary of our
program for fiscal 2010. We then describe our compensation
philosophy and the objectives of our executive compensation
program and how the Compensation Committee of our Board oversees
our compensation program. We discuss the compensation
determination process and describe how we determine each element
of compensation. We believe that our compensation program in
fiscal 2010 and in prior years shows that we have closely linked
pay to performance.
Executive
Summary
Overview
of Our Executive Compensation Program
The Compensation Committee of our Board has designed our
executive compensation program to attract and retain superior
employees in key positions to enable our company to succeed in
the highly competitive market for talent, while simultaneously
maximizing stockholder value. We believe that our executives are
a primary factor in our strong performance over both the
short-and long-term. Therefore, we intend to continue to provide
a competitive compensation package to our executives, tie a
significant portion of pay to performance and utilize components
that best align the interests of our executives with those of
our stockholders.
The following is a summary of important aspects of our executive
compensation program discussed later in this CD&A:
|
|
|
|
|
Key Elements of Our Compensation Program. Our
compensation program is designed to achieve these objectives
through a combination of the following types of compensation:
|
Base salary;
Performance-based annual cash bonuses;
Long-term equity incentives; and
Severance and change-in-control benefits.
Each element of our executive compensation program is discussed
in greater detail below.
|
|
|
|
|
We Intend to Pay for Performance. The majority
of our named executive officers total compensation, as
shown in our Summary Compensation Table below, ties compensation
directly to the achievement of corporate and individual
objectives. We emphasize pay for performance in order to align
executive compensation with our business strategy and the
creation of long-term stockholder value.
|
|
|
|
Our Compensation Program Supports Our Corporate Objectives
and Stockholder Interests. Our compensation
program is designed to align executive officer compensation with
our short- and long-term business objectives and building
long-term stockholder value by rewarding successful execution of
our business plan and by tying a portion of total compensation
opportunities to equity incentives.
|
Overview
of Fiscal 2010 Performance
Fiscal 2010 ended up being a very difficult year for our
company. Through the third quarter of fiscal 2010, we expected
our overall financial performance to be in line with our
previous forecasts. On March 31, 2011, Sinovel refused to
accept contracted shipments of 1.5 megawatt (MW) and 3 MW
wind turbine core electrical components and spare parts that we
were prepared to deliver. As a result, we realized significantly
less-than-anticipated
financial results for fiscal 2010.
109
Fiscal
2010 Compensation Programs and Decisions
In line with our executive compensation programs emphasis
on pay for performance, compensation awarded to our named
executive officers for fiscal 2010 reflected our financial
results and overall compensation philosophy:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to Base Salary. During fiscal
2010, our named executive officers received increases to their
base salaries based on factors such as the level of job
responsibility, individual, business unit and overall company
performance, and competitiveness with salaries paid to executive
officers in similar positions, industries and geographic
locations.
|
|
|
|
Performance-Based Annual Cash Bonuses. For
fiscal 2010, our company primarily focused on increasing
Non-GAAP Net Income (as such performance measure is
described in more detail below), revenues, cash flows and
orders. Our compensation program for fiscal 2010 was designed to
support our companys focus on these performance measures.
For our annual bonus program for fiscal 2010, the Compensation
Committee selected these objectives as key corporate objectives
because the Compensation Committee believes they encourage
executives to achieve superior operating results. Based on our
lower than expected fiscal 2010 performance, only two out of six
of our named executive officers were paid cash bonuses for
fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Equity Incentive. The Compensation
Committee granted long-term equity awards to our named executive
officers in fiscal 2010 based on such factors as performance and
contribution during the prior fiscal year, recommendations made
by our management, competitive practices, and the overall
compensation package for each executive officer.
|
In light of our companys performance during fiscal 2010,
and taking into consideration our previously strong performance
over the past few years, the Compensation Committee believes
that the named executive officers fiscal 2010 compensation
was appropriate.
Compensation
Program Philosophy and Objectives
The Compensation Committee of our Board oversees our executive
compensation program, pursuant to authority established in the
Compensation Committee Charter. The Compensation Committee
reviews and approves all compensation decisions relating to our
executive officers, except for the chief executive officer. The
Compensation Committee reviews the compensation for our chief
executive officer and makes a recommendation to our Board, and
our Board determines the compensation of our chief executive
officer.
Our executive compensation program is designed to meet three
principal objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
Attract and retain executive officers who contribute to our
long-term success;
|
|
|
|
Align compensation with our short- and long-term business
objectives; and
|
|
|
|
Motivate the executive officers to provide superior performance
that will build long-term stockholder value.
|
These objectives collectively seek to link executive
compensation to our overall company performance, which helps to
ensure that the interests of our executives are aligned with the
interests of our stockholders.
The Compensation Committees decisions regarding executive
compensation during fiscal 2010 were based on achieving the
above objectives, with an emphasis on:
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing long-term stockholder value by increasing net income
before amortization of acquisition-related intangibles,
restructuring and impairments, stock-based compensation expense,
other unusual charges and any tax effects related to these
items, which we refer to as Non-GAAP Net Income;
|
|
|
|
Improving operational performance by increasing revenue, cash
flow and orders;
|
|
|
|
Taking into account the nature and scope of the executive
officers position and responsibilities, including
considerations of pay equity among the executive
officers; and
|
|
|
|
Providing compensation opportunities that are competitive in the
marketplace.
|
110
In setting executive compensation for fiscal 2010, the
Compensation Committee established salary levels, approved
annual equity awards and established an executive incentive cash
bonus plan with performance metrics that reflected our annual
operating plan and strategic priorities for fiscal 2010. For
fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee established
Non-GAAP Net Income and individualized objectives relating
to revenue, cash flow, orders, among others, to promote our
short-term and long-term business success. In setting objectives
for each of the foregoing metrics, the Compensation Committee
considered multiple factors so that its decisions were informed
and equitable and that our executive compensation program
achieved its objectives.
The
Compensation Committees Process
The Compensation Committee has a process to help ensure that our
executive compensation program meets its principal objectives.
In making compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee
considers a wide variety of information, including how each
compensation decision ties to its total compensation philosophy,
the advice of our senior vice president, corporate
administration and the thoughts of our chief executive officer
and other Board members.
Our senior vice president, corporate administration regularly
attends Compensation Committee meetings to provide information
and recommendations regarding our executive compensation
program. Among other things, she performs extensive analysis of
marketplace practices for executive pay, makes recommendations
to our chief executive officer on compensation matters for all
officers (other than herself) and compiles other relevant data
at the request of the Compensation Committee.
Our chief executive officer is actively involved in the
executive compensation process. Our chief executive officer
reviews the performance of each of the executive officers (other
than his own) and makes recommendations to the Compensation
Committee regarding the salary and long-term incentive awards
for executive officers other than himself, as well as the
executive compensation programs impact on attracting,
retaining and motivating the level of executive talent necessary
to achieve and exceed our company goals. The Compensation
Committee is not bound by such recommendations, but generally
takes them into consideration before making final determinations
about the compensation of executive officers other than our
chief executive officer.
The Compensation Committee reviews the compensation for our
chief executive officer and makes a recommendation to the full
Board. The full Board determines the compensation of our chief
executive officer.
The Compensation Committee also considers information relevant
to each executives specific situation including the
executives marketability and the availability or scarcity
of other qualified candidates, inside and outside our company,
who could replace the executive should he or she leave the
Company.
In determining equity compensation, the Compensation Committee
considers levels of past performance, performance potential,
retention risk and the value of the equity compensation needed
to keep the total compensation opportunity level competitive and
consistent with our compensation philosophy.
Role of Independent Compensation
Consultant. The Compensation Committee engaged
Pearl Meyer & Partners in 2008 as its independent
outside compensation consultant, to advise it and develop an
executive compensation strategy, to assess the competitiveness
of our executive compensation and to provide recommendations
with respect to both the levels and structure of compensation
for our executives. Pearl Meyer & Partners assessed
the competitiveness of executive compensation through
comparisons with peer groups and survey sources while
additionally assessing our performance to ensure compensation
levels were appropriately tied to performance. With the
assistance of Pearl Meyer & Partners, in April 2010,
the Compensation Committee reviewed the compensation levels of
our executive officers against compensation levels at peer group
companies that were selected based on the following criteria:
|
|
|
|
|
companies whose product and service offerings are similar,
though not necessarily identical, to ours;
|
|
|
|
companies with revenues of approximately one-third to three
times our revenues, of which approximately 35% have higher
revenues and 50% have lower revenues than we had (at the time of
selection in January 2010); and
|
111
|
|
|
|
|
companies with market capitalization of approximately one-fourth
to four times our market capitalization, of which approximately
15% have a higher market capitalization and 80% have a lower
market capitalization than we had (at the time of selection in
January 2010).
|
For the analysis of our fiscal 2010 executive compensation
packages, the peer group was approved by the Compensation
Committee in fiscal 2010 and consisted of the following
companies:
Peer
Group Companies
|
|
|
AZZ, Inc.
|
|
FuelCell Energy, Inc
|
Broadwind Energy, Inc.
|
|
ITC Holdings Corporation
|
Comverge, Inc.
|
|
Powell Industries, Inc.
|
Echelon Corporation
|
|
SatCon Technology Corporation
|
Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
|
|
SunPower Corporation
|
EnerNOC, Inc.
|
|
Vicor Corporation
|
Evergreen Solar, Inc.
|
|
Zoltek Companies, Inc.
|
The selection criteria and peer group companies are reviewed
each year by the Compensation Committee and may change from year
to year depending on changes in the marketplace, acquisitions,
divestitures and business focus of us
and/or our
peer group companies. In January 2010, in order to perform the
analysis of our fiscal 2010 compensation, our Compensation
Committee added three new companies, Broadwind Energy Inc., ITC
Holdings Corp., and Powell Industries Inc., to our peer group,
and two companies, Active Power, Inc. and Composite Technology
Corporation, were removed from our peer group. These changes
were made in order to maintain closer similarity between us and
our peer group companies based upon the comparable company
criteria described above.
The Compensation Committee utilized the peer group to provide
context for its compensation decision-making. The compensation
paid by peer group companies to their respective executive
officers does not factor into the Compensation Committees
determination of the peer group. After the peer group companies
are selected, Pearl Meyer & Partners prepares and
presents a report to the Compensation Committee summarizing the
competitive data and comparisons of our executive officers to
the comparable company market data utilizing publicly available
data from the comparable companies and broad survey data
(reflecting companies of similar size in the general and
high-technology industries). We use the broad survey data in
conjunction with peer group data in evaluating our executive
compensation practices. Each of our elements of compensation is
reviewed as part of this analysis and evaluation.
The above review provided the Compensation Committee with
general affirmation that its compensation decisions are aligned
with the marketplace and our compensation program was achieving
the Compensation Committees objectives, as described above.
During early fiscal 2010, Pearl Meyer & Partners
advised the Compensation Committee on compensation matters for
all officers and directors and met with the Compensation
Committee in executive session without the presence of
management, as requested by the Compensation Committee. Pearl
Meyer & Partners did not perform services for the
Company that were unrelated to Compensation Committee-related
matters during fiscal 2010.
Risk
Considerations in our Compensation Program
Our Compensation Committee does not believe that any risks
arising from our employee compensation policies and practices
are reasonably likely to have a material adverse affect on our
company. Our Compensation Committee believes that any risks
arising from our compensation policies and practices are
mitigated by:
|
|
|
|
|
the multiple elements of our compensation packages, including
base salary, annual bonus programs and, for most of our
employees, equity awards vesting over multiple years, that are
intended to motivate employees to take a long-term view of our
business;
|
|
|
|
the structure of our annual cash bonus program, which is based
on (i) a number of different performance measures
(including Non-GAAP Net Income, revenue, cash flow and
orders, among others), to avoid employees placing undue emphasis
on any particular performance metric at the expense of other
aspects of our business, and (ii) performance targets that
we believe are somewhat aggressive yet reasonable and should not
require undue risk-taking to achieve; and
|
|
|
|
management process, controls and decision authorities
established for different types and levels of decisions.
|
112
Compensation
Mix
The Compensation Committee relies upon its judgment and not upon
rigid guidelines or formulas in determining the amount and mix
of compensation elements for each executive officer. We seek to
achieve our executive compensation objectives through the use of
four compensation components, which are summarized in the table
below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal Contributions to
|
|
|
Compensation Component
|
|
Compensation Objectives
|
|
Comments and Results
|
|
Base salary
|
|
Attracts and retains talented executives
with annual salary that reflects the executives
performance, skill set and opportunities in the marketplace.
|
|
Only component of compensation that is
guaranteed.
Can be most influenced by individual
performance.
Comprised 28% to 96% of total
compensation for our named executive officers in fiscal 2010.
|
Performance-based annual cash bonuses
|
|
Focuses executives on annual financial
and operating results.
Links compensation to stockholder
interests.
Enables total cash compensation to
remain competitive within the marketplace for executive talent.
|
|
Payout target for named executive
officers ranges from 50% to 75% of base salary and depends upon
Non-GAAP Net Income, individual objectives, and contribution to
our financial and non-financial objectives.
0% to 156% of target payout can be
achieved.
Total cash compensation (base salary
plus performance-based annual cash bonus) comprised 28% to 97%
of total compensation for our named executive officers in fiscal
2010.
|
Long-term equity incentives
|
|
Retains a successful and tenured
management team.
|
|
Time-based stock options and restricted
stock.
Long-term equity incentives comprised 0%
to 71% of total compensation for our named executive officers in
fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term equity incentives combined
with performance-based annual cash bonus brings at
risk fiscal 2010 compensation to a range of 1% to 71% of
total compensation for the named executive officers.
|
Severance and
change-in-control
benefits
|
|
Helps to attract and retain talented
executives with benefits that are comparable to those offered by
companies with whom we compete for talent.
Incentivizes management to maximize
stockholder value.
|
|
Each severance agreement provides for
certain severance benefits, primarily salary and health
benefits, in the event that the executives employment is
terminated under certain circumstances. The severance periods
range from 12 months to 36 months.
The stock options and restricted stock
awards we grant to our executive officers provide for full
acceleration of vesting upon a change-in-control of our company.
|
While the Compensation Committee independently evaluates each of
the compensation components discussed in the above table, it
places greater emphasis on the sum of base salary,
performance-based annual cash bonuses and long-term equity
incentives rather than any one component because of their
combined greater potential to influence our named executive
officers performance. The Compensation Committee believes,
and our pay mix is designed to reflect, that a substantial
portion of the compensation for our named executive officers
should be at risk and aligned with our
stockholders interests.
113
Base
salary.
Base salaries are set once per year as part of the compensation
review process. The Compensation Committee assessed a number of
factors in determining base salary adjustments for our executive
officers for fiscal 2010 including:
|
|
|
|
|
level of job responsibility;
|
|
|
|
individual, business unit and overall company
performance; and
|
|
|
|
competitiveness with salaries paid to executive officers in
similar positions, industries and geographic locations.
|
Based on its assessment of the foregoing factors, together with
its own business experience and judgment, the Compensation
Committee approved the changes below to the annual base salaries
of our executive officers. The annual base salary of
Dr. Yurek was recommended by the Compensation Committee and
approved by our Board, effective as of April 1, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
% Increase
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
280,000
|
|
|
$
|
295,000
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
330,000
|
|
|
$
|
330,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
240,000
|
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
312,000
|
|
|
$
|
321,000
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
199,000
|
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
Based upon its review of peer group companies, the Compensation
Committee recommended, and our Board approved, no base salary
increase for Mr. Yurek in fiscal 2010 but instead increased
his performance-based annual cash bonus opportunity to be more
in line with the market.
On December 11, 2009, the Compensation Committee approved
an increase in Mr. McGahns base salary from $260,000
to $330,000 in connection with his promotion to president and
chief operating officer of our company so he did not receive an
increase to his base salary in fiscal 2010.
On August 5, 2009, the Compensation Committee approved an
increase in Ms. DiCeccos base salary from $179,000 to
$199,000 in connection with her promotion to vice president,
corporate administration of our company. Ms. DiCeccos
base salary increase in fiscal 2010 reflects an adjustment to
better align her base salary with the market.
Performance-Based
Annual Cash Bonuses.
The Compensation Committee believes cash bonuses are an
important factor in rewarding and motivating our executive
officers. The Compensation Committee establishes a cash
incentive plan for our executive officers on an annual basis,
typically early in the fiscal year.
On May 12, 2010, the Compensation Committee, as well as our
Board, approved an executive incentive plan for fiscal 2010
covering all of our executive officers. Under the plan, the
Compensation Committee established Non-GAAP Net Income;
individualized objectives relating to revenue, cash flow and
orders, among others; and individual contributions to our
financial and non-financial objectives as the performance
metrics for the payment of cash bonus awards for fiscal 2010.
For each executive officer, other than Mr. Collett, the
Compensation Committee assigned the following weighting to each
such metric:
|
|
|
|
|
our companys Non-GAAP Net Income for fiscal 2010 as
compared to the established target 40%;
|
|
|
|
the executives achievement of individual measurable
objectives during fiscal 2010 as determined by our Board (in the
case of our chief executive officer) or the Compensation
Committee, which varied among the executive officers
40%; and
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
the executives overall contribution during fiscal 2010
toward the achievement of our companys financial and
non-financial objectives 20%.
|
Mr. Colletts incentive award was determined using the
same foregoing factors, but their corresponding weightings were
40%, 20% and 40%, respectively. Mr. Colletts
weightings were more heavily subjective to reflect his role and
responsibilities with our company.
Under the terms of the fiscal 2010 executive incentive plan, the
Compensation Committee designated for each named executive
officer a target cash bonus amount between 50% and 75% of such
named executive officers base salary for fiscal 2010. The
amount of the target cash bonus award actually paid to each
named executive officer could have been less than or greater
than the executives target cash bonus incentive, with the
amount capped at 156% of the target cash bonus amount. If less
than 80% of a particular quantitative objective was achieved, no
payment was received with respect to that component of the bonus
plan.
The following table sets forth each named executive
officers target cash bonus for fiscal 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target Cash
|
|
|
|
|
Bonus as% of
|
|
Target
|
Name
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
Cash Bonus
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
$
|
450,000
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
|
$
|
214,500
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
147,500
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
125,000
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
160,500
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
|
$
|
112,500
|
|
The Compensation Committee is responsible for determining the
cash payout under the plan to each executive officer other than
the chief executive officer. Our Board determines the cash
payout under the plan for the chief executive officer, taking
into account the recommendation of the Compensation Committee.
The following summarizes the cash bonus opportunity for the
named executive officers under each performance metric under the
fiscal 2010 executive incentive plan.
Milestones and achievement for the Non-GAAP Net Income
(40%) bonus measure: All of the named executive
officers had the same Non-GAAP Net Income threshold that
had to be met before payout could be earned. The fiscal
2010 milestones and achievement levels for our
companys Non-GAAP Net Income measure are shown below.
An executives payout on this measure was determined
through a numerical calculation based on our companys
Non-GAAP Net Income so the Compensation Committee (or, in
the case of our chief executive officer, our Board) did not need
to apply discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010 Milestones and Achievement for Company Non-GAAP
Net Income
|
|
|
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Target
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
|
|
(80%)
|
|
(100%)
|
|
(156%)
|
|
Non-GAAP Net Income
|
|
Non-GAAP Net Income Milestones:
|
|
$
|
45.5M
|
|
|
$
|
56.9M
|
|
|
$
|
64.8M
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP Net Income Result:
|
|
$
|
(12.8M
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonus Opportunity
|
|
% Achievement:
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115
Our companys Non-GAAP Net Income for fiscal 2010 was
significantly less than the threshold payout level. As a result,
the Compensation Committee (or, in the case of our chief
executive officer, our Board) awarded no bonuses under the
Non-GAAP Net Income measure to any named executive officer
as summarized in the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
Target
|
|
Total
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Payout
|
|
Bonus
|
Name
|
|
for Metric
|
|
for Metric
|
|
Opportunity
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
180,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
85,800
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
59,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
50,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
64,200
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
45,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Individual measurable objectives (40%): The
cash bonus payment to each named executive officer under this
measure depended upon achievement of performance objectives
specific to each named executive officer. These performance
objectives were established at the beginning of fiscal 2010 and
relate specifically to each officers function and
department. The Compensation Committee (or, in the case of our
chief executive officer, our Board) awarded bonuses under this
measure to each named executive officer as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010 Individual Measurable Objectives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achievement
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Measure
|
|
Target
|
|
|
(% of Target)
|
|
|
Payout
|
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
AMSC Revenue (40)%
|
|
$
|
430.2M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Superconductors Business Unit Revenue (10)%
|
|
$
|
11.7M
|
|
|
|
87
|
%
|
|
$
|
0(1
|
)
|
|
|
New Orders (50)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
AMSC Revenue (40)%
|
|
$
|
430.2M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Superconductors Business Unit Revenue (10)%
|
|
$
|
11.7M
|
|
|
|
87
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,976
|
|
|
|
New Orders (25)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Operating Expense as % of Revenue (25)%
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,976
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
Effective Tax Rate (40)%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Operating Cash Flow (40)%
|
|
$
|
53.4M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
New Orders (20)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
New Orders (60)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Prominent US Licensee Approved by Board (40)%
|
|
|
Yes or No
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
Power Systems Business Unit Operating Income (50)%
|
|
$
|
105.7M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Power Systems Business Unit Revenue (25)%
|
|
$
|
418.5M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
New Orders (25)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
ERP system Go Live (20)%
|
|
|
By 2/17/11
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
Manage New Hire Costs (20)%
|
|
$
|
17.5M
|
|
|
|
156
|
%
|
|
$
|
14,040
|
|
|
|
New Orders (20)%
|
|
$
|
378.6M
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
Annual Voluntary Turnover (10)%
|
|
|
25% below
industry average
|
|
|
|
156
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,020
|
|
|
|
Annual Recordable Injury Rate (10)%
|
|
|
25% below
industry average
|
|
|
|
156
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,020
|
|
|
|
IT Capital Expense (20)%
|
|
$
|
13.7M
|
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
|
%
|
|
$
|
44,190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
(1) |
|
On May 23, 2011, in connection with the retirement and
services agreement we entered into with Dr. Yurek, we
agreed that Dr. Yurek would not receive a performance-based
cash bonus payment in fiscal 2010. |
Executive contribution to companys achievement of
financial and non-financial objectives subjective
performance measure (20%): Each named executive
officer was also evaluated upon his or her overall contribution
during fiscal 2010 toward the achievement of our companys
financial and non-financial objectives. Assessment of
achievement for these objectives was evaluated on the basis of a
number of pre-determined factors relating to outcomes, timing,
process, communication and leadership. The Compensation
Committee (or, in the case of our chief executive officer, our
Board) had discretionary authority to determine whether, and to
what extent, these objectives had been achieved.
Because our companys financial performance was
significantly less than expected, the Compensation Committee
(or, in the case of our chief executive officer, our Board)
decided not to award any bonuses under this subjective measure
to any named executive officer as summarized in the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Target
|
|
|
Target Bonus
|
|
Total Payout
|
|
Bonus
|
Name
|
|
for Metric
|
|
for Metric
|
|
Opportunity
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
90,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
42,900
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
29,500
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
50,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
32,100
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
22,500
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Overall payout results: In June 2011, the
Compensation Committee (or, in the case of our chief executive
officer, our Board) approved the following payouts under the
fiscal 2010 executive incentive plan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
% of Target
|
|
|
Target Cash
|
|
Total Cash
|
|
Bonus
|
Name
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Payout
|
|
Opportunity
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
450,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
214,500
|
|
|
$
|
4,976
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
147,500
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
125,000
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
160,500
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
112,500
|
|
|
$
|
44,190
|
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
Long
Term Equity Incentives.
The Compensation Committee uses stock-based awards to retain
executive officers and align their interests with those of our
stockholders. Historically, the Compensation Committee granted
stock-based awards to our executive officers purely in the form
of stock options that vested in installments over multiple
years, with an exercise price equal to the closing market price
of our common stock on the date of grant. Recent changes in the
accounting treatment for stock options have made stock option
grants a less attractive form of compensation for companies.
While we continue to use stock options as a form of incentive
for employees and executive officers, the Compensation Committee
has increasingly relied on the award of shares of restricted
stock to our executive officers. The Compensation Committee
awards both time-based and performance-based restricted stock
awards. A time-based restricted stock award typically will vest
in equal annual installments over a three-year period. A
performance-based restricted stock award typically will vest
upon the achievement of specific objectives relating to our
performance within a specified period. The Compensation
Committee believes shares of restricted stock provide an equally
motivating form of incentive compensation, minimize stock
compensation expenses and reduce the potential dilution of our
shares.
117
We generally grant options and shares of restricted stock to
executive officers and other employees upon their initial hire,
in connection with a promotion, and annually based on merit. To
determine the amount of stock-based awards granted to executive
officers, our Compensation Committee considers the performance
of the individual and our company, historic stock-based awards
and the awards made to those in similar positions at comparable
companies.
Our Board and Compensation Committee typically meet in early May
to review company performance for the prior fiscal year. At such
time, the Compensation Committee (or, in the case of our chief
executive officer, our Board) also reviews the performance of
the executive officers over the prior fiscal year and grants
restricted stock or stock options to the executive officers.
In May 2010, when considering equity grants, the Compensation
Committee (or, in the case of our chief executive officer, our
Board) considered:
|
|
|
|
|
each executive officers performance and contribution
during the prior fiscal year;
|
|
|
|
recommendations made by our management;
|
|
|
|
competitive practices; and
|
|
|
|
the overall compensation package for each executive officer.
|
Based on such considerations, the Compensation Committee (or, in
the case of our chief executive officer, our Board) granted
time-based restricted stock awards and stock options.
Messrs. Yurek, Henry, Collett and Stankiewicz and
Ms. DiCecco received time-based restricted stock awards for
21,000 shares, 9,000 shares, 10,800 shares,
6,000 shares and 5,400 shares, respectively, with each
award vesting in equal annual installments over a three-year
period. Messrs. Yurek, Henry, Collett and Stankiewicz and
Ms. DiCecco also received option grants for 36,000, 15,000,
18,000, 10,000 and 9,000 shares, respectively, with each
grant becoming exercisable in equal annual installments over a
three-year period. Mr. McGahn had received a
performance-based restricted stock award of 25,000 shares
and an option grant for 100,000 shares which becomes
exercisable on the fifth anniversary of the grant date in
connection with his promotion to President and Chief Operating
Officer in December 2009, so he did not receive any additional
restricted stock awards or option grants in May 2010.
Benefits
We offer a comprehensive benefits package to all full-time
employees, including health and dental insurance, life and
disability insurance and a 401(k) plan. Executive officers are
eligible to participate in all of our employee benefit plans.
The 401(k) plan includes a matching component where we will
match $0.50 on the dollar of an employees contribution up
to a maximum of 6 percent of their wages in the form of our
stock. The employee contributions are subject to the maximum
limitations as set forth in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended.
Severance
and
Change-in-Control
Benefits
We have entered into agreements with each of our executive
officers that provide them with severance benefits in the event
of the termination of their employment under specified
circumstances, including termination following a change in
control of our company. In addition, the stock options and
restricted stock awards we grant to our executive officers
provide for full acceleration of vesting upon a change in
control of our company. These agreements, along with estimates
of the value of the benefits payable under them, are described
below under the caption Employment Agreements and
Severance Agreements with Executive Officers. We believe
providing these benefits helps us compete for and retain
executive talent and that our severance and
change-in-control
benefits are generally in line with those provided to executives
by comparable companies.
Tax
Considerations
The Internal Revenue Service, pursuant to Section 162(m) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, generally
disallows a tax deduction for compensation in excess of
$1,000,000 paid to our chief executive officer and to certain
other officers (other than our chief financial officer). Certain
compensation, including qualified performance-based
compensation, will not be subject to the deduction limit if
certain requirements are met.
118
We generally structure our stock option awards to comply with
exemptions in Section 162(m) so that the compensation
remains tax deductible to us. We periodically review the
potential consequences of Section 162(m) on the other
components of our executive compensation program. We will
structure arrangements to comply with the Section 162(m)
exceptions where we believe it to be feasible. However, the
Compensation Committee may, in its judgment, authorize
compensation payments that do not comply with the exemptions in
Section 162(m) when it believes that such payments are
appropriate to attract and retain executive talent.
Summary
Compensation Table
The following table contains information with respect to the
compensation for fiscal 2010 of our former principal executive
officer, our principal financial officer and our three other
most highly compensated executive officers who were serving as
executive officers on March 31, 2011. The following table
also includes Mr. McGahn, whose compensation is not
required to be disclosed under SEC rules, but is being included
because he was named our principal executive officer effective
June 1, 2011 and we believe it is important to include him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Principal
|
|
Fiscal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
Option
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Position
|
|
Year(1)
|
|
Salary
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Awards(2)
|
|
Awards(2)
|
|
Compensation(3)
|
|
Compensation(4)
|
|
Total
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
614,040
|
|
|
$
|
657,713
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
14,106
|
|
|
$
|
1,885,859
|
|
Former Chairman and Chief
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
600,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
303,480
|
|
|
$
|
768,070
|
|
|
$
|
561,600
|
|
|
$
|
9,704
|
|
|
$
|
2,242,854
|
|
Executive Officer(5)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
575,000
|
|
|
$
|
33,091
|
(6)
|
|
$
|
1,767,600
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
495,003
|
|
|
$
|
7,272
|
|
|
$
|
2,877,966
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
330,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,976
|
|
|
$
|
9,304
|
|
|
$
|
344,280
|
|
President and Chief
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
281,288
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,118,990
|
|
|
$
|
2,545,559
|
|
|
$
|
161,520
|
|
|
$
|
8,955
|
|
|
$
|
4,116,312
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
245,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,000
|
(7)
|
|
$
|
1,031,100
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
154,786
|
|
|
$
|
9,154
|
|
|
$
|
1,450,040
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
295,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
263,160
|
|
|
$
|
274,047
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,039
|
|
|
$
|
839,246
|
|
Senior Vice President,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
280,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
128,979
|
|
|
$
|
322,589
|
|
|
$
|
208,992
|
|
|
$
|
6,741
|
|
|
$
|
947,301
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
270,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
883,800
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
210,600
|
|
|
$
|
7,693
|
|
|
$
|
1,372,093
|
|
and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
250,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
315,792
|
|
|
$
|
328,856
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,200
|
|
|
$
|
902,848
|
|
Former Senior Vice President,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Strategy Officer(8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
321,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
175,440
|
|
|
$
|
182,698
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,366
|
|
|
$
|
688,504
|
|
Former Executive Vice
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
312,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
278,190
|
|
|
$
|
322,589
|
|
|
$
|
243,360
|
|
|
$
|
11,308
|
|
|
$
|
1,167,448
|
|
President, Operations and Grid Segment(9)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
$
|
300,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,149
|
(10)
|
|
$
|
1,325,700
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
209,220
|
|
|
$
|
9,136
|
|
|
$
|
1,854,205
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
157,896
|
|
|
$
|
164,428
|
|
|
$
|
44,190
|
|
|
$
|
8,149
|
|
|
$
|
599,663
|
|
Senior Vice President,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
192,333
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
250,600
|
|
|
$
|
185,868
|
|
|
$
|
99,521
|
|
|
$
|
7,284
|
|
|
$
|
735,606
|
|
Corporate Administration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Refers to the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011 (fiscal
2010), March 31, 2010 (fiscal 2009) and March 31,
2009 (fiscal 2008). |
|
(2) |
|
The amounts shown reflect the grant date fair value of awards
granted during the applicable fiscal year computed in accordance
with FASB ASC Topic 718. A discussion of the assumptions used in
calculating the amounts in this column may be found in
Note 11 to our audited consolidated financial statements
for fiscal 2010 included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. |
|
(3) |
|
The amounts in this column reflect cash bonuses paid under our
executive incentive plans for fiscal 2010, fiscal 2009 and
fiscal 2008. See Compensation Discussion and
Analysis Compensation Mix
Performance-Based Annual Cash Bonuses above for a
description of the plan for fiscal 2010. |
119
|
|
|
(4) |
|
All Other Compensation is comprised of the following amounts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life Insurance
|
|
Defined Contributions
|
Name
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
Premiums
|
|
for 401(k) Stock Match
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
$
|
8,106
|
|
|
$
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
6,935
|
|
|
|
2,769
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
7,272
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
1,954
|
|
|
|
7,350
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
1,958
|
|
|
|
6,997
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
1,941
|
|
|
|
7,213
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
|
5,094
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
1,905
|
|
|
|
4,836
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
1,950
|
|
|
|
5,743
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
1,779
|
|
|
|
6,421
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
1,954
|
|
|
|
7,412
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
1,958
|
|
|
|
9,350
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
1,913
|
|
|
|
7,223
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
1,683
|
|
|
|
6,466
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
1,545
|
|
|
|
5,735
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The life insurance premium amounts in the table above reflect
premiums paid by us for life insurance for which the named
executive is the named beneficiary. The amounts disclosed with
respect to Dr. Yurek include $6,153 of premiums paid by us
for a term life insurance policy for which his wife is the
beneficiary. |
|
(5) |
|
Mr. Yurek resigned from the Company effective June 1,
2011. |
|
(6) |
|
Represents a special performance bonus received by
Dr. Yurek. |
|
(7) |
|
Represents a special performance bonus received by
Mr. McGahn. |
|
(8) |
|
Mr. Collett joined the Company in October 2009 and mutually
agreed to end his employment with the Company, effective
July 22, 2011. |
|
(9) |
|
Mr. Stankiewicz mutually agreed to end his employment with
the Company, effective August 23, 2011. |
|
(10) |
|
Represents a special performance bonus received by
Mr. Stankiewicz in fiscal 2008. |
120
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table
The following table contains information concerning potential
future payouts under our fiscal 2010 executive incentive plan
and each grant of an option or restricted stock award made
during fiscal 2010 to the named executive officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards:
|
|
Option
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Awards:
|
|
or Base
|
|
Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
Shares of
|
|
Number of
|
|
Price of
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)
|
|
Stock or
|
|
Securities
|
|
Option
|
|
Stock and
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Target
|
|
Maximum
|
|
Units
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Awards
|
|
Option
|
Name
|
|
Date
|
|
$(2)
|
|
$(3)
|
|
$(4)
|
|
(#)
|
|
Options(6)
|
|
($/Sh)
|
|
Awards(7)
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,000
|
|
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
|
702,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
614,040
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,000
|
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
657,713
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,350
|
|
|
|
214,500
|
|
|
|
334,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,250
|
|
|
|
147,500
|
|
|
|
230,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
263,160
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
274,047
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,500
|
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
|
195,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315,792
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,000
|
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
328,856
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,150
|
|
|
|
160,500
|
|
|
|
250,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,440
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
182,698
|
|
Susan DiCecco
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,050
|
|
|
|
112,500
|
|
|
|
161,460
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157,896
|
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
164,428
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects the threshold, target and maximum cash bonus amounts
under our executive incentive plan for fiscal 2010. See
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Compensation Mix Performance- Based Annual Cash
Bonuses above for a description of this plan. The amounts
actually paid to the named executive officers under this plan
are shown above in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation
column of the Summary Compensation Table. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the total minimum amount that would have been earned if
the minimum targets for all of the annual metrics had been
achieved. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects the total amount that would have been earned if the
targeted annual metrics had been achieved. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects the total maximum amount that would have been earned if
the maximum targets for all of the annual metrics had been
achieved. |
|
(5) |
|
Restricted stock award vests in equal annual installments over a
3-year
period. |
|
(6) |
|
Options vest in equal annual installments over a
3-year
period. |
|
(7) |
|
Grant date fair value represents the FASB ASC Topic 718 value of
the restricted stock award or option as of the grant date. |
121
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Table
The following table contains information regarding unexercised
stock options and unvested restricted stock awards held by our
named executive officers as of March 31, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Awards:
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares or
|
|
Number of
|
|
Shares or
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units of
|
|
Unearned
|
|
Units of
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
Stock That
|
|
Shares That
|
|
Stock That
|
|
|
Options
|
|
Options
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Option
|
|
Have Not
|
|
Have Not
|
|
Have Not
|
|
|
(#)
|
|
(#)
|
|
Price
|
|
Expiration
|
|
Vested
|
|
Vested
|
|
Vested
|
Name
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
($)
|
|
Date
|
|
(#)
|
|
(#)
|
|
($)(20)
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
12,298
|
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.80
|
|
|
|
5/6/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,667
|
(2)
|
|
|
33,333
|
(2)
|
|
|
25.29
|
|
|
|
5/12/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,000
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
522,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,243,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198,960
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
5/12/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
30,000
|
(4)
|
|
|
10,000
|
(4)
|
|
|
11.00
|
|
|
|
12/11/2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,500
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.55
|
|
|
|
5/15/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
14,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
25.29
|
|
|
|
5/12/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
(17)
|
|
|
621,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99,480
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
621,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
38.69
|
|
|
|
12/11/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
80,000
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.87
|
|
|
|
7/9/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
14,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
25.29
|
|
|
|
5/12/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
497,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,400
|
(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84,558
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
223,830
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
5/12/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,800
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
268,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
(18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
994,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
(8)
|
|
|
32.36
|
|
|
|
10/19/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
5/12/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
80,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.55
|
|
|
|
5/15/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
14,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
25.29
|
|
|
|
05/12/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
870,450
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149,220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,333
|
(14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
5/12/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
1,200
|
(10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.44
|
|
|
|
4/17/2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,333
|
(12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.77
|
|
|
|
4/26/2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
(11)
|
|
|
8,000
|
(11)
|
|
|
25.50
|
|
|
|
5/11/2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,350
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,400
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134,298
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,400
|
(19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
29.24
|
|
|
|
5/12/2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These options were granted on May 6, 2004, vested in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and were fully vested as of May 6, 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
These options were granted on May 12, 2009, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 12, 2012. |
122
|
|
|
(3) |
|
These options were granted on May 12, 2010, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 12, 2013. |
|
(4) |
|
These options were granted on December 11, 2006, vest in
equal annual installments over a
5-year
period and will be fully vested on December 11, 2011. |
|
(5) |
|
These options were granted on May 15, 2007, vested in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and were fully vested on May 5, 2010. |
|
(6) |
|
These options were granted on May 12, 2009, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 12, 2012. |
|
(7) |
|
These options were granted on July 9, 2007 and were fully
vested on July 9, 2010. |
|
(8) |
|
These options were granted on October 19, 2009, and will be
fully vested on October 19, 2014. |
|
(9) |
|
These options were granted on December 11, 2009 and will be
fully vested on December 11, 2014. |
|
(10) |
|
These options were granted on April 17, 2003, vest in equal
annual installments over a
5-year
period and were fully vested on April 17, 2008. |
|
(11) |
|
These options were granted on May 11, 2009, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 11, 2012. |
|
(12) |
|
These options were granted on April 26, 2007, vested in
equal annual installments over a
3-year
period, and were fully vested on April 26, 2010. |
|
(13) |
|
These awards were granted on May 12, 2010, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 12, 2013. |
|
(14) |
|
These awards were granted on May 12, 2009, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 12, 2012. |
|
(15) |
|
These awards were granted on May 15, 2008 and were fully
vested on May 15, 2011. |
|
(16) |
|
These awards were granted on July 9, 2007, and will vest as
follows: 5,000 shares on 1st anniversary of grant date,
10,000 shares on 2nd anniversary of grant date, and
15,000 shares on 3rd anniversary of grant date. |
|
(17) |
|
These awards were granted on December 11, 2009, and will
vest in total upon the achievement of targets consistent with
our long-term business plan. |
|
(18) |
|
These awards were granted on October 19, 2009, and will
vest as follows: 5,000 shares on October 19, 2012,
10,000 shares on October 19, 2013, and
25,000 shares on October 19, 2014. |
|
(19) |
|
These awards were granted on May 11, 2009, vest in equal
annual installments over a
3-year
period, and will be fully vested on May 11, 2012. |
|
(20) |
|
Based on $24.87 per share, the last sale price of our common
stock on March 31, 2011. |
Option
Exercises and Stock Vested Table
The following table contains information concerning the exercise
of stock options and vesting of restricted stock awards for each
named executive officer during fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Value
|
|
Shares
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Acquired on
|
|
Realized on
|
|
Acquired on
|
|
Realized on
|
Name
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Exercise(1)
|
|
Vesting
|
|
Vesting(2)
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
|
390,394
|
|
|
$
|
10,306,330
|
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
$
|
116,960
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
$
|
58,480
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
$
|
141,800
|
|
|
|
16,700
|
|
|
$
|
478,558
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
3,667
|
|
|
$
|
107,223
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
6,200
|
|
|
$
|
171,878
|
|
123
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Value realized on exercise is based on the closing sales price
of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on the date of
exercise less the option exercise price. |
|
(2) |
|
Value realized upon vesting is based on the closing sales price
of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on the vesting
date. |
Employment
Agreements and Severance Agreements with Executive
Officers
We are party to severance agreements with each of our executive
officers. Each severance agreement provides for certain
severance benefits to the executive in the event that such
executives employment is terminated:
|
|
|
|
|
by us without cause in the absence of a change
in control of the Company (as such terms are defined in
the severance agreement); or
|
|
|
|
by us without cause or by the executive for good
reason (as defined in the severance agreement) following a
change in control of the Company.
|
These benefits consist primarily of the continuation of the
executives salary and employee benefits for a specified
period of time following employment termination. These periods
are as follows: Dr. Yurek 36 months;
Mr. McGahn 24 months;
Mr. Henry 18 months;
Mr. Collett 18 months;
Mr. Stankiewicz 18 months; and
Ms. DiCecco 12 months.
The stock options and restricted stock awards we grant to our
executive officers provide for full acceleration of vesting upon
a change in control of our company.
The following table describes the potential payments and
benefits that would be received by the named executive officers
pursuant to these severance agreements, assuming that a
qualifying termination of employment occurred on March 31,
2011. Actual amounts payable to each executive listed below upon
his employment termination can only be determined definitively
at the time of an executives actual termination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salary
|
|
|
|
|
Continuation
|
|
Employee
|
Name
|
|
Payments
|
|
Benefits(1)
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
660,000
|
|
|
$
|
43,328
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
442,500
|
|
|
$
|
28,080
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
17,356
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Calculated based on the estimated cost to us of providing these
benefits at March 31, 2011. |
The following table describes the value to the named executive
officers pursuant to the
acceleration-of-vesting
provisions in his restricted stock and option awards
and/or
severance agreements, assuming that a change in control of the
Company occurred on March 31, 2011. The actual value of
such acceleration to each executive listed below can only be
determined definitively at the time of an executives
actual termination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
Value of Option
|
|
Restricted Stock
|
Name
|
|
Acceleration(1)
|
|
Acceleration(2)
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn
|
|
$
|
138,700
|
|
|
$
|
1,342,980
|
|
David A. Henry
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
805,788
|
|
John R. Collett
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
318,336
|
|
124
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the number of option shares that would accelerate,
multiplied by the excess of $24.87 per share (the last sale
price of American Superconductor common stock on March 31,
2011) over the exercise price of the option. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the number of shares of restricted stock that would
accelerate, multiplied by the excess of $24.87 per share over
the grant price of the restricted stock. |
On May 23, 2011, our company entered into a retirement and
services agreement with Dr. Yurek pursuant to which
effective June 1, 2011, Dr. Yurek resigned as chief
executive officer and agreed to serve as a senior advisor to our
company for up to 24 months. The agreement includes a
general release of claims and customary non-compete and
non-solicit covenants for the three-year period ending
May 31, 2014. Pursuant to this agreement, Dr. Yurek is
entitled to receive the following payments and benefits:
(i) a total of $2.0 million in cash, of which $83,333
is payable on the final day of each month from June 2011 to
August 2012, $50,000 is payable on the final day of September
2012, and $50,000 is payable on the final day of each month from
April 2013 to May 2014; and (ii) continued group medical,
dental and vision insurance coverage through May 31, 2014.
On July 26, 2011, our company entered into a severance
agreement with Mr. Collett pursuant to which
Mr. Collett is entitled to receive the following payments
and benefits: (i) $375,000, less all applicable taxes and
withholdings, as severance pay (an amount equivalent to eighteen
(18) months of his then current base salary);
(ii) accelerated vesting of 47,200 shares of
restricted stock; and (iii) continued medical insurance
coverage for so long as Mr. Collett is COBRA-eligible
through the severance period. The agreement includes a general
release of claims.
On September 12, 2011, our company entered into a severance
agreement with Mr. Stankiewicz pursuant to which
Mr. Stankiewicz is entitled to receive the following
payments and benefits: (i) $717,500, less all applicable
taxes and withholdings, as severance pay (an amount equivalent
to eighteen (18) months of his then current base salary
plus $200,000 of additional consideration); (ii) an
extension of Mr. Stankiewiczs period to exercise the
80,000 vested options granted to him on May 15, 2007 from
until May 14, 2017; and (iii) continued medical
insurance coverage through the severance period for so long is
Mr. Stankiewicz is COBRA-eligible and does not become
eligible for coverage under another group health plan maintained
by a subsequent employer. The agreement includes a general
release of claims and customary non-compete and non-solicit
covenants for the one-year period ending August 31, 2012.
Director
Compensation
Our Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing and
making recommendations to our Board with respect to the
compensation paid to our non-employee directors.
In fiscal 2008, the Compensation Committee engaged Pearl
Meyer & Partners, independent outside compensation
consultants, to assess the competitiveness of our director
compensation and to provide recommendations with respect to both
the levels and structure of compensation for our directors.
Pearl Meyer & Partners assessed the competitiveness of
director compensation through comparisons with peer groups and
surveys. In May 2009, based on the recommendations of Pearl
Meyer & Partners, the Compensation Committee
recommended to our Board, and our Board approved, reductions to
the equity awards granted to directors upon his or her initial
election to our Board and annually following each Annual Meeting
of Stockholders, effective immediately.
Each fiscal year, non-employee directors receive cash
compensation as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
each non-employee director receives $20,000 as an annual cash
retainer;
|
|
|
|
the chairman of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive an
additional annual cash retainer of $6,000, $4,000 and $3,000,
respectively;
|
|
|
|
the Lead Director receives an additional annual cash retainer of
$4,000; and
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
each non-employee director who attends an in person
meeting of the Board or a committee of the Board receives $1,500
per meeting; and each non-employee director who participates in
a teleconference meeting of the Board or a committee of the
Board receives $1,000 per meeting.
|
Pursuant to the 2007 Director Stock Plan, non-employee
directors are granted equity awards as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
each non-employee director is granted an option to purchase
10,000 shares of common stock upon his or her initial
election to our Board; and
|
|
|
|
each non-employee director is granted (for no cash
consideration) 3,000 fully-vested shares of common stock three
business days following each Annual Meeting of the Stockholders,
provided that such non-employee director had served as a
director for at least one year.
|
Each option granted under the 2007 Director Stock Plan has
an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common
stock on the date of grant and becomes exercisable in equal
annual installments over a two-year period. Those options become
exercisable in full in the event of an acquisition of the
Company. The term of each option granted under the
2007 Director Stock Plan is 10 years, provided that,
in general, an option may be exercised only while the director
continues to serve as a director or within 60 days
thereafter.
The compensation packages for directors are intended to attract
and retain high-quality individuals to provide oversight to our
management team. Directors who are employees of the Company
receive no additional compensation for their service as
directors.
The following table summarizes the compensation of our
non-employee directors during fiscal 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid
|
|
Stock
|
|
Option
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name*
|
|
in Cash
|
|
Awards(1)(2)
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
|
Vikram S. Budhraja
|
|
$
|
45,500
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
130,640
|
|
Peter O. Crisp
|
|
$
|
59,500
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
144,640
|
|
Richard Drouin
|
|
$
|
56,500
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
141,640
|
|
David R. Oliver, Jr.
|
|
$
|
51,000
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
136,140
|
|
John B. Vander Sande
|
|
$
|
70,500
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
155,640
|
|
John W. Wood, Jr.
|
|
$
|
66,000
|
|
|
$
|
85,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
151,140
|
|
Pamela F. Lenehan(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
138,158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
138,158
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Excludes Dr. Yurek, who served as our chief executive
officer during fiscal 2010 and who received no compensation for
service as a director in fiscal 2010. Dr. Yureks
compensation as an executive is reported in the Summary
Compensation Table included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. |
|
(1) |
|
The amounts shown reflect the grant date fair value of awards
granted during fiscal 2010. A discussion of the assumptions used
in calculating the amounts in this column may be found in
Note 11 to our audited consolidated financial statements
for the fiscal 2010 included elsewhere in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K. |
|
(2) |
|
Based on stock price of $28.38 on the grant date of
August 11, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
Ms. Lenehan was appointed to the Board on March 11,
2011. |
126
As of March 31, 2011, each non-employee director held
options for the following aggregate number of shares of common
stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
Name
|
|
Shares
|
|
Vikram S. Budhraja
|
|
|
|
|
Peter O. Crisp
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
Richard Drouin
|
|
|
|
|
David R. Oliver, Jr.
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
John B. Vander Sande
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
John W. Wood, Jr.
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
Pamela F. Lenehan
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
Compensation
Committee Report
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the
preceeding Compensation Discussion and Analysis
section with management. Based on that review and discussion,
the Compensation Committee has recommended to our Board that the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis section be
included in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.
By the Compensation Committee of the Board.
Peter O. Crisp, Chairman
Richard Drouin
John B. Vander Sande
Vikram S. Budhraja
Compensation
Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The current members of the Compensation Committee are
Mr. Crisp (Chairman), Mr. Drouin, Dr. Vander
Sande and Mr. Budhraja. No member of the Compensation
Committee was at any time during fiscal 2010, or formerly, an
officer or employee of ours or any subsidiary of ours, nor has
any member of the Compensation Committee had any relationship
with us requiring disclosure under Item 404 of
Regulation S-K
under the Exchange Act.
No executive officer of the Company has served as a director or
member of the Compensation Committee (or other committee serving
an equivalent function) of any other entity, one of whose
executive officers served as a director of or member of our
Compensation Committee.
|
|
Item 12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND
RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
|
Stock
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our
common stock as of August 31, 2011, or such earlier date as
indicated below, by:
|
|
|
|
|
each person, or group of affiliated persons, who is known by us
to beneficially own more than 5% of the outstanding shares of
our common stock;
|
|
|
|
each of our directors;
|
|
|
|
our named executive officers (as defined in
Item 11 to this Annual Report on Form
10-K); and
|
|
|
|
all current directors and executive officers as a group.
|
127
Unless otherwise provided, the address of each individual listed
below is
c/o American
Superconductor Corporation, 64 Jackson Road, Devens,
Massachusetts 01434.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
Beneficially
|
|
Common Stock
|
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Owned(1)
|
|
Outstanding(2)
|
|
Five Percent Stockholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Douglas and related group(3)
|
|
|
11,797,500
|
|
|
|
23.2
|
%
|
c/o 125
East Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
Suite 400, Larkspur, CA 94903
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates(4)
|
|
|
3,323,775
|
|
|
|
6.53
|
%
|
40 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory J. Yurek(5)
|
|
|
233,643
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Daniel P. McGahn(6)
|
|
|
190,538
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Vikram S. Budhraja
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Peter O. Crisp(7)
|
|
|
155,603
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Richard Drouin
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
David R. Oliver, Jr.(8)
|
|
|
35,400
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Pamela F. Lenehan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John B. Vander Sande(9)
|
|
|
59,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
John W. Wood, Jr.(10)
|
|
|
34,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Other Named Executive Officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Henry(11)
|
|
|
158,034
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
John R. Collett(12)
|
|
|
54,751
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Charles W. Stankiewicz(13)
|
|
|
150,367
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Susan J. DiCecco(14)
|
|
|
37,321
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All directors and executive officers as a group
(14 persons)(15)
|
|
|
1,276,885
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Less than 1%. |
|
(1) |
|
The inclusion of any shares of common stock deemed beneficially
owned does not constitute an admission of beneficial ownership
of those shares. In accordance with the rules of the SEC, each
stockholder is deemed to beneficially own any shares subject to
stock options that are currently exercisable or exercisable
within 60 days after August 31, 2011, and any
reference below to shares subject to outstanding stock options
held by the person in question refers only to such stock options. |
|
(2) |
|
To calculate the percentage of outstanding shares of common
stock held by each stockholder, the number of shares deemed
outstanding includes 50,870,058 shares outstanding as of
August 31, 2011, plus any shares subject to outstanding
stock options currently exercisable or exercisable within
60 days after August 31, 2011 held by the stockholder
in question. |
|
(3) |
|
Information is derived from the Schedule 13D filed on
April 11, 2011 by Kevin Douglas, Michelle Douglas, James E.
Douglas, III, K&M Douglas Trust, Douglas Family Trust,
James Douglas and Jean Douglas Irrevocable Descendants
Trust, KGD 2010 Annuity Trust I and MMD 2010 Annuity
Trust I and is as of April 6, 2011. |
|
(4) |
|
Information is derived from the Schedule 13G/A filed on
August 8, 2011 by BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates and is
as of August 31, 2011. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes 57,631 shares subject to outstanding stock
options. Information is as of August 15, 2011, the last day
on which Mr. Yurek served as a director of the Company. |
128
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Includes 69,500 shares subject to outstanding stock
options, 87,000 shares subject to certain restrictions on
transfer and a repurchase right in favor of the Company and
1,548 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes 3,000 shares held by Mr. Crisps wife
and 40,000 shares subject to outstanding stock options.
Mr. Crisp disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held
by his wife. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes 20,000 shares subject to outstanding stock options. |
|
(9) |
|
Includes 40,000 shares subject to outstanding stock options. |
|
(10) |
|
Includes 20,000 shares subject to outstanding stock options. |
|
(11) |
|
Includes 99,000 shares subject to outstanding stock
options, 7,700 shares subject to certain restrictions on
transfer and risk of forfeiture in favor of the Company and
1,084 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. |
|
(12) |
|
Includes 651 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. Information is as of
July 22, 2011, the last day of Mr. Colletts
employment with the Company. |
|
(13) |
|
Includes 80,000 shares subject to outstanding stock options
and 5,036 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. Information is as of
August 23, 2011, the last day of
Mr. Stankiewiczs employment with the Company. |
|
(14) |
|
Includes 13,533 shares subject to outstanding stock
options, 4,800 shares subject to certain restrictions on
transfer and risk of forfeiture in favor of the Company and
1,281 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. |
|
(15) |
|
Includes 482,331 shares subject to outstanding stock
options, 105,332 shares subject to certain restrictions on
transfer and risk of forfeiture in favor of the Company and
10,790 shares held indirectly through American
Superconductors 401(k) plan. |
Securities
Authorized for Issuance Under Our Equity Compensation
Plans
The following table provides information about the securities
authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans as
of March 31, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
for Future Issuance Under
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Plans (Excluding
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
Options, Warrants
|
|
Securities Reflected in
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
and Rights
|
|
Column (a))
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
2,004,725
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
22.29
|
|
|
|
4,093,641
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes shares issuable under our 2000 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan in connection with the current offering period which ends
on September 30, 2011. Such shares are included in column
(c). |
|
(2) |
|
In addition to being available for future issuance upon exercise
of options that may be granted after March 31, 2011,
3,339,884 shares available for issuance under our 2007
Stock Incentive Plan may instead be issued in the form of
restricted stock, unrestricted stock, stock appreciation rights,
performance shares or other equity-based awards. The above
amounts include 226,000 shares available under the
2007 Director Plan and 527,757 shares available under
the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan on March 31, 2011. |
|
|
Item 13.
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
Our Board has adopted written policies and procedures for the
review of any transaction, arrangement or relationship in which
we are a participant, the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and
one of our executive officers, directors, director nominees or
5% stockholders (or their immediate family members), each of
whom we refer to as a related person, has a direct
or indirect material interest.
129
If a related person proposes to enter into such a transaction,
arrangement or relationship, which we refer to as a
related person transaction, the related person must
report the proposed related person transaction to our chief
financial officer. The policy calls for the proposed related
person transaction to be reviewed and, if deemed appropriate,
approved by the Audit Committee. Whenever practicable, the
reporting, review and approval will occur prior to entry into
the transaction. If advance review and approval is not
practicable, the Audit Committee will review, and, in its
discretion, may ratify the related person transaction. The
policy also permits the chairman of the Audit Committee to
review and, if deemed appropriate, approve proposed related
person transactions that arise between committee meetings,
subject to ratification by the Audit Committee at its next
meeting. Any related person transactions that are ongoing in
nature will be reviewed annually.
A related person transaction reviewed under the policy will be
considered approved or ratified if it is authorized by the Audit
Committee after full disclosure of the related persons
interest in the transaction. The Audit Committee will review and
consider such information regarding the transaction as it deems
appropriate under the circumstances.
The Audit Committee may approve or ratify the transaction only
if the Audit Committee determines that, under all of the
circumstances, the transaction is in our best interests. The
Audit Committee may impose any conditions on the related person
transaction that it deems appropriate.
In addition to the transactions that are excluded by the
instructions to the SECs related person transaction
disclosure rule, our Board has determined that the following
transactions do not create a material direct or indirect
interest on behalf of related persons and, therefore, are not
related person transactions for purposes of this policy:
|
|
|
|
|
interests arising solely from the related persons position
as an executive officer of another entity (whether or not the
person is also a director of such entity), that is a participant
in the transaction, where (a) the related person and all
other related persons own in the aggregate less than a 10%
equity interest in such entity, (b) the related person and
his or her immediate family members are not involved in the
negotiation of the terms of the transaction and do not receive
any special benefits as a result of the transaction, and
(c) the amount involved in the transaction equals less than
the greater of $200,000 or 5% of the annual gross revenues of
the company receiving payment under the transaction; and
|
|
|
|
a transaction that is specifically contemplated by provisions of
our charter or bylaws.
|
The policy provides that transactions involving compensation of
executive officers shall be reviewed and approved by the
Compensation Committee in the manner specified in its charter.
Since the beginning of fiscal 2010, there have been no related
person transactions.
Board
Determination of Independence
Under applicable NASDAQ rules, a director will only qualify as
an independent director if, in the opinion of our
Board, that person does not have a relationship that would
interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying
out the responsibilities of a director. Our Board has determined
that Mr. Budhraja, Mr. Crisp, Mr. Drouin,
Ms. Lenehan, Mr. Oliver, Dr. Vander Sande and
Mr. Wood do not have relationships that would interfere
with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the
responsibilities of a director and that each of these directors
is an independent director as defined under
Rule 5605(a)(2) of the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. Listing
Rules.
130
|
|
Item 14.
|
PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
|
Audit and
Tax Fees for Fiscal 2009 and 2010
The following table summarizes the fees of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent registered public
accounting firm, billed to us for each of the last two fiscal
years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
Fee Category
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Audit Fees(1)
|
|
$
|
3,581,556
|
|
|
$
|
1,397,506
|
|
Tax Fees(2)
|
|
|
365,591
|
|
|
|
132,739
|
|
Other(3)
|
|
|
129,902
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fees
|
|
$
|
4,077,049
|
|
|
$
|
1,530,245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Audit fees consist of fees for the audit of our annual financial
statements, the audit of our internal control over financial
reporting, the review of the interim financial statements
included in our quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
and other professional services provided in connection with
statutory and regulatory filings or engagements. |
|
(2) |
|
Tax fees consist of fees for tax compliance, tax advice and tax
planning services. |
|
(3) |
|
Other fees consist of fees for acquisition-related services. |
Pre-Approval
Policies and Procedures
The Audit Committee has adopted policies and procedures relating
to the approval of all audit and non-audit services that are to
be performed by our independent registered public accounting
firm. This policy generally provides that we will not engage our
registered public accounting firm to render audit or non-audit
services unless the service is specifically approved in advance
by the Audit Committee or the engagement is entered into
pursuant to one of the pre-approval procedures described below.
All services provided to us by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in
each of fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2009 were approved in accordance
with this policy.
From time to time, the Audit Committee may pre-approve specified
types of services that are expected to be provided to us by our
registered public accounting firm during the next
12 months. Any such pre-approval is detailed as to the
particular service or type of services to be provided and is
also generally subject to a maximum dollar amount.
The Audit Committee has also delegated to the chairman of the
Audit Committee the authority to approve any audit or non-audit
services to be provided to us by our registered public
accounting firm. Any approval of services by a member of the
Audit Committee pursuant to this delegated authority is reported
on at the next meeting of the Audit Committee.
131
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
(a) Document filed as part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K:
1. Financial Statements
The following financial statements of American Superconductor
Corporation, supplemental information and report of independent
registered public accounting firm required by this item are
included in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, in this
Form 10-K:
2. Financial Statement Schedules
See Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying
Accounts for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011,
2010, and 2009. All other schedules are omitted because they are
not applicable, not required or the required information is
shown in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto.
3. Exhibits Required by Item 601 of
Regulation S-K
under the Exchange Act.
See (b) Exhibits.
(b) Exhibits
The list of Exhibits filed as a part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
is set forth on the Exhibit Index immediately preceding
such Exhibits, and is incorporated herein by reference.
132
American
Superconductor Corporation
Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(In
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries and
|
|
Balance,
|
|
|
Beginning of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
End of
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Additions
|
|
Write-Offs
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Year
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
766
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
683
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
|
|
|
1,343
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
|
|
(809
|
)
|
|
|
766
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2009
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
1,652
|
|
|
|
(203
|
)
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
|
|
1,343
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance,
|
|
|
Beginning of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Additions
|
|
Expirations
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
Year
|
|
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
187,358
|
|
|
|
43,308
|
|
|
|
(10,063
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
220,596
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
|
|
|
174,695
|
|
|
|
16,189
|
|
|
|
(4,148
|
)
|
|
|
622
|
|
|
|
187,358
|
|
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2009
|
|
|
171,664
|
|
|
|
7,055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,024
|
)
|
|
|
174,695
|
|
133
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.
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION
Daniel P. McGahn
President,
Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Date: September 23, 2011
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Daniel
P. McGahn
Daniel
P. McGahn
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David
A. Henry
David
A. Henry
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
W. Wood, Jr.
John
W. Wood, Jr.
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Vikram
S. Budhraja
Vikram
S. Budhraja
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Peter
O. Crisp
Peter
O. Crisp
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard
Drouin
Richard
Drouin
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Pamela
F. Lenehan
Pamela
F. Lenehan
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David
R. Oliver, Jr.
David
R. Oliver, Jr.
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
B. Vander Sande
John
B. Vander Sande
|
|
Director
|
|
September 23, 2011
|
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant, as
amended(1)
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated By-laws, as amended, of the Registrant(2)
|
|
*10
|
.1
|
|
1993 Stock Option Plan(3)
|
|
*10
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan(4)
|
|
*10
|
.3
|
|
Form of incentive stock option agreement under Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan(5)
|
|
*10
|
.4
|
|
Form of non-statutory stock option agreement under Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan(5)
|
|
*10
|
.5
|
|
Second Amended and Restated 1997 Director Stock Option
Plan, as amended(6)
|
|
*10
|
.6
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under Second Amended and Restated
1997 Director Stock Option Plan, as amended(7)
|
|
*10
|
.7
|
|
2004 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended(6)
|
|
*10
|
.8
|
|
Form of incentive stock option agreement under 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended(7)
|
|
*10
|
.9
|
|
Form of non-statutory stock option agreement under 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended(7)
|
|
*10
|
.10
|
|
Form of restricted stock agreement under 2004 Stock Incentive
Plan, as amended(7)
|
|
*10
|
.11
|
|
2007 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended(8)
|
|
*10
|
.12
|
|
Form of Incentive Stock Option Agreement under 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended(9)
|
|
*10
|
.13
|
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement under 2007 Stock
Option Plan, as amended(9)
|
|
*10
|
.14
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement Regarding Awards to Executive
Officers under 2007 Stock Option Plan, as amended(9)
|
|
*10
|
.15
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement Regarding Awards to
Employees, under 2007 Stock Option Plan, as amended(9)
|
|
*10
|
.16
|
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (regarding performance-based
awards to executive officers and employees) under 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended(10)
|
|
*10
|
.17
|
|
2007 Director Stock Plan, as amended(11)
|
|
*10
|
.18
|
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement Under
2007 Director Stock Plan, as amended(9)
|
|
*10
|
.19
|
|
Executive Incentive Plan for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011(6)
|
|
*10
|
.20
|
|
Employment Agreement dated as of December 4, 1991 between
the Registrant and Gregory J. Yurek(12)
|
|
10
|
.21
|
|
Form of Employee Nondisclosure and Developments Agreement(12)
|
|
*10
|
.22
|
|
Noncompetition Agreement dated as of July 10, 1987 between
the Registrant and John Vander Sande(12)
|
|
*10
|
.23
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and Gregory J.
Yurek(6)
|
|
*10
|
.24
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and David A.
Henry(6)
|
|
*10
|
.25
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and Charles W.
Stankiewicz(6)
|
|
*10
|
.26
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and Angelo R.
Santamaria(6)
|
|
*10
|
.27
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and Daniel P.
McGahn(6)
|
|
*10
|
.28
|
|
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Executive Severance
Agreement, effective as of December 11, 2009, between the
Registrant and Daniel P. McGahn(13)
|
|
*10
|
.29
|
|
Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement dated as of
December 23, 2008 between the Registrant and Timothy D.
Poor(6)
|
|
*10
|
.30
|
|
Executive Severance Agreement dated as of September 8, 2009
between the Registrant and Susan J. DiCecco(14)
|
|
*10
|
.31
|
|
Executive Severance Agreement dated as of May 18, 2010
between the Registrant and John R. Collett(15)
|
|
10
|
.32
|
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated November 28, 2006, between
the Registrant and Gerald Hehenberger Privatstiftung(16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.33
|
|
Purchase Contract No. 06.7IC014 for the Core Components of
the Electrical Control System of FL 1500 Wind Turbine,
dated as of December 15, 2006, between Sinovel Wind (Group)
Co., Ltd and Windtec Systemtechnik Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.34
|
|
Purchase Contract No. 06.7IC015 for the Software of FL 1500
Wind Turbine, dated as of December 15, 2006, between
Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd and Windtec Systemtechnik Handels
GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.35
|
|
Contract Amendment to the Purchase Contract No. 06.7IC014
for the Core Components of the Electrical Control System of FL
1500 Wind Turbine, dated as of March 6, 2007, between
Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd and Windtec Systemtechnik Handels
GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.36
|
|
Contract Amendment to the Purchase Contract No. 06.7IC015
for the Software of FL 1500 Wind Turbine, dated as of
March 6, 2007, between Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd and
Windtec Systemtechnik Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.37
|
|
Purchase Contract No. FDCG07060 for the Core Components of
the Electrical Control System of SL 1500 Wind Turbine,
dated as of December 24, 2007, between Sinovel Wind (Group)
Co., Ltd, China National Machinery & Equipment
Import & Export Corporation and Windtec Systemtechnik
Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.38
|
|
Purchase Contract No. FDCG07061 for the Software of SL 1500
Wind Turbine, dated as of December 24, 2007, between
Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd, China National
Machinery & Equipment Import & Export
Corporation and Windtec Systemtechnik Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.39
|
|
Purchase Contract No. FDCG08050 for the Electrical System
of SL 3000 Wind Turbine, dated as of March 7, 2008, between
Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd, China National
Machinery & Equipment Import & Export
Corporation and Windtec Systemtechnik Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.40
|
|
Purchase Contract No. FDCG08051 for the Core Components of
the Electrical Control System of SL 3000 Wind Turbine,
dated as of March 7, 2008, between Sinovel Wind (Group)
Co., Ltd, China National Machinery & Equipment
Import & Export Corporation and Windtec Systemtechnik
Handels GmbH(17)
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
Purchase Contract
No. FDCG08045-01
for the Core Components of the Electrical Control System and
Software of SL 1500 Wind Turbine, effective as of June 5,
2008, between Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd and Suzhou AMSC
Superconductor Co., Ltd.(18)
|
|
10
|
.42
|
|
Amendment
No. HB-FDCG08045-01-2,
dated July 24, 2009, to Purchase Contract
No. FDCG08045-01
for the Core Components of the Electrical Control System and
Software of SL 1500 Wind Turbine, effective as of June 5,
2008, between Sinovel Wind (Group) Co., Ltd. and Suzhou AMSC
Superconductor Co., Ltd.(19)
|
|
10
|
.43
|
|
Purchase Contract
No. HCG1.5MW-10016-01,
effective as of May 12, 2010, between Sinovel Wind (Group)
Group Co., Ltd. and Suzhou AMSC Superconductor Co., Ltd.(20)
|
|
10
|
.44
|
|
Share Purchase Agreement, dated March 12, 2011, by and
among the Company and the shareholders of The Switch Engineering
Oy(21)
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)
or
Rule 15d-14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Chief Financial Officer Certification pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)
or
Rule 15d-14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b)
or
Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.2
|
|
Chief Financial Officer Certification pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b)
or
Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
101
|
.INS
|
|
XBRL Instance Document.**
|
|
101
|
.SCH
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.**
|
|
101
|
.CAL
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Calculation Linkbase Document.**
|
|
101
|
.LAB
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Label Linkbase Document.**
|
|
101
|
.PRE
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Presentation Linkbase Document.**
|
|
101
|
.DEF
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase Document.**
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on November 8, 2010 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on January 30, 2008 (Commission
File
No. 000-19672). |
|
(3) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on June 29, 1993 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(4) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to the
Registrants Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on June 27, 2001 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(5) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on May 28, 2009 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(6) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Current Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on February 5, 2009 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
(7) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on November 9, 2004 (Commission
File
No. 000-19672). |
|
(8) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on May 27, 2010 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(9) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on August 9, 2007 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
(10) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on May 20, 2008 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(11) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on August 6, 2009 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
(12) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Registration Statement on
Form S-1,
filed with the Commission on December 13, 1991 (File No.
333-43647). |
|
(13) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on February 3, 2010 (Commission
File
No. 000-19672). |
|
(14) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed with the Commission on November 5, 2009 (Commission
File
No. 000-19672). |
|
(15) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to the
Registrants Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on May 27, 2010 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(16) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on November 29, 2006 (Commission
File
No. 000-19672). |
|
(17) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibits to the Registrants
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
filed with the Commission on May 29, 2008 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(18) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on June 11, 2008 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(19) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on July 30, 2009 (Commission File
No.
000-19672). |
|
(20) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K/A
filed with the Commission on September 15, 2010 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
(21) |
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed with the Commission on March 14, 2011 (Commission
File No.
000-19672). |
|
|
|
Confidential treatment previously requested and granted with
respect to certain portions, which portions were omitted and
filed separately with the Commission. |
|
+ |
|
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to
certain portions of this exhibit, which portions have been filed
separately with the Commission. |
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required
to be filed as an Exhibit to this
Form 10-K. |