Cencora - 10-Q quarterly report FY2011 Q2

 

 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ

The number of shares of common stock of AmerisourceBergen Corporation outstanding as of April 30, 2011 was 273,962,768.

 

 

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

The accompanying financial statements present the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of AmerisourceBergen Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of the dates and for the periods indicated. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information, the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals, except as otherwise disclosed herein) considered necessary to present fairly the financial position as of March 31, 2011 and the results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 have been included. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP, but which are not required for interim reporting purposes, have been omitted. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual amounts could differ from these estimated amounts.

The Company has four operating segments, which include the operations of AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (“ABDC”), AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group (“ABSG”), AmerisourceBergen Consulting Services (“ABCS”), and AmerisourceBergen Packaging Group (“ABPG”). The Company has aggregated the operating results of all of its operating segments into one reportable segment, Pharmaceutical Distribution, which represents the consolidated operating results of the Company. The businesses of the Pharmaceutical Distribution operating segments are similar in that they service both healthcare providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in the pharmaceutical supply channel.

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts in order to conform to the current year presentation.

The Company files income tax returns in U.S. federal and state jurisdictions as well as various foreign jurisdictions. In fiscal 2010, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) completed its examination of the Company’s U.S. federal income tax returns for fiscal 2006, 2007 and 2008. No significant adjustments were made resulting from the IRS examination. In fiscal 2011, the Canada Revenue Service completed its examination of the Canadian federal income tax returns for fiscal 2007 and 2008 and no significant adjustments were made resulting from the examination.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company had unrecognized tax benefits, defined as the aggregate tax effect of differences between tax return positions and the benefits recognized in the Company’s financial statements, of $47.1 million ($32.0 million net of federal benefit, which, if recognized, would reduce income tax expense). Included in this amount is $10.9 million of interest and penalties, which the Company records in income tax expense. During the six months ended March 31, 2011, unrecognized tax benefits decreased by $8.8 million. During the next 12 months, it is reasonably possible that audit resolutions and the expiration of statutes of limitations could result in a reduction of unrecognized tax benefits by approximately $2.5 million.

Following is a summary of the changes in the carrying value of goodwill for the six months ended March 31, 2011 (in thousands):

Following is a summary of other intangible assets (in thousands):

Amortization expense for other intangible assets was $8.2 million in the six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010. Amortization expense for other intangible assets is estimated to be $16.5 million in fiscal 2011, $14.3 million in fiscal 2012, $12.0 million in fiscal 2013, $8.5 million in fiscal 2014, $3.9 million in fiscal 2015, and $10.0 million thereafter.

Debt consisted of the following (in thousands):

In March 2011, the Company entered into a new multi-currency senior unsecured revolving credit facility for $700 million, which expires in March 2015, (the “Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility”) with a syndicate of lenders. Interest on borrowings under the Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility accrues at specified rates based on the Company’s debt rating and ranges from 87.5 basis points to 192.5 basis points over LIBOR/EURIBOR/Bankers Acceptance Stamping Fee, as applicable (130 basis points over LIBOR/EURIBOR/Bankers Acceptance Stamping Fee at March 31, 2011). Additionally, interest on borrowings denominated in Canadian dollars may accrue at the greater of the Canadian prime rate plus 30 basis points or the CDOR rate. The Company pays facility fees to maintain the availability under the Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility at specified rates based on the Company’s debt rating, ranging from 12.5 basis points to 32.5 basis points, annually, of the total commitment (20 basis points at March 31, 2011). The Company may choose to repay or reduce its commitments under the Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility at any time. The Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility contains covenants, including compliance with a financial leverage ratio test, as well as others that impose limitations on, among other things, indebtedness of excluded subsidiaries and asset sales.

In April 2011, the Company amended its $700 million receivables securitization facility (“Receivables Securitization Facility”), which now expires in April 2014. The Company continues to have available to it an accordion feature whereby the commitment on the Receivables Securitization Facility may be increased by up to $250 million, subject to lender approval, for seasonal needs during the December and March quarters. Interest rates are based on prevailing market rates for short-term commercial paper or LIBOR plus a program fee of 90 basis points. The Company pays an unused fee of 45 basis points, annually, to maintain the availability under the Receivables Securitization Facility. At March 31, 2011, there were no borrowings outstanding under the Receivables Securitization Facility. The Receivables Securitization Facility contains similar covenants to the Multi-Currency Revolving Credit Facility.

In April 2011, the Company amended the Blanco revolving credit facility (the “Blanco Credit Facility”) to extend the maturity date to April 2012. Borrowings under the Blanco Credit Facility are guaranteed by the Company. Interest on borrowings under the Blanco Credit Facility accrues at specific rates based on the Company’s debt rating (200 basis points over LIBOR at March 31, 2011). Under the amended Blanco Credit Facility, interest on borrowings will accrue at 100 basis points over LIBOR.

The following table illustrates comprehensive income for the three and six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands):

In November 2009, the Company’s board of directors increased the quarterly dividend by 33% from $0.06 per share to $0.08 per share. In November 2010, the Company’s board of directors authorized another increase in the quarterly dividend by 25% to $0.10 per share.

In November 2009, the Company’s board of directors authorized a program allowing the Company to purchase up to $500 million of its outstanding shares of common stock, subject to market conditions. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, the Company purchased 14.4 million shares under this program for a total of $401.9 million. During the three months ended December 31, 2010, the Company purchased 3.2 million shares for $98.1 million to complete its authorization under this program.

In September 2010, the Company’s board of directors authorized a new program allowing the Company to purchase up to $500 million of its outstanding shares of common stock, subject to market conditions. During the six months ended March 31, 2011, the Company purchased 4.7 million shares for $156.9 million under the new program.

Basic earnings per share is computed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the periods presented. Diluted earnings per share is computed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the periods presented plus the dilutive effect of stock options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units.

The potentially dilutive stock options that were antidilutive for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were 1.8 million and 1.1 million, respectively, and for the six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were 0.9 million and 0.6 million, respectively.

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, and government investigations, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company establishes reserves based on its periodic assessment of estimates of probable losses; however, there can be no assurance that an adverse resolution of one or more matters during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period or on the Company’s financial condition.

On April 27, 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (“OMH”) notified the Company’s Canadian subsidiary, AmerisourceBergen Canada Corporation (“ABCC”), that it had entered a Rebate Payment Order requiring ABCC to pay C$5.8 million to the Ontario Ministry of Finance. OMH maintains that it has reasonable grounds to believe that ABCC accepted rebates, directly or indirectly, in violation of the Ontario Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act. OMH at the same time announced similar rebate payment orders against other wholesalers, generic manufacturers, pharmacies, and individuals. ABCC was cooperating fully with OMH prior to the entry of the Order by responding fully to requests for information and/or documents and will continue to cooperate. ABCC filed an appeal of the Order pursuant to OMH procedures in May 2009. In addition, on the same day that the Order was issued, OMH notified ABCC that it had filed a civil complaint with Health Canada (department of the Canadian government responsible for national public health) against ABCC for potential violations of the Canadian Food and Drug Act. Health Canada subsequently conducted an audit of ABCC, and ABCC has cooperated fully with Health Canada in the conduct of the audit. The Company has met several times, including most recently in April 2011, with representatives of OMH to present its position on the Rebate Payment Order. Although the Company believes that ABCC has not violated the relevant statutes and regulations and has conducted its business consistent with widespread industry practices, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

On October 30, 2009, 14 states (including New York and Florida) and the District of Columbia filed a complaint (the “Intervention Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Federal District Court”) naming Amgen Inc. as well as two business units of AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, and AmerisourceBergen Corporation as defendants. The Intervention Complaint was filed to intervene in a pending civil case against the defendants filed under the qui tam provisions of the federal and various state civil False Claims Acts (the “Original Qui Tam Complaint”). The qui tam provisions permit a private person, known as a “relator” (i.e. whistleblower), to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal and state governments. The relator in the Original Complaint is a former Amgen employee. The Office of the New York Attorney General is leading the intervention on behalf of the state governments.

The Original Qui Tam Complaint was initially filed under seal. On January 21, 2009, the Company learned that the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (the “DOJ”) was investigating allegations in a sealed civil complaint filed in the Federal District Court under the qui tam provisions of the federal civil False Claims Act. In February 2009, the Company received a redacted copy of the then current version of the Original Qui Tam Complaint, pursuant to a court order. However, the Company was never served with the Original Qui Tam Complaint. Relator initially filed the action on or about June 5, 2006 and a first amendment thereto on or about July 2, 2007. On May 18, 2009, the Federal District Court extended the time period for federal and state government authorities to conduct their respective investigations and to decide whether to intervene in the civil action. On September 1, 2009, 14 states and the District of Columbia filed notices of their intent to intervene. The 14 states and the District of Columbia were given leave by the Federal District Court to file a complaint within 60 days, or by October 30, 2009. The DOJ filed a notice that it was not intervening as of September 1, 2009, but stated that its investigation is continuing. The Company has received subpoenas for records issued by the DOJ in connection with its investigation. The Company has been cooperating with the DOJ and is producing records in response to the subpoenas.

Both the Intervention Complaint and the Original Qui Tam Complaint, as amended on October 30, 2009, allege that from 2002 through 2009, Amgen and two of the Company’s business units offered remuneration to medical providers in violation of federal and state health laws to increase purchases and prescriptions of Amgen’s anemia drug, Aranesp. Specifically with regard to the Company’s business units, the complaints allege that ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., which is a distributor of pharmaceuticals to physician practices (“ASD”), and International Nephrology Network, which was a business name for one of the Company’s subsidiaries and a group purchasing organization for nephrologists and nephrology practices (“INN”), conspired with Amgen to promote Aranesp in violation of federal and state health laws. The complaints further allege that the defendants caused medical providers to submit to state Medicaid programs false certifications and false claims for payment for Aranesp. According to the complaints, the latter conduct allegedly violated state civil False Claims Acts and constituted fraud and unjust enrichment. The Original Qui Tam Complaint, as amended, also alleges that the defendants caused medical providers to submit to other federal health programs, including Medicare, false certifications and false claims for payment for Aranesp.

On December 17, 2009, the states and the relator both filed amended complaints. The State of Texas, which was not one of the original 14 states intervening in the action, joined in the amended complaint. Between January 20, 2010 and February 23, 2010, the States of Florida, Texas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Nevada and Delaware filed notices to voluntarily dismiss the Intervention Complaint, leaving 9 states and the District of Columbia as intervenors. On February 1, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. Amgen, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss as well. On April 23, 2010, the Federal District Court issued a written opinion and order dismissing the Original Qui Tam Complaint, as amended, and the Intervention Complaint. Five states — California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, and New York — filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”) and the relator filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit on behalf of Georgia and New Mexico. On July 15, 2010, the First Circuit issued an order requiring the Federal District Court to provide a written statement explaining why a final judgment was entered with respect to the states in order for the First Circuit to determine whether to allow the appeals to proceed, and the Federal District Court complied with the order. The appeals were consolidated and briefing of the appeals was completed on February 16, 2011. The First Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals on April 6, 2011. The appeals remain pending. The relator also sought and received permission from the Federal District Court to file a further amended complaint (the “Fourth Amended Complaint”). On May 27, 2010, the relator filed a Fourth Amended Complaint with the Federal District Court, which names ASD and INN, along with Amgen, as defendants. The Fourth Amended Complaint contains many of the same allegations contained in the relator’s prior complaints, but adds a count based on allegations that conduct by ASD, INN, and Amgen caused healthcare providers to submit false claims because it is alleged that the healthcare providers billed the government for amounts of Aranesp that were either not administered or administered, but medically unnecessary. On June 28, 2010, the Company and Amgen filed motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. The motions to dismiss were denied following a hearing on July 21, 2010. The Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 18, 2011. The Motion was denied following a hearing on March 24, 2011. The Company, Amgen, and Relator filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on March 1, 2011. The Court heard oral argument on those motions on April 11, 2011. Those motions are currently pending. The trial date in this matter has been moved from July 2011 to October 2011.

The Company has learned that there are both prior and subsequent filings in another federal district, including a complaint filed by a former employee of the Company, that are under seal and that contain allegations similar to those in the Federal District Court action against the same and/or additional subsidiaries or businesses of the Company that are defendants in the Federal District Court action, including the Company’s group purchasing organization for oncologists and the Company’s oncology distribution business. The DOJ investigation of the allegations contained in the Original Qui Tam Complaint appears to include investigation of allegations contained in some or all of these other filings.

The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against the allegations contained in the Original Qui Tam Complaint, as amended (including the Fourth Amended Complaint), and the Intervention Complaint and against any appeals. The Company cannot predict the outcome of either the Federal District Court action (or any appeals thereof) or the DOJ investigation or the potential outcome of any other action involving similar allegations in which any AmerisourceBergen entity is or may become a defendant.

During the last several years, numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers’ class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class actions has gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. During the six months ended March 31, 2010, the Company recognized a gain of $1.5 million relating to the above-mentioned class action lawsuits. The gain, which was net of attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, was recorded as a reduction to cost of goods sold in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.

The recorded amounts of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable at March 31, 2011 and September 30, 2010 approximate fair value based upon the relatively short-term nature of these financial instruments. Within cash and cash equivalents, the Company had $1,816.9 million and $1,552.4 million of investments in money market accounts as of March 31, 2011 and September 30, 2010, respectively. The fair values of the money market accounts were determined based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets, otherwise known as Level 1 investments. The fair values of the Company’s debt instruments are estimated based on market prices. The recorded amount of debt (see Note 4) and the corresponding fair value as of March 31, 2011 were $1,342.9 million and $1,444.0 million, respectively. The recorded amount of debt and the corresponding fair value as of September 30, 2010 were $1,343.6 million and $1,486.3 million, respectively.

The Company’s 5 5/8% senior notes due September 15, 2012 (the “2012 Notes”), 5 7/8% senior notes due September 15, 2015 (the “2015 Notes”), and 4 7/8% senior notes due November 15, 2019 (the “2019 Notes” and, together with the 2012 Notes and 2015 Notes, the “Notes”) each are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a joint and several basis by certain of the Company’s subsidiaries (the subsidiaries of the Company that are guarantors of any of the Notes being referred to collectively as the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”). The total assets, stockholders’ equity, revenue, earnings, and cash flows from operating activities of the Guarantor Subsidiaries reflect the majority of the consolidated total of such items as of or for the periods reported. The only consolidated subsidiaries of the Company that are not guarantors of any of the Notes (the “Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries”) are: (a) the receivables securitization special purpose entity, (b) the foreign operating subsidiaries, and (c) certain smaller operating subsidiaries. The following tables present condensed consolidating financial statements including AmerisourceBergen Corporation (the “Parent”), the Guarantor Subsidiaries, and the Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries. Such financial statements include balance sheets as of March 31, 2011 and September 30, 2010, statements of operations for the three and six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, and statements of cash flows for the six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.