Extreme Networks - 10-Q quarterly report FY2012 Q1

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

Form 10-Q

OR

Commission file number 000-25711

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (408) 579-2800

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock, $.001 par value, outstanding at October 31, 2011 was 93,055,019.

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

(Unaudited)

 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

EXTREME NETWORKS, INC.

Basis of Presentation

Revenue Recognition

The Company derives the majority of its revenue from sales of its networking equipment and from service fees related to maintenance service contracts, professional services, and training for its products. The Company generally recognizes product revenue from its value-added resellers, non-stocking distributors and end-user customers at the time of shipment, provided that persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the price of the product is fixed or determinable, and collection of the sales proceeds is reasonably assured. In instances where the criteria for revenue recognition are not met, revenue is deferred until all criteria have been met. Revenue from service obligations under service contracts is deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis over the contractual service period. Service contracts typically range from one to two years.

Available-for-Sale Securities

The following is a summary of available-for-sale securities (in thousands):

 

 

The Company considers highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents. Investments with maturities of greater than three months, but less than one year at the balance sheet date are classified as Short Term Investments. Investments with maturities of greater than one year at balance sheet date are classified as Marketable Securities. Except for direct obligations of the United States government, securities issued by agencies of the United States government, and money market funds, the Company diversifies its investments by limiting its holdings with any individual issuer.

Investments include available-for-sale investment-grade debt securities that the Company carries at fair value. The Company accumulates unrealized gains and losses on the Company’s available-for-sale debt securities, net of tax, in accumulated other comprehensive income in the stockholders’ equity section of its balance sheets. Such an unrealized gain or loss does not reduce net income for the applicable accounting period. If the fair value of an available-for-sale debt instrument is less than its amortized cost basis, an other-than-temporary impairment is triggered in circumstances where (1) the Company intends to sell the instrument, (2) it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the instrument before recovery of its amortized cost basis, or (3) the Company does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the instrument (that is, a credit loss exists). If the Company intends to sell or it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the available-for-sale debt instrument before recovery of its amortized cost basis, the Company recognizes an other-than-temporary impairment in earnings equal to the entire difference between the debt instruments’ amortized cost basis and its fair value. For available-for-sale debt instruments that are considered other-than-temporarily impaired due to the existence of a credit loss, if the Company does not intend to sell and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the instrument before recovery of its remaining amortized cost basis (amortized cost basis less any current-period credit loss), the Company separates the amount of the impairment into the amount that is credit related and the amount due to all other factors. The credit loss component is recognized in earnings and is the difference between the debt instrument’s amortized cost basis and the present value of its expected future cash flows. The remaining difference between the debt instrument’s fair value and the present value of future expected cash flows is due to factors that are not credit related and is recognized in other comprehensive income.

The following table presents the Company’s investments’ gross unrealized losses and fair values, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The Company recognizes certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Fair value is measured based on a fair value hierarchy following three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable:

The following table presents the Company’s fair value hierarchy for its financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

 

Level 2 investment valuations are based on inputs such as quoted market prices, dealer quotations or valuations provided by alternative pricing sources supported by observable inputs. These generally include U.S. government and sovereign obligations, most government agency securities, investment-grade corporate bonds, and state, municipal and provincial obligations. As of July 3, 2011, the Company had no assets or liabilities classified within Level 3.

Inventory, Net

Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is computed using standard cost, which approximates actual cost, on a first-in, first-out basis. The Company reduces the carrying value of inventory based on excess and obsolete inventories which are primarily determined by age of inventory and future demand forecasts. At the point of the loss recognition, a new, lower-cost basis for that inventory is established, and subsequent changes in facts and circumstances do not result in the restoration or increase in that newly established cost basis. Any written down or obsolete inventory subsequently sold has not had a material impact on gross profit for any of the periods disclosed.

 

Deferred Revenue, Net

 

The Company offers renewable support arrangements, including extended warranty contracts, to its customers that range generally from one to two years. Deferred support revenue is included within deferred revenue, net within the deferred services category above. The change in the Company’s deferred support revenue balance in relation to these arrangements was as follows (in thousands):

 

Deferred Distributors Revenue, Net of Deferred Cost of Sales to Distributors

At the time of shipment to distributors, the Company records a trade receivable at the contractual discount to list selling price since there is a legally enforceable obligation from the distributor to pay it currently for product delivered, the Company relieves inventory for the carrying value of goods shipped since legal title has passed to the distributor, and the Company records deferred revenue and deferred cost of sales in “Deferred distributors revenue, net of deferred cost of sales to distributors” in the liability section of its consolidated balance sheets. Deferred distributors revenue, net of deferred cost of sales to distributors effectively represents the gross margin on the sale to the distributor; however, the amount of gross margin the Company recognizes in future periods will frequently be less than the originally recorded deferred revenue, net of cost of sales to distributors as a result of price concessions negotiated at time of sell-through to end customers. The Company sells each item in its product catalog to all of its distributors worldwide at contractually discounted prices. However, distributors resell the Company’s products to end customers at a very broad range of individually negotiated price points based on customer, product, quantity, geography, competitive pricing, and other factors. The majority of the Company’s distributors’ resales are priced at a discount from list price. Often, under these circumstances, the Company remits back to the distributor a portion of their original purchase price after the resale transaction is completed. Thus, a portion of the deferred revenue balance represents a portion of distributors’ original purchase price that will be remitted back to the distributor in the future. The wide range and variability of negotiated price credits granted to distributors does not allow the Company to accurately estimate the portion of the balance in the deferred revenue that will be remitted to the distributors. Therefore, the Company does not reduce deferred revenue by anticipated future price credits; instead, price credits are typically recorded against deferred distributors revenue, net of deferred cost of sales to distributors when incurred, which is generally at the time the distributor sells the product.

 

Guarantees and Product Warranties

 

The Company’s standard hardware warranty period is typically 12 months from the date of shipment to end-users. For certain access products, the Company offers a lifetime hardware warranty commencing on the date of shipment from the Company and ending five years following the Company’s announcement of the end of sale of such product. Upon shipment of products to the Company’s customers, the Company estimates expenses for the cost to repair or replace products that may be returned under warranty and accrues a liability in cost of product revenue for this amount. The determination of the Company’s warranty requirements is based on actual historical experience with the product or product family, estimates of repair and replacement costs and any product warranty problems that are identified after shipment. The Company estimates and adjusts these accruals at each balance sheet date in accordance with changes in these factors.

In the normal course of business to facilitate sales of the Company’s products, the Company indemnifies the Company’s resellers and end-user customers with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold the customer harmless against losses arising from a breach of intellectual property infringement or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company’s operating results or financial position.

The following are the components of other accrued liabilities (in thousands):

Share-based compensation recognized in the condensed consolidated financial statements by line item caption is as

 

The fair value of each option award and ESPP is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option valuation model with the weighted average assumptions noted in the following table. The expected term of options granted is derived from historical data on employee exercise and post-vesting employment termination behavior. The expected term of ESPP represents the contractual life of the ESPP purchase period. The risk-free rate based upon the estimated life of the option and ESPP is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. Expected volatility is based on both the implied volatilities from traded options on the Company’s stock and historical volatility on the Company’s stock.

 

The Black-Scholes-Merton option valuation model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected life of the share-based award and stock price volatility. The assumptions listed above represent management’s best estimates, but these estimates involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management judgment. As a result, if other assumptions had been used, the Company’s share-based compensation cost could have been materially different from that recorded. In addition, the Company is required to estimate the expected forfeiture rate and only recognize expense on a straight-line method for those shares expected to vest.

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general, and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

On April 20, 2007, the Company filed suit against Enterasys Networks in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Civil Action No. 07-C-0229-C. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,104,700, 6,678,248, and 6,859,438, and sought injunctive relief against Enterasys' continuing sale of infringing goods and monetary damages. Enterasys responded to the complaint on May 30, 2007, and also filed counterclaims alleging infringement of three U.S. patents owned by Enterasys. On April 9, 2008, the Court dismissed Enterasys' counterclaims on one of its patents with prejudice. On May 5, 2008, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that it does not infringe Enterasys' two remaining patents and dismissing all of Enterasys' remaining counterclaims with prejudice. On May 30, 2008, a jury found that Enterasys infringed all three of the Company's patents and awarded it damages in the amount of $0.2 million. The Court also ruled in the Company's favor on Enterasys' challenge to the validity of the Company's patents. On October 29, 2008, the Court denied Enterasys' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, and granted Extreme Network's motion for a permanent injunction against Enterasys. The injunction order permanently enjoins Enterasys from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling in the U.S. and importing into the U.S. the Enterasys products accused of infringing Extreme Network's three patents. On March 16, 2009, the Court also denied Enterasys' motion for a new trial, but granted Enterasys' motion for a stay of the injunction pending appeal. On April 17, 2009, Enterasys filed its notice of appeal and on May 1, 2009, the Company filed its cross appeal. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the jury verdict of infringement by Enterasys of the Company's patents and the Districts Court's summary judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys' '727 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of non-infringement by the Company of Enterasys '181 patent, holding that the District Court Judge applied an incorrect claim construction and reversed the District Court's denial of the Company's request for attorneys' fees as premature.  See Note 11

On June 21, 2005, Enterasys filed suit against Extreme and Foundry Networks, Inc. (“Foundry”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-11298 DPW. The complaint alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,251,205; 5,390,173; 6,128,665; 6,147,995; 6,539,022; and 6,560,236, and seeks: a) a judgment that the Company willfully infringes each of the patents; (b) a permanent injunction from infringement, inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of each of the six patents; (c) damages and a “reasonable royalty” to be determined at trial; (d) treble damages; (e) attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and (f) equitable relief at the Court's discretion. Petitions for reexamination were filed challenging five of the patents at issue to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a stay of the case was entered. Following the reexamination proceedings, Enterasys withdrew its allegations of infringement as to two of the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,539,022 and 6,560,236. The stay was lifted on May 21, 2010, and the Court held claim construction hearings in December 2010. Fact discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were consolidated and the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). The operative amended complaint names us as defendants; six of the Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The parties to the lawsuits have reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009. Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the settlement. The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of dismissal. Certain objectors have appealed the judgment. Subsequently, the District Court ruled that all objectors lacked standing to appeal. One of the objectors has appealed that ruling. If the appeal is successful, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

Indemnification Obligations

Subject to certain limitations, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its current and former directors, officers and employees. These obligations arise under the terms of its certificate of incorporation, its bylaws, applicable contracts, and Delaware and California law. The obligation to indemnify, where applicable, generally means that the Company is required to pay or reimburse, and in certain circumstances the Company has paid or reimbursed, the individuals’ reasonable legal expenses and possibly damages and other liabilities incurred in connection with these matters. It is not possible to estimate the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of these claims. The cost to defend the Company and the named individuals could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in the future. Recovery of such costs under its directors and officers insurance coverage is uncertain.

Comprehensive income was as follows (in thousands):

 

The Company recorded an income tax provision of $0.5 million and an income tax benefit of $0.2 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and first quarter of fiscal 2011, respectively. The income tax provision for the first quarter of fiscal 2012 consisted primarily of taxes on foreign income and U.S. state income taxes. The income tax benefit for the first quarter of fiscal 2011 consisted primarily of taxes on foreign income, U.S. state income taxes, and a reversal of previously recorded deferred tax liabilities. The income tax provisions for both quarters were calculated based on the results of operations for the three months ended October 2, 2011 and September 26, 2010, and may not reflect the annual effective rate.

The Company recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities based on the differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and the tax bases of assets and liabilities. Significant management judgment is required in determining the Company's deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against the Company's net deferred tax assets. The Company makes an assessment of the likelihood that the Company's net deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income, and to the extent that recovery is not believed to be likely, a valuation allowance is established.  

The Company has a full valuation allowance against its U.S. net deferred tax assets. The valuation allowance was calculated by assessing both negative and positive evidence when measuring the need for a valuation allowance. Evidence, such as operating results during the most recent three year period was given more weight than our expectations of future profitability, which are inherently uncertain. The Company's U.S. losses during those periods represented sufficient negative evidence to require a full valuation allowance against our U.S. federal and state net deferred tax assets. This valuation allowance will be evaluated periodically and can be reversed partially or totally if business results have sufficiently improved to support realization of the Company's U.S. deferred tax assets.

The Company had unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $25.9 million as of October 2, 2011. The future impact of the unrecognized tax benefit of $25.9 million, if recognized, is as follows: approximately $1.1 million would affect the effective tax rate, and approximately $24.8 million would result in adjustments to deferred tax assets and corresponding adjustments to the valuation allowance. It is reasonably possible that the amount of unrealized tax benefits could decrease by approximately $0.3 million during the next twelve months due to the expiration of the statute of limitations in certain foreign jurisdictions.

Basic net income per share is calculated by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period and excludes any dilutive effects of options and stock awards. Diluted net income per share is calculated by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common shares used in the basic earnings per share

The following table presents the calculation of basic and diluted net income per share (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

In fiscal 2011, the Company implemented restructuring plans, involving among other things, a reduction of its worldwide workforce. The associated restructuring costs consisted of cash severance, termination benefits, and asset impairments. Termination benefits include outplacement services, health insurance coverage, and legal costs. Asset impairments include adjustments to the cost basis of certain long-lived assets. During the three months ended October 2, 2011, the Company recognized additional restructuring charges of approximately $1.0 million, consisting of cash severance. The Company did not have restructuring charges during the three months ended September 26, 2010.

Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available that is evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision makers with respect to the allocation of resources and performance.

Information regarding geographic areas is as follows (in thousands):

 

On September 23, 2010, the Company entered into an Option Agreement with Trumark Companies LLC (“Trumark”) in which the Company granted Trumark an option (the “Option”) to purchase half of its corporate headquarters campus (approximately eight acres) in Santa Clara, California, at a price of $24.0 million. Trumark made the first option payment of $0.5 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2011 and the second option payment of $0.5 million during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. These option payments are classified as a long term deferred gain on the sale of the building. Provided that Trumark continues to makes the required Option payments, Trumark will have sixteen months to exercise the Option. If Trumark exercises the Option, the closing on the purchase of half of the corporate headquarters campus will occur thirty days after such exercise. Exercise of the Option is contingent upon the successful rezoning of the property for residential development and other requirements of the City of Santa Clara which are expected to be completed within 9 to 12 months. The Company continues to classify all of its corporate headquarters campus as an asset held for use until the purchase contingencies have been eliminated and it is probable that the sale will be concluded within 12 months.

On October 31, 2011, ChriMar Systems, Inc. dba CMS Technologies and ChriMar Holding Company, LLC filed suit against Company in United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,457,250, and seeks: a) a judgment that the Company infringes the patent; (b) a permanent injunction from infringement; (c) damages; (d) attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and (e) equitable relief at the Court's discretion. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

On November 1, 2011, ChriMar Systems, Inc. dba CMS Technologies, filed a request with the International Trade Commission for investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Section 1337, In the Matter of Certain Communications Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers, and Other Devices Used in WLANS, and Cameras. ChriMar alleges that the Company imports into the United States, sells for importation, and/or sells within the United States after importation products and/or systems infringing one or more of the claims of U.S. Patent Number 7,457,250. The action seeks a permanent exclusion order excluding from entry into the United States all infringing articles that are manufactured, imported, or sold by Company that infringe at least one claim of the patent. The Company intends to defend the charges vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

Business Overview

We are a leading provider of network infrastructure equipment and services for enterprises, data centers, and service providers. We were incorporated in California in May 1996 and reincorporated in Delaware in March 1999. Our corporate headquarters are located in Santa Clara, California. We develop and sell network infrastructure equipment to our enterprise, data center and telecommunications service provider customers.

We conduct our sales and marketing activities on a worldwide basis through a distribution channel utilizing distributors, resellers and our field sales organization. We primarily sell our products through an ecosystem of channel partners who combine our Ethernet products with their offerings to create compelling information technology solutions for end user customers. We utilize our field sales organization to support our channel partners and to sell direct to end-user customers, including some large global accounts. Our customers include businesses, hospitals, schools, hotels, telecommunications companies and government agencies around the world.

We outsource the majority of our manufacturing and supply chain management operations as part of our strategy to maintain global manufacturing capabilities and to reduce our costs. We conduct quality assurance, manufacturing engineering, document control and test development at our main campus in Santa Clara, California. This approach enables us to reduce fixed costs and to flexibly respond to changes in market demand

Industry Developments

Realignment of Corporate Strategies

We believe that continued success in our marketplace is dependent upon a variety of factors that includes, but is not limited to, our ability to design, develop and distribute new and enhanced products employing leading-edge technology. During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, we began shipping our new Summit X670, our next-generation data center top-of-rack switch.  We also initiated 3rd party interoperability and performance testing with our recently announced E4G Cell Site Router family for mobile backhaul, as well as our BlackDiamond BD-X data center core switch.  During the quarter, we also released the latest version of our ExtremeXOS modular operating system.

Results of Operations

 

Net Revenues

 

Cost of Revenues and Gross Profit

Cost of product revenue includes costs of raw materials, amounts paid to third-party contract manufacturers, costs related to warranty obligations, charges for excess and obsolete inventory, royalties under technology license agreements, and internal costs associated with manufacturing overhead, including management, manufacturing engineering, quality assurance, development of test plans, and document control. We outsource substantially all of our manufacturing and supply chain management operations, and we conduct quality assurance, manufacturing engineering, document control and distribution. Accordingly, a significant portion of our cost of product revenue consists of payments to our primary contract manufacturer, Alpha Networks, located in Hsinchu, Taiwan and Dongguan, China. In addition, we source our wireless product line from Motorola and resell under the Extreme Networks, Inc. brand.

The following table presents operating expenses and operating income (in thousands, except percentages):

 

Sales and Marketing Expenses

Sales and marketing expenses consist of salaries, commissions and related expenses for personnel engaged in marketing and sales functions, as well as trade shows and promotional expenses.

Research and Development Expenses

General and Administrative Expenses

Restructuring, Net

In fiscal 2011, we implemented restructuring plans, involving among other things, a reduction of our worldwide workforce. The associated restructuring costs primarily consisted of cash severance, termination benefits and asset impairments. During the three months ended October 2, 2011, we recognized additional restructuring charges of approximately $1.0 million, primarily consisting of cash severance. As of October 2, 2011, we had $1.7 million of restructuring liabilities remaining, which we anticipate paying by the end of fiscal 2012.