10-K 1 d10k.htm FORM 10-K Form 10-K

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended: September 24, 2005

 

or

 

¨ 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: 0-18281

 

Hologic, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

Delaware   04-2902449
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)   (IRS Employer Identification No.)

 

35 Crosby Drive, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730

(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)

 

(781) 999-7300

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:    NONE

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:   Common Stock, $.01 par value
    Rights to Purchase Preferred Stock

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s 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.  x

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).     Yes  x    No  ¨

 

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

 

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of March 25, 2005 was $690,490,063 based on the price of the last reported sale on the Nasdaq National Market System on that date.

 

As of December 1, 2005 there were 44,378,013 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $.01 par value, outstanding. The number of shares outstanding reflects the registrant’s two-for-one stock split effected November 30, 2005.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the registrant’s annual meeting of stockholders to be filed within 120 days of the end of its fiscal year ended September 24, 2005 are incorporated into Part III (Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated.

 



SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

Some of the statements contained in this report are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our or our industry’s actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding:

 

    our goal of expanding our market positions;

 

    the development of new competitive technologies and products;

 

    regulatory approval and clearances for our products;

 

    production schedules for our products;

 

    the anticipated development of our markets and the success of our products in these markets;

 

    the anticipated performance and benefits of our products;

 

    business strategies;

 

    dependence on significant suppliers;

 

    our ability to maintain effective internal controls;

 

    the impact of acquisitions we may complete in the future;

 

    the impact and costs and expenses of any litigation we may be subject to now or in the future;

 

    compliance with covenants contained in long term leases;

 

    anticipated trends relating to our financial condition or results of operations; and

 

    our capital resources and the adequacy thereof.

 

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “potential” and similar expressions intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, these forward-looking statements represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this report. Except as otherwise required by law, we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained in this report to reflect any change in our expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any of our forward-looking statements are based. Factors that could cause or contribute to differences in our future financial results include those discussed in the Risk Factors set forth in Part II Item 7 below as well as those discussed elsewhere in this report. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

 

2


PART I

 

Item 1. Business.

 

Overview

 

We are a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of diagnostic and medical imaging systems primarily serving the healthcare needs of women. We focus our resources on developing systems and subsystems offering superior image quality and diagnostic accuracy, which has enabled us to capture significant market share and customer loyalty, despite the presence of large competitors. Our core women’s healthcare business units are focused on mammography and bone densitometry. Our Lorad line of mammography systems and our bone densitometry product line are premier brands in their markets. In addition, we develop, manufacture and supply mini C-arm imaging products and DirectRay digital detectors. Our digital detectors are sold primarily to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), to incorporate into their own equipment. We also sell, distribute and service complementary products that are developed and manufactured by other original equipment manufacturers, such as our Esaote line of extremity MRI imaging systems, our jointly labeled breast imaging ultrasound system with Aloka Company, Ltd., our computer aided detection software for breast cancer detection with R2 Technology and iCAD, and our breast biopsy system with Suros Surgical Systems and J&J Ethicon. Our customers include hospitals, imaging clinics and private practices and many of the leading healthcare organizations in the world. Our customers are also major pharmaceutical companies that utilize our products in conducting clinical trials.

 

We were founded on and remain committed to the principle of applying superior technology to medical imaging challenges. We achieved our first market and technology position shortly after the first commercial shipment of our initial product targeting bone densitometry in 1987. Our proprietary technology remains a leading bone densitometry assessment tool, offering superior, cost-effective accuracy and reliability. Over the years we have expanded and diversified our business through acquisitions. In 1996 we acquired Fluoroscan Imaging Systems, a market leader for low intensity, real-time mini C-arm x-ray imaging devices that address the trend towards minimally invasive surgery. We have long identified mammography as an attractive growth opportunity where superior imaging technology could significantly improve diagnosis. With this goal in mind, in June 1999, we acquired Direct Radiography Corp., or DRC, from Sterling Diagnostic Imaging and have continued to invest in the development of their direct-to-digital x-ray technology, DirectRay, with an emphasis on mammography applications. In September 2000 we significantly expedited our entry into the mammography market by acquiring certain U.S. assets of Trex Medical Corporation, which included the Lorad product line of mammography and minimally invasive breast biopsy image guidance systems used to detect breast cancer. We estimate that over 13,000 Lorad mammography systems have been sold worldwide. Our products are known within the industry for superior image quality and technological innovation. We successfully integrated our DirectRay technology into the Lorad mammography product line and offer both digital upgrades to our existing installed base and new digital systems to potential customers. Most recently, in September 2005, we acquired the intellectual property relating to the mammography business and products of Fischer Imaging Corporation (“Fischer”), which has significantly expanded our intellectual property relating to the breast mammography and breast biopsy product lines. The purchase price for the intellectual property was $32 million, approximately $26.9 million of which was paid out of existing cash with the remaining amount paid through the cancellation of the principal and interest outstanding under a $5 million secured loan we previously provided to Fischer Imaging on June 22, 2005.

 

We are continuing to focus on expanding our market position in bone densitometry and mammography, including the growing field of digital mammography. To that end, in October 2002, we received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, known as the FDA, to commence marketing activities with respect to our Lorad Selenia full field digital mammography system. Following this approval we began to focus on the expansion of our direct sales and service forces in the United States, and late in fiscal 2003 we began to de-emphasize sales of our lower margin digital end-use general radiography systems. We have also entered into license and distribution agreements with several other manufacturers in the United States and China to produce and sell general radiography systems using our DirectRay plates and technology. We are continuing to evaluate

 

3


new marketing programs to expand market share in our core markets, to assess new distribution channels for our product portfolio and to pursue business relationships and acquisitions that would allow us to further leverage our technology base.

 

We were incorporated in Massachusetts in October 1985 and reincorporated in Delaware in March 1990. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to us, Hologic or our company refer to Hologic, Inc. and each of its consolidated subsidiaries. We view our operations and manage our business in four principal operating segments: mammography products, osteoporosis assessment products, direct-to-digital DirectRay detectors and all other which includes our mini C-arm imaging products and general radiography products. We have provided financial information concerning these segments in Note 9 of the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

 

Hologic and the Hologic Logo are registered trademarks of Hologic, Inc. Other trademarks, logos and slogans registered or used by Hologic and its divisions and subsidiaries in the United States and other countries include: Acclaim, Affinity, Affinity Platinum, Alexia, “At LORAD, Every Month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” Auto Film ID, Backtrack, CADfx, “Clarity of Vision,” Contour, Dataport, Delphi, Digispot, Direct Radiography, DirectRay and the DirectRay signal profile logo, Discovery, Dual Hip, EPEX, EPEX ER, EPEX Symphony, Exam Coach, Explorer, Express BMD, Express Exam, Fluoroscan, HiBrite, HTC, Image Pro, Instant Vertebral Assessment, IRIS, IVA, IVA Works, LORAD, “LORAD A Hologic Company,” LORAD DSM, LORAD Elite, M-IV, M-IV Platinum, MultiCare, Omniflex, One Time, OnePage Dx, OnePage Fx, OnePass, Permagrid, Physicians Report Writer, Physicians Viewer, Picturing Life, Premier, Premier Encore, QDR, QDR-1000, QDR-4500, RADEX, Radiological Vertibral Assessment, RVA, Sahara, ScoutMarc, SecurLook, SecurView, SecurView DX, SecurView RT, Selenia, SmartWindow, StereoLoc, SureLock, Tech Tips, UBA, and XRE. In September 2005, we acquired the mammography intellectual property portfolio of Fischer Imaging Corporation, including the following registered trademarks: MammoSound, MammoTest, MammoTest Plus, MammoVision, SenoLase, SenoScan, SenoSound, SenoView, and SenoView Plus.

 

Available Information

 

Our Internet website address is http://www.hologic.com. Through our website, we make available, free of charge, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. These SEC reports can be accessed through the investor relations section of our website. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

 

Our Markets and Products

 

Our core women’s healthcare business units are focused on mammography and bone densitometry. In addition, we develop, manufacture and supply other x-ray based products, such as general purpose direct-to-digital radiography detectors and mini C-arm imaging products.

 

Mammography and Other Breast Cancer Detection Products

 

Overview

 

According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the second most common cancer among women, and more than 211,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer were expected to occur among women in the United States during 2005. Breast cancer ranks as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women, causing an estimated 40,000 deaths in 2005. Over a lifetime, one in eight women will develop breast cancer and today there are approximately 2.3 million women living in the U.S. who have been treated for breast cancer. In 2005, about 1,690 cases of breast cancer are expected to occur among men, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers, and approximately 460 men will die from breast cancer. As with all other invasive

 

4


cancers, lowering morbidity and mortality can be directly related to the stage at which the disease is detected. Providing clinicians the tools necessary to assist in early detection of breast cancer represents a principal business of Hologic. Today we hold a leading share in the mammography market, primarily within the high-end segment.

 

In fiscal 2005, we shipped over 900 mammography products including 239 digital systems, and estimate our installed base of equipment to be over 13,000 systems worldwide.

 

Market

 

Leading industry sources estimate that the worldwide mammography imaging equipment market was greater than $300 million in 2004, and anticipate it may grow to over $600 million by 2008. This anticipated market growth is being fueled primarily by the rapidly emerging segment of digital mammography, offset only partially by a decline in more conventional film-based technologies. These sources estimate that the U.S. market for mammography may grow to $400 million by 2008 from its introduction only four years ago. International markets are expected to experience similar growth trends. In addition to speed and convenience, digital technology is expected to provide improved image quality over conventional films particularly in a subset of women falling into the categories of under 50 years old or having dense breast or pre-menopausal and peri-menopausal—ultimately leading to earlier detection. While digital mammography systems are presently several times more expensive than conventional systems, we believe they can provide long-term savings as they eliminate the recurring film and processing costs, reduce the cost of image storage, and have the potential to increase patient throughput.

 

Products

 

Our breast cancer detection business offers a broad line of breast imaging products, including the Selenia full field digital mammography system, a series of screen-film mammography systems and a range of breast biopsy image guidance systems. The Selenia system received U.S. FDA marketing approval in October of 2002. Its technology is based on our proprietary, amorphous selenium DirectRay digital detector, which preserves image quality by directly converting x-rays to electronic signals. We believe our Selenia full field direct-to-digital mammography system positions us to expand our share of the mammography market by offering clinicians one of the most advanced tools available for early detection of breast cancer.

 

Currently our highest-end LORAD screen-film mammography system, the M-IV Platinum, is considered a technology leader in the analog mammography marketplace. The M-IV Platinum incorporates our High Transmission Cellular, (HTC) Grid, recognized by Frost & Sullivan in connection with LORAD’s receipt of the 2001 Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award, as one of the most effective contrast improvements in 20 years of breast imaging. The patented HTC technology reduces x-ray scatter in two dimensions, delivering high quality contrast and resolution without an increase in radiation dose. In March 2002, we began full commercial production of our mid-tier system, the LORAD Affinity, which can also be configured with our HTC technology. The LORAD Affinity is a high-performance screen-film mammography system specifically developed to fill a market need for a cost-effective product, with performance characteristics similar to high-end systems.

 

We also offer two minimally invasive stereotactic breast biopsy guidance systems, the MultiCare Platinum prone breast biopsy table and the StereoLoc II upright attachment. These systems provide an alternative to open surgical biopsy, which is sometimes performed under general anesthesia in the outpatient department of a hospital, as well as to ultrasound guided biopsies. Minimally invasive biopsies, whether sterotactic or ultrasound guided, are most often performed in a physician’s office or a breast-imaging center on an outpatient basis under local anesthesia and cause far less tissue trauma and patient morbidity as well as being less expensive than open surgical biopsies.

 

In 2004 we began marketing efforts and commenced sales of a dedicated ultrasound breast imaging system made for us under private label by Aloka Corporation. Breast ultrasound may assist in the early detection of breast cancer by providing unique imaging capabilities for differentiating between solid and cystic nodules and identifying suspicious areas in dense breasts.

 

5


The following is a more detailed description of the products sold by our LORAD Division.

 

Selenia Full Field Digital Mammography System

 

    LORAD Selenia. The Selenia, which utilizes our DirectRay amorphous selenium flat-panel detector, is the industry’s first FDA approved digital mammography system based on direct conversion technology. Our direct conversion technology uses amorphous selenium to directly convert x-rays to electronic signals, without first converting them to light, a step required in systems using indirect conversion detectors. This direct conversion process completely eliminates light diffusion and preserves image sharpness, for exceptional digital images.

 

The Selenia has a number of other features designed to improve image quality, enhance patient comfort, and streamline patient throughput. For example, the system’s detector size of 24 x 29 cm, the largest in the industry, accommodates almost all breast sizes with a single exposure per view. The system enables complete intra-department connectivity and image management, including bi-directional communication and networking between workstations. In addition, the open architecture of the system’s design provides for full integration with existing enterprise Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS) and Radiology Information Systems (RIS). In April 2004 and September 2004 R2 Technology and iCAD, respectively, received FDA clearance for integration of their CAD (computer aided detection) products with Selenia.

 

SecurView. In 2005 we focused our product development activities on improving digital workflow in the breast imaging suite. To this end, we released SecurViewDX, a breast imaging softcopy workstation approved for interpretation of digital mammograms from all vendors as well as images from other diagnostic modalities. To complement this product, we also released SecurViewRT, a technologist workstation enabling bi-directional exchange of electronic communications between the reviewer and the technologist. Two new products extending the functionality of our SecurViewDX are in late beta testing; (i) an Advanced Multimodality Package which allows simultaneous display and interpretation of digital mammograms, as well as breast images from other modalities, such as ultrasound and MR (magnetic resonance); and (ii) MR-CADWorks, a sophisticated software package for advanced display, analysis, and interpretation of breast MR exams.

 

Screen-Film Mammography Systems

 

    LORAD M-IV Series, includes the LORAD M-IV and the M-IV Platinum. The LORAD M-IV has an installed base of over 5,000 units worldwide. Features of the LORAD M-IV include a bi-angular x-ray tube, dual filter capability, auto filter mode, three-cell Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) sensor, fully automatic collimation and isocentric C-arm rotation. Image quality can be further improved through use of the HTC Grid and Fully Automatic Self-adjusting Tilt (FAST) Paddle, which are standard features of the M-IV Platinum and optional components on the M-IV. Other features of the LORAD M-IV Series include integrated auto film identification and optional bar code reader. The LORAD M-IV has also been designed to be upgradeable to our Selenia full field digital mammography system.

 

    LORAD Affinity. We began full commercial production of the Affinity in late 2002. The Lorad Affinity is a screen-film mammography system developed to fill a market need for a cost-effective, high performance mammography product. The Affinity can be used with other LORAD innovations to improve mammographic image quality, including our HTC and FAST Paddle technology.

 

Stereotactic Breast Biopsy Systems

 

We provide clinicians with the flexibility of choosing from either upright or prone systems for breast biopsy. Our minimally invasive breast biopsy systems provide an alternative to open surgical biopsy, which is generally performed under general anesthesia.

 

6


We offer the StereoLoc II upright biopsy system, which is used in conjunction with our M-IV series of screen-film mammography systems. In addition, for physicians that perform a significant number of biopsies, we offer a dedicated, prone biopsy system called the LORAD MultiCare Platinum Breast Biopsy System (formerly called the StereoGuide). Both systems can be used with our digital “spot” mammography system, which enables a physician to position the sampling device at the site of the suspicious lesion. When performing a biopsy with any of our systems, a physician has a choice of tissue-sampling devices, which are not manufactured by us.

 

In October 2003, we entered into a distribution agreement with Suros Surgical Systems, Inc. to sell their breast biopsy tissue sampling devices directly to our customers and as a component of our biopsy system. In November 2005, we signed an agreement expanding our relationship with Suros, Inc. giving Hologic non-exclusive distribution rights in the Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East for the Suros automated breast biopsy and tissue excision system, the ATEC. The agreement is for an initial term of two years, with automatic one-year renewal options.

 

Ultrasound Breast Imaging System

 

Alexa. In 2005, we modified an existing agreement with Aloka Corporation to provide for non-exclusive distribution rights in the United States for ultrasound products manufactured by Aloka and customized to our specifications. The Alexa system is designed to be used in conjunction with other screening and diagnostic systems to help increase the early detection of breast cancer.

 

Distribution and Strategic Alliances

 

Over the last several years we have expanded both the distribution of our products and the outsourcing of strategic products to be distributed through our existing channels. In 2002 we entered into a strategic alliance with Siemens AG whereby Siemens agreed to exclusively purchase from us digital detectors to be used with its full field digital mammography system during the five-year term of the agreement and we licensed display software from an affiliate of Siemens.

 

In March 2003 we agreed to manufacture, under a private label, a digital mammography system utilizing our patented direct-to-digital amorphous selenium technology for Agfa-Gevaert Group. Under this agreement, Agfa purchased our full field digital mammography acquisition platform and was responsible for all related installation, warranty and support requirements. We began shipping products under this agreement for non-United States customers during 2003. Effective August 30, 2005, Hologic and Agfa agreed to terminate this agreement. In the future, should Agfa require digital mammography systems to satisfy specific customer orders, Hologic, in cooperation with its international dealer organization, may sell a Selenia digital mammography system to fulfill the Agfa customer requirement. In addition, Hologic will continue to supply digital detectors and other parts for service and repair of Agfa’s installed base.

 

In addition to the third party distribution of our technology and products, in July 2003 we entered into a distribution agreement with R2 Technologies, a leading provider of CAD products to assist in breast cancer detection. Under this agreement, R2, with assistance from Hologic, has customized R2’s CAD system for use with our Selenia system and we received worldwide distribution rights to sell the customized product in combination with our Selenia system. R2 received FDA approval of this digital CAD product in April 2004. R2 has also granted us distribution rights for R2 CAD products that are designed to be used with conventional screen-film mammography systems and can be upgraded to be used with our digital mammography systems. This agreement has a term of five years with two one-year renewal options.

 

In September 2004 we entered into a distribution agreement with iCAD, Inc., another leading provider of CAD products. With the introduction of iCAD, we now have alternatives to offer our customers with respect to

 

7


CAD products. Under the agreement, iCAD and Hologic worked in cooperation to customize iCAD’s Second Look Digital CAD system for use with our Selenia system. The agreement allows Hologic exclusive access to iCAD digital CAD when used with Selenia systems. The initial term of the agreement is four years and can be renewed for annual periods thereafter with the mutual consent of the parties.

 

In September 2005, we entered into an agreement with Esaote of Genoa, Italy for the exclusive distribution and service in the United States of extremity MRI Imaging systems manufactured by Esaote. Under the agreement, we will use our extensive sales network selling our bone density and mini C-arm systems to orthopedics and rheumatology, to also sell and service Esaote’s line of extremity MRI systems, optimized for these applications. Pursuant to the agreement we have certain minimum inventory purchase obligations for the initial term, which are subject to renegotiation after the first eighteen-month period in the event of any unforeseen changes in the market dynamics. The agreement is for an initial term of three years, with automatic one-year renewal options.

 

Osteoporosis Assessment Products

 

Overview

 

Bone densitometry is the precise measurement of bone density to assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases that can lead to debilitating bone fractures, often of the spine and hip. In October 2004 the U.S. Surgeon General published a comprehensive report on Bone Health and Osteoporosis, highlighting the fact that osteoporosis, fractures, and other chronic diseases no longer should be considered an inevitable result of aging. According to the report, an estimated 10 million Americans over age 50 have osteoporosis (the most common bone disease), while another 34 million are estimated to have low bone mass placing them at an increased risk for osteoporosis. Of the ten million Americans estimated to have osteoporosis, eight million are women and two million are men. The report estimated that 1.5 million people suffer an osteoporotic-related fracture every year, an event that often leads to a downward spiral in physical and mental health. According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation, 20 percent of senior citizens who suffer a hip fracture die within one year, and one out of every two women and one out of every four men over 50 will have an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime, with risk of fracture increasing with age.

 

Due primarily to the aging of the population and the previous lack of focus on bone health, health care experts estimate that the number of hip fractures in the United States could double or even triple by the year 2020. In recognition of the importance of promoting bone health and preventing fractures, President George Bush declared 2002–2011 as the Decade of the Bone and Joint.

 

A significant boost for our osteoporosis assessment business was the 1995 introduction of the first drug therapies to treat and prevent osteoporosis. Since 1995, at least five other new therapies have been introduced in the U.S., and more have been introduced internationally. We believe that the introduction of new drug therapies, the aging of the population, and an increased focus on women’s health issues and preventive medical practices has created a growing awareness among patients and physicians that osteoporosis is treatable. As a result, more women than ever are seeking assessment for osteoporosis. We believe that the demand for our bone densitometry systems will continue to be driven by an increase in the number of available therapies to treat osteoporosis, the increase in the at-risk population, and broader reimbursement coverage for bone density testing. In fiscal 2005, we shipped more than 1,300 dual-energy x-ray bone densitometry systems worldwide.

 

We introduced our first product serving the bone densitometry market in 1986, began commercial shipments in 1987, and quickly gained recognition for our superior technology. Our patented dual-energy x-ray technology remains a leading bone densitometry assessment tool, offering superior, cost-effective accuracy and reliability. In 1999, we introduced the Delphi QDR x-ray densitometer, the first system to perform both bone density measurements and Instant Vertebral Assessment, or IVA. Delphi’s technology enables physicians to measure bone density and to visually identify vertebral (spine) fractures in a clinical setting. Spine fractures are typically

 

8


the first clinical manifestation of osteoporosis, and frequently occur in patients who do not yet have markedly reduced bone density. The ability to conduct these two diagnostic procedures with one system enables doctors to cost-effectively improve fracture risk assessment and to capture greater reimbursement fees. IVA has been widely embraced by the medical community, and we have installed over 3,000 systems worldwide with IVA capabilities. In May 2001, we received the 2001 Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award in the osteoporosis diagnostics market, given for technical superiority within the industry.

 

In December of 2002, we introduced our next generation of bone densitometers, the Discovery QDR Series. Discovery reduces bone density scan times providing bone density and IVA imaging scans in just 10 seconds. In addition, Discovery provides our CADfx feature, which automates the evaluation of spine fractures. Discovery’s automation and connectivity features improve patient throughput and integrate with electronic information systems. In October 2003 we introduced our Explorer QDR bone densitometer, and began commercial shipments in February 2004. Explorer is an entry level fan-beam x-ray bone densitometer, which is designed for cost conscious practitioners, particularly in international markets. In fiscal 2004, we completed the phase-out of the Delphi, QDR-4500, and QDR-4000 product lines, and we fully transitioned to the Discovery and Explorer product lines. In September of 2004, the American Medical Association published a new procedure code specifically for vertebral assessment performed on dual energy x-ray densitometers.

 

In addition to sales of new bone densitometry systems, we also offer upgrade opportunities to purchasers of many of our earlier generation systems, in order to incorporate IVA imaging technology, automation, and electronic reporting features. We have sold over 1,300 bone densitometer system upgrades worldwide.

 

Products

 

Our osteoporosis assessment products include a family of QDR x-ray bone densitometers and the Sahara Clinical Bone Sonometer (referred to herein as the “Sahara”), a low-cost ultrasound device that assesses the bone density of the heel.

 

QDR x-ray Bone Densitometers. Since our first commercial shipment of a QDR system in October 1987, we have sold more than 12,000 QDR systems. We believe that advantages of our QDR systems include high precision, low patient radiation exposure equivalent to 1/10th of a conventional chest x-ray, a relatively fast scanning time, low operating cost, and the ability to measure bone density of the most important fracture sites, the spine and hip. Our studies and those of independent investigators have demonstrated that the systems can detect a change in spine bone density with a precision error of less than one percent.

 

All our QDR systems employ our proprietary Automatic Internal Reference System, which continuously calibrates each patient’s bone density measurement to a known standard. This system virtually eliminates errors that might result from manual calibration and saves operators the time-consuming task of calibrating several times a day. The system automatically compensates for drift in the x-ray system, detectors or other electronic components, which ensures long-term measurement stability.

 

In November 1999, we introduced our Delphi QDR Series bone densitometer. Delphi was the first bone densitometer to offer physicians the ability to simultaneously assess two of the strongest risk factors for osteoporotic fracture: existing fractures of the spine and low bone density. Using high-resolution fan beam x-ray imaging technology, Hologic’s IVA technology enables clinicians to perform a rapid, low-dose evaluation of the spine in a single office visit during a routine bone densitometry exam. The high-resolution, single-energy images obtained with IVA visually reveal spinal fractures, which substantially increase the risk of future fracture, and thereby affect a clinician’s therapeutic decisions. Prior to the introduction of IVA, spine fractures were rarely evaluated in clinical osteoporosis assessment, primarily due to the inconvenience and high radiation dose associated with obtaining conventional x-ray films. IVA provides a simple, point of care tool for vertebral assessment, with only 1% of the radiation dose of standard radiographic assessment. The combination of bone mineral density assessment and spine fracture assessment improves the clinician’s ability to accurately target therapy to those who can benefit most.

 

9


We have invested substantial resources in developing operating and applications software for our systems. The software includes calibration software, automated scan and analysis programs for each scan site, and a patient data base manager. In 2001 and 2002 we introduced a series of software tools for remote softcopy interpretation and electronic reporting of test results. We believe that electronic reporting is a critical feature for any medical imaging device, as medical providers move towards paperless storage and reporting systems.

 

In December of 2002, we introduced our Discovery QDR Series of bone densitometers. Discovery acquires bone density and IVA scans in just ten seconds, which we believe provides the most comprehensive assessment of fracture risk in the shortest amount of time. Discovery’s CADfx feature automates the classification of spine fractures, and our Express Exam feature completely automates the patient examination procedure. Discovery also offers workflow and connectivity enhancements, including complete electronic integration with hospital information systems.

 

Discovery systems are modular in design, allowing customers to add features and capabilities, while protecting their investment in equipment and patient data. Discovery is available in six different configurations, including the Ci and Wi models, which do not include the IVA capability, the C and W models, which include IVA, and the more advanced A and SL models.

 

An important feature of the Discovery A and SL systems is their ability to perform lateral, side-to-side scans of the spine, without turning the patient on her side, in addition to back-to-front measurements. The A and SL systems are capable of producing high quality images of the spine, lateral spine, hip and other skeletal sites. A motorized rotating scan arm allows for multiple scan views without patient repositioning. By using either of the A or SL systems, high-quality IVA images of the entire spine can be obtained in as little as ten seconds.

 

In February of 2004, we began shipments of our Explorer QDR Series bone densitometer. Explorer is an entry level x-ray bone densitometer targeted at cost conscious practitioners, particularly in international markets. Like Discovery, Explorer is a fan-beam system that utilizes a high-density array of detectors, and can acquire a 2-dimensional x-ray in a single linear scan motion. Older generation lower-cost systems required scanning in a rectilinear pattern, which lengthens scan times and decreases image resolution. Explorer’s design is based on the Discovery platform, and offers Discovery’s workflow and connectivity enhancements.

 

In June of 2005, we introduced the Discovery P, the first system specifically configured for primary care physicians, including the capability of integrating bone density information with the patient’s electronic medical record. In November 2005, we introduced High Definition Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA-HD), which essentially doubled the resolution of imaging performed on the Discovery system improving diagnostic confidence. We also introduced a lower resolution version of IVA on our Explorer line, making IVA an essential component on all of Hologic’s bone densitometry systems.

 

Ultrasound. In addition to our QDR x-ray bone densitometers, we have developed and sell a lightweight, portable ultrasound bone analyzer, called Sahara, that assesses the bone density of the heel. Clinical trials of ultrasound systems have indicated a significant association of low ultrasonic bone measurements of the heel and the risk of fracture. Since ultrasound devices do not use x-rays in making their measurements, they do not require x-ray licensed or registered operators. However, because ultrasound bone measurements currently are not as precise as x-ray and other measurements, they are less reliable for monitoring small changes in bone density or for assessing the response to therapies. In addition, they are generally limited to measurements at peripheral skeletal sites, not the spine or hip, which are considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. We believe that our Sahara ultrasound system represents a relatively low cost, portable, easy-to-use, non-ionizing measurement technique to assist in initial screening for osteoporosis. Since our introduction of the Sahara, over 3,900 Sahara systems have been sold worldwide.

 

10


Direct-to-Digital Imaging Products

 

Overview

 

We believe that the advantages of digital radiography over conventional screen-film and computed radiography technologies have significant potential in general and in our core mammography systems market in particular.

 

Digital radiography technologies can be divided into two classes: those that employ direct methods to convert x-ray energy into an electrical charge and those that use indirect methods. Technologies using direct-conversion flat-panel digital detectors, such as our DirectRay flat panel detector, use a semiconductor coating—amorphous selenium (a-Se)—to directly convert x-ray photons into an electrical charge. No intensifying screens or additional processes are required to capture and convert the x-ray energy. Digital radiography technologies using indirect conversion detectors employ a two-step process for x-ray detection. Scintillator coatings, such as cesium iodide or gadolinium oxysulfide, capture x-ray energy and convert it to light. An array of thin-film diodes then converts the light energy to electrical signals. We believe that other digital x-ray imaging technologies that use light compromise image sharpness because light scatter can blur the image.

 

DirectRay amorphous selenium coated detectors developed and manufactured by our Direct Radiography Corp. subsidiary are particularly well suited for high-quality digital imaging because selenium has high x-ray absorption efficiency, very high intrinsic resolution and low noise. We believe that amorphous selenium technology results in high quality digital images across a wide range of general radiographic applications and is particularly valuable for mammography, which has high-resolution requirements. The wide dynamic range inherent in Hologic DirectRay direct-to-digital detectors allows a radiologist to adjust the image electronically at a workstation to enhance the desired anatomical view and gain more diagnostic information compared to traditional screen-film technology.

 

Amorphous selenium deposition is a well-developed technology. It has been used for decades in photocopiers, in photocells and exposure meters for photographic use, as well as in solar cells. It is also used as a photographic toner and as an additive in the glass and stainless steel industries.

 

In digital mammography and radiography, direct-to-digital imaging technology provides the opportunity for more expedient patient exam flow, fewer repeat exams and increased room utilization. Because radiography systems utilizing direct radiography technology capture and convert x-ray images into a digital format within seconds of exposure, the technologist can quickly preview the digitized image for quality assurance prior to completion of a patient’s examination. The digital image can then be transmitted electronically for reviewing on a diagnostic workstation, printing on film, and electronic storage.

 

For healthcare providers, the benefits of digital radiography technology stem from fast and efficient production of diagnostic quality images. We believe digital radiography systems incorporating our direct-to-digital technology, when compared to film-based systems, offer improved patient care, increased staff and equipment productivity, and the potential to attract a greater number of referral patients and physicians. In spite of their high acquisition cost, digital radiography systems can be cost effective in the long-term when considering increased throughput, savings in film-related expenses, image storage and transfer costs as well as the benefits of enhanced diagnostic convenience.

 

A significant factor in the medical market’s acceptance of digital technology is the current transition within the healthcare industry from conventional x-ray film archiving to PACS, to store x-ray images electronically. We expect the number the number of hospitals and outpatient care facilities adopting a PACS environment to accelerate over the next several years as imaging centers realize the value and cost savings of a film less infrastructure. While not all facilities in which x-ray units are installed will migrate to digital technology, we believe most large facilities will, particularly those in the U.S. where PACS is an important initiative.

 

11


Products

 

In fiscal 2005 we directly offered DirectRay digital detectors in Hologic designed, manufactured, installed and serviced systems and we offered such systems to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), to incorporate into their own equipment. In fiscal 2004 we moved away from selling our own general radiography digital x-ray systems in competition with our OEM partners in general digital radiography, and began to shift resources to our core women’s health products mammography and osteoporosis assessment systems while selling our DirectRay digital detectors to OEM for incorporation in their own line of digital radiography systems. In fiscal 2005, our OEMs customers included Analogic Corporation, Eastman Kodak, Del Global, Neusoft and FirstTech for digital radiography systems, and Siemens for digital mammography systems. We expect that sales of Direct Ray digital detectors to OEM’s for general radiography purposes will begin to decline as we shift our focus and resources to our digital mammography products.

 

Mini C-arm Imaging Products

 

Overview

 

We manufacture and distribute Fluoroscan mini C-arm imaging systems. Mini C-arms provide low intensity, real-time x-ray imaging, with high-resolution images at radiation levels and at a cost well below those of conventional x-ray and fluoroscopic equipment. Mini C-arm systems are used primarily by orthopedic surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures on a patient’s extremities, such as the hand, wrist, knee, foot and ankle.

 

Products

 

Premier Encore. We introduced the original Premier mini C-arm system in August 1998. The Premier’s .045 mm focal spot x-ray tube, currently the smallest in the mini C-arm industry, provides clear resolution and detailed images on a six-inch field of view. The Premier’s mini C-arm is designed to rotate 360 degrees. The Premier also features dual video channels that allow a surgeon to display different views of the anatomy for side-by-side comparison; four image buffer memories for instant recall of previous images; and built-in video and Ethernet connections that allow the user to output images to a printer or workstation, send to or receive from remote workstations, or record, review and archive images using existing Windows NT or hospital PACS.

 

At the Radiological Society of North America trade show held in December 2002, we introduced the Premier Encore system. The Premier Encore system builds upon the strengths of the Premier system, while retaining the high resolution imaging that makes Premier a leading mini C-arm system. Premier Encore streamlines system operation using a touch screen interface, configurable physician preference pre-sets, complete DICOM connectivity software capabilities, and CD image storage. The Premier Encore system is available with a laser-positioning pointer and offers 60-degree monitor rotation for maximum operating room flexibility.

 

In September 2005, we introduced the Fluoroscan Insight, a new premium level mini C-arm designed for orthopedic extremity surgery. The Insight utilizes a new higher resolution digital imaging chain, along with the industry’s first flat panel display on a mini C-arm. The flat panel display is positioned on an extendable, swiveled arm that allows the surgeon to physically bring the image far closer to their work in the surgical field further easing the task of fluoroscopic imaging during a surgical procedure. The Insight also utilizes the latest computer advances in multi-language graphical user interfaces ideal for international distribution.

 

Conventional General Radiography Products

 

In January 2002 we officially closed our conventional x-ray equipment manufacturing facility in Littleton, Massachusetts and relocated some of the Littleton product lines and sales and service support personnel to our corporate headquarters in Bedford, Massachusetts. This consolidation was part of our previously announced plan to phase-out non-core and unprofitable product lines. We are continuing to provide service and supply spare parts for our discontinued product lines.

 

12


Marketing and Sales

 

In the United States, we sell and service our products through a combination of a direct sales and service force and a network of independent distributors. In early fiscal 2002, we centralized our management of these sales channels for all of our product lines. PSS World Medical, Inc. and its affiliates, our largest distributor network in the United States, accounted for approximately 12% of our product sales for fiscal 2003. In fiscal 2004 and 2005, no customer accounted for more than 10% of our product sales for any business segment.

 

As of November 19, 2005 our direct sales and service force, consisted of over 54 people in sales, and 137 field service engineers, plus internal technical support and associated administrative functions. Over the past three years we have expanded our direct sales and service efforts for mammography into territories that were previously covered by independent distributors, and we are continuing to consider further expansion of our direct sales and service coverage in the United States.

 

Our United States marketing efforts also include the use of two national account managers which are focused on obtaining purchasing contracts from large purchasing entities, such as managed care organizations, integrated delivery networks (IDN) and government healthcare facilities. The rise of these large purchasing organizations and IDN’s has significantly altered our focus and the way we are organized. We believe that our success in capturing managed care accounts will have a significant impact on our growth. We believe that we have made excellent progress penetrating these key accounts as evidenced by contracts obtained from Consorta, Broadlane/Kaiser, HealthTrust Purchasing Group, Novation, Premier, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Defense Supply Center of Philadelphia (DSCP).

 

We sell our systems in international markets through a network of independent distributors, as well as a direct sales and service force in Belgium. In October 2003, we expanded our sales and service presence in Belgium by acquiring the mammography distribution business, including key service and application personnel, inventory and other related assets, from our independent distributor VH Services NV. We offer our broad range of products in Latin America, including Argentina, Brazil and Chile, and into Pacific Rim countries, including Japan, Australia, The Peoples Republic of China, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan, by working with local sales representatives and distributors or entering into strategic marketing alliances in those territories. In fiscal 2005, 2004, and 2003 foreign sales accounted for approximately 33%, 39% and 32% of our product sales, respectively. See Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for geographical information concerning those sales.

 

In fiscal 2005, we entered into a number of agreements, which have strengthened the sales and distribution channels for our core product lines, including the following:

 

    We signed contracts with Novation, a leading supply chain management company in healthcare, to extend our current contracts for sales of our Lorad mammography product line and our bone densitometry systems to Novation’s member institutions for three years to August 2008.

 

    We signed two new contracts with HealthTrust Purchasing Group (HPG), L.P., for sales of the entire Lorad mammography line, Hologic bone densitometry products and mini C-arms to HPG members through April of 2008.

 

    We extended our Broadlane, Inc. group purchasing contract for the sale of bone densitometry products for three months to December 2005. Hologic, Inc. and Broadlane, Inc. continue to maintain an agreement for Lorad mammography products through August 2006.

 

    We extended our current group purchasing agreement with Resource Optimization & Innovation for the sale of our mammography and mini C-arm products for eight months to December 2005.

 

    We signed and completed two successful Group Buy Promotions for our Lorad mammography products with Novation, LLC and Consorta, Inc.

 

    We received the extension of our contract with the Defense Supply Center of Philadelphia (DSCP), which is the main contracting arm of the Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Medical facilities.

 

13


Competition

 

The healthcare industry in general, and the market for diagnostic imaging and osteoporosis assessment products in particular, is highly competitive and characterized by continual change and improvement in technology, and multiple technologies that have been or are under development. A number of companies have developed, or are expected to develop products that compete or will compete with our products. Many of these competitors offer a range of products in areas other than those in which we compete, which may make such competitors more attractive to hospitals, radiology clients, group purchasing organizations and other potential customers. In addition, many of our competitors and potential competitors are larger and have greater financial resources than we do and offer a range of products broader than our products. Some of the companies with whom we compete have or may have more extensive research, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and significantly greater technical and personnel resources than we do, and may be better positioned to continue to improve their technology in order to compete in an evolving industry. The companies that have significantly greater resources and product breadth than we do include General Electric Medical Systems (GE), Siemens, Philips, Fuji, Kodak and Toshiba. Competitors may develop superior products or products of similar quality for sale at the same or lower prices. Moreover, our products could be rendered obsolete by new industry standards or changing technology. We cannot assure that we will be able to compete successfully with existing or new competitors.

 

Our mammography products and subsystems compete on a worldwide basis with products offered by a number of competitors, including GE, Siemens, Philips, PlanMed, Afga, Kodak, Fuji, IMS Giotto, Sectra and Toshiba. GE received FDA approval to commercialize their own indirect conversion digital mammography systems in January 2000 and currently markets its Senograph 2000 DS and 2000 D systems. We received FDA approval for our full field digital mammography system, Selenia in October 2002. Siemens has adopted the Hologic DirectRay direct-to-digital detectors for use in their Novation digital mammography system. In August 2004, Siemens received FDA clearance for their full field digital mammography system with the Hologic detector and commenced sales activities in the U.S. this past year. Agfa and Kodak have both introduced approved mammography workstations and are marketing these in competition with our line of radiologist review stations. Sectra is currently marketing its MicroDose digital mammography system in Europe and may eventually apply for FDA clearance in the U.S. While we offer a broad product line of breast imaging products, we compete most effectively in the high-end segment of the mammography market. We believe that our continued success will depend in part upon our ability to market and sell Selenia, our full field digital mammography system. Although Selenia systems are priced higher than competing technologies, we believe Selenia provides outstanding performance in aiding physicians in the early detection of breast cancer due to its image quality and workflow features and functionality. We believe that our mammography products compete primarily on the basis of image quality, product features, cost and ease of operation, price, reputation, product reliability and quality of service. We believe that growth of the digital mammography market will accelerate as product offerings improve image quality over existing systems. We expect additional participants to enter this digital mammography market over the next several years. Our minimally invasive breast biopsy systems compete with products offered by GE, Siemens, PlanMed, IMS Giotto and with conventional surgical biopsy procedures. Our Alexa ultrasound breast imaging system competes with ultrasound products offered from GE, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba, Hitachi and Sonosite. We believe that competition for our mammography, breast biopsy and ultrasound breast imaging products is based largely on image quality, product features, ease of use, product reliability and reputation as well as price and quality of service.

 

International clinical guidelines recognize spine and hip bone density measurements as the standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis. GE is our primary competitor in the osteoporosis assessment market with bone density of the hip and spine systems. Other companies have developed lower priced x-ray and ultrasound based systems that assess bone status of peripheral skeletal sites, such as the heel, hand or wrist. Measurements of bone density at peripheral sites are utilized for screening for osteoporosis risk, and patients identified as at risk by peripheral testing are commonly referred for spine and hip bone density testing. We believe that competition in the field of osteoporosis assessment is based upon product versatility and features, price, precision, speed of measurement,

 

14


reputation, cost and ease of operation, product reliability and quality of service. While we are generally not the lowest cost provider of dual-energy x-ray systems, we believe that we have been able to compete effectively because of our advanced technology and product features, including Vertebral Assessment imaging. We offer our Explorer system for the more price sensitive segment of the x-ray based osteoporosis assessment market, and our Sahara ultrasound bone analyzer for screening applications. We believe that competition in the field of osteoporosis assessment ultrasound systems is based on price, precision, speed of measurement, cost and ease of operation, reputation, product reliability and quality of service. We believe that advantages of our Sahara ultrasound bone analyzer system include the system’s dry operation, simple single-button operation, and a compact and self-contained design that does not require the use of a separate computer. Because ultrasound systems can only measure peripheral skeletal sites and do not have the precision of dual-energy x-ray systems, we believe dual-energy x-ray systems will continue to be the predominant means of diagnosis and monitoring of bone density changes for patients being treated for osteoporosis.

 

Our direct-to-digital radiography detectors compete with traditional x-ray systems as well as indirect-conversion systems, such as computed radiography systems, which are less expensive than our products. Many of these competitors have established relationships with hospitals and other of our potential customers in our targeted markets. The larger competitors in these markets include GE, Siemens, Fuji, Kodak, Canon, Philips, Agfa, Analogic, SwissRay and Varian.

 

Our mini C-arm products compete directly with mini C-arms manufactured and sold by a limited number of companies including GE. We also compete with manufacturers of conventional C-arm image intensifiers including Philips, Siemens and GE. We believe that competition for our mini C-arm systems is based largely on price, quality, reputation, service and production capabilities. We believe that advantages of our mini C-arm systems include low levels of radiation, image quality or resolution, low product life cycle costs, mobility, quality and durability.

 

Manufacturing

 

We manufacture our osteoporosis assessment and mini C-arm imaging systems at our headquarters in Bedford, Massachusetts. We manufacture our mammography and breast biopsy systems at our manufacturing facilities in Danbury, Connecticut. Manufacturing operations for our systems consist primarily of assembly, test, burn-in and quality control. We purchase a major portion of the parts and peripheral components for these products, and manufacture some subsystems, such as high-voltage x-ray power supply, from raw materials. Parts and materials for these systems are generally readily available from several supply sources. However, we rely on one supplier for the HTC grid, an important component for our more advanced mammography systems.

 

We manufacture our direct radiography detectors at our manufacturing facility in Newark, Delaware. Our manufacture of detectors consists primarily of vapor deposition coatings in clean rooms, microelectronics fabrication, assembly, test, burn-in and quality control. We rely on one or only a limited number of suppliers for key components or subassemblies for our plates. In particular, we have only a limited number of suppliers for our thin-film transistors (TFT) and for our proprietary selenium coatings. The manufacturing of our direct radiography detectors is highly complex requiring precision, assembly and process control. This manufacturing location has recently gone through a transformation into a production facility. Product design changes and process improvements, along with new capital equipment have allowed us to increase our production rates while reducing scrap and improving yields.

 

Effective September 12, 2005, we entered into a supply agreement with AEG Elektrofotografie GmbH (“AEG”) pursuant to which we agreed to purchase and AEG has agreed to manufacture and supply 75% of the annual requirements of selenium coatings used in the digital X-ray image capture radiographic systems of Direct Radiography Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic. Our minimum purchases are subject to reduction if certain pricing and quality measures are not met. The term of the Supply Agreement is through the year 2012, subject to automatic renewal periods and earlier termination pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Failure of AEG to provide us with acceptable quantities of selenium coatings on a timely basis could materially harm our business and results of operations.

 

15


Backlog

 

Our backlog as of November 19, 2005 totaled $128.4 million and as of November 30, 2004 totaled $67.6 million. Backlog consists of customer orders for which a delivery schedule within the next twelve months has been specified. Orders included in backlog may be canceled or rescheduled by customers without significant penalty. Backlog as of any particular date should not be relied upon as indicative of our net revenues for any future period.

 

Research and Development

 

Our research and development efforts are focused on enhancing our existing products and developing new products. Our current emphasis is further development of digital detectors, the engineering and design of new end use systems, and software and hardware improvements for our existing products. This research and development includes continuing engineering and new product development of technologies that benefit our full field digital mammography system, and in particular the development of systems to perform breast tomosynthesis which is a 3-dimensional x-ray imaging technique. In addition to product development, our research and development personnel play an active role in the review of product specifications, clinical protocols and FDA submissions. Our research and product development expenses were approximately $18.6 million in fiscal 2005, $16.7 million in fiscal 2004 and $18.4 million in fiscal 2003.

 

In fiscal 2005, we entered into a number of research and development agreements, including the following:

 

    An Investigator’s Agreement with Massachusetts General Hospital for a 2-year period beginning January 2005 to do research using Hologic’s prototype tomosynthesis equipment.

 

    A Collaborative Research Agreement with the University of Sheffield for a 12-month period starting August 2005 to develop an algorithm to measure bone strength.

 

    A Collaborative Research Agreement with Johns Hopkins University to develop a 3D modeling capability for the femur using DXA technology.

 

Patents and Proprietary Rights

 

We rely primarily on a combination of trade secrets, patents, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality procedures to protect our technology. Due to the rapid technological change that characterizes the medical device industry, we believe that the improvement of existing products, reliance upon trade secrets and unpatented proprietary know-how and the development of new products are generally as important as patent protection in establishing and maintaining a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, we have obtained patents and will continue to make efforts to obtain patents, when available, in connection with our product development program.

 

As of November 19, 2005, we owned 50 United States patents relating to our densitometry technology, 41 patents relating to our direct radiography technology, 5 patents relating to our mini C-arm technology and 21 patents relating to our mammography business. Also, we license patents from others on a variety of terms, and own approximately 57 additional U. S. patents relating to other matters. Five patents will expire in 2006, including four relating to bone densitometry and one relating to other x-ray technologies. Two patents will expire in 2007, one relating to bone densitometry and one relating to other x-ray technologies. We do not believe that any of these expirations will have a material effect on our business. Our other patents have expiration dates ranging from 2008 to 2022. In addition, we have applied for an additional 56 U.S. patents on our technologies. We have also obtained or applied for corresponding patents and patent applications for some of our patents in selected foreign countries. During September 2005, we acquired the intellectual property of Fischer Imaging Corporation, a medical imaging firm based in Denver, CO., including 26 U.S. patents and applications, their associated foreign filings, and a variety of licenses and contracts related to Fischer’s mammography and breast biopsy positioning business.

 

16


There has been substantial litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical device and related industries. In the early 1990s, we were involved in extensive patent litigation with Lunar Corporation, which has since been acquired by GE. This litigation was settled by agreement dated November 22, 1995. The agreement provided that neither party would engage the other party in patent litigation respecting bone densitometry for a period of ten years, regardless of the infringement claimed and regardless of whether the technology in question currently existed at the time or was developed or acquired by the other party in the future. Neither party was required to disclose to the other any of its technology. During the last fiscal year, we entered into an eight year extension of this agreement through September 26, 2013. Upon expiration of this period on September 26, 2013, there will be no restrictions by either party on the assertion of an infringement claim against the other.

 

We are engaged in intellectual property litigation as described in Item 3, Legal Proceedings, and may be notified in the future, that we may be infringing intellectual property rights possessed by other third parties. In connection with any such litigation or if any claims are asserted against us or our products, we may seek to enter into royalty or licensing arrangements. There is a risk in these situations that no license will be available or that a license will not be available on reasonable terms. Alternatively, we may decide to litigate such claims or to design around the patented technology. These actions could be costly and would divert the efforts and attention of our management and technical personnel. As a result, any infringement claims by third parties or other claims for indemnification by customers resulting from infringement claims, whether or not proven to be true, may harm our business and prospects.

 

Regulation

 

The medical devices manufactured and marketed by us are subject to regulation by the FDA and, in many instances, by foreign governments. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, known as the FD&C Act, manufacturers of medical devices must comply with certain regulations governing the design, testing, manufacturing, packaging, servicing and marketing of medical devices. Some of our products are also subject to the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act, administered by the FDA, which imposes performance standards and record keeping, reporting, product testing and product labeling requirements for devices that emit radiation, such as x-rays.

 

The FDA generally must clear the commercial sale of new medical devices. Commercial sales of our medical devices within the United States must be preceded by either a premarket notification filing pursuant to Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act or the granting of a premarket approval. The 510(k) notification filing must contain information that establishes the device to be substantially equivalent to a device commercially distributed prior to May 28, 1976.

 

The premarket approval procedure involves a more complex and lengthy testing and review process by the FDA than the 510(k) premarket notification procedure and may require several years to obtain. We may need to first obtain an investigational device exemption, known as an IDE, for the product to conduct extensive clinical testing of the device to obtain the necessary clinical data for submission to the FDA. The FDA will thereafter only grant premarket approval if, after evaluating this clinical data, it finds that the safety and effectiveness of the product has been sufficiently demonstrated. This approval may restrict the number of devices distributed or require additional patient follow-up for an indefinite period of time. We received premarket approval of our Selenia full field digital mammography system in October 2002. This premarket approval permitted us to begin marketing efforts in the United States and launch our commercialization efforts with respect to this product.

 

Our systems are also subject to approval by certain foreign regulatory and safety agencies. Some of our technology is governed by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the United States Department of State. As a result, the export of some of our systems to some countries may be limited or prohibited.

 

17


Our manufacturing processes and facilities are subject to continuing review by the FDA and foreign governments or their representatives. Adverse findings could result in various actions against Hologic, including withdrawal of approvals and product recall.

 

We cannot assure that the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies will give the requisite approvals or clearances for any of our medical devices under development on a timely basis, if at all. Moreover, after clearance is given, these agencies can later withdraw the clearance or require us to change the device or its manufacturing process or labeling, to supply additional proof of its safety and effectiveness, or to recall, repair, replace or refund the cost of the medical device, if it is shown to be hazardous or defective. The process of obtaining clearance to market products is costly and time-consuming and can delay the marketing and sale of our products.

 

As a manufacturer of medical devices, we are subject to additional FDA regulations, including the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, which specifically regulates radiation-emitting products. Most states and many other foreign countries monitor and require licensing of x-ray devices. Federal, state and foreign regulations regarding the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to future change. We cannot predict what impact, if any, such changes might have on our business.

 

Reimbursement

 

In the United States, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), known as CMS, establishes guidelines for the reimbursement of healthcare providers treating Medicare and Medicaid patients. Under current CMS guidelines, varying reimbursement levels have been established for bone density assessment, mammography and other imaging and diagnostic procedures performed by our products. The actual reimbursement amounts are determined by individual state Medicare carriers and, for non-Medicare and Medicaid patients, private insurance carriers. There are often delays between the reimbursement approvals by CMS and by a state Medicare carrier and private insurance carriers. Moreover, states as well as private insurance carriers may choose not to follow the CMS reimbursement guidelines. The use of our products outside the United States is similarly affected by reimbursement policies adopted by foreign regulatory and insurance carriers.

 

Employees

 

As of November 19, 2005, we had 870 full-time employees, including 257 in manufacturing operations, 125 in research and development, 374 in marketing, sales and support services, and 114 in finance and administration. None of our employees are represented by a union.

 

Item 2. Properties.

 

We own and lease the real property identified below. We believe that we have adequate space for our anticipated needs and that suitable additional space will be available at commercially reasonable prices as needed.

 

Owned Real Property

 

We own a 168,000 square foot research and development, manufacturing and administrative site in Newark, Delaware at which DRC conducts its research and development and plate manufacture. We currently occupy approximately 63,000 square feet of this building, which houses our plate manufacturing facility, including both a class 1 and a class 2 clean room. We lease approximately 105,000 square feet of the facility to Dade Behring under a lease which expires in April 2015.

 

18


Leased Real Property

 

In September 2002, we completed a sale/leaseback transaction for our 200,000 square foot headquarters and manufacturing facility located in Bedford, Massachusetts and our 62,500 square foot LORAD manufacturing facility in Danbury, Connecticut. The lease for these facilities, including the associated land, has a term of 20 years, with four-five year renewal options. We sublease approximately 10,000 square feet of the Bedford facility to a subtenant, CMP Media, under a lease which expires in May 2006. We also sublease approximately 11,000 square feet of the Bedford facility to a subtenant, Genesys Conferencing, under a lease which expires in February 2008.

 

We lease a 60,000 square feet of office and manufacturing space in Danbury, Connecticut near our Lorad manufacturing facility. This lease expires in December 2012.

 

We also lease a sales and service office in Belgium.

 

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

 

In March 2005, we were served with a Complaint filed on November 12, 2004 by Oleg Sokolov with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that our HTC grid infringes U.S. Patent Number 5,970,118. The plaintiff is seeking to preliminarily and permanently enjoin us from infringing the patent, as well as damages resulting from the alleged infringement, treble damages and reasonable attorney fees, and such other and further relief as may be available. On April 25, 2005, we filed an Answer and Counterclaims in response to the complaint in which we denied the plaintiff’s allegations and, among other things, sought declaratory relief with respect to the patent claims and damages, as well as other relief. On October 28, 1998, the plaintiff had previously sued Lorad, asserting, among other things, that Lorad had misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets relating to the HTC Grid. This previous case was dismissed on August 28, 2000. The dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Court of the State of Connecticut, and the United States Supreme Court refused to grant Certiorari. We do not believe that we infringe any valid or enforceable patents of the plaintiff. However, while we intend to vigorously defend our interests, ongoing litigation can be costly and time consuming, and we cannot guarantee that we will prevail.

 

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

 

At a special meeting of stockholders held November 15, 2005, our stockholders approved a proposal to amend our Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of shares of common stock the Company has authority to issue from 30 million to 90 million. The voting results for the proposal, not adjusted for the effect of the stock split, were as follows:

 

For


  

Against


  

Abstained


  

Broker Non-Votes


17,695,228    963,202    155,213    0

  
  
  

 

As a result of the amendment, the previously announced two-for-one stock split to be effected as a stock dividend, was paid on November 30, 2005 to stockholders of record on November 16, 2005.

 

19


PART II

 

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer’s Purchases of Equity Securities.

 

Market Information. Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “HOLX.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as reported by the Nasdaq National Market. This stock price information has been adjusted to give effect for the stock split referenced above.

 

Fiscal Year Ended September 25, 2004


   High

   Low

First Quarter

   $ 8.81    $ 6.34

Second Quarter

     10.50      8.39

Third Quarter

     11.61      9.25

Fourth Quarter

     11.89      8.88

 

Fiscal Year Ended September 24, 2005


   High

   Low

First Quarter

   $ 14.50    $ 8.89

Second Quarter

     19.42      12.31

Third Quarter

     20.36      14.77

Fourth Quarter

     27.40      18.34

 

Number of Holders. As of December 1, 2005, there were approximately 1,497 holders of record of our common stock, including multiple beneficial holders at depositaries, banks and brokers listed as a single holder in the street name of each respective depositary, bank or broker.

 

Dividend Policy. We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock and do not plan to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our current policy is to retain all of our earnings to finance future growth.

 

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities. We did not sell unregistered securities during fiscal 2005.

 

Issuer’s Purchases of Equity Securities. We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005.

 

20


Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

 

In fiscal 2000 we acquired the U.S. assets of Trex Medical. The purchase accounting method under APB No. 16 was used for this transaction. Included in the fiscal 2001 financial data are (i) a $2.5 million reduction in expenses as a result of the settlement of the final purchase price and reassessment of reserves from the Trex Medical acquisition, (ii) the recognition of $2.1 million of other revenue previously deferred and a $500,000 reduction to cost of product sales due to excess warranty reserves related to the settlement of the litigation with Fleet Business Credit, LLC, (iii) restructuring charges of approximately $1.0 million for severance related expenses resulting from reductions in our workforce and (iv) a $500,000 charge from the relocation of the Fluoroscan mini C-arm manufacturing facility from Illinois to Massachusetts. Included in the fiscal 2002 financial data are restructuring costs of approximately $2.1 million related to closing the conventional general radiography manufacturing facility and to our continued efforts to streamline operations. In the fourth quarter of 2003, we adopted Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables, as a cumulative effect adjustment for a change in accounting principle. Accordingly, the revenue representing the fair value of services not performed at the time of product shipment such as installation and training are deferred and recognized as performed.

 

     Fiscal Years Ended

 
     September 24,
2005


    September 25,
2004


    September 27,
2003


    September 28,
2002


    September 29,
2001


 
     (In thousands, except per share data)  

Consolidated Statement of Operations Data

                                        

Revenues:

                                        

Product sales

   $ 229,075     $ 177,936     $ 156,734     $ 144,684     $ 135,067  

Service and other revenue

     58,609       50,769       47,301       45,508       45,129  
    


 


 


 


 


       287,684       228,705       204,035       190,192       180,196  
    


 


 


 


 


Costs and Expenses:

                                        

Cost of product sales

     116,478       94,762       86,506       84,230       85,712  

Cost of service and other revenue

     58,181       48,574       43,949       34,146       33,734  

Research and development

     18,617       16,659       18,381       20,362       23,328  

Selling and marketing

     34,199       31,761       29,978       28,319       33,858  

General and administrative

     27,578       24,363       22,196       18,908       20,852  

Restructuring and relocation

     —         —         —         2,070       1,518  
    


 


 


 


 


       255,053       216,119       201,010       188,035       199,002  
    


 


 


 


 


Income (loss) from operations

     32,631       12,586       3,025       2,157       (18,806 )

Interest income

     2,219       540       685       573       1,027  

Interest/other expense

     (155 )     (199 )     (445 )     (2,980 )     (2,902 )
    


 


 


 


 


Income (loss) before provision (benefit) for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

     34,695       12,927       3,265       (250 )     (20,681 )

Provision (benefit) for income taxes

     6,439       763       176       (429 )     169  
    


 


 


 


 


Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

     28,256       12,164       3,089       179       (20,850 )

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

     —         —         (207 )     —         —    
    


 


 


 


 


Net income (loss)

   $ 28,256     $ 12,164     $ 2,882     $ 179     $ (20,850 )
    


 


 


 


 


 

21


    Fiscal Years Ended

 
    September 24,
2005


  September 25,
2004


  September 27,
2003


    September 28,
2002


  September 29,
2001


 
    (In thousands, except per share data)  

Basic income (loss) per common and common equivalent share (1):

                                 

Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $ 0.66   $ 0.30   $ 0.08     $ 0.00   $ (0.67 )

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

    —       —       (0.01 )     —       —    
   

 

 


 

 


Net income (loss)

  $ 0.66   $ 0.30   $ 0.07     $ 0.00   $ (0.67 )
   

 

 


 

 


Diluted income (loss) per common and common equivalent share (1):

                                 

Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $ 0.63   $ 0.29   $ 0.08     $ 0.00   $ (0.67 )

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

    —       —       (0.01 )     —       —    
   

 

 


 

 


Net income (loss)

  $ 0.63   $ 0.29   $ 0.07     $ 0.00   $ (0.67 )
   

 

 


 

 


Weighted average number of common shares outstanding (1):

                                 

Basic

    42,824     40,516     39,258       36,837     30,949  
   

 

 


 

 


Diluted

    45,126     42,593     40,261       38,383     30,949  
   

 

 


 

 


Consolidated Balance Sheet Data

                                 

Working capital

  $ 167,841   $ 121,049   $ 103,862     $ 98,472   $ 44,679  

Total assets

    279,839     211,751     188,603       184,147     194,863  

Long-term debt

    —       472     1,550       2,268     28,416  

Total stockholders’ equity

    217,834     166,275     148,927       142,409     111,807  

(1) All share and per share data have been retroactively restated to reflect the 2-for-1 stock split effected on November 30, 2005.

 

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

 

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the “Selected Financial Data” and the Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report and the information described under the caption “Risk Factors” below.

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

 

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, accounts receivable reserves, inventories, investments, long-lived assets, intangible assets and goodwill, income taxes, warranty obligations, restructuring, contingencies and litigation. We base our estimates on historical experience and on 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 from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

 

We believe the following critical accounting policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

 

22


Inventory

 

Our inventories include material, labor and overhead, and are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market. As a designer and manufacturer of high technology medical equipment, we may be exposed to a number of economic and industry factors that could result in portions of our inventory becoming either obsolete or in excess of anticipated usage. These factors include, but are not limited to, technological changes in our markets, our ability to meet changing customer requirements, competitive pressures in products and prices, reliability and replacement of and the availability of key components from our suppliers. Our policy is to establish inventory reserves when conditions exist that suggest that our inventory may be in excess of anticipated demand or is obsolete based upon our assumptions about future demand for our products and market conditions. We regularly evaluate our ability to realize the value of our inventory based on a combination of factors including the following: historical usage rates, forecasted sales or usage, product end of life dates, estimated current and future market values and new product introductions. Assumptions used in determining our estimates of future product demand may prove to be incorrect, in which case the provision required for excess and obsolete inventory would have to be adjusted in the future. If inventory is determined to be overvalued, we would be required to recognize such costs as cost of goods sold at the time of such determination. Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of our forecasts of future product demand, any significant unanticipated changes in demand could have a significant negative impact on the value of our inventory and our reported operating results. Additionally, purchasing requirements and alternative usage avenues are explored within these processes to mitigate inventory exposure. When recorded, our reserves are intended to reduce the carrying value of our inventory to its net realizable value.

 

Provisions for excess or obsolete inventory are primarily based on management’s estimates of forecasted net sales and service usage levels. A significant change in the timing or level of demand for the Company’s products as compared to forecasted amounts may result in recording additional provisions for excess or expired inventory in the future. The Company records provisions for excess or obsolete inventory as cost of sales.

 

Accounts Receivable Reserves

 

We maintain allowances for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. We regularly evaluate the collectibility of our trade receivables based on a combination of factors, which may include dialogue with the customer to determine the cause of non-payment, the use of collection agencies, and/or the use of litigation. In the event it is determined that the customer may not be able to meet its full obligation to us, we record a specific allowance to reduce the related receivable to the amount that we expect to recover given all information present. We perform ongoing credit evaluations of our customers and adjust credit limits based upon payment history and our assessment of the customer’s current credit worthiness. We continuously monitor collections from our customers and maintain a provision for estimated credit losses based upon our historical experience and any specific customer collection issues that we have identified. While such credit losses have historically been within our expectations and the provisions established, we cannot guarantee that we will continue to experience the same credit loss rates in the future. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional allowances may be required.

 

We also record a provision for estimated sales returns and allowances on product and service related sales in the same period as the related revenues are recorded. These estimates are based on the specific facts and circumstances of particular orders, analysis of credit memo data and other known factors. If the data we use to calculate these estimates do not properly reflect reserve requirements, then a change in the allowances would be made in the period in which such a determination is made and revenues in that period could be adversely affected.

 

Our accounts receivable reserves were $2.6 million, $2.8 million and $3.5 million in fiscal 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The decrease in the reserves in fiscal 2005 and 2004 were primarily attributable to our write-off of reserves and accounts receivable related to financed sales in Latin America, and for fiscal 2004, a decrease to our bad debt expense.

 

23


Revenue Recognition

 

Revenue. We recognize product revenue upon shipment, provided that there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, there are no uncertainties regarding acceptance, the sales price is fixed or determinable and collection of the resulting receivable is probable. Generally, our product arrangements are multiple element arrangements, including services such as installation and training. Beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003, we began accounting for these arrangements in accordance with EITF 00-21, Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. Based on the terms and conditions of the product arrangements, we have concluded that these services and undelivered products can be accounted for separately from the delivered product element as our delivered product has value to our customers on a stand-alone basis and we have objective and reliable evidence of the fair value of such services and undelivered products based on the consistency of prices charged when these elements are sold separately. Accordingly, service revenue representing the fair value of services not yet performed at the time of product shipment is deferred and recognized as such services are performed. The fair value of the undelivered products is also deferred at the time of product shipment and recognized when these products are delivered. The undelivered elements of service to be performed and products to be delivered are all probable, perfunctory in nature and under our control. The residual revenue under the product arrangement will be recognized as product revenue upon shipment. We adopted EITF 00-21 as a cumulative effective of a change in accounting principle in accordance with Accounting Principles Board (APB) 20, Accounting Changes.

 

We recognize product revenue upon the completion of installation for shipments that require more than perfunctory obligations at the time of shipment, specifically for certain of our digital imaging systems. A provision is made at that time for estimated warranty costs to be incurred.

 

Service and other revenues, which primarily includes maintenance contracts, replacement parts, non-warranty repair services, installation and training services, and fee-per-scan revenue are recognized ratably over the contract period for maintenance contracts, at the time of shipment for replacement parts, as the service is rendered for repair, installation and training services and as the fees are collected for fee-per-scan revenue.

 

Product Warranties. Products sold are generally covered by a warranty for a period of one year. We accrue a warranty reserve at the time of revenue recognition for estimated costs to provide warranty services. Our estimate of costs to service our warranty obligations is based on historical experience and expectation of future conditions. To the extent we experience increased or decreased warranty claim activity or increased or decreased costs associated with servicing those claims, our warranty accrual will increase or decrease, respectively, resulting in decreased or increased gross profit. Our warranty accrual was approximately $6.7 million, $4.5 million and $4.5 million in fiscal 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in the warranty accrual in fiscal 2005 is primarily attributable to an increase in the number of digital mammography systems sold.

 

Income Taxes

 

We account for income taxes under Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. This statement requires that we recognize a current tax liability or asset for current taxes payable or refundable and a deferred tax liability or asset for the estimated future tax effects of temporary differences and carryforwards to the extent they are realizable. We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. While we have considered future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for the valuation allowance, in the event we were to determine that we would be able to realize our deferred tax assets in the future in excess of the net recorded amount, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would increase income in the period such determination was made. Likewise, should we determine that we would not be able to realize all or part of our net deferred tax asset in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would be charged to income in the period such determination was made.

 

24


The valuation allowance as of September 24, 2005 primarily relates to certain state net operating losses for which we can only realize a benefit through the generation of future taxable income in the specific state and where realization is currently uncertain. In fiscal 2005, we reduced our valuation allowance by $6.2 million as we determined that based on our operating history and projections of future taxable income, it is more likely than not our remaining net deferred tax asset of $4.6 million is fully realizable. The benefit of the release in valuation allowance was realized through reductions to tax expense and increases to additional paid in capital.

 

The valuation allowance as of September 25, 2004 primarily related to federal and state net operating losses and research and development tax credits generated in fiscal 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 for which we could only realize a benefit through the generation of future taxable income and to certain deferred tax assets in foreign jurisdictions, for which realization was uncertain as of September 25, 2004.

 

We establish tax reserves based on our assessment of exposure associated with permanent tax differences and tax credits. These tax reserves are analyzed periodically and adjustments are made as events occur to warrant adjustment to the reserve. Based on the annual evaluations of tax positions, we believe we have appropriately filed our tax returns and accrued for possible exposures. To the extent we were to prevail in matters for which accruals have been established or be required to pay amounts in excess of reserves, our effective tax rate in a given financial period might be materially impacted. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005, we received notification that the Joint Committee on Taxation had no exceptions with the Internal Revenue Service’s conclusions on several tax returns under examination. Therefore, we released $750,000 of tax reserves related to these returns further reducing our effective tax rate for fiscal 2005.

 

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the “Act”) introduced a special one-time dividend received deduction on the repatriation of certain foreign earnings to a U.S. taxpayer (repatriation provision), provided certain criteria are met. The President signed the Act into law on October 22, 2004. Even in light of the Act, we did not provide for U.S. income taxes on earnings of our subsidiaries outside of the U.S. Our current intention is to reinvest the total amount of our approximately $1.1 million of unremitted earnings permanently or repatriate the earnings only when tax-effective to do so. It is not practical to estimate the amount of additional taxes that might be payable upon repatriation of foreign earnings.

 

Legal Contingencies

 

We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings. In connection with these legal proceedings, management periodically reviews estimates of potential costs to be incurred by us in connection with the adjudication or settlement, if any, of these proceedings. These estimates are developed in consultation with outside counsel and are based on an analysis of potential litigation outcomes and settlement strategies. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, loss contingencies are accrued if, in the opinion of management, an adverse outcome is probable and such outcome can be reasonably estimated. We do not believe that these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position; however, it is possible that future results for any particular quarter or annual period may be materially affected by changes in our assumptions or the effectiveness of our strategies relating to these proceedings.

 

OVERVIEW

 

We are engaged in the development, manufacture and distribution of proprietary x-ray, digital x-ray and other medical imaging systems. Our businesses are reported as four segments: mammography; osteoporosis assessment; digital detectors; and other.

 

Our mammography products include a broad product line of breast imaging products, including film-based and digital mammography systems and breast biopsy systems. Our osteoporosis assessment products primarily consist of dual-energy x-ray bone densitometry systems and, to a lesser extent, an ultrasound-based osteoporosis

 

25


assessment product. Bone densitometry is the precise measurement of bone density to assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases that can lead to debilitating bone fractures. Our digital detector products are a digital component for original equipment manufacturers to incorporate into their own equipment. Our other business segment includes our mini C-arm, conventional general radiography service and digital general radiography systems businesses. Our mini C-arm products are low intensity, real-time mini C-arm x-ray systems used primarily for minimally invasive surgery on a patient’s extremities. In January 2002, we closed the manufacturing facility for the conventional general radiography products; however, we continue to service and support most of these product lines. During fiscal 2004, we phased out our digital general radiography systems and have continued to focus on supplying our digital detectors, reported under our digital detector segment, to other original equipment manufacturers.

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

 

On September 29, 2005, we completed the acquisition of Fischer Imaging Corporation’s intellectual property relating to its mammography business and products, including the rights to their SenoScan digital mammography and MammoTest stereotactic breast biopsy systems. The purchase price for the intellectual property was $32 million, approximately $26.9 million of which was paid out of existing cash with the remaining amount paid through the cancellation of the principal and interest outstanding under a $5 million secured loan we previously provided to Fischer Imaging on June 22, 2005. As previously reported we expect to incur an up-front charge of approximately $4 million to write off in-process research and development in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, which ends on December 24, 2005. In addition, we expect to incur an annual charge of approximately $2.5 million beginning in fiscal 2006 to amortize certain intangible assets acquired in the transaction.

 

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the percentage of total revenues represented by items as shown in our consolidated statements of operations.

 

     Fiscal Years Ended

 
     September 24,
2005


    September 25,
2004


    September 27,
2003


 

Revenues:

                  

Product sales

   79.6 %   77.8 %   76.8 %

Service and other revenue

   20.4     22.2     23.2  
    

 

 

     100.0     100.0     100.0  
    

 

 

Cost and expenses:

                  

Cost of product sales

   40.5     41.4     42.4  

Cost of service and other revenue

   20.2     21.2     21.5  

Research and development

   6.5     7.3     9.0  

Selling and marketing

   11.9     13.9     14.7  

General and administrative

   9.6     10.7     10.9  
    

 

 

     88.7     94.5     98.5  
    

 

 

Income from operations

   11.3     5.5     1.5  

Interest income

   0.8     0.2     0.3  

Interest/other expense

   (0.1 )   (0.1 )   (0.2 )
    

 

 

Income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change

   12.0     5.6     1.6  

Provision for income taxes

   2.2     0.3     0.1  
    

 

 

Income before cumulative effect of accounting change

   9.8     5.3     1.5  

Cumulative effect of accounting change

   —       —       (0.1 )
    

 

 

Net income

   9.8 %   5.3 %   1.4 %
    

 

 

 

26


Fiscal Year Ended September 24, 2005 Compared to Fiscal Year Ended September 25, 2004

 

Product Sales.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

    %

 

Product Sales

                                        

Mammography

   $ 140,830    49 %   $ 93,536    41 %   $ 47,294     51 %

Osteoporosis Assessment

   $ 56,065    20 %   $ 51,376    23 %   $ 4,689     9 %

Digital Detectors

   $ 18,639    6 %   $ 12,370    5 %   $ 6,269     51 %

Other

   $ 13,541    5 %   $ 20,654    9 %     ($7,113 )   (34 %)
    

  

 

  

 


 

     $ 229,075    80 %   $ 177,936    78 %   $ 51,139     29 %
    

  

 

  

 


 

 

In fiscal 2005 our product sales increased 29% compared to fiscal 2004 primarily due to an increase in revenues from our mammography products, and to a lesser extent, an increase in digital detector and osteoporosis assessment sales. Partially offsetting these increases was a decrease in our other segment product sales, primarily attributable to our continued phase-out of our general radiography systems business. We have discontinued taking orders for these systems but continue to service the installed base.

 

Mammography product sales increased 51% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004 primarily due to a $33.5 million increase in digital mammography system sales, a $9.8 million increase in Multicare stereotactic table sales and a $3.6 million increase in analog mammography systems sales. The increase in our digital mammography product sales was primarily attributable to an increase in the number of Selenia systems sold in the United States and by the inclusion of the CAD (Computer Aided Detection) software option on almost all of the units sold in the United States during the current year offset in part, by a slight decrease in the number of Selenia systems sold in Europe and a slight decrease in the average selling price for Selenia systems in fiscal 2005 as compared to fiscal 2004. In fiscal 2005, we sold 239 digital mammography systems compared to 143 systems in fiscal 2004. We attribute the increase in digital mammography system sales primarily to the growing acceptance of our Selenia mammography system and of digital mammography in general. The increase in sales of our analog mammography systems was primarily attributable to an increase in the number of systems sold internationally and for our Multicare stereotactic tables was primarily attributable to an increase in the number of systems sold worldwide in the current fiscal year compared to fiscal 2004.

 

Osteoporosis assessment product sales increased 9% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. This increase was primarily due to an increase in the number of systems and upgrades sold in the United States and an increase in the number of our lower-priced Explorer bone densitometry systems sold internationally, that was offset in part by a slight decrease in the average selling prices.

 

Digital detector product sales increased 51% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. The increase was primarily due to a $3.9 million increase in Europe, a $1.6 million increase in the United States, and an $800,000 increase in Asia compared to fiscal 2004. The increase in the United States and Asia primarily reflects the increase in the number of digital detectors sold for general radiography systems, while the increase for Europe primarily reflects the higher number of digital detectors sold for the mammography systems of our OEM partner. We continue to supply our digital detectors to other original equipment manufacturers. In fiscal 2006 we plan to focus more heavily on our digital detectors for mammography and expect that sales of our digital detectors for general radiography may begin to decline reflecting our primary focus on mammography markets. In the current fiscal year, sales of digital detectors for general radiography accounted for $10.4 million of digital detector product sales and sales of digital detectors for mammography accounted for $8.2 million of digital detector product sales.

 

27


Other product sales decreased 34% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. This decrease was primarily attributable to a $5.9 million decrease in worldwide digital general radiography product sales and a $1.1 million decrease in our worldwide mini C-arm product sales. The decrease in general radiography product sales reflect our decision to phase out our digital general radiography systems. As a result of this decision, we expect our product sales for our digital general radiography systems to be negligible going forward. In the current fiscal year, sales of digital general radiography systems accounted for $2.3 million of other product revenues. The decrease in sales of our mini C-arm products for the current fiscal year was primarily due to a reduction in the number of systems sold in the United States and in Europe as a result of increased competition as well as the deferral of purchases in anticipation of our pending release of Insight, our new mini C-arm system.

 

In fiscal 2005, approximately 67% of product sales were generated in the United States, 19% in Europe, 10% in Asia, and 4% in other international markets. In fiscal 2004, approximately 61% of product sales were generated in the United States, 21% in Europe, 11% in Asia, and 7% in other international markets. We believe the shift in sales dollars to the United States market is primarily due to an increase in demand for our Selenia digital mammography system as digital mammography is becoming more widely accepted in the United States. The decrease in sales in other international markets in fiscal 2005 was primarily attributable to the fulfillment of a large order for our Selenia digital mammography systems in Mexico in fiscal 2004.

 

Service and Other Revenue.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Service and Other Revenue

   $ 58,609    20 %   $ 50,769    22 %   $ 7,840    15 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Service and other revenue is primarily comprised of revenue generated from our field service organization to provide ongoing service, installation and repair of our products. Service and other revenue increased 15% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. This increase was primarily due to increases in the number of service contracts sold, training revenues and spare parts in our mammography segment and, to a lesser extent, in our osteoporosis assessment and digital detector segments. We believe that these increases reflect the continued growth in our installed base of systems and digital detectors.

 

Cost of Product Sales.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Product
Sales


    Amount

   % of Product
Sales


    Amount

   %

 

Cost of Product Sales

   $ 116,478    51 %   $ 94,762    53 %   $ 21,716    23 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Cost of product sales decreased as a percentage of product sales to 51% in fiscal 2005 from 53% in fiscal 2004. These costs decreased as a percentage of product sales primarily due to increased revenues and improved profitability associated with the shift in mammography product sales to Selenia, our full field digital mammography systems, and the increase in revenues for digital detectors resulting in an improved absorption of fixed manufacturing costs. The Selenia systems have significantly higher selling prices, more than offsetting the higher costs of the product, when compared to analog mammography. This improvement was partially offset by a slight reduction in the average selling prices for digital mammography systems worldwide, a significant increase in the number of analog mammography systems sold internationally, which earn a lower gross margin than digital mammography, and a shift in sales to lower margin bone densitometry systems, sold both internationally and into the primary care market in the United States.

 

28


Cost of Service and Other Revenue.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Service
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Service
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Cost of Service and Other Revenue

   $ 58,181    99 %   $ 48,574    96 %   $ 9,607    20 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Cost of service and other revenue increased as a percentage of service and other revenue to 99% in fiscal 2005 from 96% in fiscal 2004. These costs increased as a percentage of service and other revenue primarily due to increased warranty costs of $5.4 million and $2.3 million in our digital detector and mammography businesses, respectively, and due to additional personnel and other costs to expand our service capabilities, especially in the United States, to support our growing installed base of products. We expect our costs of service and other revenue to remain relatively high as a percentage of service and other revenue, reflecting our need to employ the required personnel for warranty, non-warranty and installation activities to service our growing installed base of products. We also expect an increase in customers entering into service agreements in connection with our transition to digital mammography and direct service coverage.

 

Operating Expenses.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Operating Expenses

                                       

Research and Development

   $ 18,617    6 %   $ 16,659    7 %   $ 1,958    12 %

Selling and Marketing

   $ 34,199    12 %   $ 31,761    14 %   $ 2,438    8 %

General and Administrative

   $ 27,578    10 %   $ 24,363    11 %   $ 3,215    13 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

     $ 80,394    28 %   $ 72,783    32 %   $ 7,611    10 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses increased 12% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. The increase was primarily due to an increase in mammography related expenses of $1.1 million and in digital detectors of $776,000 primarily related to our tomosynthesis development project and, to a lesser extent, an increase in mini C-arm related expenses of $825,000. These increases were primarily due to increased headcount and compensation related expenses that were partially offset by a decrease in research and development spending and personnel costs of $834,000 primarily related to our phase-out of the digital general radiography systems product line. We expect total research and development expenses to continue to increase as we accelerate our development efforts in tomosynthesis technology for mammography in fiscal 2006.

 

Selling and Marketing Expenses. Selling and marketing expenses increased 8% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. The increase was primarily due to an increase of approximately $1.8 million of salaries, benefits and travel expenses from an increase in our direct sales force, $1.1 million of increased commissions to our direct sales force due to the increased product sales in direct territories and $557,000 of additional freight charges due to increased sales to customers in group purchasing organizations. These increases were partially offset by a $921,000 decrease of international distributor commissions primarily related to the sale of Selenias in Mexico in fiscal 2004. Sales and marketing expenses have also shifted between the operating segments for the current fiscal year by increasing in mammography reflecting our increased revenues from that segment, and decreasing for each of our osteoporosis assessment, digital detectors and other business segments.

 

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses increased 13% in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004. The increase was primarily due to an increase of $1.5 million in compensation and

 

29


related benefits, an increase of $1.1 million in legal expenses primarily related to the settlement of two disputes and an increase of $645,000 in accounting and tax expenses associated with additional corporate governance required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

Interest Income.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

   September 25, 2004

   Change

 
     Amount

   Amount

   Amount

   %

 

Interest Income

   $ 2,219    $ 540    $ 1,679    311 %
    

  

  

  

 

Interest income increased in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004 primarily due to a higher investment balance and an increase in the interest rate earned in the current year compared to last year.

 

Interest and Other Income (Expense)

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

    Amount

    Amount

   %

 

Interest and Other Income (Expense)

   ($155 )   ($199 )   $ 44    22 %
    

 

 

  

 

In fiscal 2005, these expenses were primarily comprised of the interest costs on the Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. note payable of $376,000 partially offset by foreign currency transaction gains of $221,000. In fiscal 2004, these expenses were primarily comprised of interest costs on the Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. note payable. In September 2005, we paid off the Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. note payable. To the extent that foreign currency exchange rates fluctuate in the future, we may be exposed to continued financial risk. Although we have established a borrowing line of credit denominated in the foreign currency, the euro, in which our subsidiaries currently conduct business to minimize this risk, we cannot assure that we will be successful or can fully hedge our outstanding exposure.

 

Provision for Income Taxes.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

   September 25, 2004

   Change

 
     Amount

   Amount

   Amount

   %

 

Provision for Income Taxes

   $ 6,439    $ 763    $ 5,676    744 %
    

  

  

  

 

We account for income taxes under SFAS No. 109. This statement requires that we recognize a current tax liability or asset for current taxes payable or refundable and a deferred tax liability or asset for the estimated future tax effects of temporary differences and carryforwards to the extent they are realizable. We had recorded a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that was more likely than not to be realized. In fiscal 2005, we considered our recent operating results, future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for the valuation allowance. As a result, we have determined that we are able to realize a portion of our deferred tax assets in excess of the net recorded amount, and therefore, an adjustment of $6.2 million was made to reduce the valuation allowance. The benefit of the release in valuation allowance was realized through reductions to tax expense and increases to additional paid in capital in the current fiscal year. However, should we determine that we would not be able to realize all or part of our net deferred tax asset in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would be charged to income in the period such determination was made. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2005 we received notification that the Joint

 

30


Committee on Taxation had no exceptions with the Internal Revenue Service’s conclusions on several tax returns under examination. Therefore, we released $750,000 of tax reserves related to these returns further reducing our provision for income taxes in fiscal 2005. We provided for nominal federal, state and foreign income taxes in fiscal 2004 and certain minimum taxes where net-operating losses could not be used.

 

Segment Results of Operations

 

Our businesses are reported as four segments: mammography; osteoporosis assessment; digital detectors and other. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in the footnotes to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. We measure segment performance based on total revenues and operating income or loss. Revenues from product sales of each of these segments are described in further detail above. The discussion that follows is a summary analysis of total revenues and the primary changes in operating income or loss by segment.

 

Mammography.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Total Revenues

   $ 167,368    100 %   $ 114,579    100 %   $ 52,789    46 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

Operating Income

   $ 23,861    14 %   $ 9,592    8 %   $ 14,269    149 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Mammography revenues increased primarily due to the $47.3 million increase in product sales discussed above and an increase of $5.5 million in service and other revenues primarily related to the increased number of installed systems reaching warranty expiration. Operating income for this business segment increased primarily due to the increased revenues. Our gross margin in this business segment remained constant at 41% in fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2004. In fiscal 2005 our gross margins improved from the increase in product revenues of our more profitable Selenia systems versus our analog mammography systems. This improvement in the gross margin was offset by a reduction in the average selling prices for the base digital mammography systems without the CAD option and a significant increase in the sales of lower end analog mammography systems sold internationally at lower margin rates than in the United States and compared to the digital mammography product line, and an increase in service related costs. In general, we expect improved gross margins in fiscal 2006 from the shift in product revenues to our more profitable Selenia full field digital mammography systems from our analog mammography systems. Partially offsetting the gross margin increase in absolute dollars was increased operating expenses associated with growing the business, including increased headcount and our tomosynthesis technology development efforts.

 

Osteoporosis Assessment.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Total Revenues

   $ 74,957    100 %   $ 68,483    100 %   $ 6,474    9 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

Operating Income

   $ 11,175    15 %   $ 7,500    11 %   $ 3,675    49 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Osteoporosis assessment revenues increased in fiscal 2005 compared to fiscal 2004 primarily due to the $4.7 million increase in product sales discussed above and a $1.8 million increase in service revenues. The

 

31


increase in service revenues was primarily due to the increased number of systems in our installed base. Operating income for osteoporosis assessment increased primarily due to increased revenues and, to a much lesser extent, a reduction in operating expenses. Our gross margin in this business segment was 44% in fiscal 2005 compared to 43% in fiscal 2004. The increase in osteoporosis assessment gross margins was primarily attributable to the increase in revenues and related improved absorption of manufacturing costs. The reduction in operating expenses of $337,000 was primarily attributable to reduced commissions expense, primarily related to the shift to international sales.

 

Digital Detectors.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

    % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

    % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

    %

 

Total Revenues

   $ 21,945     100 %   $ 15,047     100 %   $ 6,898     46 %
    


 

 


 

 


 

Operating Loss

     ($6,401 )   (29 %)     ($4,833 )   (32 %)     ($1,568 )   (32 %)
    


 

 


 

 


 

 

Digital detector revenues increased primarily due to the increased number of digital detectors sold as discussed above and a $629,000 increase in service revenues. The service revenues increase is due to the increase in the number of detectors in the installed base. The increase in the digital detector business operating loss is primarily due to increases in our warranty expenses, and, to a lesser extent, increases in research and development and general and administrative expenses partially offset by the improved gross profit from the increased revenues. Our gross margin in this business segment decreased to 10% in fiscal 2005 compared to 15% in fiscal 2004. The decrease in gross margin was primarily due to increased warranty expenses. The increase in research and development spending was primarily related to our tomosynthesis development project.

 

Other.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 24, 2005

    September 25, 2004

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Segment
Revenue


    Amount

    %

 

Total Revenues

   $ 23,414    100 %   $ 30,596    100 %   ($ 7,182 )   (23 %)
    

  

 

  

 


 

Operating Income

   $ 3,996    17 %   $ 327    1 %   $ 3,669     1,122 %
    

  

 

  

 


 

 

Revenues for this business segment, which includes the mini C-arm business, the digital general radiography business and the conventional general radiography service business, decreased primarily due to a $5.9 million decrease in digital general radiography systems sold worldwide, as a result of our phase out of that business, and a $1.1 million decrease in product sales of our mini C-arm products as discussed above. The improvements in operating income were primarily due to lower operating expenses as a result of our decision to de-emphasize the digital general radiography systems business, which has been substantially phased out, and to reallocate resources and costs in order to focus on the more profitable and faster growing digital mammography systems.

 

32


Fiscal Year Ended September 25, 2004 Compared to Fiscal Year Ended September 27, 2003

 

Product Sales.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

    %

 

Product Sales

                                        

Mammography

   $ 93,536    41 %   $ 68,739    34 %   $ 24,797     36 %

Osteoporosis Assessment

   $ 51,376    23 %   $ 51,900    26 %     ($524 )   (1 %)

Digital Detectors

   $ 12,370    5 %   $ 6,843    3 %   $ 5,527     81 %

Other

   $ 20,654    9 %   $ 29,252    14 %     ($8,598 )   (29 %)
    

  

 

  

 


 

     $ 177,936    78 %   $ 156,734    77 %   $ 21,202     14 %
    

  

 

  

 


 

 

In fiscal 2004 our product sales increased 14% compared to fiscal 2003 primarily due to the continued growth in the number of our Selenia full field digital mammography systems sold and to a lesser extent, our increase in digital detector sales. Partially offsetting these increases was the decrease in sales attributable to our continued phasing out of our general radiography systems business, which is included in our other segment. We continue to service the installed base of such equipment.

 

Mammography product sales increased 36% compared to fiscal 2003 primarily due to a $32.9 million increase in worldwide digital mammography system sales and a $2.8 million increase in Multicare stereotactic tables sold in the United States. The increase in our digital mammography product sales was primarily attributable to an increase in the number of Selenia systems sold and, to a lesser extent, a modest increase in the average selling price for those systems. In fiscal 2004 we sold 143 digital mammography systems compared to 57 systems in fiscal 2003. The increase in the average selling price of the Selenia contributed $7.0 million to our digital mammography product sales during fiscal 2004. We attribute the increase in digital mammography system sales primarily to the growing acceptance of our Selenia mammography system and of digital mammography in general. The increase in sales of our Multicare stereotactic tables, in the United States, was primarily attributable to an increase in the number of tables sold in the first two quarters of fiscal 2004 as compared to the corresponding quarters of the prior year. The increases in digital mammography and table sales were partially offset by a $14.4 million decrease in analog mammography systems sales in the United States, primarily as a result of reduced unit sales of those systems related to the increased market acceptance of digital mammography.

 

Osteoporosis assessment product sales decreased 1% in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003. This decrease was primarily attributable to a $3.0 million decrease in sales of our dual-energy x-ray bone densitometry systems in the United States and a decrease of $417,000 due to a reduction in the number of Sahara ultrasound systems sold in the United States. The decrease in United States sales of dual-energy x-ray bone densitometry systems was primarily attributable to a decrease in the number of systems sold and a shift to our lower priced systems sold into the primary care market. These reductions were partially offset by a $2.7 million increase in sales in international markets, primarily attributable to an increase in the number of our lower priced Explorer systems sold, and a $427,000 increase in upgrade sales.

 

Digital detector product sales increased 81% in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003. This increase was primarily due to an increase in the number of digital detectors sold in the United States and Europe, partially offset by a decrease in the number of detectors sold in Asia. Product sales of digital detectors in fiscal 2004 increased $3.8 million in the United States, $3.2 million in Europe and decreased $1.4 million in Asia compared to fiscal 2003. The increase in the United States primarily reflects the increase in the number of digital detectors sold for general radiography systems, while the increase for Europe primarily reflects the increase in the number of digital detectors sold for mammography systems. The decrease in Asia is primarily due to a reduction in the number of digital general radiography detectors sold.

 

33


Other product sales decreased 29% in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003. This decrease was primarily attributable to a $6.7 million decrease in worldwide digital general radiography product sales and a $2.0 million decrease in our mini C-arm product sales, primarily in the United States. The decrease in general radiography product sales reflects our decision to phase out our digital general radiography systems. In the current year, sales of digital general radiography systems accounted for $8.2 million of other product revenues. We attribute the decrease in sales of our mini C-arm products primarily to a reduction in the number of systems sold as a result of increased competition and competitive pricing pressure.

 

In fiscal 2004, approximately 61% of product sales were generated in the United States, 21% in Europe, 11% in Asia, 6% in Latin America and 1% in other international markets. In fiscal 2003, approximately 68% of product sales were generated in the United States, 17% in Europe, 13% in Asia, 1% in Latin America and 1% in other international markets. We believe the shift in sales to Europe and other international markets was primarily due to the timing of an increase in demand from those territories. The increase in sales in Latin America during fiscal 2004 was primarily attributable to a large sale of our Selenia digital mammography systems in Mexico in the first six months of fiscal 2004. In the second half of fiscal 2004 our product sales to Latin America constituted approximately 2% of our total product sales.

 

Service and Other Revenue.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Service and Other Revenue

   $ 50,769    22 %   $ 47,301    23 %   $ 3,468    7 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Service and other revenue is primarily comprised of revenue generated from our field service organization to provide ongoing service, installation and repair of our products. Service and other revenue increased 7% in fiscal 2004 compared to the prior year. The increase in service and other revenue in fiscal 2004 was primarily due to a $3.3 million increase in service contract revenues in our mammography segment compared to fiscal 2003, primarily as a result of our assuming service responsibilities previously performed by a former distributor and the continued growth in our installed base of mammography systems and digital detectors. The increase in mammography service revenue was partially offset by a $1.2 million decrease in osteoporosis assessment service revenues. We attribute this decrease primarily to the completion of a multi-year service contract in Europe during fiscal 2004 that has not been renewed.

 

Cost of Product Sales.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Product
Sales


    Amount

   % of Product
Sales


    Amount

   %

 

Cost of Product Sales

   $ 94,762    53 %   $ 86,506    55 %   $ 8,256    10 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

The cost of product sales decreased as a percentage of product sales to 53% in fiscal 2004 from 55% in fiscal 2003. Cost of product sales decreased as a percentage of product sales primarily due to increased revenues and improved gross margins recognized on the shift in mammography product sales to Selenia. These systems have significantly higher selling prices, more than offsetting the higher costs of the product, when compared to analog mammography. This improvement was partially offset by reduced margins associated with the decrease in our product sales, a shift to international sales where we generally sell at lower prices through distributors and a shift to lower priced systems sold into the United States primary care market in our osteoporosis assessment segment and the decrease in mini C-arm systems sales.

 

34


Cost of Service and Other Revenue.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Service
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Service
Revenue


    Amount

   %

 

Cost of Service and Other Revenue

   $ 48,574    96 %   $ 43,949    93 %   $ 4,625    11 %
    

  

 

  

 

  

 

Cost of service and other revenue increased both in percentage of service revenue and absolute dollars, primarily related to additional personnel and other costs to expand our service capabilities, especially in the United States, as we continue to assume direct coverage of territories previously assigned to distributors and to support our growing installed base of products and due to increased warranty costs in our digital detector business.

 

Operating Expenses.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

   % of Total
Revenue


    Amount

    %

 

Operating Expenses

                                        

Research and Development

   $ 16,659    7 %   $ 18,381    9 %   ($ 1,722 )   (9 %)

Selling and Marketing

   $ 31,761    14 %   $ 29,978    15 %   $ 1,783     6 %

General and Administrative

   $ 24,363    11 %   $ 22,196    11 %   $ 2,167     10 %
    

  

 

  

 


 

     $ 72,783    32 %   $ 70,555    35 %   $ 2,228     3 %
    

  

 

  

 


 

 

Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses decreased in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003 primarily due to a decrease in research and development spending and personnel costs of $2.4 million primarily related to our phase-out of the digital general radiography systems product line announced in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003. These decreases were offset in part from an increase in mammography related research and development expenses of $1.3 million, including our tomosynthesis development project.

 

Selling and Marketing Expenses. Selling and marketing expenses increased 6% in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003. These expenses decreased as a percentage of revenue to 13.9% in fiscal 2004 from 14.7% in fiscal 2003. The increase in fiscal 2004 was primarily due to an increase of approximately $778,000 of international distributor commissions primarily related to the sale of Selenias in Mexico in the first six months of fiscal 2004, $601,000 of increased commissions to our direct sales force due to the increased product sales in direct territories and $388,000 of tradeshow expenses related to the promotion of our new, Selenia system. Sales and marketing expenses have also shifted between the operating segments for fiscal 2004 as compared to fiscal 2003 by increasing in mammography, reflecting our increased revenues from that segment, and decreasing for our digital general radiography systems which are being phased-out.

 

General and Administrative. General and administrative expenses increased 10% in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003. As a percentage of revenue these expenses decreased to 10.7% in fiscal 2004 from 10.9% in fiscal 2003. The increase in the dollar amount of these expenses was primarily due to an increase of approximately $2.3 million in bonus and profit sharing expense in accordance with the applicable plans as a result of continued improved financial results. In addition, we incurred $741,000 of due diligence expenses in the third quarter of fiscal 2004 in connection with a potential acquisition. Prior to the end of the third quarter we decided not to pursue this potential acquisition further and accordingly expensed all acquisition costs in that quarter. Partially offsetting these increases were a $448,000 decrease in the bad debt provision as a result of strong cash collections in fiscal 2004, a $253,000 decrease of legal fees and a $251,000 decrease in the fees associated with our note payable to Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. due to an amendment executed in July 2003.

 

35


Interest Income.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

   September 27, 2003

   Change

 
     Amount

   Amount

   Amount

    %

 

Interest Income

   $ 540    $ 685    ($145 )   (21 %)
    

  

  

 

 

Interest income decreased in fiscal 2004 compared to the prior year primarily due to a decrease in the interest rate earned in fiscal 2004 compared to fiscal 2003, partially offset by higher investment balances.

 

Interest and Other Income (Expense).

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

    September 27, 2003

    Change

 
     Amount

    Amount

    Amount

   %

 

Interest and Other Income (Expense)

   $ (199 )   $ (445 )   $ 246    55 %
    


 


 

  

 

Interest and other income (expense) primarily consist of interest costs on the Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. note payable. The decrease in these expenses was primarily due to the amendment made to the Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. note payable in the third quarter of fiscal 2003 that significantly reduced the costs related to this facility. Other expense also includes foreign currency transaction gains and losses and interest costs on a bank line of credit used by our European subsidiaries to borrow funds in their local currencies to pay for intercompany sales, thereby reducing the foreign currency exposure in these transactions. In fiscal 2004 and 2003 we did not recognize any significant foreign exchange gains or losses or incur any interest charges under our foreign currency line of credit. To the extent that foreign currency exchange rates fluctuate in the future, we may be exposed to continued financial risk. Although we have established a borrowing line of credit denominated in the foreign currency, the euro, in which our subsidiaries currently conduct business to minimize this risk, we cannot assure that we will be successful or can fully hedge our outstanding exposure.

 

Provision for Income Taxes.

 

     Years Ended

 
     September 25, 2004

   September 27, 2003

   Change

 
     Amount

   Amount

   Amount

   %

 

Provision for Income Taxes

   $ 763    $ 176    $ 587    334 %
    

  

  

  

 

We account for income taxes under SFAS No. 109. This statement requires that we recognize a current tax liability or asset for current taxes payable or refundable and a deferred tax liability or asset for the estimated future tax effects of temporary differences and carryforwards to the extent they are realizable. We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. While we have considered future taxable income and ongoing prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for the valuation allowance, in the event we were to determine that we would be able to realize our deferred tax assets in the future in excess of the net recorded amount, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would increase income in the period such determination was made. Likewise, should we determine that we would not be able to realize all or part of our net deferred tax asset in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would be charged to income in the period such determination was made. We have provided for nominal federal, state and foreign income taxes in fiscal 2004 and 2003 and certain minimum taxes where net-operating losses cannot be used.

 

36


Cumulative Effect of Change in Accounting Principle.

 

    Years Ended

 
    September 25, 2004

  September 27, 2003

    Change

 
    Amount

  Amount

    Amount

  %

 

Cumulative Effect of Change in Accounting Principle

  $ 0   ($207 )   $ 207   (100 %)
   

 

 

 

 

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003, we adopted EITF 00-21, Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables, as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle in accordance with APB 20, Accounting Changes, in fiscal 2003. In connection with the adoption of EITF 00-21, we recorded a cumulative effect adjustment of $207,000 in the first quarter of fiscal 2003.

 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

At September 24, 2005 we had approximately $167.8 million of working capital. At that date our cash and cash equivalents totaled $114.0 million. Our cash and cash equivalents balance increased $45.7 million during fiscal 2005 primarily due to cash provided by operating and financing activities partially offset by the use of cash in investing activities.

 

Our cash provided by operating activities was $44.4 million, which included net income of $28.3 million for fiscal 2005 increased by non-cash charges for depreciation and amortization of an aggregate of $7.6 million. Cash provided by operations due to changes in our current assets and liabilities included an increase in accrued expenses of $6.0 million, an increase in deferred revenue of $8.1 million, and an increase in accounts payable of $3.6 million. These sources of cash were partially offset by an increase in accounts receivable of $9.3 million and an increase in inventory of $4.4 million. The increase in accrued expenses and accounts payable were primarily due to the timing of payments. The increase in deferred revenue was primarily due to an increase in the number of deferred service contracts and an increase in customer deposits. The increase in accounts receivable was primarily due to the increased revenues during fiscal 2005. The increase in inventory was to support the increased sales volume, especially for digital mammography.

 

In fiscal 2005, we used approximately $13.5 million of cash in investing activities. This use of cash was primarily attributable to purchases of property and equipment of $7.7 million, which consisted primarily of manufacturing and test equipment, computer hardware and demonstration equipment. In addition, we extended a $5.0 million secured loan in connection with the definitive agreement to acquire the intellectual property related to the mammography business of Fischer Imaging Corporation. On September 29, 2005, we completed the acquisition of the intellectual property relating to Fischer Imaging’s mammography business and the loan was credited toward the purchase price at closing. The note bore interest at an annual rate equal to the prime rate (6.75% at September 24, 2005) plus 2.00%. In the first quarter of fiscal 2006, we used $27.4 million of cash to complete the acquisition of this intellectual property.

 

In fiscal 2005, financing activities provided us with $14.9 million of cash. These cash flows included approximately $15.9 million from the exercise of stock options partially offset by $947,000 of repayments, of our term loan with Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc.

 

We maintain an unsecured line of credit with a European bank for the equivalent of $3.0 million, which bears interest at the Europe Interbank Offered Rate (2.11% at September 24, 2005) plus 1.5%. The borrowings under this line are primarily used by our European subsidiaries to settle intercompany sales and are denominated in the respective local currencies of its European subsidiaries. The line of credit may be canceled by the bank with 30 days notice. At September 24, 2005, there were no outstanding borrowings under this line.

 

37


In September 2001 we obtained a secured loan from Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc. On September 21, 2005, we repaid the loan in full. The loan agreement with Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc., provided for a term loan of approximately $2.4 million, which we borrowed at signing, and a revolving line of credit facility. Following repayment, the loan agreement was terminated in accordance with its terms.

 

In September 2002, we completed a sale/leaseback transaction for our headquarters and manufacturing facility located in Bedford, Massachusetts and our LORAD manufacturing facility in Danbury, Connecticut. The transaction resulted in net proceeds to us of $31.4 million. The lease for these facilities, including the associated land, has a term of 20 years, with four five-year year renewal terms, which we may exercise at our option. The basic rent for the facilities is $3.2 million per year, which is subject to adjustment for increases in the consumer price index. The aggregate total minimum lease payments during the initial 20-year term are $62.9 million. In addition, we are required to maintain the facilities during the term of the lease and to pay all taxes, insurance, utilities and other costs associated with those facilities. Under the lease, we make customary representations and warranties and agree to certain financial covenants and indemnities. In the event we default on the lease, the landlord may terminate the lease, accelerate payments and collect liquidated damages. We were in compliance with all covenants as of September 24, 2005.

 

In October 2005, we received a request from the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, that asks us to voluntarily produce certain information and material to the FTC. The FTC’s request, which does not allege any wrongdoing, is part of an FTC non-public investigation to determine whether our recent acquisition of certain assets owned by Fischer Imaging Corporation may be anticompetitive and in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. We are in the process of responding to the FTC request. Because the investigation is at an early stage, we cannot predict its outcome or its effect, if any, on our business.

 

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and commitments as of September 24, 2005:

 

     Payments Due by Period

Contractual Obligations


   Total

   Less than
1 year


   1-3 years

   3-5 years

   More than
5 years


     (in thousands)

Operating Leases

   $ 56,040    $ 4,844    $ 7,223    $ 6,365    $ 37,608

Purchase Obligations (1)

     43,792      12,638      27,259      3,895      —  
    

  

  

  

  

Total Contractual Obligations

   $ 99,832    $ 17,482    $ 34,482    $ 10,260    $ 37,608
    

  

  

  

  


(1) The purchase obligations primarily relate to an exclusive distribution and service agreement in the United States under which we will sell and service a line of extremity MRI systems. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, we have certain minimum inventory purchase obligations for the initial term and are subject to renegotiation after the first eighteen month period in the event of any unforeseen changes in the market dynamics.

 

Except as set forth above, we do not have any other significant capital commitments. We are working on several projects, with an emphasis on digital mammography. In addition, we expect to continue to review and evaluate potential acquisitions of businesses, products or technologies, and strategic alliances that we believe will complement our current or future business. Subject to the risk factors set forth below and the general disclaimers set forth in our Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements at the outset of this Report, we believe that we have sufficient funds in order to fund our expected operations over the next twelve months.

 

The expected timing of payment and amounts of the obligations discussed above are estimated based on current information.

 

38


Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In November 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs, an amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, which amends ARB 43, Chapter 4, to clarify that abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted materials (spoilage) should be recognized as current-period charges. In addition, this Statement requires that allocation of fixed production overhead to the costs of conversion be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities.

 

Statement 151 must be adopted for fiscal years starting after June 15, 2005. We expect to adopt Statement 151 starting in our fiscal first quarter of 2006, which begins on September 25, 2005. We do not believe the adoption of this statement will have any material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

On December 16, 2004 the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. Statement 123R supersedes APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and amends FASB Statement No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows. Generally, the approach on Statement 123R is similar to the approach described in Statement 123. However, Statement 123R requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be recognized in the income statement based on their fair values. Pro forma disclosure is no longer an alternative.

 

Statement 123R must be adopted for fiscal years starting after June 15, 2005. We expect to adopt Statement 123R starting in our fiscal first quarter of 2006, which begins on September 25, 2005.

 

As permitted by Statement 123R we currently account for share-based payments to employees using Opinion 25’s intrinsic value method and, as such, generally recognizes no compensation cost for employee stock options. Accordingly, the adoption of Statement 123R’s fair value method will have a significant impact on our results of operations, although it will have no impact on our overall financial position. We estimate that the stock-based compensation cost will be approximately $4.0 million in fiscal 2006 as a result of the adoption of Statement 123R.

 

In June 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections, which will require entities that voluntarily make a change in accounting principle to apply that change retrospectively to prior periods’ financial statements, unless this would be impracticable. SFAS No. 154 supersedes APB Opinion No.20, Accounting Changes, which previously required that most voluntary changes in accounting principle be recognized by including in the current period’s net income the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 also makes a distinction between “retrospective application” of an accounting principle and the “restatement” of financial statements to reflect the correction of an error. Another significant change in practice under SFAS No. 154 will be that if an entity changes its method of depreciation, amortization, or depletion for long-lived, non-financial assets, the change must be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate. Under APB No. 20, such a change would have been reported as a change in accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 applies to accounting changes and error corrections that are made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005.

 

Risk Factors

 

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, such as statements of our objectives, expectations and intentions. The cautionary statements made in this report should be read as applicable to all forward-looking statements wherever they appear in this report. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed herein. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those discussed below, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

39


The markets for our direct radiography products are in the early stage of development.

 

In 1998, our subsidiary, Direct Radiography Corp., was the first company to introduce direct-to-digital x-ray imaging products in the United States. The markets for these products are relatively new. There is a significant installed base of conventional x-ray imaging products in hospitals and radiological practices. The use of our direct-to-digital x-ray imaging products, including digital mammography products, in many cases would require these potential customers to either modify or replace their existing x-ray imaging equipment. Moreover, we believe that a major factor in the market’s acceptance of direct-to-digital x-ray technology is the trend toward transition by the healthcare industry from conventional film archiving systems to hospital Picture Archiving and Communications Systems, known as PACS, to store x-ray images electronically. Because the benefits of our direct-to-digital technology may not be fully realized by customers until they install a PACS platform, a large potential market for these products may not develop until PACS environments are more widely used. Because of the early stage of the markets for these products, it is likely that our evaluation of the potential markets for these products will materially vary with time. We cannot assure that the markets for our direct radiography products will continue to develop.

 

If we fail to achieve and maintain the high manufacturing standards that our direct radiography products require, we will not be successful in developing and marketing those products.

 

The manufacture of our direct radiography detectors is highly complex and requires precise high quality manufacturing that is difficult to achieve. We have in the past and may in the future experience difficulties in manufacturing these detectors in commercial quantities, primarily related to delays and difficulties in obtaining critical components for these detectors that meet our high manufacturing standards. Our initial difficulties have led to increased delivery lead-times and increased costs of manufacturing these products. Our failure, including the failure of our contract manufacturers, to achieve and maintain the required high manufacturing standards could result in further delays or failures in product testing or delivery, cost overruns, product recalls or withdrawals, or other problems that could harm our business and prospects.

 

We continue to incur significant losses in our digital detector business segment and cannot assure that the segment will become profitable.

 

Our digital detector business segment incurred net losses of $6.4 million in fiscal 2005, $4.8 million in fiscal 2004 and $5.8 million in fiscal 2003. At the beginning of fiscal 2004 we started to move away from selling our own general digital x-ray systems in competition with our OEM partners in general digital radiography. Notwithstanding this shift in focus, we have continued to experience significant losses in our digital detector business segment and cannot assure that the operating results of this segment will improve.

 

Our success depends on new product development.

 

We have a continuing research and development program designed to develop new products and to enhance and improve our products. We are expending significant resources on the development of digital x-ray imaging products, including the development of a digital mammography product to perform breast tomosynthesis, a 3-dimensional imaging technique. The successful development of our products and product enhancements are subject to numerous risks, both known and unknown, including:

 

    unanticipated delays;

 

    access to capital;

 

    budget overruns;

 

    technical problems; and

 

    other difficulties that could result in the abandonment or substantial change in the design, development and commercialization of these new products, including, for example, changes requested by the FDA in connection with pre-market approval applications for our products or 510(k) notification.

 

40


Given the uncertainties inherent with product development and introduction, we cannot assure that any of our product development efforts will be successful on a timely basis or within budget, if at all. Our failure to develop new products and product enhancements on a timely basis or within budget could harm our business and prospects.

 

Our business could be harmed if our products contain undetected errors or defects or do not meet customer specifications.

 

We are continuously developing new products and improving our existing products. Newly introduced products can contain undetected errors or defects. In addition, these products may not meet their performance specifications under all conditions or for all applications. If, despite our internal testing and testing by our customers, any of our products contains errors or defects or any of our products fails to meet customer specifications, then we may be required to enhance or improve those products or technologies. We may not be able to do so on a timely basis, if at all, and may only be able to do so at considerable expense. In addition, any significant reliability problems could result in adverse customer reaction, negative publicity or legal claims and could harm our business and prospects.

 

Our reliance on one or only a limited number of suppliers for some key components or subassemblies for our products could harm our business and prospects.

 

We rely on one or only a limited number of suppliers for some key components or subassemblies for our products. In particular we have a limited number of suppliers for each of the panel and the coating of that panel for our direct radiography products. In addition, we have only limited sources of supply for some key components used in our mini C-arm systems. Obtaining alternative sources of supply of these components could involve significant delays and other costs, and may not be available to us on reasonable terms, if at all. The failure of a component supplier or contract assembler to provide acceptable quality and timely components or assembly service at an acceptable price, or an interruption of supplies from such a supplier could harm our business and prospects. Any disruption of supplies of key components could delay or reduce shipments, which could result in lost or deferred sales.

 

If we are unable to satisfy our financial covenants under our long-term leases for our headquarters and Lorad facilities, the rent due under those leases may be accelerated and we could be required to pay liquidated damages.

 

Our long-term leases contain financial and other covenants. If we do not comply with our covenants under our long-term leases, the remaining rent payable under those leases could be accelerated and we could be required to pay liquidated damages. Our failure to meet any of our covenants under our long-term leases could significantly harm our liquidity and financial position.

 

We may not be able to compete successfully.

 

A number of companies have developed, or are expected to develop, products that compete or will compete with our products. Many of these competitors offer a range of products in areas other than those in which we compete, which may make such competitors more attractive to hospitals, radiology clients, general purchasing organizations and other potential customers. In addition, many of our competitors and potential competitors are larger and have greater financial resources than we do and offer a range of products broader than our products. Some of the companies with which we now compete or may compete in the future have or may have more extensive research, marketing and manufacturing capabilities and significantly greater technical and personnel resources than we do, and may be better positioned to continue to improve their technology in order to compete in an evolving industry. Our failure to compete successfully could harm our business and pro