EPLUS INC - Quarter Report: 2009 December (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
T QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION
13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009
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: 1-34167
ePlus
inc.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
|
54-1817218
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
13595 Dulles Technology
Drive, Herndon, VA 20171-3413
(Address,
including zip code, of principal executive offices)
Registrant's
telephone number, including area code: (703) 984-8400
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 T No
£
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 229.405 of
this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that
the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes £ No
£
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See
the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large
accelerated filer £
|
Accelerated
filer £
|
Non-accelerated
filer £ (Do not
check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Smaller
reporting company T
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule
12b-2 of
the Exchange Act). Yes £ No
T
The
number of shares of common stock outstanding as of January 29, 2009 was
8,248,405.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ePlus inc. AND
SUBSIDIARIES
Part
I. Financial Information:
|
||
Item
1.
|
Financial
Statements
|
|
4
|
||
5
|
||
6
|
||
8
|
||
Item
2.
|
26
|
|
Item
3.
|
45
|
|
Item
4.
|
45
|
|
Part
II. Other Information:
|
||
Item
1.
|
46
|
|
Item
1A.
|
47
|
|
Item
2.
|
48
|
|
Item
3.
|
49
|
|
Item
4.
|
49
|
|
Item
5.
|
49
|
|
Item
6.
|
49
|
|
50
|
Cautionary
Language About Forward-Looking Statements
This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains certain statements that are, or may be
deemed to be, “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are made in reliance upon the protections
provided by such acts for forward-looking statements. Such statements are not
based on historical fact, but are based upon numerous assumptions about future
conditions that may not occur. Forward-looking statements are generally
identifiable by use of forward-looking words such as “may,” “should,” “intend,”
“estimate,” “will,” “potential,” “could,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,”
“project,” “forecast,” and similar expressions. Readers are cautioned not to
place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements made by us or on our
behalf. Forward-looking statements are made based upon information that is
currently available or management’s current expectations and beliefs concerning
future developments and their potential effects upon us, speak only as of the
date hereof, and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. We
do not undertake any obligation to publicly update or correct any
forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that subsequently
occur, or of which we hereafter become aware. Actual events, transactions and
results may materially differ from the anticipated events, transactions or
results described in such statements. Our ability to consummate such
transactions and achieve such events or results is subject to certain risks and
uncertainties. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the
matters set forth below:
|
·
|
we
offer a comprehensive set of solutions—the bundling of our direct IT
sales, professional services and financing with our proprietary software —
and we may encounter some of the challenges, risks, difficulties and
uncertainties frequently faced by similar companies, such
as:
|
|
o
|
managing
a diverse product set of solutions in highly competitive
markets;
|
|
o
|
increasing
the total number of customers utilizing bundled solutions by up-selling
within our customer base and gaining new
customers;
|
|
o
|
adapting
to meet changes in markets and competitive
developments;
|
|
o
|
maintaining
and increasing advanced professional services by retaining highly skilled
personnel and vendor
certifications;
|
|
o
|
integrating
with external IT systems, including those of our customers and vendors;
and
|
|
o
|
continuing
to enhance our proprietary software and update our technology
infrastructure to remain competitive in the
marketplace.
|
|
·
|
a
decrease in the capital spending budgets of, or delay of technology
purchases by, our customers or potential
customers;
|
|
·
|
our
ability to protect our intellectual
property;
|
|
·
|
the
creditworthiness of our customers;
|
|
·
|
reduction
of vendor incentive programs;
|
|
·
|
our
ability to raise capital, maintain or increase as needed our lines of
credit or floor planning facilities, or obtain non-recourse financing for
our transactions;
|
|
·
|
our
ability to realize our investment in leased
equipment;
|
|
·
|
our
ability to hire and retain sufficient qualified
personnel;
|
|
·
|
our
ability to reserve adequately for credit
losses;
|
|
·
|
the
continuation of incentives, rebates, and promotional programs by our major
vendors and distributors; and
|
|
·
|
significant
adverse changes in, reductions in, or losses of relationships with major
customers or vendors.
|
We cannot
be certain that our business strategy will be successful or that we will
successfully address these and other challenges, risks and uncertainties. For a
further list and description of various risks, relevant factors and
uncertainties that could cause future results or events to differ materially
from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements, see the “Risk
Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations” sections contained elsewhere in this report, as well as
our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, any
subsequent Reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, and other filings with the
SEC.
PART
I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item
1. Financial Statements
ePlus inc.
AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(UNAUDITED)
As
of
|
As
of
|
|||||||
December 31, 2009
|
March 31, 2009
|
|||||||
ASSETS
|
(in
thousands)
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 82,081 | $ | 107,788 | ||||
Accounts
receivable—net
|
108,332 | 82,734 | ||||||
Notes
receivable
|
2,977 | 2,632 | ||||||
Inventories—net
|
11,606 | 9,739 | ||||||
Investment
in leases and leased equipment—net
|
124,691 | 119,256 | ||||||
Property
and equipment—net
|
2,317 | 3,313 | ||||||
Other
assets
|
27,415 | 16,809 | ||||||
Goodwill
|
17,572 | 21,601 | ||||||
TOTAL
ASSETS
|
$ | 376,991 | $ | 363,872 | ||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
||||||||
LIABILITIES
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable—equipment
|
$ | 5,842 | $ | 2,904 | ||||
Accounts
payable—trade
|
14,515 | 18,833 | ||||||
Accounts
payable—floor plan
|
62,312 | 45,127 | ||||||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
46,339 | 33,588 | ||||||
Income
taxes payable
|
1,964 | 912 | ||||||
Recourse
notes payable
|
102 | 102 | ||||||
Non-recourse
notes payable
|
58,454 | 84,977 | ||||||
Deferred
tax liability
|
2,957 | 2,957 | ||||||
Total
Liabilities
|
192,485 | 189,400 | ||||||
COMMITMENTS
AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 7)
|
||||||||
STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
||||||||
Preferred
stock, $.01 par value; 2,000,000 shares authorized; none issued or
outstanding
|
- | - | ||||||
Common
stock, $.01 par value; 25,000,000 shares authorized;11,879,879 issued and
8,303,164 outstanding at December 31, 2009and 11,504,167 issued and
8,088,513 outstanding at March 31, 2009
|
119 | 115 | ||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
83,157 | 80,055 | ||||||
Treasury
stock, at cost, 3,576,715 and 3,415,654 shares,
respectively
|
(39,792 | ) | (37,229 | ) | ||||
Retained
earnings
|
140,667 | 131,452 | ||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income—foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
355 | 79 | ||||||
Total
Stockholders' Equity
|
184,506 | 174,472 | ||||||
TOTAL
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
$ | 376,991 | $ | 363,872 |
See
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
ePlus inc.
AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED)
Three Months Ended
December 31,
|
Nine Months Ended
December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
(amounts
in thousands, except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||
Sales
of product and services
|
$ | 163,178 | $ | 171,557 | $ | 460,899 | $ | 516,807 | ||||||||
Sales
of leased equipment
|
- | - | 2,276 | 3,447 | ||||||||||||
163,178 | 171,557 | 463,175 | 520,254 | |||||||||||||
Lease
revenues
|
12,957 | 10,361 | 29,916 | 34,197 | ||||||||||||
Fee
and other income
|
2,576 | 2,806 | 7,355 | 9,417 | ||||||||||||
Patent
license and settlement income
|
- | - | 3,400 | - | ||||||||||||
15,533 | 13,167 | 40,671 | 43,614 | |||||||||||||
TOTAL
REVENUES
|
178,711 | 184,724 | 503,846 | 563,868 | ||||||||||||
COSTS
AND EXPENSES
|
||||||||||||||||
Cost
of sales, product and services
|
141,234 | 146,224 | 396,165 | 444,355 | ||||||||||||
Cost
of leased equipment
|
- | - | 2,189 | 3,260 | ||||||||||||
141,234 | 146,224 | 398,354 | 447,615 | |||||||||||||
Direct
lease costs
|
2,581 | 3,636 | 8,271 | 11,263 | ||||||||||||
Professional
and other fees
|
3,313 | 1,577 | 7,787 | 5,930 | ||||||||||||
Salaries
and benefits
|
18,837 | 19,573 | 55,018 | 57,709 | ||||||||||||
General
and administrative expenses
|
3,797 | 4,307 | 10,927 | 11,896 | ||||||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill
|
4,029 | 4,644 | 4,029 | 4,644 | ||||||||||||
Interest
and financing costs
|
896 | 1,355 | 3,299 | 4,307 | ||||||||||||
33,453 | 35,092 | 89,331 | 95,749 | |||||||||||||
TOTAL
COSTS AND EXPENSES (1)(2)
|
174,687 | 181,316 | 487,685 | 543,364 | ||||||||||||
EARNINGS
BEFORE PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES
|
4,024 | 3,408 | 16,161 | 20,504 | ||||||||||||
PROVISION
FOR INCOME TAXES
|
1,708 | 1,446 | 6,946 | 8,429 | ||||||||||||
NET
EARNINGS
|
$ | 2,316 | $ | 1,962 | $ | 9,215 | $ | 12,075 | ||||||||
NET
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE—BASIC
|
$ | 0.27 | $ | 0.24 | $ | 1.11 | $ | 1.46 | ||||||||
NET
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE—DILUTED
|
$ | 0.27 | $ | 0.24 | $ | 1.08 | $ | 1.42 | ||||||||
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING—BASIC
|
8,388,795 | 8,264,115 | 8,289,776 | 8,271,616 | ||||||||||||
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING—DILUTED
|
8,554,247 | 8,404,352 | 8,504,966 | 8,518,419 |
(1)
|
Includes
amounts to related parties of $359 thousand and $277 thousand for the
three months ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively.
|
(2)
|
Includes
amounts to related parties of $920 thousand and $833 thousand for the nine
months ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively.
|
See
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
ePlus inc.
AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(UNAUDITED)
Nine Months Ended
December 31,
|
||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||
Cash
Flows From Operating Activities:
|
||||||||
Net
earnings
|
$ | 9,215 | $ | 12,075 | ||||
Adjustments
to reconcile net earnings to net cash used in operating
activities:
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
8,783 | 11,847 | ||||||
Impairment
of goodwill
|
4,029 | 4,644 | ||||||
Reserves
for credit losses and sales returns
|
1,204 | 560 | ||||||
Provision
for inventory allowances and inventory returns
|
591 | 341 | ||||||
Share-based
compensation expense
|
270 | 114 | ||||||
Excess
tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
(188 | ) | (28 | ) | ||||
Tax
benefit of stock options exercised
|
406 | 164 | ||||||
Deferred
taxes
|
- | 62 | ||||||
Payments
from lessees directly to lenders—operating
leases
|
(5,486 | ) | (7,022 | ) | ||||
Loss
on disposal of property and equipment
|
11 | 16 | ||||||
Loss
(gain) on sale or disposal of operating lease equipment
|
(897 | ) | (1,035 | ) | ||||
Increase
in cash value of officers' life insurance
|
(44 | ) | (52 | ) | ||||
Changes
in:
|
||||||||
Accounts
receivable—net
|
(26,522 | ) | 9,636 | |||||
Notes
receivable
|
(344 | ) | (2,280 | ) | ||||
Inventories—net
|
(2,458 | ) | 2,134 | |||||
Investment
in direct financing and sale-type leases—net
|
(34,697 | ) | (18,053 | ) | ||||
Other
assets
|
(10,337 | ) | (3,784 | ) | ||||
Accounts
payable—equipment
|
1,669 | (1,973 | ) | |||||
Accounts
payable—trade
|
(4,281 | ) | (8,463 | ) | ||||
Salaries
and commissions payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities
|
13,782 | (584 | ) | |||||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
(45,294 | ) | (1,681 | ) | ||||
Cash
Flows From Investing Activities:
|
||||||||
Proceeds
from sale or disposal of operating lease equipment
|
3,673 | 2,907 | ||||||
Purchases
of operating lease equipment
|
(6,976 | ) | (2,675 | ) | ||||
Purchases
of property and equipment
|
(502 | ) | (622 | ) | ||||
Premiums
paid on officers' life insurance
|
(163 | ) | (236 | ) | ||||
Cash
used in acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
- | (364 | ) | |||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(3,968 | ) | (990 | ) |
ePlus inc. AND
SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS - continued
(UNAUDITED)
Nine Months Ended
December 31,
|
||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
Cash
Flows From Financing Activities:
|
(in
thousands)
|
|||||||
Borrowings:
|
||||||||
Non-recourse
|
10,770 | 34,896 | ||||||
Repayments:
|
||||||||
Non-recourse
|
(4,431 | ) | (4,801 | ) | ||||
Repurchase
of common stock
|
(2,563 | ) | (2,922 | ) | ||||
Proceeds
from issuance of capital stock through option exercise
|
2,429 | 1,374 | ||||||
Excess
tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
188 | 28 | ||||||
Net
borrowings on floor plan facility
|
17,185 | 2,517 | ||||||
Net
proceeds on recourse lines of credit
|
- | 102 | ||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
23,578 | 31,194 | ||||||
Effect
of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash
|
(23 | ) | (395 | ) | ||||
Net
(Decrease) Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
(25,707 | ) | 28,128 | |||||
Cash
and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Period
|
107,788 | 58,423 | ||||||
Cash
and Cash Equivalents, End of Period
|
$ | 82,081 | $ | 86,551 | ||||
Supplemental
Disclosures of Cash Flow Information:
|
||||||||
Cash
paid for interest
|
$ | 255 | $ | 322 | ||||
Cash
paid for income taxes
|
$ | 5,758 | $ | 7,846 | ||||
Schedule
of Non-Cash Investing and Financing Activities:
|
||||||||
Purchase
of property and equipment included in accounts payable
|
$ | 43 | $ | 38 | ||||
Purchase
of operating lease equipment included in accounts payable
|
$ | 1,215 | $ | 32 | ||||
Principal
payments from lessees directly to lenders
|
$ | 32,913 | $ | 38,838 |
See
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
ePlus inc.
AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1.
ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of ePlus inc. and subsidiaries
and notes thereto included herein are unaudited and have been prepared by us,
pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) and reflect all adjustments that are, in the opinion of management,
necessary for a fair statement of results for the interim periods. All
adjustments made were of a normal recurring nature.
Certain
information and note disclosures normally included in the financial statements
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States (“U.S. GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to SEC rules
and regulations.
As
previously disclosed, we updated our disclosures and condensed consolidated
financial statements to reflect the FASB Accounting Standards Codification
(“Codification”). In the description of the Codification and Accounting
Standards Updates throughout the report, references in italics relate to
Codification Topics and Subtopics, and their descriptive titles, as
appropriate.
These
interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated
Financial Statements and Notes thereto contained in our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009, which was filed on June 16,
2009. Operating results for the interim periods are not necessarily
indicative of results for an entire year. A detailed description of
our significant accounting policies can be found in the audited consolidated
financial statements, included in the Form 10-K. There have been no
other significant changes to the accounting policies that were included in the
Form 10-K.
PRINCIPLES
OF CONSOLIDATION — The Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
include the accounts of ePlus inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been
eliminated.
SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS –
Management has evaluated subsequent events after the balance sheet date through
February 4, 2010, which is the date our financial statements were
issued.
COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME — Comprehensive income consists of net income and foreign currency
translation adjustments. For the nine months ended December 31, 2009, other
comprehensive income was $276 thousand, and net income was $9.2 million. This
resulted in total comprehensive income of $9.5 million for the nine months ended
December 31, 2009. For the nine months ended December 31, 2008, other
comprehensive loss was $395 thousand, and net income was $12.1 million,
resulting in total comprehensive income of $11.7 million.
RECENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS UPDATES
NOT YET EFFECTIVE —In June 2009, the FASB issued an update to amend Transfers and Servicing in
the Codification. This update removes the concept of a qualifying
special-purpose entity and clarifies the determination of whether a transferor
and all of the entities included in the transferor’s financial statements being
presented have surrendered control over the transferred financial assets. That
determination must consider the transferor’s continuing involvement in the
transferred financial asset, including all arrangements or agreements made
contemporaneously with, or in contemplation of, the transfer, even if they were
not entered into at the time of the transfer. This update will be effective for
us beginning April 1, 2010. We are currently evaluating the future impact this
update will have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
In
October 2009, the FASB issued an update to amend Revenue Recognition in the
Codification. This update removes the fair value criterion from the separation
criteria that we use to determine whether a multiple deliverable arrangement
involves more than one unit of accounting. It also replaces references to “fair
value” with “selling price” to distinguish from the fair value measurements
required under Fair Value
Measurements and Disclosures in the Codification, provides a hierarchy
that entities must use to estimate the selling price, eliminates the use of the
residual method for allocation, and expands the ongoing disclosure requirements.
This update is effective for us beginning April 1, 2011 and can be applied
prospectively or retrospectively. Early application is permitted. We are
currently evaluating the timing and the effect that adoption of this update will
have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
Concurrently
to issuing the above update, the FASB also issued another update to the
Codification that excludes certain software from the scope of software revenue
recognition guidance. If software is contained in a tangible product and is
essential to the tangible product's functionality, the software and the tangible
product can be accounted for as a multiple deliverable arrangement under Revenue Recognition. This
update is effective for us beginning April 1, 2011 and can be applied
prospectively or retrospectively. Early application is permitted. We are
currently evaluating the timing and the effect that adoption of this update will
have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
2.
INVESTMENT IN LEASES AND LEASED EQUIPMENT—NET
Investment
in leases and leased equipment—net consists of the following:
As
of
|
||||||||
December 31,
2009
|
March 31,
2009
|
|||||||
(in thousands)
|
||||||||
Investment
in direct financing and sales-type leases—net
|
$ | 103,457 | $ | 96,741 | ||||
Investment
in operating lease equipment—net
|
21,234 | 22,515 | ||||||
$ | 124,691 | $ | 119,256 |
INVESTMENT
IN DIRECT FINANCING AND SALES-TYPE LEASES—NET
Our
investment in direct financing and sales-type leases—net consists of the
following:
As
of
|
||||||||
December 31,
2009
|
March 31,
2009
|
|||||||
(in thousands)
|
||||||||
Minimum
lease payments
|
$ | 103,175 | $ | 93,840 | ||||
Estimated
unguaranteed residual value (1)
|
11,827 | 13,001 | ||||||
Initial
direct costs, net of amortization (2)
|
706 | 859 | ||||||
Less:
Unearned lease income
|
(10,161 | ) | (9,360 | ) | ||||
Reserve
for credit losses
|
(2,090 | ) | (1,599 | ) | ||||
Investment
in direct financing and sales-type leases—net
|
$ | 103,457 | $ | 96,741 |
(1)
|
Includes
estimated unguaranteed residual values of $2,443 thousand and $1,790
thousand as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009, respectively, for
direct-financing leases accounted for as sales under Transfers and Servicing
of the Codification.
|
(2)
|
Initial
direct costs are shown net of amortization of $798 thousand and $940
thousand as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009,
respectively.
|
Our net
investment in direct financing and sales-type leases is collateral for
non-recourse and recourse equipment notes, if any.
INVESTMENT
IN OPERATING LEASE EQUIPMENT—NET
Investment
in operating lease equipment—net primarily represents leases that do not qualify
as direct financing leases or are leases that are short-term renewals on a
month-to-month basis. The components of the net investment in operating lease
equipment are as follows:
As
of
|
||||||||
December 31,
2009
|
March 31,
2009
|
|||||||
(in thousands)
|
||||||||
Cost
of equipment under operating leases
|
$ | 47,507 | $ | 53,227 | ||||
Less: Accumulated
depreciation and amortization
|
(26,273 | ) | (30,712 | ) | ||||
Investment
in operating lease equipment—net (1)
|
$ | 21,234 | $ | 22,515 |
(1) Includes
estimated unguaranteed residual values of $10,203 thousand and $14,178 thousand
as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009, respectively.
During
the nine months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we sold portions of our lease
portfolio. The sales were reflected in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements as sales of leased equipment totaling approximately $2.3
million and $3.4 million, and cost of leased equipment of $2.2 million and $3.3
million for the nine months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
There was a corresponding reduction of investment in leases and lease
equipment—net of $ $2.2 million and $3.3 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
3.
GOODWILL
Goodwill
is recorded in excess of the purchase price over the fair value of the
identifiable net assets acquired in purchase transactions. Our annual impairment
test for goodwill is performed during the third quarter of our fiscal year, or
when events or circumstances indicate there might be impairment, and follows the
two-step process prescribed in Intangibles- Goodwill and
Other. We have two reportable segments based on the product
and services offered – the financing business segment and the technology
sales business segment. Below business segments are reporting units. Based on
the nature of products, the nature of production, the type of customers and
management, we believe we have four reporting units. Our reporting units are
Leasing, Technology, Software Procurement and Software Document Management,
three of which contained goodwill as of October 1, 2009. During the
three months ended December 31, 2009, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge
in the amount of $4.0 million for our Leasing reporting unit, leaving no
goodwill remaining in the Leasing reporting unit. The following table
summarizes the amount of goodwill allocated to our reporting units:
Financing Business Segment
|
Technology Sales Business
Segment
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Leasing
|
Technology
|
Software Procurement
|
Software Document
Management
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||
Balance
April 1, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Goodwill
|
$ | 4,029 | $ | 16,483 | $ | 4,644 | $ | 1,089 | $ | 26,245 | ||||||||||
Accumulated
impairment losses
|
- | - | (4,644 | ) | - | (4,644 | ) | |||||||||||||
4,029 | 16,483 | - | 1,089 | 21,601 | ||||||||||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill
|
(4,029 | ) | - | - | - | (4,029 | ) | |||||||||||||
Balance
December 31, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Goodwill
|
$ | 4,029 | $ | 16,483 | $ | 4,644 | $ | 1,089 | $ | 26,245 | ||||||||||
Accumulated
impairment losses
|
(4,029 | ) | - | (4,644 | ) | - | (8,673 | ) | ||||||||||||
- | 16,483 | - | 1,089 | 17,572 |
During
the third quarter of our fiscal year, we perform our annual goodwill impairment
test. The goodwill impairment test involves a two-step process. The first step
is a comparison of each reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying value. We
estimate fair value using the best information available, including prices for
similar assets and liabilities and other valuation techniques. We
employed both the market approach and the income approach to determine fair
value. The market approach measures the value of an entity through an
analysis of recent sales or by comparison to comparable companies. The income
approach measures the value of reporting units by discounting expected future
cash flows.
Consideration
was given to applying the transaction method which examines sales of stock of
private or public companies, which are in the same industry or similar lines of
business and are of comparable size and capital structure. However, we
concluded that there were insufficient transactions of similar firms with
available current financial information to make a valid comparison.
Under the
market approach, we used the guideline public company method whereby valuation
multiples of guideline companies were applied to the historical financial data
of our reporting units. We analyzed companies that were in the
same industry, performed the same or similar services, had similar
operations, and are considered competitors. In addition, the majority
of the companies selected were also used in the impairment test performed last
year.
Multiples
that related to some level of earnings or cash flow were most appropriate for
the industry in which we operate. The multiples selected were based
on our analysis of the guideline companies’ profitability ratios and return to
investors. We compared the reporting units’ size and ranking against
the guidelines, taking into consideration risk, profitability and growth along
with guideline medians and averages. We then selected pricing
multiples, adjusted appropriately for size and risk, to apply to the reporting
unit's trailing twelve month financial data.
Multiples were weighted based on the consistency and comparability of
the guideline companies along with the respective reporting units, including
margins, profitability and leverage. For each of the reporting units,
we used the following multiples: the price to earnings before tax (“EBT”), price
to net income (“NI”), market value of invested capital (“MVIC”) to earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), and MVIC to
earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”).
Under the
income approach, we used the discounted future cash flow method to estimate the
fair value of each of the reporting units by discounting the expected future
cash flows of reporting units. We used the weighted average cost of capital to
discount the expected future cash flows for the reporting unit to its present
value. The weighted average cost of capital is the estimated rate of return on
alternative investments with comparable risks. The weighted average
cost of capital involves estimating the cost of debt and the cost of
equity. In addition, we also considered factors such as risk-free
rate of return, market equity risk premium, beta coefficient and firm specific
risk. We estimated our weighted average cost of capital at 8.3%,
12.9% and 13.6% for the Leasing, Technology and Software document management
reporting units, respectively. In addition, we estimated the
average annual compound cash flow growth rate for a five-year
period of (3.3%), 11.7% and 21%, for the Leasing, Technology, and Software
document management reporting units. Also, we estimated a long
term growth rate for the Leasing reporting unit of 2.0%, and a long term growth
rate 3.5% for both the Technology and Software document management reporting
units.
The
estimated fair value of our reporting units is dependent on several significant
assumptions involving our forecasted cash flows and weighted average cost of
capital. The forecasted cash flows are based on management’s best estimates of
economic and market conditions over the projected period including business
plans, growth rates in sales, costs, estimates of future expected changes in
operating margins and cash expenditures. Any adverse change including
a significant decline in our expected future cash flows; a significant adverse
change in legal factors or in the business climate; unanticipated competition;
or slower growth rates may impact our ability to meet our forecasted cash flow
estimates.
We
averaged the results of the income and market methods and compared the
estimated fair value to our market capitalization which was computed by
multiplying our closing stock price to the shares outstanding on October 1,
2009. Comparison of the average fair values of the reporting units to
the overall market value of our equity indicated an implied control premium
of 33.5%. This percentage falls within the range of currently observable market
data.
The
weakening U.S. economy and the global credit crisis have weakened the demand for
leasing. As a result of this reduced demand and a reduction in our overall
portfolio from prior sales of tranches of leases in our portfolio, we projected
a temporary decline in revenue in our Leasing reporting unit, which lowered the
fair value estimates of the reporting unit. The result of averaging the
estimated fair value computed using the guideline public company and the
discounted cash flow methods, the fair value of the Leasing reporting was below
its carrying value.
The
Technology and Software document management reporting units' fair values
exceeded their carrying values. Had the fair value been 10%
lower than calculated on each of the three reporting units, the results would
not have changed for any of the reporting units. The fair value of the
Technology reporting unit was 12.2% higher than the carrying value and the fair
value of the Software document management reporting unit was 245.8% higher
than the carrying value.
We have
not yet completed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test for the Leasing
reporting unit, which will require us to allocate the fair value of the
reporting unit derived in the first step to the reporting unit’s net
assets. However, we estimate the total amount of recorded goodwill
for the Leasing reporting unit will be impaired and, therefore, for the three
months ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an estimated impairment charge of
$4.0 million in our Leasing reporting unit. This estimate is only preliminary.
We are continuing to finalize the evaluation of the impairment of our goodwill,
and the amount of the actual impairment charge may vary from this initial
estimate. We expect to complete the full evaluation of the impairment analysis
during the quarter ending March 31, 2010.
4.
RESERVES FOR CREDIT LOSSES
As of
March 31, 2009 and December 31, 2009, our activity in our reserves for credit
losses is as follows (in thousands):
Accounts Receivable
|
Lease-Related Assets
|
Total
|
||||||||||
Balance
March 31, 2009
|
$ | 1,493 | $ | 1,599 | $ | 3,092 | ||||||
Provision
for Bad Debts
|
268 | 495 | 763 | |||||||||
Recoveries
|
65 | 49 | 114 | |||||||||
Write-offs
and other
|
(207 | ) | (53 | ) | (260 | ) | ||||||
Balance
December 31, 2009
|
$ | 1,619 | $ | 2,090 | $ | 3,709 |
Included
in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations is an increase
in bad debt expense of $763 thousand and $618 thousand, for the nine months
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
5.
RECOURSE AND NON-RECOURSE NOTES PAYABLE
As of
December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009, recourse and non-recourse obligations
consisted of the following:
As
of
|
||||||||
December 31,
2009
|
March 31,
2009
|
|||||||
(in thousands)
|
||||||||
First
Bank of Highland Park recourse note payable at 5.5% expires on April 1,
2011 or when the early termination option of a lease is
enacted.
|
$ | 102 | $ | 102 | ||||
Non-recourse
equipment notes secured by related investments in leases with interest
rates ranging from 4.00% to 9.00% for the nine months ended December 31,
2009 and 4.34% to 8.76% for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2009.
|
$ | 58,454 | $ | 84,977 |
Principal
and interest payments on non-recourse notes payable are generally due monthly in
amounts that are approximately equal to the total payments due from the lessee
under the leases that collateralize the notes payable. Under recourse financing,
in the event of a default by a lessee, the lender has recourse against the
lessee, the equipment serving as collateral, and us. Under non-recourse
financing, in the event of a default by a lessee, the lender generally only has
recourse against the lessee and the equipment serving as collateral, but not
against us.
Our
technology sales business segment, through our subsidiary ePlus Technology, inc.,
finances its operations with funds generated from operations, and with a credit
facility with GE Commercial Distribution Finance Corporation (“GECDF”). This
facility provides short-term capital for our reseller business. There are two
components of the GECDF credit facility: (1) a floor plan component and (2) an
accounts receivable component. Under the floor plan component, we had
outstanding balances of $62.3 million and $45.1 million as of December 31, 2009
and March 31, 2009, respectively. These balances are shown on the Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as accounts payable – floor
plan. Under the accounts receivable component, we had no outstanding
balances as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2009,
the facility agreement had an aggregate limit of the two components of $125
million, and the accounts receivable component had a sub-limit of $30 million,
which bears interest at the greater of prime less 0.5%, or 4.75%. Availability
under the GECDF facility may be limited by the asset value of equipment we
purchase or accounts receivable, and may be further limited by certain covenants
and terms and conditions of the facility. These covenants include, but are not
limited to, a minimum total tangible net worth and subordinated debt, and
maximum debt to tangible net worth ratio of our subsidiary, ePlus Technology, inc. We
were in compliance with these covenants as of December 31, 2009. Either party
may terminate the credit facility with 90 days’ advance notice.
The
facility provided by GECDF requires a guaranty of up to $10.5 million by ePlus inc. The guaranty
requires ePlus inc. to
deliver its annual audited financial statements by certain dates. We have
delivered the annual audited financial statements for the year ended March 31,
2009, as required. The loss of the GECDF credit facility could have a material
adverse effect on our liquidity and future results as we currently rely on this
facility and its components for daily working capital and liquidity for our
technology sales business and as an operational function of our accounts payable
process.
On
October 26, 2009, we entered into an agreement with 1st Commonwealth Bank of
Virginia to provide us with a $0.5 million credit facility, which will mature on
October 26, 2010. This credit facility is available for use by us and our
affiliates and the lender has full recourse to us. Borrowings under this
facility bear interest at the Wall Street Journal U.S. Prime rate plus 1%. The
primary purpose of the facility is to provide letters of credit for landlords,
taxing authorities and bids. As of December 31, 2009, we have no
outstanding balance on this credit facility.
National
City Bank (a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.)
provided a credit facility which could have been used for all ePlus inc.’s subsidiaries.
This credit facility expired July 10, 2009. Borrowings under our $35 million
line of credit from National City Bank were subject to certain covenants. We had
no balance on this facility as of the expiration date.
6.
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
During
the nine months ended December 31, 2009, we leased approximately 55,880 square
feet for use as our principal headquarters from Norton Building 1, LLC for a
monthly payment of approximately $102 thousand which includes rent and operating
expenses. Norton Building 1, LLC is a limited liability company owned
in part by Mr. Norton’s spouse and in part in trust for his children. Mr.
Norton, our President and CEO, has no managerial or executive role in Norton
Building 1, LLC. On June 18, 2009, we entered into Amendment No. 2 to
the office lease agreement with Norton Building 1, LLC pursuant to which we will
continue to lease 55,880 square feet for use as our principal
headquarters. The term of the amended lease began on January 1, 2010,
and will continue through December 31, 2015. In addition, we have the
right to terminate the lease on December 31, 2012 in the event that the facility
no longer meets our needs, by giving six months’ prior written notice, with no
penalty fee. The annual base rent, which includes an expenses factor,
is $21.50 per square foot for the first year, with an annual rent escalation for
operating cost increases, if any, plus 2.75% of the annual base rent, net of the
expenses factor, for each year thereafter. The amended lease was
approved by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in accordance with
our Related Person Transactions Policy, and was subsequently approved by our
Board of Directors, with Mr. Norton abstaining. We paid rent, which
includes operating expenses, in the amount of $359 thousand during the three
months ended December 31, 2009 and $277 thousand during the same period in
2008. We paid rent, which includes operating expenses, in the amount
of $920 thousand during the nine months ended December 31, 2009, and $833
thousand during the same period in 2008.
7.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Litigation
We have
been involved in several matters relating to a customer named Cyberco Holdings,
Inc. (“Cyberco”). The Cyberco principals were perpetrating a scam, and at least
five principals have pled guilty to criminal conspiracy and/or related charges,
including bank fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. One lender who financed
our transaction with Cyberco, Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC (“BoA”),
filed a lawsuit against ePlus inc. in the Circuit
Court for Fairfax County, Virginia on November 3, 2006, seeking to enforce a
guaranty in which ePlus
inc. guaranteed ePlus
Group’s obligations to BoA relating to the Cyberco transaction. Although
discovery has not begun, we believe the suit against ePlus inc. seeks attorneys’
fees BoA incurred in ePlus Group’s appeal of BoA’s
suit against ePlus
Group, expenses BoA incurred in Cyberco’s bankruptcy proceedings, and other
attorneys’ fees BoA has incurred relating in any way to the Cyberco
matter. ePlus Group has already paid
to BoA $4.3 million, which was awarded to BoA in a prior lawsuit regarding the
Cyberco matter. The suit has been stayed pending the resolution of
other Cyberco-related matters. We are vigorously defending this suit. As we do
not believe a loss is probable or the amount is reasonably estimable, we have
not accrued for this matter.
On July
31, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
dismissed the shareholder derivative action which had been filed on January 18,
2007. On August 31, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Notice that he is
appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. The appeal is pending. The action, which related to stock option
practices, named ePlus
inc. as nominal defendant and personally named eight individual defendants who
are directors and/or executive officers of ePlus inc. The action alleged
violations of federal securities law, and various state law claims such as
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, and
sought monetary damages from the individual defendants and that we take certain
corrective actions relating to option grants and corporate governance, and
attorneys’ fees. We are vigorously defending this suit. As we do not believe a
loss is probable or the amount is reasonably estimable, we have not accrued for
this matter.
On May
19, 2009, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against four defendants, alleging that they used or
sold products, methods, processes, services and/or systems that infringe on
certain of our patents. During July and August 2009, we entered into
settlement and license agreements with three of the defendants. Pursuant to the
settlement agreements, we received payments in the aggregate amount of $3.4
million, and the complaint has been dismissed with prejudice with regard to
those three defendants. The settlement agreements also grant each of
those defendants a license in specified ePlus
patents. With regard to the remaining defendant, we are seeking
injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of monetary damages. While we
believe that we have a basis for our claims, these types of cases are complex in
nature, are likely to have significant expenses associated with them, and we
cannot predict whether we will be successful in our claims for damages, whether
any award ultimately received will exceed the costs incurred to pursue these
matters, or how long it will take to bring these matters to
resolution.
We are
also engaged in other ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our
business. While we cannot predict the outcome of these various legal
proceedings, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution will have
a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.
8.
EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic
earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by the basic weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding during each period. Diluted
earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by the basic weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding plus incremental shares
issuable upon the assumed exercise of “in-the-money” stock options and other
common stock equivalents during each period.
The
following table provides a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators
used to calculate basic and diluted net income per common share as disclosed on
our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and
nine months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands, except per share
data).
Three
months ended December 31,
|
Nine
months ended December 31,
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Net
income available to common shareholders
|
$ | 2,316 | $ | 1,962 | $ | 9,215 | $ | 12,075 | ||||||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding — basic
|
8,389 | 8,264 | 8,290 | 8,272 | ||||||||||||
Effect
of dilutive shares
|
165 | 140 | 215 | 247 | ||||||||||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding — diluted
|
$ | 8,554 | $ | 8,404 | $ | 8,505 | $ | 8,519 | ||||||||
Net
income per common share:
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
|
$ | 0.27 | $ | 0.24 | $ | 1.11 | $ | 1.46 | ||||||||
Diluted
|
$ | 0.27 | $ | 0.24 | $ | 1.08 | $ | 1.42 |
Unexercised
employee stock options for 154,000 and 194,000 shares of our common stock were
not included in the computations of diluted EPS for the three and nine months
ended December 31, 2009, respectively. Unexercised employee stock options for
326,500 and 286,500 shares of our common stock were not included in the
computations of diluted EPS for the three and nine months ended December 31,
2008, respectively. These options were excluded because the options’ exercise
prices were greater than the average market price of our common stock during the
applicable periods. Inclusion of these options in our diluted EPS
calculation would have been anti-dilutive.
9.
SHARE REPURCHASE
On August
11, 2009, our Board authorized a share repurchase plan commencing on September
16, 2009. The share repurchase plan is for a 12-month period ending
September 15, 2010 for up to 500,000 shares of ePlus’ outstanding common
stock. The previous stock repurchase program commenced on July 31,
2008 and expired on September 15, 2009. The purchases may be made from time to
time in the open market, or in privately negotiated transactions, subject to
availability. Any repurchased shares will have the status of treasury shares and
may be used, when needed, for general corporate purposes.
During
the three months ended December 31, 2009, we repurchased 145,266 shares of our
outstanding common stock at an average cost of $16.00 per share for a total
purchase price of $2.3 million. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009,
we repurchased 161,061 shares of our outstanding common stock at an average cost
of $15.91 per share for a total purchase price of $2.6 million. Since the
inception of our initial repurchase program on September 20, 2001, as of
December 31, 2009, we have repurchased 3,576,715 shares of our outstanding
common stock at an average cost of $11.13 per share for a total purchase price
of $39.8 million.
10.
SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
Share-Based
Plans
We have
issued share-based awards under the following plans: (1) the 1998 Long-Term
Incentive Plan (the “1998 LTIP”), (2) Amendment and Restatement of the 1998
Stock Incentive Plan (2001) (the “Amended LTIP (2001)”), (3) Amendment and
Restatement of the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan (2003) (the “Amended LTIP (2003)”),
(4) the 2008 Non-Employee Director Long-Term Incentive Plan (“2008 Director
LTIP”) and (5) the 2008 Employee Long-Term Incentive Plan (“2008 Employee
LTIP”). However, we no longer issue awards under the 1998 LTIP, the Amended LTIP
(2001), or the Amended LTIP (2003). Currently, awards are only being made under
the 2008 Director LTIP and the 2008 Employee LTIP. Sections of these plans are
summarized below. All the share-based plans require the use of the previous
trading day’s closing price when the grant date falls on a date the stock was
not traded.
Vesting
periods varied for the 1998 LTIP, the Amended LTIP (2001), and the Amended LTIP
(2003) depending on individual award agreement. Vesting periods for the 2008
Director LTIP and the 2008 Employee LTIP are discussed below.
1998
Long-Term Incentive Plan
The 1998
LTIP was adopted by the Board on July 28, 1998, which is its effective date, and
approved by the shareholders on September 16, 1998. The allowable number of
shares under the 1998 LTIP was 20% of the outstanding shares, less shares
previously granted and shares purchased through our then-existing employee stock
purchase program. It specified that options shall be priced at not less than
fair market value. The 1998 LTIP consolidated our preexisting stock incentive
plans and made the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
(“Compensation Committee”) responsible for its administration. The 1998 LTIP
required that grants be evidenced in writing, but the writing was not a
condition precedent to the grant of the award.
Under the
1998 LTIP, options were to be automatically awarded to all non-employee
directors in service the day after the annual shareholders meeting. The
automatic annual grant awards under the LTIP could no longer be awarded after
September 1, 2006. The LTIP also permits for discretionary option awards to
directors.
Amended
and Restated 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan
Minor
amendments were made to the 1998 LTIP on April 1, April 17 and April 30, 2001.
The amendments changed the name of the plan from the 1998 Long-Term Incentive
Plan to the Amended and Restated 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan. In addition,
provisions were added “to allow the Compensation Committee to delegate to a
single board member the authority to make awards to non-Section 16 insiders, as
a matter of convenience,” and to provide that “no option granted under the Plan
may be exercisable for more than ten years from the date of its
grant.”
The
Amended LTIP (2001) was amended on July 15, 2003 by the Board and approved by
the stockholders on September 18, 2003. Primarily, the amendment modified the
aggregate number of shares available under the plan to a fixed number
(3,000,000). Although the language varies somewhat from earlier plans, it
permits the Board or Compensation Committee to delegate authority to a committee
of one or more directors who are also officers of the corporation to award
options under certain conditions. The Amended LTIP (2003) replaced all the prior
plans, and covered option grants for employees, executives and outside
directors.
On
September 15, 2008, our shareholders approved the 2008 Director LTIP and the
2008 Employee LTIP. Both of the plans were adopted by the Board on June 25,
2008. As a result of the approval of these plans, we will not grant any awards
under the Amended LTIP (2003) or any earlier plan.
2008
Non-Employee Director Plan
Under the
2008 Director LTIP, 250,000 shares were authorized for grant to non-employee
directors. The purpose of the 2008 Director LTIP is to align the economic
interests of the directors with the interests of shareholders by including
equity as a component of pay and to attract, motivate and retain experienced and
knowledgeable directors. Under the 2008 Director LTIP, each non-employee
director received a one-time grant of a number of restricted shares of common
stock having a grant-date fair value of $35 thousand. The grant-date fair value
for this one-time grant was determined based on the share closing price on
September 25, 2008. In addition, each director will receive an annual grant of
restricted stock having a grant-date fair value equal to the cash compensation
earned by an outside director during our fiscal year ended immediately before
the respective annual grant-date. Directors may elect to receive their cash
compensation in restricted stock. These restricted shares are prohibited from
being sold, transferred, assigned, pledged or otherwise encumbered or disposed
of. Half of these shares will vest on the one-year and second-year anniversary
from the date of the grant.
2008
Employee Long-Term Incentive Plan
Under the
2008 Employee LTIP, 1,000,000 shares were authorized for grant of incentive
stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted
stock, restricted stock units, performance awards, or other share-based awards
to ePlus employees. The
purposes of the 2008 Employee LTIP are to encourage our employees to acquire a
proprietary interest in the growth and performance of ePlus, thus enhancing the
value of ePlus for the
benefit of its stockholders, and to enhance our ability to attract and retain
exceptionally qualified individuals. The 2008 Employee LTIP is administered by
the Compensation Committee. Shares issuable under the 2008 Employee LTIP may
consist of authorized but unissued shares or shares held in our treasury. Shares
under the 2008 Employee LTIP will not be used to compensate our outside
directors, who may be compensated under the separate 2008 Director LTIP, as
discussed above.
Stock
Option Activity
During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, there were no stock
options granted to employees.
Number of Shares
|
Exercise Price Range
|
Weighted Average Exercise
Price
|
Weighted Average Contractual Life Remaining (in
years)
|
Aggregate Intrinsic Value
|
||||||||||||||||
Outstanding,
April 1, 2009
|
908,290 | $ | 6.86 - $17.38 | $ | 10.29 | 2.2 | $ | 2,403,133 | ||||||||||||
Options
granted
|
- | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
Options
exercised (1)
|
(356,440 | ) | $ | 6.86 - $13.00 | $ | 7.96 | $ | 2,632,668 | ||||||||||||
Options
forfeited
|
(3,900 | ) | $ | 9.00 - $17.38 | $ | 13.29 | - | |||||||||||||
Outstanding,
December 31, 2009
|
547,950 | $ | 6.86 - $17.38 | $ | 11.79 | 2.4 | $ | 2,717,249 | ||||||||||||
Vested
at December 31, 2009
|
547,950 | $ | 11.79 | 2.4 | $ | 2,717,249 | ||||||||||||||
Exercisable
at December 31, 2009
|
547,950 | $ | 11.79 | 2.4 | $ | 2,717,249 |
(1) The
total intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the nine months ended
December 31, 2009 was $2.6 million.
Additional
information regarding stock options outstanding as of December 31, 2009 is as
follows:
|
Options Outstanding
|
Options Exercisable
|
||||||||||||||||||
Range of Exercise Prices
|
Options Outstanding
|
Weighted Average Exercise Price per
Share
|
Weighted Average Contractual Life
Remaining
|
Options Exercisable
|
Weighted Average Exercise Price per
Share
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
$6.86
- $9.00
|
229,950 | $ | 7.23 | 1.9 | 229,950 | $ | 7.23 | |||||||||||||
$9.01
- $13.50
|
124,000 | $ | 12.22 | 5.2 | 124,000 | $ | 12.22 | |||||||||||||
$13.51
- $17.38
|
194,000 | $ | 16.93 | 1.3 | 194,000 | $ | 16.93 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
$6.86
- $17.38
|
547,950 | $ | 11.79 | 2.4 | 547,950 | $ | 11.79 |
We issue
shares from our authorized but unissued common stock to satisfy stock option
exercises. At December 31, 2009, all of our options are
vested.
Restricted
Stock Activity
Under the
2008 Director LTIP, each director will receive an annual grant of restricted
stock having a grant-date fair value equal to the cash compensation earned by an
outside director during our fiscal year ended immediately before the respective
annual grant-date. Directors may elect to receive their cash
compensation in restricted stock. These restricted shares are
prohibited from being sold, transferred, assigned, pledged or otherwise
encumbered or disposed of. These shares will be vested over a
two-year period and we will recognize share-based compensation expense over the
service period. We estimate the forfeiture rate of the restricted stock to be
zero. As of December 31, 2009, we have granted 57,858 shares under the 2008
Director LTIP.
Under the
2008 Employee LTIP, employees may receive grants of restricted stock as
determined by the Compensation Committee. These restricted shares are prohibited
from being sold, transferred, assigned, pledged or otherwise encumbered or
disposed of. The vesting schedule of restricted stock will be determined by the
Compensation Committee, at its discretion. We estimate the forfeiture rate of
the restricted stock to be zero. As of December 31, 2009, we have granted 85,000
restricted shares under the 2008 Employee LTIP.
A summary
of restricted stock activity during the nine months ended December 31, 2009 is
as follows:
Number of Shares
|
Weighted Average Grant-date Fair
Value
|
|||||||
Outstanding,
April 1, 2009
|
38,532 | $ | 10.90 | |||||
Shares
granted (1)(2)(3)
|
104,326 | $ | 15.70 | |||||
Shares
forfeited
|
- | |||||||
Outstanding,
December 31, 2009
|
142,858 | $ | 14.41 |
|
(1)
|
Three
of our non-employee directors received restricted shares in lieu of their
quarterly cash compensation.
Therefore, during the three months ended June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009
and December 31, 2009, the directors were issued 748 shares each with a
grant-date fair value of $11.69 per share, 587 shares each with a
grant-date value of $14.91 per share, and 569 shares each with a
grant-date value of $15.36 per share,
respectively.
|
|
(2)
|
Includes
an annual grant of restricted shares to all six of our non-employee
directors of 2,269 shares each with a grant-date value of $15.42 per
share.
|
|
(3)
|
Includes
grants of 85,000 restricted shares to employees with a grant-date value of
$15.88 per share. One third of these shares will vest on the one-year,
second-year and third-year anniversary from the date of the
grant.
|
A summary
of the nonvested restricted shares activity is presented as
follows:
Number of Shares
|
Weighted Average Grant-date Fair
Value
|
|||||||
Nonvested
April 1, 2009
|
38,532 | $ | 10.90 | |||||
Granted
|
104,326 | $ | 15.70 | |||||
Vested
|
(19,272 | ) | $ | 10.90 | ||||
Forefeited
|
- | |||||||
Nonvested
December 31, 2009
|
123,586 | $ | 14.96 |
Share-based
Compensation Expense
Share-based
compensation expense for options is calculated by valuing all options at their
grant-date fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The
Black-Scholes model uses various assumptions to estimate the fair value of these
options, including: historical volatility of our stock, risk-free interest rate,
and estimated forfeitures rates. The estimated fair values of these options are
then amortized using the straight-line method as compensation cost over the
requisite service period. Share-based compensation expense for restricted stock
is calculated by multiplying the shares granted by the closing price of the
shares on the date of the awards and amortizing it over the vesting
period.
During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, we recognized $153 thousand
and $270 thousand of total share-based compensation expense, respectively, all
of which was related to restricted stock. This amount was recorded as
salaries and benefits in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations.
During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2008, we recognized $52 thousand
and $114 thousand of total share-based compensation expense, respectively.
Shared-based compensation recognized for the restricted stock was approximately
$52 thousand and $56 thousand for the three and nine months ended December 31,
2008, respectively. There was no shared-based compensation expense
recognized for stock options during the three months ended December 31, 2008,
and $58 thousand for the nine months ended December 31, 2008. This amount was
recorded as salaries and benefits in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations.
At
December 31, 2009, there was no unrecognized compensation expense related to
nonvested options because all outstanding options were vested as of such date.
Unrecognized compensation expense related to the restricted stock was $1.3
million which will be fully recognized over the next 36 months.
11.
INCOME TAXES
We
recognize interest and penalties for uncertain tax positions. As of
December 31, 2009, our gross tax liability related to uncertain tax positions
was $525 thousand. We expect that the gross unrecognized tax benefit
will decrease by approximately $67 thousand in the next six months.
We also
recognize accrued interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as
a component of tax expense. Our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations Our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations includes
interest of $9 thousand for the three months ended December 31, 2009, and
interest of $27 thousand for the nine months ended December 31,
2009.
12.
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
The
accuracy and usefulness of the fair value information disclosed herein is
limited by the following factors:
— These
estimates are subjective in nature and involve uncertainties and matters of
significant judgment and, therefore, cannot be determined with precision.
Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the estimates.
— These
estimates do not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering
for sale at one time our entire holding of a particular financial
asset.
— These
estimates exclude lease contracts and various significant assets and liabilities
that are not considered to be financial instruments.
Because
of these and other limitations, the aggregate fair value amounts presented in
the following table do not represent the underlying value. We determine the fair
value of notes payable by applying an average portfolio debt rate and applying
such rate to future cash flows of the respective financial instruments. The fair
value of cash and cash equivalents is determined to equal the book
value.
The
carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as
follows (in thousands):
As of December 31,
2009
|
As of March 31, 2009
|
|||||||||||||||
Carrying Amount
|
Fair Value
|
Carrying Amount
|
Fair Value
|
|||||||||||||
Assets:
|
||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 82,081 | $ | 82,081 | $ | 107,788 | $ | 107,788 | ||||||||
Accounts
receivable
|
108,332 | 108,332 | 82,734 | 82,734 | ||||||||||||
Notes
receivable
|
2,977 | 2,977 | 2,632 | 2,632 | ||||||||||||
Goodwill
- Leasing reporting unit
|
- | - | 4,029 | 4,029 | ||||||||||||
Liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
82,669 | 82,669 | 66,864 | 66,864 | ||||||||||||
Non-recourse
notes payable
|
58,454 | 58,206 | 84,977 | 84,551 | ||||||||||||
Recourse
notes payable
|
102 | 102 | 102 | 102 |
The
carrying value of $17.6 million for goodwill in our Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009, is net of an impairment
charge of $4.0 million related to our Leasing reporting unit. This impairment
charge was included in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009. In accordance
with the provision of Intangibles – Goodwill and
Other, goodwill with a carrying amount of $4.0 million for our Leasing
reporting unit was written down to its implied fair value of zero, resulting in
an estimated impairment charge of $4.0 million. We expect to complete the second
step of our goodwill impairment analysis during the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2010, and further adjustments may result from the completion of our
analysis. The weakening U.S. economy and the global credit crisis have weakened
the demand for leasing. As a result of this reduced demand and a reduction in
our overall portfolio from prior sales of tranches of leases in our portfolio,
we projected a temporary decline in revenue in our Leasing reporting unit, which
lowered the fair value estimates of the reporting unit. The result of averaging
the estimated fair value computed using the guideline public company and
discounted cash flow methods, the fair value of the Leasing reporting was below
its carrying value. See Note 3, “Goodwill”, for further
discussion.
13.
SEGMENT REPORTING
We manage
our business segments on the basis of the product and services offered. Our
reportable segments consist of our technology sales business segment and our
financing business segment. The technology sales business segment sells
information technology equipment and software and related services primarily to
corporate customers on a nationwide basis. The technology sales business segment
also provides Internet-based business-to-business supply chain management
software solutions for information technology and other operating resources. The
financing business segment offers lease-financing solutions to corporations and
governmental entities nationwide. We evaluate segment performance on the basis
of segment revenue and earnings.
Both
segments utilize our proprietary software and services within the organization.
Sales and services and related costs of our software are included in the
technology sales business segment.
Three months ended December 31,
2009
|
Three months ended December 31,
2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Technology Sales Business
Segment
|
Financing Business Segment
|
Total
|
Technology Sales Business
Segment
|
Financing Business Segment
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Sales
of product and services
|
$ | 162,824 | $ | 354 | $ | 163,178 | $ | 170,969 | $ | 588 | $ | 171,557 | ||||||||||||
Sales
of leased equipment
|
- | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Lease
revenues
|
- | 12,957 | 12,957 | - | 10,361 | 10,361 | ||||||||||||||||||
Fee
and other income
|
2,362 | 214 | 2,576 | 2,545 | 261 | 2,806 | ||||||||||||||||||
Patent
and license settlement income
|
- | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenues
|
165,186 | 13,525 | 178,711 | 173,514 | 11,210 | 184,724 | ||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
140,870 | 364 | 141,234 | 145,655 | 569 | 146,224 | ||||||||||||||||||
Direct
lease costs
|
- | 2,581 | 2,581 | - | 3,636 | 3,636 | ||||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
21,935 | 4,012 | 25,947 | 21,562 | 3,895 | 25,457 | ||||||||||||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill
|
- | 4,029 | 4,029 | 4,644 | - | 4,644 | ||||||||||||||||||
Segment
earnings
|
2,381 | 2,539 | 4,920 | 1,653 | 3,110 | 4,763 | ||||||||||||||||||
Interest
and financing costs
|
19 | 877 | 896 | 24 | 1,331 | 1,355 | ||||||||||||||||||
Earnings
before income taxes
|
$ | 2,362 | $ | 1,662 | $ | 4,024 | $ | 1,629 | $ | 1,779 | $ | 3,408 | ||||||||||||
Assets
|
$ | 192,049 | $ | 184,942 | $ | 376,991 | $ | 147,021 | $ | 225,743 | $ | 372,764 |
Nine months ended December 31,
2009
|
Nine months ended December 31,
2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Technology Sales Business
Segment
|
Financing Business Segment
|
Total
|
Technology Sales Business
Segment
|
Financing Business Segment
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Sales
of product and services
|
$ | 459,826 | $ | 1,073 | $ | 460,899 | $ | 513,722 | $ | 3,085 | $ | 516,807 | ||||||||||||
Sales
of leased equipment
|
- | 2,276 | 2,276 | - | 3,447 | 3,447 | ||||||||||||||||||
Lease
revenues
|
- | 29,916 | 29,916 | - | 34,197 | 34,197 | ||||||||||||||||||
Fee
and other income
|
6,840 | 515 | 7,355 | 8,863 | 554 | 9,417 | ||||||||||||||||||
Patent
and license settlement income
|
3,400 | - | 3,400 | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenues
|
470,066 | 33,780 | 503,846 | 522,585 | 41,283 | 563,868 | ||||||||||||||||||
Cost
of sales
|
394,942 | 3,412 | 398,354 | 442,261 | 5,354 | 447,615 | ||||||||||||||||||
Direct
lease costs
|
- | 8,271 | 8,271 | - | 11,263 | 11,263 | ||||||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
63,203 | 10,529 | 73,732 | 63,482 | 12,053 | 75,535 | ||||||||||||||||||
Impairment
of goodwill
|
- | 4,029 | 4,029 | 4,644 | - | 4,644 | ||||||||||||||||||
Segment
earnings
|
11,921 | 7,539 | 19,460 | 12,198 | 12,613 | 24,811 | ||||||||||||||||||
Interest
and financing costs
|
55 | 3,244 | 3,299 | 68 | 4,239 | 4,307 | ||||||||||||||||||
Earnings
before income taxes
|
$ | 11,866 | $ | 4,295 | $ | 16,161 | $ | 12,130 | $ | 8,374 | $ | 20,504 | ||||||||||||
Assets
|
$ | 192,049 | $ | 184,942 | $ | 376,991 | $ | 147,021 | $ | 225,743 | $ | 372,764 |
Included
in the technology sales business segment above are inter-segment accounts
payables of $38.3 million and $53.9 million, at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Included in the financing business segment above are inter-segment
accounts receivable of $38.3 million and $53.9 million, at December 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively.
Our
technology sales business segment frequently sells products to our financing
business segment. For the three and nine months ended December 31,
2009, we eliminated revenue of $0.9 million and $1.7 million, respectively, in
our technology sales business segment as a result of these intersegment
transactions. For the three and nine months ended December 31, 2008,
we eliminated revenue of $0.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively, in our
technology sales business segment as a result of these intersegment
transactions.
14. LEGAL
SETTLEMENT
On May
19, 2009, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against four defendants, alleging that they used or
sold products, methods, processes, services and/or systems that infringe on
certain of our patents. During July and August 2009, we entered into
settlement and license agreements with three of the defendants which granted
each of those defendants a license in specified ePlus patents. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, we received payments in the aggregate amount of $3.4
million, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice with regard to those
three defendants. We do not anticipate incurring any additional costs
arising as a result of these settlement agreements and there are no further
actions to be taken by us. We recorded the settlement agreements in
the quarter ended September 30, 2009 in patent license and settlement income in
the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. We
recognize the related legal fees and expenses as they incur in the accompanying
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
In
addition, one of the above-referenced settlement agreements included additional
payments totaling $250 thousand due on or before October 20, 2010. These
payments have not been recognized in our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations because collectability is not reasonably
assured. If these additional payments are not received in accordance
with the terms of the settlement agreement, the patent license automatically
terminates.
Item
2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations
This
discussion is intended to further the reader’s understanding of our consolidated
financial condition and results of operations. It should be read in conjunction
with the financial statements included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q and
our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 (the “2009
Annual Report”). These historical financial statements may not be
indicative of our future performance. This Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains a number of
forward-looking statements, all of which are based on our current expectations
and could be affected by the uncertainties and risks described in Part I, Item
1A, “Risk Factors,” in our 2009 Annual Report.
EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW
Business
Description
ePlus and its consolidated
subsidiaries provide leading IT product and services, flexible leasing
solutions, and enterprise supply management to enable our customers to optimize
their IT infrastructure and supply chain processes. Our revenues are composed of
sales of product and services, sales of leased equipment, lease revenues and fee
and other income. Our operations are conducted through two business segments:
our technology sales business segment and our financing business
segment.
Financial
Summary
During
the three months ended December 31, 2009, total revenue decreased 3.3% to $178.7
million compared to the same period last year. During our 2010 fiscal year, the
economy contracted and our sales followed. However, we have had
sequential revenue growth over the past three quarters. Total revenue during the
three months ended June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009 was $152.4 million and
$172.7 million, respectively, as compared to $178.7 million for the three months
ended December 31, 2009. During the three months ended December 31, 2009, total
costs and expenses decreased 3.7% to $174.7 million while net earnings increased
18.0% to $2.3 million as compared to the same period in 2008. Total costs
included a goodwill impairment charge of $4.0 million during the three months
ended December 31, 2009, compared to $4.6 million during the same period last
year. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009, total revenue decreased
10.6% to $503.8 million, total costs and expenses decreased 10.2% to $487.7
million while net earnings decreased 23.7% to $9.2 million as compared to the
same period in 2008. Net earnings for the nine months ended December 31, 2009
included patent license and settlement income of $3.4 million and a goodwill
impairment charge of $4.0 million for the Leasing reporting unit. The weakening U.S. economy
and the global credit crisis have accelerated the reduction in demand for
leasing. As a result of this reduced demand and a reduction in our overall
portfolio from prior sales of tranches of leases in our portfolio, we projected
a temporary decline in revenue in our Leasing reporting unit, which lowered the
fair value estimates of the reporting unit.
Gross
margin for product and services was 13.4% during the three months ended December
31, 2009 as compared to 14.8% during the three months ended December 31, 2008.
Gross margin for product and services was 14.0% during both the nine months
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. Our gross margin on sales of product and
services was affected by our customers’ investment in technology equipment, the
mix and volume of products sold and changes in incentives provided to us by
manufacturers. Cash decreased $25.7 million or 23.8% to $82.1 million
at December 31, 2009 compared to March 31, 2009. The decrease in cash was due,
in part, to a gradual increase in sales during the current fiscal year, which
increased accounts receivable and inventory; the deferment of non-recourse
financing associated with certain lease investments to increase interest
earnings and a corresponding growth in lease investments; and our share
repurchase program. In certain circumstances, we may modify terms with our
vendors in order to achieve better incentives.
The
United States and other countries around the world have been experiencing
deteriorating economic conditions, including unprecedented financial market
disruption. As a result of the financial crisis in the credit markets, softness
in the housing markets, difficulties in the financial services sector and
continuing economic uncertainties, the direction and relative strength of the
U.S. economy is still uncertain. This has caused our current and potential
customers to delay or reduce technology purchases, which has reduced sales of
our product and services year over year. However, we have experienced sequential
growth over the last three quarters. Continuing deterioration of economic
conditions could cause our current and potential customers to further delay or
reduce technology purchases and result in longer sales cycles, slower adoption
of new technologies and increased price competition. Restrictions on credit may
impact economic activity and our results. Credit risk associated with our
customers and vendors may also be adversely impacted. In addition, although we
do not anticipate the need for additional capital in the near term due to our
current financial position, financial market disruption may adversely affect our
access to additional capital.
Business
Unit Overview
Technology
Sales Business Segment
The
technology sales business segment sells information technology equipment and
software and related services primarily to corporate customers, state and local
governments, and higher education institutions on a nationwide basis, with
geographic concentrations relating to our physical locations. The technology
sales business segment also provides Internet-based business-to-business supply
chain management solutions for information technology products.
Our
technology sales business segment derives revenue from the sales of new
equipment and service engagements. These revenues are reflected on our Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations under sales of product and
services and fee and other income. Customers who purchase information technology
equipment from us may have Master Purchase Agreements (“MPAs”) with us which
stipulate the terms and conditions of our relationship. Some MPAs contain
pricing arrangements. However, the MPAs do not contain purchase volume
commitments and most have 30-day termination for convenience clauses. Our other
customers place orders using purchase orders without an MPA in place or with
other documentation customary for the business. Our services engagements are
often governed by Master Services Agreements (“MSAs”) which may contain specific
Statements of Work (“SOWs”) and other terms and conditions customary in the
business. Often, our work with governments is based on public bids and our
written bid responses. A substantial portion of our sales of product and
services are from sales of CISCO, Hewlett Packard and Sun Microsystem products,
which represented approximately 35%, 19% and 9% of sales of product and
services, respectively, for the three months ended December 31, 2009, as
compared to 33%, 17% and 7% of sales of product and services, respectively, for
the three months ended December 31, 2008.
Included
in the sales of product and services in our technology sales business segment
are certain service revenues that are bundled with sales of equipment and are
integral to the successful delivery of such equipment. Our service engagements
are generally governed by SOWs and MSAs, and are primarily fixed price (with
allowance for changes); however, some service agreements are based on time and
materials.
We
endeavor to minimize the cost of sales in our technology sales business segment
through vendor consideration programs provided by manufacturers and other
incentives provided by our distributors. The programs are generally governed by
our reseller authorization level with the manufacturer. The authorization level
we achieve and maintain governs the types of products we can resell as well as
such items as pricing received, funds provided for the marketing of these
products and other special promotions. These authorization levels are achieved
by us through sales volume, certifications held by sales executives or engineers
and/or contractual commitments by us. The authorizations are costly to maintain
and these programs continually change and, therefore, there is no guarantee of
future reductions of costs provided by these vendor consideration programs. We
currently maintain the following authorization levels with our major
manufacturers:
Manufacturer
|
Manufacturer Authorization
Level
|
Hewlett
Packard
|
HP
Preferred Elite Partner (National)
|
Cisco
Systems
|
Cisco
Gold DVAR (National)
|
Advanced
Wireless LAN
|
|
Advanced
Unified Communications
|
|
Advanced
Data Center Storage Networking
|
|
Advanced
Routing and Switching
|
|
Advanced
Security
|
|
ATP
Video Surveillance
|
|
ATP
Telepresence
|
|
ATP
Rich Media Communications
|
|
Master
Security Specialization
|
|
Master
UC Specialization
|
|
Master
Managed Services Partner
|
|
Microsoft
|
Microsoft
Gold (National)
|
Sun
Microsystems
|
Sun
SPA Executive Partner (National)
|
Sun
National Strategic Data Center Authorized
|
|
IBM
|
Premier
IBM Business Partner (National)
|
Lenovo
|
Lenovo
Premium (National)
|
NetApp
|
NetApp
STAR Partner
|
Citrix
Systems, Inc.
|
Citrix
Gold (National)
|
We also
generate revenue in our technology sales business segment through hosting
arrangements and sales of our Internet-based business-to-business supply chain
management software. These revenues are reflected on our Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations under fee and other income. In addition,
fee and other income may result from: (1) income from events that occur after
the initial sale of a financial asset; (2) remarketing fees; (3) brokerage fees
earned for the placement of financing transactions; (4) agent fees received from
various manufacturers; (5) settlement fees related to disputes or litigation;
and (6) interest and other miscellaneous income.
Financing
Business Segment
The
financing business segment offers lease financing solutions to corporations and
governmental entities nationwide. The financing business segment derives revenue
from leasing primarily information technology equipment and sales of leased
equipment. These revenues are reflected under lease revenues and sales of leased
equipment on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations.
Lease
revenues consist of rentals due under operating leases, amortization of unearned
income on direct financing and sales-type leases, sales of leased assets to
lessees and other post-term lease revenue. The types of revenue and costs
recognized by us are determined by each lease contract’s individual
classification. Each lease is classified as either a direct financing lease,
sales-type lease, or operating lease, as appropriate.
|
·
|
For
direct financing and sales-type leases, we record the net investment in
leases, which consists of the sum of the minimum lease payments, initial
direct costs (direct financing leases only), and unguaranteed residual
value (gross investment) less the unearned income. The difference between
the gross investment and the cost of the leased equipment for direct
financing leases is recorded as unearned income at the inception of the
lease. The unearned income is amortized over the life of the lease using
the interest method. Under sales-type leases, the difference between the
fair value and cost of the leased property plus initial direct costs (net
margins) is recorded as revenue at the inception of the
lease.
|
|
·
|
For
operating leases, rental amounts are accrued on a straight-line basis over
the lease term and are recognized as lease
revenue.
|
In some
direct financing lease transactions, where the non-recourse debt associated with
the lease may be assigned to a lender, and the transfer of financial assets in
these transactions meet the criteria for surrender of control, the net amount of
the lease and non-recourse debt, if any, is accounted for as a sale for
financial reporting purposes.
Sales of
leased equipment represent revenue from the sales to a third party other than
the lessee of equipment subject to a lease in which we are the lessor. Such sales
of equipment may have the effect of increasing revenues and net income during
the quarter in which the sale occurs, and reducing revenues and net income
otherwise expected in subsequent quarters. If the rental stream on such lease
has non-recourse debt associated with it, sales revenue is recorded at the
amount of consideration received, net of the amount of debt assumed by the
purchaser. If there is no non-recourse debt associated with the rental stream,
sales revenue is recorded at the amount of gross consideration received, and
costs of sales is recorded at the book value of the lease.
Fluctuations
in Revenues
Our
results of operations are susceptible to fluctuations for a number of reasons,
including, without limitation, customer demand for our product and services,
supplier costs, interest rate fluctuations, and differences between estimated
residual values and actual amounts realized related to the equipment we lease.
Operating results could also fluctuate as a result of the sale of equipment in
our lease portfolio prior to the expiration of the lease term to the lessee or
to a third party and changes in incentive programs provided by
manufacturers.
We have
expanded our product and service offerings under our comprehensive set of
solutions which represents the continued evolution of our original
implementation of our e-commerce products entitled ePlusSuite. The expansion to
our bundled solution is a framework that combines our IT sales and professional
services, leasing and financing services, asset management software and
services, procurement software, and electronic catalog content management
software and services.
We expect
to expand or open new sales locations and hire additional staff for specific
targeted market areas in the near future whenever we can find both experienced
personnel and qualified geographic areas.
RECENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS UPDATES
NOT YET EFFECTIVE —In June 2009, the FASB issued an update to amend Transfers and Servicing in
the Codification. This update removes the concept of a qualifying
special-purpose entity and clarifies the determination of whether a transferor
and all of the entities included in the transferor’s financial statements being
presented have surrendered control over the transferred financial assets. That
determination must consider the transferor’s continuing involvement in the
transferred financial asset, including all arrangements or agreements made
contemporaneously with, or in contemplation of, the transfer, even if they were
not entered into at the time of the transfer. This update will be effective for
us for beginning April 1, 2010. We are currently evaluating the future impact
this update will have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
In
October 2009, the FASB issued an update to amend Revenue Recognition in the
Codification. This update removes the fair value criterion from the separation
criteria that we use to determine whether a multiple deliverable arrangement
involves more than one unit of accounting. It also replaces references to “fair
value” with “selling price” to distinguish from the fair value measurements
required under Fair Value
Measurements and Disclosures in the Codification, provides a hierarchy
that entities must use to estimate the selling price, eliminates the use of the
residual method for allocation, and expands the ongoing disclosure requirements.
This update is effective for us beginning April 1, 2011 and can be applied
prospectively or retrospectively. Early application is permitted. We are
currently evaluating the timing and the effect that adoption of this update will
have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
Concurrently
to issuing the above update, the FASB also issued another update that excludes
certain software from the scope of software revenue recognition guidance. If the
software is contained in a tangible product and is essential to the tangible
product's functionality, the software and the tangible product can be accounted
for as a multiple deliverable arrangement under Revenue Recognition. This
update is effective for us beginning April 1, 2011 and can be applied
prospectively or retrospectively. Early application is permitted. We are
currently evaluating the timing and the effect that adoption of this update will
have on our consolidated results of operations and financial
condition.
CRITICAL
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires
management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including
making estimates and assumptions. If our judgment or interpretation of the facts
and circumstances relating to various transactions had been different, or
different assumptions were made, it is possible that alternative accounting
policies would have been applied, resulting in a change in financial results. On
an ongoing basis, we reevaluate our estimates, including those related to
revenue recognition, lease residuals, vendor consideration, lease
classification, goodwill and intangibles, reserves for credit losses and income
taxes specifically relating to uncertain tax positions. Estimates in the
assumptions used in the valuation of our share-based compensation expense are
updated periodically and reflect conditions that existed at the time of each new
issuance of equity based compensation. We base estimates on historical
experience and on various other assumptions that we believe 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. For all of these estimates, we caution that
future events rarely develop exactly as forecasted, and therefore, these
estimates may require adjustment.
We
consider the following accounting policies important in understanding the
potential impact of our judgments and estimates on our operating results and
financial condition. Our significant accounting policies, including the critical
policies and practices listed below, are more fully described and discussed in
the notes to consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year 2009 included
in the 2009 Annual Report.
REVENUE
RECOGNITION. The majority of our revenues are derived from three sources: sales
of product and services, lease revenues and sales of our software. Our revenue
recognition policies vary based upon these revenue sources. Generally, sales are
recognized when the title and risk of loss are passed to the customer, there is
persuasive evidence of an arrangement for sale, delivery has occurred and/or
services have been rendered, the sales price is fixed or determinable and
collectability is reasonably assured. Using these tests, the vast majority of
our product sales are recognized upon delivery due to our sales terms with our
customers and with our vendors. For proper cutoff, we estimate the product
delivered to our customers at the end of each quarter based upon historical
delivery times.
We also
sell services that are performed in conjunction with product sales, and
recognize revenue from delivered items only when the delivered item(s) has value
to the client on a stand-alone basis, there is objective and reliable evidence
of the fair value of the undelivered item(s), and delivery of the undelivered
item(s) is probable and substantially under our control. For most of the
arrangements with multiple deliverables (hardware and services), we generally
cannot establish reliable evidence of the fair value of the undelivered items.
Therefore, the majority of revenue from these services, and hardware sold in
conjunction with the services, is recognized when the service is complete and we
have received an acceptance certificate. However, in some cases, we do not
receive an acceptance certificate and we estimate the completion date based upon
our records.
RESIDUAL
VALUES. Residual values represent our estimated value of the equipment at the
end of the initial lease term. The residual values for direct financing and
sales-type leases are included as part of the investment in direct financing and
sales-type leases. The residual values for operating leases are included in the
leased equipment’s net book value and are reported in the investment in leases
and leased equipment—net. Our estimated residual values will vary, both in
amount and as a percentage of the original equipment cost, and depend upon
several factors, including the equipment type, manufacturer’s discount, market
conditions and the term of the lease.
We
evaluate residual values on a quarterly basis and record any required
impairments of residual value, other than temporary impairments, in the period
in which the impairment is determined. Residual values may be affected by
equipment supply and demand and by new product announcements by
manufacturers.
We seek
to realize the estimated residual value at lease termination mainly through
renewal or extension of the original lease, or the sale of the equipment either
to the lessee or on the secondary market. The difference between the proceeds of
a sale and the remaining estimated residual value is recorded as a gain or loss
in lease revenues when title is transferred to the lessee, or, if the equipment
is sold on the secondary market, is recorded in sales of product and services
and cost of sales, product and services when title is transferred to the
buyer.
ASSUMPTIONS
RELATED TO GOODWILL. We have accounted for our acquisitions using the
acquisition method of accounting. This method requires estimates to determine
the fair values of assets and liabilities acquired including judgments to
determine any acquired intangible assets such as customer-related intangibles,
as well as assessments of the fair value of tangible assets such as
property and equipment. Liabilities acquired can include balances for litigation
and other contingency reserves established prior to or at the time of
acquisition, and require judgment in ascertaining a reasonable value.
Third-party valuation firms may be used to assist in the appraisal of certain
assets and liabilities, but even those determinations are based on significant
estimates provided by us, such as forecasted revenues or profits on
contract-related intangibles. Numerous factors are typically considered in the
acquisition accounting assessments. Changes in assumptions and estimates of the
acquired assets and liabilities assumed would result in changes to the fair
values, resulting in an offsetting change to the goodwill balance associated
with the business acquired.
We review
our goodwill for impairment annually, or more frequently, if events or
circumstances change that would more-likely-than-not reduce the fair value of a
reporting unit below its caring amount. We have two reportable segments
based on the product and services offered – financing business segment and
technology sales business segment. Below our reportable segments are reporting
units. We believe that for the purpose of testing for impairment, we have four
distinct reporting units: Leasing, Technology, Software procurement and Software
document management. In determining reporting units, we consider
factors such as nature of products, nature of production, type of customer,
management and the availability of separate and distinct financial statements
for each entity. We do not have any goodwill remaining in our Software
procurement reporting unit.
A
significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of
impairment has occurred. Such indicators may include, among others: a
significant decline in our expected future cash flows; a sustained, significant
decline in our stock price and market capitalization; a significant adverse
change in legal factors or in the business climate; unanticipated competition;
the testing for recoverability of a significant asset group within a reporting
unit; and slower growth rates. Any adverse change in these factors could have a
significant impact on the recoverability of these assets and could have a
material impact on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Annual
Test
During
the third quarter of our fiscal year, we perform our annual goodwill impairment
test. The goodwill impairment test involves a two-step process. The first step
is a comparison of each reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying value. We
estimate fair value using the best information available, including prices for
similar assets and liabilities and other valuation techniques. We
employed both the market approach and the income approach to determine fair
value. The market approach measures the value of an entity through an
analysis of recent sales or by comparison to comparable companies. The income
approach measures the value of reporting units by discounting expected future
cash flows.
Consideration
was given to applying the transaction method which examines sales of stock of
private or public companies, which are in the same industry or similar lines of
business and are of comparable size and capital structure. However, we
concluded that there were insufficient transactions of similar firms with
available current financial information to make a valid comparison.
Under the
market approach, we used the guideline public company method whereby valuation
multiples of guideline companies were applied to the historical financial data
of our reporting units. We analyzed companies that were in the
same industry, performed the same or similar services, had similar
operations, and are considered competitors. In addition, the majority
of the companies selected were also used in the impairment test performed last
year.
Multiples
that related to some level of earnings or cash flow were most appropriate for
the industry in which we operate. The multiples selected were based
on our analysis of the guideline companies’ profitability ratios and return to
investors. We compared the reporting units’ size and ranking against
the guidelines, taking into consideration risk, profitability and growth along
with guideline medians and averages. We then selected pricing
multiples, adjusted appropriately for size and risk, to apply to the reporting
unit's trailing twelve month financial data.
Multiples
were weighted based on the consistency and comparability of the guideline
companies along with the respective reporting units, including margins,
profitability and leverage. For each of the reporting units, we used
the following multiples: the price to earnings before tax (“EBT”), price
to net income (“NI”), market value of invested capital (“MVIC”) to earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), and MVIC to
earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”).
Under the
income approach, we used the discounted future cash flow method to estimate the
fair value of each of the reporting units by discounting the expected future
cash flows of reporting units. We used the weighted average cost of capital to
discount the expected future cash flows for the reporting unit to its present
value. The weighted average cost of capital is the estimated rate of return on
alternative investments with comparable risks. The weighted average
cost of capital involves estimating the cost of debt and the cost of
equity. In addition, we also considered factors such as risk-free
rate of return, market equity risk premium, beta coefficient and firm specific
risk. We estimated our weighted average cost of capital at 8.3%,
12.9% and 13.6% for the Leasing, Technology and Software document management
reporting units, respectively. In addition, we estimated the
average annual compound cash flow growth rate for a five-year
period of (3.3%), 11.7% and 21%, for the Leasing, Technology, and Software
document management reporting units. Also, we estimated a long
term growth rate for the Leasing reporting unit of 2.0%, and a long term growth
rate 3.5% for both the Technology and Software document management reporting
units.
The
estimated fair value of our reporting units is dependent on several significant
assumptions involving our forecasted cash flows and weighted average cost of
capital. The forecasted cash flows are based on management’s best estimates of
economic and market conditions over the projected period including business
plans, growth rates in sales, costs, estimates of future expected changes in
operating margins and cash expenditures. Any adverse change including
a significant decline in our expected future cash flows; a significant adverse
change in legal factors or in the business climate; unanticipated competition;
or slower growth rates may impact our ability to meet our forecasted cash flow
estimates.
We
averaged the results of the income and market methods and compared the
estimated fair value to our market capitalization which was computed by
multiplying our closing stock price to the shares outstanding on October 1,
2009. Comparison of the average fair values of the reporting units to
the overall market value of our equity indicated an implied control premium
of 33.5%. This percentage falls within the range of currently observable market
data.
The
weakening U.S. economy and the global credit crisis have weakened the demand for
leasing. As a result of this reduced demand and a reduction in our overall
portfolio from prior sales of tranches of leases in our portfolio, we projected
a temporary decline in revenue in our Leasing reporting unit, which lowered the
fair value estimates of the reporting unit. The result of averaging the
estimated fair value computed using the guideline public company and the
discounted cash flow methods, the fair value of the Leasing reporting was below
its carrying value.
The
Technology and Software document management reporting units' fair values
exceeded their carrying values. Had the fair value been 10%
lower than calculated on each of the three reporting units, the results would
not have changed for any of the reporting units. The fair value of the
Technology reporting unit was 12.2% higher than the carrying value and the fair
value of the Software document management reporting unit was 245.8% higher
than the carrying value.
We have
not yet completed Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test for the Leasing
reporting unit, which will require us to allocate the fair value of the
reporting unit derived in the first step to the reporting unit’s net
assets. However, we estimate the total amount of recorded goodwill
for the Leasing reporting unit will be impaired and, therefore, for the three
months ended December 31, 2009, we recorded an estimated impairment charge of
$4.0 million in our Leasing reporting unit. This estimate is only preliminary.
We are continuing to finalize the evaluation of the impairment of our goodwill,
and the amount of the actual impairment charge may vary from this initial
estimate. We expect to complete the full evaluation of the impairment analysis
during the quarter ending March 31, 2010.
VENDOR
CONSIDERATION. We receive payments and credits from vendors, including
consideration pursuant to volume sales incentive programs, volume purchase
incentive programs and shared marketing expense programs. Many of these programs
extend over one or more quarter’s sales activities and are primarily
formula-based. Different programs have different vendor/program
specific goals to achieve. These programs can be very complex to calculate and
sometimes involves estimates. Based on historical financial data for the
different programs, we may estimate that we will obtain these
goals.
Vendor
consideration received pursuant to volume sales incentive programs is recognized
as a reduction to cost of sales, product and services on the accompanying
Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Vendor consideration
received pursuant to volume purchase incentive programs is allocated to
inventories based on the applicable incentives from each vendor and is recorded
in cost of sales, product and services, as the inventory is sold. Vendor
consideration received pursuant to shared marketing expense programs is recorded
as a reduction of the related selling and administrative expenses in the period
the program takes place only if the consideration represents a reimbursement of
specific, incremental, identifiable costs. Consideration that exceeds the
specific, incremental, identifiable costs is classified as a reduction of cost
of sales, product and services on the accompanying Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations.
We accrue
vendor consideration in accordance with the terms of the related program which
may include a certain amount of sales of qualifying products or as targets are
met or as the amounts are estimable and probable or as services are provided.
Actual vendor consideration amounts may vary based on volume or other sales
achievement levels, which could result in an increase or reduction in the
estimated amounts previously accrued, and can, at times, result in significant
earnings fluctuations on a quarterly basis.
RESERVES
FOR CREDIT LOSSES. The reserves for credit losses are maintained at a level
believed by management to be adequate to absorb potential losses inherent in our
lease and accounts receivable portfolio. Management’s determination of the
adequacy of the reserve is based on an evaluation of historical credit loss
experience, current economic conditions, volume, growth, the composition of the
lease portfolio and other relevant factors. These determinations require
considerable judgment in assessing the ultimate potential for collection of
these receivables and include giving consideration to the customer’s financial
condition and the value of the underlying collateral and funding status (i.e.
funded on a non-recourse or recourse basis).
SALES
RETURNS ALLOWANCE. The allowance for sales returns is maintained at a level
believed by management to be adequate to absorb potential sales returns from
product and services. Management’s determination of the adequacy of
the reserve is based on an evaluation of historical sales returns and other
relevant factors. These determinations require considerable judgment in
assessing the ultimate potential for sales returns and include consideration of
the type and volume of product and services sold.
INCOME
TAX. We make certain estimates and judgments in determining income tax expense
for financial statement purposes. These estimates and judgments occur in the
calculation of certain tax assets and liabilities, which principally arise from
differences in the timing of recognition of revenue and expense for tax and
financial statement purposes. We also must analyze income tax reserves, as well
as determine the likelihood of recoverability of deferred tax assets, and adjust
any valuation allowances accordingly. Considerations with respect to the
recoverability of deferred tax assets include the period of expiration of the
tax asset, planned use of the tax asset, and historical and projected taxable
income as well as tax liabilities for the tax jurisdiction to which the tax
asset relates. Valuation allowances are evaluated periodically and will be
subject to change in each future reporting period as a result of changes in one
or more of these factors. The calculation of our tax liabilities also involves
considering uncertainties in the application of complex tax regulations. We
recognize liabilities for uncertain income tax positions based on our estimate
of whether, and the extent to which, additional taxes will be
required.
SHARE-BASED
PAYMENT. We currently have two equity incentive plans which provide us with the
opportunity to compensate directors with restricted stock and selected employees
with stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units. A stock option
entitles the recipient to purchase shares of common stock from us at the
specified exercise price. Restricted stock and restricted stock units (“RSUs”)
entitle the recipient to obtain stock or stock units, which vest over a set
period of time. RSUs are granted at no cost to the employee and employees do not
need to pay an exercise price to obtain the underlying common stock. All grants
or awards made under the plans are governed by written agreements between us and
the participants. We also have options outstanding under three previous
incentive plans, under which we no longer issue equity awards.
Under the
fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation, we measure stock
option expense at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes valuation model and
amortize the compensation expenses using the straight-line method over the
requisite service period. This model estimates the fair value of the options
based on a number of assumptions, such as interest rates, employee exercises,
the current price and expected volatility of our common stock and expected
dividends, if any. The expected life is a significant assumption as it
determines the period for which the risk-free interest rate, volatility and
dividend yield must be applied. The expected life is the average length of time
in which we expect our employees to exercise their options. The risk-free
interest rate is the five-year nominal constant maturity Treasury rate on the
date of the award. Expected stock volatility reflects movements in our stock
price over a historical period that matches the expected life of the options.
The dividend yield assumption is zero since we have historically not paid any
dividends and do not anticipate paying any dividends in the near
future.
Results
of Operations — Three and nine months ended December 31, 2009 compared to three
and nine months ended December 31, 2008
REVENUES
Total Revenues. We generated
total revenues during the three months ended December 31, 2009 of $178.7 million
compared to total revenues of $184.7 million during the three months December
31, 2008, a decrease of 3.3%. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009,
revenues decreased 10.6% to $503.8 million, as compared to $563.9 million during
the same period ended December 31, 2008. During our 2010 fiscal year, the
economy contracted and our sales followed. However, we have had sequential
revenue growth over the past three quarters. Total revenue during the three
months ended June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009 was $152.4 million and $172.7
million, respectively, as compared to $178.7 million for the three months ended
December 31, 2009. Total revenues for the nine months ended December 31, 2009
included $3.4 million of patent license and settlement income for a patent
infringement lawsuit that we filed against various parties.
Sales of product and
services. Sales of product and services decreased 4.9% to
$163.2 million during the three months ended December 31, 2009 as compared to
$171.6 million during the three months ended December 31, 2008. Sales of product
and services decreased 10.8% to $460.9 million during the nine months ended
September 30, 2009 as compared to $516.8 million during the nine months ended
December 31, 2008. During our 2010 fiscal year, the economy contracted and our
sales followed. However, we have had sequential revenue growth over the past
three quarters. Sales of product and services represented 91.3% and 92.9% of
total revenue during the three months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and 91.5% and 91.7% of total revenue during the nine months ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
At
December 31, 2009, we had an unusual amount of orders from our customers that
were not fulfilled by our vendors in their normal time frames. This increase of
approximately $20 million of open orders was due to a supply shortage of certain
products by manufacturers. Our manufacturers have conveyed to us that
supply may gradually improve within our fourth quarter.
In
addition, we had an increase in deferred revenue of approximately $10.0 million
at December 31, 2009 related to bundled hardware and service arrangements that
were not completed by the end of the quarter, compared to December 31, 2008. We
will recognize revenue on multiple deliverable revenue arrangements when service
is completed.
Gross margin. We
realized a gross margin on sales of product and services of 13.4% and 14.8%
during the three months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and
14.0% during both the nine months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. Our gross
margin on sales of product and services was affected by an increase in
incentives provided to us by our vendors. In addition, our gross margin was also
affected by our customers’ investment in technology equipment and the mix and
volume of product and services sold. There are ongoing changes to the programs
offered to us by our vendors which may be affected by the current economic
conditions and thus, we may not be able to maintain the level of manufacturer
incentives we currently are receiving, which may cause gross margins to
decrease.
Lease
revenues. Lease revenues includes income from direct-financing
leases, rent from operating leases, sales of leased assets to lessees and other
lease-related income. Earnings generated from direct financing and operating
leases both decreased due to a fewer number of leases in our portfolio as
compared to same period last year. Also included in lease revenues are
intermittent sales of leased assets to our lessees before and at the end of the
lease term. These purchases by lessees fluctuate primarily based upon portfolio
maturity dates and amounts. Lease revenues increased 25.1% to $13.0 million
during the three months ended December 31, 2009 as compared to $10.4 million
during the same period last year, mostly driven by an increase in sales of
leased assets to lessees of 300% to $4.4 million. Lease revenues decreased 12.5%
to $29.9 million during the nine months ended December 31, 2009 as compared to
$34.2 million during the same period last year as we have fewer leases in our
portfolio. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009, sales of leased
assets to lessees increased 51.3% to $6.6 million, compared to the same period
ended December 31, 2008.
Sales of leased equipment. We
also recognize revenue from the sale of leased equipment to non-lessee third
parties. Sales of leased equipment fluctuate from quarter to quarter because
management determines the timing of such sales as a component of our
risk-mitigation process, which we conduct periodically to diversify our
portfolio by customer, equipment type, and residual value investments. During
the three months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, there were no sales of leased
equipment. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009, sales of
leased equipment decreased 34.0% to $2.3 million, as compared to the same period
last year. Gross margin on the sales of leased equipment was 3.8% for the nine
months ended December 31, 2009, compared to 5.4% during the same period last
year. The revenue and gross margin recognized on sales of leased
equipment can vary significantly depending on the nature and timing of the
sale.
Fee and other income. During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, fee and other income
decreased 8.2% to $2.6 million, and 21.9% to $7.4 million, respectively. These
decreases were primarily driven by decreases in software and related consulting
revenue, agent fees from manufacturers and short-term investment income for the
three and nine months ended December 31, 2009. Fee and other income may
also include revenues from adjunct services and fees, including broker and agent
fees, support fees, warranty reimbursements, monetary settlements arising from
disputes and litigation and interest income. Our fee and other income contain
earnings from certain transactions that are infrequent, and there is no
guarantee that future transactions of the same nature, size or profitability
will occur. Our ability to consummate such transactions, and the timing thereof,
may depend largely upon factors outside the direct control of management. The
earnings from these types of transactions in a particular period may not be
indicative of the earnings that can be expected in future periods.
Patent license and settlement
income. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009, we entered into
settlement and license agreements with three defendants wherein the complaint
was dismissed with prejudice and each defendant was granted a license in
specified ePlus
patents, which resulted in payments totaling $3.4 million.
These
settlement agreements were as a result of a lawsuit filed against four
defendants alleging that they used or sold products, methods, processes,
services and/or systems that infringe on certain of our patents. One such
agreement includes additional payments totaling $250 thousand due on or before
October 20, 2010. These payments have not been recognized in our Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations because collectability is not
reasonably assured. The earnings from these types of transactions in a
particular period may not be indicative of the earnings that can be expected in
future periods.
COSTS AND
EXPENSES
Cost of sales, product and services.
During the three months ended December 31, 2009, cost of sales, product
and services decreased 3.4% to $141.2 million, compared to $146.2 million during
the same period last year. During the nine months ended December 31, 2009, cost
of sales, product and services decreased 10.8% to $396.2 million compared to
$444.3 million during the same period last year. These decreases corresponded to
the decreases in sales of product and services in our technology sales business
segment. Cost of sales, product and services is also affected by incentives from
vendors, product mix and volume. Cost of leased equipment decreased 32.9% to
$2.2 million the nine months ended December 31, 2009. This decrease
corresponded to the decrease in sales of leased equipment to non-lessee third
parties in our financing business segment.
Direct lease costs. During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, direct lease costs decreased
29.0% to $2.6 million, and 26.6% to $8.3 million, respectively. The largest
component of direct lease costs is depreciation expense for operating lease
equipment. Our investment in operating leases decreased 12.9% to $21.2 million
at December 31, 2009 compared to $24.4 million at December 31, 2008, primarily
due to the sale of a number of lease schedules in the prior fiscal year and a
reduction in the origination of operating leases.
Professional and other fees.
During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, professional and other
fees increased 110.1% to $3.3 million, and 31.3% to $7.8 million, compared to
the same periods last year. These increases are primarily due to increased legal
expense related to the patent infringement litigation, partially offset by lower
fees pertaining to our financial statement audit during the same periods last
year. These types of cases are complex in nature, are likely to have significant
expenses associated with them, and we cannot predict whether we will be
successful in our claims for damages, whether any award ultimately received will
exceed the costs incurred to pursue these matters, or how long it will take to
bring these matters to resolution.
Salaries and benefits. During
the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, salaries and benefits expense
decreased 3.8% to $18.8 million, and 4.7% to $55.0 million, respectively. The
decreases in salaries and benefits expense corresponded to a reduction in
employees as we employed 653 people at December 31, 2009 as compared to 672
people at December 31, 2008. Where business needs were justified, we
made a gradual and non-disruptive reduction in employees. In addition,
commission expenses were reduced due to lower sales during the three and nine
months ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the same periods last
year.
We also
provide our employees with a contributory 401(k) profit sharing plan. Employer
contribution percentages are determined by us and are discretionary each year.
The employer contributions vest over a four-year period. For the three and nine
months ended December 31, 2009, our expenses for the plan were approximately $88
thousand and $281 thousand, respectively, compared to $69 thousand and $277
thousand, for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2008,
respectively.
General and administrative
expenses. During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009,
general and administrative expenses decreased 11.8% to $3.8 million, and 8.1 %
to $10.9 million, as compared to the same periods last year. These decreases are
due to an emphasis on eliminating unnecessary spending, such as travel and
entertainment, certain recruiting and outside services fees, efforts to enhance
productivity and a reduction in depreciation.
Interest and financing costs.
During the three and nine months ended December 31, 2009, interest and financing
costs decreased 33.9% to $0.9 million, and 23.4% to $3.3 million, respectively.
These decreases are primarily driven by lower interest costs and related
expenses as a result of lower non-recourse note balances. Non-recourse notes
payable decreased 31.2% to $58.5 million at December 31, 2009 as compared to
$85.1 million at December 31, 2008.
Income taxes. Our provision
for income taxes increased $0.3 million to $1.7 million for the three months
ended December 31, 2009, and decreased $1.5 million to $6.9 million for the nine
months ended December 31, 2009. Our effective income tax rates for the three and
nine months ended December 31, 2009 were 42.4% and 43.0%, as compared to 42.4%
and 41.1%, respectively, during the same periods last year. The increase in our
effective tax rate for the nine months ended December 31, 2009 was due to the
non-deductible compensation expense of $0.8 million related to the exercise
of 175,000 shares during the three month period ended September 30,
2009.
Net Earnings. The foregoing
resulted in net earnings of $2.3 million for the three months ended December 31,
2009, an increase of 18.0%, as compared to $2.0 million during the three months
ended December 31, 2008. Net earnings was $9.2 million for the nine
months ended December 31, 2009, a decrease of 23.7%, as compared to $12.1
million during the nine months ended December 31, 2008.
Both
basic and diluted earnings per common share were $0.27 for the three months
ended December 31, 2009, as compared to $0.24, for the three months ended
December 31, 2008. Basic and diluted earnings per common share were $1.11 and
$1.08, respectively, for the nine months ended December 31, 2009, as compared to
$1.46 and $1.42, respectively, for the nine months ended December 31,
2008.
Basic and
diluted weighted average common shares outstanding for the three months ended
December 31, 2009 were 8,388,795 and 8,554,247, respectively. Basic
and diluted weighted average common shares outstanding for the nine months ended
December 31, 2009 were 8,289,776 and 8,504,966, respectively. Basic
and diluted weighted average common shares outstanding for the three months
ended December 31, 2008 were 8,264,115 and 8,404,352, respectively. Basic and
diluted weighted average common shares outstanding for the nine months ended
December 31, 2008 were 8,271,616 and 8,518,419, respectively.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Liquidity
Overview
Our
primary sources of liquidity have historically been cash and cash equivalents,
internally generated funds from operations, and non-recourse borrowings. We have
used those funds to meet our capital requirements, which have historically
consisted primarily of working capital for operational needs, capital
expenditures, purchases of operating lease equipment, payments of principal and
interest on indebtedness outstanding, acquisitions and the repurchase of shares
of our common stock.
Our
subsidiary ePlus
Technology, inc., part of our technology sales business segment, finances its
operations with funds generated from operations, and with a credit facility
provided by GECDF, which is described in more detail below. There are two
components of this facility: (1) a floor plan component; and (2) an accounts
receivable component. After a customer places a purchase order with us and we
have completed our credit review of the customer, we place an order for the
equipment with one of our vendors. Generally, a large portion of our purchase
orders to our vendors are first financed under the floor plan component and
reflected in “accounts payable—floor plan” on our Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Payments on the floor plan component are due on
three specified dates each month, generally 40-45 days from the invoice date. At
each due date, payment is made by the accounts receivable component of our
facility and reflected as “recourse notes payable” on our Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets. The borrowings and repayments under the floor plan
component are reflected as “net borrowings (repayments) on floor plan facility”
in the cash flows from financing activities section of our Unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
Most
customer payments in our technology sales business segment are paid to our
lockboxes. Once payments are cleared, the monies in the lockbox accounts are
automatically transferred to our operating account on a daily basis. On the due
dates of the floor plan component, we make cash payments to GECDF. These
payments from the accounts receivable component to the floor plan component and
repayments from our cash are reflected as “net (borrowings) repayments on
recourse lines of credit” in the cash flows from the financing activities
section of our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. We
engage in this payment structure in order to minimize our interest expense and
bank fees in connection with financing the operations of our technology sales
business segment.
We
believe that cash on hand, and funds generated from operations, together with
available credit under our credit facility, will be sufficient to finance our
working capital, capital expenditures and other requirements for at least the
next twelve calendar months.
Our
ability to continue to fund our planned growth, both internally and externally,
is dependent upon our ability to generate sufficient cash flow from operations
or to obtain additional funds through equity or debt financing, or from other
sources of financing, as may be required. While at this time we do not
anticipate the need for any additional sources of financing to fund operations,
if demand for IT products further declines, our cash flows from operations may
be substantially affected. Given the current environment within the global
financial markets, management has maintained cash reserves to ensure adequate
cash is available to fund our working capital requirements should the
availability to the debt and equity markets be limited.
Cash
Flows
The
following table summarizes our sources and uses of cash over the periods
indicated (in thousands):
Nine months ended December
31
|
||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
$ | (45,294 | ) | $ | (1,681 | ) | ||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(3,968 | ) | (990 | ) | ||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
23,578 | 31,194 | ||||||
Effect
of exchange rate changes on cash
|
(23 | ) | (395 | ) | ||||
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | (25,707 | ) | $ | 28,128 |
Cash Flows from Operating
Activities. Cash used in operating activities totaled $45.3
million during the nine months ended December 31, 2009, compared to cash used in
operations of $1.7 million during the nine months ended December 31, 2008. Cash
flows used in operations for the nine months ended December 31, 2009 resulted
primarily from $34.7 million in cash used by investment in direct financing and
sales type leases—net. Our investment in direct financing and sales-type
leases—net increased $6.7 million on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets (see Note 2, “Investment in Leases and Leased Equipment—net,”)
during the nine months ended December 31, 2009. The schedule of
non-cash investing and financing activities contained repayments of $32.9
million in principal payments by our lessees directly to our lenders for certain
leases secured by non-recourse debt. This direct repayment from our lessees
directly to our lenders is not reflected in our cash used in operating
activities and hence, had the effect of increasing our cash used in operating
activities. In addition, there was an increase in accounts receivable that
resulted in cash used in operating activities of $28.4 million. The increase in
accounts receivable is consistent with the increase in sales of product and
services over the previous quarter. These changes are partially
offset by favorable changes in balances of accounts payable – trade and
depreciation and amortization expenses.
Cash Flows from Investing
Activities. Cash used in investing activities was $4.0 million for the
nine months ended December 31, 2009. This increase was mostly driven
by cash used to purchase operating lease equipment of $7.0 million. The proceeds from
sale or disposal of operating lease equipment of $3.7 million partially offset
the cash used in investing activities.
Compared
to the same period last year, during the nine months ended December 31, 2009,
cash used in investing activities increased $3.0 million primarily due to an
increase in purchases of operating lease equipment.
Cash Flows from Financing
Activities. Cash provided by financing activities was $23.6 million for
the nine months ended December 31, 2009, mostly driven by borrowings of
non-recourse notes payable for our Leasing segment and borrowings from our floor
plan facility. The schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities
contained a repayment of $32.9 million in principal payments by our lessees
directly to our lenders for certain leases secured by non-recourse debt. This
direct repayment from our lessees directly to our lenders is not reflected in
our cash provided by financing activities and hence, had the effect of
decreasing our cash used in repayment of non-recourse debt. In addition, we
generated $2.4 million from proceeds from the issuance of capital stock as a
result of stock option exercises. These changes are partially offset
by our repayments of non-recourse debt of $4.4 million and repurchases of common
stock of $2.6 million.
Compared
to the nine months ended December 31, 2008, cash provided by financing
activities decreased $7.6 million primarily as a result of a decrease of $24.1
million from borrowings of non-recourse debt.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Non-recourse
debt financing activities may provide approximately 80% to 100% of the purchase
price of the equipment we purchase for leases to our customers. Any balance of
the purchase price remaining after non-recourse funding and any upfront payments
received from the lessee (our equity investment in the equipment) must generally
be financed by cash flows from our operations, the sale of the equipment leased
to third parties, or other internal means. Although we expect that the credit
quality of our leases and our residual return history will continue to allow us
to obtain such financing, such financing may not be available on acceptable
terms, or at all. The financing necessary to support our leasing activities has
principally been provided by non-recourse borrowings. Given the current market,
we have been monitoring our exposure closely and conserving our capital.
Historically, we have obtained recourse and non-recourse borrowings from banks
and finance companies. We continue to be able to obtain financing through our
traditional lending sources, however, pricing has increased and has become more
volatile. Non-recourse financings are loans whose repayment is the
responsibility of a specific customer, although we may make representations and
warranties to the lender regarding the specific contract or have ongoing loan
servicing obligations. Under a non-recourse loan, we borrow from a lender an
amount based on the present value of the contractually committed lease payments
under the lease at a fixed rate of interest, and the lender secures a lien on
the financed assets. When the lender is fully repaid from the lease payments,
the lien is released and all further rental or sale proceeds are ours. We are
not liable for the repayment of non-recourse loans unless we breach our
representations and warranties in the loan agreements. The lender assumes the
credit risk of each lease, and the lender’s only recourse, upon default by the
lessee, is against the lessee and the specific equipment under lease. At
December 31, 2009, our lease-related non-recourse debt portfolio decreased 31.2%
to $58.5 million, as compared to $85.0 million at March 31,
2009.
Whenever
possible and desirable, we arrange for equity investment financing, which
includes selling assets, including the residual portions, to third parties and
financing the equity investment on a non-recourse basis. We generally retain
customer control and operational services, and have minimal residual risk. We
usually reserve the right to share in remarketing proceeds of the equipment on a
subordinated basis after the investor has received an agreed-to return on its
investment.
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities includes deferred expenses, deferred revenue and
amounts collected and payable, such as sales taxes and lease rental payments due
to third parties. We had $46.3 million and $33.6 million of accrued expenses and
other liabilities as of December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2009, respectively, an
increase of 38.0%. The increase is primarily driven by increases in deferred
revenue and the accrual of other liabilities.
Credit Facility — Technology
Business
Our
subsidiary ePlus
Technology, inc. has a financing facility from GECDF to finance its working
capital requirements for inventories and accounts receivable. There are two
components of this facility: (1) a floor plan component; and (2) an accounts
receivable component. This facility has full recourse to ePlus Technology, inc. and is
secured by a blanket lien against all its assets, such as chattel paper,
receivables and inventory. As of December 31, 2009, the facility had an
aggregate limit of the two components of $125 million with an accounts
receivable sub-limit of $30 million. Availability under the GECDF facility may
be limited by the asset value of equipment we purchase and the aging of our
accounts receivable and may be further limited by certain covenants and terms
and conditions of the facility. These covenants include but are not limited to a
minimum total tangible net worth and subordinated debt, and maximum debt to
tangible net worth ratio of ePlus Technology, inc. We
were in compliance with these covenants as of December 31, 2009. In addition,
the facility restricts the ability of ePlus Technology, inc. to
transfer funds to its affiliates in the form of dividends, loans or advances;
however, we do not expect these restrictions to have an impact on the ability of
ePlus inc. to meet its
cash obligations or materially restrict its ability to undertake additional debt
or equity financing. Either party may terminate with 90 days' advance
notice.
The
facility provided by GECDF requires a guaranty of up to $10.5 million by ePlus inc. The guaranty
requires ePlus inc. to
deliver its audited financial statements by certain dates. We have delivered the
annual audited financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2009 as
required. The loss of the GECDF credit facility could have a material adverse
effect on our future results as we currently rely on this facility and its
components for daily working capital and liquidity for our technology sales
business and as an operational function of our accounts payable process. In
light of the credit market condition, we continue to have discussions with GECDF
to inquire about the strategic focus of their distribution finance unit.
Pursuant to these ongoing discussions, we believe that we can continue to rely
on the availability of this credit facility. Should the GECDF credit facility no
longer be available, we believe we can increase our lines of credit with our
vendors and utilize our cash for working capital.
Floor
Plan Component
The
traditional business of ePlus Technology, inc. as a
seller of computer technology, related peripherals and software products is in
part financed through a floor plan component in which interest expense for the
first forty to forty-five days, in general, is not charged. The floor plan
liabilities are recorded as accounts payable—floor plan on our Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, as they are normally repaid within the
forty-to forty-five-day time frame and represent an assigned accounts payable
originally generated with the manufacturer or distributor. If the forty- to
forty-five-day obligation is not paid timely, interest is then assessed at
stated contractual rates.
The
respective floor plan component credit limits and actual outstanding balances
for the dates indicated were as follows (in thousands):
Maximum Credit Limit at
December 31, 2009
|
Balance as of
December 31, 2009
|
Maximum Credit Limit at
March 31, 2009
|
Balance as of
March 31, 2009
|
|||||||||||
$ | 125,000 | $ | 62,312 | $ | 125,000 | $ | 45,127 |
Accounts
Receivable Component
Included
within the credit facility, ePlus Technology, inc. has an
accounts receivable component from GECDF, which has a revolving line of credit.
On the due date of the invoices financed by the floor plan component, the
invoices are paid by the accounts receivable component of the credit facility.
The balance of the accounts receivable component is paid by using our available
cash. The outstanding balance under the accounts receivable component is
recorded as recourse notes payable on our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets. There was no outstanding balance at December 31, 2009 or March
31, 2009, while the
maximum credit limit was $30.0 million for both periods.
Credit Facility — Leasing
Business
The
National City $35 million credit facility expired on July 10,
2009. We allowed the expiration of this credit facility pursuant to
its terms. The expiration of this facility did not have a
material impact on our leasing business or liquidity as we have no outstanding
balance on this facility upon expiration. We may, in the future, explore
opportunities, if any, to supplement our liquidity with an additional credit
facility.
Credit Facility —
General
1st
Commonwealth Bank of Virginia provides us with a $0.5 million credit facility,
which will mature on October 26, 2010. This credit facility is available for use
by us and our affiliates and is full recourse to us. Borrowings under this
facility bear interest at Wall Street Journal U.S. Prime rate plus 1%. The
primary purpose of the facility is to provide letters of credit for landlords,
taxing authorities and bids. As of December 31, 2009, we have no
outstanding balance on this credit facility.
Performance
Guarantees
In the
normal course of business, we may provide certain customers with performance
guarantees, which are generally backed by surety bonds or letters of credit. In
general, we would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event
of default in the performance of our obligations. We are in compliance with the
performance obligations under all service contracts for which there is a
performance guarantee, and we believe that any liability incurred in connection
with these guarantees would not have a material adverse effect on our Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
As part
of our ongoing business, we do not participate in transactions that generate
relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as
entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities,
which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance
sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(a)(4)(ii) of Regulation S-K or other
contractually narrow or limited purposes. As of December 31, 2009, we were not
involved in any unconsolidated special purpose entity transactions.
Adequacy
of Capital Resources and Inflation
The
continued implementation of our business strategy will require a significant
investment in both resources and managerial focus. In addition, we may
selectively acquire other companies that have attractive customer relationships
and skilled sales and engineering forces. We may also acquire technology
companies to expand and enhance the platform of bundled solutions to provide
additional functionality and value-added services. As a result, we may require
additional financing to fund our strategy, implementation and potential future
acquisitions, which may include additional debt and equity
financing.
For the
periods presented herein, inflation has been relatively low and we believe that
inflation has not had a material effect on our results of
operations.
Potential
Fluctuations in Quarterly Operating Results
Our
future quarterly operating results and the market price of our common stock may
fluctuate. In the event our revenues or earnings for any quarter are
less than the level expected by securities analysts or the market in general,
such shortfall could have an immediate and significant adverse impact on the
market price of our common stock. Any such adverse impact could be greater if
any such shortfall occurs near the time of any material decrease in any widely
followed stock index or in the market price of the stock of one or more public
equipment leasing and financing companies, IT resellers, software competitors,
major customers or vendors of ours.
Our
quarterly results of operations are susceptible to fluctuations for a number of
reasons, including, but not limited to, reduction in IT spending, our entry into
the e-commerce market, any reduction of expected residual values related to the
equipment under our leases, the timing and mix of specific transactions, the
reduction of manufacturer incentive programs, and other factors. Quarterly
operating results could also fluctuate as a result of our sale of equipment in
our lease portfolio, at the expiration of a lease term or prior to such
expiration, to a lessee or to a third party. Such sales of equipment
may have the effect of increasing revenues and net income during the quarter in
which the sale occurs, and reducing revenues and net income otherwise expected
in subsequent quarters. See Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in our
2009 Annual Report.
We
believe that comparisons of quarterly results of our operations are not
necessarily meaningful and that results for one quarter should not be relied
upon as an indication of future performance.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk
Although
a substantial portion of our liabilities are non-recourse, fixed-interest-rate
instruments, we utilize our line of credit and other financing facilities which
are subject to fluctuations in short-term interest rates. These instruments,
which are denominated in U.S. dollars, were entered into for other than trading
purposes and, with the exception of amounts drawn under the GECDF facility, bear
interest at a fixed rate. Because the interest rate on these instruments is
fixed, changes in interest rates will not directly impact our cash flows.
Borrowings under the GECDF facility bear interest at a market-based variable
rate. As of December 31, 2009, the aggregate fair value of our recourse
borrowings approximated their carrying value.
During
the year ended March 31, 2003, we began transacting business in Canada. As such,
we have entered into lease contracts and non-recourse, fixed-interest-rate
financing denominated in Canadian dollars. To date, Canadian operations have
been insignificant and we believe that potential fluctuations in currency
exchange rates will not have a material effect on our financial
position.
We also
have leasing transactions in Iceland. To date, Icelandic operations
have been insignificant and we believe that potential fluctuations in Icelandic
krona currency exchange rates will not have a material effect on our financial
position.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
As of the
end of the period covered by this report, we carried out an evaluation, under
the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our
Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), of the
effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and
procedures, or “disclosure controls,” pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (“Exchange Act”) Rule 13a-15(b). Disclosure controls are controls and
procedures designed to reasonably ensure that information required to be
disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act, such as this quarterly
report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods
specified in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.
Disclosure controls include, without limitation, controls and procedures
designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports
filed under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including our CEO and CFO, or persons performing similar functions, as
appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our
disclosure controls include some, but not all, components of our internal
control over financial reporting. Based upon that evaluation, our CEO and CFO
concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of
December 31, 2009.
Changes
in Internal Controls
There
have not been any changes in our internal control over financial reporting
during the quarter ended December 31, 2009, which have materially affected, or
are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
Limitations
on the Effectiveness of Controls
Our
management, including our CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure
controls or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect
all errors and all fraud. A control system cannot provide absolute assurance due
to its inherent limitations; it is a process that involves human diligence and
compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from
human failures. A control system also can be circumvented by collusion or
improper management override. Further, the design of a control system must
reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of
controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of such
limitations, disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting
cannot prevent or detect all misstatements, whether unintentional errors or
fraud. However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial
reporting process; therefore, it is possible to design into the process
safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk.
PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Cyberco
Related Matters
We have
been involved in several matters relating to a customer named Cyberco Holdings,
Inc. (“Cyberco”). The Cyberco principals were perpetrating a scam, and at least
five principals have pled guilty to criminal conspiracy and/or related charges,
including bank fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. We have previously
disclosed our losses relating to Cyberco, and are pursuing avenues to recover
those losses.
We filed
suit against one of our lenders, Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC
(“BoA") in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of San Diego
(“Superior Court”) seeking to recover losses relating to the Cyberco
transaction. On or about December 2, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of
California denied BoA’s Petition for Review of the California Court of Appeal’s
reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of the case, and the matter has been
remanded to the trial court. We are also the defendant in one
Cyberco-related case, in which BoA filed a lawsuit against ePlus in the Circuit Court
for Fairfax County, Virginia, on November 3, 2006, seeking to enforce a guaranty
in which ePlus inc.
guaranteed ePlus
Group’s obligations to BoA relating to the Cyberco matter. ePlus Group has already paid
to BoA $4.3 million, which was awarded to BoA in a prior lawsuit regarding the
Cyberco matter. The suit against ePlus inc. seeks attorneys’
fees BoA incurred in ePlus Group’s appeal of BoA’s
suit against ePlus
Group, expenses BoA incurred in Cyberco’s bankruptcy proceedings, attorneys’
fees incurred by BoA in defending the above-referenced case in the Superior
Court in California, and all attorneys’ fees and costs BoA has incurred arising
in any way from the Cyberco matter. The trial in this suit has been stayed
pending the outcome of ePlus Group’s suit against
BoA in California. We are vigorously defending the suit against us by BoA. We
cannot predict the outcome of this suit.
In June
2007, ePlus Group, inc.
and two other Cyberco victims filed suit in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan against The Huntington National Bank. The
complaint alleges counts of aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting
conversion, and statutory conversion. While we believe that we have a basis for
these claims to recover certain of our losses related to the Cyberco matter, we
cannot predict whether we will be successful in our claims for damages, whether
any award ultimately received will exceed the costs incurred to pursue these
matters, or how long it will take to bring these matters to
resolution.
Other
Matters
On July
31, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
dismissed the shareholder derivative action which had been filed on January 18,
2007. On August 31, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Notice that he is appealing to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The
action, which related to stock option practices, named ePlus inc. as nominal
defendant and personally named eight individual defendants who are directors
and/or executive officers of ePlus inc. The action alleged
violations of federal securities law, and various state law claims such as
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, and
sought monetary damages from the individual defendants and that we take certain
corrective actions relating to option grants and corporate governance, and
attorneys’ fees. We are vigorously defending the suit. We cannot predict the
outcome of the suit.
We may
become party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of
business including preference payment claims asserted in client bankruptcy
proceedings, claims of alleged infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights
and other intellectual property rights, claims of alleged non-compliance with
contract provisions and claims related to alleged violations of laws and
regulations. Although we do not expect that the outcome in any of these
potential matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition or results of operations, litigation is
inherently unpredictable. Therefore, judgments could be rendered or settlements
entered that could adversely affect our results of operations or cash flows in a
particular period. We provide for costs related to contingencies when a loss is
probable and the amount is reasonably determinable.
Item
1A. Risk Factors
There
have not been any material changes in the risk factors previously disclosed in
Part I, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2009.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of
Proceeds
The
following table provides information regarding our purchases of ePlus inc. common stock
during the nine months
ended December 31, 2009.
Period
|
Total number of shares
purchased(1)
|
Average price paid per
share
|
Total number of shares purchased as part of
publicly announced plans or programs
|
Maximum number (or approximate dollar value)
of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or
programs
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
April
1, 2009 through April 30, 2009
|
937 | $ | 11.00 | 937 | 461,228 | (2) | ||||||||||
May
1, 2009 through August 31, 2009
|
- | - | - | 461,228 | (3) | |||||||||||
September
1, 2009 through September 30, 2009
|
14,858 | $ | 15.37 | 14,858 | 485,142 | (4)(5) | ||||||||||
October
1, 2009 through October 30, 2009
|
24,474 | $ | 15.40 | 39,332 | 460,668 | (6) | ||||||||||
November
1, 2009 through November 30, 2009
|
25,585 | $ | 15.59 | 64,917 | 435,083 | (7) | ||||||||||
December
1, 2009 through December 31, 2009
|
95,207 | $ | 16.26 | 160,124 | 339,876 | (8) |
(1)
|
All
shares acquired were in open-market
purchases.
|
(2)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place for the month ended April
30, 2009 had purchase limitations on the number of shares of up
to 500,000 shares. As of April 30, 2009, the remaining
authorized shares to be purchased was
461,228.
|
(3)
|
No
shares were purchased from May 1, 2009 through August 31,
2009.
|
(4)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place from September 1, 2009 to September
15, 2009 had purchase limitations on the number of shares of up
to 500,000 shares. As of September 15, 2009, the remaining
authorized shares to be purchased was 461,228, thwas share purchase
authorization expired September 15,
2009.
|
(5)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place from September 16, 2009 to September
30, 2009 had purchase limitations on the number of shares of up
to 500,000 shares. As of September 30, 2009, the remaining
authorized shares to be purchased was
485,142.
|
(6)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place from October 1, 2009 to October 31,
2009 had purchase limitations on the number of shares of up to
500,000 shares. As of October 31, 2009, the remaining
authorized shares to be purchased was
460,668.
|
(7)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place from November 1, 2009 to November
30, 2009 had purchase limitations on the number of
shares of up to 500,000 shares. As of November 30,
2009, the remaining authorized shares to be purchased was
435,083.
|
(8)
|
The
share purchase authorization in place from December 1, 2009 to December
31, 2009 had purchase limitations on the number of
shares of up to 500,000 shares. As of December 31,
2009, the remaining authorized shares to be purchased was
339,876.
|
The
timing and expiration date of the stock repurchase authorizations as well as an
amendment to our current repurchase plan are included in Note 9, “Share
Repurchase” to our Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
included elsewhere in this report.
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
Not
Applicable.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None.
Item
5. Other Information
None.
Item 6. Exhibits
Exhibit
No.
|
Exhibit
Description
|
Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer of ePlus inc. pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and
15d-14(a).
|
|
Certification
of the Chief Financial Officer of ePlus inc. pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and
15d-14(a).
|
|
Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of ePlus inc. pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350.
|
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.
ePlus
inc.
|
|
Date:
February 4, 2010
|
/s/PHILLIP G. NORTON
|
By:
Phillip G. Norton, Chairman of the Board,
|
|
President
and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
Date:
February 4, 2010
|
/s/ELAINE D. MARION
|
By:
Elaine D. Marion
|
|
Chief
Financial Officer
|
|
(Principal
Financial Officer)
|
50