MERCURY SYSTEMS INC - Quarter Report: 2013 March (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2013

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                      TO                     

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 0-23599

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

978-256-1300

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Indicate by check mark 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 (§ 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  x    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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

Shares of Common Stock outstanding as of April 30, 2013: 32,325,536 shares

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

INDEX

2

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

3

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

4

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

5

MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Amounts in thousands except per share data)

(Unaudited)

A. Description of Business

Mercury Systems, Inc., formerly Mercury Computer Systems, Inc., (the “Company” or “Mercury”) is a best-of-breed provider of commercially developed, open sensor and Big Data processing systems, software and services for critical commercial, defense and intelligence applications. The Company delivers innovative solutions, rapid time-to-value and world-class service and support to our prime contractor customers. The Company has worked on over 300 programs, including Aegis, Patriot, SEWIP, Gorgon Stare and Predator/Reaper.

The Company’s goal is to grow and build on its position as a critical component of the defense and intelligence industrial base and become the leading provider of open and affordable sensor processing subsystems. The Mercury Commercial Electronics (“MCE”) operating segment designs, develops and builds open sensor processing products and subsystems that include embedded processing modules and subsystems, radio frequency (“RF”) and microwave multi-function assemblies as well as subsystems, and RF and microwave components. The Mercury Defense Systems (“MDS”) operating segment leverages building blocks provided by MCE to build solutions for electronic warfare (“EW”) and electronic countermeasures, electro optical/infrared, signal intelligence (“SIGINT”) and radar environment test and simulation. The Mercury Intelligence Systems (“MIS”) operating segment delivers Big Data analytic processing, predictive analytics and multi-intelligence analysis in support of the intelligence community.

B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared by the Company in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to the Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Certain information and footnote disclosures, normally included in annual consolidated financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations; however, in the opinion of management the financial information reflects all adjustments, consisting of adjustments of a normal recurring nature, necessary for fair presentation. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 which are contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on August 22, 2012. The results for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year.

Prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company consisted of two reportable segments: Advanced Computing Solutions (“ACS”) and Mercury Federal Systems (“MFS”). Following a series of acquisitions that expanded the Company’s capabilities, the Company initiated a reorganization to group its product and service offerings in order to align itself with the way management currently manages its business. As of March 31, 2013, the Company is comprised of the following three operating segments: MCE, MDS and MIS. The Company reports MCE as a standalone reportable segment and has aggregated MDS and MIS to form the reportable segment Mercury Defense and Intelligence Systems (“MDIS”). The Company has presented prior period amounts to conform with the new reportable segments. None of these changes impact the Company’s previously reported consolidated financial results. See Note K of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

6

BUSINESS COMBINATIONS

The Company utilizes the acquisition method of accounting under Financial Accounting Standard Boards (“FASB”) Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) 805, Business Combinations, (“FASB ASC 805”), for all transactions and events which it obtains control over one or more other businesses, to recognize the fair value of all assets and liabilities acquired, even if less than one hundred percent ownership is acquired, and in establishing the acquisition date fair value as measurement date for all assets and liabilities assumed. The Company also utilizes FASB ASC 805 for the initial recognition and measurement, subsequent measurement and accounting, and disclosure of assets and liabilities arising from contingencies in business combinations.

USE OF ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

REVENUE RECOGNITION

The Company relies upon FASB ASC 605, Revenue Recognition to account for its revenue transactions. Revenue from sales are recognized upon shipment provided that title and risk of loss have passed to the customer, there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the sales price is fixed or determinable, collection of the related receivable is reasonably assured, and customer acceptance criteria, if any, have been successfully demonstrated.

Certain contracts with customers require the Company to perform tests of its products prior to shipment to ensure their performance complies with the Company’s published product specifications and, on occasion, with additional customer-requested specifications. In these cases, the Company conducts such tests and, if they are completed successfully, includes a written confirmation with each order shipped. As a result, at the time of each product shipment, the Company believes that no further customer testing requirements exist and that there is no uncertainty of acceptance by its customer.

The Company enters into multiple-deliverable arrangements that may include a combination of hardware components, related integration or other services. These arrangements generally do not include any performance-, cancellation-, termination- or refund-type provisions.

The Company uses FASB Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2009-13 (“FASB ASU 2009-13”), Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements. FASB ASU 2009-13 establishes a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable, which includes: (1) vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) if available; (2) third-party evidence (“TPE”) if VSOE is not available; and (3) best estimated selling price (“BESP”), if neither VSOE nor TPE is available.

Per the provisions of FASB ASU 2009-13, the Company allocates arrangement consideration to each deliverable in an arrangement based on its relative selling price. The Company generally expects that it will not be able to establish VSOE or TPE due to limited single element transactions and the nature of the markets in which the Company competes, and, as such, the Company typically determines its relative selling price using BESP.

The Company uses BESP in its allocation of arrangement consideration. The objective of BESP is to determine the price at which the Company would transact if the product or service were sold by the Company on a standalone basis.

7

The Company’s determination of BESP involves the consideration of several factors based on the specific facts and circumstances of each arrangement. Specifically, the Company considers the cost to produce the deliverable, the anticipated margin on that deliverable, the selling price and profit margin for similar parts, the Company’s ongoing pricing strategy and policies (as evident from the price list established and updated by management on a regular basis), the value of any enhancements that have been built into the deliverable and the characteristics of the varying markets in which the deliverable is sold.

The Company analyzes the selling prices used in its allocation of arrangement consideration at a minimum on an annual basis. Selling prices will be analyzed on a more frequent basis if a significant change in the Company’s business necessitates a more timely analysis or if the Company experiences significant variances in its selling prices.

Each deliverable within the Company’s multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements is accounted for as a separate unit of accounting under the guidance of FASB ASU 2009-13 if both of the following criteria are met: the delivered item or items have value to the customer on a standalone basis; and for an arrangement that includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item(s), delivery or performance of the undelivered item(s) is considered probable and substantially in the control of the Company. The Company considers a deliverable to have standalone value if the item is sold separately by the Company or another vendor or if the item could be resold by the customer. Further, the Company’s revenue arrangements generally do not include a general right of return relative to delivered products.

Deliverables not meeting the criteria for being a separate unit of accounting are combined with a deliverable that does meet that criterion. The appropriate allocation of arrangement consideration and recognition of revenue is then determined for the combined unit of accounting.

WEIGHTED-AVERAGE SHARES

Weighted-average shares were calculated as follows:

Equity instruments to purchase 3,351 and 1,543 shares of common stock were not included in the calculation of diluted net earnings per share for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2013, respectively, because the equity instruments were anti-dilutive. Equity instruments to purchase 1,267 and 925 shares of common stock were not included in the calculation of diluted net earnings per share for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2012, respectively, because the equity instruments were anti-dilutive.

C. Acquisitions

MICRONETICS ACQUISITION

On June 8, 2012, the Company and Wildcat Merger Sub Inc., a newly formed, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger Sub”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Micronetics, Inc. (“Micronetics”). On August 8, 2012, the transaction was closed. The Merger Sub merged with and into Micronetics with Micronetics continuing as the surviving company and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

8

Headquartered in Hudson, NH, Micronetics is a leading designer and manufacturer of microwave and radio frequency (RF) subsystems and components for defense and commercial customers.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the closing of the merger on August 8, 2012, each share of common stock of Micronetics issued and outstanding immediately prior to the closing was converted into the right to receive $14.80 in cash, without interest (the “Merger Consideration”). All outstanding options to acquire shares of Micronetics common stock that were vested as of the closing were cancelled and the holders of such options were entitled to receive an amount of cash equal to the product of the total number of shares previously subject to such vested options and the excess of the Merger Consideration over the exercise price per share. All outstanding Micronetics stock options that were unvested at the closing were replaced by Mercury. The replacement stock options granted were determined based on a conversion ratio provided in the Merger Agreement. Micronetics existing bank debt was paid in full by Mercury on the closing date. Mercury funded the acquisition with cash on hand.

The following table presents the net purchase price and the preliminary fair values of the assets and liabilities of Micronetics:

The amounts above represent the preliminary fair value estimates as of March 31, 2013 and are subject to subsequent adjustment as the Company obtains additional information during the measurement period ending August 7, 2013 and finalizes its fair value estimates. Any subsequent adjustments to these fair value estimates occurring during the measurement period will result in an adjustment to goodwill or income, as applicable.

The goodwill of $46,479 arising from the Micronetics acquisition largely reflects the potential synergies and expansion of the Company’s service offerings across product segments and markets complementary to the Company’s existing products and markets. The Micronetics acquisition provides the Company with additional capability and expertise related to microwave and radio frequency technology. The acquisition is directly aligned with the Company’s strategy of expanding its capabilities, services and offerings along the sensor processing chain.

9

For the three and nine months ended March 31, 2013, Micronetics’ revenue of $10,341 and $24,747, respectively, and net income of $830 and net loss of $3,683, respectively, were included in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. The Company has not furnished pro forma financial information relating to the Micronetics acquisition because such information is not material to the Company’s financial results.

D. Goodwill

The following table sets forth the changes in the carrying amount of goodwill prior to the internal reorganization for the six months ended December 31, 2012:

The goodwill adjustment for the KOR acquisition is the result of changes in fair value estimates derived from additional information obtained during the measurement period which ended December 30, 2012.

Following a series of acquisitions that expanded the Company’s capabilities, the Company initiated a reorganization to group its product and service offerings in order to align itself with the way management currently manages its business. The following reporting units were determined based upon the nature of the products offered to customers and the market characteristics of each reporting unit: MCE, MDS and MIS. As defined by FASB ASC 350—“Intangibles—Goodwill and Other” “ASC 350”, goodwill is tested on an interim basis at the occurrence of certain triggering events. Events affecting reporting units such as a change in the composition or carrying amount of its net assets constitute a triggering event and require interim testing of goodwill. The Company performed interim testing on the ACS and MFS reporting units prior to the reorganization.

The Company engaged a valuation expert in order to assist management in determining the fair values of the ACS and MFS reporting units as of January 1, 2013. Consistent with prior years, the valuation was based upon a discounted cash flow analysis and corroborated by two market-based analyses: one comparing the trading multiples of public companies in similar lines of business and another based on exchange prices in actual business combinations. The results of the Company’s step one interim goodwill impairment test indicated that the fair values of both the ACS and MFS reporting units were in excess of its book values. As such, step two of the goodwill impairment testing was not required and no impairment charge was recorded. The Company acknowledges that the assumptions used during its fair value analysis are subject to management judgment and have a direct impact to the valuation results. The discount rate utilized in the discounted cash flow analysis was increased from historical measures due to the current economic uncertainty in the defense industry, including current government fiscal year federal budget sequestration and the potential for a continuing budget resolution for the next government fiscal year. The Company’s updated financial projections were used in the discounted cash flow analysis in consideration of current economic factors. The Company believes that the assumptions and projections used in its analyses for ACS and MFS were reasonable, however, using different assumptions could lead to different results. For example, a 1% increase in the discount rate used in the discounted cash flow analysis of the ACS reporting unit would result in the failure of the step one interim goodwill impairment test.

The Company reviewed its analysis of its internally reorganized business in order to determine its reporting units in accordance with ASC 350. A reporting unit is considered to be an operating segment or one level below an operating segment also known as a component. The Company’s operating segments subsequent to the internal reorganization are MCE, MDS and MIS.

10

MCE has three components with discrete financial information available which are reviewed by their segment manager; however, those three components are economically similar in nature and thus have been aggregated into a single reporting unit at the operating segment level. MDS and MIS each have sole components and the reporting units are at the operating segment level.

The Company allocated the total carrying value of goodwill to each of the new reporting units based on the relative fair value of the reporting units calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis and in accordance with ASC 350. There was no impairment of goodwill indicated subsequent to the allocation.

The following table summarizes the goodwill for the three months ended March 31, 2013, after reallocation:

The Company also evaluated its market capitalization as of January 1, 2013 which approximated the fair value of the Company at that time when considering an appropriate control premium. The Company believes the decline of its market capitalization to be a temporary reaction to the uncertainty that federal budget sequestration is having on the defense industry. The Company is not aware of any recent cancellations of any key defense programs in which it participates. While the Company has seen delays in certain programs, it believes these delays are temporary. Furthermore, the Company believes a short term decline in its market capitalization is not indicative of a permanent trend.

The Company performs its annual goodwill impairment test in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year. Additionally, the Company will continue to monitor its market capitalization and evaluate whether the decline is no longer temporary.

E. Acquired Intangible Assets

Acquired intangible assets consisted of the following:

11

Estimated future amortization expense for acquired intangible assets remaining at March 31, 2013 is as follows:

The following table summarizes the preliminary estimated fair value of acquired intangible assets arising as a result of the Micronetics acquisition. These assets are included in the Company’s gross and net carrying amounts as of March 31, 2013.

F. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The Company measures at fair value certain financial assets and liabilities, including cash equivalents and restricted cash. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures, specifies a hierarchy of valuation techniques based on whether the inputs to those valuation techniques are observable or unobservable. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s market assumptions. These two types of inputs have created the following fair-value hierarchy:

Level 1—Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets;

Level 2—Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets; and

Level 3—Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable.

The following table summarizes the Company’s financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis at March 31, 2013:

12

The carrying values of cash and cash equivalents, including all U.S. Treasury bills and money market funds, accounts receivable and payable, and accrued liabilities approximate fair value due to the short-term maturities of these assets and liabilities.

G. Inventory

Inventory is stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market value, and consists of materials, labor and overhead. On a quarterly basis, the Company uses consistent methodologies to evaluate inventory for net realizable value. The Company reduces the value of inventory for excess and obsolete inventory, consisting of on-hand and non-cancelable on-order inventory in excess of estimated usage. The excess and obsolete inventory evaluation is based upon assumptions about future demand, history, product mix and possible alternative uses. Inventory was comprised of the following:

The $12,899 increase of inventory was primarily due to inventory from the Micronetics acquisition. There are no amounts in inventory relating to contracts having production cycles longer than one year.

H. Debt

Senior Unsecured Credit Facility

On October 12, 2012, the Company entered into a credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of commercial banks, with KeyBank National Association acting as the administrative agent. The Credit Agreement provides for a $200,000 senior unsecured revolving line of credit (the “Revolver”). The Company can borrow up to $200,000 based on consolidated EBITDA for the four quarters ended March 31, 2013 and subject to compliance with the financial covenants discussed below. The Revolver is available for working capital, acquisitions, and general corporate purposes of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Revolver is available for borrowing during a five year period, with interest payable periodically during such period as provided in the Credit Agreement and principal due at the maturity of the Revolver.

The Credit Agreement has an accordion feature permitting the Company to request from the lenders an increase in the aggregate amount of the credit facility in the form of an incremental revolver or term loan in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Any such increase would require only the consent of the lenders increasing their respective commitments under the credit facility.

The interest rates applicable to borrowings under the Credit Agreement involve various rate options that are available to the Company. The rates are calculated using a combination of conventional base rate measures plus a margin over those rates. The base rates consist of LIBOR rates or prime rates. The actual rates will depend on the level of these underlying rates plus a margin based on the Company’s leverage at the time of borrowing.

Borrowings under the Credit Agreement are senior unsecured loans. Each of the Company’s domestic subsidiaries is a guarantor under the Credit Agreement.

The Credit Agreement provides for conventional affirmative and negative covenants, including a maximum leverage ratio of 3.50x and a minimum interest coverage ratio of 3.0x. Each of the two ratios referred to above is calculated based on consolidated EBITDA, as defined in the Credit Agreement, for each consecutive four fiscal quarter period, after giving pro forma effect for any acquisitions or dispositions. Acquisitions are permitted under

13

the Credit Agreement without any dollar limitation so long as, among other requirements, no default or event of default exists or would result therefore; as of March 31, 2013, the Company is in compliance with a maximum leverage ratio of 3.25x and a minimum interest coverage ratio of 3.0x, in each case, after giving pro forma effect to the applicable acquisition. In addition, the Credit Agreement contains certain customary representations and warranties, and events of default.

As of March 31, 2013, there was $54,613 of borrowing capacity available. There were no borrowings outstanding on the Credit Agreement; however, there were outstanding letters of credit of $3,000. The Company was in compliance with all covenants and conditions under the Credit Agreement.

Senior Secured Credit Facility

In connection with entering into the Credit Agreement, on October 12, 2012, the Company terminated its Loan and Security Agreement with Silicon Valley Bank dated February 12, 2010, as amended on March 30, 2011 (the “Loan Agreement”). The Loan Agreement provided for a $35,000 revolving line of credit. The Company terminated the Loan Agreement early without penalty. Silicon Valley Bank released its security interests in the Company’s assets in connection with the termination of the Loan Agreement.

I. Commitments and Contingencies

LEGAL CLAIMS

The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) conducted an investigation into the conduct of certain former employees of Paragon Dynamics, Inc. (“PDI”) (which was acquired by the Company in connection with the acquisition of KOR Electronics on December 30, 2011) in the 2008-2009 time frame, asserting, among other things, that such conduct may have constituted a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. On August 31, 2012, the DOJ and PDI entered into a settlement agreement related to the investigation pursuant to which the DOJ released PDI and its affiliates from any civil monetary claims relating to the alleged conduct. PDI did not admit liability for the alleged conduct in the settlement. We were indemnified with respect to this matter by the former shareholders of KOR Electronics pursuant to the Company’s merger agreement with KOR dated December 30, 2011.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to litigation, claims, investigations and audits arising from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to any matters currently pending against the Company and intends to defend itself vigorously. The outcome of these matters, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s cash flows, results of operations, or financial position.

INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS

The Company’s standard product sales and license agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business typically contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any patent, copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. Such provisions generally survive termination or expiration of the agreements. The potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is, in some instances, unlimited.

PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has entered into non-cancelable purchase commitments for certain inventory components and services used in its normal operations. The purchase commitments covered by these agreements are for less than one year and aggregate to $19,016.

14

J. Stock-Based Compensation

STOCK OPTION PLANS

The number of shares authorized for issuance under the Company’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (the “2005 Plan”), is 7,764 shares at March 31, 2013. On October 17, 2012, the Company’s shareholders approved an increase in the number of shares authorized for issuance under the 2005 plan to 7,592 shares, an increase of 1,500 shares. The 2005 Plan will be increased by any future cancellations, forfeitures or terminations (other than by exercise) under the Company’s 1997 Stock Option Plan (the “1997 Plan”). The 2005 Plan provides for the grant of non-qualified and incentive stock options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights and deferred stock awards to employees and non-employees. All stock options are granted with an exercise price of not less than 100% of the fair value of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant and the options generally have a term of seven years. There were 2,232 shares available for future grant under the 2005 Plan at March 31, 2013.

The number of shares authorized for issuance under the 1997 Plan was 8,650 shares, of which 100 shares could be issued pursuant to restricted stock grants. The 1997 Plan provided for the grant of non-qualified and incentive stock options and restricted stock to employees and non-employees. All stock options were granted with an exercise price of not less than 100% of the fair value of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant. The options typically vested over periods up to four years and have a maximum term of 10 years. Following shareholder approval of the 2005 Plan on November 14, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors determined that no further grants of stock options or other awards would be made under the 1997 Plan, and the 1997 Plan subsequently expired in June 2007. The foregoing does not affect any outstanding awards under the 1997 Plan, which remains in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

The number of shares authorized for issuance under the Company’s 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated (“ESPP”), is 1,400 shares. Under the ESPP, rights are granted to purchase shares of common stock at 85% of the lesser of the market value of such shares at either the beginning or the end of each six-month offering period. The ESPP permits employees to purchase common stock through payroll deductions, which may not exceed 10% of an employee’s compensation as defined in the ESPP. There were 52 and 58 shares issued under the ESPP during the nine months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012. Shares available for future purchase under the ESPP totaled 307 at March 31, 2013.

STOCK OPTION AND AWARD ACTIVITY

The following table summarizes activity of the Company’s stock option plans since June 30, 2011:

15

On August 8, 2012, the Company completed its acquisition of Micronetics. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, all outstanding options to acquire shares of Micronetics common stock that were vested at the closing were cancelled and the holders of such options received an amount of cash equal to the product of the total number of shares previously subject to such vested options and the excess of the merger consideration over the exercise price per share. All outstanding Micronetics stock options that were unvested at the closing were replaced by the Company. The replacement stock options granted were determined based on a conversion ratio provided in the Merger Agreement. The 271 of stock options granted in the table above reflect the replacement of the unvested Micronetics stock options as of August 8, 2012.

STOCK OPTION ASSUMPTIONS

The following table sets forth the weighted-average key fair value results and assumptions for stock options granted during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012:

The following table summarizes the status of the Company’s non-vested restricted stock awards since June 30, 2011:

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION EXPENSE

The Company recognized the full expense of its share-based payment plans in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 in accordance with FASB ASC 718

16

and did not capitalize any such costs on the consolidated balance sheets, as such costs that qualified for capitalization were not material. Under the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC 718, stock-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the value of the award and is recognized as expense over the service period. The following table presents share-based compensation expenses included in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations:

K. Operating Segment, Geographic Information and Significant Customers

Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise evaluated regularly by the Company’s chief operating decision maker (“CODM”) in deciding how to allocate resources and assess performance. Prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company’s operating segments were the same as its reporting segments: Advanced Computing Solutions and Mercury Federal Systems. Following a series of acquisitions that expanded the Company’s capabilities, the Company initiated a reorganization to group its product and service offerings in the manner which the Company’s CODM manages and evaluates the business. Therefore, the Company utilized the management approach for determining reportable segments in accordance with the authoritative guidance. Beginning with the third quarter ended March 31, 2013, the Company redefined its operating and reportable segments. The following operating segments were determined based upon the nature of the products offered to customers, the market characteristics of each operating segment and the Company’s management structure:

The Company’s operating segments were evaluated in accordance with FASB ASC 280— “Segment Reporting” in order to determine which operating segments qualified as reportable segments. The Company considered qualitative factors, including the economic characteristics of each operating segment to determine if any of its three operating segments qualified for aggregation into fewer reportable segments.

17

The Company’s evaluation of the economic characteristics of its operating segments included comparisons of revenues and applicable growth rates, gross margins, operating margins, future projections, and additional non-GAAP financial measurements which indicate that MDS and MIS have similar economic characteristics. The Company also evaluated the following qualitative factors in accordance with FASB ASC 280 paragraph 10-50-11: the nature of products and services, the corresponding production processes, the types of customers, distribution methods for products and services and the nature of the corresponding regulatory environment associated with its operating segments. The Company determined each of these factors are similar for both the MDS and MIS operating segments and supports the aggregation of MDS and MIS into one reportable segment, Mercury Defense and Intelligence Systems (“MDIS”).

The Company analyzed quantitative thresholds of each reportable segment including but not limited to reported revenues, including sales to external customers and intersegment sales or transfers, reported profits or losses, and total assets of each operating segment. The Company determined that both MCE and MDIS met the quantitative thresholds for reporting.

The Company reclassified the segment data for the prior periods presented below to conform to the current year’s presentation.

The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those described in “Note B: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” The profitability measure employed by the Company and its CODM as the basis for allocating resources to segments and assessing segment performance is adjusted EBITDA. The Company believes the adjusted EBITDA financial measure assists in providing an enhanced understanding of its underlying operational measures to manage its business, to evaluate its performance compared to prior periods and the marketplace, and to establish operational goals.

18

Adjusted EBITDA is defined as net income (loss) before interest income and expense, income taxes, depreciation, amortization of acquired intangible assets, restructuring, impairment of long-lived assets, acquisition costs and other related expenses, fair value adjustments from purchase accounting and stock-based compensation costs. Prior year’s amounts have been presented to reflect the current profitability measures for comparative purposes. Additionally, asset information by reportable segment is not reported because the Company and its CODM utilize consolidated asset information when making business decisions. The following is a summary of the performance of the Company’s operations by reportable segment: