Veradigm Inc. - Quarter Report: 2012 June (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012

OR

Commission file number 000-32085

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

222 Merchandise Mart, Suite 2024

Chicago, IL 60654

(Address of principal executive offices)

(312) 506-1200

(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 Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 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 definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

As of July 31, 2012, there were 171,386,035 shares of the registrant’s $0.01 par value common stock outstanding.

Table of Contents

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

FORM 10-Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

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

3

Table of Contents

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

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

4

Table of Contents

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

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

5

Table of Contents

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

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

6

Table of Contents

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.

Unaudited Interim Financial Information

The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements as of and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for interim financial reporting. These consolidated financial statements are unaudited and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments and accruals, necessary to present fairly the consolidated financial statements for the periods presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2012.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been omitted in accordance with the SEC’s rules and regulations for interim reporting. These unaudited interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates.

Significant Accounting Policies

We have updated our revenue recognition accounting policy disclosure from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 to include discussion of additional revenue elements. There has been no change in our accounting for revenue. Also, there have been no other changes to our significant accounting policies from those disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

7

Table of Contents

Revenue Recognition

Revenue represents the fair value of consideration received or receivable from clients for goods and services provided by the Company. Revenue from system sales includes software and related hardware. Revenue from professional services includes implementation, training and consulting services. Revenue from maintenance includes post contract customer support and maintenance services. Revenue from transaction processing and other includes electronic data interchange (“EDI”) services, Software-as-a-Service (“SaaS”) transactions, software hosting services, and outsourcing. For some clients, we host the software applications licensed from us remotely using our own or third party servers, which saves these clients the cost of procuring and maintaining hardware and related facilities. For other clients, we offer an outsourced solution in which we assume partial to total responsibility for a healthcare organization’s information technology operations using our employees.

Revenue from software licensing arrangements where the service element is not considered essential to the functionality of the other elements of the arrangement is recognized upon delivery of the software or as services are performed, provided persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, fees are considered fixed or determinable, and collection of the receivable is probable. The revenue recognized for each separate element of a multiple-element software contract is based upon vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value, which is based upon the price the customer is required to pay when the element is sold separately or renewed. For arrangements in which vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value only exists for the undelivered elements, the delivered elements (which is generally software licenses) are accounted for using the residual method.

Revenue from software licensing arrangements, where the service element is considered essential to the functionality of the other elements of the arrangement, is accounted for on an input basis under percentage of completion accounting using actual hours worked as a percentage of total expected hours required by the arrangement, provided that persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the fee is fixed or determinable and collection of the receivable is probable. Maintenance and support from these agreements is recognized over the term of the support agreement based on vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value of the maintenance revenue, which is based upon contractual renewal rates. For income statement presentation, consideration from agreements accounted for under percentage of completion accounting is allocated between software and services based on vendor specific evidence of our hourly services rate multiplied by the amount of hours performed with the residual amount allocated to software license fee.

Revenue from certain value-added reseller (“VAR”) relationships in which software is directly sold to VARs is recognized upon delivery of the software assuming all other revenue recognition criteria have been met. Revenue recognition is deferred until the software is delivered to the ultimate end user if the arrangement terms do not satisfy the criteria for revenue recognition upon delivery of the software to the VAR.

Fees related to SaaS arrangements are recognized as revenue ratably over the contract terms beginning on the date our solutions are made available to customers. These arrangements include professional services fees related to the implementation and set-up of our solutions and are generally billed upfront and recorded as deferred revenue until our solutions are made available to the customer. The implementation and set-up fees are recognized as revenue ratably over the estimated customer relationship period. The estimated length of a customer relationship period is based on our experience with customer contract renewals and consideration of the period over which such customers utilize our SaaS solutions.

Software hosting services are provided to clients that have purchased a perpetual license to our software solutions and contracted with us to host the software. Generally, these arrangements provide the client with a contractual right to take possession of the software at any time during the hosting period without significant penalty and it is feasible for the client to either use the software on its own equipment or to contract with an unrelated third party to host the software. Hosting services are not deemed to be essential to the functionality of the software or other elements of the arrangement; accordingly, for these arrangements, we recognize software license revenues as system sales revenue upon delivery, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria have been met, and separately recognize fees for the hosting services as transaction processing and other revenue over the term of the hosting arrangement.

8

Table of Contents

We also enter into multiple-element arrangements that may include a combination of various software-related and nonsoftware-related products and services. Management applies judgment to ensure appropriate accounting for multiple deliverables, including the allocation of arrangement consideration among multiple units of accounting, the determination of whether undelivered elements are essential to the functionality of delivered elements, and the timing of revenue recognition, among others. In such arrangements, we first allocate the total arrangement consideration based on a selling price hierarchy at the inception of the arrangement. The selling price for each element is based upon the following selling price hierarchy: vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value if available, third-party evidence of fair value if vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value is not available, or estimated selling price if neither vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence of fair value is available (a description as to how we determine vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value, third-party evidence of fair value and estimated selling price is provided below). Upon allocation of consideration to the software elements as a whole and nonsoftware elements, we then further allocate consideration within the software group to the respective elements following higher-level, industry-specific guidance and our policies described above. After the arrangement consideration has been allocated to the elements, we account for each respective element in the arrangement as described above.

To determine the selling price in multiple-element arrangements, we establish vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value using the price charged for a deliverable when sold separately and contractual renewal rates for maintenance fees. For nonsoftware multiple element arrangements, third-party evidence of fair value is established by evaluating similar and interchangeable competitor products or services in standalone arrangements with similarly situated customers. If we are unable to determine the selling price because vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence of fair value does not exist, we determine an estimated selling price by considering several external and internal factors including, but not limited to, pricing practices, margin objectives, competition, customer demand, internal costs and overall economic trends. The determination of an estimated selling price is made through consultation with and approval by our management, taking into consideration our go-to-market strategy. As our, or our competitors’, pricing and go-to-market strategies evolve, we may modify our pricing practices in the future. These events could result in changes to our determination of vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value, third-party evidence of fair value and estimated selling price. Selling prices are analyzed on an annual basis or more frequently if we experience significant changes in our selling prices.

For those arrangements where the deliverables do not qualify as separate units of accounting, revenue recognition is evaluated for the combined deliverables as a single unit of accounting and generally the recognition pattern of the final deliverable will dictate the revenue recognition pattern for the single, combined unit of accounting. Changes in circumstances and customer data may affect management’s analysis of separation criteria which may lead to an upward or downward adjustment to the amount of revenue recognized under the arrangement.

We assess whether fees are fixed or determinable at the time of sale and recognize revenues if all other revenue recognition requirements are met. Our payment arrangements with clients typically include milestone-based software license fee payments and payments based upon delivery for services and hardware.

While most of our arrangements include short-term payment terms, we periodically provide extended payment terms to clients from the date of contract signing. We do not recognize revenue under extended payment term arrangements until such payments become due. In certain circumstances, where all other revenue recognition criteria have been met, we occasionally offer discounts to clients with extended payment terms, in order to accelerate the timing of when payments are made. Changes to extended payment term arrangements have not had a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.

Maintenance fees are recognized ratably over the period of the contract based on vendor specific objective evidence of fair value based upon contractual renewal rates. Revenue from EDI services is recognized as services are provided and is determined based on the volume of transactions processed.

We provide outsourcing services to our clients under arrangements that typically range from five to ten years in duration. Under these arrangements we assume full, partial or transitional responsibilities for a healthcare organization’s IT operations using our employees. Our outsourcing services include facilities management, network outsourcing and transition management. Revenue from these arrangements is recognized as services are performed.

Revenue is recognized net of any taxes collected from customers and subsequently remitted to governmental authorities. We record as revenue any amounts billed to customers for shipping and handling costs and record as cost of revenue the actual shipping costs incurred.

The Company records reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as professional services revenue in the statement of operations.

Revenue earned on contracts in excess of billings is included in the balance of accounts receivable. Billings are expected to occur according to the contract terms.

9

Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued updated authoritative guidance for testing goodwill for impairment. This guidance allows entities to use a qualitative approach to test goodwill for impairment. The guidance permits an entity to first perform a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value. If it is concluded that this is the case, it is necessary to perform the currently prescribed two-step goodwill impairment test. Otherwise, the two-step goodwill impairment test is not required. This guidance is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. This guidance will not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued additional authoritative guidance related to fair value measurements and disclosures to provide a consistent definition of fair value and ensure that the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are similar between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. This guidance changes certain fair value measurement principles and enhances the disclosure requirements particularly for Level 3 fair value measurements. This guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2011 and will be applied prospectively. We do not currently have Level 3 fair value instruments. This guidance did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

10

Table of Contents

2. Fair Value Measurements

The fair values of assets and liabilities required to be measured at fair value are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their value. Hierarchical levels are as follows:

Level 1: Inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities at the measurement date. Our Level 1 investments include money market funds valued daily by the fund companies, and the valuation is based on the publicly reported net asset value of each fund.

Level 2: Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability. Our Level 2 non-derivative investments include marketable securities and consist of mortgage and asset-backed bonds. Marketable securities are recorded at fair value determined using a market approach, based on prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets which are considered to be Level 2 inputs. Our Level 2 derivative financial instrument represents an interest rate swap contract which is valued based upon observable values for underlying interest rates and market determined risk premiums.

Level 3: Inputs are unobservable for the asset or liability, and include situations where there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability. We have no Level 3 financial instruments.

The following table summarizes our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of the respective balance sheet dates:

We hold investments in certain non-marketable equity securities in which we do not have a controlling interest or significant influence. These investments are recorded at cost with a carrying value of $13 million at June 30, 2012 and are included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. We measure our cost method investments at fair value on a nonrecurring basis when they are deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired. If an evaluation is required, the fair value of these investments will be determined based on valuation techniques using the best information available and may include quoted market prices, market comparables, and discounted cash flow projections.

Our long-term financial liabilities consist of long-term debt with a carrying value that approximates fair value since the interest rate approximates current market rates.

11

Table of Contents

3. Stockholders’ Equity

Stock-based Awards

We measure stock-based compensation cost at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and recognize the expense over the appropriate service period typically on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures. The fair value of restricted stock units and restricted stock awards are measured at their underlying closing share price on the date of grant.

We recorded stock-based compensation expense as follows:

Stock-based compensation expense is reflected in cost of revenue and the functional lines within operating expenses. No stock-based compensation costs were capitalized during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.

We granted stock-based awards as follows:

Stock Repurchases

In April 2011, our Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program under which we may purchase up to $200 million of our common stock over three years expiring on May 9, 2014 or such earlier time that the total dollar amount authorized by these resolutions has been used. In April 2012, our Board of Directors approved the repurchase of an additional $200 million bringing the total repurchase authorization to $400 million. Any share repurchases may be made through open market transactions, block trades, privately negotiated transactions (including accelerated share repurchase transactions) or other means. Any repurchase activity will depend on factors such as our working capital needs, cash requirements for investments, debt repayment obligations, our stock price, and economic and market conditions. Our stock repurchase program may be accelerated, suspended, delayed or discontinued at any time.

During the six months ended June 30, 2012, we repurchased approximately 21 million shares of our common stock for approximately $226 million pursuant to this stock repurchase program. As of June 30, 2012, the amount available for repurchase of common stock under this program was approximately $123 million.

Net Share-settlements

Beginning in 2011, upon vesting, restricted stock units and awards are generally net share-settled to cover the required withholding tax and the remaining amount is converted into an equivalent number of shares of common stock. The majority of restricted stock units and awards that have vested in 2012 were net-share settled such that we withheld shares with value equivalent to the employees’ minimum statutory obligation for the applicable income and other employment taxes and remitted the cash to the appropriate taxing authorities. The total shares withheld were 227 thousand for the six months ended June 30, 2012, and were based on the value of the restricted stock units and awards on their vesting date as determined by our closing stock price. Total payments for the employees’ tax obligations to the taxing authorities are reflected as a financing activity within the consolidated statements of cash flows. These net-share settlements had the effect of share repurchases by us as they reduced the number of shares that would have otherwise been issued as a result of the vesting.

12

Table of Contents

Stockholder Rights Plan

The Company is authorized to issue up to 1 million shares of preferred stock, of which 349 thousand shares have been designated as Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock in connection with the adoption of a rights agreement discussed below. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, no shares of preferred stock were issued or outstanding.

On May 5, 2012, our Board of Directors adopted a stockholder rights plan (“Rights Plan”) and declared a dividend distribution of one right (each, a “Right”) for each outstanding share of the Company’s common stock to stockholders of record at the close of business on May 17, 2012. Each Right entitles its holder, under certain circumstances, to purchase from the Company one one-thousandth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of the Company at an exercise price of $45.00 per Right, subject to adjustment. The description and terms of the Rights are set forth in a Rights Agreement, dated as of May 7, 2012 (the “Rights Agreement”), between the Company and Computershare Shareowner Services LLC, as Rights agent.

Under the terms of the Rights Plan, the Rights will be exercisable if a person or group, without Board approval, acquires 10% or more of Allscripts’ common stock (including in the form of synthetic ownership through derivative positions) or announces a tender offer which would result in the ownership of 10% or more of Allscripts’ common stock. The Rights will trade with Allscripts’ common stock, unless and until they are separated upon the occurrence of certain future events. Under certain circumstances (including the acquisition by a person or group of 10% or more of Allscripts’ common stock), the Rights will entitle the holders to buy shares of Allscripts’ common stock at a 50% discount. Allscripts’ Board generally may redeem the Rights prior to the tenth day following the first public announcement of the acquisition by a person or group of 10% or more of the common stock.

The Rights Plan exempts any person or group owning 10% or more of Allscripts’ common stock immediately prior to the first public announcement of the Rights Plan. However, the Rights also will be exercisable if a person or group that already owns 10% or more of the common stock acquires any additional shares (including through derivatives). The Rights Plan will expire on May 6, 2013.

13

Table of Contents

4. Earnings Per Share

Basic income per share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted-average shares of outstanding common stock. For purposes of calculating diluted earnings per share, the denominator includes both the weighted average shares of common stock outstanding and dilutive potential common stock equivalents. Dilutive common stock equivalent shares consist of stock options and restricted stock unit awards using the treasury stock method.

The calculations of earnings per share are as follows:

The following stock options and share awards are not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share as the effect of including such stock options and share awards in the computation would be anti-dilutive:

14

Table of Contents

5. Goodwill and Intangible Assets

Goodwill and intangible assets consist of the following:

In connection with the integration of the Eclipsys operations, we recently realigned certain functions within our business. After the realignment and based upon the information used by management for making operating decisions and assessing performance, we identified the following operating and reportable segments: Software Delivery, Services Delivery, Client Support, Pathway Solutions and IT Outsourcing. Refer to Note 10 Business Segments for additional information. We are in the process of assessing our reporting units and the related allocation of goodwill as a result of the changes to our operating segments.

15

Table of Contents

6. Debt

Debt outstanding consisted of the following:

Interest expense consisted of the following:

16

Table of Contents

Credit Facility

On June 11, 2012, we entered into an Incremental Assumption Agreement (the “Agreement”) with J. P. Morgan Securities LLC, Mizuho Corporate Bank, LTD., SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. and other participating lenders to borrow additional amounts under our existing Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) in the form of a new incremental term loan. Proceeds from the incremental term loan of $150 million were used to partially refinance the $175 million outstanding under our revolving credit facility, which is provided for in the Credit Agreement. We also made a voluntary repayment of the revolver totaling $20 million at the time of the refinancing. The interest rate charged, debt covenants and other terms that apply to the term loan are defined by the terms of the Credit Agreement. We incurred debt issuance costs totaling $1 million related to the incremental term loan, which were deferred and included within other assets on the balance sheet.

The aggregate principal amount of the incremental term loan of $150 million is payable in quarterly installments commencing on September 30, 2012 as follows (in thousands):

The following table summarizes our future payments under the senior secured credit facilities including the incremental term loan as of June 30, 2012:

As of June 30, 2012, $483 million in term loans, $5 million under the revolving credit facility, and $2 million in letters of credit were outstanding under the Credit Agreement. As of June 30, 2012, the interest rate on the senior secured credit facilities was LIBOR plus 1.75%, which totaled 2.00%. Refer to Note 8 for a discussion of our interest rate swap agreement. There was no default under the Credit Agreement as of June 30, 2012. Unamortized deferred debt issuance costs totaled $13 million, and are included within other assets on the balance sheet at June 30, 2012.

As of June 30, 2012, we had $243 million available, net of outstanding letters of credit, under our revolving credit facility. There can be no assurance that we will be able to draw on the full available balance of our Credit Agreement if the financial institutions that have extended such credit commitments become unwilling or unable to fund such borrowings.

17

Table of Contents

7. Income Taxes

The provision for income taxes reflects our estimate of the effective tax rate expected to be applicable for the full year. To the extent that actual pre-tax results for the year differ from the forecasted estimates applied at the end of the most recent interim period, the actual tax rate recognized during calendar 2012 could be different from the forecast rate. Our provision for income taxes differs from the tax computed at the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate due primarily to state taxes and changes in state tax rates. The effective tax rates were as follows:

The effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2012 is lower compared to the prior year comparable period primarily due to the prior year recognition of the impact of state tax legislation that partially offset the tax benefit previously recognized as a result of the refinement of state apportionment factors, and subsequent revaluation of deferred tax liabilities. Also contributing to the decrease is lower state tax expense, which is expected to recur, compared to the prior year.

The effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2012 is higher compared to 2011 primarily due to the recognition in the prior year of the net tax benefit associated with the revaluation of deferred tax liabilities discussed above.

We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, numerous states and multiple international countries. We are subject to the continuous examination of our income tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. A change in the assessment of the outcomes of such matters could materially impact our consolidated financial statements.

Our unrecognized income tax benefits were $43 million as of June 30, 2012, which is consistent with the balance at December 31, 2011. The results and timing of the resolution of income tax audits is highly uncertain, and we are unable to estimate the range of possible changes to the balance of unrecognized income tax benefits. We report interest and penalties related to uncertain income tax positions in the provision for income taxes line of our consolidated statements of operations. With regard to the acquired tax position indemnified by Misys plc totaling $29 million at June 30, 2012, we expect a resolution of this matter within the next twelve months. The indemnification asset currently recorded is expected to fully cover the tax exposure and related interest.

18

Table of Contents

8. Derivative Financial Instruments

Interest Rate Swap Agreement

We entered into an interest rate swap agreement with an effective date of October 29, 2010 that has the economic effect of modifying the variable rate component of the interest obligations associated with a portion of our original variable rate term loan. The initial notional amount of the interest rate swap agreement is $300 million, with scheduled step downs in the future, and a final termination date of October 31, 2014. The interest rate swap agreement converts the one-month LIBOR rate on the corresponding notional amount of debt to an effective fixed rate of 0.896% (exclusive of the applicable margin currently charged under the Senior Secured Credit Facilities). The critical terms of the interest rate swap agreement and the related debt agreement match and allow us to designate the interest rate swap agreement as a highly effective cash flow hedge under GAAP. The interest rate swap agreement protects us against changes in interest payments due to benchmark interest rate movements. The change in fair value of this interest rate swap agreement is recognized in other comprehensive income with the corresponding amounts included in other assets or other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet. Amounts accumulated in other comprehensive income are indirectly recognized in earnings as periodic settlements of the swap occur and the fair value of the swap declines to zero.

The interest rate swap agreement is currently our only derivative instrument and it is not used for trading purposes. Allscripts has not entered into any foreign currency hedging contracts. In the future we may enter into foreign currency exchange contracts to offset certain operational exposures from the impact of changes in foreign exchange rates.

The fair value of the derivative instrument was as follows:

We recognized the following activity related to our interest rate swap agreement:

We estimate that approximately $1 million of derivative losses included in other comprehensive income (“OCI”) will be reclassified into earnings within the next 12 months. This amount has been calculated assuming the variable effective interest rate 2.00% as of June 30, 2012 remains the same through the next 12 months. No gains (losses) were reclassified from OCI into earnings as a result of forecasted transactions that failed to occur during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. We held no other derivative instruments during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.

There were no realized gains (losses) on derivatives other than those related to the periodic settlement of the swap.

19

Table of Contents

9. Contingencies

On August 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008. On October 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead plaintiff, and on November 25, 2009, an amended complaint was filed containing allegations that the Company, Tullman and Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with the release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11. On September 19, 2011, the Court entered an order certifying a class. On February 7, 2012, the parties agreed, subject to execution of settlement documents and Court approval, to settle this matter on a class-wide basis. The settlement amount totaling approximately $10 million will be funded by the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance carrier and therefore has no material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. On March 16, 2012, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement and filed a motion with the Court for approval of the settlement. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.

On February 11, 2011, Medical Services Associates, Inc. (“MSA”) filed binding arbitration against the Company alleging that the Company negligently caused a loss of medical billing data, negligently or intentionally misrepresented certain facts regarding the computer system being sold to MSA, and/or breached certain aspects of a contract to provide certain software-related goods and services to MSA. The Company filed its counterclaim on March 11, 2011. In June 2012, the parties and the Company’s insurance carrier agreed in principle, subject to execution of settlement documentation, to settle this matter for an undisclosed amount that will be funded by the Company’s insurance carrier and therefore it is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

On September 14, 2010, Pegasus Imaging Corporation (“Pegasus”) filed a lawsuit against the Company and AllscriptsMisys, LLC in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit also named former officers Jeffrey Amrein and John Reinhart as defendants. Prior to serving the complaint, Pegasus filed an amended complaint dropping two of the claims that had been asserted and adding two additional defendants, which are two now-defunct Florida corporations that formerly did business with the Company. The amended complaint asserts causes of action against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentations, negligent misrepresentations, and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law, arising from previous business dealings between Pegasus and Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., a software company based in Louisville, Kentucky that the Company purchased in August 2003. On or about November 1, 2010, Defendants moved to transfer the case to the special court for complex business litigation that resides in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Florida Business Court granted Defendants’ motion for transfer on January 13, 2011. The Defendants have answered the complaint and filed counterclaims against the Plaintiff alleging breach of license, breach of warranty, and breach of contract. On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend its Complaint to add a claim alleging breach of a click-through license agreement and punitive damages. The Company has also recently moved for leave to amend its counterclaims to add a claim for negligent misrepresentations. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The case is currently expected to be set for trial in May, June or July of 2013. The Company intends to continue to defend this matter vigorously. We believe that we have strong defensive positions in such matter, but the outcomes of intellectual property lawsuits are often uncertain.

In the opinion of management, there was not at least a reasonable possibility the Company may have incurred a material loss, or a material loss in excess of a recorded accrual, with respect to the above matter. However, the outcome of the foregoing litigation is inherently uncertain, and we may incur substantial defense costs and expenses. Therefore, if this legal matter was resolved against the Company for an amount in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s consolidated financial statements of a particular reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

20

Table of Contents

On December 22, 2011, in connection with a federal grand jury investigation of third parties, we received a subpoena requesting that we provide documents regarding Allscripts’ interactions with several healthcare and educational organizations. At this time, we are unable to determine the impact of the foregoing on Allscripts. We are cooperating with the United States Attorney’s Office in connection with such subpoena.

On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a class action Complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions Inc., Allscripts, LLC and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“Allscripts”). The Complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, Allscripts or its agent sent advertisements by fax to the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). The Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, and injunctive and other relief. Allscripts was served with the Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on May 7, 2012 and the Company responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss. Discovery in this matter has been stayed pending a decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Holtzman v. Turza, which involves issues raised in the Company’s Motion. The Company has also filed a Motion requesting denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Glen Tullman and William Davis, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, by the Bristol County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common stock between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012. The Complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Tullman and Mr. Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the putative class period regarding the Company’s progress in integrating Allscripts’ and Eclipsys’ business following the August 24, 2010 merger and that the Company lacked a reasonable basis for certain statements regarding the Company’s post-merger integration efforts, operations, results and projections of future financial performance. Two groups of plaintiffs have filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment as lead plaintiff’s counsel. These motions were fully briefed as of July 31, 2012. Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise plead is stayed pending appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs’ counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

On June 27, 2012, a purported shareholder, Richard Devereaux, filed a shareholder derivative action in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois against Glen Tullman, William Davis, Paul Black, Dennis Chookaszian, Robert Cindrich, Marcel Gamache, Philip Green, Michael Kluger, and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. as nominal defendant. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against former and current executives of Allscripts who allegedly made misleading claims about the Company’s business and financial state, causing its stock prices to be artificially inflated and then drop sharply when the Company reported earnings below expectations and disclosed a “leadership dispute” in an SEC filing. The Company has not yet responded to this lawsuit.

In the opinion of management, there is a reasonable possibility the Company may incur losses with respect to the three matters immediately above. However, given the current early stage of the matters, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this time. We will continue to evaluate the potential exposure related to these matters in future periods.

In addition to commitments and obligations in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various claims, other pending and potential legal actions for damages and other matters arising in the normal conduct of our business, including intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property violation claims.

21

Table of Contents

10. Business Segments

Prior to 2012, we utilized three reportable segments: Clinical Solutions, Hospital Solutions, and Health Solutions. In connection with the integration of the Eclipsys operations, we recently realigned certain functions within our business. This realignment included the integration of our sales and services functions in the first quarter of 2012 as well as our solutions research and development team. After the realignment and based upon the information used by the chief operating decision maker to allocate resources, make operating decisions and assess performance, we now use the following reportable segments: Software Delivery, Services Delivery, Client Support, Pathway Solutions and IT Outsourcing. Pathway Solutions and IT Outsourcing, which were reported under the Managed Services segment in the first quarter of 2012, are now separately presented consistent with changes in our internal reporting to our chief operating decision maker.

Software delivery primarily includes revenue from system solutions, which is comprised of software license fees and hardware revenue, and recurring revenue from SaaS contracts and other subscription-based arrangements, which are included in transaction processing and other, and the related expenses incurred to deliver these solutions to our clients. Services delivery derives its revenue through implementation, training and other professional services provided to clients and includes the related expenses incurred to provide these services. Client support derives its revenue through software and hardware maintenance contracts and includes the related expenses incurred to provide support to our customers. Pathway solutions includes revenue and the related expenses incurred from EDI medical claims processing for clients and our patient portal SaaS solution, and IT outsourcing derives its revenue from services provided to clients where we assume partial to total responsibility for a healthcare organization’s IT operations using our employees and assets, and includes the related expenses incurred to deliver IT outsourcing solutions to our clients. Segment data for 2011 presented below has been restated to conform to the current presentation.

Our chief operating decision maker uses segment revenues and income from operations as measures of performance and to allocate resources. In determining revenue and income from operations for our segments, we do not include the amortization of acquisition-related deferred revenue adjustments in revenue and we exclude amortization of intangible assets and stock-based compensation expense from the operating expense segment data provided to our chief operating decision maker. Accordingly, these amounts are not included in our reportable segment results and are included in the unallocated amounts within All Other.

Corporate general and administrative expenses are centrally managed and solutions research and development expenses, including the amortization of software development costs, are not attributed to an operating segment. As a result, these expenses are not allocated to our reportable segments because they are not part of the segment profitability results reviewed by management. Additionally, we do not track our assets by segment.

Remote Hosting is an operating segment that does not meet the quantitative thresholds for determining reportable segments; however, we have presented the revenues and income from operations related to this segment within our reconciliation to consolidated amounts in the table below.