UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-Q

 

 

Commission File No. 001-15875

 

 

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

(423) 989-8000

(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 þ     No o

 

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 o     No o

 

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. (Check one):

 

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

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

 

Number of shares outstanding of registrant’s common stock as of August 5, 2009: 248,136,638

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)

 

 

See accompanying notes.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

 

 

See accompanying notes.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN

 

 

See accompanying notes.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)

 

 

See accompanying notes.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

June 30, 2009 and 2008

(In thousands, except share and per share data)

(Unaudited)

 

 

The accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“King” or the “Company”) were prepared by the Company in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X and, accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of items of a normal recurring nature) considered necessary for a fair presentation are included. Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2009. These unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. The year-end condensed balance sheet was derived from the audited consolidated financial statements and has been adjusted to reflect the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Staff Position No. APB 14-1 Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash Upon Conversion (“FSP APB 14-1”) but does not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles. FSP APB 14-1 was effective January 1, 2009 and required retrospective application. Please see Note 9 for additional information on the adoption of FSP APB 14-1.

 

These unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of King and all of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

The Company has performed an evaluation of subsequent events through August 6, 2009, which is the date the financial statements were issued.

 

 

The basic and diluted income per common share was determined using the following share data:

 

 

For the three months ended June 30, 2009, the weighted average shares that were anti-dilutive, and therefore excluded from the calculation of diluted income per share, included options to purchase 7,902,942 shares of common stock, 286,368 restricted stock awards (“RSAs”) and 371,840 long-term performance units (“LPUs”). For the six months ended June 30, 2009, the weighted average shares that were anti-dilutive, and therefore excluded from the calculation of diluted income per share included options to purchase 7,029,986 shares of common stock, 303,948 RSAs and 262,723 LPUs. For the three months ended June 30, 2008, the weighted average shares that were anti-dilutive, and therefore excluded from the calculation of diluted income per share, included options to purchase 6,295,371 shares of common stock, 326,600 RSAs and 830,315 LPUs. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, the weighted average shares that were anti-

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

dilutive, and therefore excluded from the calculation of diluted income per share included options to purchase 5,721,081 shares of common stock, 408,480 RSAs and 548,805 LPUs. The 11/4% Convertible Senior Notes due April 1, 2026 could be converted into the Company’s common stock in the future, subject to certain contingencies. Shares of the Company’s common stock associated with this right of conversion were excluded from the calculation of diluted income per share because these notes are anti-dilutive since the conversion price of the notes was greater than the average market price of the Company’s common stock for all periods presented.

 

 

As previously disclosed, the Company has been involved in multiple legal proceedings over patents relating to its product Skelaxin^® (metaxalone). In January 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an Order ruling invalid two of these patents. In June 2009, the Court entered judgment against the Company. The Company has appealed the judgment and intends to vigorously defend its interests. The entry of the Order may lead to generic versions of Skelaxin^® entering the market sooner than previously anticipated, which would likely cause the Company’s sales of Skelaxin^® to decline significantly as a result. Net sales of Skelaxin^® were $446,243 in 2008, and $102,178 and $202,777, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2009. For additional information regarding Skelaxin^® litigation, please see Note 10. For additional information regarding Skelaxin^® intangible assets, please see Note 8. For additional information regarding Skelaxin^® restructuring action, please see Note 14.

 

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents.  The Company considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company’s cash and cash equivalents consisted of institutional money market funds and bank time deposits. There were no cumulative unrealized holding gains or losses associated with these money market funds and time deposits as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008.

 

Derivatives.  The Company had forward foreign exchange contracts outstanding during the three and six months of 2009 on certain non-U.S. cash balances. The forward exchange contracts were not designated as hedges under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, (“SFAS No. 133”). The Company recorded these contracts at fair value and changes in fair value were recognized in current earnings. All foreign exchange contracts expired in the second quarter of 2009.

 

In connection with the Company’s acquisition of Alpharma on December 29, 2008, the Company borrowed $425,000 in principal under its Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility as amended on December 5, 2008. The Company also borrowed $200,000 pursuant to a Term Facility. The terms of the Revolving Credit Facility require the Company to maintain hedging agreements that will fix the interest rates on 50% of the Company’s outstanding long-term debt beginning 90 days after the amendment to the facility for a period of two years. The Revolving Credit Facility and the Term Facility have variable interest rates. The Convertible Senior Notes of the Company are at a fixed interest rate. Accordingly, in March 2009, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement on interest under the Revolving Credit Facility with an aggregate notional amount of $112,500, which expires in March 2011. The interest rate swap has been designated as a cash flow hedge and is being used to offset the overall variability of cash flows. For a cash flow hedge, the effective portion of the gain or loss on the derivative is reported as a component of other comprehensive income and reclassified into earnings in the period during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. For additional information on the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility, please see Note 9.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The following tables summarize the fair value and presentation in the condensed consolidated balance sheets for derivatives designated as hedging instruments under SFAS No. 133, as of June 30, 2009:

 

 

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009:

 

 

 

Marketable Securities.  As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the Company’s investment in marketable securities consisted solely of Palatin Technologies, Inc. common stock with a cost basis of $511. The cumulative unrealized holding gain in those investments as of June 30, 2009 was $908. There were no cumulative unrealized holding gains or losses in these investments as of December 31, 2008.

 

Investments in Debt Securities.  Tax-exempt auction rate securities are long-term variable rate bonds tied to short-term interest rates that are intended to reset through an auction process generally every seven, 28 or 35 days. The Company classifies auction rate securities as available-for-sale at the time of purchase in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities. In accordance with FASB Staff Position 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-than-Temporary Impairments (“FSP FAS 115-2”), temporary gains or losses are included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other-than-temporary credit losses are included in Loss on investments in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Non-credit related other-than-temporary losses are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as the Company has no intent to sell the securities and believes that it is more likely than not that it will not be required to sell the security prior to recovery.

 

As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the par value of the Company’s investments in debt securities was $383,425 and $417,075, respectively, and consisted solely of tax-exempt auction rate securities associated with municipal bonds and student loans. The Company has not invested in any mortgage-backed securities or any securities backed by corporate debt obligations. The Company’s investment policy requires it

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

to maintain an investment portfolio with a high credit quality. Accordingly, the Company’s investments in debt securities were limited to issues which were rated AA or higher at the time of purchase.

 

On February 11, 2008, the Company began to experience auction failures with respect to its investments in auction rate securities. In the event of an auction failure, the interest rate on the security is reset according to the contractual terms in the underlying indenture. The funds associated with failed auctions will not be accessible until a successful auction occurs, the issuer calls or restructures the underlying security, the underlying security matures or it is purchased by a buyer outside the auction process.

 

Excluding the municipal bond discussed below, as of June 30, 2009, there were cumulative unrealized holding losses of $38,683 recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets associated with investments in debt securities with a par value of $328,175 classified as available for sale. All of these investments in debt securities have been in continuous unrealized loss positions for greater than twelve months. As of June 30, 2009 the Company believed the decline associated with the underlying securities was temporary and it was probable that the par amount of these auction rate securities would be collectible under their contractual terms.

 

The Company adopted the provisions of FSP FAS 115-2 as of April 1, 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company recognized unrealized losses of $6,832 in other income (expense) for a municipal bond with a par value of $15,000 for which the holding losses were determined to be other-than-temporary. The Company determined $1,042 (or $646 net-of-tax) of this previously recognized loss was non-credit related. Upon the adoption of FSP 115-2 the Company was required to reclassify this non-credit related loss from retained earnings to accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). As of June 30, 2009, there were cumulative unrealized holding gains of $384 associated with this security recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, no other-than-temporary impairment losses associated with available for sale investments in debt securities were recognized.

 

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company sold certain auction rate securities associated with student loans with a par value of $20,350 for $18,923 to the issuer and realized a loss of $1,427 in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

 

During the fourth quarter of 2008 the Company accepted an offer from UBS Financial Services, Inc. (“UBS”) providing the Company the right to sell certain auction rate securities outstanding at June 30, 2009 with a par value of $40,250 to UBS during the period from June 30, 2010 to July 2, 2012 at par value (the “right”). The Company has elected to account for this right at fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. As a result, gains and losses associated with this right are recorded in other income (expense) in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. The value of the right to sell certain auction rate securities to UBS was estimated considering the present value of future cash flows, the fair value of the auction rate security and counterparty risk. As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the fair value of the right to sell the auction rate securities to UBS at par was $3,567 and $4,024, respectively. With respect to this right, during the second quarter and first six months of 2009, the Company recognized an unrealized gain of $108 and an unrealized loss of $457 in other income (expense), respectively, in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

 

In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2008, the Company reclassified the auction rate securities that are included in this right from available-for-sale securities to trading securities. As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the fair value of the investments in debt securities classified as trading was $36,144 and $36,007, respectively. During the second quarter and first six months of 2009, the Company recognized unrealized gains related to these securities of $795 and $537, respectively, in other income (expense) in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

As of June 30, 2009, the Company has classified $41,064 of auction rate securities as current assets and $294,166 as long-term assets.

 

The following tables summarize the Company’s assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

 

 

 

The fair value of marketable securities within the Level 1 classification is based on the quoted price for identical securities in an active market as of the valuation date.

 

The fair value of investments in debt securities within the Level 2 classification is at par based on public call notices from the issuer of the security.

 

The fair value of investments in debt securities within the Level 3 classification is based on a trinomial discount model. This model considers the probability at the valuation date of three potential occurrences for each auction event through the maturity date of the security. The three potential outcomes for each auction are (i) successful auction/early redemption, (ii) failed auction and (iii) issuer default. Inputs in determining the probabilities of the potential outcomes include, but are not limited to, the security’s collateral, credit rating, insurance, issuer’s financial standing, contractual restrictions on disposition and the liquidity in the market. The fair value of each security is determined by summing the present value of the probability-weighted future

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

principal and interest payments determined by the model. As of June 30, 2009, the Company assumed a weighted average discount rate of approximately 4.5% and an expected term of approximately three to five years. The discount rate was determined as the loss-adjusted required rate of return using public information such as spreads on near-risk free to risk free assets. The expected term is based on the Company’s estimate of future liquidity as of June 30, 2009. Transfers out of Level 3 classification occur only when public call notices have been announced by the issuer prior to the date of the valuation.

 

The following table provides a reconciliation of assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

 

 

 

Inventories consist of the following:

 

 

 

During the first quarter of 2009, the Company classified as held for sale a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility which was acquired as a result of the acquisition of Alpharma Inc. The manufacturing facility is recorded at estimated fair value less cost to sell. The Company finalized its determination of fair value of this asset in the first quarter of 2009, reduced the value by $3,600 and adjusted goodwill accordingly.

 

The net book value of some of the Company’s manufacturing facilities currently exceeds fair market value. Management currently believes that the long-term assets associated with these facilities are not impaired based on

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

estimated undiscounted future cash flows. However, if the Company were to approve a plan to sell or close any of the facilities for which the carrying value exceeds fair market value, the Company would have to write off a portion of the assets or reduce the estimated useful life of the assets which would accelerate depreciation.

 

 

On December 29, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of Alpharma Inc. (“Alpharma”). Alpharma had a growing specialty pharmaceutical franchise in the U.S. pain market with its Flector^® Patch (diclofenac epolamine topical patch) 1.3% and a pipeline of new pain medicines led by Embeda^tm, an investigational formulation of long-acting morphine that is designed to provide controlled pain relief and deter certain common methods of misuse and abuse. Alpharma is also a provider of medicated feed additives and water-soluble therapeutics used primarily for poultry, cattle and swine. The Company paid a cash price of $37.00 per share for the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock, together with the associated preferred stock purchase rights of Alpharma, totaling approximately $1,527,354, $61,120 associated with Alpharma employee stock-based awards (which were paid in the first quarter of 2009), and incurred $30,573 of expenses related to the transaction resulting in a total purchase price of $1,619,047. Contemporaneously with the acquisition of Alpharma and in accordance with a consent order with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Company divested Alpharma’s Kadian^® assets to Actavis Elizabeth, L.L.C.

 

Management believes the Company’s acquisition of Alpharma is particularly significant because it strengthens King’s portfolio and development pipeline of pain management products, and increases its capabilities and expertise in this market. The development pipeline provides the Company with both near-term and long-term revenue opportunities and the animal health business further diversifies its revenue base. As a result, management believes the acquisition of Alpharma creates a stronger foundation for sustainable, long-term growth for the Company.

 

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2008 do not include any activity for Alpharma because the Company acquired Alpharma in the fourth quarter of 2008.

 

The allocation of the initial purchase price and acquisition costs is as follows:

 

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The valuation of the intangible assets acquired is as follows:

 

 

None of the goodwill is expected to be deductible for tax purposes. The goodwill has been allocated to the segments as follows:

 

 

The above allocation of the purchase price is not yet finalized as the acquisition was completed close to the end of 2008 and management is continuing to complete its initial estimate of the valuation of certain assets and liabilities.

 

The acquisition was financed with available cash on hand, borrowings under the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility of $425,000 and borrowings under the Term Loan of $200,000. For additional information on the borrowings, please see Note 9.

 

As indicated above, $590,000 of the purchase price for Alpharma was allocated to acquired in-process research and development for the Embeda^tm, Oxycodone NT and Hydrocodone NT projects in the amounts of $410,000, $90,000 and $90,000, respectively. The value of the acquired in-process research and development projects was expensed on the date of acquisition, as they had not received regulatory approval and had no alternative future use. The projects were valued through the application of probability-weighted, discounted cash flow approach. The estimated cash flows were projected over periods of 10 to 14 years utilizing a discount rate of 25% to 30%.

 

The Embeda^tm New Drug Application (“NDA”) was submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in June 2008. The success of the project is dependent upon NDA approval by the FDA. The Company currently believes it will obtain approval of the Embeda^tm NDA during 2009.

 

Oxycodone NT and Hydrocodone NT are long-acting opioids for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain that are in the early stages of clinical development. These products are designed to resist certain common methods of misuse and abuse associated with currently available oxycodone and hydrocodone opioids. If the clinical development program is successful, the Company would not expect to commercialize Oxycodone NT and Hydrocodone NT any sooner than 2012. The estimated cost to complete the development of Oxycodone NT and Hydrocodone NT is approximately $35,000 each. The Company believes there is a reasonable probability of completing these projects successfully, but the success of the projects depends on the outcome of the clinical development programs and approval by the FDA.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The following unaudited pro forma summary presents the financial information as if the acquisition of Alpharma had occurred January 1, 2008 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008. These pro forma results have been prepared for comparative purposes and do not purport to be indicative of what would have occurred had the acquisition been made on January 1, 2008, nor are they indicative of future results. The pro forma results for the six months ended June 30, 2008 do not include the $590,000 in-process research and development expense noted above.

 

 

In connection with the acquisition of Alpharma, the Company and Alpharma executed a consent order (the “Consent Order”) with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The Consent Order required the Company to divest the assets related to Alpharma’s branded oral long-acting opioid analgesic drug Kadian^® to Actavis Elizabeth, LLC. In accordance with the Consent Order, effective upon the acquisition of Alpharma, on December 29, 2008, the Company divested the Kadian^® product to Actavis. Actavis is entitled to sell Kadian^® as a branded or generic product. Prior to the divestiture, Actavis supplied Kadian^® to Alpharma.

 

Actavis will pay a purchase price of up to an aggregate of $127,500 in cash based on the achievement of certain Kadian^® quarterly gross profit-related milestones for the period beginning January 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2010. The maximum purchase price payment associated with each calendar quarter is as follows:

 

 

None of the quarterly payments above, when combined with all prior payments made by Actavis, shall exceed the aggregate amount of gross profits from the sale of Kadian^® in the United States by Actavis and its affiliates for the period beginning on January 1, 2009 and ending on the last day of such calendar quarter. Any quarterly purchase price payment that is not paid by Actavis due to the application of such provision will be carried forward to the next calendar quarter, increasing the maximum quarterly payment in the subsequent quarter. However, the cumulative purchase price payable by Actavis will not exceed the lesser of (a) $127,500 and (b) the gross profits from the sale of Kadian^® in the United States by Actavis and its affiliates for the period from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. The Company recorded a receivable of $115,000 at the time of the divestiture, reflecting the present value of the estimated future purchase price payments from Actavis. There was no gain or loss recorded as a result of the divestiture. In accordance with the agreement, quarterly payments will be received one quarter in arrears. During the second quarter of 2009 the Company received $34,800 from Actavis, $30,000 related to the first quarter of 2009 gross profit from sales and $4,800 related to inventory sold to Actavis at the time of the divestiture.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

 

Intangible assets consist primarily of patents, licenses, trademarks and product rights. A summary of the gross carrying amount and accumulated amortization is as follows:

 

 

Amortization expense for the three months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 was $38,149 and $21,044, respectively. Amortization expense for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 was $76,327 and $71,971, respectively.

 

In January 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an Order ruling invalid two Skelaxin^® patents. In June 2009, the Court entered judgment against the Company. The Company has appealed, and intends to vigorously defend its interests. The entry of the Order may lead to generic versions of Skelaxin^® entering the market sooner than previously anticipated, which would likely cause the Company’s sales of Skelaxin^® to decline significantly as a result. The Company believes that the intangible assets associated with Skelaxin^® are not currently impaired based on estimated undiscounted cash flows associated with these assets. However, as a result of the Order described above, the Company reduced the estimated remaining useful life of the intangible assets of Skelaxin^® during the first quarter of 2009. If the Company’s current estimates regarding future cash flows adversely change, the Company may have to further reduce the estimated remaining useful life and/or write off a portion or all of these intangible assets. As of June 30, 2009, the net intangible assets associated with Skelaxin^® totaled approximately $76,897. For additional information regarding Skelaxin^® litigation, please see Note 10.

 

In April 2009, a competitor entered the market with a generic substitute for Cytomel^®. As a result, the Company lowered its future sales forecast for this product. As of June 30, 2009, the net intangible assets associated with Cytomel^® totaled approximately $10,815. The Company believes that the intangible assets associated with Cytomel^® are not currently impaired based on estimated undiscounted cash flows associated with these assets. However, if the Company’s current estimates regarding future cash flows adversely change, the Company may have to reduce the estimated remaining useful life and/or write off a portion or all of these intangible assets.

 

As a result of a decline in end-user demand for Synercid^®, the Company lowered its future sales forecast for this product which decreased the estimated undiscounted future cash flows associated with the Synercid^® intangible assets to a level below their carrying value. Accordingly, the Company recorded an intangible asset impairment charge of $38,064 during the second quarter of 2008 to adjust the carrying value of the Synercid^® intangible assets on the Company’s balance sheet to reflect the estimated fair value of these assets. The Company determined the fair value of the intangible assets associated with Synercid^® based on its estimated discounted future cash flows. Synercid^® is included in the Company’s branded pharmaceutical segment. If the Company’s current estimates regarding future cash flows adversely change, the Company may have to reduce the estimated remaining useful life and/or write off an additional portion of the intangible assets. As of June 30, 2009, the net intangible assets associated with Synercid^® totaled approximately $26,040.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Goodwill at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 is as follows:

 

 

The adjustment to Alpharma goodwill is due to management’s continuation of the initial estimate of the valuation of certain assets and liabilities related to this acquisition. The most significant adjustment related to certain tax assets, for which management obtained additional information about the status of these assets as of the acquisition date.

 

 

Long-term debt consists of the following:

 

 

Convertible Senior Notes

 

Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the FASB Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments that May be Settled in Cash Upon Conversion (“FSP APB 14-1”). FSP APB 14-1 requires that the liability and equity components of convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion (including partial cash settlement) be separately accounted for in a manner that reflects an issuer’s nonconvertible debt borrowing rate. FSP APB 14-1 requires retrospective application to all periods presented.

 

Upon adoption of FSP APB 14-1, the separate components of debt and equity of the Company’s $400,000 11/4% Convertible Senior Notes due April 1, 2026 were determined using an interest rate of 7.13%, which reflects the nonconvertible debt borrowing rate of the Company at the date of issuance. As a result, the initial components of debt and equity were $271,267 and $128,733, respectively. The debt component is being amortized retrospectively beginning April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2013.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The following tables reflect the Company’s previously reported amounts, along with the adjusted amounts as required by FSP APB 14-1:

 

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations

Three months ended June 30, 2008

 

 

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations

Six months ended June 30, 2008

 

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

As of December 31, 2008

 

 

The Company’s previously reported amounts as of December 31, 2007 reflect a change of $76,377 in Shareholders’ equity and a change of $(12,303) in Retained earnings.

 

A summary of the gross carrying amount, unamortized debt cost and the net carrying value of the liability component is as follows:

 

 

During the first quarter of 2009, Alpharma and its U.S. subsidiaries became guarantors of the Convertible Senior Notes.

 

The fair value of the Company’s Convertible Senior Notes at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 was approximately $316,000 and $293,000, respectively, using quoted market prices.

 

Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility

 

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company made payments of $102,092 and $134,185, respectively, on the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility (“Revolving Credit Facility”), $64,830 and $91,322, respectively, in excess of that required by the terms of the Revolving Credit Facility.

 

The availability for borrowing under the Revolving Credit Facility was reduced to $355,095 as of June 30, 2009. The remaining undrawn commitment amount under the Revolving Credit Facility totals approximately $61,315 after giving effect to outstanding letters of credit totaling $2,965.

 

In connection with the borrowings, the Company incurred approximately $22,219 of deferred financing costs that are being amortized ratably through the maturity date.

 

The fair value of the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility approximates its carrying value. Changes in interest rates are reflected in earnings and cash flow from operations.

 

Senior Secured Term Facility

 

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company made payments of $49,886 and $65,815, respectively, on the Senior Secured Term Facility, $27,784 and $33,904, respectively, in excess of

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

that required by the repayment schedule and the provisions related to mandatory prepayments under the Senior Secured Term Facility.

 

In connection with the borrowings, the Company incurred approximately $8,738 of deferred financing costs that are being amortized ratably through the maturity date based on the repayment schedule.

 

The fair value of the Senior Secured Term Facility approximates its carrying value. Changes in interest rates are reflected in earnings and cash flow from operations.

 

Alpharma Convertible Senior Notes

 

At the time of the acquisition of Alpharma by the Company, Alpharma had $300,000 of Convertible Senior Notes outstanding (“Alpharma Notes”). The Alpharma Notes were convertible into shares of Alpharma’s Class A common stock at an initial conversion rate of 30.6725 Alpharma common shares per $1,000 principal amount. The conversion rate of the Alpharma Notes was subject to adjustment upon the direct or indirect sale of all or substantially all of Alpharma’s assets or more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Alpharma common stock to a third party (a “Fundamental Change”). In the event of a Fundamental Change, the Alpharma Notes included a make-whole provision that adjusted the conversion rate by a predetermined number of additional shares of Alpharma’s common stock based on (1) the effective date of the fundamental change and (2) Alpharma’s common stock market price as of the effective date. The acquisition of Alpharma by the Company was a Fundamental Change. As a result, any Alpharma Notes converted in connection with the acquisition of Alpharma were entitled to be converted at an increased rate equal to the value of 34.7053 Alpharma common shares, at the acquisition price of $37 per share, per $1,000 principal amount of Alpharma Notes, at a date no later than 35 trading days after the occurrence of the Fundamental Change. During the first quarter of 2009, the Company paid $385,227 to redeem the Alpharma Convertible Senior Notes.

 

 

Intellectual Property Matters

 

Altace^®

 

Lupin Ltd. (“Lupin”) filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Altace^®. In addition to its ANDA, Lupin filed a Paragraph IV certification challenging the validity and infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,061,722 (the “ ‘722 patent”), a composition of matter patent covering Altace^®, and seeking to market its generic version of Altace^® before expiration of the ‘722 patent. The companies litigated the matter and the court ultimately invalidated the Company’s ‘722 patent. On June 9, 2008, Lupin received approval from the FDA to market its generic ramipril product.

 

The Company was previously involved in patent infringement litigation with Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Cobalt”), a generic drug manufacturer located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, regarding an ANDA it filed with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Altace^®. The parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal on April 4, 2006, and the Court granted dismissal. Following the court’s decision in the Company’s litigation with Lupin, Cobalt launched a generic substitute for Altace^® in December 2007. A number of other competitors launched generic substitutes for Altace^® in June 2008.

 

On August 2, 2006 and August 2, 2007, the Company received civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) for information from the FTC. The CIDs required the Company to provide information related to the Company’s collaboration with Arrow International Limited (“Arrow”) to develop novel formulations of Altace^®, the dismissal without prejudice of the Company’s patent infringement litigation against Cobalt under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 and other information. Arrow and Cobalt are affiliates of one another. The Company is cooperating with the FTC in this investigation.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Skelaxin^®

 

Eon Labs, Inc. (“Eon Labs”), CorePharma, LLC (“Core”) and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (“Mutual”) each filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Skelaxin^® 400 mg tablets. Additionally, Eon Labs’ ANDA seeks permission to market a generic version of Skelaxin^® 800 mg tablets. United States Patent Nos. 6,407,128 (the “ ‘128 patent”) and 6,683,102 (the “ ‘102 patent”), two method-of-use patents relating to Skelaxin^®, are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book and do not expire until December 3, 2021. Eon Labs and Core each filed Paragraph IV certifications against the ‘128 and ‘102 patents alleging noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of those patents. Mutual has filed a Paragraph IV certification against the ‘102 patent alleging noninfringement and invalidity of that patent. A patent infringement suit was filed against Eon Labs on January 2, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; against Core on March 7, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York); and against Mutual on March 12, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, concerning their proposed 400 mg products. Additionally, the Company filed a separate suit against Eon Labs on December 17, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, concerning its proposed generic version of the 800 mg Skelaxin^® product. On May 17, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania placed the Mutual case on the Civil Suspense Calendar pending the outcome of the FDA activity described below. On June 16, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York consolidated the Eon Labs cases with the Core case. In January 2008, the Company entered into an agreement with Core providing them with, among other things, the right to launch an authorized generic version of Skelaxin^® pursuant to a license in December 2012 or earlier under certain conditions. On January 8, 2008, the Company and Core submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. On January 15, 2008, the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice.

 

Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, the filing of the suits against Eon Labs provided the Company with an automatic stay of FDA approval of Eon Labs’ ANDA for its proposed 400 mg and 800 mg products for 30 months (unless the patents are held invalid, unenforceable or not infringed) from no earlier than November 18, 2002 and November 3, 2004, respectively. The 30-month stay of FDA approval for Eon Labs’ ANDA for its proposed 400 mg product expired in May 2005 and Eon Labs subsequently withdrew its 400 mg ANDA in September 2006. The 30-month stay of FDA approval for Eon Labs’ 800 mg product was tolled by the Court on January 10, 2005 and has not expired. The Court lifted the tolling of the 30-month stay as of April 30, 2007. Although the Court has reserved judgment on the length of the tolling period, the stay should not expire prior to early August 2009 unless the Court rules otherwise. Eon Labs asked for a determination of the length of the tolling period in a March 14, 2008 letter to the Court. The Court declined to make any determination. On April 30, 2007, Eon Labs’ 400 mg case was dismissed without prejudice, although Eon Labs’ claim for fees and expenses was severed and consolidated with Eon Labs’ 800 mg case. On August 27, 2007, Eon Labs served a motion for summary judgment on the issue of infringement. The Court granted the Company discovery for purposes of responding to Eon’s motion until March 14, 2008 and set a briefing schedule. On March 7, 2008, the Company filed a letter with the Court regarding Eon Labs’ inability to adhere to the discovery schedule and the Court took Eon Labs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of infringement off the calendar. Subsequently, Eon Labs filed an amended motion for summary judgment on the issue of infringement on April 4, 2008. Eon Labs also filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of validity on April 16, 2008. On June 6, 2008, the Company responded to Eon Labs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of validity. On May 8, 2008, Eon Labs filed amended pleadings. On May 22, 2008, the Company moved to dismiss certain defenses and counterclaims. On January 20, 2009, the Court issued an Order ruling invalid the ‘128 and ‘102 patents. The Order was issued without the benefit of a hearing in response to Eon Labs’ motion for summary judgment. The Order also allowed Eon Labs to pursue its claim for exceptional case, and on March 31, 2009, Eon Labs filed its motion for this purpose, which was opposed by the Company and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Elan”). Eon Labs has replied and the motion remains

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

pending before the Court. On May 20, 2009, Eon Labs asked for entry of final judgment, and on June 4, 2009, the Court granted this request. On July 1, 2009, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s entry of judgment and on July 2, 2009, Elan did the same. The appeals were docketed by the Federal Circuit on July 10, 2009. In late July 2009, the companies moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests.

 

On December 5, 2008, the Company, along with co-plaintiff Pharmaceutical IP Holding, Inc. (“PIH”) initiated suit in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey against Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,122,566 (the “— ‘566 patent”). The ’566 patent is a method-of-use patent relating to Skelaxin^® listed in the FDA’s Orange Book; it expires on February 6, 2026. The ‘566 patent is owned by PIH and licensed to the Company. The Company and PIH sued Sandoz, alleging that Eon Labs’ submission of its ANDA seeking approval to sell a generic version of a 800 mg Skelaxin^® tablet prior to the expiration of the ‘566 patent constitutes infringement of the patent. Sandoz, who acquired Eon Labs, is the named owner of Eon Labs’ ANDA and filed a Paragraph IV certification challenging the validity and alleging non-infringement of the ‘566 patent. On January 13, 2009, Sandoz answered the complaint and filed counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement. The Company filed a reply on February 5, 2009.

 

On March 9, 2004, the Company received a copy of a letter from the FDA to all ANDA applicants for Skelaxin^® stating that the use listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for the ‘128 patent may be deleted from the ANDA applicants’ product labeling. The Company believes that this decision is arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent with the FDA’s previous position on this issue. The Company filed a Citizen Petition on March 18, 2004 (supplemented on April 15, 2004 and on July 21, 2004), requesting the FDA to rescind that letter, require generic applicants to submit Paragraph IV certifications for the ‘128 patent and prohibit the removal of information corresponding to the use listed in the Orange Book. The Company concurrently filed a petition for stay of action requesting the FDA to stay approval of any generic Skelaxin^® products until the FDA has fully evaluated the Company’s Citizen Petition.

 

On March 12, 2004, the FDA sent a letter to the Company explaining that the Company’s proposed labeling revision for Skelaxin^®, which includes references to additional clinical studies relating to food, age and gender effects, was approvable and only required certain formatting changes. On April 5, 2004, the Company submitted amended labeling text that incorporated those changes. On April 5, 2004, Mutual filed a petition for stay of action requesting the FDA to stay approval of the Company’s proposed labeling revision until the FDA has fully evaluated and ruled upon the Company’s Citizen Petition, as well as all comments submitted in response to that petition. The Company, CorePharma and Mutual have filed responses and supplements to their pending Citizen Petitions and responses. On December 8, 2005, Mutual filed another supplement with the FDA in which it withdrew its prior petition for stay, supplement and opposition to the Company’s Citizen Petition. On November 24, 2006, the FDA approved the revision to the Skelaxin^® labeling. On February 13, 2007, the Company filed another supplement to the Company’s Citizen Petition to reflect FDA approval of the revision to the Skelaxin^® labeling. On May 2, 2007, Mutual filed comments in connection with the Company’s supplemental submission. These issues are pending. On July 27, 2007 and January 24, 2008, Mutual filed two other Citizen Petitions in which it seeks a determination that Skelaxin^® labeling should be revised to reflect the data provided in its earlier submissions. These petitions were denied on July 18, 2008.

 

Net sales of Skelaxin^® were $446,243 in 2008 and $102,178 and $202,777, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2009. As of June 30, 2009, the Company had net intangible assets related to Skelaxin^® of $76,897. If a generic version of Skelaxin^® enters the market, the Company may have to write off a portion or all of these intangible assets, and the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. See Note 8 for information regarding the Skelaxin^® intangible assets.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Avinza^®

 

Actavis, Inc. (“Actavis”) filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Avinza^®. U.S. Patent No. 6,066,339 (the “— ‘399 patent”) is a formulation patent relating to Avinza^® that is listed in the Orange Book and expires on November 25, 2017. Actavis filed a Paragraph IV certification challenging the validity and alleging non-infringement of the ’339 patent, and the Company and Elan Pharma International LTD (“EPI”), the owner of the ‘339 patent, filed suit on October 18, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to defend the rights under the patent. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, the filing of the lawsuit against Actavis provided the Company with an automatic stay of FDA approval of Actavis’ ANDA for up to 30 months (unless the patent is held invalid, unenforceable or not infringed) from no earlier than September 4, 2007. On November 18, 2007, Actavis answered the complaint and filed counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity. The Company and EPI filed a reply on December 7, 2007. The initial scheduling conference was held on March 11, 2008. Fact discovery is largely complete and the parties continue to await a hearing date for claim construction.

 

Sandoz filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Avinza^® and provided the Company with a Paragraph IV certification challenging the validity and alleging non-infringement of the ‘339 patent. The Company and EPI filed suit on July 21, 2009, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to defend the rights under the patent. Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, the filing of the lawsuit against Sandoz provided the Company with an automatic stay of FDA approval of Sandoz’s ANDA for up to 30 months (unless the patent is held invalid, unenforceable or not infringed) from no earlier than June 11, 2009.

 

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights under the ‘339 patent. Net sales of Avinza^® were $135,452 in 2008 and $28,892 and $67,872, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2009. As of June 30, 2009, the Company had net intangible assets related to Avinza^® of $223,491. If a generic form of Avinza^® enters the market, the Company may have to write off a portion or all of these intangible assets, and the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be otherwise materially adversely affected.

 

Adenoscan^®

 

On February 15, 2008, the Company, along with co-plaintiffs Astellas US LLC and Astellas Pharma US, Inc. (collectively “Astellas”), and Item Development AB (“Item”) initiated suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Anazao Health Corp. (“Anazao”), NuView Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“NuView”), Paul J. Crowe (“Crowe”) and Keith Rustvold (“Rustvold”) for the unauthorized sale and attempted sale of generic adenosine to hospitals and outpatient imaging clinics for use in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging procedures for an indication that has not been approved by the FDA. On July 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal as to Anazao. The Company and co-plaintiffs have alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,731,296 (the “— ‘296 patent”) and 5,070,877 (the “— ‘877 patent”), which cover a method of using adenosine in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging and which Astellas sells under the tradename, Adenoscan^®; unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, and violations of various other sections of the California Business and Professions Code, concerning the labeling, advertising and dispensing of drugs; and intentional interference with Company and co-plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage. On June 30, 2008, NuView, Crowe and Rustvold filed an answer raising defenses and counterclaims of non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability due to inequitable conduct and patent misuse, and unfair competition under California State Law. On August 28, 2008, the Company filed a reply. On November 20, 2008, the Company and other plaintiffs amended their complaint to add MTS Health Supplies, Inc., Nabil Saba and Ghassan Salaymeg (collectively, “MTS”) as defendants. On November 21, 2008, defendant NuView amended its answer and counterclaims to allege patent misuse antitrust violations by plaintiffs. On April 10, 2009, a Final Judgment and Injunction on Consent was entered by the Court against NuView, Crowe and Rustvold. On April 13, 2009, the Court entered a Final Judgment and Injunction on Consent against all remaining defendants and terminated the action.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Epi-Pen

 

On November 11, 2008, the Company was granted U.S. Patent 7,449,012 (the “ ‘012 patent”) covering the next generation autoinjector (“NGA”) for use with epinephrine to be sold under the Epi-Pen brand name. The ‘012 patent expires September 11, 2025. The ‘012 patent was listed in FDA’s Orange Book on July 17, 2009 under the Epi-Pen NDA. On July 21, 2009, the Company received a Paragraph IV certification from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva”) giving notice that it had filed an ANDA to commercialize an epinephrine injectable product and challenging the validity and alleging non-infringement of the ‘012 patent. The Company is currently evaluating its rights and options with respect to the Teva certification.

 

Average Wholesale Price Litigation

 

In August 2004, the Company and Monarch Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Monarch”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, were named as defendants along with 44 other pharmaceutical manufacturers in an action brought by the City of New York (“NYC”) in Federal Court in the State of New York. NYC claims that the defendants fraudulently inflated their average wholesale prices (“AWP”) and fraudulently failed to accurately report their “best prices” and their average manufacturer’s prices and failed to pay proper rebates pursuant to federal law. Additional claims allege violations of federal and New York statutes, fraud and unjust enrichment. For the period from 1992 to the present, NYC is requesting money damages, civil penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits and treble and punitive damages. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has been established as the multidistrict litigation court for the case, In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation (the “MDL Court”).

 

Since the filing of the NYC case, 48 New York counties have filed lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry, including the Company and Monarch. The allegations in all of these cases are virtually the same as the allegations in the NYC case. All of these lawsuits are currently pending in the MDL Court in the District of Massachusetts except for the Erie, Oswego and Schenectady County cases, which were removed in October 2006 and remanded to New York State Court in September 2007. Motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part for all defendants in all NYC and county cases pending in the MDL Court. The Erie motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part by the State Court before removal. Motions to dismiss were filed in October 2007 in the Oswego and Schenectady cases, and these cases were subsequently transferred to Erie County for coordination with the Erie County case. These motions to dismiss have yet to be ruled upon by the Erie Court. It is not anticipated that any trials involving the Company will be set in any of these cases within the next year.

 

In January 2005, the State of Alabama filed a lawsuit in State Court against 79 defendants, including the Company and Monarch. The four causes of action center on the allegation that all defendants fraudulently inflated the AWPs of their products. A motion to dismiss was filed and denied by the Court, but the Court did require an amended complaint to be filed. The Company filed an answer and counterclaim for return of rebates overpaid to the state. Alabama filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, which was granted. The Company appealed the dismissal. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. In a separate appeal of a motion to sever denied by the trial court, the Alabama Supreme Court severed all defendants into single-defendant cases. Trials against AstraZeneca International, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, SmithKline Beecham Corporation and Sandoz resulted in verdicts for the State. These defendants have appealed their verdicts. A trial against Watson in June 2009 resulted in a deadlocked jury. In April 2009, the Court established various trial dates for all defendants. The Company was scheduled for trial in January 2011.

 

In October 2005, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in State Court against the Company, Monarch and 84 other defendants, alleging fourteen causes of action. Many of those causes of action allege that all defendants fraudulently inflated the AWPs and wholesale acquisition costs of their products. A motion to dismiss the criminal statute counts and a motion for more definite statement were granted. Mississippi filed an amended complaint dismissing the Company and Monarch from the lawsuit without prejudice. These claims could be refiled.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Over half of the states have filed similar lawsuits but the Company has not been named in any other case except Iowa’s. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa complaint. On February 20, 2008, the Iowa case was transferred to the MDL Court. The relief sought in all of these cases is similar to the relief sought in the NYC lawsuit. The MDL Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss, and the Company has filed its answer. Discovery is proceeding in these cases. The Company intends to defend all of the AWP lawsuits vigorously, but is currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss.

 

See also “AWP Litigation” under the section “Alpharma Matters” below.

 

Governmental Pricing Investigation and Related Matters

 

As previously reported, during the first quarter of 2006, the Company paid approximately $129,268 related to underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other governmental pricing programs during the period from 1994 to 2002. On October 31, 2005, the Company also entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

 

Beginning in March 2003, a number of purported class action complaints were filed by holders of the Company’s securities against the Company, its directors, former directors, executive officers, former executive officers, a Company subsidiary and a former director of the subsidiary. These cases were settled in January 2007.

 

Beginning in March 2003, four purported shareholder derivative complaints were also filed in Tennessee State Court alleging a breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, by some of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. These cases were consolidated. The parties reached agreement on a stipulation of settlement on August 21, 2008. The settlement requires the Company to maintain and/or adopt certain corporate governance measures and provides for payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses to plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $13,500. This amount has been paid by the Company’s insurance carriers. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court on August 22, 2008. The Court entered an order approving the settlement on December 17, 2008. A shareholder appealed the Court’s approval of the settlement, but this appeal was later voluntarily withdrawn. The Company regards the matter as concluded.

 

During the third quarter of 2006, the second quarter of 2007, the second quarter of 2008 and the third quarter of 2008, the Company recorded anticipated insurance recoveries of legal fees in the amounts of $6,750, $3,398, $3,001 and $8,000, respectively, for the class action and derivative suits described above. In November 2006, July 2007, August 2008 and October 2008, respectively, the Company received payments from its insurance carriers for the recovery of these legal fees.

 

Fen-Phen Litigation

 

Many distributors, marketers and manufacturers of anorexigenic drugs have been subject to claims relating to the use of these drugs. Generally, the lawsuits allege that the defendants (1) misled users of the products with respect to the dangers associated with them, (2) failed to adequately test the products and (3) knew or should have known about the negative effects of the drugs, and should have informed the public about the risks of such negative effects. Claims include product liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation and negligence. The actions have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions throughout the United States. A multidistrict litigation court has been established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, In re Fen-Phen Litigation. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages and/or court-supervised medical monitoring of persons who have ingested these products.

 

The Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, King Research and Development, is a defendant in approximately 59 multi-plaintiff (approximately 295 plaintiffs) lawsuits involving the manufacture and sale of dexfenfluramine, fenfluramine and phentermine. These lawsuits have been filed in various jurisdictions throughout the United States and in each of these lawsuits King Research and Development, as the successor

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

to Jones Pharma Incorporated (“Jones”), is one of many defendants, including manufacturers and other distributors of these drugs. Although Jones did not at any time manufacture dexfenfluramine, fenfluramine or phentermine, Jones was a distributor of a generic phentermine product and, after its acquisition of Abana Pharmaceuticals, was a distributor of Obenix^®, Abana’s branded phentermine product. The manufacturer of the phentermine purchased by Jones filed for bankruptcy protection and is no longer in business. The plaintiffs in these cases, in addition to the claims described above, claim injury as a result of ingesting a combination of these weight-loss drugs and are seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as medical care and court-supervised medical monitoring. The plaintiffs claim liability based on a variety of theories, including, but not limited to, product liability, strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud and misrepresentation.

 

King Research and Development denies any liability incident to Jones’ distribution and sale of Obenix^® or Jones’ generic phentermine product. King Research and Development’s insurance carriers are currently defending King Research and Development in these lawsuits. The manufacturers of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine have settled many of these cases. As a result of these settlements, King Research and Development has routinely received voluntary dismissals without the payment of settlement proceeds. In the event that King Research and Development’s insurance coverage is inadequate to satisfy any resulting liability, King Research and Development will have to assume defense of these lawsuits and be responsible for the damages, if any, that are awarded against it.

 

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits, management believes that the claims against King Research and Development are without merit and intends to vigorously pursue all defenses available. The Company is unable to disclose an aggregate dollar amount of damages claimed because many of these complaints are multi-party suits and do not state specific damage amounts. Rather, these claims typically state damages as may be determined by the court or similar language and state no specific amount of damages against King Research and Development. Consequently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses related to the lawsuits.

 

Hormone Replacement Therapy

 

Currently, the Company is named as a defendant by 22 plaintiffs in lawsuits involving the manufacture and sale of hormone replacement therapy drugs. The first of these lawsuits was filed in July 2004. Numerous other pharmaceutical companies have also been sued. The Company was sued by approximately 1,000 plaintiffs, but most of those claims were voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the Court for lack of product identification. The remaining 22 lawsuits were filed in Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi and Minnesota. A federal multidistrict litigation court has been established in Little Rock, Arkansas, In re: Prempro Products Liability Litigation, and all of the plaintiffs’ claims have been transferred and are pending in that Court except for one lawsuit pending in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State Court. Many of these plaintiffs allege that the Company and other defendants failed to conduct adequate research and testing before the sale of the products and post-sale monitoring to establish the safety and efficacy of the long-term hormone therapy regimen and, as a result, misled consumers when marketing their products. Plaintiffs also allege negligence, strict liability, design defect, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraud and misrepresentation. Discovery of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Company has begun but is limited to document discovery. No trial has occurred in the hormone replacement therapy litigation against the Company or any other defendants except Wyeth and Pfizer. The trials against Wyeth have resulted in verdicts for and against Wyeth, with several verdicts against Wyeth reversed on post-trial motions. Pfizer has lost two jury verdicts. One of these verdicts was later reversed, and the other is being appealed. The Company does not expect to have any trials set in the next year. The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously but is currently unable to predict the outcome or to reasonably estimate the range of potential loss, if any. The Company may have limited insurance for these claims. The Company would have to assume defense of the lawsuits and be responsible for damages, fees and expenses, if any, that are awarded against it or for amounts in excess of the Company’s product liability coverage.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

Alpharma Matters

 

The following matters relate to our Alpharma subsidiary and/or certain of its subsidiaries.

 

Department of Justice Investigation

 

On February 28, 2007, Alpharma received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting certain documents in connection with its investigation into various marketing practices with respect to Kadian^® capsules. The DOJ has asked Alpharma to provide documents relating to post-approval studies of Kadian^® that were submitted to the FDA. Alpharma and its subsidiary, Alpharma Pharmaceuticals, have responded and are continuing to respond to this subpoena and additional information requests and are fully cooperating with the DOJ. On February 2, 2009, the Company was informed by the DOJ that its investigation may be expanded to include Alpharma’s marketing practices with respect to Flector^® Patch.

 

At this time, the Company cannot predict or determine the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of fines or penalties, if any, that might result from an adverse outcome.

 

Chicken Litter Litigation

 

Alpharma and one of its subsidiaries are two of multiple defendants that have been named in several lawsuits that allege that one of its animal health products causes chickens to produce manure that contains an arsenical compound which, when used as agricultural fertilizer by chicken farmers, degrades into inorganic arsenic and may have caused a variety of diseases in the plaintiffs (who allegedly live in close proximity to such farm fields). Alpharma provided notice to its insurance carriers and its primary insurance carriers have responded by accepting their obligations to defend or pay Alpharma’s defense costs, subject to reservation of rights to later reject coverage for these lawsuits. One of the carriers has filed a declaratory judgment action in state court in which it has sought a ruling concerning the allocation of its coverage obligations to Alpharma among the several insurance carriers and, to the extent Alpharma does not have full insurance coverage, to Alpharma. Further, this declaratory judgment action requests that the Court rule that certain of the carrier’s policies provide no coverage because certain policy exclusions allegedly operate to limit its coverage obligations under said policies. The insurance carriers may take the position that some, or all, of the applicable insurance policies contain certain provisions that could limit coverage for future product liability claims arising in connection with product sold on and after December 16, 2003.

 

In addition to the potential for personal injury damages to the approximately 155 plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are asking for punitive damages and requesting that Alpharma be enjoined from the future sale of the product at issue. In September 2006, in the first trial, which was brought by three plaintiffs, the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, Second Division entered a jury verdict in favor of Alpharma. The plaintiffs appealed the verdict, challenging certain pretrial expert rulings; however, in May 2008, the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied plaintiffs’ challenges. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Arkansas also overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment that had the effect of dismissing certain poultry company co-defendants from the case. This case was tried against the poultry company co-defendants in May 2009, resulting in a defense verdict on May 22, 2009. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in this matter. Subsequent cases are expected to be tried against both the poultry companies and Alpharma together.

 

While the Company can give no assurance of the outcome of any future trial in this litigation, it believes that it will be able to continue to present credible scientific evidence that its product is not the cause of any injuries the plaintiffs may have suffered. There is also the possibility of an adverse customer reaction to the allegations in these lawsuits, as well as additional lawsuits in other jurisdictions where the product has been sold. Worldwide sales of this product were approximately $19,600 in 2008, and approximately $6,537 and $11,517, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2009.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

AWP Litigation

 

Alpharma, and in certain instances one of its subsidiaries, are defendants in connection with various elements of the litigation described above under the heading “Average Wholesale Price Litigation”, primarily related to sale of Kadian^® capsules. At present, Alpharma is involved in proceedings in the following states: Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, and South Carolina. The Mississippi case against Alpharma was dismissed without prejudice.

 

These lawsuits vary with respect to the particular causes of action and relief sought. The relief sought in these lawsuits includes statutory causes of action including civil penalties and treble damages, common law causes of action, declaratory and injunctive relief, and punitive damages, including, in certain lawsuits, disgorgement of profits. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend its positions in these lawsuits. Numerous other pharmaceutical companies are defendants in similar lawsuits.

 

Environmental Matters

 

In May 2009, the Company received an information request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air Act regarding the Company’s historic air emissions and its operation of certain pollution control equipment (“Information Request”). In June 2009, the Company provided EPA with its initial response to the Information Request, identifying past deviations from the requirements of its state conditional major air emissions operating permit related to the Company’s operation of certain pollution control equipment at its Bristol, Tennessee facility. The Company has subsequently provided additional information to EPA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. At this time, the Company cannot predict or determine the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of fines or penalties, if any, that might result from an adverse outcome.

 

Other Contingencies

 

The Company has a supply agreement with a third party to produce metaxalone, the active ingredient in Skelaxin^®. This supply agreement requires the Company to purchase certain minimum levels of metaxalone and expires in 2010. If sales of Skelaxin^® are not consistent with current forecasts, the Company could incur losses in connection with purchase commitments for metaxalone, which could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s results of operations and cash flows.

 

 

Please see Note 9 for a discussion of the adoption of and the additional disclosures required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Staff Position No. APB 14-1, Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments that May be Settled in Cash Upon Conversion.

 

During the first quarter of 2009, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 161, Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities — an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 (“SFAS No. 161”) which requires additional disclosures for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Please see Note 4 for these additional disclosures.

 

Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141(R), Business Combinations (“SFAS No. 141(R)”). This statement establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree and recognizes and measures the goodwill acquired in the business combination or a gain from a bargain purchase. This statement also requires an acquirer to recognize and measure in-process research and development projects as intangible assets at fair value on the acquisition date. SFAS No. 141(R) also sets forth the disclosures required to be made in the financial

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the business combination. SFAS No. 141(R) will be applied by the Company to business combinations occurring on or after January 1, 2009.

 

In December 2008, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 132(R), Employers’ Disclosures about Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets (“FSP FAS 132(R)”). FSP FAS 132(R) amends SFAS 132(R) to require enhanced disclosures about an employer’s plan assets in a defined benefit pension plan or other postretirement plan. The required disclosures, similar to those required under SFAS 157, include a discussion on the inputs and valuation techniques used to develop fair value measurements of plan assets. In addition, the fair value of each major category of plan assets is required to be disclosed separately for pension plans and other postretirement benefit plans. FSP FAS 132(R) is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009. The Company does not anticipate FSP FAS 132(R) will have a material effect on its financial statements.

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 107-1 and Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 28-1, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments (“FSP 107-1”). This statement amends FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Values of Financial Instruments, to require disclosures about fair value of financial instruments in interim financial statements as well as in annual financial statements. It also amends APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting, to require those disclosures in all interim financial statements. FSP 107-1 is effective for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. The Company adopted FSP 107-1 on April 1, 2009. Please see Note 4 and Note 9 for these additional disclosures.

 

In April 2009, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly (“FSP 157-4”). FSP 157-4 provides additional guidance for determining fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements when the volume of activity for an asset or liability has significantly decreased or price quotations or observable inputs are not associated with orderly transactions. FSP 157-4 is effective for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. The Company adopted FSP 157 on April 1, 2009, and the adoption did not have a material effect on our financial statements.

 

In March 2009, the FASB issued Staff Position SFAS 115-2 and SFAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments (“FSP 115-2”). FSP 115-2 provides guidance in determining whether impairments in debt securities are other-than-temporary, and modifies the presentation and disclosures surrounding such instruments. This Staff Position is effective for interim periods ending after June 15, 2009. The Company adopted FSP 115-2 on April 1, 2009. Please see Note 4 for information regarding the adoption of this standard.

 

In May 2009, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 165, Subsequent Events, (“SFAS No. 165”). This statement establishes the general standards of accounting for and disclosure of subsequent events. In addition, this statement requires disclosure of the date through which an entity has evaluated subsequent events and the basis for that date. The Company adopted SFAS No. 165 for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2009. The adoption of SFAS No. 165 did not have a material impact on our financial statements. Please see Note 1 for information regarding the adoption of this standard.

 

 

During the three months and six months ended June, 30, 2009, the Company’s effective income tax rate was 43.6% and 46.1%, respectively. These rates were higher than the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to losses from foreign subsidiaries with no tax benefit, taxes related to stock compensation and state taxes.

 

During the three months and six months ended June, 30, 2008, the Company’s effective income tax rate from continuing operations was 33.7% and 33.8%, respectively. These rates varied from the statutory rate of 35% in 2008 primarily due to tax benefits related to tax-exempt interest income and domestic manufacturing deductions, which benefits were partially offset by state taxes.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

 

 

The Company’s business is classified into six reportable segments: branded prescription pharmaceuticals, animal health, Meridian Auto-Injector, royalties, contract manufacturing and all other. The branded prescription pharmaceuticals segment includes a variety of branded prescription products that are separately categorized into neuroscience, hospital and legacy products. These branded prescription products are aggregated because of their similarity in regulatory environment, manufacturing processes, methods of distribution and types of customer. The animal health business is a global leader in the development, registration, manufacture and marketing of medicated feed additives and water soluble therapeutics primarily for poultry, cattle and swine. Meridian Auto-Injector products are sold to both commercial and government markets. The principal source of revenues in the commercial market is the EpiPen^® product, an epinephrine filled auto-injector which is primarily prescribed for the treatment of severe allergic reactions and which is primarily marketed, distributed and sold by Dey, L.P. Government revenues are principally derived from the sale of nerve agent antidotes and other emergency medicine auto-injector products marketed to the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal, state and local agencies, particularly those involved in homeland security, as well as to approved foreign governments. Royalties include revenues the Company derives from pharmaceutical products after the Company has transferred the manufacturing or marketing rights to third parties in exchange for licensing fees or royalty payments. The contract manufacturing segment consists primarily of pharmaceutical manufacturing services provided to the Company’s branded prescription pharmaceutical segment.

 

The Company primarily evaluates its segments based on segment profit. Reportable segments were separately identified based on revenues, segment profit (excluding depreciation, amortization and impairments) and total assets. Revenues among the segments are presented in the individual segments and removed through eliminations in the information below. Substantially all of the eliminations relate to sales from the contract manufacturing segment to the branded prescription pharmaceuticals segment.

 

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)

 

The following represents selected information for the Company’s reportable segments for the periods indicated. Note that for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2008, the tables for revenues and segment profit below do not include revenues and segment profit for the animal health segment, or for the Flector^® Patch product within the branded prescription pharmaceuticals segment, since these are part of Alpharma, a company that was acquired by King at the end of December 2008.