Medtronic 10-Q 2006
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
Commission File Number 1-7707
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
710 Medtronic Parkway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
(Address of principal executive offices)
Telephone number: (763) 514-4000
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 o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. 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 o No x
Shares of common stock, $.10 par value, outstanding on November 30, 2006: 1,151,133,193
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 1 Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S.) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information necessary for a fair presentation of results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. In the opinion of management, the condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair presentation of the results of Medtronic, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Medtronic or the Company) for the periods presented. Operating results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the fiscal year as a whole. The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and the related disclosures at the date of the financial statements and during the reporting period. Actual results could materially differ from these estimates. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 28, 2006.
Note 2 Stock-Based Compensation
Effective April 29, 2006, the Company adopted the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS No. 123(R)) which replaced SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS No. 123) and supersedes Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (APB Opinion No. 25). Under the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123(R), the Company measures stock-based compensation cost at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and recognizes the compensation expense over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period. The Company elected the modified-prospective method of adopting SFAS No. 123(R), under which prior periods are not retroactively restated. The provisions of SFAS No. 123(R) apply to awards granted after the April 29, 2006 effective date. Stock-based compensation expense for non-vested awards granted prior to the effective date is being recognized over the remaining service period using the fair-value based compensation cost estimated for SFAS No. 123 pro forma disclosures. Total stock-based compensation expense included in our statement of earnings for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 was $44 million ($32 million net of tax) and $94 million ($65 million net of tax), respectively.
Stock options awards are granted at exercise prices equal to the closing price of the Companys common stock on the grant date. The majority of the Companys stock option awards are non-qualified stock options with a ten-year life and a four-year ratable vesting term. The Company currently grants stock options under the Medtronic, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan (2003 Plan) and the Medtronic, Inc. 1998 Outside Directors Stock Compensation Plan (Directors Plan). As of October 27, 2006, there were approximately 32 million and 2 million shares available for future grants under each of these plans, respectively.
Restricted Stock Awards
Restricted stock and restricted stock units, collectively restricted stock awards, are granted to officers and key employees. Restricted stock awards are subject to forfeiture if employment terminates prior to the lapse of the restrictions. The Company grants restricted stock awards that typically cliff vest between three- and five-year periods. Shares of restricted stock are considered issued and outstanding shares of the Company at the grant date and have the same dividend and voting rights as other common stock. Restricted stock units are not considered issued or outstanding common stock of the Company. Dividend equivalent units are accumulated on restricted stock units during the vesting period. The Company grants restricted stock awards under the 2003 Plan and the Directors Plan.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
The Medtronic, Inc. 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) allows participating employees to purchase shares of the Companys common stock at a discount through payroll deductions. Employees can contribute up to the lesser of 10% of their wages or the statutory limit under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code toward the purchase of the Companys common stock at 85% of its market value at the end of the calendar quarter purchase period. Employees purchased 1 million shares at an average price of $39.72 per share in the six months ended October 27, 2006. As of October 27, 2006, plan participants have had approximately $5 million withheld to purchase Company common stock at 85% of its market value on December 29, 2006, the last trading day before the end of the calendar quarter purchase period. At October 27, 2006, approximately 8 million shares of common stock were available for future purchase under the ESPP.
The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model (Black-Scholes model) to determine the fair value of stock options as of the grant date. The fair value of stock options under the Black-Scholes model requires management to make assumptions regarding projected employee stock option exercise behaviors, risk-free interest rates, volatility of the Companys stock price and expected dividends.
The expense recognized for shares purchased under our ESPP is equal to the 15% discount the employee receives at the end of the calendar quarter purchase period. The fair value of restricted stock awards equals the Companys closing stock price on the date of grant.
The following table provides the weighted average fair value of options granted to employees and the related assumptions used in the Black-Scholes model:
Stock-Based Compensation Expense
Prior to adopting SFAS No. 123(R), the Company accounted for stock options under APB Opinion No. 25 using the intrinsic value method and the impact based on the fair value method on the Companys net earnings was disclosed on a pro forma basis in the notes to the consolidated financial statements. In these pro forma disclosures, the Company recognized stock option compensation expense based on the stated vesting period, rather than the time to achieve retirement eligibility. Upon adopting SFAS No. 123(R), the Company changed its method of recognition and now recognizes stock option compensation expense based on the substantive vesting period for all new awards. Compensation expense related to stock options granted prior to fiscal year 2007 that are subject to accelerated vesting upon retirement eligibility is being recognized over the stated vesting term of the grant. If the Company had historically accounted for stock-based awards made to retirement eligible individuals under the requirements of SFAS No. 123(R), the pro forma expense disclosed below would have been decreased by $3 million and $7 million for the three and six months ended October 28, 2005, respectively. There was no stock-based compensation expense capitalized as it was deemed immaterial.
The amount of stock-based compensation expense recognized during a period is based on the portion of the awards that are ultimately expected to vest. The Company estimates pre-vesting forfeitures at the time of grant by analyzing historical data and revises those estimates in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Ultimately, the total expense recognized over the vesting period will equal the awards that actually vest.
The following table presents the statement of earnings classification of pre-tax stock-based compensation expense, for options and restricted stock awards, recognized for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006:
The following table illustrates the effect on net earnings and net earnings per share for the three and six months ended October 28, 2005 if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to its stock-based employee compensation:
Tax Impacts of Stock-Based Compensation
Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), benefits of tax deductions in excess of recognized share-based compensation expense were reported on the consolidated statement of cash flows as operating cash flows. Under SFAS No. 123(R), such excess tax benefits are reported as financing cash flows. Although total cash flows under SFAS No. 123(R) remain unchanged from what would have been reported under prior accounting standards, net operating cash flows are reduced and net financing cash flows are increased due to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). For the six months ended October 27, 2006, there were excess tax benefits of $11 million, which are classified as financing cash flows. For the six months ended October 28, 2005, there were excess tax benefits of $66 million, respectively, which were classified as operating cash flows as part of the change in accounts payable and accrued liabilities.
The following table summarizes stock option activity during the six months ended October 27, 2006:
A summary of stock options as of October 27, 2006, including options issued as a result of acquisitions from fiscal year 2002 and prior, is as follows:
The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the six months ended October 27, 2006 was $17 million. The total intrinsic value, calculated as the closing stock price at the end of the second quarter less the option exercise price of in the money options, for options outstanding and exercisable at October 27, 2006 was $361 million and $348 million, respectively. The Company issues new shares when stock option awards are exercised. Cash received from the exercise of stock options for the six months ended October 27, 2006 was $46 million and the related tax benefits realized was $11 million. Unrecognized compensation expense related to outstanding stock options as of October 27, 2006 was $212 million, pre-tax, and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.6 years and will be adjusted for any future changes in estimated forfeitures.
Restricted Stock Awards
The following table summarizes restricted stock award activity during the six months ended October 27, 2006:
Unrecognized compensation expense related to restricted stock awards as of October 27, 2006 was $87 million, pre-tax, and is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 4.1 years and will be adjusted for any future changes in estimated forfeitures.
Note 3 New Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (FIN No. 48). FIN No. 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprises financial statements in accordance with SFAS No. 109. FIN No. 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. FIN No. 48 also provides guidance on recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. FIN No. 48 is effective for the Company beginning with fiscal year 2008, with earlier adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of FIN No. 48 will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements. Statement No. 157 establishes a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, clarifies the definition of fair value within that framework, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value, except for the measurement of share based payments. The standard does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS 157 is effective, for the Company, beginning fiscal first quarter 2009. For certain types of financial instruments, SFAS 157 requires a limited form of retrospective transition, whereby the cumulative impact of the change in principle is recognized in the opening balance in retained earnings in the fiscal year of adoption. All other provisions of SFAS 157 will be applied prospectively beginning in fiscal first quarter 2009. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of SFAS No. 157 will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158, Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans. SFAS No. 158 requires the recognition of the funded status of a benefit plan in the balance sheet; the recognition in other comprehensive income of gains or losses and prior service costs or credits arising during the period but which are not included as components of periodic benefit cost; the measurement of defined benefit plan assets and obligations as of the balance sheet date; and disclosure of additional information about the effects on periodic benefit cost for the following fiscal year arising from delayed recognition in the current period. In addition, SFAS No. 158 amends SFAS No. 87, Employers Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS No. 106, Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, to include guidance regarding selection of assumed discount rates for use in measuring the benefit obligation. SFAS No. 158 is effective for the Companys fiscal year ending April 27, 2007. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of SFAS No. 158 will have on its consolidated financial statements.
Note 4 Acquisitions and IPR&D Charges, Certain Litigation Charges and Special Charges
The values assigned to purchased in-process research and development (IPR&D) are based on valuations that have been prepared using methodologies and valuation techniques consistent with those used by independent appraisers. All values were determined by identifying research projects in areas for which technological feasibility had not been established. Additionally, the values were determined by estimating the revenue and expenses associated with a projects sales cycle and the amount of after-tax cash flows attributable to these projects. The future cash flows were discounted to present value utilizing an appropriate risk-adjusted rate of return. The rate of return included a factor that takes into account the uncertainty surrounding the successful development of the IPR&D.
At the time of acquisition, the Company expects all acquired IPR&D will reach technological feasibility, but there can be no assurance that the commercial viability of these products will actually be achieved. The nature of the efforts to develop the acquired technologies into commercially viable products consists principally of planning, designing and conducting clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals. The risks associated with achieving commercialization include, but are not limited to, delay or failure to obtain regulatory approvals to conduct clinical trials, delay or failure to obtain required market clearances, and patent issuance, validity and litigation, if any. If commercial viability were not achieved, the Company would likely look to other alternatives to provide these therapies.
Acquisitions and IPR&D charges:
On September 15, 2006, the Company acquired and/or licensed selected patents and patent applications owned by Dr. Eckhard Alt (Dr. Alt), or certain of his controlled companies in a series of transactions. In connection therewith, the Company also resolved all outstanding litigation and disputes between Dr. Alt and itself and its affiliates. The agreements required the payment of total consideration of $75 million, $74 million of which was capitalized as technology based intangible assets that have an estimated useful life of 11 years. The acquired patents or licenses pertain to the cardiac rhythm disease management field and have both current application and potential for future patentable commercial products.
On July 25, 2006, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of Odin Medical Technologies, LTD (Odin), a privately held company. Prior to the acquisition, the Company had an equity investment in Odin, which was accounted for under the cost method of accounting. Odin focused on the manufacture of the PoleStar intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Image (iMRI) Guidance System which was already exclusively distributed by the Company. This acquisition is expected to help the Company further drive the acceptance of iMRI guidance in neurosurgery.
The consideration for Odin was approximately $21 million, which included $6 million in upfront cash and a $2 million milestone payment made in the three months ended October 27, 2006. The $8 million in net cash paid resulted from the $21 million in consideration less the value of the Companys prior investment in Odin and Odins existing cash balance.
In connection with the acquisition of Odin, the Company acquired $9 million of technology-based intangible assets that have an estimated useful life of 12 years. Goodwill of $12 million related to the acquisition was assigned entirely to the Spinal and Navigation operating segment. This goodwill is deductible for tax purposes.
The pro forma impact of Odin was not significant to the results of the Company for the three months ended October 27, 2006 or October 28, 2005. The results of operations related to Odin have been included in the Companys condensed consolidated statements of earnings since the date of the acquisition.
On July 1, 2005, the Company acquired all of the outstanding stock of Transneuronix, Inc. (TNI), a privately held company. Prior to the acquisition, the Company had an equity investment in TNI, which was accounted for under the cost method of accounting. TNI focused on the treatment of obesity by stimulation of the stomach with an implantable gastric stimulator, known as the Transcend device. This acquisition is expected to complement the Companys formation of a new business unit, Emerging Therapies, and the Companys strategy to deliver therapeutic solutions for the worldwide challenges of obesity. Emerging Therapies is part of the Neurological operating segment.
The consideration for TNI was approximately $269 million, which included $227 million in net cash paid. The $227 million in net cash paid resulted from the $269 million in consideration less the value of the Companys prior investment in TNI and TNIs existing cash balance. The purchase price is subject to increases which would be triggered by the achievement of certain milestones.
As a result of the acquisition of TNI, the Company acquired $55 million of intangible assets of which $54 million are technology-based intangible assets that have an estimated useful life of 15 years and $169 million of IPR&D that was expensed on the date of acquisition related to a product being developed for the treatment of obesity by stimulation of the stomach that had not yet reached technological feasibility and for which no future alternative use had been identified. Goodwill of $51 million related to the acquisition was assigned entirely to the Neurological operating segment. This goodwill is not deductible for tax purposes.
The following table summarizes the allocation of the purchase price to the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed (dollars in millions):
The pro forma impact of TNI was not significant to the results of the Company for the three months ended July 29, 2005. The results of operations related to TNI have been included in the Companys condensed consolidated statements of earnings since the date of the acquisition.
On May 18, 2005, the Company acquired substantially all of the spine-related intellectual property and related contracts, rights, and tangible materials owned by Gary Michelson, M.D. and Karlin Technology, Inc. (Michelson) and settled all outstanding litigation and disputes between Michelson and the Company. The acquired patents pertain to novel spinal technology and techniques that have both current application and the potential for future patentable commercial products. The agreement requires the payment of total consideration of $1.350 billion for (i) the purchase of a portfolio of more than 100 issued U.S. patents, (ii) over 110 pending U.S. patent applications and numerous foreign counterparts to these patents and patent applications, and (iii) the settlement of all litigation. A value of $550 million was assigned to the settlement of past damages between the parties and was recorded as an expense in fiscal fourth quarter 2005. The remaining consideration, including $3 million of direct acquisition costs, was allocated between $628 million of acquired technology based intangible assets that have an estimated useful life of 17 years and $175 million of IPR&D that was expensed on the date of acquisition related to spinal technology based devices that had not yet reached technological feasibility and had no future alternative use. The patents pertain to novel spinal technology and techniques that have the potential for future patentable commercial products in the area of spinal surgery. During fiscal first quarter 2006, the Company paid $1.320 billion and committed to three future installments of $10 million to be paid in May 2006, 2007, and 2008. The first installment of $10 million was paid in May 2006.
During fiscal first quarter 2006, the Company also entered into a royalty bearing, non-exclusive patent cross-licensing agreement with NeuroPace, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, the two companies cross-licensed patents and patent applications of neurological technology related to direct electrical stimulation or monitoring of the brain. On the date of the agreement, $20 million was expensed as IPR&D related to the licensed technology since technological feasibility of the project had not yet been reached and such technology had no future alternative use. This licensed technology is expected to enhance the Companys ability to further develop and expand its therapies for neurological disorders.
Certain litigation charges:
During the six months ended October 27, 2006, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice which requires the government to obtain dismissal of the two qui tam civil suits and is conditional upon such dismissal being obtained. To resolve the matter, Medtronic has entered into a five-year agreement that further strengthens its employee training and compliance systems surrounding sales and marketing practices. The settlement agreement also reflects Medtronics assertion that the Company and its current employees had not engaged in any wrongdoing or illegal activity. Medtronic also agreed to pay $40 million pending dismissal of the related lawsuits, and has recorded an expense in that amount in fiscal first quarter 2007.
There were no certain litigation charges during the three and six months ended October 28, 2005.
There were no special charges during the three and six months ended October 27, 2006.
In fiscal second quarter 2006, the Company recorded a $100 million pre-tax charitable donation to The Medtronic Foundation, which is a related party non-profit organization. The donation to The Medtronic Foundation was paid in fiscal second quarter 2006.
Certain of the Companys business combinations involve the potential for the payment of future contingent consideration upon the achievement of certain product development milestones and/or various other favorable operating conditions. While it is not certain if and/or when these payments will be made, the Company has developed an estimate of the potential contingent consideration for each of its acquisitions with an outstanding potential obligation. At October 27, 2006, the estimated potential amount of future contingent consideration that the Company is expected to make associated with all business combinations is approximately $59 million. The milestones associated with the contingent consideration must be reached in future periods ranging from fiscal years 2006 to 2012 in order for the consideration to be paid.
Note 5 Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost determined on a first-in, first-out basis. Inventory balances are as follows (dollars in millions):
Note 6 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended October 27, 2006 are as follows (dollars in millions):
Intangible assets, excluding goodwill, as of October 27, 2006 and April 28, 2006 are as follows (dollars in millions):
Amortization expense for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 was approximately $45 million and $90 million, respectively, and for the three and six months ended October 28, 2005 was approximately $44 million and $85 million, respectively.
Estimated aggregate amortization expense based on the current carrying value of amortizable intangible assets is as follows (dollars in millions):
Note 7 Warranty Obligation
The Company offers a warranty on various products. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its warranties and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the product is sold. Factors that affect the Companys warranty liability include the number of units sold, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and cost per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary. The amount of the reserve recorded is equal to the costs to repair or otherwise satisfy the claim.
Changes in the Companys product warranties during the six months ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 consisted of the following (dollars in millions):
Note 8 Financing Arrangements
Senior Convertible Notes
In April 2006, the Company issued $2.200 billion of 1.500% Senior Convertible Notes due 2011 and $2.200 billion of 1.625% Senior Convertible Notes due 2013 (collectively, the Senior Convertible Notes). The Senior Convertible Notes were issued at par and pay interest in cash semi-annually in arrears on April 15 and October 15 of each year. The Senior Convertible Notes are unsecured unsubordinated obligations and rank equally with all other unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. The Senior Convertible Notes have an initial conversion price of $56.14 per share. The Senior Convertible Notes may only be converted: (i) during any calendar quarter if the closing price of the Companys common stock reaches 140% of the conversion price for 20 trading days during a specified period, or (ii) if specified distributions to holders of the Companys common stock are made or specified corporate transactions occur, or (iii) during the last month prior to maturity of the applicable notes. Upon conversion, a holder would receive: (i) cash equal to the lesser of the principal amount of the note or the conversion value and (ii) to the extent the conversion value exceeds the principal amount of the note, shares of the Companys common stock, cash, or a combination of common stock and cash, at the Companys option. In addition, upon a change in control, as defined, the holders may require the Company to purchase for cash all or a portion of their notes for 100% of the principal amount of the notes plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, plus a number of additional make-whole shares of the Companys common stock, as set forth in the applicable indenture. The indentures under which the Senior Convertible Notes were issued contain customary covenants. A total of $2.500 billion of the net proceeds from these note issuances were used to repurchase common stock under the Companys stock repurchase program.
Concurrent with the issuance of the Senior Convertible Notes, the Company purchased call options on its common stock in private transactions. The call options allow the Company to receive shares of the Companys common stock and/or cash from counterparties equal to the amounts of common stock and/or cash related to the excess conversion value that it would pay to the holders of the Senior Convertible Notes upon conversion. These call options will terminate upon the earlier of the maturity dates of the related Senior Convertible Notes or the first day all of the related Senior Convertible Notes are no longer outstanding due to conversion or otherwise. The call options, which cost an aggregate $1.075 billion ($699 million net of tax benefit), were recorded as a reduction of shareholders equity.
In separate transactions, the Company sold warrants to issue shares of the Companys common stock at an exercise price of $76.56 per share in private transactions. Pursuant to these transactions, warrants for 41 million shares of the Companys common stock may be settled over a specified period beginning in July 2011 and warrants for 41 million shares of the Companys common stock may be settled over a specified period beginning in July 2013 (the settlement dates). If the average price of the Companys common stock during a defined period ending on or about the respective settlement dates exceeds the exercise price of the warrants, the warrants will be settled in shares of the Companys common stock. Proceeds received from the issuance of the warrants totaled approximately $517 million and were recorded as an addition to shareholders equity.
In September 2005, the Company issued two tranches of Senior Notes with the aggregate face value of $1.000 billion. The first tranche consisted of $400 million of 4.375% Senior Notes due 2010 and the second tranche consisted of $600 million of 4.750% Senior Notes due 2015. Each tranche was issued at a discount which resulted in an effective interest rate of 4.433% and 4.760% for the five and ten year Senior Notes, respectively. Interest on each series of Senior Notes is payable semi-annually, on March 15 and September 15 of each year. The Senior Notes are unsecured unsubordinated obligations of the Company and rank equally with all other unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness of the Company. The indentures under which Senior Notes were issued contain customary covenants. The Company used the net proceeds from the sale of the Senior Notes for repayment of a portion of its commercial paper.
In November 2005, the Company entered into a five year interest rate swap agreement with a notional amount of $200 million. This interest rate swap agreement was designated as a fair value hedge of the changes in fair value of a portion of the Companys fixed-rate $400 million Senior Notes due 2010. The Company pays variable interest equal to the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) minus 55 basis points and it receives a fixed interest rate of 4.375%.
Contingent Convertible Debentures
In September 2001, the Company completed a $2.013 billion private placement of 1.25% Contingent Convertible Debentures due September 2021 (Old Debentures). Interest is payable semi-annually. Each Old Debenture is convertible into shares of common stock at an initial conversion price of $61.81 per share; however, the Old Debentures are not convertible before their final maturity unless the closing price of our common stock reaches 110% of the conversion price for 20 trading days during a consecutive 30 trading day period.
In September 2002 and 2004, as a result of certain holders of the Old Debentures exercising their put options, the Company repurchased $39 million and $1 million respectively, of the Old Debentures for cash.
On January 24,2005, the Company completed an exchange offer whereby holders of approximately $1.930 billion of the total principal amount of the Old Debentures exchanged their existing securities for an equal principal amount of 1.25% Contingent Convertible Debentures, Series B due 2021 (New Debentures), as described below. Following the completion of the exchange offer, the Company repurchased approximately $2 million of the Old Debentures for cash.
The terms of the New Debentures are consistent with the terms of the Old Debentures noted above, except that: (i) the New Debentures require the Company to settle all conversions for a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, if any, in lieu of only shares. Upon conversion of the New Debentures the Company will pay holders cash equal to the lesser of the principal amount of the New Debentures or their conversion value, and shares of the Companys common stock to the extent the conversion value exceeds the principal amount of the New Debentures; and (ii) the New Debentures require the Company to pay only cash (in lieu of shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock) when the Company repurchases the New Debentures at the option of the holder or when the Company repurchases the New Debentures in connection with a change of control.
In September 2006, as a result of certain holders of the New Debentures and Old Debentures exercising their put options, the Company repurchased $1.835 billion of the New Debentures for cash and $42 million of the Old Debentures for cash. Twelve months prior to the put options becoming exercisable, the remaining balance of the New Debentures and the Old Debentures will be classified as short-term borrowings. At each balance sheet date without a put option within the subsequent four quarters, the remaining balance will be classified as long-term debt. Accordingly, during the second quarter of fiscal year 2007, $93 million of New Debentures and $1 million of the Old Debentures were reclassified from short-term borrowings to long-term debt as a result of the September 2006 put option expiring. For put options exercised by the holders of the New Debentures and the Old Debentures, the purchase price is equal to the principal amount of the applicable debenture plus any accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the repurchase date. If the put option is exercised, the Company will pay holders the repurchase price solely in cash (or, for the Old Debentures, in cash or stock at our option). The Company may be required to repurchase the remaining debentures at the option of the holders in September 2008, 2011 or 2016. As of October 27, 2006, approximately $93 million aggregate principal amount of New Debentures remain outstanding and approximately $1 million aggregate principal amount of Old Debentures remain outstanding. The Company can redeem the debentures for cash at any time.
We maintain a commercial paper program that allows us to have a maximum of $2.250 billion in commercial paper outstanding, with maturities up to 364 days from the date of issuance. At October 27, 2006 and April 28, 2006, outstanding commercial paper totaled $248 million and $190 million, respectively. During the three and six months ended October 27, 2006, the weighted average original maturity of the commercial paper outstanding was approximately 56 and 49 days, respectively, and the weighted average interest rate was 5.3% and 5.2%, respectively.
Lines of Credit
We have existing lines of credit of approximately $2.427 billion with various banks at October 27, 2006. The existing lines of credit include two syndicated credit facilities totaling $1.750 billion with various banks. The two credit facilities consist of a five-year $1.000 billion facility, signed on January 20, 2005, which will expire on January 20, 2010, and a five-year $750 million facility, signed on January 24, 2002, which will expire on January 24, 2007. The $1.000 billion facility provides us with the ability to increase the capacity of the facility by an additional $250 million at any time during the life of the five-year term of the agreement. The credit facilities provide backup funding for the commercial paper program and may also be used for general corporate purposes.
Note 9 Comprehensive Income and Accumulated Other Non-Owner Changes in Equity
In addition to net earnings, comprehensive income includes changes in foreign currency translation adjustments (including the change in current exchange rates, or spot rates, of net investment hedges), unrealized gains and losses on foreign exchange derivative contracts qualifying and designated as cash flow hedges, minimum pension liabilities, and unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale marketable securities. Comprehensive income for the three months ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 was $702 million and $833 million, respectively. Comprehensive income for the six months ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 was $1.328 billion and $1.156 billion, respectively.
Presented below is a summary of activity for each component of accumulated other non-owner changes in equity (dollars in millions):
Translation adjustments are not adjusted for income taxes as substantially all translation adjustments relate to our non-U.S. subsidiaries, which are considered permanent in nature. The tax expense on the unrealized gain on derivatives for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 was $1 million and $4 million, respectively. The tax expense on the unrealized gain on investments for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 was $6 million and $11 million, respectively.
Note 10 Retirement Benefit Plans
The Company sponsors various retirement benefit plans, including defined benefit pension plans (pension benefits), defined contribution savings plans, post-retirement medical plans (post-retirement benefits), and termination indemnity plans, covering substantially all U.S. employees and many employees outside the U.S. The net periodic benefit cost of the pension and post-retirement medical plans include the following components for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 (dollars in millions):
Note 11 Interest (Income)/Expense
Interest income and interest expense for the three and six month periods ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 are as follows (dollars in millions):
Note 12 Income Taxes
During the three and six months ended October 28, 2005, the Company recorded a $225 million tax benefit associated with favorable agreements reached with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) involving the review of fiscal years 1997 through 2002 domestic income tax returns. The $225 million tax benefit is recorded in provision for income taxes on the condensed consolidated statements of earnings for the three and six months ended October 28, 2005. As a result of the agreements reached with the IRS, the Company made approximately $326 million in incremental tax payments during fiscal third quarter 2006.
Note 13 Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding increased by the number of additional shares that would have been outstanding had the potentially dilutive common shares been issued and reduced by the number of shares the Company could have repurchased from the proceeds of the potentially dilutive shares. Potentially dilutive shares of common stock include stock options and other stock-based awards granted under stock-based compensation plans and shares committed to be purchased under the ESPP.
Presented below is a reconciliation between basic and diluted earnings per share (in millions, except per share data):
The calculation of weighted average diluted shares outstanding excludes options for approximately 42 million and 40 million common shares for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006, respectively, and 1 million and 2 million common shares for each of the three and six months ended October 28, 2005, as the exercise price of those options was greater than the average market price for the period, resulting in an anti-dilutive effect on diluted earnings per share.
Note 14 Segment and Geographic Information
During fiscal fourth quarter 2006, the Company revised its operating segment reporting related to the Neurological and Diabetes operating segment and the Spinal, Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) and Navigation operating segment. As a result, the Company now maintains seven operating segments, which are aggregated into one reportable segmentthe manufacture and sale of device-based medical therapies. The information for the three and six months ended October 28, 2005 has been reclassified to conform to the current presentation of seven operating segments. Each of the Companys operating segments has similar economic characteristics, technology, manufacturing processes, customers, distribution and marketing strategies, regulatory environments, and shared infrastructures. Net sales by operating segment were as follows (dollars in millions):
Net sales to external customers by geography are as follows (dollars in millions):
Note 15 Contingencies
The Company is involved in a number of legal actions. The outcomes of these legal actions are not within the Companys complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit, which, if granted, could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (SFAS No. 5), the Company records a liability in the consolidated financial statements for these actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably likely but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. If a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in the consolidated financial statements. In most cases, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most of the actions discussed below and the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these matters, it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on the Companys consolidated earnings, financial condition or cash flows.
On October 6, 1997, Cordis Corporation (Cordis), a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J), filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Arterial Vascular Engineering, Inc., which Medtronic acquired in January 1999 and which is now known as Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (Medtronic Vascular). The suit alleged that Medtronic Vasculars modular stents infringe certain patents owned by Cordis. Boston Scientific Corporation is also a defendant in this suit. On December 22, 2000, a jury rendered a verdict that Medtronic Vasculars previously marketed MicroStent and GFX stents infringed valid claims of two Cordis patents and awarded damages to Cordis totaling approximately $270 million. On March 28, 2002, the District Court entered an order in favor of Medtronic Vascular, deciding as a matter of law that Medtronic Vasculars MicroStent and GFX stents did not infringe the patents. Cordis appealed, and on August 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Courts decision and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Court thereafter issued a new patent claim construction and a new trial was held in March 2005. On March 14, 2005, the jury found that the previously marketed MicroStent and GFX stent products infringed valid claims of Cordis patents. On March 27, 2006, the District Court denied post-trial motions filed by the parties, including Cordis motion to reinstate the previous damages award. On April 26, 2006, Medtronic filed its Notice of Appeal of the judgment of infringement. The District Court has deferred any hearing on damages issues until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolves the appeal on the finding of liability. Medtronic has not recorded an expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On December 24, 1997, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS), a subsidiary of Boston Scientific Corporation, sued Medtronic Vascular in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain models of Medtronic Vasculars stents infringe the Lau stent patents held by ACS, and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. Medtronic Vascular denies infringement. In February 2005, following trial, a jury determined that the ACS Lau stent patents were valid and that Medtronics Driver, GFX, MicroStent, S540, S660, S670, Bestent2 and S7 stents infringe those patents. Medtronic Vascular has made numerous post-trial motions challenging the jurys verdict of infringement and validity and the District Court has not yet ruled on those motions. On June 7 and 8, 2005, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing on Medtronic Vasculars claim that the ACS Lau stent patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct of ACS in obtaining the Lau patents. The District Court has not yet issued a decision on Medtronic Vasculars claim of inequitable conduct. Issues of damages have been bifurcated from the liability phase of the proceedings. On August 9, 2005, the Court issued an order continuing a stay of any further proceedings on the questions of damages or willfulness. These issues likely will not be addressed by a jury or the Court until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reviewed the underlying liability issues concerning alleged infringement. In January 2006, Medtronic filed a Request for Reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) related to each of the four Lau patents asserted by ACS in the above matter. On February 14, 2006, the USPTO granted Medtronics Request for Reexamination for each of the four Lau patents, finding that substantial questions exist regarding the validity of the Lau patent claims in view of prior art submitted by Medtronic with the Request for Reexamination. The USPTO will now reconsider whether the Lau patents should have been granted in the first instance, though the timing of such reexamination is not known. Until this reexamination is concluded, its potential impact upon the claims relating to the Lau patents in the above proceeding remains unknown. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On February 20, 2006, an arbitration panel issued a final, non-appealable award concluding that Medtronic Vasculars S670, S660, S540, S7 and Driver stents, which were formerly the subject of a patent infringement dispute between J&J and Cordis and Medtronic Vascular, are licensed under a 1997 agreement between the two companies and subject to a covenant not to sue contained within a 1998 amendment to the 1997 agreement. Cordis since initiated arbitration proceedings against Medtronic Vascular alleging that certain of the products infringe certain patents of J&J and Cordis, and is seeking royalties for such infringement, if any. Medtronic Vascular believes it has meritorious defenses to these allegations and intends to assert these defenses rigorously. The arbitrators have not yet been selected. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On January 26, 2001, DePuy/AcroMed, a subsidiary of J&J, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Medtronics subsidiary, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (MSD), was infringing a patent relating to a design for a thoracolumbar multiaxial screw (MAS). In March 2002, DePuy/AcroMed supplemented its allegations to claim that MSDs M10, M8 and Vertex screws infringe the patent. On April 17, 2003 and February 26, 2004, the District Court ruled that those screws do not infringe. On October 1, 2004, a jury found that the MAS screw, which MSD no longer sells in the U.S., infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury awarded damages of $21 million and on February 9, 2005, the Court entered judgment against MSD, including prejudgment interest, in the aggregate amount of $24 million. In fiscal third quarter 2005, the Company recorded an expense equal to the $24 million judgment in the matter. DePuy/AcroMed has appealed the Courts decisions that the M10, M8 and Vertex screws do not infringe, and MSD has appealed the jurys verdict that the MAS screw infringes valid claims of the patent. On November 20, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court that the M10 and M8 screws do not infringe, affirmed the jurys verdict and damage award on the MAS screws, affirmed the decision that the Vertex screws do not literally infringe, but ruled that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Vertex screws infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Company has not recorded any additional expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On May 2, 2003, Cross Medical Products, Inc. (Cross) sued MSD in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges that MSDs CD HORIZON, Vertex and Crosslink products infringe certain patents owned by Cross. MSD has countered that Cross cervical plate products infringe certain patents of MSD, and Cross has filed a reply alleging that certain MSD cervical plate products infringe certain patents of Cross. On May 19, 2004, the Court found that the MAS, Vertex, M8, M10, CD HORIZON SEXTANT and CD HORIZON LEGACY screw products infringe one Cross patent. A hearing on the validity of that patent was held on July 12, 2004, after which the District Court ruled that the patents were valid. Cross made a motion for permanent injunction on the multiaxial screw products, which the District Court granted on September 20, 2004, but stayed the effect of the injunction until January 3, 2005. MSD requested an expedited appeal of the ruling and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the request. The Federal Circuit heard the appeal on March 11, 2005. On September 30, 2005, the Federal Circuit vacated the injunction, modified the trial courts claim construction rulings, and remanded the matter for trial in the District Court. The Federal Circuit awarded costs to Medtronic on the appeal. In April 2005, the District Court ruled invalid certain claims in the patents Cross asserted against MSDs Crosslink and cervical plate products. The Court also ruled that Cross cervical plate products infringe MSDs valid patents and that MSDs redesigned pedicle screw products infringe one claim of one of the patents owned by Cross. Cross thereafter moved for an injunction against the redesigned screw products, which the District Court granted on May 24, 2005. The District Court then stayed the effectiveness of the injunction until August 22, 2005. On July 27, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted MSDs motion to stay the District Courts injunction pending a full hearing on the appeal. In granting the further stay, the Federal Circuit stated MSD had shown a ...likelihood of success... on the merits of its appeal. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on this appeal on March 10, 2006, but has not issued its ruling as of the date of filing this report. The trial court held a status hearing on December 19, 2005, to determine further proceedings in light of the appellate rulings, and it held a second status conference in May 2006. No trial date has been set. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5. Separately, on February 1, 2006, MSD filed a lawsuit against Biomet Inc., the corporate parent of Cross (Biomet) and its subsidiary EBI Spine, L.P., for patent infringement. The suit, which involves seven Medtronic patents and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Three of the patents were purchased by Medtronic from Michelson and involve single-lock anterior cervical plating systems used in cervical spinal fusions. Medtronic claims that a cervical plate marketed by Biomet under the trade name VueLock Anterior Cervical Plate System, and openly promoted as a plate that has a Secure One Step Locking mechanism feature, infringes these patents. The other patents involve rod reducer instruments and surgical implantation methods commonly used in spinal surgeries to implant pedicle screws. The lawsuit alleges that Biomets pedicle screw systems utilize a rod reducer instrument in a variety of lumbar and thoracic spinal fusion surgeries.
On October 2, 2003, Cordis sued Medtronic Vascular in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Medtronic Vasculars S7 stent delivery system infringes certain catheter patents owned by Cordis. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court has stayed the suit and referred the matter to arbitration. The arbitrators have not yet been selected. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On October 15, 2004, Dr. Eckhard Alt filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Alt alleged that certain Medtronic pacemakers and defibrillators infringed four patents Dr. Alt claimed he owned. On February 15, 2006, Dr. Alt filed a second lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Medtronic, Inc. alleging that certain Medtronic defibrillators infringed one other patent in which Dr. Alt claimed to have certain rights. On September 15, 2006, the parties consummated transactions that resolved the foregoing litigation. In connection therewith, selected patents and patent applications owned by Dr. Alt or certain of his controlled entities were conveyed and/or licensed to Medtronic and the parties executed mutual releases. The purchase and/or license of intellectual property was accounted for and capitalized as an asset by the Company.
On February 11, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began advising physicians about a potential battery shorting mechanism that may occur in a subset of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), including certain of the Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain of the InSync I/II/III Marquis and InSync III CRT-D devices. The Company provided physicians with a list of potentially affected patients and recommended that physicians communicate with those patients so they could manage the potential issue in a manner they felt was appropriate for their individual patients. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, later classified by the FDA as a Class II Recall, a number of lawsuits were filed against Medtronic in various state and federal jurisdictions. The cases were brought either by individuals claiming personal injury or by third party payors seeking reimbursement of costs associated with the field action (including a claim by an individual purporting to act on behalf of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services). The personal injury complaints generally alleged strict liability, negligence, warranty and other common law and/or statutory claims; and seek compensatory as well as punitive damages. Cases filed in federal court (either personal injury or third party payor) have been consolidated before one federal judge under a process known as a Multidistrict Litigation case (MDL). There are approximately 417 federal personal injury cases, most of which have been consolidated in the MDL. We expect all federal cases will be transferred to the MDL. There are approximately 34 state court personal injury cases that are not part of the MDL. Separate master complaints were filed in the MDL for the personal injury and third party payor claims. The third party payor master complaint contains class allegations and lawyers for the plaintiffs have indicated that they will request the courts permission to amend the personal injury master complaint to add class allegations which were omitted from it. The Company intends to challenge any attempt at class certification because it believes individual issues far outweigh any common issues in the various cases. On November 28, 2006, the federal judge managing the MDL denied Medtronics motion for summary judgment on the federal personal injury cases. The motion was based on federal preemption, and the denial of the motion does not represent a ruling on the merits. Medtronic believes it has meritorious defenses to the litigation and intends to seek court approval to immediately appeal this decision. A status conference will be held in the MDL before the court on December 21, 2006; next steps in the MDL will be discussed at that time. Medtronic also filed a motion to dismiss the third party payor cases in March 2006 and will ask the court for a hearing on that motion as soon as possible. Additionally, five putative class actions have been filed in Canada. The Company is unaware of any confirmed injury or death resulting from a device failure due to the shorting mechanism that was the subject matter of the field action though certain of the lawsuits make such allegations. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with the various Marquis related lawsuits because potential losses are not currently probable or reasonably estimable under SFAS No. 5.
On October 24, 2005, Medtronic received a subpoena from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts issued under the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 requesting documents the Company may have, if any, relating to pacemakers and defibrillators and related components; monitoring equipment and services; a provision of benefits, if any, to persons in a position to recommend purchases of such devices; and the Companys training and compliance materials relating to the fraud and abuse and federal Anti-Kickback statutes. The Company is cooperating fully with the investigation, and has begun to produce documents on a schedule requested by the United States Attorney.
In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require it to indemnify customers or suppliers for specific risks, such as claims for injury or property damage arising out of the Companys products or the negligence of its personnel or claims alleging that its products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property. The Companys maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated, and the Company has not accrued any liabilities within the consolidated financial statements. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses on these types of indemnifications.
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Understanding Our Financial Information
The following discussion and analysis provides information management believes to be relevant to understanding the financial condition and results of operations of Medtronic, Inc. For a full understanding of financial condition and results of operations, you should read this discussion along with Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2006. In addition, you should read this discussion along with our condensed consolidated financial statements and related Notes thereto as of October 27, 2006.
Throughout this financial information, you will read about transactions or events that materially contribute to or reduce earnings and materially affect financial trends. We refer to these transactions and events as either special (such as certain tax adjustments and restructuring charges), certain litigation or purchased in-process research and development (IPR&D) charges. These charges result from facts and circumstances that vary in frequency and/or impact to operations. While understanding these charges is important in understanding and evaluating financial trends, other transactions or events may also have a material impact on financial trends. A complete understanding of the special, certain litigation and IPR&D charges is necessary in order to estimate the likelihood that financial trends will continue.
During fiscal fourth quarter 2006, we revised our operating segment reporting related to our Neurological and Diabetes operating segment and our Spinal, Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) and Navigation operating segment. As a result, we now function in seven operating segments, consisting of Cardiac Rhythm Disease Management (CRDM); Spinal and Navigation; Neurological; Vascular; Diabetes; Cardiac Surgery; and ENT. The applicable information for fiscal year 2006 has been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
Executive Level Overview
We are the global leader in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health and extending life for millions of people around the world. Through our seven operating segments, we develop, manufacture, and market our medical devices in more than 120 countries worldwide while expanding patient access to our products. Our primary products include those for heart and vascular disease, neurological disorders, chronic pain, spinal disorders, diabetes, urologic and digestive system disorders, and ear, nose and throat disorders.
Net earnings for fiscal second quarter 2007 were $681 million, or $0.59 per diluted share, as compared to net earnings of $817 million, or $0.67 per diluted share for the same period last fiscal year, representing a decrease of 17% and 12%, respectively. Fiscal second quarter 2006 net earnings included a $225 million tax benefit associated with the reversal of reserves resulting from favorable agreements reached with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a $66 million after-tax special charge related to a charitable donation to The Medtronic Foundation. In addition, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (SFAS No. 123(R)), related to stock-based compensation, using the modified-prospective method beginning in fiscal 2007. In accordance with this method, the Company is not adjusting its reported historical financial statements to reflect the impact of stock-based compensation. Total stock-based compensation expense recognized during the three months ended October 27, 2006 was $32 million after-tax.
Net earnings for the six months ended October 27, 2006 were $1.280 billion, or $1.10 per diluted share, as compared to net earnings of $1.137 billion, or $0.93 per diluted share for the same period last fiscal year, representing an increase of 13% and 18%, respectively. Net earnings for the six months ended October 27, 2006 included a $40 million certain litigation charge. Net earnings for the six months ended October 28, 2005 included a $225 million tax benefit associated with the reversal of reserves resulting from favorable agreements reached with the IRS, a $66 million after-tax special charge related to a charitable donation to The Medtronic Foundation and after-tax IPR&D charges of $295 million. In addition, the Company adopted SFAS No. 123(R), related to stock-based compensation, using the modified-prospective method beginning in fiscal 2007. Total stock-based compensation expense recognized during the six months ended October 27, 2006 was $65 million after-tax.
Net sales for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 were $3.075 billion and $5.972 billion, representing an increase of 11% and 9%, respectively, from the same periods last year. Foreign currency translation had a favorable impact on net sales for the three and six month periods ending October 27, 2006 of $33 million and $39 million, respectively, when compared to the same periods in the prior year. The primary exchange rate movements that impact our consolidated net sales growth are the United States (U.S.) dollar as compared to the Euro and Japanese Yen. The impact of foreign currency fluctuations on net sales is not indicative of the impact on net earnings due to the offsetting foreign currency impact on operating costs and expenses and our hedging activities (see Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk following this managements discussion and analysis under Item 3 as it relates to our hedging activities). The table below illustrates net sales by operating segment for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 and October 28, 2005 (dollars in millions):
The increase in net sales for the three and six month periods was driven by strong performances in our Spinal and Navigation, Vascular, Neurological and Diabetes operating segments. Net sales in our largest operating segment, CRDM, increased 6% and 2%, respectively, for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 as compared to the same periods in the prior year. Although net sales of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), our largest product line, decreased in fiscal first quarter 2007 by $45 million, or 6%, when compared to fiscal first quarter 2006, ICD net sales rebounded in fiscal second quarter 2007 to $764 million representing 4% growth as compared to the three months ended October 28, 2005. U.S sales of ICDs during the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 were $554 million and $1.049 billion representing a decline of 4% and 9%, respectively, as compared to the same periods in fiscal 2006. Net ICD sales outside the U.S. continue to grow. Outside the U.S. net sales of ICDs for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 were $210 million and $387 million representing growth of 36% and 29%, respectively.
There were several factors impacting the net sales of U.S. ICDs. For a portion of the three and six month periods ended October 28, 2005, one key competitor had several product recalls, which bolstered revenues for us in fiscal first and second quarters 2006. While the absence of a competitor increased net sales in the prior year, market concerns about the safety of ICD therapy caused a decrease in demand and implant rates. We have taken several initiatives to reinvigorate the growth in the large and under-penetrated U.S ICD market. First, we continue to make progress with IMPROV HF, an extensive clinical study designed to analyze the treatment patterns of large cardiology practices. We are moving forward with our Sudden Cardiac Arrest national awareness campaign aimed at physicians, patients and hospital administrators to improve awareness of both the risk and prevalence of sudden cardiac arrest, together with the effectiveness of ICD therapy. Finally, we continue to make strategic additions to our field force, including therapy sales representatives, clinical specialists, and general sales representatives.
We continue to believe that the U.S. and worldwide ICD markets are attractive and represent a solid and sustainable growth opportunity. The need for sudden cardiac arrest protection and heart failure treatment is significant in the U.S. and even larger internationally. We expect to see the U.S. ICD market continue to rebound as we move through the remainder of fiscal 2007 and beyond.
While ICDs are our largest product line, they represent less than 25% of our total revenue. The remainder of our diversified business portfolio delivered solid worldwide net sales growth of 14% and 13% for the three and six month periods ended October 27, 2006, respectively, as compared to the same periods in the prior year. Also, outside the U.S. net sales grew across all business segments to $1.042 billion and $2.056 billion for the three and six month periods ended October 27, 2006, an increase of 19% over both periods last year. Outside the U.S. net sales growth for the three and six month periods ended October 27, 2006 were led by a 28% and 36% increase in Vascular net sales, respectively, due to continued acceptance of the Endeavor drug eluting stent (Endeavor), released in August 2005, and a 36% and 29% increase in outside the U.S. ICD sales, respectively.
For more detail regarding net sales, see our discussion of net sales by operating segment within this managements discussion and analysis.
We remain committed to our Mission of developing lifesaving and life enhancing therapies to alleviate pain, restore health and extend life. We continue to make substantial investments for the expansion of our existing product lines and for the search of new innovative products. Research and development spending during the three and six month periods ended October 27, 2006 of $320 million and $619 million increased 16% and 15%, respectively, compared to the same period in the prior year. Research and development expenses for the three and six months ended October 27, 2006 include an allocation of $10 million and $22 million, respectively, related to stock compensation expense . Our research and development efforts are focused on maintaining or achieving leadership in each of the markets we serve to ensure that patients receive the most advanced and effective treatments possible. We work to improve patient access through well planned studies, which show the cost-effectiveness of our therapies and our alliance with patients, clinicians, regulators and reimbursement agencies. We also focus on clinical trials, which lead to market expansion and enable further penetration of our life changing devices.
Increased investment in our future is fortified by our continued strong cash flow generated from operations of over $1.307 billion during the six months ended October 27, 2006, and our $5.439 billion in cash, short- and long-term debt securities as of October 27, 2006. We will use our cash flow from operations to invest in research and development, potential strategic acquisitions and participation in expanded clinical trials, which support regulatory approval of our products.
As announced December 4, 2006, we intend to pursue a spin-off of our Emergency Response Systems business into an independent, publicly traded company. We believe that the creation of this new company will enable us to more directly focus our resources on high-growth therapies aimed at chronic disease management. See further discussion in the Cardiac Rhythm Disease Management operating segment section within this managements discussion and analysis.
Critical Accounting Estimates
We have adopted various accounting policies to prepare the condensed consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted (GAAP) in the United States of America. Our most significant accounting policies are disclosed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 28, 2006.
The preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements, in conformity with U.S. GAAP, requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our estimates and assumptions, including those related to bad debts, inventories, intangible assets, property, plant and equipment, investment impairment, legal proceedings, IPR&D, warranty obligations, product liability, self-insurance, pension and post-retirement obligations, sales returns and discounts, stock based compensation and income taxes are updated as appropriate, which in most cases is at least quarterly. We base our estimates on historical experience, actuarial valuations or various assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, and the results form the basis for making judgments about the reported values of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Actual results may materially differ from these estimates.
Estimates are considered to be critical if they meet both of the following criteria: (1) the estimate requires assumptions about material matters that are uncertain at the time the accounting estimates are made, and (2) material changes in the estimates are reasonably likely to occur from period to period. Our critical accounting estimates include the following:
We are involved in a number of legal actions, the outcomes of these legal actions are not within our complete control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, the claimants seek damages, as well as other relief, including injunctions barring the sale of products that are the subject of the lawsuit, which, if granted, could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, we record a liability in our consolidated financial statements for these actions when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably likely but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed in notes accompanying our condensed consolidated financial statements. If a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, a liability is not recorded in the consolidated financial statements. In most cases, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Our significant legal proceedings are discussed in Note 15 to the condensed consolidated financial statements and are incorporated by reference into Part II, Item 1 Legal Proceedings. While it is not possible to predict the outcome for most actions discussed, and we believe that we have meritorious defenses against the matters detailed in Note 15, it is possible that costs associated with them could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated earnings, financial position or cash flows.
Our effective tax rate is based on expected income, statutory tax rates and tax planning opportunities available to us in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Significant judgment is required in determining our effective tax rate and evaluating our tax positions. We establish reserves when, despite our belief that our tax return positions are fully supportable, we believe that certain positions are likely to be challenged and that we may or may not prevail. We adjust these reserves in light of changing facts and circumstances, such as the progress of a tax audit. Our effective tax rate includes the impact of reserve provisions and changes to reserves that we consider appropriate. This rate is then applied to our quarterly operating results. In the event there is a special, certain litigation and/or IPR&D charge recognized in our operating results, the tax attributable to that item would be separately calculated and recorded in the same period.
Tax regulations require certain items be included in the tax return at different times than when those items are required to be recorded in the consolidated financial statements. As a result, our effective tax rate reflected in our consolidated financial statements is different than that reported in our tax return. Some of these differences are perma