Allergan Finance LLC 10-K 2006
Documents found in this filing:
Washington, D.C. 20549
x ANNUAL REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 0-20045
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
311 Bonnie Circle, Corona, CA 92880 - 2882
(Address of principal executive offices, including ZIP code)
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well known seasoned issuer (as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x
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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. 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):
Large accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No x
Aggregate market value of Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, as of June 30, 2005:
$3,258,713,673 based on the last reported sales price on the New York Stock Exchange
Number of shares of Registrants Common Stock outstanding on March 1, 2006: 111,029,721
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Part III incorporates certain information by reference from the registrants proxy statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held on May 5, 2006. Such proxy statement will be filed no later than 120 days after the close of the registrants fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Watson, the Company we, us or our) is engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and off-patent (generic) pharmaceutical products. Watson operates manufacturing, distribution, research and development, and administrative facilities primarily in the United States (U.S.). As of December 31, 2005, we marketed more than 125 generic pharmaceutical products and more than 20 brand pharmaceutical products.
Our principal executive offices are located at 311 Bonnie Circle, Corona, California, 92880. Our Internet website address is www.watsonpharm.com. We do not intend this website address to be an active link or to otherwise incorporate by reference the contents of the website into this report. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments thereto, from 2000 to present, are available free of charge on our Internet website. These reports are posted on our Website as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SECs Public Reference Room or electronically through the SEC website (www.sec.gov). Within the Investors section of our Website, we provide information concerning corporate governance, including our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Board Committee Charters and Composition, Code of Conduct and other information.
Prescription pharmaceutical products in the U.S. generally are marketed as either generic or brand pharmaceuticals. Generic pharmaceutical products are bioequivalents of their respective brand products and provide a cost-efficient alternative to brand products. Brand pharmaceutical products are marketed under brand names through programs that are designed to generate physician and consumer loyalty. As a result of the differences between the two types of products, we operate and manage our business as two segments: Generic and Brand.
We apply three key strategies to grow and improve our business: (i) internal development of technologically challenging and high demand products, (ii) establishment of strategic alliances and collaborations and (iii) acquisition of products and companies that complement our existing portfolio. We believe that our three-pronged strategy will allow us to expand both our brand and generic product offerings. Based upon business conditions, our financial strength and other factors, we regularly reexamine our business strategies and may change them at anytime. See Risks Related to Our Business.
Watson is a leader in the development, manufacture and sale of generic pharmaceutical products. We currently market more than 125 generic pharmaceutical products. When patents or other regulatory exclusivity no longer protect a brand product, opportunities exist to introduce off-patent or generic counterparts to the brand product. These generic products are the therapeutic equivalent to their brand name counterparts and are generally sold at significantly lower prices than the brand product. As such, generic pharmaceuticals provide an effective and cost-efficient alternative to brand products. Our portfolio of generic products includes products we have internally developed, products we have licensed from third parties, and products we distribute for third parties. Net revenues from our generic products accounted for $1.2 billion or approximately 76% of our product net revenues in 2005.
With respect to generic products, our strategy is to continue to develop generic pharmaceuticals that are difficult to formulate or manufacture or will complement or broaden our existing product lines. Since the prices and unit volumes of our brand products will likely decrease upon the introduction of generic alternatives, we also intend to market generic alternatives to our brand products where market conditions and the competitive environment justify such activities. Additionally, we intend to distribute generic versions of third parties brand products (sometimes known as Authorized Generics) to the extent such arrangements continue to be complementary to our core business under applicable laws and regulations.
Our portfolio of generic pharmaceutical products includes the following products, which represented 65% of total generic product net revenues in 2005:
We predominantly market our generic products to various drug wholesalers and national retail drugstore chains utilizing 24 sales and marketing professionals. We sell our generic products primarily under the Watson Laboratories and Watson Pharma labels, with the exception of our over-the-counter products which we sell under our Rugby label or under private label.
Generic Business Development
During 2005, we expanded our generic product line with the launch of six generic products. In November 2005, we launched oxycodone HCL controlled-release tablets, a narcotic analgesic used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain.
In 2005, our product development efforts resulted in the filing of 22 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), including one supplement and two amendments. At December 31, 2005, we had 47 ANDAs on file. See our Government Regulation and Regulatory Matters section for a description of our process for obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for our products. See also Risks Related to our BusinessExtensive industry regulation has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities.
Newly developed pharmaceutical products normally are patented and, as a result, are generally offered by a single provider when first introduced to the market. We currently market a number of patented products to physicians, hospitals, and other markets that we serve. We also market certain trademarked off-patent products directly to healthcare professionals. We classify these patented and off-patent trademarked products as our brand pharmaceutical products. Net revenues from our brand products accounted for $390 million or approximately 24% of our total product net revenues in 2005.
Our Brand business segment currently develops, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes products primarily through two sales and marketing groups, Specialty Products and Nephrology.
Our Specialty Products product line includes urology, anti-hypertensive, psychiatry, pain management and dermatology products and a genital warts treatment. We market these products to urologists, primary care physicians, endocrinologists, obstetricians and gynecologists. Currently, three products, Trelstar® DEPOT and Trelstar® LA (collectively Trelstar®), Oxytrol®, and Androderm®, are actively promoted through this group.
Our Nephrology product line consists of products for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia. Our primary product in the Nephrology group is Ferrlecit®, which is indicated for patients undergoing hemodialysis in conjunction with erythropoietin therapy. Ferrlecit® accounted for 9%, 8% and 9% of our consolidated net revenues in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Ferrlecit®, introduced in 1999, was granted a five-year exclusivity period by the FDA as a new chemical entity. Regulatory exclusivity on Ferrlecit® ended in August 2004. See Risks Related to our BusinessLoss of revenues from Ferrlecit®, a significant product, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We market our brand products through 333 sales professionals within the aforementioned specialized sales and marketing groups. Each of our sales and marketing groups focuses on physicians who specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of particular medical conditions and each group offers products to satisfy the unique needs of these physicians. We believe this focused sales and marketing approach enables us to foster close professional relationships with specialty physicians, as well as cover the primary care physicians who also prescribe in selected therapeutic areas. We generally sell our brand products under the Watson Pharma and the Oclassen® Dermatologics labels.
Our sales and marketing groups have targeted selected therapeutic areas predominately because of their potential growth opportunities and the size of the physician audience. We believe that the nature of these markets and the identifiable base of physician prescribers provide us with opportunities to achieve significant market penetration through our specialized sales forces. Typically, our brand products realize higher profit margins than our generic products. We intend to continue to expand our brand product portfolio through internal product development, strategic alliances and acquisitions.
Our portfolio of brand pharmaceutical products includes the following products, which represented 91% of total brand product net revenues in 2005:
Brand Business Development
During 2005, we launched Trelstar® (triptorelin pamoate for injectible suspension), 30-day and 90-day products indicated for the palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Also in 2005, we launched Oxytrol® (oxybutynin transdermal system) through license and distribution agreements in Australia and in the United Kingdom and several European countries we launched our oxybutynin transdermal system where it is marketed under the trade name Kentera®. Oxytrol® (Kentera®) is a transdermal patch for the treatment of overactive bladder, with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence, urgency, and frequency. Oxytrol® was originally launched in the U.S. market in 2003.
The Company holds a 50% interest in Somerset Pharmaceuticals, (Somerset) our joint venture with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. In February 2006, the FDA granted final approval for Emsam® , a selegiline patch for the treatment of depression being developed by Somerset. Somerset has an agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), whereby BMS has exclusive distribution rights to commercialize Emsam® in the U.S. and Canada. Somerset received a milestone payment upon the approval of Emsam® and will receive further payments on launch and achievement of certain sales levels. Somerset will supply EmSam® to Bristol Myers-Squibb and receive royalties on product sales. (See our Government Regulation and Regulatory Matters section for a description of the process for obtaining FDA approval of products.)
During 2005, we continued our generic product development alliance with Cipla Ltd. (Cipla), the second largest pharmaceutical company in India. Under the terms of the agreement announced in November 2003, Watson is responsible for pursuing regulatory approvals for all developed products and has exclusive U.S. marketing rights for the products. Cipla is responsible for development and
manufacturing of products under the terms of the agreement. In the fourth quarter of 2004, we obtained FDA approval of our ANDA for Citalopram, the first product approval realized by our collaboration with Cipla.
Watson evaluates the performance of its Brand and Generic business segments based on net revenues, gross profit and net contribution. Summarized net revenues, gross profit and contribution information for each of the last three fiscal years is presented in Note 11 in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Annual Report.
We devote significant resources to the research and development of brand and generic products and proprietary drug delivery technologies. We incurred research and development expenses of $125.3 million in 2005, $134.2 million in 2004 and $102.1 million in 2003. Our research and development strategy focuses on the following product development areas:
· off-patent drugs that are difficult to develop or manufacture, or that complement or broaden our existing product lines;
· the development of sustained-release technologies and the application of these technologies to existing drug forms;
· the application of proprietary drug-delivery technology for new product development in specialty areas;
· the expansion of existing oral immediate-release products with respect to additional dosage strengths;
· the acquisition of mid-to-late development-stage brand drugs; and
· off-patent drugs that target smaller specialized or under-served markets.
As of December 31, 2005, we maintained research and development facilities in Corona, California; Danbury, Connecticut; Copiague, New York; Malmo, Sweden; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Changzhou City, Peoples Republic of China.
We are presently developing a number of brand and generic products, some of which utilize novel drug-delivery systems, through a combination of internal and collaborative programs.
We sell our brand and generic pharmaceutical products primarily to drug wholesalers, retailers and distributors, including large chain drug stores, hospitals, clinics, government agencies and managed healthcare providers such as health maintenance organizations and other institutions. These customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the U.S. In recent years, this distribution network has undergone significant consolidation, marked by mergers and acquisitions among wholesale distributors and large retail drug store chains. As a result, a small number of large, wholesale distributors and large chain drug stores control a significant share of the market. We expect that consolidation of drug wholesalers and retailers may adversely impact pricing and create other competitive pressures on drug manufacturers.
Sales to certain of our customers accounted for 10% or more of our annual net revenues during the past three years. The following table illustrates those customers and the respective percentage of our net revenues for which they account:
The loss of any of these customers could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. See Risk Relating to Investing in the Pharmaceutical Industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. We compete with different companies depending upon product categories, and within each product category, upon dosage strengths and drug delivery systems. Such competitors include the major brand name and generic manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, especially those doing business in the U.S. In addition to product development, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include product quality and price, reputation and service and access to proprietary and technical information. It is possible that developments by others will make our products or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete.
Competing in the brand product business requires us to identify and bring to market new products embodying technological innovations. Successful marketing of brand products depends primarily on the ability to communicate their effectiveness, safety and value to healthcare professionals in private practice, group practices and managed care organizations. We anticipate that our brand product offerings will support our existing areas of therapeutic focus. Based upon business conditions and other factors, we regularly reevaluate our business strategies and may from time to time reallocate our resources from one therapeutic area to another, withdraw from a therapeutic area or add an additional therapeutic area in order to maximize our overall growth opportunities.
Our competitors in brand products include major brand name manufacturers of pharmaceuticals such as Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Novartis) and Pfizer. Based on total assets, annual revenues and market capitalization, we are considerably smaller than these competitors and other national competitors in the brand product area. These competitors, as well as others, have been in business for a longer period of time, have a greater number of products on the market and have greater financial and other resources than we do. If we directly compete with them for the same markets and/or products, their financial strength could prevent us from capturing a meaningful share of those markets.
We actively compete in the generic pharmaceutical business. Revenues and gross profit derived from the sales of generic pharmaceutical products tend to follow a pattern based on certain regulatory and competitive factors. As patents and regulatory exclusivity for brand name products expire, the first off-patent manufacturer to receive regulatory approval for generic equivalents of such products is generally able to achieve significant market penetration. As competing off-patent manufacturers receive regulatory approvals on similar products, market share, revenues and gross profit typically decline, in some cases dramatically. Accordingly, the level of market share, revenues and gross profit attributable to a particular generic product normally is related to the number of competitors in that products market and the timing of that products regulatory approval and launch, in relation to competing approvals and launches. Consequently, we must continue to develop and introduce new products in a timely and cost-effective manner to maintain our revenues and gross profit. In addition to competition from other generic drug
manufacturers, we face competition from brand name companies in the generic market. Many of these companies seek to participate in sales of generic products by, among other things, collaborating with other generic pharmaceutical companies or by marketing their own generic equivalent to their brand products. Our major competitors in generic products include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Generics and Sandoz Pharmaceuticals. See Risks Related to Our BusinessThe pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive.
We manufacture many of our own finished products at our plants in Corona, California; Carmel, New York; Copiague, New York; Salt Lake City, Utah; Phoenix, Arizona; and Humacao, Puerto Rico. As part of an ongoing effort to optimize our manufacturing operations, we announced plans in October 2005 to consolidate certain of our solid dosage manufacturing operations. As a result, we have begun the transfer of products from our Humacao, Puerto Rico facility to our Carmel, New York and Corona, California sites and plan to discontinue operations at our Puerto Rico facility within the next 15 to 21 months.
In December 2005, we acquired a solid dosage manufacturing facility in Goa, India. This facility is currently undergoing FDA qualification upgrades to ultimately produce current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) compliant products for the U.S. market.
Our manufacturing operations are subject to extensive regulatory oversight and could be interrupted at any time. Our Corona, California facility is currently subject to a consent decree of permanent injunction. See Risks Related to Our BusinessExtensive industry regulation has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities. See also Item 3. Legal ProceedingsFDA Matters.
For certain of our products, we contract with third parties for the manufacture of the products, some of which are currently available only from sole or limited suppliers. These third-party manufactured products include products that have historically accounted for a significant portion of our revenues, such as Ferrlecit®, bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets and a number of our oral contraceptive products. Third-party manufactured products accounted for approximately 51%, 48% and 41% of our product net revenues in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and 58%, 50% and 48% of our gross profit in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
We are dependent on third parties for the supply of the raw materials necessary to develop and manufacture our products, including the active and inactive pharmaceutical ingredients used in our products. We are required to identify the supplier(s) of all the raw materials for our products in the drug applications that we file with the FDA. If raw materials for a particular product become unavailable from an approved supplier specified in a drug application, we would be required to qualify a substitute supplier with the FDA, which would likely interrupt manufacturing of the affected product. To the extent practicable, we attempt to identify more than one supplier in each drug application. However, some raw materials are available only from a single source and, in some of our drug applications, only one supplier of raw materials has been identified, even in instances where multiple sources exist.
In addition, we obtain a significant portion of our raw materials from foreign suppliers. Arrangements with international raw material suppliers are subject to, among other things, FDA regulation, customs clearance, various import duties, foreign currency risk and other government clearances. Acts of governments outside the U.S. may affect the price or availability of raw materials needed for the development or manufacture of our products. In addition, any changes in patent laws in jurisdictions outside the U.S. may make it increasingly difficult to obtain raw materials for research and development prior to the expiration of the applicable U.S. or foreign patents. See Risks Related to Our BusinessIf
we are unable to obtain sufficient supplies from key suppliers that in some cases may be the only source of finished products or raw materials, our ability to deliver our products to the market may be impeded.
We believe patent protection of our proprietary products is important to our brand business. Our success with our brand products will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain, and successfully defend if challenged, patent or other proprietary protection for such products. We currently have a number of U.S. and foreign patents issued or pending. However, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its validity or as to the enforceable scope of the claims of the patent. Accordingly, our patents may not prevent other companies from developing similar or functionally equivalent products or from successfully challenging the validity of our patents. If our patent applications are not approved or, even if approved, if such patents are circumvented or not upheld in a court of law, our ability to competitively market our patented products and technologies may be significantly reduced. Also, such patents may or may not provide competitive advantages for their respective products or they may be challenged or circumvented by competitors, in which case our ability to commercially market these products may be diminished. From time to time, we may need to obtain licenses to patents and other proprietary rights held by third parties to develop, manufacture and market our products. If we are unable to timely obtain these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercially market such products may be inhibited or prevented.
We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how that we seek to protect, in part, through confidentiality agreements with our partners, customers, employees and consultants. It is possible that these agreements will be breached or will not be enforceable in every instance, and that we will not have adequate remedies for any such breach. It is also possible that our trade secrets will otherwise become known or independently developed by competitors.
We may find it necessary to initiate litigation to enforce our patent rights, to protect our trade secrets or know-how or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights and proprietary technologies can often be protracted and expensive and, as with litigation generally, the outcome is inherently uncertain.
Pharmaceutical companies with brand products are increasingly suing companies that produce off-patent forms of their brand name products for alleged patent and/or copyright infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights which may delay or prevent the entry of such a generic product into the market. For instance, when we file an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent to a brand drug, we may certify under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Restoration Act of 1984 (the Hatch-Waxman Act) to the FDA that we do not intend to market our generic drug until any patent listed by the FDA as covering the brand drug has expired, in which case, the ANDA will not be approved by the FDA until no earlier than the expiration of such patent(s). On the other hand, we could certify that any patent listed as covering the brand drug is invalid and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of our generic form of the brand drug. In that case, we are required to notify the brand product holder or the patent holder that such patent is invalid or is not infringed. If the patent holder sues us for patent infringement within 45 days from receipt of the notice, the FDA is then prevented from approving our ANDA for 30 months after receipt of the notice unless the lawsuit is resolved in our favor in less time or a shorter period is deemed appropriate by a court. In addition, increasingly aggressive tactics employed by brand companies to delay generic competition have increased the risks and uncertainties regarding the timing of approval of generic products.
Because a balanced and fair legislative and regulatory arena is critical to the pharmaceutical industry, we will continue to devote management time and financial resources on government activities. We currently maintain an office and staff a full-time government affairs function in Washington, D.C. that maintains responsibility for keeping abreast of state and federal legislative activities.
Litigation alleging infringement of patents, copyrights or other intellectual property rights may be costly and time consuming. See Risks Related to Our BusinessThird parties may claim that we infringe their proprietary rights and may prevent us from manufacturing and selling some of our products.
All pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Watson, are subject to extensive, complex and evolving regulation by the federal government, principally the FDA, and to a lesser extent, by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration and state government agencies. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Controlled Substances Act and other federal statutes and regulations govern or influence the testing, manufacturing, packing, labeling, storing, record keeping, safety, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of our products.
FDA approval is required before any dosage form of any new drug, including an off-patent equivalent of a previously approved drug, can be marketed. The process for obtaining governmental approval to manufacture and market pharmaceutical products is rigorous, time-consuming and costly, and the extent to which it may be affected by legislative and regulatory developments cannot be predicted. We are dependent on receiving FDA and other governmental approvals prior to manufacturing, marketing and shipping new products. Consequently, there is always the risk the FDA or another applicable agency will not approve our new products, or the rate, timing and cost of such approvals will adversely affect our product introduction plans or results of operations. See Risks Related to Our BusinessIf we are unable to successfully develop or commercialize new products, our operating results will suffer and Extensive industry regulation has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities.
All applications for FDA approval must contain information relating to product formulation, raw material suppliers, stability, manufacturing processes, packaging, labeling and quality control. There are generally two types of applications for FDA approval that would be applicable to our new products:
· New Drug Application (NDA). We file a NDA when we seek approval for drugs with active ingredients and/or with dosage strengths, dosage forms, delivery systems or pharmacokinetic profiles that have not been previously approved by the FDA. Generally, NDAs are filed for newly developed brand products or for a new dosage form of previously approved drugs.
· ANDA. We file an ANDA when we seek approval for off-patent, or generic equivalents of a previously approved drug.
The process required by the FDA before a previously unapproved pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the U.S. generally involves the following:
· preclinical laboratory and animal tests;
· submission of an investigational new drug application (IND), which must become effective before clinical trials may begin;
· adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed product for its intended use;
· submission of a NDA containing the results of the preclinical and clinical trials establishing the safety and efficacy of the proposed product for its intended use; and
· FDA approval of a NDA.
Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of the product, its chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. We then submit the results of these studies to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before we may begin
human clinical trials. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA, during that 30-day period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND. In such cases, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. In addition, an independent Institutional Review Board at the medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trials must review and approve any clinical study.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in sequential phases:
· Phase I. During this phase, the drug is initially introduced into a relatively small number of healthy human subjects or patients and is tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion.
· Phase II. This phase involves studies in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to determine the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases or conditions, and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage.
· Phase III. When Phase II evaluations demonstrate that a dosage range of the product is effective and has an acceptable safety profile, Phase III trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and to further test for safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites.
· Phase IV. After a drug has been approved by the FDA, phase IV studies are conducted to explore additional patient populations, compare the drug to a competitor, or to further study the risks, benefits and optimal use of a drug. These studies may be a requirement as a condition of the initial approval.
The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical studies are then submitted to the FDA as part of a NDA, for approval of the marketing and commercial shipment of the new product. The NDA drug development and approval process currently averages approximately five to ten years.
FDA approval of an ANDA is required before we may begin marketing an off-patent or generic equivalent of a drug that has been approved under a NDA, or a previously unapproved dosage form of a drug that has been approved under a NDA. The ANDA approval process generally differs from the NDA approval process in that it does not typically require new preclinical and clinical studies; instead, it relies on the clinical studies establishing safety and efficacy conducted for the previously approved NDA drug. The ANDA process, however, typically requires data to show that the ANDA drug is bioequivalent (i.e., therapeutically equivalent) to the previously approved drug. Bioequivalence compares the bioavailability of one drug product with another and, when established, indicates whether the rate and extent of absorption of a generic drug in the body are substantially equivalent to the previously approved drug. Bioavailability establishes the rate and extent of absorption, as determined by the time dependent concentrations of a drug product in the bloodstream needed to produce a therapeutic effect. Once submitted, the ANDA drug development and approval process generally takes less time than the NDA drug development and approval process since the ANDA process does not require new clinical trials establishing the safety and efficacy of the drug product.
Supplemental NDAs or ANDAs are required for, among other things, approval to transfer products from one manufacturing site to another and may be under review for a year or more. In addition, certain products may only be approved for transfer once new bioequivalency studies are conducted or other requirements are satisfied.
To obtain FDA approval of both NDAs and ANDAs, our manufacturing procedures and operations must conform to FDA quality system and control requirements generally referred to as cGMP, as defined in Title 21 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations encompass all aspects of the production process from receipt and qualification of components to distribution procedures for finished
products. They are evolving standards; thus, we must continue to expend substantial time, money and effort in all production and quality control areas to maintain compliance. The evolving and complex nature of regulatory requirements, the broad authority and discretion of the FDA, and the generally high level of regulatory oversight results in the continuing possibility that we may be adversely affected by regulatory actions despite our efforts to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements.
We are subject to the periodic inspection of our facilities, procedures and operations and/or the testing of our products by the FDA, the DEA and other authorities, which conduct periodic inspections to assess compliance with applicable regulations. In addition, in connection with its review of our applications for new products, the FDA conducts pre-approval and post-approval reviews and plant inspections to determine whether our systems and processes comply with cGMP and other FDA regulations. Among other things, the FDA may withhold approval of NDAs, ANDAs or other product applications of a facility if deficiencies are found at that facility. Vendors that supply finished products or components to us that we use to manufacture, package and label products are subject to similar regulation and periodic inspections.
Following such inspections, the FDA may issue notices on Form 483 and Warning Letters that could cause us to modify certain activities identified during the inspection. A Form 483 notice is generally issued at the conclusion of an FDA inspection and lists conditions the FDA investigators believe may violate cGMP or other FDA regulations. FDA guidelines specify that a Warning Letter be issued only for violations of regulatory significance for which the failure to adequately and promptly achieve correction may be expected to result in an enforcement action.
Our Corona, California facility is currently subject to a consent decree of permanent injunction. See Risks Related to Our BusinessExtensive industry regulation has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities. See also Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
Failure to comply with FDA and other governmental regulations can result in fines, unanticipated compliance expenditures, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production and/or distribution, suspension of the FDAs review of NDAs, ANDAs or other product application enforcement actions, injunctions and criminal prosecution. Under certain circumstances, the FDA also has the authority to revoke previously granted drug approvals. Although we have internal compliance programs, if these programs do not meet regulatory agency standards or if our compliance is deemed deficient in any significant way, it could have a material adverse effect on us. See Risks Related to Our BusinessExtensive industry regulation has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities.
The Generic Drug Enforcement Act of 1992 established penalties for wrongdoing in connection with the development or submission of an ANDA. Under this Act, the FDA has the authority to permanently or temporarily bar companies or individuals from submitting or assisting in the submission of an ANDA, and to temporarily deny approval and suspend applications to market generic drugs. The FDA may also suspend the distribution of all drugs approved or developed in connection with certain wrongful conduct and/or withdraw approval of an ANDA and seek civil penalties. The FDA can also significantly delay the approval of any pending NDA, ANDA or other regulatory submissions under the Fraud, Untrue Statements of Material Facts, Bribery and Illegal Gratuities Policy Act.
Government reimbursement programs include Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, and State Pharmacy Assistance Programs established according to statute, government regulations and policy. Federal law requires that all pharmaceutical manufacturers, as a condition of having their products receive federal reimbursement under Medicaid, must pay rebates to state Medicaid programs on units of their pharmaceuticals that are dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries. The required per-unit rebate is currently 11% of the average manufacturer price for products marketed under ANDAs. For products marketed under NDAs, manufacturers are required to rebate the greater of 15.1% of the average manufacturer price, or the difference between the average manufacturer price and the lowest net sales price to a non-government customer during a specified period. In some states, supplemental rebates are additionally required as a condition of including the manufacturers drug on the states Preferred Drug List.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the MMA) requires that manufacturers report data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on pricing of drugs and biologicals reimbursed under Medicare Part B. These are generally drugs, such as injectable products, that are administered incident to a physician service, and in general are not self-administered. Effective January 1, 2005, average selling price (ASP) became the basis for reimbursement to physicians and suppliers for drugs and biologicals covered under Medicare Part B, replacing the average wholesale price (AWP) provided and published by pricing services. In general, Watson must comply with all reporting requirements for any drug or biological that is separately reimbursable under Medicare. Watsons Ferrlecit®, InFed® and Trelstar® products are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and, as a result, the Company provides ASP data on these products to CMS on a quarterly basis.
Under Part D of the MMA, beginning January 1, 2006, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible to obtain subsidized prescription drug coverage from private sector providers. It is difficult to predict the impact the Medicare prescription drup coverage benefit will have on pharmaceutical companies. Usage of pharmaceuticals may increase as a result of the expanded access to medicines afforded by the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. However, such potential sales increases may be offset by increased pricing pressures due to the enhanced purchasing power of the private sector providers who will negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
There has been enhanced political attention, governmental scrutiny and litigation at the federal and state levels of the prices paid or reimbursed for pharmaceutical products under Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs. See Risks Related to Our BusinessInvestigations of the calculation of average wholesale prices may adversely affect our business. See also Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
In order to assist us in commercializing products, we have obtained from government authorities and private health insurers and other organizations, such as Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), authorization to receive reimbursement at varying levels for the cost of certain products and related treatments. Third party payers increasingly challenge pricing of pharmaceutical products. The trend toward managed healthcare in the U.S., the growth of organizations such as HMOs and MCOs and legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs could significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and a reduction in product demand. Such cost containment measures and healthcare reform could affect our ability to sell our products and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Due to the uncertainty surrounding reimbursement of newly approved pharmaceutical products, reimbursement may not be available for some of our products. Additionally, any reimbursement granted may not be maintained or limits on reimbursement available from third-party payers may reduce the demand for, or negatively affect the price of, those products.
Federal, state and local laws of general applicability, such as laws regulating working conditions, also govern us. In addition, we are subject, as are all manufacturers generally, to various federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations, including those governing the discharge of material into
the environment. We do not expect the costs of complying with such environmental provisions to have a material effect on our earnings, cash requirements or competitive position in the foreseeable future.
As part of the MMA, companies are required to file with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice certain types of agreements entered into between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies related to the manufacture, marketing and sale of generic versions of brand drugs. This requirement could affect the manner in which generic drug manufacturers resolve intellectual property litigation and other disputes with brand pharmaceutical companies, and could result generally in an increase in private-party litigation against pharmaceutical companies. The impact of this requirement, and the potential private-party lawsuits associated with arrangements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers, is uncertain and could adversely affect our business.
Continuing studies of the proper utilization, safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and other health care products are being conducted by industry, government agencies and others. Such studies, which increasingly employ sophisticated methods and techniques, can call into question the utilization, safety and efficacy of previously marketed products and in some cases have resulted, and may in the future result, in the discontinuance of their marketing.
Our business is not materially affected by seasonal factors.
Due to the relatively short lead-time required to fill orders for our products, backlog of orders is not material to our business.
As of December 31, 2005, we had 3,844 employees. Of our employees, approximately 422 are engaged in research and development, 1,530 in manufacturing, 873 in quality assurance and quality control, 518 in sales and marketing, and 501 in administration. The Company has one labor union contract covering approximately 57 employees in Sweden. We believe our relations with our employees are good.
Any statements made in this report that are not statements of historical fact or that refer to estimated or anticipated future events are forward-looking statements. We have based our forward-looking statements on our managements beliefs and assumptions based on information available to our management at the time these statements are made. Such forward-looking statements reflect our current perspective of our business, future performance, existing trends and information as of the date of this filing. These include, but are not limited to, our beliefs about future revenue and expense levels and growth rates, prospects related to our strategic initiatives and business strategies, express or implied assumptions about government regulatory action or inaction, anticipated product approvals and launches, business initiatives and product development activities, assessments related to clinical trial results, product performance and competitive environment, and anticipated financial performance. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, words such as may, will, expect, believe, anticipate, intend, could, would, estimate, continue, or pursue, or the negative other variations thereof or comparable terminology, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict.
We caution the reader that these statements are based on certain assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. In addition, certain important factors may affect our actual operating results and could cause such results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. We believe the risks and uncertainties discussed under the Section entitled Risks Related to Our Business, and other risks and uncertainties detailed herein and from time to time in our SEC filings, may affect our actual results.
We disclaim any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. This discussion is provided as permitted by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
We operate in a rapidly changing environment that involves a number of risks, some of which are beyond our control. The following discussion highlights some of these risks and others are discussed elsewhere in this annual report. These and other risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows.
Risks Associated With Investing In the Business of Watson
Our future results of operations will depend to a significant extent upon our ability to successfully commercialize new brand and generic products in a timely manner. There are numerous difficulties in developing and commercializing new products, including:
· developing, testing and manufacturing products in compliance with regulatory standards in a timely manner;
· receiving requisite regulatory approvals for such products in a timely manner;
· the availability, on commercially reasonable terms, of raw materials, including active pharmaceutical ingredients and other key ingredients;
· developing and commercializing a new product is time consuming, costly and subject to numerous factors, including legal actions brought by our competitors, that may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of new products;
· experiencing delays or unanticipated costs; and
· commercializing generic products may be substantially delayed by the listing with the FDA of patents that have the effect of potentially delaying approval of the off-patent product by up to 30 months.
As a result of these and other difficulties, products currently in development by Watson may or may not receive timely regulatory approvals, or approvals at all, necessary for marketing by Watson or other third-party partners. This risk particularly exists with respect to the development of proprietary products because of the uncertainties, higher costs and lengthy time frames associated with research and development of such products and the inherent unproven market acceptance of such products. If any of our products, when acquired or developed and approved, cannot be successfully or timely commercialized, our operating results could be adversely affected. We cannot guarantee that any investment we make in developing products will be recouped, even if we are successful in commercializing those products.
Developing and commercializing brand pharmaceutical products is more costly than generic products. During 2005, we increased our planned expenditures for the development and marketing of our brand business. During 2006 and thereafter, we may further increase the amounts we expend for our brand business segment. For example, we plan to initiate Phase III clinical studies during 2006 on our next generation Oxytrol® product and will incur ongoing expenditures for the Phase III clinical studies on our silodosin product for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. We cannot be sure these business expenditures will result in the successful discovery, development or launch of brand products that will prove to be commercially successful or will improve the long-term profitability of our business, which would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows depend to a significant extent upon our brand and generic product sales mix. Our sales of brand products tend to create higher gross margins than our sales of generic products. As a result, our sales mix (the proportion of total sales between brand products and generic products) will significantly impact our gross profit from period to period. During 2005, sales of our brand products and generic products accounted for approximately 24% and 76%, respectively, of our net product sales. During that same period, brand products and generic products contributed approximately 38% and 62%, respectively, to our gross profits. Factors that may cause our sales mix to vary include:
· the amount of new product introductions;
· marketing exclusivity, if any, which may be obtained on certain brand products;
· the level of competition in the marketplace for certain products;
· the availability of raw materials and finished products from our suppliers;
· the scope and outcome of governmental regulatory action that may involve us; and
· periodic dependence on a small number of products for a significant portion of net revenue or income.
The profitability of our product sales is also dependent upon the prices we are able to charge for our products, the costs to purchase products from third parties, and our ability to manufacture our products in a cost effective manner.
During 2004 we lost regulatory exclusivity on our Ferrlecit® product, which will allow generic applicants to submit ANDAs for Ferrlecit®. In 2005, Ferrlecit® accounted for approximately 9% of our net revenues and 16% of our gross profit. In February 2004, we submitted a Citizens Petition to the FDA requesting that the FDA not approve any ANDA for a generic version of Ferrlecit® until certain manufacturing, physiochemical and safety and efficacy criteria are satisfied. During the third quarter of 2004, we submitted a second Citizens Petition to the FDA requesting that the FDA refuse to accept for substantive review any ANDA referencing Ferrlecit® until the FDA establishes guidelines for determining whether the generic product is the same complex as Ferrlecit®. We cannot predict whether the FDA will grant or deny our Citizens Petitions or when it may take such action. We believe it will be difficult for a competitor to demonstrate to the FDA that its product is the same as Ferrlecit® and that, in the absence of such a showing, the FDA should require the applicant to submit an NDA supported by clinical studies,
independently demonstrating safety and efficacy. However, if a generic version of Ferrlecit® or other competitive product is approved by the FDA and enters the market, our net revenues could significantly decline, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We have made substantial investments in joint ventures and other collaborations and may use these and other methods to develop or commercialize products in the future. These arrangements typically involve other pharmaceutical companies as partners that may be competitors of ours in certain markets. In many instances, we will not control these joint ventures or collaborations or the commercial exploitation of the licensed products, and cannot assure you that these ventures will be profitable. Although restrictions contained in certain of these programs have not had a material adverse impact on the marketing of our own products to date, any such marketing restrictions could affect future revenues and have a material adverse effect on our operations. Our results of operations may suffer if existing joint ventures or collaboration partners withdraw, or if these products are not timely developed, approved or successfully commercialized.
Our success with the brand products that we develop will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain patent protection for these products. We currently have a number of U.S. and foreign patents issued and pending. We cannot be sure that we will receive patents for any of our pending patent applications or any patent applications we may file in the future. If our current and future patent applications are not approved or, if approved, if such patents are not upheld in a court of law if challenged, it may reduce our ability to competitively exploit our patented products. Also, such patents may or may not provide competitive advantages for their respective products or they may be challenged or circumvented by our competitors, in which case our ability to commercially market these products may be diminished.
We also rely on trade secrets and proprietary know-how that we seek to protect, in part, through confidentiality agreements with our partners, customers, employees and consultants. It is possible that these agreements will be breached or that they will not be enforceable in every instance, and that we will not have adequate remedies for any such breach. It is also possible that our trade secrets will become known or independently developed by our competitors.
If we are unable to adequately protect our technology, trade secrets or propriety know-how, or enforce our patents, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could suffer.
Many brand pharmaceutical companies increasingly have used state and federal legislative and regulatory means to delay generic competition. These efforts have included:
· pursuing new patents for existing products which may be granted just before the expiration of one patent, which could extend patent protection for additional years or otherwise delay the launch of generics;
· using the Citizens Petition process to request amendments to FDA standards;
· seeking changes to U.S. Pharmacopeia, an organization which publishes industry recognized compendia of drug standards;
· attaching patent extension amendments to non-related federal legislation; and
· engaging in state-by-state initiatives to enact legislation that restricts the substitution of some generic drugs, which could have an impact on products that we are developing.
If brand pharmaceutical companies are successful in limiting the use of generic products through these or other means, our sales of generic products may decline. If we experience a material decline in generic product sales, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows will suffer.
Certain of our competitors have recently challenged our ability to distribute Authorized Generics during the competitors 180 day period of ANDA exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Under the challenged arrangements, we have obtained rights to market and distribute under a brand manufacturers NDA a generic alternative of the brand product. Some of our competitors have challenged the propriety of these arrangements by filing Citizens Petitions with the FDA, initiating lawsuits alleging violation of the antitrust and consumer protection laws, and seeking legislative intervention. The FDA and courts that have considered the subject to date have ruled that there is no prohibition in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act against distributing authorized generic versions of a brand drug. However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 added provisions to the Medicaid Rebate Program that, effective January 1, 2007, may have the effect of increasing an NDA holders Medicaid Rebate liability if it permits another manufacturer to market an authorized generic version of its brand product. This may affect the willingness of brand manufacturers to continue arrangements, or enter into future arrangements, permitting us to market authorized generic versions of their brand products. If so, or if distribution of authorized generic versions of brand products is otherwise restricted or found unlawful, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We may need to obtain licenses to patents and other proprietary rights held by third parties to develop, manufacture and market products. If we are unable to timely obtain these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercially market our products may be inhibited or prevented.
The manufacture, use and sale of new products that are the subject of conflicting patent rights have been the subject of substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical industry. These lawsuits relate to the validity and infringement of patents or proprietary rights of third parties. We may have to defend against charges that we violated patents or proprietary rights of third parties. This is especially true in the case of generic products on which the patent covering the brand product is expiring, an area where infringement litigation is prevalent, and in the case of new brand products where a competitor has obtained patents for similar products. Litigation may be costly and time-consuming, and could divert the attention of our management and technical personnel. In addition, if we infringe on the rights of others, we could lose our right to develop or manufacture products or could be required to pay monetary damages or royalties to license proprietary rights from third parties. Although the parties to patent and intellectual property disputes in the pharmaceutical industry have often settled their disputes through licensing or similar arrangements, the costs associated with these arrangements may be substantial and could include ongoing royalties. Furthermore, we cannot be certain that the necessary licenses would be available to us on commercially reasonable terms. As a result, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding or failure to obtain necessary licenses could prevent us from manufacturing and selling a
number of our products, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
As a part of our business strategy, we plan to consider and, as appropriate, make acquisitions of technologies, products and businesses, which may result in us experiencing difficulties in integrating the technologies, products and businesses that we acquire and/or experiencing significant charges to earnings that may adversely affect our stock price and financial condition.
We regularly review potential acquisitions of technologies, products and businesses complementary to our business. Acquisitions typically entail many risks and could result in difficulties in integrating operations, personnel, technologies and products. If we are not able to successfully integrate our acquisitions, we may not obtain the advantages that the acquisitions were intended to create, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, our ability to develop and introduce new products and the market price of our stock. Integrating two geographically distant companies can be a time consuming and expensive process. In addition, in connection with acquisitions, we could experience disruption in our business or employee base, including diversion of managements attention from our continuing operations. There is also a risk that key employees of companies that we acquire or key employees necessary to successfully commercialize technologies and products that we acquire may seek employment elsewhere, including with our competitors. Furthermore, there may be overlap between the products or customers of Watson and the companies that we acquire that may create conflicts in relationships or other commitments detrimental to the integrated businesses.
In addition, as a result of acquiring businesses or products, or entering into other significant transactions, we have experienced, and will likely continue to experience, significant charges to earnings for merger and related expenses that may include transaction costs, closure costs or acquired in-process research and development charges. These costs may include substantial fees for investment bankers, attorneys, accountants and financial printing costs and severance and other closure costs associated with the elimination of duplicate or discontinued products, operations and facilities. Charges that we may incur in connection with acquisitions could adversely affect our results of operations for particular quarterly or annual periods.
If we are unable to obtain sufficient supplies from key suppliers that in some cases may be the only source of finished products or raw materials, our ability to deliver our products to the market may be impeded.
We are required to identify the supplier(s) of all the raw materials for our products in our applications with the FDA. To the extent practicable, we attempt to identify more than one supplier in each drug application. However, some products and raw materials are available only from a single source and, in some of our drug applications, only one supplier of products and raw materials has been identified, even in instances where multiple sources exist. Among others, this includes products that have historically accounted for a significant portion of our revenues, such as Ferrlecit®, bupropion sustained release tablets and a significant number of our oral contraceptive products. From time to time, certain of our outside suppliers have experienced regulatory or supply-related difficulties that have inhibited their ability to deliver products and raw materials to us, causing supply delays or interruptions. To the extent any difficulties experienced by our suppliers cannot be resolved within a reasonable time, and at reasonable cost, or if raw materials for a particular product become unavailable from an approved supplier and we are required to qualify a new supplier with the FDA, our profit margins and market share for the affected product could decrease, as well as delay our development and sales and marketing efforts.
Our arrangements with foreign suppliers are subject to certain additional risks, including the availability of government clearances, export duties, political instability, war, acts of terrorism, currency fluctuations and restrictions on the transfer of funds. For example, we obtain a significant portion of our raw materials from foreign suppliers. Arrangements with international raw material suppliers are subject
to, among other things, FDA regulation, customs clearances, various import duties and other government clearances. Acts of governments outside the U.S. may affect the price or availability of raw materials needed for the development or manufacture of our products. In addition, recent changes in patent laws in jurisdictions outside the U.S. may make it increasingly difficult to obtain raw materials for research and development prior to the expiration of the applicable U.S. or foreign patents.
Based on industry practice, generic product manufacturers, including Watson, have liberal return policies and have been willing to give customers post-sale inventory allowances. Under these arrangements, from time to time, we give our customers credits on our generic products that our customers hold in inventory after we have decreased the market prices of the same generic products. Therefore, if new competitors enter the marketplace and significantly lower the prices of any of their competing products, we would likely reduce the price of our product. As a result, we would be obligated to provide significant credits to our customers who are then holding inventories of such products, which could reduce sales revenue and gross margin for the period the credit is provided. Like our competitors, we also give credits for chargebacks to wholesale customers that have contracts with us for their sales to hospitals, group purchasing organizations, pharmacies or other retail customers. A chargeback represents an amount payable in the future to a wholesaler for the difference between the invoice price paid to us by our wholesale customer for a particular product and the negotiated contract price that the wholesalers customer pays for that product. Although we establish reserves based on our prior experience and our best estimates of the impact that these policies may have in subsequent periods, we cannot ensure that our reserves are adequate or that actual product returns, allowances and chargebacks will not exceed our estimates, which could adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows and market price of our stock.
Many government and third-party payors, including Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs and MCOs, reimburse doctors and others for the purchase of certain prescription drugs based on a drugs AWP. In the past several years, state and federal government agencies have conducted ongoing investigations of manufacturers reporting practices with respect to AWP, in which they have suggested that reporting of inflated AWPs have led to excessive payments for prescription drugs. For example, beginning in July 2002, we and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent practices related to the reporting of AWP of certain products, and other improper acts, in order to increase prices and market shares. Additional actions are anticipated. These actions, if successful, could adversely affect us and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The design, development, manufacture and sale of our products involves the risk of product liability claims by consumers and other third parties, and insurance against such potential claims is expensive and may be difficult to obtain.
The design, development, manufacture and sale of our products involve an inherent risk of product liability claims and the associated adverse publicity. Insurance coverage is expensive and may be difficult to obtain, and may not be available in the future on acceptable terms, or at all. Although we currently maintain product liability insurance for our products in amounts we believe to be commercially reasonable, if the coverage limits of these insurance policies are not adequate, a claim brought against Watson, whether covered by insurance or not, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
The success of our present and future operations will depend, to a significant extent, upon the experience, abilities and continued services of key personnel. For example, although we have other senior management personnel, a significant loss of the services of Allen Chao, Ph.D., our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, or other senior executive officers, could cause our business to suffer. We cannot assure you that we will be able to attract and retain key personnel. We have entered into employment agreements with all of our senior executive officers, including Dr. Chao. We do not carry key-man life insurance on any of our officers.
The cost of insurance, including workers compensation, product liability and general liability insurance, have risen significantly in recent years and may increase in 2006. In response, we may increase deductibles and/or decrease certain coverages to mitigate these costs. These increases, and our increased risk due to increased deductibles and reduced coverages, could have a negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
From time to time, we may implement new enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and software, or upgrades to existing systems and software, to further enhance our operations. Implementation of ERP systems and software carry risks such as cost overruns, project delays and business interruptions and delays. If we experience a material business interruption as a result of such implementations, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Significant balances of intangible assets, including product rights and goodwill acquired, are subject to impairment testing and may result in impairment charges, which will adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
A significant amount of our total assets is related to acquired product rights and goodwill. As of December 31, 2005, the carrying value of our product rights and other intangible assets was approximately $750 million and the carrying value of our goodwill was approximately $460 million.
Our product rights are stated at cost, less accumulated amortization. We determine original fair value and amortization periods for product rights based on our assessment of various factors impacting estimated useful lives and cash flows of the acquired products. Such factors include the products position in its life cycle, the existence or absence of like products in the market, various other competitive and regulatory issues and contractual terms. Significant changes to any of these factors would require us to perform an impairment test on the affected asset and, if evidence of impairment exists, we would be required to take an impairment charge with respect to the asset. Such a charge would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Goodwill is tested for impairment annually and when events occur or circumstances change that could potentially reduce the fair value of the reporting unit. Impairment testing compares the fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying amount. An impairment, if any, would be recorded in operating income and could have a significant adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
We may consider issuing additional debt or equity securities in the future to fund potential acquisitions or investments, to refinance existing debt, or for general corporate purposes. If a material
acquisition or investment is completed, our operating results and financial condition could change materially in future periods. However, no assurance can be given that additional funds will be available on satisfactory terms, or at all, to fund such activities.
Risks Relating To Investing In the Pharmaceutical Industry
All pharmaceutical companies, including Watson, are subject to extensive, complex, costly and evolving regulation by the federal government, principally the FDA and to a lesser extent by the DEA and state government agencies. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Controlled Substances Act and other federal statutes and regulations govern or influence the testing, manufacturing, packing, labeling, storing, record keeping, safety, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of our products.
Under these regulations, we are subject to periodic inspection of our facilities, procedures and operations and/or the testing of our products by the FDA, the DEA and other authorities, which conduct periodic inspections to confirm that we are in compliance with all applicable regulations. In addition, the FDA conducts pre-approval and post-approval reviews and plant inspections to determine whether our systems and processes are in compliance with cGMP and other FDA regulations. Following such inspections, the FDA may issue notices on Form 483 and warning letters that could cause us to modify certain activities identified during the inspection. A Form 483 notice is generally issued at the conclusion of a FDA inspection and lists conditions the FDA inspectors believe may violate cGMP or other FDA regulations. FDA guidelines specify that a warning letter is issued only for violations of regulatory significance for which the failure to adequately and promptly achieve correction may be expected to result in an enforcement action.
Our principal manufacturing facility in Corona, California (which manufactured products representing approximately 17% of our total product net revenues for 2005) is currently subject to a consent decree of permanent injunction. We cannot assure you that the FDA will determine that we have adequately corrected deficiencies at our manufacturing sites (including the one referenced above), that subsequent FDA inspections will not result in additional inspectional observations at such sites, that approval of any of the pending or subsequently submitted NDAs, ANDAs or supplements to such applications by Watson or its subsidiaries will be granted or that the FDA will not seek to impose additional sanctions against Watson or any of its subsidiaries. The range of possible sanctions includes, among others, FDA issuance of adverse publicity, product recalls or seizures, fines, total or partial suspension of production and/or distribution, suspension of the FDAs review of product applications, enforcement actions, injunctions, and civil or criminal prosecution. Any such sanctions, if imposed, could materially harm our operating results and financial condition. Under certain circumstances, the FDA also has the authority to revoke previously granted drug approvals. Similar sanctions as detailed above may be available to the FDA under a consent decree, depending upon the actual terms of such decree. Although we have instituted internal compliance programs, if these programs do not meet regulatory agency standards or if compliance is deemed deficient in any significant way, it could materially harm our business. Certain of our vendors are subject to similar regulation and periodic inspections.
The process for obtaining governmental approval to manufacture and market pharmaceutical products is rigorous, time-consuming and costly, and we cannot predict the extent to which we may be affected by legislative and regulatory developments. We are dependent on receiving FDA and other governmental or third-party approvals prior to manufacturing, marketing and shipping our products. Consequently, there is always the chance that we will not obtain FDA or other necessary approvals, or that the rate, timing and cost of such approvals, will adversely affect our product introduction plans or results of
operations. We carry inventories of certain product(s) in anticipation of launch, and if such product(s) are not subsequently launched, we may be required to write-off the related inventory.
As part of the MMA, companies are required to file with the FTC and the Department of Justice certain types of agreements entered into between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies related to the manufacture, marketing and sale of generic versions of brand drugs. This requirement could affect the manner in which generic drug manufacturers resolve intellectual property litigation and other disputes with brand pharmaceutical companies and could result generally in an increase in private-party litigation against pharmaceutical companies or additional investigations or proceedings by the FTC or other governmental authorities. The impact of this requirement, and the potential private-party lawsuits associated with arrangements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers, is uncertain and could adversely affect our business.
In order to assist us in commercializing products, we have obtained from government authorities and private health insurers and other organizations, such as HMOs and MCOs, authorization to receive reimbursement at varying levels for the cost of certain products and related treatments. Third party payors increasingly challenge pricing of pharmaceutical products. The trend toward managed healthcare in the U.S., the growth of organizations such as HMOs and MCOs and legislative proposals to reform healthcare and government insurance programs could significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and a reduction in product demand. Such cost containment measures and healthcare reform could affect our ability to sell our products and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, there is uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the provisions of Part D of the MMA. Depending on how such provisions are implemented, reimbursement may not be available for some of Watsons products. Additionally, any reimbursement granted may not be maintained or limits on reimbursement available from third-party payors may reduce the demand for, or negatively affect the price of, those products and could harm significantly our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We may also be subject to lawsuits relating to reimbursement programs that could be costly to defend, divert managements attention and adversely affect our operating results.
We face strong competition in both our generic and brand product businesses. The intensely competitive environment requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovations and the ability to market products effectively, including the ability to communicate the effectiveness, safety and value of brand products to healthcare professionals in private practice, group practices and MCOs. Our competitors vary depending upon product categories, and within each product category, upon dosage strengths and drug-delivery systems. Based on total assets, annual revenues, and market capitalization, we are smaller than certain of our national and international competitors in the brand product arena. Most of our competitors have been in business for a longer period of time than Watson, have a greater number of products on the market and have greater financial and other resources than we do. If we directly compete with them for the same markets and/or products, their financial strength could prevent us from capturing a profitable share of those markets. It is possible that developments by our competitors will make our products or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete.
Revenues and gross profit derived from the sales of generic pharmaceutical products tend to follow a pattern based on certain regulatory and competitive factors. As patents for brand name products and related exclusivity periods expire, the first generic manufacturer to receive regulatory approval for generic equivalents of such products is generally able to achieve significant market penetration. As competing off-patent manufacturers receive regulatory approvals on similar products or as brand manufacturers launch generic versions of such products (for which no separate regulatory approval is required), market share, revenues and gross profit typically decline, in some cases dramatically. Accordingly, the level of market share, revenue and gross profit attributable to a particular generic product normally is related to the number of competitors in that products market and the timing of that products regulatory approval and launch, in relation to competing approvals and launches. Consequently, we must continue to develop and introduce new products in a timely and cost-effective manner to maintain our revenues and gross margins. Additionally, as new competitors enter the market, there may be increased pricing pressure on certain products, which would result in lower gross margins. This is particularly true in the case of certain Asian and other overseas competitors, who may be able to produce products at costs lower than the costs of domestic manufacturers. If we experience substantial competition from Asian or other overseas competitors with lower production costs, our profit margins will suffer.
Our principal customers are wholesale drug distributors and major retail drug store chains. These customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the U.S. This distribution network is continuing to undergo significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions among wholesale distributors and the growth of large retail drug store chains. As a result, a small number of large wholesale distributors and large chain drug stores control a significant share of the market. We expect that consolidation of drug wholesalers and retailers will increase pricing and other competitive pressures on drug manufacturers, including Watson.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, our four largest customers accounted for 16%, 13%, 10% and 9% respectively, of our net revenues. The loss of any of these customers could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and our cash flows. In addition, none of our customers are party to any long-term supply agreements with us, and thus are able to change suppliers freely should they wish to do so.
We conduct our operations using a combination of owned and leased properties. We believe that these facilities are suitable for the purposes for which we use them.
Our owned properties consist of facilities used for research and development (R&D), manufacturing, distribution (including warehousing and storage) and administrative functions. The following table provides a summary of locations of our significant owned properties:
Properties that we lease are primarily located throughout the U.S. and include R&D, manufacturing support, distribution (including warehousing and storage), sales and marketing, and administrative facilities. The following table provides a summary of locations of our significant leased properties:
Our leased properties are subject to various lease terms and expirations.
We believe that we have sufficient facilities to conduct our operations during 2006. However, we continue to evaluate the purchase or lease of additional properties, as our business requires.
Phen-fen litigation. Beginning in late 1997, a number of product liability suits were filed against Watson, The Rugby Group (Rugby) and certain other Watson affiliates, as well as numerous other manufacturing defendants, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of phentermine hydrochloride. The plaintiffs allege various injuries, ranging from minor injuries and anxiety to heart damage and death. As of March 8, 2006, approximately 35 cases were pending against Watson and its affiliates in numerous state and federal courts. Most of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and several were filed or certified as class actions. The Company believes it will be fully indemnified by Rugbys former owner, Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi Aventis) for the defense of all such cases and for any liability that may arise out of these cases. Aventis is currently controlling the defense of all these matters as the indemnifying party under its
agreements with the Company. Additionally, Watson may have recourse against the manufacturing defendants in these cases.
Cipro® Litigation. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson, Rugby and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. As of March 8, 2006, approximately 42 cases had been filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383). On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted Watsons motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs claims, denied the plaintiffs motions for class certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS) filed notices of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent issues are involved in the appeal. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion to transfer. As of March 8, 2006, the appellate court had not ruled on the motion or the pending appeal. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watsons acquisition of Rugby from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayers brand drug, Cipro®. The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The courts hearing the cases in Wisconsin and New York have dismissed the actions. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissals. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part the defendants petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial courts order granting the plaintiffs motion for class certification. Pursuant to the appellate courts ruling, the majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties joint application to stay the California case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case. In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watsons acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. Discovery is ongoing.
Governmental Reimbursement Investigations and Drug Pricing Litigation In November 1999, Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc., now known as Watson Pharma, Inc. (Watson Pharma) was informed by the U.S. Department of Justice that Watson Pharma, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, is a defendant in a qui tam action brought in 1995 under the U.S. False Claims Act currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Watson Pharma has not been served in the qui tam action. A qui tam action is a civil lawsuit brought by an individual for an alleged violation of a federal statute, in which the U.S. Department of Justice has the right to intervene and take over the prosecution of the lawsuit at its option. Pursuant to applicable federal law, the qui tam action is under seal and, at this time, no details are available concerning, among other things, the various theories of liability against
Watson Pharma or the amount of damages sought from it. The Company believes that the qui tam action relates to whether allegedly improper price reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to increased payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. The qui tam action may seek to recover damages from Watson Pharma based on its price reporting practices. Watson Pharma subsequently also received and responded to notices or subpoenas from the Attorneys General of various states, including Florida, Nevada, New York, California and Texas, relating to pharmaceutical pricing issues and whether allegedly improper actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to excessive payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. On June 26, 2003, the Company received a request for records and information from the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce in connection with that committees investigation into pharmaceutical reimbursements and rebates under Medicaid. The Company produced documents in response to the request. Other state and federal inquiries regarding pricing and reimbursement issues are anticipated.
Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456). The consolidated amended complaint in that case alleges that the defendants acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and programs. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide others with such drugs. The Company filed an Answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 9, 2004. Defendants in the consolidated litigation have been divided into two groups. The Company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of defendants that currently is proceeding through the pretrial discovery phase, while certain other defendants, referred to as the first-tier defendants, are scheduled to proceed on a more expedited basis. The court has granted class certification with respect to the first-tier defendants.
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries also are named as defendants in various lawsuits filed by the Attorneys General of numerous states, including Nevada, Montana, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona and Missouri. State of Nevada v. American Home Products, et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-12086-PBS, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; State of Montana v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-12084-PBS, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mylan Laboratories, et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-11865-PBS, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Case No. 04-cv-1709, Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Alpharma, Inc., et al., Case Number 04-CI-1487, Kentucky Circuit Court for Franklin County; State of Alabama v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. CV05-219, Alabama Circuit Court for Montgomery County; State of Illinois v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-CH-02474, Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County; State of Mississippi v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. G2005-2021 S/2, Mississippi Chancery Court of Hinds County; State of Florida ex rel. Ven-A-Care, Civil Action No 98-3032G, Florida Circuit Court in Leon County; State of Arizona ex rel. Terry Goddard, No. CV 2005-18711, Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County; State of Missouri ex rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon v. Mylan Laboratories, et al, Case no. 054-2486, Missouri Circuit Court of St. Louis. These cases generally allege that the defendants caused the states to overpay pharmacies and other providers for prescription drugs under state Medicaid Programs by inflating the reported average wholesale price or wholesale acquisition cost, and by reporting false prices to the United States government under the Best Prices rebate program. Several of these cases also allege that state residents were required to make inflated copayments for drug purchases under the federal Medicare program, and
companies were required to make inflated payments on prescription drug purchases for their employees. These cases, some of which have been removed to federal court, are in their early stages of pleadings. On January 20, 2006, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the actions brought by the States of Montana and Nevada because the Company was not timely served.
On August 4, 2004, the City of New York filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and numerous other pharmaceutical defendants alleging similar claims. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and a corrected Consolidated Complaint was filed on June 22, 2005 (City of New York v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). The Consolidated Complaint includes as plaintiffs the City of New York and 40 New York counties. On January 30, 2006, the Company was named as a defendant in a similar case filed by Nassau County, New York, which has been removed to federal court (County of Nassau v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Civil Action No. 05-10179-PBS, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). On March 2, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaints in these two cases. On March 8, 2005, the Company was named as a defendant in a similar case filed by Erie County, New York (County of Erie v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Index Number 2005-2439, New York Supreme Court for Erie County). A responsive pleading on that case is required to be filed on or before March 10, 2006. Additional actions by other states, cities and/or counties are anticipated.
These actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and may have a material adverse effect on the Companys business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
FDA Matters. In May 2002, Watson reached an agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree with respect to its Corona, California manufacturing facility. The court approved the consent decree on May 13, 2002 (United States of America v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Allen Y. Chao, United States District Court for the Central District of California, EDCV-02-412-VAP). The consent decree with the FDA does not require any fine, a facility shutdown, product recalls or any reduction in production or service at the Companys Corona facility. The consent decree applies only to the Corona facility and not other manufacturing sites. The decree requires Watson to ensure that its Corona, California facility complies with the FDAs cGMP regulations. Pursuant to the agreement, Watson hired an independent expert to conduct inspections of the Corona facility at least once each year. In February 2003, February 2004, January 2005, and January 2006, respectively, the first, second, third and fourth annual inspections were completed and the independent expert submitted its report of the inspection to the FDA. In each instance, the independent expert reported its opinion that, based on the findings of the audit of the facility, the FDAs applicable cGMP requirements, applicable FDA regulatory guidance, and the collective knowledge, education, qualifications and experience of the experts auditors and reviewers, the systems at Watsons Corona facility audited and evaluated by the expert are in compliance with the FDAs cGMP regulations. However, the FDA is not required to accept or agree with the independent experts opinion. The FDA conducted an inspection of that facility from March 31, 2004 until May 6, 2004. At the conclusion of the inspection, the FDA issued a Form 483 listing the observations made during the inspection, including observations related to certain laboratory test methods and other procedures in place at the facility. In June 2004 the Company submitted its response to the FDA Form 483 inspectional observations and met with FDA officials to discuss its response, including the corrective actions the Company had taken, and intended to take, to address the inspectional observations. The FDA conducted another inspection of the facility from April 5, 2005 through April 13, 2005. At the conclusion of the inspection no formal observations were made and no FDA Form 483 was issued. However, if, in the future, the FDA determines that, with respect to its Corona facility, Watson has failed to comply with the consent decree or FDA regulations, including cGMPs, or has failed to adequately address the observations in the Form 483, the consent decree allows the FDA to order Watson to take a variety of actions to remedy the deficiencies. These actions could include ceasing manufacturing and related operations at the Corona
facility, and recalling affected products. Such actions, if taken by the FDA, could adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial position and/or cash flows.
Securities Litigation. Beginning in November 2003, several securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Watson and certain of its present and former officers and directors. On February 9, 2004, the federal court issued an order consolidating all of the federal actions (In re: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236 AHM). In addition to the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of Riverside (Philip Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case No. 403717; and Charles Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case No. 403715). These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the price of the Companys common stock in November 2001, and allege generally that the Company failed to timely advise investors about matters such as falling inventory valuations, increased competition and manufacturing difficulties, and therefore, the Companys published financial statements and public announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and misleading. The shareholder derivative actions were dismissed without prejudice on November 16, 2004. On August 2, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District of California court granted the defendants motion to dismiss the federal consolidated action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30, 2004 to file an amended complaint. On August 30, 2004, the lead plaintiff in the federal consolidated action notified the court that it did not intend to file an amended complaint in response to the courts order granting the defendants motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2004, the District Court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendants. On October 1, 2004, one of the non-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the action with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Pension Fund v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA Docket No. 04-56791). The appeal remains pending. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend the matters vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Companys business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Department of Health and Human Services Subpoena. In December 2003, the Companys subsidiary, Watson Pharma, received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services. The subpoena requested documents relating to physician meetings conducted during 2002 and 2003 related to Watson Pharmas Ferrlecit® intravenous iron product. Watson Pharma is cooperating with the OIG to provide the requested documents. However, the Company cannot predict what additional actions, if any, may be taken by the OIG, Department of Health and Human Services, or other governmental entities.
Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation. Beginning in early 2004, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of hormone replacement therapy products, including but not limited to estropipate and estradiol. These complaints also name numerous other pharmaceutical companies as defendants, and allege various injuries, including ovarian cancer, breast cancer and blood clots. As of March 8, 2006, approximately ninety cases were pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts representing claims by approximately 550 plaintiffs. Many of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs. The majority of the cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (In re: Prempro Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1507). Discovery in these cases is ongoing. The Company maintains product liability insurance against such claims. However, these actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against the claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Companys business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Watson and its affiliates are involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in
the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.
Below are our executive officers as of March 1, 2006.
Allen Chao, Ph.D.
Allen Chao, Ph.D., age 60, a co-founder of Watson, has been our Chief Executive Officer since 1985 and Chairman since May 1996. Dr. Chao has served as our President since November 2004, and from February 1998 to October 2002. Dr. Chao serves on the Board of Directors of Somerset, a research and development pharmaceutical company, which is fifty percent owned by Watson. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Accuray, Inc., a developer of medical devices for the treatment of cancers. Dr. Chao received a Ph.D. in Industrial and Physical Pharmacy from Purdue University in 1973.
Edward F. Heimers, age 59, has served as Executive Vice President and President of the Brand Division since May 2005. Prior to joining Watson, Mr. Heimers was Senior Vice President, Marketing for Innovex, a contract sales organization and a division of Quintiles Transnational Corp. from 2000 to 2005. Prior to joining Innovex, he was Senior Vice President, Sales for Novartis from 1996 to 1999. From 1987 to 1996, Mr. Heimers held various positions, including Senior Vice President, Specialty Products and Senior Vice President, Primary Care Marketing and Sales at Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corporation and from 1978 to 1987 held a number of marketing positions at Schering-Plough. Mr. Heimers received his undergraduate degree in Biology from New York University and a Juris Doctor from Syracuse University.
Charles P. Slacik, age 52, has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since May 2003. Prior to joining Watson, Mr. Slacik was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for C.R. Bard, Inc., a medical device company, from 1999 to 2003 and held numerous positions at Wyeth (formerly American Home Products Corporation) from 1981 to 1999. Mr. Slacik received his B.S. in Accounting and Finance from the University of Connecticut.
James A. Nash, age 55, has served as Executive Vice President, Technical Operations since August 2004. Prior to joining Watson, Mr. Nash was Senior Vice President, Technology Development and Operations, BioPharmaceuticals for Chiron Corporation from 2002 to 2004. Prior to joining Chiron Corporation, he was Senior Vice President, Technical Operations and interim Head of Development for Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2000 to 2002. From 1977 to 2000, Mr. Nash held various positions, including the Vice President, Manufacturing, at Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mr. Nash received his B.A. in Zoology from University of California, Berkeley and a M.B.A. from the Northwestern University.
David A. Buchen, age 41, has served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since November 2002. From November 2000 to November 2002, Mr. Buchen served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel. From February 2000 to November 2000, he served as Vice President and Senior Corporate Counsel. From November 1998 to February 2000, he served as Senior Corporate Counsel and as Corporate Counsel. He also served as Assistant Secretary from February 1999 to November 2002. Mr. Buchen serves on the Board of Directors of Somerset. Prior to joining Watson, Mr. Buchen was Corporate Counsel at Bausch & Lomb Surgical (formerly Chiron Vision Corporation) from November 1995 until November 1998 and was an attorney with the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP. Mr. Buchen received a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of California, Berkley in 1985, and a Juris Doctor with honors from George Washington University Law School in 1989.
Charles D. Ebert, Ph.D., age 52, has served as our Senior Vice President, Research and Development since May 2000. He served as our Senior Vice President, Proprietary Research and Development from June 1999 to May 2000. Before joining Watson, Dr. Ebert served TheraTech, Inc. as its Vice President, Research and Development from 1987 to 1992 and as its Senior Vice President, Research and Development since 1992. Dr. Ebert serves on the Board of Directors of Somerset. Dr. Ebert received a B.S. in Biology from the University of Utah in 1977 and a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from the University of Utah in 1981.
David C. Hsia, Ph.D., age 61, has served as our Senior Vice President, Scientific Affairs since May 1995 and has been a Vice President of Watson since 1985. Dr. Hsia is also co-founder of Watson. He has been involved in the development of pharmaceutical formulations for oral contraceptives, sustained-release products and novel dosage forms for over 20 years. Dr. Hsia received a Ph.D. in industrial and physical pharmacy from Purdue University in 1975.
Susan Skara, age 55, has served as our Senior Vice President, Human Resources since November 2002. Ms. Skara joined Watson in March 1999 as Vice President, Human Resources, a position she held until her promotion to Senior Vice President in November 2002. Prior to joining Watson, Ms. Skara worked for Apria Healthcare and last held the position of Senior Vice President of Human Resources from November 1996 to June 1998. Ms. Skara received a B.A. in French from California State University, Fullerton.
Gordon Munro, Ph.D, age 59, has served as our Senior Vice President, Quality Assurance since June 2004. Prior to joining Watson, Dr. Munro was the Director of Inspection and Enforcement, at the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency from 1997 to 2004, and from 2002 to 2004, he was also Acting Head of Medicines. From 1970 to 1997, he held various positions, including the Director of Quality and Compliance at GlaxoWelcome. Dr. Munro received a B.S. in Pharmacy and a Masters in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Strathclyde, Scotland, and a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from the Council of National Academy Awards.
Our executive officers are appointed annually by the Board of Directors, hold office until their successors are chosen and qualified, and may be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board. We have employment agreements with each of our executive officers. David Hsia is the brother-in-law of Allen Chao. There are no other family relationships between any director and executive officer of Watson.
In accordance with the corporate reorganization we announced in June 2004 to establish two separate business units, we continue our recruiting and interview process to identify a candidate to serve as president of the Generic Division.
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol WPI. The following table sets forth the quarterly high and low share trading price information for the periods indicated:
As of March 1, 2006, we estimate that there were approximately 3,300 registered holders of our common stock.
We have not paid any cash dividends since our initial public offering in February 1993, and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.
There were no unregistered sales of equity securities.
There were no purchases of common stock by the Company during the fourth quarter of 2005. We have repurchased approximately 9.4 million shares of our common stock at an aggregate cost of approximately $300.0 million under the Companys $300.0 million stock repurchase program approved by the Board on February 10, 2005 (the 2005 Repurchase). This completes our stock repurchase program under the 2005 Repurchase authorization.
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
(1) We increased our equity ownership in an investment to a greater than 20% share effective December 2005. Accordingly, the selected consolidated financial data for all periods presented has been prepared as if this investment had been accounted for using the equity method since our initial investment.
(2) As of January 1, 2003, we reclassified our Steris Laboratories, Inc. and Marsam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. facilities from assets held for disposition to assets held and used. The Company reclassified gross profit, operating income, assets and working capital for the 2001 and 2002 periods to conform to current period presentation, which has no effect on net income, total assets or stockholders equity.
(3) For discussion on comparability of operating income and net income, please refer to financial line item discussion in our Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in this Annual Report.
(4) Diluted earnings per share have been restated for the year ended December 31, 2003 to conform to Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 04-8, The Effect of Contingently Convertible Debt on Diluted Earnings per Share.
Except for the historical information contained herein, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We discuss such risks, uncertainties and other factors throughout this report and specifically under the caption Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements just preceding this Item in this Form 10-K. In addition, the following discussion of financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Watson, the Company we, us or our) was incorporated in 1985 and is engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and off-patent (generic) pharmaceutical products. Watson operates manufacturing, distribution, research and development, and administrative facilities primarily in the United States (U.S.).
Prescription pharmaceutical products in the U.S. are generally marketed as either generic or brand pharmaceuticals. Generic pharmaceutical products are bioequivalents of their respective brand products and provide a cost-efficient alternative to brand products. Brand pharmaceutical products are marketed under brand names through programs that are designed to generate physician and consumer loyalty. As a result of the differences between the two types of products, we operate and manage our business as two segments: Generic and Brand. As of December 31, 2005, we marketed more than 125 generic pharmaceutical products and more than 20 brand pharmaceutical products.
Commencing January 1, 2005, the Company began to evaluate segment performance based on segment net revenues, gross profit and contribution. Segment contribution represents segment gross profit less direct research and development expenses and selling and marketing expenses. The Company has not reported general and administrative, amortization expense, depreciation expense, total assets, and capital expenditures by segment as such information has not been used by management or accounted for at the segment level. Segment financial data for prior periods have been reclassified to reflect this change in evaluating the associated segment results.
During the fourth quarter of 2005, the Company announced a plan to close its solid dosage manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico as part of an ongoing effort to optimize the capacity utilization the Companys manufacturing operations. The Company plans to transfer product manufacturing from its Humacao, Puerto Rico facility to its Carmel, New York. and Corona, California sites and discontinue manufacturing operations at the Puerto Rico facility over the next 15 to 21 months. Under SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, costs associated with exit or disposal activities will be recognized when the liability is incurred rather than at the date of a commitment to an exit or disposal plan. Accordingly, additional cash costs will be recognized in future periods as we transition production to other sites and we incur product transfer, severance and decommissioning costs.
Our Generic segment develops, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes generic products that are the therapeutic equivalent to their brand name counterparts and are generally sold at prices significantly less than the brand product. As such, generic products provide an effective and cost-efficient alternative to brand products. When patents or other regulatory exclusivities no longer protect a brand product, opportunities exist to introduce off-patent or generic counterparts to the brand product. Our portfolio of generic products includes products we have internally developed, products we have licensed from third parties, and products we distribute for third parties.
Other revenues include revenues earned under research and development agreements, other agreements and royalties. Revenues recognized from research, development and licensing agreements (including milestone payments) are deferred and recognized over the entire contract performance period, starting with the contracts commencement, but not prior to the removal of any contingencies for each individual milestone. We recognize this revenue based upon the pattern in which the revenue is earned or the obligation is fulfilled.
Our Generic segment develops, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes products within two product lines: Generics and Generic Oral Contraceptives (Generic OCs).
Our Generics product line includes oral dosage products used for a variety of applications including pain medication, the treatment of depression, anti-hypertensives, gum-based and transdermal products to aid in smoking cessation as well as injectible products.
Sales from our Generics product line during the year ended December 31, 2005 decreased $23.8 million or 2.5% over sales from the prior year. This decrease in sales was mainly attributable to price declines particularly on nicotine gum related to the entry of a competitor in that product line in December 2004 which was partially offset by the launch of several products since the third quarter of 2004.
Sales from our Generic OC product line during the year ended December 31, 2005 increased $26.9 million or 9.2% over sales from the prior year. Increased unit sales of oral contraceptives were generated for the majority of our products within our Generic OC product line during 2005.
The decrease in other revenues in the year ended December 31, 2005 within the Generics segment was primarily related to the absence of royalty payments from Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Aventisformerly known as Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi-Aventis) in connection with Barr Laboratories, Inc.s sales of ciprofloxacin tablets. Several companies launched competitive products into the ciprofloxacin market during the second half of 2004.
We expect total net revenues in the Generic segment in 2006 to range between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion as a result of new product launches, including the introduction of pravastatin sodium tablets through a distribution agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) and other third party manufactured products (Authorized Generics) which typically result in lower margins.
Our Brand segment develops, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes products within two sales and marketing groups: Specialty Products and Nephrology.
Our Specialty Products product line includes urology, anti-hypertensive, psychiatry, pain management and dermatology products and a genital warts treatment.
Our Nephrology product line consists of products for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia and is generally marketed to nephrologists and dialysis centers. The major product within the Nephrology product line is Ferrlecit®, which is used to treat low iron levels in patients undergoing hemodialysis in conjunction with erythropoietin therapy.
The $14.0 million or 7.2% increase in sales from our Specialty Products product line for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to the prior year, was primarily attributable to sales of our Trelstar® Depot and Trelstar® LA (collectively Trelstar®) products launched earlier this year for the palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer.
Sales from our Nephrology product line increased $11.7 million or 7.0% due to an increase in unit sales of our Ferrlecit® product. For the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, Ferrlecit® represented approximately 81% and 80% of sales, respectively, from our Nephrology product line.
The decrease in other revenues in the year ended December 31, 2005 within the Brand segment was primarily related to a decline in activity related to deferred revenue and contract research revenue recognized in the year compared to the prior year.
We expect total net revenues in the Brand segment in 2006 to be slightly below or to remain at 2005 levels.
Gross Profit Margin (Gross Margin)
The decrease in gross margin from our Generic segment for the year ended December 31, 2005 was primarily due to price reductions on certain generic products (particularly nicotine gum).
Gross margin from our Brand segment decreased due to reduced production levels at certain manufacturing facilities resulting in higher unit overhead costs during 2005 as compared to the prior year.
The $23.3 million decrease in other revenues during the year ended December 31, 2005 was also a factor in the reduction of our overall consolidated gross margin as compared to the prior year.
We expect the gross margin on our generic pharmaceutical products as well as our overall consolidated gross margins in 2006 to decline from 2005 levels as a result of the introduction of additional Authorized Generics during 2006. We expect the gross margin on our brand pharmaceutical products in 2006 to be approximately the same as in 2005. Overall consolidated gross margins are expected to be approximately 42% in 2006.
Research and Development Expenses
Research and development expenses consist predominantly of personnel costs, contract research, development and facilities costs associated with the development of our products.
Research and development expenses within our Generic segment increased $11.6 million or 16.8% during the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to the prior year, due to an increase in the number of generic products being developed.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, research and development expenses within our Brand segment included a $10 million milestone payment to Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., related to silodosin. In addition, Brand research and development expenses included a $2.2 million restructuring charge in 2004. Cost savings resulting from the refocusing of Brand product development, announced during the second quarter of 2004, also contributed to the reduction in Brand segment research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Research and development investment for 2006 is expected to be approximately 6.5% to 7% of expected total net revenue.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses consist mainly of personnel costs, facilities costs, insurance, depreciation, distribution costs and professional services costs.
Brand segment selling and marketing expenses decreased during the year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the prior year due mainly to cost savings from the termination of a contract sales force agreement and a $6.3 million restructuring charge taken during the third quarter of 2004. Corporate general and administrative expenses decreased in 2005 compared to the prior year due to higher severance and legal services costs in 2004. Corporate general and administrative expenses were also higher in the prior year period due to costs related to our enterprise resource planning system implementation.
Selling, general and administrative expenses for 2006 are expected to be approximately 14.5 to 15 percent of expected total net revenue.
The Companys amortizable assets consist primarily of acquired product rights. The increase in amortization during the year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the same period of the prior year is primarily due to the acceleration of amortization associated with our Ferrlecit® product rights. Amortization of product rights in 2006 is expected to be approximately the same as in 2005.
Loss on Impairment
When events or changes in circumstances indicate that some portion of long lived assets may have become unrecoverable, an assessment is performed using a variety of methodologies, including analysis of undiscounted future cash flows, estimates of sales proceeds and independent appraisals. If such assets are impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the estimated fair market value of the assets.
In the year ended December 31, 2005, we recognized a $25.1 million impairment charge primarily relating to a write-down of our Puerto Rico facility as a result of our decision to close our manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico, transfer product manufacturing to our Carmel, New York and Corona, California sites and discontinue manufacturing operations at our Puerto Rico facility over the next 15 to 21 months.
In the year ended December 31, 2004, we recognized a $46.1 million impairment charge relating to our Tri-Norinyl® product rights as a result of the announcement of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) approval and introduction of a generic version of the Tri-Norinyl® oral contraceptive tablets by a competitor in the market.
Loss on Equity Method Investments
The Companys equity investments are accounted for under the equity-method when the Companys ownership does not exceed 50% and when the Company can exert significant influence over the management of the investee. In the year ended December 31, 2005 the Company acquired additional common shares in Scinopharm Taiwan, Ltd. (Scinopharm), previously accounted for under the cost method, to an ownership level of approximately 24%. Accordingly, as required by Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 18, The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock (APB 18), loss on equity method investments has been restated for all periods presented to conform to current period presentation.
The loss recorded during the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 represents our share of losses incurred by Scinopharm and Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Somerset), our joint venture with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. Loss on equity method investments was higher in 2004 due to higher expenses at Somerset associated with ongoing trials, operational costs and the remaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements relating to Emsam®, a selegiline patch for the treatment of depression.
Gain on Sale of Securities
The 2005 $0.4 million loss on sale of securities resulted from the sale of our remaining investment in Genelabs Technologies, Inc. (Genelabs) for proceeds of $1.4 million. The 2004 gain on sale of securities resulted from the sale of a portion of our investment in the common stock of Andrx Corporation (Andrx). For the year ended December 31, 2004, we sold a total of 240,000 shares of Andrx common stock for proceeds of $6.3 million. At December 31, 2005, we held approximately 607,000 shares of Andrx common stock at a fair value of $10.0 million with a gross unrealized gain of $8.4 million.
Interest expense increased for the year ended December 31, 2005 over the prior year due to a smaller decrease in the fair value of the derivative (as described in Note 7 in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Annual Report) and a reduction in the amount of capitalized interest for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Generic segment contribution decreased for the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to the same period of the prior year, primarily due to:
· Reduced levels of other revenue related to the absence of royalty payments from Aventis in connection with Barr Laboratories, Inc.s sales of ciprofloxacin tablets;
· A reduction in gross margins due to price reductions on certain generic products; and
· An increase in research and development expenses due to an increase in the number of generic products being developed in the period.
Brand segment contribution increased during the year ended December 31, 2005, as compared to the same period of the prior year, primarily due to:
· An increase in sales of certain Specialty Products including Oxytrol®;
· The launch of Trelstar® during 2005;
· A reduction in research and development expenses as the prior year period included a $10 million milestone payment related to silodosin as well as $2.2 million in restructuring charges; and
· A reduction in sales and marketing expenses due to the termination of a contract sales force agreement in the third quarter of 2004.
For more information on segment contribution, refer to above Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 11 in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Annual Report.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 COMPARED TO 2003
The increase in net revenues from our Generic segment of $227.8 million or 22.5% during 2004 was primarily due to new product launches, including mint nicotine gum, bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets, and nitrofurantoin monohydrate/macrocrystals capsules. Revenues from these products, launched in 2004, were $155.7 million. In addition, a portion of the increase in net generic revenues resulted from a full year sales of products launched in the fourth quarter of 2003. Revenues from products launched in the fourth quarter of 2003 such as glipizide extended-release tablets, additional strengths of oxycodone with acetaminophen tablets and TriNessa were $172.7 million and $53.3 million for 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Other revenues increased within the Generics segment from the prior year due to an increase in revenues earned from contract research and development agreements.
The decrease of $33.1 million or 8.3% in net revenues from our Brand segment during 2004 was primarily due to lower sales of certain products within our Specialty Products group, notably, Nor-QD®, Norco®, and Tri-Norinyl® due to the availability of generic equivalents in the market. A reduction in sales of Androderm® was partially due to back order shipments made in the first quarter of 2003. Together, these products accounted for a reduction in net revenues of $34.1 million in 2004. The aggregate reduction in net revenues from other specialty products was approximately $21.8 million.
The decrease in net revenues within the Specialty Products group was partially offset by the following:
· An increase in net revenues from our Nephrology group due to an $8.6 million, or 7%, increase in net sales of Ferrlecit®, from $125.4 million in 2003 to $134.0 million in 2004.
· An increase in net revenues of Oxytrol® sales of $15.8 million, or 71%, to $38.0 million during 2004. Oxytrol® was introduced in April of 2003. The increase in net revenue is primarily due to increasing acceptance of the product as well as the benefit of a full year of sales during 2004.
Other revenues decreased within the Brand segment from the prior year due to the absence of payments during 2004 from a litigation settlement with Aventis. Royalties earned pursuant to the Aventis settlement were $21.0 million during 2003.
Gross Profit Margin (Gross Margin)
Gross margin on brand products increased slightly in 2004 as the Company enjoyed the benefit of a full year of Oxytrol® sales in 2004. Oxytrol® was introduced in April of 2003.
The decrease in the Companys overall consolidated gross margins was due to the following:
· A shift in product mix from brand toward generic products:
Margins on brand products have not changed significantly during 2004. However, the portion of brand sales to total product sales has decreased from 28% in 2003 to 23% in 2004. The increase in consolidated net revenues during 2004 was driven by sales of Authorized Generics such as bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release tablets and TriNessa, which generally provide lower gross margins than brand products.
· A shift in product mix within the generic business segment:
A significant portion of the increase in generic net revenues from 2003 to 2004 was due to the introduction of Authorized Generics, which accounted for an increase in net revenues of $201.9 million for the generic business segment.
· The under absorption of overhead costs at our Miami facility as we curtailed production at the facility in anticipation of its closure in December 2004.
· The $11.9 million decrease in other revenues. No cost of sales is attributed to other revenue.
Research and Development Expenses
Generic segment research and development expenses increased in 2004 due to expanded development programs and clinical studies. During 2004, we filed 21 ANDAs. We had approximately 100 generic products in development including 33 ANDAs on file as of December 31, 2004.
Brand segment research and development expenses increased in 2004 due to a $10 million milestone payment to Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the acquisition of certain rights to its product for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia and a $2.2 million restructuring charge recorded in the third quarter of 2004.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
The decrease in Brand segment selling and marketing expenses during 2004 was mainly due to a cost reduction realized from the termination of our contract sales force agreement with Ventiv Health, Inc. during the third quarter of 2004 and a workforce reduction in our sales and marketing areas resulting from the realignment of our business strategy announced in June 2004. Included in Brand segment selling and marketing expenses is a $6.3 million restructuring charge recorded in the third quarter of 2004.
Amortization of acquired product rights increased slightly in 2004 in line with the increase in product right acquisitions during 2004.
Loss on Equity Method Investments
Our loss on equity method investments in 2004 and 2003 primarily represents our share of losses in Scinopharm and Somerset. In December 2004, Somerset entered into an agreement with BMS for the commercialization and distribution of EmSam. Loss on equity method investments was higher in 2004 due to higher expenses at Somerset associated with research and operational costs related to the development of Emsam®.
Our share of losses in Scinopharm and the Somerset venture were partially offset by income of $0.8 million and $2.2 million earned from our interest in ANCIRC Pharmaceuticals (ANCIRC), a joint venture with Andrx, in 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Loss on Impairment of Assets