Notes to Condensed Financial Statements
March 31, 2013
(Unaudited)
1. Organization and Basis of Presentation
MAKO Surgical Corp. (the “Company” or “MAKO”)
is an emerging medical device company that markets its RIO® Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopedic (“RIO”) system,
joint specific applications for the knee and hip, and proprietary RESTORIS® implants for orthopedic procedures called
MAKOplasty®. The Company is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and its common stock trades on The NASDAQ Global
Select Market under the ticker symbol “MAKO.”
Basis of Presentation
In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited
condensed financial statements (“condensed financial statements”) of the Company have been prepared on a basis consistent
with the Company’s December 31, 2012 audited financial statements and include all adjustments, consisting of only normal
recurring adjustments, necessary to fairly state the information set forth herein. These condensed financial statements have been
prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and, therefore, omit certain information
and footnote disclosure necessary to present the statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States. These quarterly condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements
and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form
10-K”). The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2013 may not be indicative of the results to be expected
for the entire year or any future periods.
Liquidity and Operations
In executing its current business plan, the Company
believes its existing cash, cash equivalents and investment balances will be sufficient to meet its anticipated cash requirements
for at least the next twelve months. To the extent the Company’s available cash, cash equivalents and investment balances
are insufficient to satisfy its operating requirements, the Company will need to seek additional sources of funds, including selling
additional equity, debt or other securities, or modify its current business plan. The sale of additional equity or convertible
debt securities may result in dilution to the Company’s current stockholders. If the Company raises additional funds through
the issuance of debt securities, these securities may have rights senior to those of its common stock and could contain covenants
that could restrict the Company’s operations and ability to issue dividends. The Company may also require additional capital
beyond its currently forecasted amounts. Any required additional capital, whether forecasted or not, may not be available on reasonable
terms, or at all. If the Company is unable to obtain additional financing, the Company may be required to reduce the scope of,
delay or eliminate some or all of its planned research, development and commercialization activities, which could materially harm
its business and results of operations.
Concentrations of Credit Risk and Other Risks and Uncertainties
Financial instruments that potentially subject the
Company to significant concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, investments, and accounts
receivable. The Company’s cash and cash equivalents are held in demand and money market accounts at four large financial
institutions. The Company’s investments are held in a variety of interest bearing instruments, including notes and bonds
from U.S. government agencies and certificates of deposit at three large financial institutions. Such deposits are generally in
excess of insured limits. The Company has not experienced any historical losses on its deposits of cash and cash equivalents.
The Company may perform credit evaluations of its customers’
financial condition and, generally, requires no collateral from its customers. The Company provides an allowance for doubtful accounts
when collections become doubtful but has not experienced any significant credit losses to date.
The Company is subject to risks common to emerging
companies in the medical device industry including, but not limited to: new technological innovations, dependence on key personnel,
dependence on key suppliers, changes in general economic conditions and interest rates, protection of proprietary technology, compliance
with new and established domestic and foreign government regulations and taxes, uncertainty of widespread market acceptance of
products, unanticipated changes in the timing of the sales cycle for the Company’s products or the vetting process undertaken
by prospective customers, access to credit for capital purchases by the Company’s customers, product liability, the need
to obtain additional financing and reliance on single source suppliers for implant products. The Company’s products include
components subject to rapid technological change. Certain components used in manufacturing have relatively few alternative sources
of supply and establishing additional or replacement suppliers for such components cannot be accomplished quickly. The inability
of any of these suppliers to fulfill the Company’s supply requirements may negatively impact future operating results. While
the Company has ongoing programs to minimize the adverse effect of such uncertainty and considers technological change in estimating
the net realizable value of its inventory, uncertainty continues to exist.
The Company expects to derive most of its revenue from
capital sales of its RIO system, current and future MAKOplasty applications to the RIO system (together with the RIO, the “RIO
system”), recurring sales of implants and disposable products required for each MAKOplasty procedure, and service plans that
are sold with the RIO system. If the Company is unable to achieve broad commercial acceptance of MAKOplasty or obtain regulatory
clearances or approvals for future products, including other orthopedic products, its revenue would be adversely affected and the
Company may not become profitable.
The Company’s current versions of its RIO system,
its MAKOplasty partial knee and total hip arthroplasty RIO applications, and its RESTORIS® MCK multicompartmental knee implant
systems and RESTORIS total hip implant systems have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
Certain products currently under development by the Company will require clearance or approval by the FDA or other international
regulatory agencies prior to commercial sale. There can be no assurance that the Company’s products will receive the necessary
clearances or approvals. If the Company were to be denied any such clearance or approval or such clearance or approval were delayed,
it could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
Reclassifications
The Company reclassified depreciation expense for certain
property and equipment from selling, general and administrative expense to depreciation and amortization expense in the prior period’s
statement of operations to conform to the current period’s presentation. This change in presentation only affects the components
of operating costs and expenses and does not affect total operating costs and expenses, revenue, cost of revenue, net loss or cash
flows. Conforming changes have been made for all prior periods presented, as follows (in thousands):
(in thousands)
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
As Previously
Reported
|
|
|
Amount
Reclassified
|
|
|
As Reported
Herein
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
$
|
19,788
|
|
|
$
|
(412
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,376
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
4,854
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
4,854
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,274
|
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
1,686
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
$
|
25,916
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
25,916
|
|
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Revenue Recognition
Revenue is generated: from (1) unit sales of the RIO
system, including associated applications, instrumentation, installation services and training; (2) sales of implants and disposable
products utilized in MAKOplasty procedures; and (3) sales of maintenance services. The Company recognizes revenue in accordance
with ASC 605-10,
Revenue Recognition
, when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the fee is fixed or determinable,
collection of the fee is probable and delivery has occurred. For all sales, the Company uses either a signed agreement or a binding
purchase order as evidence of an arrangement.
The Company’s multiple-element arrangements are
generally comprised of the following elements that qualify as separate units of accounting: (1) sales of RIO systems and applications;
(2) sales of implants and disposable products; and (3) sales of maintenance services. The Company’s revenue recognition policies
generally result in revenue recognition at the following points:
|
1.
|
RIO system sales: Revenues related to RIO system sales are recognized upon installation of the system, training of at least one surgeon, which typically occurs prior to or concurrent with the RIO system installation, and customer acceptance, if required. Applications sold separately to existing customers are recognized on the same basis as RIO system sales (e.g., upon installation of the application, training of at least one surgeon and customer acceptance, if required).
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Procedure revenue: Revenues from the sale of implants and disposable products utilized in MAKOplasty procedures are recognized at the time of sale (i.e., at the time of the related surgical procedure).
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Service revenue: Revenues from maintenance services are deferred and recognized ratably over the service period until no further obligation exists. Maintenance services include preventative maintenance and repair on the RIO system hardware, when-and-if-available software and hardware reliability upgrades (i.e., bug fixes) and telephone troubleshooting support.
|
Sales of the Company’s RIO system generally include
a one-year service obligation for maintenance (the “Service Obligation”). Upon recognition of a RIO system’s
revenue in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policies, the Company defers a portion of the RIO system consideration
attributable to the Service Obligation and recognizes it on a straight-line basis over the service period as a component of revenue
– service in the statement of operations. Costs associated with providing maintenance services are expensed to cost of revenue
– service as incurred.
The Company allocates arrangement consideration to
the RIO systems and associated instrumentation, its implants and disposables and its maintenance services based upon the relative
selling-price method. Under this method, revenue is allocated at the time of sale to all deliverables based on their relative selling
price using a specific hierarchy. The hierarchy is as follows: vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of fair
value of the respective elements, third-party evidence of selling price, or best estimate of selling price (“ESP”).
The Company allocates arrangement consideration using
ESP for its RIO system, ESP for its implants and disposable products and VSOE of fair value for its maintenance services. VSOE
of fair value is based on the price charged when the element is sold separately. ESP is established by determining the price at
which the Company would transact a sale if the product was sold on a stand-alone basis. The Company determines ESP for its products
by considering multiple factors including, but not limited to, geographies, type of customer, and market conditions. The Company
regularly reviews ESP and maintains internal controls over the establishment and updates of these estimates.
Deferred Revenue and Deferred Cost of Revenue
Deferred revenue consists of deferred service revenue,
deferred system revenue and deferred procedure revenue. Deferred service revenue results from the advance payment for maintenance
services to be delivered over a period of time, usually in one-year increments. Deferred system revenue arises from timing differences
between the installation of RIO systems and satisfaction of all revenue recognition criteria consistent with the Company’s
revenue recognition policy. Deferred procedure revenue arises from sales to independent international distributors which provide
for a right of return. No revenue is recognized for these sales until the right of return expires or is waived. Deferred revenue
expected to be realized within one year is classified as a current liability. Deferred cost of revenue consists of the direct costs
associated with the manufacture of RIO systems and implants and disposable products for which the revenue has been deferred in
accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy. The deferred revenue balance as of March 31, 2013 consisted primarily
of deferred service revenue for maintenance services.
Inventory
Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market
value on a first-in, first-out basis. Inventory costs include direct materials, direct labor and manufacturing overhead. The Company
reviews its inventory periodically to determine net realizable value and considers product upgrades in its periodic review of realizability.
The Company adjusts its inventory reserve, if required, based on forecasted demand, technological obsolescence and new product
introductions. These factors are impacted by market and economic conditions, technology changes and new product introductions and
require estimates that may include uncertain elements.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Effective January 1, 2013, the Company adopted accounting
guidance which requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive
gain (loss) by component. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operation or financial
position.
Net Loss Per Share
The Company calculates net loss per share in accordance
with ASC 260,
Earnings per Share
. Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is calculated by dividing the net income
or loss by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period, without consideration for common stock equivalents.
Diluted EPS is computed by dividing the net income or loss by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period and the weighted average number of dilutive common stock equivalents outstanding for the period determined using the treasury
stock method. The following table sets forth potential shares of common stock that are not included in the calculation of diluted
net loss per share because to do so would be anti-dilutive as of the end of each period presented:
(in thousands)
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2012
|
|
Stock options outstanding
|
|
|
6,678
|
|
|
|
5,541
|
|
Warrants to purchase common stock
|
|
|
1,211
|
|
|
|
1,053
|
|
Unvested restricted stock
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
456
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7,922
|
|
|
|
7,050
|
|
3. Available-For-Sale Investments
The Company’s investments are classified as available-for-sale.
Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses included in accumulated other comprehensive
gain (loss) within stockholders’ equity. Realized gains and losses, interest and dividends, amortization of premium and discount
on investment securities and declines in value determined to be other-than-temporary on available-for-sale securities are included
in other income (expense), net. During the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, realized gains and losses recognized on
the sale of investments were not significant. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.
The amortized cost and fair value of short and long-term
investments, with gross unrealized gains and losses, were as follows:
As of March 31, 2013
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
Cost
|
|
|
Gross
Unrealized
Gains
|
|
|
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
|
|
|
Fair
Value
|
|
Short-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
$
|
15,993
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
(11
|
)
|
|
$
|
15,983
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
12,415
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
12,410
|
|
Long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
|
504
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
502
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
665
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
663
|
|
Total investments
|
|
$
|
29,577
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
(24
|
)
|
|
$
|
29,558
|
|
As of December 31, 2012
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
Cost
|
|
|
Gross
Unrealized
Gains
|
|
|
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
|
|
|
Fair
Value
|
|
Short-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
$
|
1,704
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
1,705
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
10,193
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
10,194
|
|
Total investments
|
|
$
|
11,897
|
|
|
$
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
(6
|
)
|
|
$
|
11,899
|
|
As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, all short-term
investments had maturity dates of less than one year. As of March 31, 2013, all long-term investments had maturity dates between
one and two years.
4. Cost Method Investment
The Company has a minority equity interest in Pipeline
Biomedical Holdings, Inc. (“Pipeline”) which the Company accounts for as a cost method investment under ASC 325-20,
Cost Method Investments
. The carrying amount of the equity interest in Pipeline is $4.2 million and is included in cost
method investment on the balance sheet. It is not practical to estimate the fair value of the equity interest in Pipeline as Pipeline’s
securities are not publicly traded. The Company reviews the equity interest in Pipeline for impairment whenever events or circumstances
indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. No events or circumstances indicated that the equity interest in Pipeline
was impaired as of March 31, 2013.
5. Fair Value Measurements
A three-tier fair value hierarchy is utilized to prioritize
the inputs used in measuring fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets (Level 1)
and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels are as follows:
|
·
|
Level 1 Inputs – unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;
|
|
·
|
Level 2 Inputs – inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability
either directly or indirectly; and
|
|
·
|
Level 3 Inputs – unobservable inputs for the asset or liability.
|
The fair values of the Company’s financial assets
measured on a recurring basis are summarized below:
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at the Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
March 31,
2013
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Short-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
$
|
15,983
|
|
|
$
|
14,492
|
|
|
$
|
1,491
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
12,410
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
12,410
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
|
502
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
502
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
663
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
663
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Financing commitment asset
|
|
|
6,947
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
6,947
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
36,505
|
|
|
$
|
14,492
|
|
|
$
|
15,066
|
|
|
$
|
6,947
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at the Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2012
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Short-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
$
|
1,705
|
|
|
$
|
1,001
|
|
|
$
|
704
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
10,194
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
10,194
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Financing commitment asset
|
|
|
7,608
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
7,608
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
19,507
|
|
|
$
|
1,001
|
|
|
$
|
10,898
|
|
|
$
|
7,608
|
|
The Company’s Level 2 assets consist of certificates
of deposit and U.S. government agency securities. Level 2 securities are priced based on quoted prices for similar assets in active
markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets in markets that are not active, or other observable market inputs for similar
securities. There have been no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 and no transfers to or from Level 3 of the fair value measurement
hierarchy. See Note 8 for more information regarding the Company’s financing commitment asset.
The table below provides a reconciliation of the financing
commitment asset measured at fair value on a recurring basis which use Level 3 inputs for the three months ended March 31, 2013.
(in thousands)
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements
Level 3
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
March 31, 2013
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2012
|
|
$
|
7,608
|
|
Change in value of financing commitment asset reported in other income (expense)
|
|
|
(661
|
)
|
Balance at March 31, 2013
|
|
$
|
6,947
|
|
6. Inventory
Inventory consisted of the following:
(in thousands)
|
|
March 31,
2013
|
|
|
December 31,
2012
|
|
Inventory:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
3,412
|
|
|
$
|
4,351
|
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
1,573
|
|
|
|
1,159
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
20,144
|
|
|
|
19,570
|
|
Total inventory
|
|
$
|
25,129
|
|
|
$
|
25,080
|
|
The Company reviews its inventory periodically to determine
net realizable value and considers product upgrades in its periodic review of realizability. Depending on demand for the Company’s
products, technical obsolescence and new product introductions, future valuation adjustments of the Company’s inventory may
occur.
7. Commitments and Contingencies
Purchase Commitments
At March 31, 2013, the Company was committed to make
future purchases for inventory and other items that occur in the ordinary course of business under various purchase arrangements
with fixed purchase provisions aggregating $11.7 million.
Contractual Obligations
The Company has a contingent obligation to make one-time
payments of up to $5.6 million in lieu of paying ongoing, periodic royalty payments under certain royalty bearing arrangements
related to its intellectual property rights. If incurred, these contingent obligations would be recognized in the second half of
2014.
Legal Proceedings
In May 2012, two shareholder complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s common stock between January 9, 2012 and
May 7, 2012. The cases were filed under the captions
James H. Harrison, Jr. v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al.
, No. 12-cv-60875
and
Brian Parker v. MAKO Surgical Corp. et al.
, No. 12-cv-60954. The court consolidated the
Harrison
and
Parker
complaints under the caption
In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation
, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees’ Retirement System to serve as co-lead
plaintiffs. In September 2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that expanded the proposed class period through
July 9, 2012. The amended complaint alleges the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferré,
M.D., and its Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions
during the proposed class period about the Company’s financial guidance for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company’s
stock price. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ and expert fees,
and costs. In October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferré, and Mr. LaPorte filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. The court has not ruled on that motion.
Additionally, in June and July 2012, four shareholder
derivative complaints were filed against the Company, as nominal defendant, and its board of directors, as well as Dr. Ferré
and, in two cases, Mr. LaPorte. Those complaints allege that the Company’s directors and certain officers violated their
fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by allowing the Company to make misrepresentations or omissions
that exposed the Company to the
Harrison
and
Parker
class actions and damaged the Company’s goodwill.
Two of the derivative actions
were filed in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida and have been consolidated under the caption
In re MAKO Surgical Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation
, No. 12-cv-16221. By order dated July 3, 2012, the court
stayed
In re MAKO Surgical Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation
pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed
in the
In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation
class action.
The two other actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under the captions
Todd Deehl v. Ferré et al.
, No. 12-cv-61238 and
Robert
Bardagy v. Ferré et al.
, No. 12-cv-61380. On August 29, 2012, the court consolidated these two federal cases under the
caption
In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Derivative Litig
.¸ Case No. 12-61238-CIV-COHN-SELTZER and approved the filing of
a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges that MAKO’s directors and two of its officers breached fiduciary duties,
wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by issuing, or allowing the issuance of, annual sales guidance for 2012 that
they allegedly knew lacked any reasonable basis. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’
and expert fees, costs and corporate reforms to allegedly improve MAKO’s corporate governance and internal procedures. On October
31, 2012, MAKO and the individual defendants each filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The court has not ruled
on those motions.
Also on October 31, 2012, the Company’s board
of directors appointed a demand review committee, consisting of two independent directors, to review, investigate, and prepare
a report and recommendation to the full board regarding the claims raised in the federal derivative action, In re MAKO Surgical
Corp. Derivative Litig., and a demand made on the board by two Company shareholders, Amy and Charles Miller, challenging the Company’s
sales projections for 2012 and statements about its future financial outlook and demanding that the board of directors file suit
on behalf of the Company. Additionally, on November 19, 2012, upon recommendation of the demand review committee, the Company and
the individual defendants filed a joint motion to stay the federal derivative action pending the completion of the demand review
committee’s investigation. The court has not ruled on the motion to stay. The demand review committee has not yet completed
its review, investigation and report.
The Company has recorded $500,000 to expense in prior
periods as a component of selling, general and administrative expenses to cover the insurance deductible for the Company’s
directors and officers insurance policies related to the above actions.
Contingencies
The Company accrues a liability for legal contingencies
when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of
the loss. The Company reviews these accruals and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of
legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and the Company’s views on the probable
outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in the Company’s accrued liabilities
would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced in the paragraph below, the amount
of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated; and, therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition,
in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably
possible, the Company provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss; however, if a reasonable estimate cannot be made,
the Company will provide disclosure to that effect.
In addition to the matters discussed in “Legal
Proceedings” above, the Company is a defendant in various litigation matters generally arising in the normal course of business.
Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcomes of these matters, the Company believes that it is not reasonably possible
that the ultimate outcomes of these ordinary course litigation matters will materially and adversely affect its business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
8. Credit Facility
On May 7, 2012, the Company entered into a Facility
Agreement with affiliates of Deerfield Management Company, L.P. (“Deerfield”), as amended on June 28, 2012, pursuant
to which Deerfield agreed to loan the Company up to $50 million, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Facility
Agreement. Under the terms of the Facility Agreement, the Company has the flexibility, but is not required, to draw down on the
Facility Agreement in $10 million increments (the “Financing Commitment”) at any time until May 15, 2013 (the
“Draw Period”). The Company was not required to pay an upfront transaction fee to Deerfield under the Facility Agreement.
In exchange for the Financing Commitment, on May 7, 2012, the Company issued to Deerfield warrants to purchase 275,000 shares of
the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $27.70 per share.
Each $10 million disbursement shall be accompanied
by the issuance to Deerfield of warrants to purchase 140,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at an exercise price equal
to a 20% premium to the mean closing price of the Company’s common stock over the five trading days following receipt by
Deerfield of the draw notice. If the Company, in its discretion, elects to draw down the entire $50 million available under
the Facility Agreement, the Company will have issued warrants to purchase a total of 975,000 shares of its common stock, including
the 275,000 warrants issued in connection with the Financing Commitment. The number of shares of common stock into which a warrant
is exercisable and the exercise price of any warrant will be adjusted to reflect any stock splits, recapitalizations or similar
adjustments in the number of outstanding shares of common stock. The warrants have the same dividend rights to the same extent
as if the warrants were exercised into shares of common stock.
Any amounts drawn under the Facility Agreement accrue
interest at a rate of 6.75% per annum and will be secured by all of the Company’s assets excluding only the Company’s
intellectual property assets. Accrued interest is payable quarterly in cash. The Company has the right to prepay any amounts owed
without penalty. All principal amounts outstanding under the Facility Agreement are payable on the third anniversary of each draw.
If no funds have been drawn under the Facility Agreement by May 15, 2013, the Company is required to pay Deerfield a fee of $1.0
million (the “Facility Fee”). The Company recorded $1.0 million to expense for the Facility Fee in other income (expense),
net in the statement of operations during the year ended December 31, 2012, as the Company determined it was probable that it would
be required to pay the Facility Fee. If the Company draws down under the Facility Agreement, the $1.0 million of expense previously
recognized for the Facility Fee would be reversed. As of March 31, 2013, the Company has not drawn any amounts under the Facility
Agreement.
Any amounts drawn under the Facility Agreement may
become immediately due and payable upon (i) an “event of default,” as defined in the Facility Agreement, in which case
Deerfield would have the right to require the Company to repay 100% of the principal amount of the loan, plus any accrued and unpaid
interest thereon, or (ii) the consummation of certain change of control transactions, in which case Deerfield would have the right
to require the Company to repay the outstanding principal amount of the loan, plus any accrued and unpaid interest thereon.
As noted above, in exchange for the Financing Commitment,
on May 7, 2012, the Company issued to Deerfield warrants to purchase 275,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise
price of $27.70 per share. As of March 31, 2013, all 275,000 warrants were outstanding and exercisable. The warrants qualified
for permanent treatment as equity and the fair value of the warrants of $3.6 million on June 28, 2012 are classified as additional
paid-in capital on the condensed balance sheet.
The Financing Commitment is classified as a current
asset on the condensed balance sheet and is considered a derivative as the Company can put additional warrants and debt to Deerfield.
The Financing Commitment will be revalued each subsequent balance sheet date until the Draw Period expires or all amounts have
been drawn under the Facility Agreement, with any changes in the fair value between reporting periods recorded in other income
(expense), net in the condensed statement of operations. The fair value of the Financing Commitment on December 31, 2012 was $7.6
million and the fair value of the Financing Commitment on March 31, 2013 was $6.9 million. The $661,000 change in the fair value
of the Financing Commitment for the three months ended March 31, 2013 was recorded as expense in other income (expense), net in
the condensed statement of operations. Upon the expiration of the Draw Period on May 15, 2013, the Financing Commitment will
have no value and any previously capitalized amount would be reversed to expense in other income (expense), net in the statement
of operations.
In addition, the Company capitalized issuance costs
of $153,000 related to the Facility Agreement. These costs are being amortized to expense in other income (expense), net in the
condensed statement of operations using the straight-line method through the Draw Period.
The warrants to purchase 275,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock were valued as of June 28, 2012 using a Monte Carlo simulation model with the following assumptions: expected life
of 6.86 years, risk free rate of 1.05%, expected volatility of 63.54% and no expected dividend yield. The value of the Financing
Commitment was determined using Level 3 inputs, or significant unobservable inputs. The value of the Financing Commitment at March
31, 2013 was determined by estimating the value of being able to borrow $50 million at a 6.75% interest rate (the “Loan Value”)
net of the estimated value of the additional 700,000 warrants to be issued upon borrowing. The Loan Value was discounted using
a market yield of 16.5%. The estimated value of the additional warrants to be issued was valued using a Monte Carlo simulation
model with the following assumptions: expected life of 7.0 years, risk free rate of 1.26%, expected volatility of 61.64% and no
expected dividend yield. The most significant unobservable input in estimating the value of the Financing Commitment was the 16.5%
market yield. A 100 basis point change in the market yield input could change the value of the Financing Commitment by approximately
$1.0 million. The Financing Commitment on December 31, 2012 were valued using a methodology similar to the methodology discussed
above.
Each warrant issued under the Facility Agreement expires
on the seventh anniversary of its issuance and contains certain limitations that prevent the holder from acquiring shares upon
exercise of a warrant that would result in the number of shares beneficially owned by it exceeding 9.985% of the total number of
shares of the Company’s common stock then issued and outstanding.
The holder of a warrant may exercise the warrant either
for cash or on a cashless basis. In connection with certain Major Transactions, as defined in the warrant, including a change of
control of the Company or the sale of more than 50% of the Company’s assets, the holder may have the option to receive, in
exchange for the warrant, a number of shares of common stock equal to the Black-Scholes value of the warrant, as defined in the
warrant, divided by the closing price of the common stock on the trading day before closing. In certain circumstances, a portion
of such payment may be made in cash rather than in shares of common stock. In connection with certain “events of default,”
as defined in the Facility Agreement, the holder may have the option to receive, in exchange for the warrant, a number of shares
of common stock equal to the Black-Scholes value of the warrant, as defined in the warrant, divided by the volume weighted average
price for the five trading days prior to the applicable Default Notice, as defined in the warrant.
9. Stockholders’ Equity
Preferred Stock
As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company
was authorized to issue 27,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value preferred stock. As of March 31, 2013 and December 31,
2012, there were no shares of preferred stock issued or outstanding.
Common Stock
As of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company
was authorized to issue 135,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value common stock. Common stockholders are entitled to dividends as and
if declared by the Board of Directors, subject to the rights of holders of all classes of stock outstanding having priority rights
as to dividends. There have been no dividends declared to date on the common stock. Each share of common stock is entitled to one
vote on matters submitted to a vote of stockholders.
Stock Option Plans and Stock-Based Compensation
The Company recognizes compensation expense for its
stock-based awards in accordance with ASC 718,
Compensation-Stock Compensation
. ASC 718 requires the recognition of compensation
expense, using a fair value based method, for costs related to all stock-based payments including stock options. ASC 718 requires
companies to estimate the fair value of stock-based payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model.
During the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012,
stock-based compensation expense was $2.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively. Included within stock-based compensation expense
for the three months ended March 31, 2013 were $2.4 million related to stock option grants, $406,000 related to restricted stock
grants, and $118,000 related to employee stock purchases under the 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
The Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“2004 Plan”), its 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan,” and together with the 2004 Plan, the “Plans”),
and its 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan are described in the notes to financial statements in the Form 10-K. Generally, the Company’s
outstanding stock options vest over four years. Stock options granted to certain non-employee directors generally vest over one
year. Continued vesting typically terminates when the employment or consulting relationship ends. Vesting generally begins on the
date of grant.
The 2008 Plan contains an evergreen provision whereby
the authorized shares increase on January 1st of each year in an amount equal to the least of (1) 4% of the total number of shares
of the Company’s common stock outstanding on December 31st of the preceding year, (2) 2.5 million shares and (3) a number
of shares determined by the Company’s Board of Directors that is lesser than (1) and (2). The number of additional shares
authorized under the 2008 Plan on January 1, 2013 was approximately 1,881,000.
Under the terms of the Plans, the maximum term of options
intended to be incentive stock options granted to persons who own at least 10% of the voting power of all outstanding stock on
the date of grant is 5 years. The maximum term of all other options is 10 years. Options issued under the 2008 Plan that
are forfeited or expire will again be made available for issuing grants under the 2008 Plan. Options issued under the 2004 Plan
that are forfeited or expire will not be made available for issuing grants under the 2008 Plan. All future equity awards will be
made under the Company’s 2008 Plan.
Activity under the Plans is summarized as follows:
(in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
|
Shares/Options
Available For Grant
|
|
|
Number of
Options
|
|
|
Weighted Average
Exercise Price
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2012
|
|
|
884
|
|
|
|
5,450
|
|
|
$
|
16.65
|
|
Shares reserved
|
|
|
1,881
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Shares surrendered under the 2008 Plan
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
(1,629
|
)
|
|
|
1,629
|
|
|
|
11.41
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
|
|
6.59
|
|
Options forfeited under the 2004 Plan
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
11.12
|
|
Options forfeited under the 2008 Plan
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
(207
|
)
|
|
|
25.49
|
|
Restricted stock forfeited under the 2008 Plan
|
|
|
375
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2013
|
|
|
1,723
|
|
|
|
6,678
|
|
|
$
|
15.39
|
|
The Company records stock-based compensation expense
on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. As of March 31, 2013, there was total unrecognized compensation cost of approximately
$25.8 million, net of estimated forfeitures, related to non-vested stock-based payments (including stock option grants, restricted
stock grants and compensation expense relating to shares issued under the 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan). The unrecognized
compensation cost will be adjusted for future changes in estimated forfeitures, and is expected to be recognized over a remaining
weighted average period of 2.9 years as of March 31, 2013.
The estimated grant date fair values of the employee
stock options were calculated using the Black-Scholes valuation model, based on the following assumptions:
|
|
Three months ended March 31,
|
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
0.16% - 1.43%
|
|
|
1.35% - 1.40%
|
Expected life
|
|
|
6.25 years
|
|
|
6.25 years
|
Expected dividends
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
—
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
47.55% - 94.30%
|
|
|
48.49% - 48.62%
|
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, 375,000
shares of restricted stock subject to performance conditions were forfeited as the performance conditions were not achieved on
the measurement date of March 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2013, 32,875 shares of restricted stock were unvested and outstanding.
During the three months ended March 31, 2013, 5,244 shares of common stock were surrendered to the Company to cover payroll taxes
associated with the taxable income from the vesting of restricted stock previously granted.
Warrants
In December 2004, the Company issued warrants to purchase
462,716 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.03 per share. The warrants were immediately exercisable at an exercise
price of $3.00 per share, with the exercise period expiring in December 2014. As of March 31, 2013, 194,059 warrants were outstanding
and exercisable.
In October 2008, the Company issued warrants to purchase
1,290,323 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.125 per share and an exercise price of $7.44 per share. The warrants
became exercisable on April 29, 2009 and have a seven-year term. As of March 31, 2013, 598,741 warrants were outstanding and exercisable.
In October 2008, the Company issued warrants to purchase
322,581 shares of common stock at a purchase price of $0.125 per share and an exercise price of $6.20 per share. These warrants
became exercisable on December 31, 2009 and have a seven-year term. As of March 31, 2013, 143,157 warrants were outstanding and
exercisable.
In May 2012, the Company issued warrants to purchase
275,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $27.70 per share. These warrants became exercisable on May 7, 2012 and have
a seven-year term. As of March 31, 2013, all 275,000 warrants were outstanding and exercisable.
10. Income Taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes under ASC 740,
Income Taxes
. Deferred income taxes are determined based upon differences between financial reporting and income tax bases
of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted income tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences
are expected to reverse. The Company recognizes any interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component
of income tax expense.
Due to uncertainty surrounding realization of the deferred
income tax assets in future periods, the Company has recorded a 100% valuation allowance against its net deferred tax assets. If
it is determined in the future that it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax assets are realizable, the valuation
allowance will be reduced.
11. Subsequent Event
On April 16, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement and an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreements”) with Stanmore Implants Worldwide Limited and affiliated
entities (“Stanmore”). Under the Agreements, in exchange for a cash payment to Stanmore, MAKO withdrew all legal actions
against Stanmore and received Stanmore’s robotic business assets and related intellectual property, as well as Stanmore’s
agreement to withdraw from robotics. Upon closing of the transaction on April 22, 2013, the Company paid Stanmore $950,000 for
the acquired assets and $50,000 for Stanmore’s costs and expenses relating to the negotiation of the Agreement.