Table of Contents

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-Q/A

(Amendment No.1)

 

 

(Mark One)

x QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended January 31, 2013

OR

 

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number: 000-51439

 

 

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Delaware   20-2556965
(State of Incorporation)   (IRS Employer Identification No.)
600 Montgomery Street, 13 th Floor  
San Francisco, California   94111-2702
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)   (Zip Code)

415-445-7444

(Telephone No.)

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes   x     No   ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes   x     No   ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer   x    Accelerated filer   ¨
Non-accelerated filer   ¨   (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)    Smaller reporting company   ¨

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

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of May 31, 2013: 22,251,710

 

 

 


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Explanatory Note

  3

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

  4
Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION   5

Item 1. Financial Statements

  5

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

  24
Part II. OTHER INFORMATION   27

Item 1A. Risk Factors

  27

Item 6. Exhibits

  39
SIGNATURES   40

 

2


Table of Contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

We are filing this Amendment No. 1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2013 for the purpose of restating our interim condensed consolidated financial statements to correct diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, and to revise our disclosure on our controls and procedures as of January 31, 2013. Please refer to Note 5 of the Notes to the interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 1 and Controls and Procedures in Item 4.

Subsequent to the issuance of the interim condensed consolidated financial statements in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2013, we determined that we incorrectly reported our diluted earnings (loss) per share for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. Specifically, the calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per share for those periods did not reflect the dilutive impact of the change in fair value of the Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. warrant liability (“warrant liability”). In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 260, “ E a r n i ngs P e r Sha r e , ” when calculating diluted earnings (loss) per share, the gain attributable to the warrant liability should be reflected as an adjustment to the income available to common stockholders and the assumed exercise of the warrant liability should be an adjustment to the weighted average shares outstanding. These adjustments for gain or loss attributable to the warrant liability are required when the effect of the adjustment is dilutive. The three and six month periods ended January 31, 2013, are the only periods affected by this error, because they were the only periods in which the impact of the Oaktree warrant was dilutive. For the three months ended January 31, 2013, diluted earnings (loss) per share decreased by $0.80, from earnings of $0.43 per share to a loss of $0.37 per share. For the six months ended January 31, 2013, diluted earnings (loss) per share decreased by $0.47, from a loss of $0.03 per share to a loss of $0.50 per share. There were no other corrections to our interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six month periods ended January 31, 2013. For further information related to the restatement see Note 5 of the Notes to the interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

As a result of the error, we have reassessed our disclosure controls and procedures as of January 31, 2013, and have concluded that there was a previously identified significant deficiency in our controls in place over non-routine transactions that constituted a material weakness in our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. For a description of the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting and our plan to remediate the material weakness, see Part II – Item 4 Controls and Procedures.

This Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) only includes the following items affected by the restatement and updated consideration of disclosure controls and procedures:

 

   

Part I – Item 1. – Financial Statements

 

   

Part I – Item 4. – Controls and Procedures

 

   

Part II – Item 1A. – Risk Factors

 

   

Part II – Item 6. – Exhibits

Part II, Item 6. has been amended to contain currently dated certifications by our Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer.

 

3


Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) (“Form 10-Q/A”) includes forward-looking statements, including statements about our future financial and operating performance and results, business strategy, plant closure plans, liquidity, future commodity prices, supply of raw materials, our position in the walnut industry, enhancing internal controls and remediating material weaknesses. We have based these forward-looking statements on our assumptions, expectations and projections about future events only as of the date of this presentation, and we make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Many of our forward-looking statements include discussions of trends and anticipated developments under the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections of the periodic reports that we file with the SEC. We use the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “seek,” “may” and other similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements that discuss our future expectations, contain projections of our results of operations or financial condition or state other “forward-looking” information. You also should carefully consider other cautionary statements elsewhere in this report and in other documents we file from time to time with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Actual results may differ materially from what we currently expect because of many risks and uncertainties, including: risks relating to our leverage and its effect on our ability to respond to changes in our business, markets and industry; increase in the cost of our debt; ability to raise additional capital and possible dilutive impact of raising such capital; risks relating to litigation and regulatory proceedings; uncertainties relating to relations with growers; availability and cost of walnuts and other raw materials; increasing competition and possible loss of key customers; and general economic and capital markets conditions.

As used in this Form 10-Q/A, the terms “Diamond Foods,” “Diamond,” “Company,” “Registrant,” “we,” “us,” and “our” mean Diamond Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries unless the context indicates otherwise.

 

4


Table of Contents

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share information)

(Unaudited)

 

     January 31,     July 31,     January 31,  
     2013     2012     2012  
ASSETS       

Current assets:

      

Cash and cash equivalents

   $ 4,583      $ 3,291      $ 1,333   

Trade receivables, net

     67,934        85,041        93,782   

Inventories

     182,143        165,708        220,611   

Deferred income taxes

     4,102        3,697        14,010   

Prepaid income taxes

     550        4,434        31,758   

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

     16,728        16,025        22,203   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current assets

     276,040        278,196        383,697   

Restricted cash

     —          6,386        6,377   

Property, plant and equipment, net

     138,073        146,944        157,303   

Deferred income taxes

     —          1,107        5,915   

Goodwill

     404,791        403,158        403,903   

Other intangible assets, net

     434,401        437,021        441,669   

Other long-term assets

     21,670        26,537        5,864   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

   $ 1,274,975      $ 1,299,349      $ 1,404,728   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY       

Current liabilities:

      

Current portion of long-term debt

   $ 5,805      $ 5,449      $ 41,700   

Warrant liability

     35,712        46,821        —     

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

     102,737        130,623        147,472   

Payable to growers

     97,974        33,716        141,059   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

     242,228        216,609        330,231   

Long-term obligations

     552,555        599,598        516,749   

Deferred income taxes

     127,883        127,024        125,945   

Other liabilities

     23,732        31,324        29,673   

Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)

      

Stockholders’ equity:

      

Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; Authorized: 5,000,000 shares; no shares issued or outstanding

     —          —          —     

Common stock, $0.001 par value; Authorized: 100,000,000 shares; 22,613,169, 22,432,517 and 22,366,572 shares issued and 22,255,088, 22,114,241 and 22,054,141 shares outstanding at January 31, 2013, July 31, 2012, and January 31, 2012, respectively

     22        22        22   

Treasury stock, at cost: 358,081, 318,276 and 312,431 shares held at January 31, 2013, July 31, 2012, and January 31, 2012, respectively

     (10,525     (9,815     (9,687

Additional paid-in capital

     329,175        327,984        325,402   

Accumulated other comprehensive income

     7,934        4,044        6,882   

Retained earnings

     1,971        2,559        79,511   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity

     328,577        324,794        402,130   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

   $ 1,274,975      $ 1,299,349      $ 1,404,728   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

5


Table of Contents

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share information)

(Unaudited)

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     January 31,     January 31,  
     2013           2013        
     As Restated           As Restated        
     See Note 5     2012     See Note 5     2012  

Net sales

   $ 220,844      $ 262,351      $ 479,306      $ 549,744   

Cost of sales

     170,275        220,429        370,191        446,515   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Gross profit

     50,569        41,922        109,115        103,229   

Operating expenses:

        

Selling, general and administrative

     32,266        34,304        70,447        63,759   

Advertising

     12,294        11,638        21,339        24,354   

Acquisition and integration related expenses

     —          12,091        —          29,305   

Gain on warrant liability

     (18,625     —          (11,109     —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

     25,935        58,033        80,677        117,418   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) from operations

     24,634        (16,111     28,438        (14,189

Interest expense, net

     14,231        6,471        28,143        12,232   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) before income taxes

     10,403        (22,582     295        (26,421

Income taxes (benefit)

     262        (2,398     883        (17,038
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

   $ 10,141      $ (20,184   $ (588   $ (9,383
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Earnings (loss) per share:

        

Basic

   $ 0.46      $ (0.93   $ (0.03   $ (0.43

Diluted

   $ (0.37   $ (0.93   $ (0.50   $ (0.43

Shares used to compute earnings (loss) per share:

        

Basic

     21,781        21,724        21,703        21,684   

Diluted

     23,215        21,724        23,508        21,684   

Dividends declared per share

   $ —        $ 0.045      $ —        $ 0.090   

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

6


Table of Contents

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     January 31,     January 31,  
     2013     2012     2013     2012  

Net income (loss)

   $ 10,141      $ (20,184   $ (588   $ (9,383

Other comprehensive income (loss):

        

Foreign currency translation adjustments, net of tax 1

     (4,698     5,650        2,947        11,187   

Change in pension liabilities, net of tax 2

     943        —          943        —     

Derivative reclassification adjustments, net of tax 3

     —          (122     —          (331
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other comprehensive income (loss)

     (3,755     5,528        3,890        10,856   

Comprehensive income (loss)

   $ 6,386      $ (14,656   $ 3,302      $ 1,473   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

1  

Net of tax benefit of $0.2 million and net of tax expense of $0.1 million for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. Net of tax benefit of $0 million and net of tax expense of $0 million for the three and six months ended January 31, 2012.

2  

Net of tax expense of $0 million for both the three and six months ended January 31, 2013.

3  

Net of tax benefit of $0 million and net of tax expense of $0.1 million for the three and six months ended January 31, 2012.

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

7


Table of Contents

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

     Six Months Ended  
     January 31,  
     2013     2012  

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

    

Net loss

   $ (588   $ (9,383

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization

     16,138        13,659   

Deferred income taxes

     1,209        (5,154

Excess tax benefit from stock option transactions

     (69     (1,774

Stock-based compensation

     1,122        4,851   

Gain on warrant liability

     (11,109     —     

Debt issuance cost amortization

     1,414        874   

Payment-in-kind interest on debt

     11,256        —     

Gain on separation and clawback agreement

     (3,153     —     

Other, net

     975        (286

Changes in assets and liabilities:

    

Trade receivables, net

     17,479        4,493   

Inventories

     (16,383     (67,077

Prepaid expenses and other current assets and income taxes

     3,916        (22,927

Other assets

     3,277        134   

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

     (27,353     18,933   

Payable to growers

     64,258        64,359   

Other liabilities

     (2,663     (7,810
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities

     59,726        (7,108
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

    

Purchases of property, plant and equipment

     (4,499     (28,814

Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment and other

     112        1,238   

Change in restricted cash

     6,091        9,418   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

     1,704        (18,158
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

    

Borrowings (repayments) of revolving line of credit under the Secured Credit Facility, net

     (49,551     47,600   

Payment of long-term debt and notes payable

     (9,136     (20,852

Dividends paid

     —          (1,983

Excess tax benefit from stock option transactions

     69        1,774   

Purchase of treasury stock

     (621     (2,820

Other, net

     (866     (335
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

     (60,105     23,384   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash

     (33     103   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

     1,292        (1,779

Cash and cash equivalents:

    

Beginning of period

     3,291        3,112   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

End of period

   $ 4,583      $ 1,333   
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

    

Cash paid (refunded) during the period for:

    

Interest

   $ 14,026      $ 12,142   

Income taxes

     (5,612     8,167   

Non-cash investing activity:

    

Accrued capital expenditures

     764        3,713   

Capital lease

     —          6,441   

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

8


Table of Contents

DIAMOND FOODS, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 and 2012

(In thousands, except share and per share information unless otherwise noted)

(Unaudited)

(1) Organization and Basis of Presentation

Diamond Foods, Inc. (the “Company” or “Diamond”) is an innovative packaged food company focused on building and energizing brands. Diamond specializes in processing, marketing and distributing snack products and culinary, in-shell and ingredient nuts. In 2004, Diamond complemented its strong heritage in the culinary nut market under the Diamond of California ® brand by launching a line of nut varieties under the Emerald ® brand. In 2008, Diamond acquired the Pop Secret ® brand of microwave popcorn products, which provided the Company with increased scale in the snack market, significant supply chain economies of scale and cross promotional opportunities with its existing brands. In 2010, Diamond acquired Kettle Foods, a leading premium potato chip company in the two largest potato chip markets in the world, the United States and the United Kingdom, which added the complementary premium Kettle Brand ® to Diamond’s existing portfolio of leading brands in the snack market. Diamond sells its products to global, national, regional and independent grocery, drug, and convenience store chains, as well as to mass merchandisers, club stores, other retail channels and non-retail channels. Sales to the Company’s largest customer accounted for approximately 17.3% and 18.4% of total net sales for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, respectively, and 18.2% and 18.3% of total net sales for the three and six months ended January 31, 2012, respectively. Sales to the Company’s second largest customer accounted for less than 10% of total net sales for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, respectively, and 11.4% and 10.1% of total net sales for the three and six months ended January 31, 2012, respectively. No other customer accounted for 10% or more of our total net sales for those periods.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of Diamond have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required for annual financial statements. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the audited consolidated financial statements at and for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2012 and, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in the Company’s 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Operating results for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2013.

Certain prior period cash flow statement amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation; there was no impact to the total amounts for cash flows from operating, investing, and financing activities. Additionally, the statement of cash flows has been corrected to record the gross cash flow presentation of $6.1 million of changes in restricted cash and payment of long term debt and notes payable related to amounts held in escrow that were released back to the lender during the six months ended January 31, 2013. The net increase in cash and cash equivalents for the six months ended remains unchanged.

We report our operating results on the basis of a fiscal year that starts August 1 and ends July 31. We refer to our fiscal years ended July 31, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, as “fiscal 2010,” “fiscal 2011,” “fiscal 2012” and “fiscal 2013.”

(2) Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “ Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS. ” This guidance changes the wording used to describe many of the requirements in GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this guidance does not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “ Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income .” This guidance requires entities to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income (“OCI”) in either a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate consecutive statements. The guidance does not change the components of OCI or when an item of OCI must be reclassified to net income, or the earnings per share calculation. The guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted this guidance using the two separate but consecutive statements approach.

 

9


Table of Contents

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “ Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Goodwill for Impairment. ” The new guidance provides the option to perform a qualitative assessment by applying a more likely than not scenario to determine whether the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, which may then allow a company to skip the annual two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test depending on the qualitative determination. This guidance is effective for goodwill impairment tests performed in interim and annual periods for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this guidance does not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In July 2012, the FASB issued ASU No. 2012-02, “ Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment. ” The new guidance provides the option to perform a qualitative assessment by applying a more-likely-than-not scenario to determine whether an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired. This guidance is effective for indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment tests performed in interim and annual periods for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. The Company does not believe that the adoption of this guidance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-01, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ” The new guidance clarifies the scope of the offsetting disclosures and addresses any unintended consequences as a result of ASU No. 2011-11, “ Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ” This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. An entity should provide the required disclosures retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Company does not believe that the adoption of this guidance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU No. 2013-02, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.” The new guidance requires an entity to report the effect of significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the respective line items in net income if the amount being reclassified is required under GAAP to be reclassified in its entirety to net income. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income in the same reporting period, an entity is required to cross-reference other disclosures required under GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts. This guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2012, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company will adopt this guidance during fiscal 2014, and is currently assessing the impact on its consolidated financial statements.

(3) Fair Value Measurements

The fair value of certain financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, trade receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities approximate the amounts recorded in the balance sheet because of the relatively short-term nature of these financial instruments. The fair value of notes payable other than the Oaktree debt (described below) and long-term obligations at the end of each fiscal period approximates the amounts recorded in the balance sheet based on information available to Diamond with respect to current interest rates and terms for similar financial instruments.

The Company transacts business in foreign currencies and has international sales denominated in foreign currencies, subjecting the Company to foreign currency risk. The Company may enter into foreign currency forward contracts, generally with maturities of twelve months or less, to reduce the volatility of cash flows primarily related to forecasted revenue denominated in certain foreign currencies. The Company does not use foreign currency forward contracts for speculative or trading purposes. On the date a foreign currency forward contract is entered into, the Company may designate the contract as a hedge, for a forecasted transaction, of the variability of cash flows to be received (“cash flow hedge”). The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk-management objective and strategy for undertaking various hedge transactions. This process includes linking all derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges to anticipated transactions. The Company also formally assesses, both at the hedge’s inception and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows of hedged items. Effective changes in derivative contracts designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges of forecasted revenue are reported in other comprehensive income. These gains and losses are reclassified into interest income or expense, in the same period as the hedged revenue is recognized. The Company includes time value in the assessment of effectiveness of the foreign currency derivatives. The ineffective portion of the hedge is recorded in interest expense or income. There were no foreign currency contracts outstanding as of January 31, 2013. No hedge ineffectiveness for foreign currency derivatives was recorded for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. The maximum length of time over which the Company is hedging its exposure to the variability in future cash flows associated with forecasted foreign currency transactions is less than twelve months. Within the next twelve months, amounts expected to be reclassified from other comprehensive income to revenue for foreign currency derivatives are nil.

 

10


Table of Contents

In July 2010, the Company entered into three interest rate swap agreements in accordance with Company policy to mitigate the impact of London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) based interest expense fluctuations on Company profitability. These swap agreements, with a total hedged notional amount of $100 million, were entered into to hedge future cash interest payments associated with a portion of the Company’s variable rate bank debt. The Company has designated these swaps as cash flow hedges of future cash flows associated with its variable rate debt. All effective changes in the fair value of the designated swaps are recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) and are released to interest income or expense on a monthly basis as the hedged debt payments are accrued. Ineffective changes, if any, are recognized in interest income or expense immediately. For the three and six months ended January 31, 2012, the Company recognized other comprehensive income of $0.1 million and $0.3 million based on the change in fair value of the swap agreements and payments made; no hedge ineffectiveness for these swap agreements was recognized in interest income or expense over the same period. As of July 31, 2012, all swaps had matured.

In May 2012, Diamond entered into an agreement to recapitalize its balance sheet with an investment by Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“Oaktree”). The Oaktree investment initially consisted of $225 million of newly-issued senior notes and a warrant to purchase approximately 4.4 million shares of Diamond common stock. Oaktree’s warrant became exercisable at $10 per share on March 1, 2013. The warrant is accounted for as derivative liability and is remeasured at fair value each reporting period with gains and losses recorded in net income.

In July 2012, the Company entered into an interest rate cap agreement in accordance with Company policy to mitigate the impact of LIBOR-based interest expense fluctuations on Company profitability. This agreement had a total notional amount of $100 million and was entered into to mitigate the interest rate impact of the Company’s variable rate bank debt. The Company accounts for the interest rate cap as a non hedging derivative.

In July 2012, the Company purchased 135 corn call option commodity derivatives. This purchase is in accordance with Company policy to mitigate the market price risk associated with the anticipated raw material purchase requirements of the Company. This agreement had a total notional amount of approximately $0.3 million and was entered into to mitigate the market price risk of future corn purchases expected to be made by the Company. The Company accounts for commodity derivatives as non-hedging derivatives.

The fair values of the Company’s derivative instruments as of January 31, 2013, July 31, 2012 and January 31, 2012 were as follows:

 

Liability Derivatives

  

Balance Sheet Location

   Fair Value  
          1/31/13     7/31/12     1/31/12  

Derivatives designated as hedging instruments under ASC 815:

         

Interest rate contracts

  

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

   $ —        $ —        $  (336

Interest rate contracts

  

Other liabilities

     —          —          —     

Foreign currency contracts

  

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

     —          —          —     
     

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

   $ —        $ —        $  (336
     

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under ASC 815:

         

Commodity contracts

  

Prepaid and other current assets

   $ —        $ 483      $ —     

Interest rate contracts

  

Other long-term assets

     2        10        —     

Foreign currency contracts

  

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

     —          —          —     

Warrants

  

Warrant liability

     (35,712     (46,821     —     
     

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

      $ (35,710   $ (46,328   $  (336
     

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The effect of the Company’s derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended January 31, 2013 and 2012 is summarized below:

 

Derivatives in ASC 815 Cash
Flow Hedging Relationships

   Amount of Loss
Recognized in OCI on
Derivative (Effective
Portion)
   

Location of Loss
Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into
Income (Effective

Portion)

   Amount of Loss
Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into
Income (Effective
Portion)
   

Location of Loss
Recognized in Income on
Derivative (Ineffective
Portion)

   Amount of Loss Recognized
in Income on Derivative
(Ineffective Portion)
 
       1/31/13      1/31/12          1/31/13      1/31/12          1/31/13      1/31/12  

Interest rate contracts

   $  —         $ (45   Interest expense    $  —         $ (178   Interest expense    $  —         $  —     

Foreign currency contracts

     —           —        Net sales      —           —        Net sales      —           —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ —         $ (45      $ —         $ (178      $ —         $ —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

11


Table of Contents

Derivatives Not Designated as
Hedging Instruments under ASC 815

  

Location of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Income on
Derivative

   Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Income on
Derivative
 
          1/31/13     1/31/12  

Commodity contracts

   Selling, general and administrative    $ (27   $  —     

Interest rate contracts

   Interest expense      (1     —     

Foreign currency contracts

   Interest expense      —          —     

Warrant

   Gain on warrant liability      18,625        —     
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

      $ 18,597      $ —     
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

The effect of the Company’s derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the six months ended January 31, 2013 and 2012 is summarized below:

 

Derivatives in ASC 815 Cash
Flow Hedging Relationships

   Amount of Loss
Recognized in OCI on
Derivative (Effective
Portion)
   

Location of Loss
Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into
Income (Effective
Portion)

   Amount of Loss
Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into
Income (Effective
Portion)
   

Location of Loss
Recognized in Income on
Derivative (Ineffective
Portion)

   Amount of Loss Recognized
in Income on Derivative
(Ineffective Portion)
 
       1/31/13      1/31/12          1/31/13      1/31/12          1/31/13      1/31/12  

Interest rate contracts

   $  —         $ (124   Interest expense    $  —         $ (369   Interest expense    $  —         $  —     

Foreign currency contracts

     —           —        Net sales      —           —        Net sales      —           —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ —         $ (124      $ —         $ (369      $ —         $ —     
  

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

Derivatives Not Designated as
Hedging Instruments under ASC 815

  

Location of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Income on Derivative

   Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Income on
Derivative
 
          1/31/13     1/31/12  

Commodity contracts

   Selling, general and administrative    $ (483   $  —     

Interest rate contracts

   Interest expense      (8     —     

Foreign currency contracts

   Interest expense      —          (10

Warrant

   Gain on warrant liability      11,109        —     
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

      $ 10,618      $  (10
     

 

 

   

 

 

 

ASC 820 requires that assets and liabilities carried at fair value be measured using the following three levels of inputs:

Level 1 : Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities

Level 2 : Observable market based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data

Level 3 : Unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The Company’s derivative assets (liabilities) measured at fair value on a recurring basis were $0 million as of January 31, 2013, $0.5 million as of July 31, 2012, and ($0.3) million as of January 31, 2012. The Company has elected to use the income approach to value the derivative liabilities, using observable Level 2 market expectations at the measurement date and standard valuation techniques to convert future amounts to a single present amount assuming that participants are motivated, but not compelled to transact. Level 2 inputs for the valuations are limited to quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets (specifically futures contracts on LIBOR for the first two years) and inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (specifically LIBOR cash and swap rates). Mid-market pricing is used as a practical expedient for fair value measurements. Under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, “ Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, ” the fair value measurement of an asset or liability must reflect the nonperformance risk of the entity and the counterparty. Therefore, the impact of the counterparty’s creditworthiness when in an asset position and the Company’s creditworthiness when in a liability position has also been factored into the fair value measurement of the derivative instruments.

 

12


Table of Contents

The Company’s warrant liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis was $35.7 million as of January 31, 2013, $46.8 million as of July 31, 2012, and did not exist as of January 31, 2012. The Company has elected to use the income approach to value the warrant liability and uses the Black-Scholes option valuation model. This valuation approach is considered Level 3 due to the use of certain unobservable inputs. Inputs into the Black-Scholes model include: remaining term, stock price, strike price, maturity date, risk-free rate, and expected volatility. The significant Level 3 unobservable inputs used in the valuation are shown below:

 

     1/31/13     7/31/12     1/31/12  

Expected volatility

     47.23     54.75     N/A   

Probability of Special Redemption

     0.00     0.00     N/A   

In applying the valuation model, small increases or decreases in the expected volatility would result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement. In addition, increases in the probability of the Special Redemption, as described in Note 10 of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, would result in lower fair value measurements. Based on the Company’s operating results for the six months ended January 31, 2013, the Special Redemption did not occur. During the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, the gain associated with the decreased value of the warrant liability was largely due to a decrease in the Company’s stock price.

The following is a reconciliation of activity for the three months ended January 31, 2013 of liabilities measured at fair value based on Level 3 inputs:

 

     Warrant Liability  
     1/31/13     1/31/12  

Beginning Balance - October 31

   $  (54,337   $  —     

Transfers into Level 3

     —          —     

Transfers out of Level 3

     —          —     

Total gains or (losses) (realized/unrealized)

    

Included in earnings

     18,625        —     

Included in other comprehensive income

     —          —     

Purchases, issuances, sales and settlements

    

Purchases

     —          —     

Issuances

     —          —     

Sales

     —          —     

Settlements

     —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Ending Balance - January 31

   $  (35,712   $ —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total amount of gains or losses for the period included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets still held at the reporting date

   $ —        $ —     

 

13


Table of Contents

The following is a reconciliation of activity for the six months ended January 31, 2013 of liabilities measured at fair value based on Level 3 inputs:

 

     Warrant Liability  
     1/31/13     1/31/12  

Beginning Balance - July 31

   $  (46,821   $  —     

Transfers into Level 3

     —           —      

Transfers out of Level 3

     —           —      

Total gains or (losses) (realized/unrealized)

    

Included in earnings

     11,109        —      

Included in other comprehensive income

     —           —      

Purchases, issuances, sales and settlements

    

Purchases

     —           —      

Issuances

     —           —      

Sales

     —           —      

Settlements

     —           —      
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Ending Balance - January 31

   $  (35,712   $ —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total amount of gains or losses for the period included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets still held at the reporting date

   $ —         $ —     

Assets and Liabilities Disclosed at Fair Value

The following table presents the carrying value and fair value of our outstanding Oaktree debt:

 

     1/31/13      7/31/12  
     Carrying Value      Fair Value      Carrying Value      Fair Value  

Senior Note

   $  111,376       $  134,285       $  103,295       $  103,203   

Redeemable Note

   $ 85,335       $ 67,142       $ 81,686       $ 51,601   

The fair value of the notes was estimated using a discounted cash flow approach. The discounted cash flow approach uses a risk adjusted yield to calculate the present value of the contractual cash flows of the notes. The fair value of the notes would be classified as Level 3 within the fair value measurement hierarchy. The Company applies a fair value method for accounting for the paid-in-kind interest on the Oaktree debt. Under this method, the Company adjusts interest expense based on the fair value of the Oaktree debt. Accordingly, while interest expense recognition on the Oaktree debt could be at the contractual rate, the Company will account for the related interest expense based on the fair value of the Oaktree debt at every interest payment date and at the end of each reporting period.

(4) Stock Plan Information

The Company uses a broad-based equity incentive plan to help align employee and director incentives with stockholders’ interests, and accounts for stock-based compensation in accordance with ASC 718, “ Compensation — Stock Compensation .” The fair value of all stock options granted is recognized as an expense in the Company’s Statements of Operations, typically over the related vesting period of the options. The guidance requires use of fair value computed at the date of grant to measure share-based awards. The fair value of restricted stock awards is recognized as stock-based compensation expense over the vesting period. Stock options may be granted to officers, employees and directors.

 

14


Table of Contents

Stock Option Awards: The fair value of each stock option grant was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. Expected stock price volatilities were estimated based on the Company’s implied historical volatility. The expected term of options granted was based on the simplified method due to the limited amount of historical Company information available. Forfeiture rates were based on assumptions and historical data to the extent it is available. The risk-free rates were based on U.S. Treasury yields in effect at the time of the grant. For purposes of this valuation model, dividends were based on the historical rate. Assumptions used in the Black-Scholes model are presented below:

 

     Three Months    Six Months
     Ended January 31,    Ended January 31,
     2013    2012    2013    2012

Average expected life, in years

   5.50 - 6.06    6    5.50 - 6.06    6

Expected volatility

   53.29% - 54.53%    49.83%    52.99% - 54.53%    45.85%

Risk-free interest rate

   0.83% - 1.01%    1.15%    0.83% - 1.01%    1.21%

Dividend rate

   0.00%    0.53%    0.00%    0.39%

The following table summarizes stock option activity during the six months ended January 31, 2013:

 

     Number of
Shares
(in thousands)
    Weighted
average exercise
price per share
     Weighted average
remaining
contractual life
(in years)
     Aggregate
intrinsic value
(in thousands)
 

Outstanding at July 31, 2012

     2,079      $ 33.85         

Granted

     604        14.22         

Exercised

     —          —           

Cancelled

     (359     55.77         
  

 

 

         

Outstanding at January 31, 2013

     2,324        25.35         4.5       $  225   
  

 

 

         

Exercisable at January 31, 2013

     1,510        25.94         1.8         —     

There were 604,414 stock options granted during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. The weighted average fair value per share of stock options granted during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 was $7.27. There were no stock options granted during the three months ended January 31, 2012. There were 271,053 stock options granted during the six months ended January 31, 2012 with a weighted average fair value per share of $35.39. The fair value per share of stock options vested during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 was $16.49 and $21.48, respectively. The fair value per share of stock options vested during the three and six months ended January 31, 2012 was $16.66 and $16.18, respectively. There were no stock options exercised during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. There were no stock options exercised during the three months ended January 31, 2012. There were 1,554 stock options exercised during the six months ended January 31, 2012. The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the six months ended January 31, 2012 was $0.1 million.

The following table summarizes nonvested stock option activity during the six months ended January 31, 2013:

 

     Number of
Shares
(in thousands)
    Weighted
average grant
date fair value
per share
 

Nonvested at July 31, 2012

     631      $  23.00   

Granted

     604        7.27   

Vested

     (89     21.48   

Cancelled

     (332     23.82   
  

 

 

   

Nonvested at January 31, 2013

     814        11.15   
  

 

 

   

As of January 31, 2013, approximately $8.3 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested stock options is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.2 years.

 

15


Table of Contents

Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Unit Awards: The following table summarizes restricted stock and restricted stock unit activity during the six months ended January 31, 2013:

 

     Restricted Stock      Restricted Stock Units  
     Number of
Shares
(in thousands)
    Weighted average
grant date fair
value per share
     Number of
Shares
(in thousands)
    Weighted average
grant date fair
value per share
 

Outstanding at July 31, 2012

     380      $ 38.18         13      $ 74.62   

Granted

     318        14.25         214        14.67   

Vested

     (90     31.59         (3     74.62   

Cancelled

     (140     39.52         (2     74.67   
  

 

 

      

 

 

   

Outstanding at January 31, 2013

     468        22.78         222        16.92   
  

 

 

      

 

 

   

There were 317,970 restricted stock awards granted during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013. The weighted average fair value per share of restricted stock granted during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 was $14.25. There was no restricted stock granted during the three months ended January 31, 2012. There were 48,741 restricted stock awards granted during the six months ended January 31, 2012 with a weighted average fair value per share of $89.02. The weighted average fair value per share of restricted stock vested during the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 was $27.39 and $31.59, respectively. The weighted average fair value per share of restricted stock vested during the three and six months ended January 31, 2012 was $30.63 and $26.09, respectively. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock vested in the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 was $0.1 million and $1.7 million, respectively. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock vested in the three and six months ended January 31, 2012 was $0.2 million and $7.3 million, respectively.

As of January 31, 2013, $8.2 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested restricted stock is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.9 years, and $3.3 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested restricted stock units is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 3.9 years.

(5) Earnings Per Share (Restatement)

ASC 260, “Earnings Per Share,” impacts the determination and reporting of earnings (loss) per share by requiring the inclusion of participating securities, which have the right to share in dividends, if declared, equally with common shareholders. Participating securities are allocated a proportional share of net income determined by dividing total weighted average participating securities by the sum of total weighted average common shares and participating securities (“the two-class method”). ASC 260 also impacts the determination and reporting of earnings (loss) per share by requiring inclusion of the impact of changes in fair value of warrant liabilities, such as the Oaktree warrant liability described in Note 10 of these notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements. Including these participating securities and changes in warrant liability in the Company’s earnings per share calculation has the effect of reducing earnings and increasing losses on the basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share.

Subsequent to the issuance of the interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, the Company determined that the calculation of diluted earnings (loss) per share did not reflect the dilutive impact of the change in fair value in the Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. warrant liability. In accordance with ASC 260, when calculating diluted earnings (loss) per share, the gain on the warrant liability should have been reflected as an adjustment to the income available to common stockholders and the assumed exercise of the Oaktree warrant should be an adjustment to the weighted average shares outstanding. These adjustments for the gain or loss attributable to the Oaktree warrant are required when the effect of the adjustment would be dilutive. The three and six month periods ended January 31, 2013 were the only periods affected by this error, as they were the only periods in which the impact of the changes in warrant liability and warrant shares was dilutive. For the three months ended January 31, 2013, diluted earnings (loss) per share decreased by $0.80, from a profit of $0.43 per share to a loss of $0.37 per share. For the six months ended January 31, 2013, diluted earnings (loss) per share decreased by $0.47, from a loss of $0.03 per share to a loss of $0.50 per share. The effects of the restatement on the diluted earnings per share calculation for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 are summarized in the following table:

 

16


Table of Contents
     As Previously Reported     Adjustment     As Restated     As Reported  
     Three
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Six
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Three
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Six
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Three
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Six
Months
Ended
January 31,
2013
    Three
Months
Ended
January 31,
2012
    Six
Months
Ended
January 31,
2012
 

Numerator:

                

Net income (loss)

   $ 10,141      $ (588   $ —        $ —        $ 10,141      $ (588   $ (20,184   $ (9,383

Less: income allocated to participating securities

     (173     —          (2     —          (175     —          —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) attributable to common shareholders - basic

     9,968        (588     (2     —          9,966        (588     (20,184     (9,383

Add: undistributed income attributable to participating securities

     175        —          —          —          175        —          —          —     

Less: income attributed to gain on warrant liability

     —          —          (18,625     (11,109     (18,625     (11,109     —          —     

Less: undistributed income reallocated to participating securities

     (165     —          165        —          —          —          —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) attributable to common shareholders - diluted

   $ 9,978      $ (588   $ (18,462   $ (11,109   $ (8,484   $ (11,697   $ (20,184   $ (9,383
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Denominator:

                

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic

     21,781        21,703        —          —          21,781        21,703        21,724        21,684   

Dilutive shares - stock options and warrant

     1,361        —          73        1,805        1,434        1,805        —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted

     23,142        21,703        73        1,805        23,215        23,508        21,724        21,684   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Income (loss) per share attributable to common shareholders (1):

                

Basic

   $ 0.46      $ (0.03   $ —          —        $ 0.46      $ (0.03   $ (0.93   $ (0.43

Diluted

   $ 0.43      $ (0.03   $ (0.80   $ (0.47   $ (0.37   $ (0.50   $ (0.93   $ (0.43

 

(1) Computations may reflect rounding adjustments.

After adjusting for the dilutive impact of the fair value change in warrant liability, the Company was in a loss position for the three months and six months ended January 31, 2013, and therefore, stock options and restricted stock units outstanding were excluded in the computation of diluted earnings per share.

(6) Balance Sheet Items

Inventories consisted of the following:

 

     January 31,      July 31,      January 31,  
     2013      2012      2012  

Raw materials and supplies

   $ 97,147       $ 63,684       $ 123,856   

Work in process

     26,439         33,495         25,539   

Finished goods

     58,557         68,529         71,216   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 182,143       $ 165,708       $ 220,611   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

17


Table of Contents

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consisted of the following:

 

     January 31,      July 31,      January 31,  
     2013      2012      2012  

Accounts payable

   $ 58,355       $ 84,324       $ 92,559   

Accrued promotions

     21,302         21,927         34,226   

Accrued salaries and benefits

     13,290         13,872         11,297   

Accrued taxes

     4,435         4,952         2,817   

Other

     5,355         5,548         6,573 (1) 
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 102,737       $ 130,623       $ 147,472   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1) The current and long term portions of capital leases are reflected in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other liabilities, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(7) Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

 

     January 31,     July 31,     January 31,  
     2013     2012     2012  

Land and improvements

   $ 10,090      $ 9,638      $ 10,083   

Buildings and improvements

     53,535        51,556        39,507   

Machinery, equipment and software

     184,479        169,211        167,988   

Construction in progress

     5,718        26,236        51,115   

Capital leases

     11,846        11,790        11,816   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

     265,668        268,431        280,509   

Less: accumulated depreciation

     (124,898     (119,830     (122,571

Less: accumulated amortization

     (2,697     (1,657     (635
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

   $ 138,073      $ 146,944      $ 157,303   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

For the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, depreciation expense was $6.2 million and $12.1 million, respectively. For the three and six months ended January 31, 2012, depreciation expense was $4.9 million and $9.6 million, respectively.

(8) Fishers Facility Closure

On October 25, 2012, Diamond announced a plan to consolidate its manufacturing operations and to close its facility in Fishers, Indiana. Certain manufacturing equipment at Fishers has been relocated to Diamond’s facility in Stockton, California. During fiscal 2012, Diamond previously recorded asset impairment charges of $10.1 million associated with Fishers equipment that was not moved to the Stockton facility. The fair value of the equipment was determined by management with the assistance of a third party. Within selling, general and administrative expenses, the Company recorded severance expense for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 of $1.2 million and $1.3 million, respectively, related to Fishers employees. The Company expects to record additional severance expense of approximately $0.1 million in the quarter ending April 30, 2013, as the severance is earned by the impacted employees.

In the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, the Company accelerated the remaining useful lives of leasehold and building improvement assets at the Fishers facility to correspond with the estimated cease use date, and recorded additional depreciation expense of $0.3 million and $0.7 million, respectively. The Company also classified approximately $0.7 million of assets as held for sale. The Company anticipates selling these assets within the third quarter of fiscal 2013.

The Company expects to record an additional charge associated with the Fishers facility future lease obligations in the third quarter of fiscal 2013 when the cease-use date is expected to occur. This charge may be reduced by any estimated sublease rental income that the Company expects to receive; however, the Company is not able to estimate such rental income at this time. The Company will incur additional costs related to the closure, including Fishers facility building security, property maintenance, and real estate taxes, as well as moving and re-installation costs associated with equipment that will be relocated to Stockton, California.

 

18


Table of Contents

(9) Intangible Assets and Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill are as follows:

 

     Snacks      Nuts      Total  

Balance as of July 31, 2011

         $ 409,735   

Translation adjustments

           (5,832
        

 

 

 

Balance as of January 31, 2012

         $ 403,903   
        

 

 

 

Balance as of July 31, 2012

         $ 403,158   

Translation adjustments

     1,633         —           1,633   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance as of January 31, 2013

   $ 332,156       $  72,635       $ 404,791   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Other intangible assets consisted of the following:

 

     January 31,     July 31,     January 31,  
     2013     2012     2012  

Brand intangibles (not subject to amortization)

   $ 299,497      $ 298,952      $ 299,201   

Intangible assets subject to amortization:

      

Customer contracts and related relationships

     160,821        159,882        160,560   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other intangible assets, gross

     460,318        458,834        459,761   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Less accumulated amortization on intangible assets:

      

Customer contracts and related relationships

     (25,917     (21,813     (18,092
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other intangible assets, net

   $ 434,401      $ 437,021      $ 441,669   
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Identifiable intangible asset amortization expense for each of the five succeeding years will amount to approximately $8.0 million and will approximate $4.0 million for the remainder of fiscal 2013.

(10) Credit Facilities and Long-Term Obligations

In February 2010, Diamond entered into an agreement (the “Secured Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of lenders for a five-year $600 million secured credit facility (the “Secured Credit Facility”). Diamond’s Secured Credit Facility initially consisted of a $200 million revolving credit facility and a $400 million term loan. In March 2011, the syndicate of lenders approved Diamond’s request for a $35 million increase in our revolving credit facility to $235 million, under the same terms. In August 2011, the syndicate of lenders approved Diamond’s request for a $50 million increase in our revolving credit facility to $285 million, under the same terms. In May 2012, the revolving credit facility was reduced from $285 million to $255 million as part of the Third Amendment to the Secured Credit Facility (the “Third Amendment”), as described below. As of January 31, 2013, the revolving credit facility had $255 million in capacity, of which $133 million was outstanding. The capacity under the revolving credit facility is scheduled to decrease to $230 million effective July 31, 2013, and to $180 million effective January 31, 2014. In May 2012, Diamond made a $100 million pre-payment on the term loan facility as part of the Third Amendment. As of January 31, 2013, the term loan facility had $217 million in capacity, of which $217 million was outstanding. In addition, scheduled principal payments on the term loan facility are $0.9 million (due quarterly), with the remaining principal balance and any outstanding loans under the revolving credit facility to be repaid on February 25, 2015. For the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, the blended interest rate for the Company’s consolidated borrowings was 6.78% and 6.77%, respectively, excluding the Oaktree debt. Substantially all of the Company’s tangible and intangible assets are considered collateral security under the Secured Credit Facility.

The Secured Credit Facility provides for customary affirmative and negative covenants and cross default provisions that may be triggered if Diamond fails to comply with obligations under its other credit facilities or indebtedness. Beginning on October 31, 2013, the Company’s senior debt to consolidated EBITDA ratio, as defined in the Third Amendment, will be limited to no more than 4.70 to 1.00 and the fixed charge coverage ratio to no less than 2.00 to 1.00. The senior debt to consolidated EBITDA ratio covenant, as defined in the Third Amendment, will decline over four quarters to 3.25 to 1.00 in the quarter ending July 31, 2014.

 

19


Table of Contents

In December 2010, Kettle Foods obtained, and Diamond guaranteed, a 10-year fixed rate loan (the “Guaranteed Loan”) in the principal amount of $21.2 million, of which $11.6 million was outstanding as of January 31, 2013. Principal and interest payments are due monthly throughout the term of the loan. The Guaranteed Loan was used to purchase equipment for the Beloit, Wisconsin plant expansion. Borrowed funds were placed in an interest-bearing escrow account and were made available as expenditures were approved for reimbursement. As the cash was used to purchase non-current assets, such restricted cash was classified as non-current on the balance sheet. In December 2012, the remaining balance within the escrow account was released back to the lender and was used to pay down the outstanding loan balance. Also, as part of this transaction, the Company paid a 4% prepayment penalty, which was recorded in interest expense.

The Guaranteed Loan provides for customary affirmative and negative covenants, which are similar to the covenants under the Secured Credit Facility. The financial covenants within the Guaranteed Loan were reset to match those in the Third Amendment.

On March 21, 2012, Diamond reached an agreement with its lenders to forbear from seeking any remedies under the Secured Credit Facility with respect to specified existing and anticipated non-compliance with the Secured Credit Agreement, and to amend the Secured Credit Agreement. Under the amended Secured Credit Agreement, Diamond had continued access to its existing revolving credit facility through a forbearance period (initially through June 18, 2012) subject to Diamond’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the amended Secured Credit Agreement. During the forbearance period, the interest rate on borrowings increased. The amended Secured Credit Agreement required Diamond to suspend dividend payments to stockholders. In addition, Diamond paid a forbearance fee of 25 basis points to its lenders. The forbearance period concluded on May 29, 2012, when Diamond closed agreements to recapitalize its balance sheet with an investment by Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“Oaktree”).

The Oaktree investment initially consisted of $225 million of newly-issued senior notes and a warrant to purchase approximately 4.4 million shares of Diamond common stock. The senior notes will mature in 2020 and bear interest at 12% per year that may be paid-in-kind at Diamond’s option for the first two years. Oaktree’s warrant became exercisable at $10 per share on March 1, 2013.

The Oaktree agreements provide that, if Diamond secures a specified minimum supply of walnuts from the 2012 crop and achieves profitability targets for its nut businesses for the six-month period ended January 31, 2013, the warrant will be cancelled and Oaktree may exchange $75 million of the senior notes for convertible preferred stock of Diamond (the “Special Redemption”). The convertible preferred stock would have an initial conversion price of $20.75, which represents a 3.5% discount to the closing price of Diamond common stock on April 25, 2012, the date that the Company entered into its commitment with Oaktree. The convertible preferred stock would pay a 10% dividend that would be paid in-kind for the first two years. The warrant is accounted for as a derivative liability with gains or losses included in loss on warrant liability in the Company’s Statements of Operations, within other expense, net. Based on the Company’s operating results for the six months ended January 31, 2013, the Special Redemption did not occur.

On May 22, 2012, Diamond entered into a Waiver and Third Amendment to its Secured Credit Facility (“Third Amendment”), which provided for a lower level of total bank debt, initially at $475 million, along with substantial covenant relief until October 31, 2013. At that time, these covenants will become applicable at revised levels set forth in the amendment (initially 4.70 to 1.00 for the senior leverage ratio, declining over four quarters to 3.25 to 1.00 in the quarter ending July 31, 2014 and thereafter, and 2.00 to 1.00 for the fixed charge coverage ratio). The Third Amendment includes a new covenant requiring that Diamond have at least $20 million of cash, cash equivalents and revolving credit availability at all times, beginning February 1, 2013. In addition, the Third Amendment required a $100 million pre-payment of the term loan facility, while reducing the remaining scheduled principal payments from $10 million to $0.9 million. The Third Amendment also amended the definition of “Applicable Rate” under the Secured Credit Agreement (which sets the margin over the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and the base rate at which loans under the Secured Credit Agreement bear interest). Under the Third Amendment, initially, Eurodollar rate loans will bear interest at 5.50% plus the LIBOR for the applicable loan period, and base rate loans will bear interest at 450 basis points plus the highest of (i) the Federal Funds Rate plus 50 basis points, (ii) the Prime Rate, (iii) Eurodollar Rates plus 100 basis points. The LIBOR rate is subject to a LIBOR floor, initially 125 basis points. The Applicable Rate will decline, if and when Diamond achieves reductions in its ratio of senior debt to Consolidated EBITDA, as defined in the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment also eliminates the requirement that proceeds of future equity issuances be applied to repay outstanding loans, and waives certain covenants in connection with Diamond’s restatement of its consolidated financial statements.

The restatement of the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2013 rendered the Company non-compliant with certain financial and reporting covenants, which non-compliance was waived.

 

20


Table of Contents

(11) Retirement Plans

Diamond provides retiree medical benefits and has been a sponsor of two defined benefit pension plans. One of the defined benefit plans is a qualified plan covering all bargaining unit employees and the other is a nonqualified plan for one former salaried employee. During the three months ended January 31, 2013, the nonqualified plan was terminated. The amounts shown for pension benefits are combined amounts for all plans. Diamond uses a July 31 measurement date for its plans. Plan assets are held in trust and primarily include mutual funds and money market accounts. Any employee who joined the Company after January 15, 1999 is not entitled to retiree medical benefits.

Components of net periodic benefit cost (income) were as follows:

 

     Pension Benefits     Other Benefits  
     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended     Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended  
     January 31,     January 31,     January 31,     January 31,  
     2013     2012     2013     2012     2013     2012     2013     2012  

Service cost

   $ —        $ 24      $ —        $ 48      $ 16      $ 15      $ 32      $ 31   

Interest cost

     230        332        463        664        16        26        31        52   

Expected return on plan assets

     (216     (283     (503     (567     —          —          —          —     

Amortization of prior service cost

     —          4        —          8        —          —          —          —     

Amortization of net loss / (gain)

     189        198        381        396        (178     (193     (356     (386

Settlement cost

     519        —          519        —          —          —          —          —     
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Net periodic benefit cost / (income)

   $ 722      $ 275      $ 860      $ 549      $ (146   $ (152   $ (293   $ (303
  

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The Company recognized defined contribution plan expenses of $0.4 million and $1.1 million for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013, respectively, and $0.5 million and $1.0 million for the three and six months ended January 31, 2012, respectively. The Company expects to contribute approximately $2.8 million to the defined contribution plan during fiscal 2013.

On November 19, 2012, Michael Mendes, our former chief executive officer, formally resigned from the Company. The Company and Mr. Mendes entered into a Separation and Clawback Agreement, pursuant to which Mr. Mendes agreed to deliver to the Company a cash payment of $2.7 million (“Cash Clawback”), representing the total value of his fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 bonuses, and 6,665 shares of Diamond common stock, representing the vested shares awarded to Mr. Mendes after fiscal 2010. The Cash Clawback was deducted from the amount Diamond owed to Mr. Mendes pursuant to the Diamond Foods Retirement Restoration Plan (“SERP”). Mr. Mendes and Diamond have determined that prior to giving effect to the Cash Clawback, the retirement benefit due to Mr. Mendes in a lump sum under the SERP was approximately $5.4 million. The SERP amount, subject to applicable withholding taxes and after giving effect to the Cash Clawback, was paid in early December 2012. Expenses associated with the payout are included in selling, general and administrative expenses and the returned shares were classified as treasury stock and a credit to stock compensation expense was recorded for the period.

(12) Commitments and Contingencies

In November 2011, December 2011 and June 2012, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against Diamond and certain current and former Diamond directors and officers.

In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation

Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative securities class action suits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Diamond and certain of its former executive officers (“defendants”). These suits allege that defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding Diamond’s financial results, operations and prospects, including its accounting for payments to walnut growers and the anticipated closing of Diamond’s proposed acquisition of the Pringles business from The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”). On January 24, 2012, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In re Diamond Foods Inc., Securities Litigation . On March 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on June 13, 2012, the court appointed legal counsel for the plaintiff. On July 30, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action naming Diamond, certain of its former executive officers and our outside auditor as defendants. The amended complaint purports to allege claims covering the period from October 5, 2010 through February 8, 2012, and seeks compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs and expenses incurred in the action and other relief. On September 28, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the action. On November 30, 2012, the Court denied Diamond’s motion, allowing the matter to proceed with respect to Diamond and the former executive officers, and dismissed claims against Diamond’s outside auditor with leave to amend. On December 21, 2012, Diamond and the former executive officers filed answers to the amended complaint.

 

21


Table of Contents

In re Diamond Foods Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Beginning on November 14, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Francisco County, purportedly on behalf of Diamond Foods and naming certain executive officers and the members of the Company’s board of directors as individual defendants. On January 17, 2012, the court consolidated these actions as In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation and appointed co-lead counsel. On February 16, 2012 plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, naming certain current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board, and the Company’s outside auditor, as individual defendants. The consolidated complaint arises from the same or similar alleged facts as alleged in the federal securities action and the federal derivative litigation (discussed in the next paragraph below), and purported to set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and against the auditor for professional negligence and breach of contract. The suit seeks the recovery of unspecified damages allegedly sustained by Diamond, which is named as a nominal defendant, corporate reforms, disgorgement, restitution, the recovery of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and other relief. On August 20, 2012, Diamond filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the action. On October 23, 2012, the court sustained the Company’s demurrer with leave to amend the complaint excluding the gross mismanagement claim, which the court sustained with prejudice. Following mediation efforts, an agreement in principle to settle all derivative claims on behalf of the Company was reached by plaintiffs and the current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board. The agreement also seeks to resolve certain litigation demands by various shareholders of Diamond Foods, as well as the Astor BK Realty Trust v. Diamond Foods, Inc. action pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware pursuant to 8 Del. C. §220. On May 29, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to Court approval.

In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Derivative Litigation

Beginning on November 28, 2011, two putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of Diamond Foods and naming certain current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board of directors as individual defendants. On February 16, 2012, the court consolidated these actions as In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Derivative Litigation . Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on March 1, 2012, again naming certain current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board of directors as individual defendants, and also adding the Company’s outside auditor as a defendant. The suit was based on essentially the same allegations as those in the federal securities action and the state derivative litigation, and purported to set forth claims under Section 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions in proxy statements issued on or about November 26, 2010 and on or about September 26, 2011, and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification, gross mismanagement, and, against the Company’s auditor, for professional negligence, accounting malpractice and aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties of the other individual defendants. The suit sought to recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained by Diamond, which was named as a nominal defendant, corporate reforms, restitution, equitable and/or injunctive relief, to recover plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and other relief. On April 16, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the action. On May 29, 2012, the court granted Diamond’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction related to deficiencies in plaintiffs’ Section 14(a) claims. The court entered judgment in favor of Diamond the same day. On June 4, 2012, one of the plaintiffs in the consolidated matter filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to appeal the May 29, 2012 order granting Diamond’s motion to dismiss. On October 12, 2012, the appellant filed its opening brief. Diamond filed its answering brief on November 27, 2012 and appellant filed its reply brief on December 28, 2012.

Astor BK Realty Trust v. Diamond Foods, Inc.

On February 22, 2012 , an action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by a shareholder seeking to enforce a demand to inspect certain of Diamond’s records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as a possible prelude to the shareholder bringing a derivative action. This action has been stayed by the agreement of the parties.

Delaware Derivative Litigation

On June 27, 2012, two putative shareholder derivative lawsuits, Board of Trustees of City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Mendes, et al. and Lucia v. Mendes et al. , were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of Diamond and naming certain current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board of directors as individual defendants. On August 7, 2012 the court consolidated these actions as In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Derivative Litigation and appointed co-lead

 

22


Table of Contents

counsel. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on September 19, 2012, again naming certain current and former executive officers and members of our board of directors as individual defendants. The suit is based on essentially the same allegations as those in the federal securities action and the federal and California derivative litigation and purports to set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification, gross mismanagement and breach of the duty of loyalty. The suit seeks recovery of unspecified damages allegedly sustained by Diamond, which is named as a nominal defendant, corporate reforms, disgorgement, restitution, equitable and/or injunctive relief, to recover plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and other relief. On December 17, 2012, Diamond filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action. On February 28, 2013, the court granted Diamond’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Governmental Proceedings

On December 14, 2011, Diamond received a formal order of investigation from the staff of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Diamond also has had contact with the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of California. We have cooperated with the government and expect to continue to do so.

Other

The Company is involved in other various legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties that make their outcomes, and any potential liability we may incur, unpredictable.

We do not believe it is feasible to predict or determine the outcome or resolution of the above litigation proceedings, or to estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to those proceedings. In addition, the timing of the final resolution of these proceedings is uncertain. The range of possible resolutions of these proceedings could include judgments against the Company or settlements that could require substantial payments by the Company, which could have a material impact on Diamond’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

(13) Segment Reporting

The Company’s chief operating decision maker (“CODM”) changed during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, and in the second quarter of fiscal 2013, there was a change in the information used by the CODM to make decisions about the allocation of resources and the assessment of performance. As a result, during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company changed its operating and reportable segments. The Company previously had one operating segment and one reportable segment; it now aggregates its five operating segments into two reportable segments based on similarities between: economic characteristics, nature of the products, production process, type of customer, methods of distribution, and regulatory environment nature of the regulatory environment. The Company’s two reportable segments are Snacks and Nuts. The Snacks reportable segment includes products sold under the Kettle U.S., Kettle U.K. and Pop Secret brands. The Nuts reportable segment includes products sold under the Emerald and Diamond of California brands.

The Company evaluates the performance of its segments based on net sales and gross margin. Gross margin is calculated as net sales less all cost of sales. The Company does not utilize asset information to evaluate performance of operating segments, so asset-related information has not been presented. The accounting policies of the Company’s segments are the same as those described in the summary of critical accounting policies set forth in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations.”

 

23


Table of Contents

The Company’s net sales and gross profit by segment for the three and six months ended January 31, 2013 and 2012 were as follows:

 

     Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended  
     January 31,      January 31,  
     2013      2012      2013      2012  

Net sales

           

Snacks

   $ 105,421       $ 98,356       $ 216,664       $ 209,258   

Nuts

     115,423         163,995         262,642         340,486   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 220,844       $ 262,351       $ 479,306       $ 549,744   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Gross profit

           

Snacks

   $ 34,836       $ 28,448       $ 73,129       $ 63,445   

Nuts

     15,733         13,474         35,986         39,784   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total

   $ 50,569       $ 41,922       $ 109,115       $ 103,229   
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

We are required to establish and maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that material information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission and that any material information relating to the Company is accumulated and communicated to our principal officers to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

In conjunction with the close of each fiscal quarter, we conduct a review and evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Our Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, based upon their evaluation as of January 31, 2013, the end of the fiscal quarter covered in this report, concluded that due to material weaknesses in our control environment, walnut grower accounting and accounts payable and accrued expenses as described below, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. In connection with the restatement of our interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the three and six month periods ended January 31, 2013 described in Note 5 of our Notes to the interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, our Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer re-evaluated our disclosure controls and procedures as of January 31, 2013. As a result of the error, we have reassessed our disclosure controls and procedures as of January 31, 2013, and have concluded that there was a previously identified significant deficiency in our controls in place over non-routine transactions that constituted a material weakness in our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of January 31, 2013 were:

 

   

Control Environment – The control environment, which includes the Company’s Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy, is the responsibility of senior management, sets the tone of the organization, influences the control consciousness of its employees, and is the foundation for the other components of internal control over financial reporting. Former senior management’s operating style did not result in the open flow of information and communication and set a tone that contributed to an ineffective control environment in which dissemination of information was limited and alternative ideas were not routinely encouraged. This control environment material weakness contributed significantly to the material weaknesses related to walnut grower accounting described below.

 

   

Walnut Grower Accounting – Former senior management did not document the accounting policies or sufficiently design the processes for walnut grower payments and determination of walnut cost estimates. Further, management did not effectively or consistently communicate the nature and intent of certain prior walnut grower payments throughout the organization, which contributed to prior conflicting communications with growers and incomplete and ineffective communication and flow of information throughout the Company and to those charged with governance. The controls that were in place were not designed to ensure that the annual walnut costs and the quarterly walnut cost estimates and changes in such estimates were sufficiently supported and based on consideration of all relevant information. The controls that were in place were also not designed to provide for appropriate segregation of duties. These factors caused our controls related to accounting for walnut grower payments and quarterly walnut cost estimates to be ineffective for ensuring that walnut costs were recorded correctly within the appropriate period.

 

24


Table of Contents
   

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses – Our controls over invoice processing were improperly designed and were not effective in ensuring that costs were recorded within the appropriate account and period.

 

   

Non-routine Transactions – Our controls over the evaluation and review of non-routine transactions were not effective in ensuring that diluted earnings per share was calculated correctly.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended January 31, 2013, except as described below under the remediation efforts section, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. The material weaknesses related to control environment, walnut grower accounting, accounts payable and accrued expenses were identified in connection with the preparation and filing of Amendment No. 2 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011 and remained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2012. The material weakness related to non-routine transactions was identified after the original filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2013.

Remediation Efforts

We have developed certain remediation steps to address the material weaknesses discussed above, to reinforce a control environment that facilitates internal and external communications, and to improve our internal control over financial reporting. If not remediated, these control deficiencies could result in further material misstatements to our financial statements. The Company and the Board take the control and integrity of the Company’s financial statements seriously and believe that the remediation steps described below, including with respect to personnel changes described within Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting above, are essential to maintaining a strong internal control environment.

The following remediation steps have been implemented by the Company in previous reporting periods:

Control Environment

 

   

Replacement of former CEO and CFO (interim CFO engaged in February 2012); and

 

   

Enhanced monthly financial and operational reporting packages with detailed financial analysis and identification of significant and non-routine transactions which are circulated for review by management.

Walnut Grower Accounting

 

   

Revised the walnut cost estimation policy to incorporate a wide variety of inputs each quarter with review and sign-off by cross-functional management;

 

   

Enhanced documentation, oversight and monitoring of accounting policies and procedures relating to walnut grower payments and walnut grower accounting;

 

   

Enhanced review and oversight of grower communications;

 

   

Reassessment of responsibilities and realignment of reporting relationships within the walnut operations and grower accounting function;

 

   

Creation of a Grower Advisory Board including members from a cross section of Diamond’s grower base to provide a forum for input from growers and communication between Diamond senior management and growers;

 

25


Table of Contents
   

Implementation of quarterly representations by grower services regarding compliance with grower contracting procedures; and

 

   

Update and revision of Sarbanes-Oxley internal control narratives related to grower accounting.

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

 

   

Enhanced month-end accounting close processes with increased visibility in finance and accounting organization;

 

   

Enhanced period-end controls and procedures to improve recording of all outstanding accounts payable and accrued expenses;

 

   

Requiring all existing and new vendors to remit invoices directly to the Company’s central accounts payable department;

 

   

Communication throughout the organization to ensure that information related to all vendors engaged, services incurred, and invoices received in the current or prior month are captured; and

 

   

Update and revision of Sarbanes-Oxley internal control narratives related to accounts payable and accrued expenses.

The following remediation steps are among the measures that will be implemented by the Company as soon as practicable:

Control Environment

 

   

Development and implementation of training, led by the CEO and reinforced by finance executives with appropriate accounting expertise, for executives, finance personnel and grower accounting to enhance awareness and understanding of standards and principles for accounting and financial reporting as well as the importance of financial reporting integrity and the Company’s Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy.

Non-routine Transactions

 

   

Continued evaluation and enhancement of internal technical accounting capabilities augmented by the use of third-party advisors and consultants to assist with areas requiring specialized technical accounting expertise and to be reviewed by management.

 

   

Develop and implement technical accounting training, led by appropriate technical accounting experts, to enhance awareness and understanding of standards and principles related to relevant complex technical accounting topics.

The Audit Committee has directed management to develop a detailed plan and timetable for the implementation of the foregoing remedial measures and will monitor their implementation. In addition, under the direction of the Audit Committee, management will continue to review and make necessary changes to the overall design of our internal control environment, as well as policies and procedures to improve the overall effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.

We are committed to maintaining a strong internal control environment, and believe that these remediation actions will represent significant improvements in our controls when they are fully implemented. We believe that we have made progress toward the remediation of the material weaknesses described above. However, certain remediation steps have not been implemented or have not had sufficient time to be fully integrated in the operations of our internal control over financial reporting. As such, the identified material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting will not be considered remediated until controls have been designed and/or controls are in operation for a sufficient period of time for our management to conclude that the control environment is operating effectively. Additional remediation measures may be required, which may require additional implementation time. We will continue to assess the effectiveness of our remediation efforts in connection with our evaluations of internal control over financial reporting.

 

26


Table of Contents

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves various material risks. You should carefully consider all of the information contained or incorporated by reference in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A and in our other filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2012, before deciding to invest in our common stock. The occurrence of any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, prospects, results of operations and cash flows. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Related to Our Business

Diamond, and some of our current and former officers and directors, have been named as parties to various lawsuits arising out of or related to Diamond’s restatement of our fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 consolidated financial statements, primarily resulting from our accounting for payments to walnut growers related to fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, and those lawsuits could adversely affect Diamond, require significant management time and attention, result in significant legal expenses or damages, and cause our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows to suffer.

In November 2011, December 2011 and June 2012, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against Diamond and certain current and former Diamond directors and officers, after we announced that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors had initiated an investigation into the accounting for certain payments to walnut growers.

Beginning on November 7, 2011, the first of a number of putative securities class action suits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Diamond and certain of its former executive officers (“defendants”). These suits allege that defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding Diamond’s financial results, operations and prospects, including its accounting for payments to walnut growers and the anticipated closing of Diamond’s proposed merger of the Pringles business from The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”). On January 24, 2012, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In re Diamond Foods Inc., Securities Litigation . On March 20, 2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on June 13, 2012, the court appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff. On July 30, 2012, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action naming Diamond, certain of its former executive officers and our former outside auditor as defendants. The amended complaint purports to allege claims covering the period from October 5, 2010 through February 8, 2012 and seeks compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs and expenses incurred in the action and other relief. On September 28, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the action. On November 30, 2012, the Court denied Diamond’s motion, allowing the matter to proceed with respect to Diamond and the former executive officers, and dismissed claims against Diamond’s former outside auditor with leave to amend. On December 21, 2012, Diamond and the former executive officers filed answers to the amended complaint. On May 6, 2013, the Court certified a class in the consolidated action.

Beginning on November 14, 2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Francisco County, purportedly on behalf of Diamond Foods and naming certain executive officers and the members of our board of directors as individual defendants. On January 17, 2012, the court consolidated these actions as In re Diamond Foods, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation and appointed co-lead counsel. On February 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, naming certain current and former executive officers and members of our board, and our former outside auditor, as individual defendants. The consolidated complaint arises from the same or similar alleged facts as alleged in the federal securities action and the federal derivative litigation (discussed in the next paragraph below), and purported to set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and against the auditor for professional negligence and breach of contract. The suit seeks the recovery of unspecified damages allegedly sustained by Diamond, which is named as a nominal defendant, corporate reforms, disgorgement, restitution, the recovery of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and other relief. On August 20, 2012, Diamond filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the action. On October 23, 2012, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer

 

27


Table of Contents

with leave to amend the complaint excluding the gross mismanagement claim, which the Court sustained with prejudice. Following mediation efforts, an agreement in principle to settle all derivative claims on behalf of the Company was reached by plaintiffs and the current and former executive officers and members of the Company’s board. The agreement also seeks to resolve certain litigation demands by various shareholders of Diamond Foods, as well as the Astor BK Realty Trust v. Diamond Foods, Inc. action pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware pursuant to 8 Del. C. §220. On May 29, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to Court approval.

Beginning on November 28, 2011, two putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of Diamond Foods and naming certain current and former executive officers and members of our board of directors as individual defendants. On February 16, 2012, the court consolidated these actions as In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Derivative Litigation . Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on March 1, 2012, again naming certain current and former executive officers and members of our board of directors as individual defendants, and also adding our former outside auditor as a defendant. The suit was based on essentially the same allegations as those in the federal securities action and the state derivative litigation, and purported to set forth claims under Section 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions in proxy statements issued on or about November 26, 2010 and on or about September 26, 2011, and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification, gross mismanagement and, against our auditor, for professional negligence, accounting malpractice and aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties of the other individual defendants. The suit sought to recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained by Diamond, which was named as a nominal defendant, corporate reforms, restitution, equitable and/or injunctive relief, to recover plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and other relief. On April 16, 2012, Diamond moved to dismiss the action. On May 29, 2012, the court granted Diamond’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction related to deficiencies in plaintiffs’ Section 14(a) claims. The court entered judgment in favor of Diamond the same day. On June 4, 2012, one of the plaintiffs in the consolidated matter filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to appeal the May 29, 2012 order granting Diamond’s motion to dismiss. On October 12, 2012, the appellant filed its opening brief. Diamond filed its answering brief on November 27, 2012 and appellant filed its reply brief on December 28, 2012.

On February 22, 2012 , an action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by a shareholder seeking to enforce a demand to inspect certain of Diamond’s records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as a possible prelude to the shareholder bringing a derivative action. This action has been stayed by the agreement of the parties.

We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits. The matters which led to our Audit Committee’s investigation and the restatement of our fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 consolidated financial statements have exposed us to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory proceedings and government enforcement actions. We and our current and former officers and directors may, in the future, be subject to additional litigation relating to such matters. Subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former officers and directors in connection with such lawsuits and any related litigation or settlements amounts. Regardless of the outcome, these lawsuits, and any other litigation that may be brought against us or our current or former officers and directors, could be time-consuming, result in significant expense and divert the attention and resources of our management and other key employees. An unfavorable outcome in any of these matters could exceed coverage provided under potentially applicable insurance policies, which is limited. Any such unfavorable outcome could have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Further, we could be required to pay damages or additional penalties or have other remedies imposed against us, or our current or former directors or officers, which could harm our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Government investigations may require significant management time and attention, result in significant legal expenses or damages and cause our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows to suffer. Diamond could face additional governmental investigations with respect to these matters, could incur substantial costs to defend any such investigations and be required to pay damages, fines and penalties, or incur additional expenses or be subject to injunctions as a result of the outcome of such investigations. The unfavorable resolution of one or more matters could adversely impact Diamond.

On December 14, 2011, Diamond received a formal order of investigation from the Division of Enforcement of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, Diamond has had contact with the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of California. We have cooperated with the government and expect to continue to do so. The amount of time needed to resolve these investigations is uncertain, and we cannot predict the outcome of these investigations or whether we will face additional government investigations, inquiries or other actions related to our accounting for payments to walnut growers or otherwise. Subject to certain limitations, we are obligated to indemnify our current and former directors, officers and employees in connection with the ongoing

 

28


Table of Contents

governmental investigation and any future government inquiries, investigations or actions. These matters could require us to expend significant management time and incur significant legal and other expenses and could result in civil and criminal actions seeking, among other things, injunctions against us and the payment of significant fines and penalties by us, which could have a material effect on our financial condition, business, results of operations and cash flow.

If these governmental authorities were to commence legal action, we could be required to pay significant penalties and could become subject to injunctions, a cease and desist order and other equitable remedies. We can provide no assurances as to the outcome of any governmental investigation.

Delayed filing of some of our periodic SEC reports, has made us currently ineligible to use a registration statement on Form S-3 to register the offer and sale of securities, which could adversely affect our ability to raise future capital or complete acquisitions.

Because we were unable to file some of our periodic reports with the SEC on a timely basis, we will not be eligible to register the offer and sale of our securities using a registration statement on Form S-3 until November 2013. There can be no assurance that we will be eligible to use Form S-3 in November 2013, as we may again be late filing such reports in the future. Should we wish to register the offer and sale of our securities to the public prior to the time we are eligible to use Form S-3, our transaction costs would increase and the amount of time required to complete the transaction could increase, making it more difficult to execute any such transaction successfully and potentially harming our financial condition.

If we do not adequately manage our financial reporting and internal control systems and processes, our ability to manage and grow our business may be harmed.

Our ability to implement our business plan and comply with regulations requires an effective planning and management process. We expect that we will need to improve existing operational and financial systems, procedures and controls, and implement new ones, to manage our future business effectively. Any implementation delays, or disruption in the transition to new or enhanced systems, procedures or controls, could harm our ability to forecast sales, manage our supply chain, and record and report financial and management information on a timely and accurate basis.

We have determined that material weaknesses exist in our system of internal control over financial reporting, which could have a material impact on our business.

We are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We have the following material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of January 31, 2013:

 

   

Control Environment – The control environment, which includes the Company’s Code of Conduct and Ethics Policy, is the responsibility of senior management, sets the tone of the organization, influences the control consciousness of its employees, and is the foundation for the other components of internal control over financial reporting. Former senior management’s operating style did not result in the open flow of information and communication and set a tone that contributed to an ineffective control environment in which dissemination of information was limited and alternative ideas were not routinely encouraged. This control environment material weakness contributed significantly to the material weaknesses related to walnut grower accounting described below.

 

   

Walnut Grower Accounting – Former senior management did not document the accounting policies or sufficiently design the processes for walnut grower payments and determination of walnut cost estimates. Further, management did not effectively or consistently communicate the nature and intent of certain prior walnut grower payments throughout the organization, which contributed to prior conflicting communications with growers and incomplete and ineffective communication and flow of information throughout the Company and to those charged with governance. The controls that were in place were not designed to ensure that the annual walnut costs and the quarterly walnut cost estimates and changes in such estimates were sufficiently supported and based on consideration of all relevant information. The controls that were in place were also not designed to provide for appropriate segregation of duties. These factors caused our controls related to accounting for walnut grower payments and quarterly walnut cost estimates to be ineffective for ensuring that walnut costs were recorded correctly within the appropriate period.

 

   

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses – Our controls over invoice processing were improperly designed and were not effective in ensuring that costs were recorded within the appropriate account and period.

 

29


Table of Contents

In connection with the restatement of our interim condensed consolidated financial statements included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2013 we have determined that we have an additional material weakness in our control environment as of January 31, 2013, as follows:

 

   

Non-routine Transactions – Our controls over the evaluation and review of non-routine transactions were not effective in ensuring that diluted earnings per share was calculated correctly.

Due to these material weaknesses, we have concluded that as of January 31, 2013, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. Until these control deficiencies are fully remediated, it may be more difficult for us to manage our business, our results of operations could be harmed, our ability to report results accurately and on time could be impaired, investors may lose faith in the reliability of our statements, and the price of our securities may be materially impacted. We cannot assure you whether, or when, the control deficiencies that are identified as material weaknesses will be remediated.

We do not expect that our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. Over time, controls may become inadequate because changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may occur. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. As a result, we cannot assure you that significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting will be identified in the future.

Any failure to maintain or implement required new or improved controls, or any difficulties we encounter in their implementation, could result in additional significant deficiencies or material weaknesses, cause us to fail to timely meet our periodic reporting obligations, or result in additional material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements. Any such failure could adversely affect the results of periodic management evaluations and annual auditor attestation reports regarding disclosure controls and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

We may be required to conduct product recalls and concerns with the safety and quality of food products could cause consumers to avoid our products and reduce our sales, net income and liquidity.

The sale of food products for human consumption involves risk of injury to consumers. We face risks associated with product recalls and liability claims if our products become adulterated, mislabeled or misbranded, or cause injury, illness or death. Our products may be subject to product tampering and to contamination and spoilage risks, such as mold, bacteria, insects and other pests, shell fragments, cross-contamination and off-flavor contamination. If any of our products were to be tampered with, or otherwise tainted and we were unable to detect it prior to shipment, our products could be subject to a recall. Recalls might also be required due to usage of raw materials provided by third-party ingredient suppliers. Such suppliers are required to supply material free of contamination, but may, on occasion, identify issues after selling material to Diamond manufacturing locations. Our ability to sell products could be reduced if governmental agencies conclude that our products have been tampered with, or that certain pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals used by growers have left harmful residues on portions of the crop or that the crop has been contaminated by aflatoxin or other agents. A significant product recall could cause our products to be unavailable for a period of time and reduce our sales. Adverse publicity could result in a loss of consumer confidence in our products, damage to our reputation and also reduce our sales for an extended period. Product recalls and product liability claims could increase our expenses and have an adverse effect on demand for our products and, consequently, reduce our sales, net income and liquidity.

Government regulations could increase our costs of production and our business could be adversely affected.

As a food company, we are subject to extensive government regulation, including regulation of the manufacturing, importation, processing, product quality, packaging, storage, distribution and labeling of our products. Furthermore, there may be changes in the legal and regulatory environment, and governmental entities or agencies in jurisdictions where we operate may impose new manufacturing, importation, processing, packaging, storage, distribution, labeling or other restrictions, which could increase our costs and affect our profitability. For example, various regulatory authorities and others have paid increasing attention to the effect on humans due to the consumption of acrylamide—a naturally-occurring chemical compound that is formed in the process of cooking many foods, including potato chips, and a potential carcinogen—and have imposed additional regulatory requirements. In the State of California, we are required to warn about the presence of acrylamide and other potential carcinogens in our products. If consumer concerns about acrylamide increase, demand for affected products could decline and our revenues and business could be harmed. Our

 

30


Table of Contents

manufacturing operations are subject to various national, regional or state and local laws and regulations that require us to obtain licenses relating to customs, health and safety, building and land use and environmental protection. We are also subject to environmental regulations governing the discharge into the air, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste materials. New or amended statutes and regulations, increased production at our existing facilities and our expansion into new operations and jurisdictions may require us to obtain new licenses and permits, and could require us to change our methods of operations, which could be costly. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject us to civil remedies, including fines, injunctions, recalls or seizures, as well as possible criminal sanctions, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business.

A disruption at any of our production facilities would significantly decrease production, which could increase our cost of sales and reduce our net sales and income from operations.

We process and package our products in several domestic and international facilities and also have co-manufacturing agreements and co-pack arrangements with third parties. A temporary or extended interruption in operations at any of our facilities, whether due to technical or labor difficulties, destruction or damage from fire, flood or earthquake, infrastructure failures such as power or water shortages, raw material shortage or any other reason, whether or not covered by insurance, could interrupt our manufacturing operations, disrupt communications with our customers and suppliers and cause us to lose sales and write off inventory. Any prolonged disruption in the operations of our facilities would have a significant negative impact on our ability to manufacture and package our products on our own and may cause us to seek additional third-party arrangements, thereby increasing production costs. These third parties may not be as efficient as we are and may not have the capabilities to process and package some of our products, which could adversely affect sales or operating income. Further, current and potential customers might not purchase our products if they perceive our lack of alternate manufacturing facilities to be a risk to their continuing source of products. Refer to Note 8 to the Notes to the interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion on our consolidation of its manufacturing operations and the closure of our facility in Fishers.

Changes in the food industry, including changing dietary trends and consumer preferences and adverse publicity about the Company and the health effects of consuming some products, could reduce demand for our products.

Consumer tastes can change rapidly as a result of many factors, including shifting consumer preferences, dietary trends and purchasing patterns. To address consumer preferences, we invest significant resources in research and development of new products. Dietary trends, such as the consumption of food in low carbohydrate content, have in the past, and may in the future, harm our sales. If we fail to anticipate, identify or react to consumer trends, or if new products we develop do not achieve acceptance by retailers or consumers, demand for our products could decline, which would in turn cause our revenue and profitability to be lower.

In addition, some of our products contain sodium, preservatives and other ingredients, the health effects of which are the subject of increasing public scrutiny, including the suggestion that excessive consumption of these ingredients can lead to a variety of adverse health effects. In the United States and other countries, there is increasing consumer awareness of health risks, including obesity, associated with consumption of these ingredients, as well as increased consumer litigation based on alleged adverse health impacts of consumption of various food products. A continuing global focus on health and wellness, including weight management, and increasing media attention to the role of food marketing, could adversely affect our sales or lead to stricter regulations and greater scrutiny of food marketing practices. Moreover, adverse publicity about regulatory or legal action against us could damage our reputation and brand image, undermine consumer confidence or customer relations, and reduce demand for our products, even if the regulatory or legal action is unfounded or not material to our operations.

Increased costs associated with product processing and transportation, such as water, electricity, natural gas and fuel costs, could increase our expenses and reduce our profitability.

We require a substantial amount of energy and water to make our products. Transportation costs, including fuel and labor, also represent a significant portion of the cost of our products, because we use third party truck and rail companies to collect our raw materials and deliver our products to our distributors and customers. These costs fluctuate significantly over time due to factors that may be beyond our control, including increased fuel prices, adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, employee strikes and increased export and import restrictions. We may not be able to pass on increased costs of production or transportation to our customers. In addition, from time to time, transportation service providers have a backlog of shipping requests, which could impact our ability to ship products in a timely fashion. Increases in the cost of water, electricity, natural gas, fuel or labor and failure to ship products on time, could increase our costs of production and adversely affect our profitability.

 

31


Table of Contents

Raw materials that are key ingredients to our products are subject to fluctuations in availability and price that could adversely impact our business and financial results.

The availability, size, quality and cost of raw materials for the production and packaging of our products, including nuts, potatoes, corn and corn products, cooking and vegetable oils, corrugate, resins and other commodities, are subject to price volatility and fluctuations in availability caused by changes in global supply and demand, weather conditions, governmental agricultural and energy programs, exchange rates for foreign currencies and consumer demand. In particular, the availability and cost of walnuts and other nuts are subject to crop size, quality, yield fluctuations, changes in governmental regulation, and the rate of supply contract renewals, as well as other factors.

We source walnuts primarily from growers with whom we have entered into walnut purchase agreements. To the extent contracted growers deliver less supply than we expected or we are unable to renew enough walnut purchase agreements or enter into such agreements with new growers in any particular year, we may not have sufficient walnut supply under contract to satisfy our business requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our sales and our results of operations. To obtain sufficient walnut supply, which represents a significant portion of our cost of goods sold, we may be required to purchase walnuts from third parties at substantially higher prices or forgo sales to some market segments, which would reduce our profitability. If we forgo sales to such market segments, we may lose customers and may not be able to replace them later. Given our fixed costs from our manufacturing facilities, if we have a lower supply of walnuts or other raw materials, our unit costs will increase and our gross margin will decline.

We make estimates of the price we will pay for walnuts to growers under contract starting in the first quarter of our fiscal year and, pursuant to our accounting policies, finalize the price to be paid to growers by the end of the fiscal year. The selling price to customers for walnuts fluctuates throughout the year depending on market forces. To the extent that we underestimate the price to be paid for walnuts and enter into contracts with our customers for products including walnuts at prices prevailing at the market at that time and based on walnut cost estimates that ultimately prove to be below the final price we determine to pay to growers, our business and results of operations could be harmed. Each year some of our walnut supply agreements are up for renewal, and competition among walnut handlers makes renewal with us uncertain. Disruption in our walnut supply and inability to secure walnuts cost effectively may adversely impact our business and our financial results.

Our potato chip products are dependent on suppliers providing us with an adequate supply of quality potatoes on a timely basis. The failure of our suppliers to meet our specifications, quality standards or delivery schedules could have an adverse effect on our potato chip operations. In particular, a sudden scarcity, substantial price increase, quality issues or unavailability of ingredients could adversely affect our operating results. There can be no assurance that alternative ingredients would be available when needed on commercially attractive terms, if at all. In addition, high commodity prices could lead to unexpected costs and price increases of our products which might dampen growth of consumer demand for our products. If we are unable to increase productivity to offset these increased costs or increase our prices, this could substantially harm our business and results of operations.

If the parties we depend upon for raw material supplies do not perform adequately, our ability to manufacture our products may be impaired, which could harm our business and results of operations.

We rely on third-party suppliers for the raw materials we use to manufacture our products, and our ability to manufacture our products depends on receiving adequate supplies on a timely basis, which may be difficult or uneconomical to procure. If we do not maintain good relationships with suppliers that are important to us or are unable to identify a replacement supplier or develop our own sourcing capabilities, our ability to manufacture our products may be harmed, which would result in interruptions in our business. In addition, even if we are able to find replacement suppliers when needed, we may not be able to enter into agreements with them on favorable terms and conditions, which could increase our costs of production. The occurrence of any of these risks could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

If we are unable to compete effectively in the markets in which we operate, our sales and profitability would be negatively affected.

In general, competition in our markets is highly competitive and based on product quality, price, brand recognition and brand loyalty. As a result, there are ongoing competitive product and pricing pressures in the markets in which we operate, as well as challenges in establishing and maintaining profit margins. Our products compete against food and snack products sold by many regional and national companies, some of which are substantially larger and have greater resources than we have. The greater scale and resources that may be available to our competitors could provide them with the ability to lower prices or increase their promotional or marketing spending to compete more effectively. To address these challenges, we must be able to successfully respond

 

32


Table of Contents

to competitive factors, including pricing, promotional incentives and trade terms. We may need to reduce our prices or increase promotional incentives in response to competition or to grow or maintain our market share. If we decide to reduce or eliminate promotional incentives to improve our profitability, we may not be able to compete effectively and we may lose distribution and market share, which could also lead to a decline in revenue. Competition and customer pressures may restrict our ability to increase prices in response to commodity or other cost increases. We may also need to increase spending on marketing, advertising and new product innovation to maintain or increase our market share. If we are unable to compete effectively, we could be unable to increase the breadth of the distribution of our products or lose customers or distribution of products, which could have an adverse impact on our sales and profitability. In addition, if we are required to maintain high levels of promotional incentives or trade terms with respect to particular product lines, our margins and profitability would be adversely effected.

The loss of any major customer could decrease sales and adversely impact our net income.

We depend on a few significant customers for a large proportion of our net sales. This concentration has become more pronounced with the trend toward consolidation in the retail grocery store industry. Sales to our largest customer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (which includes sales to both Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart), represented approximately 18%, 15% and 17% of our total net sales in fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010 respectively. Sales to our second largest customer, Costco Wholesale Corporation, represented approximately 12%, 11% and 12% of our total net sales in fiscal 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The success of our business is dependent on our ability to successfully manage relationships with these customers, or any other significant customer. Further, there is a continuing trend towards retail trade consolidation, which can create significant cost and margin pressure on our business. The loss of any major customers, or any other significant customer, or a material decrease in their purchases from us, could result in decreased sales and adversely impact our net income.

The consolidation of retail customers could adversely affect us.

Retail customers, such as supermarkets, warehouse clubs and food distributors, continue to consolidate, resulting in fewer customers on which we can rely for business. Consolidation also produces large, more sophisticated retail customers that can resist price increases and demand lower pricing, increased promotional programs or specifically tailored products. In addition, larger retailers have the scale to develop supply chains that permit them to operate with reduced inventories or to develop and market their own retailer brands. Further retail consolidation and increasing retail power could materially and adversely affect our product sales, financial condition and results of operations.

Retail consolidation also increases the risk that adverse changes in our customers’ business operations or financial performance will have a corresponding material effect on us. For example, if our customers cannot access sufficient funds or financing, then they may delay, decrease or cancel purchases of our products, or delay or fail to pay us for previous purchases.

If we need to compete with other manufacturers or with retailer brands on the basis of price, our business and results of operations could be negatively impacted.

Our branded products face competition from private label products that at times may be sold at lower price points. The impact of price gaps between our products and private label products may result in share erosion and harm our business. A number of our competitors have broader product lines, substantially greater financial and other resources and/or lower fixed costs than we have. Our competitors may succeed in developing new or enhanced products that are more attractive to customers or consumers than ours. These competitors may also prove to be more successful in marketing and selling their products than we are; and may be better able to increase prices to reflect cost pressures. We may not compete successfully with these other companies or maintain or grow the distribution of our products. We cannot predict the pricing or promotional activities of our competitors or whether they will have a negative effect on us. Many of our competitors engage in aggressive pricing and promotional activities. There are competitive pressures and other factors which could cause our products to lose market share or decline in sales or result in significant price or margin erosion, which would have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our proprietary brands and packaging designs are essential to the value of our business, and the inability to protect, and costs associated with protecting, our intellectual property could harm the value of our brands and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our success depends significantly on our know-how and other intellectual property. We rely on a combination of trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, patents, copyrights and similar rights to protect our intellectual property. Our success also depends in large part on our continued ability to use existing trademarks and service marks in order to maintain and increase brand awareness and further develop our brand.

 

33


Table of Contents

Our efforts to protect our intellectual property may not be adequate, third parties may misappropriate or infringe on our intellectual property or develop more efficient and advanced technologies, our patents expire over time and third parties may use such previously patented technology to compete against us, and our third-party manufacturers and partners may disclose our trade secrets. From time to time, we engage in litigation to protect our intellectual property, which could result in substantial costs as well as diversion of management attention. The occurrence of any of these risks could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We depend on our key personnel and if we lose the services of any of these individuals, or fail to attract and retain additional key personnel, we may not be able to implement our business strategy or operate our business effectively.

Our future success largely depends on the contributions of our senior management team. We believe that these individuals’ expertise and knowledge about our industry and their respective fields and their relationships with other individuals in our industry are critical factors to our continued growth and success. We do not carry key person insurance. The loss of the services of any member of our senior management team and the failure to hire and retain qualified management and other key personnel could have an adverse effect on our business and prospects. Our success also depends upon our ability to attract and retain additional qualified sales, marketing and other personnel .

Economic downturns may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Unfavorable economic conditions may negatively affect our business and financial results. For example, instability in the global credit markets, including the recent European economic and financial turmoil, or federal funding cuts in the United States, may lead to slower growth or recession in European or United States markets where we sell our products. These economic conditions could negatively impact consumer demand for our products, the mix of our products’ sales, our ability to collect accounts receivable on a timely basis, the ability of suppliers to provide the materials required in our operations, and our ability to obtain financing or to otherwise access the capital markets. Additionally, unfavorable economic conditions could have an impact on our lenders or customers, causing them to fail to meet their obligations to us. The occurrence of any of these risks could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The acquisition or divestiture of other product lines or businesses could pose risks to our business and the market price of our common stock.

We may review acquisition prospects that we believe could complement our existing business. There is no assurance that we will be successful in identifying, negotiating or consummating any future acquisitions. Any such future acquisitions could result in accounting charges, potentially dilutive issuances of stock and increased debt and contingent liabilities, any of which could have a material effect on our business and the market price of our common stock. Acquisitions entail many financial, managerial and operational risks, including difficulties integrating the acquired operations, effective and immediate implementation of internal control over financial reporting, diversion of management attention during the negotiation and integration phases, uncertainty entering markets in which we have limited prior experience and potential loss of key employees of acquired organizations. We may be unable to integrate product lines or businesses that we acquire, which could have a material effect on our business and on the market price of our common stock. We may evaluate the various components of our portfolio of businesses and may, as a result, explore divesting such products or businesses. Divestitures have inherent risks, including possible delays in closing transactions (including potential difficulties in obtaining regulatory approvals), the risk of lower-than-expected sales proceeds for the divested businesses, unexpected costs associated with the separation of the business to be sold from our integrated information technology systems and other operating systems and potential post-closing claims for indemnification. In addition, adverse economic or market conditions may result in fewer potential bidders and unsuccessful divestiture efforts. Transaction costs may be high, and expected cost savings, which are offset by revenue losses from divested businesses, may be difficult to achieve, and we may experience varying success in reducing costs or transferring liabilities previously associated with the divested businesses.

Our business and operations could be negatively impacted if we fail to maintain satisfactory labor relations.

The success of our business depends substantially upon our ability to maintain satisfactory relations with our employees. Our production workforce in one of our facilities is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Strikes or work stoppages and interruptions could occur if we are unable to renew this agreement on satisfactory terms. If a work stoppage or slow down were to occur, it could adversely affect our business and disrupt our operations. The terms and conditions of existing or renegotiated agreements also could increase our costs or otherwise affect our ability to fully implement future operational changes to our business.

 

34


Table of Contents

Our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected by the political and economic conditions of the countries in which we conduct business and other factors related to our international operations.

We conduct a substantial amount of business with vendors and customers located outside the United States. During fiscal 2012, fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2010, sales outside the United States, primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Turkey, China and Spain, accounted for approximately 23%, 30% and 19% of our net sales, respectively. Many factors relating to our international operations and to particular countries in which we operate could have a material negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These factors include:

 

   

negative economic developments in economies around the world and the instability of governments, including the threat of war, terrorist attacks, epidemic or civil unrest;

 

   

pandemics, such as the flu, which may adversely affect our workforce as well as our local suppliers and customers;

 

   

earthquakes, tsunamis, floods or other major disasters that may limit the supply of nuts or other products that we purchase abroad;

 

   

tariffs, quotas, trade barriers, other trade protection measures and import or export licensing requirements imposed by governments;

 

   

foreign currency exchange and transfer restrictions;

 

   

increased costs, disruptions in shipping or reduced availability of freight transportation;

 

   

differing labor standards;

 

   

differing levels of protection of intellectual property;

 

   

difficulties and costs associated with complying with U.S. laws and regulations applicable to entities with overseas operations;

 

   

the threat that our operations or property could be subject to nationalization and expropriation;

 

   

varying regulatory, tax, judicial and administrative practices in the jurisdictions where we operate;

 

   

difficulties associated with operating under a wide variety of complex foreign laws, treaties and regulations; and

 

   

potentially burdensome taxation.

Any of these factors could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A material impairment in the carrying value of acquired goodwill or other intangible assets could negatively affect our consolidated operating results and net worth.

A significant portion of our assets are goodwill and other intangible assets, the majority of which are not amortized but are reviewed at least annually for impairment. If the carrying value of these assets exceeds the current fair value, the asset is considered impaired and is reduced to fair value resulting in a non-cash charge to earnings. Events and conditions that could result in impairment include a sustained drop in the market price of our common stock, increased competition or loss of market share, product innovation or obsolescence, or product claims that result in a significant loss of sales or profitability over the product life. To the extent our market capitalization (increased by a reasonable control premium) results in a fair value of our common stock that is below our net book value, or if other indicators of potential impairment are present, then we will be required to take further steps to determine if an impairment of goodwill has occurred and to calculate an impairment loss. At January 31, 2012, the carrying value of goodwill and other intangible assets totaled approximately $845.6 million, compared to total assets of approximately $1,404.7 million and total shareholders’ equity of approximately $402.1 million. At January 31, 2013, the carrying value of goodwill and other intangible assets totaled approximately $839.2 million, compared to total assets of approximately $1,275.0 million and total shareholders’ equity of approximately $328.6 million.

 

35


Table of Contents

Risks Related to Indebtedness

We are highly leveraged and have substantial debt service requirements that could adversely affect our ability to fulfill our debt obligations, place us at a competitive disadvantage in our industry and limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry.

We have incurred a substantial amount of indebtedness and our high debt service requirements could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, and might limit our ability to take advantage of potential business opportunities. Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance our indebtedness depends on our financial and operating performance, which is subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to financial, business and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay the principal of, or interest on, our indebtedness, or to fund our other liquidity needs, including working capital, capital expenditures, product development efforts and other general corporate requirements.

This high degree of leverage could have other important consequences for us, including:

 

   

increasing our vulnerability to adverse economic, industry or competitive developments;

 

   

exposing us to the risk of increased interest rates because our secured credit facility is at variable rates of interest;

 

   

making it more difficult to satisfy obligations with respect to our indebtedness, including restrictive covenants and borrowing conditions, which could result in an event of default under the agreements governing the indebtedness;

 

   

restricting us from making strategic acquisitions or causing us to make non-strategic divestitures;

 

   

limiting our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, product development, debt service requirements, acquisitions and general corporate or other purposes; and

 

   

placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors who are less highly leveraged and who therefore, may be able to take advantage of opportunities that our leverage prevents us from pursuing.

Our debt agreements contain representations, warranties, affirmative and negative covenants and financial ratios, and any failure to satisfy these requirements could adversely affect our business.

A breach of any of the representations, warranties or affirmative and negative covenants contained in our credit facilities and outstanding senior notes, or other financing arrangements, including our inability to comply with the financial ratios required under any of those arrangements, could trigger events of default. As a result of the errors identified causing the restatement of our fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 consolidated financial statements, we were in default under our secured credit facility and other financing arrangements for failing to comply with certain representations and warranties and not complying with certain covenants, including delivering certain financial statements in a timely manner and maintaining specified financial ratios. These defaults were waived by the required lenders of the Secured Credit Facility on May 22, 2012. Additional events of default associated with the accounting classification of certain capital leases were waived on July 27, 2012, August 23, 2012, and June 10, 2013 by the required lenders of the Secured Credit Facility. If any further events of default occur and we are not able either to cure it or to obtain a waiver from the requisite lenders or noteholders, our lenders or noteholders may declare outstanding obligations, with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable. Such acceleration of our outstanding financial obligations could result in additional lenders or noteholders declaring other outstanding obligations to be immediately due and payable. In addition, upon any event of default, the administrative agent under our secured credit facility may, and at the request of the requisite lenders shall, terminate the lenders’ commitments under the revolving credit facility and cease making further loans and could institute foreclosure proceedings against our pledged assets.

Our debt agreements contain restrictions that may limit our flexibility in operating our business.

Our secured credit facility, our outstanding senior notes and our other financing arrangements contain various covenants that may limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:

 

   

incur indebtedness, including capital leases;

 

   

make investments or other capital expenditures;

 

36


Table of Contents
   

sell assets;

 

   

create liens;

 

   

acquire other companies and businesses;

 

   

borrow additional funds under new revolving credit facilities;

 

   

consolidate, merge, sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets;

 

   

make restricted payments, which could limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock; and

 

   

enter into transactions with our affiliates.

Under our Secured Credit Facility we are required to have at least $20 million of cash, cash equivalents and revolving credit available at all times, beginning February 1, 2013.

As of January 31, 2013, the revolving credit facility had $255 million in capacity, of which $133 million was outstanding. The capacity under the revolving credit facility is scheduled to decrease to $230 million effective July 31, 2013, and to $180 million effective January 31, 2014. We believe we will have sufficient liquidity for the next twelve months to meet this covenant. Additionally, beginning on October 31, 2013, the Company’s Consolidated Senior Leverage Ratio, as defined in the Third Amendment to the Secured Credit Facility, will be limited to no more than 4.70 to 1.00 and the fixed charge coverage ratio to no less than 2.00 to 1.00. The Consolidated Senior Leverage Ratio, as defined in the Third Amendment, will decline each quarter, ultimately to 3.25 to 1.00 in the quarter ending July 31, 2014. A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default, which could harm our liquidity and financial condition.

We are highly leveraged and have substantial debt service obligations, which could affect our ability to raise additional capital or fund our operations.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to reduce or delay capital expenditures, sell assets, seek additional capital, or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. We may not be able to take any of these actions, or they may not be sufficient for us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. If our operating results are not adequate and we are not able to secure adequate capital resources, we could face liquidity problems and be required to dispose of assets or operations to meet our debt service and other obligations. Since our existing debt agreements restrict our ability to dispose of assets, we may not be able to consummate those dispositions, which could impair our ability to meet our debt service obligations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock is volatile and may result in investors selling shares of our common stock at a loss.

The trading price of our common stock is volatile and subject to fluctuations in price in response to various factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

 

   

our operating performance and the performance of other similar companies;

 

   

changes in our revenues, earnings, prospects, or in the recommendations of securities analysts;

 

   

publication of research reports about us or our industry;

 

   

speculation about the Company and its future in the press or investment community;

 

   

terrorist acts; and

 

   

general market conditions, including economic factors unrelated to our performance.

 

37


Table of Contents

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources.

The private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management may have interests that diverge from our interests and the interests of our other security holders.

Oaktree Capital Management L.P. (“Oaktree”), which is one of our creditors and beneficially owns a significant equity position in Diamond through its warrant holdings, may have interests that diverge from our interests and the interests of our stockholders. In addition, so long as Oaktree maintains ownership of specified thresholds of its warrant and senior note holdings, it will have the right to nominate up to two members of our board of directors and will be entitled to certain information rights and a right to participate in future offerings of our equity securities. Oaktree is in the business of investing in companies and is not restricted from investing in our current or future competitors. Future events may give rise to a divergence of interests between Oaktree and us or our other security holders.

A substantial number of shares of our common stock may be issued upon exercise of a warrant issued to Oaktree, which could cause a decline in the market price of our common stock.

Oaktree is the holder of a warrant exercisable for an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of our common stock, which became exercisable on March 1, 2013. As a result, the warrant remains outstanding, which dilute existing shareholders. The presence of these additional issuable shares of our common stock may have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares.

Our ability to raise capital in the future may be limited, and our failure to raise capital when needed could prevent us from executing our growth strategy.

The timing and amount of our working capital and capital expenditure requirements may vary significantly as a result of many factors, including:

 

   

market acceptance of our products;

 

   

the need to make large capital expenditures to support and expand production capacity;

 

   

the existence of opportunities for expansion; and

 

   

access to and availability of sufficient management, technical, marketing and financial personnel.

If our capital resources are not sufficient to satisfy our liquidity needs, we may seek to sell additional equity or debt securities or obtain other debt financing. The sale of additional equity or convertible debt securities would result in additional dilution to our stockholders. Additional debt would result in increased expenses and could result in covenants that would restrict our operations. With the exception of the secured credit facility, we have not made arrangements to obtain additional financing. We may not be able to obtain additional financing, if required, in amounts or on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

Anti-takeover provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us.

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan and will issue one preferred stock purchase right with each share of our common stock that we issue. Each right will entitle the holder to purchase one one-hundredth of a share of our Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock. Under certain circumstances, if a person or group acquires 15% or more of our outstanding common stock, holders of the rights (other than the person or group triggering their exercise) will be able to purchase, in exchange for the $60.00 exercise price, shares of our common stock or of any company into which we are merged having a value of $120.00. The rights expire in March 2015 unless extended by our board of directors. Because the rights may substantially dilute the stock ownership of a person or group attempting to acquire us without the approval of our board of directors, our rights plan could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us (or a significant percentage of our outstanding capital stock) without first negotiating with our board of directors regarding such acquisition. In connection with the sale and issuance of notes and warrant to Oaktree, we amended the stockholder rights plan to exclude such securities from triggering such rights plan.

In addition, our board of directors has the authority to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock (of which 500,000 shares have been designated as Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock) and to determine the price, rights, preferences, privileges and

 

38


Table of Contents

restrictions, including voting rights, of those shares without any further vote or action by the stockholders. The rights of the holders of our common stock may be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of any preferred stock that may be issued in the future.

Further, some provisions of our charter documents, including provisions establishing a classified board of directors, eliminating the ability of stockholders to take action by written consent and limiting the ability of stockholders to raise matters at a meeting of stockholders without giving advance notice, may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in control or our management, which could have an adverse effect on the market price of our stock. Further, we are subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which will prohibit an “interested stockholder” from engaging in a “business combination” with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, even if such combination is favored by a majority of stockholders, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner. All of the foregoing could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or management.

Item 6. Exhibits

The following exhibits are filed as part of this report or are incorporated by reference to exhibits previously filed with the SEC.

 

          Filed  with
this

10-Q
   Incorporated by reference

Number

  

Exhibit Title

      Form    File No.    Date Filed
  10.01    David Colo Offer Letter, dated November 21, 2012       10-Q    000-51439    December 17,
2012
  10.02    Description of Annual Incentive Program       8-K    000-51439    November 21,
2012
  10.03    Separation and Clawback Agreement, dated November 19, 2012, between Diamond Foods, Inc. and Michael Mendes       8-K    000-51439    November 21,
2012
  31.01    Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer    X         
  31.02    Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer    X         
  32.01    Section 1350 Certifications    X         
101.INS*    XBRL Instance Document    X         
101.SCH*    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document    X         
101.CAL*    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document    X         
101.DEF*    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document    X         
101.LAB*    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document    X         
101.PRE*    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document    X         

 

* XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language) information is furnished and not filed herewith, is not a part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, is deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and otherwise is not subject to liability under these sections.

 

39


Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

  DIAMOND FOODS, INC.
Date: June 10, 2013   By:  

/s/ Michael Murphy

    Michael Murphy
    Interim Chief Financial Officer

 

40

(MM) (NASDAQ:DMND)
Historical Stock Chart
From May 2024 to Jun 2024 Click Here for more (MM) Charts.
(MM) (NASDAQ:DMND)
Historical Stock Chart
From Jun 2023 to Jun 2024 Click Here for more (MM) Charts.