e10vq
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008
|
|
|
o |
|
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
1-33350
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
52-2289365
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
9770 Patuxent Woods Drive
Columbia, Maryland
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
21046
(Zip Code) |
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (410) 290-1616
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer, and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ
As
of April 30, 2008, there were 24,989,055 outstanding shares of the registrants Common Stock.
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
Form 10-Q
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part I |
|
|
|
|
Item 1. |
|
Financial Statements |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and
2007 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders Equity for the three months ended
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and
2007 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements |
|
|
7 |
|
Item 2. |
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
|
|
19 |
|
Item 3. |
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk |
|
|
29 |
|
Item 4. |
|
Controls and Procedures |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part II |
|
|
|
|
Item 1 |
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
|
31 |
|
Item 1A |
|
Risk Factors |
|
|
31 |
|
Item 2 |
|
Unregistered Sales of Equity Security and Use of Proceeds |
|
|
45 |
|
Item 3 |
|
Defaults Upon Senior Securities |
|
|
45 |
|
Item 4 |
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
|
|
45 |
|
Item 5 |
|
Other Information |
|
|
45 |
|
Item 6 |
|
Exhibits |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signatures |
|
|
46 |
|
Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands, except par value and share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
44,961 |
|
|
$ |
33,071 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
58,995 |
|
|
|
69,816 |
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for
doubtful accounts of $110 in 2008 and $160 in
2007 |
|
|
13,979 |
|
|
|
20,689 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
6,105 |
|
|
|
4,863 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
2,317 |
|
|
|
2,651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
126,357 |
|
|
|
131,090 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
5,211 |
|
|
|
4,041 |
|
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization |
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
592 |
|
Investments |
|
|
4,065 |
|
|
|
4,140 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
1,017 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
986 |
|
|
|
815 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
138,196 |
|
|
$ |
141,678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
4,037 |
|
|
$ |
5,930 |
|
Accrued compensation and related expenses |
|
|
3,423 |
|
|
|
3,151 |
|
Other accrued expenses |
|
|
1,965 |
|
|
|
1,458 |
|
Current portion of deferred revenue |
|
|
18,283 |
|
|
|
18,417 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
28,290 |
|
|
|
29,788 |
|
Deferred revenue, less current portion |
|
|
2,707 |
|
|
|
2,610 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
31,086 |
|
|
|
32,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 240,000,000
shares authorized; 24,984,928 and 24,642,433
shares issued and outstanding as of March 31, 2008
and December 31, 2007, respectively |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
154,802 |
|
|
|
153,693 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(48,019 |
) |
|
|
(44,523 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
107,110 |
|
|
|
109,194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
138,196 |
|
|
$ |
141,678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
3
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)
(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products |
|
$ |
6,851 |
|
|
$ |
5,650 |
|
Technical support and professional services |
|
|
6,800 |
|
|
|
4,805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
|
13,651 |
|
|
|
10,455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Products |
|
|
1,997 |
|
|
|
1,556 |
|
Technical support and professional services |
|
|
1,041 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
|
3,038 |
|
|
|
2,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
10,613 |
|
|
|
8,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
3,111 |
|
|
|
2,501 |
|
Sales and marketing |
|
|
7,234 |
|
|
|
5,947 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
4,414 |
|
|
|
2,328 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
492 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
15,251 |
|
|
|
11,138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(4,638 |
) |
|
|
(2,967 |
) |
Other income, net |
|
|
1,204 |
|
|
|
491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes |
|
|
(3,434 |
) |
|
|
(2,476 |
) |
Income tax expense |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
|
(3,496 |
) |
|
|
(2,488 |
) |
Accretion of preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(870 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders |
|
$ |
(3,496 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,358 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(0.14 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding used in computing per share amounts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
|
24,766,375 |
|
|
|
8,623,982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
4
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY (UNAUDITED)
(in thousands, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
Paid In |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Capital |
|
|
Deficit |
|
|
Income |
|
|
Total |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2008 |
|
|
24,642,433 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
153,693 |
|
|
$ |
(44,523 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
109,194 |
|
Exercise of common stock options |
|
|
65,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
Issuance of common stock under
employee stock purchase plan |
|
|
17,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
Issuance of restricted common stock |
|
|
264,335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of restricted common stock |
|
|
(4,250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
922 |
|
Excess tax benefit relating to
share-based payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Other comprehensive income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss for the three months ended
March 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,496 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,496 |
) |
Net unrealized gain on
investments, net of taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,193 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2008 |
|
|
24,984,928 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
154,802 |
|
|
$ |
(48,019 |
) |
|
$ |
303 |
|
|
$ |
107,110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
5
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(3,496 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,488 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
499 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
Provision for doubtful accounts |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
Non-cash stock-based compensation |
|
|
922 |
|
|
|
524 |
|
Amortization of premium on investments |
|
|
(345 |
) |
|
|
(123 |
) |
Realized gain from sales of investments |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
6,710 |
|
|
|
5,547 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
(1,187 |
) |
|
|
(1,284 |
) |
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
(1,350 |
) |
Accounts payable |
|
|
(1,893 |
) |
|
|
(537 |
) |
Accrued expenses |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
1,216 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(247 |
) |
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
1,844 |
|
|
|
2,176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment |
|
|
(1,692 |
) |
|
|
(1,263 |
) |
Purchase of investments |
|
|
(19,162 |
) |
|
|
(5,950 |
) |
Proceeds from maturities of investments |
|
|
27,500 |
|
|
|
7,150 |
|
Proceeds from sales of investments |
|
|
3,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in restricted cash |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
9,859 |
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
113 |
|
Repayments of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,424 |
) |
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of underwriters discount of $6,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,288 |
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options |
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Excess tax benefits related to share-based payments |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of equity offering costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(878 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities |
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
84,111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
11,890 |
|
|
|
86,224 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
33,071 |
|
|
|
13,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
44,961 |
|
|
$ |
99,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.
6
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
1. Description of Business
Founded in January 2001, Sourcefire, Inc. (the Company) is a provider of Enterprise Threat
Management (ETM) solutions for information technology (IT) infrastructures of commercial
enterprises (e.g., healthcare, financial services, manufacturing, energy, education, retail,
telecommunications) and federal and state government organizations. The Sourcefire 3D
Systemcomprised of multiple Sourcefire hardware and software product offeringsprovides a
comprehensive, intelligent network defense that unifies intrusion prevention system (IPS),
network behavior analysis (NBA), network access control (NAC) and vulnerability assessment
(VA) solutions under a common management framework.
The
Company is also the creator of Snort® and the owner of ClamAVTM. Snort® is an
open source intrusion prevention technology that is incorporated into the IPS software component of
the Sourcefire 3D System (Discover, Determine, Defend). ClamAV is an open source gateway
anti-virus and anti-malware project.
In addition to its commercial and open source network security products, Sourcefire also
offers a variety of services to aid its customers with installing and supporting Sourcefire ETM
solutions. Available services include Customer Support, Education, Product Services and Sourcefire
Vulnerability Research Team (VRT) Snort rule subscriptions.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial reporting and in accordance
with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Certain information and
footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States have been condensed or omitted
pursuant to those rules or regulations. The interim financial statements are unaudited, but reflect
all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) which are, in the opinion of management,
considered necessary for a fair presentation. These financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the notes included in the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2008. The results of operations for the interim periods are
not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in future periods.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ
from those estimates.
On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to the accounts
receivable allowance, reserve for excess and obsolete inventory, useful lives of long-lived assets
(including intangible assets), income taxes, and its assumptions used for the purpose of
determining stock-based compensation, among other things. The Company bases its estimates on
historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the
results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and
liabilities.
7
Investments
The Company accounts for investments in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities. Management determines the appropriate classification of debt securities at the time of
purchase and reevaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. The Companys investments are
comprised of money market funds, corporate debt investments, asset-backed securities and commercial
paper. These investments have been classified as available-for-sale investments.
Available-for-sale securities are stated at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net
of tax, reported in other comprehensive income. The amortization of premiums and accretion of
discounts to maturity is computed under the effective interest method. Such amortization is
included in interest and investment income. Interest on securities classified as available-for-sale
is also included in interest and investment income. (See Note 3 for further discussion of the
classification of the Companys investments.) The Company reviews its investments on a regular
basis to determine whether an other-than-temporary decline in fair value has occurred. Any
other-than-temporary declines in fair value are recorded in earnings, and a new cost basis for the
investment is established.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
The Company makes estimates regarding its ability to collect its accounts receivable. When
the Company evaluates the adequacy of its allowance for doubtful accounts, it considers multiple
factors, including historical write-off experience, the need for specific customer reserves, the
aging of its receivables, customer creditworthiness and changes in customer payment cycles.
Historically, the Companys allowance for doubtful accounts has been adequate based on actual
results. If any of the factors used to calculate the allowance for doubtful accounts change or does
not reflect the future ability to collect outstanding receivables, additional provisions for
doubtful accounts may be needed, and the Companys future results of operations could be materially
affected.
Inventories
Inventories consist of hardware and related component parts and are stated at the lower of
cost (on a first-in, first-out basis) or market. A significant portion of the Companys inventory
includes products used for customer testing and evaluation. This inventory is predominantly located
at the customers premises. Inventory that is obsolete or in excess of the Companys forecasted
demand is written down to its estimated net realizable value based on historical usage, expected
demand, and evaluation unit age. Inherent in the Companys estimates of market value in determining
inventory valuation are estimates related to economic trends, as well as technological obsolescence
of the Companys products.
Revenue Recognition
The Company derives revenue from arrangements that include products with embedded software,
software licenses and royalties, technical support, and professional services. Revenue from
products in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations consists primarily of sales of
software-based appliances, but also includes fees and royalties for the license of the Companys
technology in a software-only format and subscriptions to receive rules released by the VRT that
are used to update the appliances for current exploits and vulnerabilities. Technical support,
which typically has a term of 12 to 48 months, includes telephone and web-based support, software
updates, and rights to software upgrades on a when-and-if-available basis. Professional services
include training and consulting.
For each arrangement, the Company defers revenue recognition until: (a) persuasive evidence of
an arrangement exists (e.g., a signed contract); (b) delivery of the product has occurred and there
are no remaining obligations or substantive customer acceptance provisions; (c) the fee is fixed or
determinable; and (d) collection of the fee is probable.
The Company allocates the total arrangement fee among each deliverable based on the fair value
of each of the deliverables, determined based on vendor-specific objective evidence. If
vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value does not exist for each of the deliverables, all
revenue from the arrangement is deferred until the earlier of the point at which sufficient
vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value can be determined for any undelivered elements or
all elements of the arrangement have been delivered. However, if the only undelivered elements are
elements for which the Company currently has vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value, the
Company recognizes revenue for the delivered elements based on the residual method as prescribed by
the AICPA Statement of Position (SOP) 98-9, Modification of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue
Recognition with Respect to Certain Transactions.
8
The Company has established vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value for its technical
support based upon actual renewals of each type of technical support that is offered and for each
customer class. Technical support and technical support renewals are currently priced based on a
percentage of the list price of the respective product or software and historically have not varied
from a narrow range of values in the substantial majority of the Companys arrangements. Revenue
related to technical support is deferred and recognized ratably over the contractual period of the
technical support arrangement, which ranges from 12 to 48 months in most arrangements. The
vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value of the Companys other services is based on the
price for these same services when they are sold separately. Revenue for services that are sold
either on a stand-alone basis or included in multiple element arrangements is deferred and
recognized as the services are performed.
All amounts billed or received in excess of the revenue recognized are included in deferred
revenue. In addition, the Company defers all direct costs associated with revenue that has been
deferred. These amounts are included in either prepaid expenses and other current assets or
inventory in the accompanying balance sheets, depending on the nature of the costs and the reason
for the deferral.
For sales through resellers and distributors, the Company recognizes revenue upon the shipment
of the product only if those resellers and distributors provide the Company, at the time of placing
their order, with the identity of the end-user customer to whom the product has been sold. The
Company does not currently offer any rights to return products sold to resellers and distributors.
To the extent that a reseller or distributor requests an inventory or stock of products, the
Company defers revenue on that product until it receives notification that it has been sold through
to an identified end-user.
The Company records taxes collected on revenue-producing activities on a net basis.
For the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, the Company had no significant customers
that accounted for greater than 10% of revenue recognized during such periods.
Warranty
The Company warrants that its software will perform in accordance with its documentation for a
period of 90 days from the date of shipment. Similarly, the Company warrants that the hardware will
perform in accordance with its documentation for a period of one year from date of shipment. The
Company further agrees to repair or replace software or products that do not conform to those
warranties. The one-year warranty on hardware coincides with the hardware warranty that the Company
has obtained from the manufacturer. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its
warranties and records a liability at the time product revenue is recognized. Factors that affect
the Companys warranty liability include the number of sold units, historical and anticipated rates
of warranty claims and the estimated cost per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy
of its recorded warranty liability and adjusts the amounts as necessary. While warranty costs have
historically been within the Companys expectations, it is possible that warranty rates will change
in the future based on new product introductions and other factors.
Income Taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes.
Deferred income taxes are recorded for the expected tax consequences of temporary differences
between the tax basis of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and amounts
recognized for income tax purposes. The Company records a valuation allowance to reduce the
Companys deferred tax assets to the amount of future tax benefit that is more likely than not to
be realized. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the Companys net deferred tax assets were
fully reserved except for a foreign deferred tax benefit of $39,000 and $29,000, respectively, expected to be available to
offset foreign tax liabilities in the future. The Company recorded a provision for income taxes of $62,000
and $12,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, related to foreign
income taxes.
9
On January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty
in Income Taxes, an interpretation of SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (FIN 48). FIN 48
clarifies the accounting for income taxes by prescribing a minimum recognition threshold a tax
position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. FIN 48 also
provides guidance on derecognition, measurement, classification, interest and penalties, accounting
in interim periods, disclosure and transition. The adoption of FIN 48 did not have an impact on the
Companys financial position or results of operations.
Stock-Based Compensation
On January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No.
123(R), Share-Based Payment, which requires the Company to expense the cost of employee services
received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant date fair value of the
award. The expense must be recognized ratably over the requisite service period following the date
of grant. The Company applied the prospective transition method, which requires the Company to
apply its provisions only to awards granted, modified, repurchased or cancelled after the effective
date. Under this prospective transition method, stock-based compensation expense recognized
beginning January 1, 2006 is based on the grant date fair value of stock awards granted or modified
after January 1, 2006. As the Company had used the minimum value method for valuing its stock
options under the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock Based Compensation,
all options granted prior to January 1, 2006 continue to be accounted for under Accounting
Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. Additionally,
the pro forma disclosures that were required under the original provisions of SFAS No. 123 are no
longer provided for outstanding awards accounted for under the intrinsic-value method of APB No. 25
beginning in periods after the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles
and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair
value measurements, but provides guidance on how to measure fair value by providing a fair value
hierarchy used to classify the source of the information. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No.
157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157
(FSP 157-2), which delays the effective date of
SFAS No. 157 by one year for all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except those
that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at
least annually). On January 1, 2008, the Company adopted SFAS No. 157 for financial assets and
liabilities. The adoption did not have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements.
See Note 6 for additional discussion of fair value measurements. The Company has not yet
determined the impact on its consolidated financial statements, if any, from the adoption of SFAS
No. 157, as it pertains to non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and
Financial Liabilities, which allows companies to measure financial assets or liabilities at fair
value that are currently not required to be measured at fair value. Entities that elect the fair
value option will report unrealized gains and losses in net income rather than as part of equity. The Company
has not elected to adopt SFAS No. 159.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations. SFAS No.
141R will significantly change the accounting for business combinations in a number of areas,
including the treatment of contingent consideration, contingencies, acquisition costs, in-process
research and development and restructuring costs. In addition, under SFAS No. 141R, changes in
deferred tax asset valuation allowances and acquired income tax uncertainties in a business
combination after the measurement period will impact income tax expense. SFAS 141R is effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and the Company will adopt this standard on January
1, 2009. The Company has not yet determined the impact, if any, of SFAS No. 141R on its
consolidated financial statements.
10
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Non-Controlling Interests in Consolidated
Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51. SFAS No. 160 will change the accounting and
reporting for minority interests, which will be re-characterized as non-controlling interests and
classified as a component of equity. This new consolidation method will significantly change the
accounting for transactions with minority interest holders. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2008, and the Company will adopt this standard on January 1,
2009. The Company has not yet determined the impact, if any, of SFAS No. 160 on its consolidated
financial statements.
3. Investments
Prior to the first quarter of 2008, the Companys investment portfolio was designated as
held-to-maturity, as the Company had the positive intent and ability to hold the securities to
maturity, and had historically held all of its investments until their full maturity. During the
first quarter of 2008, the Company determined that it no longer had the intent to hold its
investments until maturity due to the desire to better manage its investment risks in the currently
volatile credit markets. Accordingly, the amortized cost for all investment securities was
reclassified from held-to-maturity to available-for-sale, and the unrealized holding gain at the
date of the transfer was reported in other comprehensive income. At the
date of the transfer, the amortized cost and unrealized holding gains for all investments were $93.8
million and $321,000, respectively. All investment securities are currently measured at fair value
(see Note 6 for additional information).
During the first quarter of 2008, the Company sold securities for proceeds of $3.2 million and
recorded a realized gain of $23,000.
The following is a summary of available-for-sale investments as of March 31, 2008 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Money market funds |
|
$ |
28,251 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
28,251 |
|
Corporate debt investments |
|
|
22,505 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
22,588 |
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
|
8,271 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,329 |
|
Commercial paper |
|
|
35,168 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments |
|
|
94,195 |
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
|
94,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts classified as cash equivalents |
|
|
(31,438 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,438 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total available-for-sale investments |
|
$ |
62,757 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
63,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were no
other-than-temporary declines in investments recorded in the first
quarter of 2008. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the unrealized holding gains on available-for-sale
securities included in other comprehensive income totaled $303,000,
net of tax. The deferred tax expense recorded in other comprehensive
income was fully offset by tax benefits resulting from the reduction
in the valuation allowance the Company had recorded for deferred tax
assets related to net operating loss carryforwards as of December 31,
2007. The reversal of the valuation allowance was solely due to the
unrealized appreciation in the available-for-sale investments.
The net carrying value and estimated fair value of available-for-sale investments at March 31,
2008, by contractual maturity, are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized Cost |
|
|
Estimated Fair Value |
|
Due in one year or less |
|
$ |
58,721 |
|
|
$ |
58,995 |
|
Due after one year through five years |
|
|
4,036 |
|
|
|
4,065 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
62,757 |
|
|
$ |
63,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Share-Based Compensation
During 2002, the Company adopted the Sourcefire, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2002
Plan). The plan provides for the granting of equity-based awards, including stock options,
restricted or unrestricted stock awards, and stock appreciation rights to employees, officers,
directors, and other individuals as determined by the Companys Board of Directors. As of March
31, 2008, the Company has reserved an aggregate of 5,100,841 shares of common stock for issuance
under the 2002 Plan. Following the adoption of the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2007 Plan) described below, there are no
additional shares available for grant under the 2002 Plan.
11
In
March 2007, the Companys Board of Directors approved the
2007 Plan, which provides for the granting of equity-based awards, including stock
options, restricted or unrestricted stock awards, and stock appreciation rights to employees,
officers, directors, and other individuals as determined by the Board of Directors. As of December
31, 2007, the Company had reserved an aggregate of 3,142,452 shares of common stock for issuance
under the 2007 Plan. On January 1, 2008, under the terms of the 2007 Plan, the aggregate number of
shares reserved for issuance under the 2007 Plan was increased by an amount equal to 4% of the
Companys outstanding common stock as of December 31, 2007, or 985,697 shares. Therefore, as of
March 31, 2008, the Company has reserved an aggregate of 4,128,149 shares of common stock for
issuance under the 2007 Plan.
The 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan are administered by the Compensation Committee of the
Companys Board of Directors, which determines the vesting period for awards under the plans,
generally from three to four years. Options granted have a maximum term of 10 years. The exercise
price of the awards is generally equal to at least the fair value of the common stock on the date
of grant. Prior to the Companys initial public offering (IPO) in March 2007, the fair value of
the common stock was determined by the Companys Board of Directors in good faith. Following the
IPO, the fair value of the Companys common stock is determined by reference to the closing trading
price of the common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on the date of grant.
Valuation of Stock-Based Compensation
SFAS No. 123(R) requires the use of a valuation model to calculate the fair value of
stock-based awards. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model for estimating the
fair value of stock options granted and for employee stock purchases under the 2007 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (the 2007 ESPP). The use of option valuation models requires the input of highly
subjective assumptions, including the expected term and the expected price volatility.
Additionally, the recognition of expense requires the estimation of the number of options that will
ultimately vest and the number of options that will ultimately be forfeited.
Under the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R), the fair value of share-based awards is recognized as
expense over the requisite service period, net of estimated
forfeitures. The Company has assumed a
forfeiture rate of 15% per annum for options and 10% per annum for
restricted stock grants. The Company will record additional expense if the actual forfeiture rate is lower than
estimated, and it will record a recovery of prior expense if the actual forfeiture rate is higher
than estimated. The Company relies on historical experience of employee turnover to estimate its expected forfeitures.
12
The following are the weighted-average assumptions and fair values used in valuing the stock
options granted under the 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan and employee stock purchases under the 2007 ESPP:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
Stock options: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average risk-free interest rate |
|
|
2.97 |
% |
|
|
4.69 |
% |
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
Expected useful life (years) |
|
|
6.25 |
|
|
|
6.25 |
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
66.6 |
% |
|
|
78.1 |
% |
Weighted-average fair value per grant |
|
$ |
4.29 |
|
|
$ |
9.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average risk-free interest rate |
|
|
2.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Expected useful life (years) |
|
|
0.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
57.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average
fair value per purchase |
|
$ |
1.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
Average risk-free interest rate This is the average U.S. Treasury rate (with a term that
most closely resembles the expected life of the option) for the quarter in which the option was
granted.
Expected dividend yield The Company has never declared or paid dividends on its common
stock and does not anticipate paying dividends in the foreseeable future.
Expected
useful life This is the period of time that the stock
options granted under the 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan, and employee purchases under the 2007 ESPP are expected to
remain outstanding.
For
stock options granted under the 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan, this estimate is derived from the average midpoint between the
weighted-average vesting period and the contractual term as described in the SECs Staff Accounting
Bulletin (SAB) No.107, Share-Based Payment, as amended by SAB No. 110.
For
purchases under the 2007 ESPP, the expected useful life is the plan
period.
Expected volatility Volatility is a measure of the amount by which a financial variable
such as a share price has fluctuated (historical volatility) or is expected to fluctuate (expected
volatility) during a period.
For
stock options granted under the 2002 Plan and the 2007 Plan, given the Companys limited historical stock data from its IPO in
March 2007, the Company has used a blended volatility to estimate expected volatility. The blended
volatility includes the average of the Companys preceding daily historical volatility from its
initial public offering to the respective grant date and an average of the Companys peer group
preceding daily historical volatility consistent with the expected life of the option. The
Companys peer group historical volatility includes the historical volatility of companies that are
similar in revenue size, in the same industry or are competitors.
For
purchases under the 2007 ESPP, the Company uses its daily historical
volatility, since the Company has historical data available since its
IPO consistent with the expected useful life.
If the Company had made different assumptions about the stock price volatility rates, expected
useful life, expected forfeitures and other assumptions, the related compensation expense and net income
could have been significantly different.
13
The following table summarizes compensation expense included in the accompanying consolidated
statements of operations and the effect on net loss per share (in thousands, except per share
data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Product cost of revenue |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Services cost of revenue |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock based compensation expense included in cost of revenue |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Research and development |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
Sales and marketing |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation included in operating expenses |
|
|
894 |
|
|
|
516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation |
|
$ |
922 |
|
|
$ |
524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on net loss per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options
The following table summarizes the activity of the plans for the three months ended March 31,
2008 (in thousands, expect share and per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Range of |
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Intrinsic |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Prices |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
Value |
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2007 |
|
|
3,063,588 |
|
|
$ |
0.24 to $15.49 |
|
|
$ |
4.05 |
|
|
$ |
15,266 |
|
Granted |
|
|
254,869 |
|
|
|
5.97 to 7.45 |
|
|
|
6.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
(65,386 |
) |
|
|
0.24 to 5.26 |
|
|
|
1.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(146,873 |
) |
|
|
1.14 to 13.10 |
|
|
|
7.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2008 |
|
|
3,106,198 |
|
|
$ |
0.24 to $15.49 |
|
|
$ |
4.17 |
|
|
$ |
9,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and exercisable at March 31, 2008 |
|
|
2,040,243 |
|
|
$ |
0.24 to $15.49 |
|
|
$ |
2.16 |
|
|
$ |
8,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at March 31, 2008 |
|
|
2,762,070 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.71 |
|
|
$ |
9,176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
following table summarizes information about stock options
outstanding as of March 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding |
|
|
Options Exercisable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
Range of |
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
Exercise Prices |
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
Exercise Prices |
|
|
Life (Years) |
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
|
Exercise Prices |
|
$0.24 $0.32 |
|
|
822,270 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
|
4.99 |
|
|
|
822,270 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
$1.14 $2.03 |
|
|
1,069,641 |
|
|
|
1.63 |
|
|
|
6.62 |
|
|
|
886,593 |
|
|
|
1.56 |
|
$3.69 $9.48 |
|
|
806,096 |
|
|
|
7.47 |
|
|
|
8.67 |
|
|
|
265,475 |
|
|
|
7.39 |
|
$9.55 $15.49 |
|
|
408,191 |
|
|
|
12.16 |
|
|
|
9.06 |
|
|
|
65,905 |
|
|
|
12.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,106,198 |
|
|
$ |
4.17 |
|
|
|
7.04 |
|
|
|
2,040,243 |
|
|
$ |
2.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value of all options exercised during the three months ended March 31,
2008 and 2007 was $301,000 and $239,000, respectively.
Outstanding
stock option awards are generally subject to service-based vesting;
however, in some instances, awards contain provisions for
acceleration of vesting upon change in control and in certain other
circumstances. Based on the estimated grant date fair value of employee stock options granted, the Company
recognized compensation expense of $535,000 and $421,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008
and 2007, respectively. The grant date aggregate fair value of options, net of estimated
forfeitures, not yet recognized as expense as of March 31, 2008 was $4.7 million, which will be
recognized over a weighted average period of 2.63 years.
14
Restricted Stock Awards
The following table summarizes the unvested restricted stock award activity for the three
months ended March 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Unvested at December 31, 2007 |
|
|
295,680 |
|
|
$ |
10.56 |
|
Granted |
|
|
264,335 |
|
|
|
6.31 |
|
Restrictions Lapsed |
|
|
(23,970 |
) |
|
|
14.61 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(4,250 |
) |
|
|
9.59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested at March 31, 2008 |
|
|
531,795 |
|
|
$ |
8.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted
stock awards are subject to various restrictions including service-based vesting
provisions, performance-based vesting provisions and provisions for acceleration of vesting upon
change in control and in certain other circumstances. The compensation expense associated with
these awards is evaluated on a quarterly basis based upon various restrictions. The compensation
expense is recognized ratably over the estimated vesting period. The vesting restrictions for
outstanding restricted stock awards lapse over a period of 6 to 60 months.
The fair value of the unvested restricted stock awards is measured using the closing price of
the Companys stock on the date of grant, or the estimated fair value of the common stock if
granted prior to the Companys initial public offering. The total compensation expense related to
restricted stock awards for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 was $349,000 and
$103,000, respectively.
As of March 31, 2008, there was $3.0 million of unrecognized compensation expense, net of
estimated forfeitures, related to unvested restricted stock awards. This amount is expected to be
recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.88 years.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
On October 3, 2007, the stockholders of the Company approved the 2007 ESPP that had previously
been approved by the Companys Board of Directors. The Company adopted the 2007 ESPP to provide a
means by which the Companys employees, and employees of any parent or subsidiary of the Company as
may be designated by the Board of Directors, will be given an opportunity to purchase shares of the
Companys common stock. The 2007 ESPP allows eligible employees to purchase the Companys common
stock at 85% of the lower of the stock price at the beginning or ending of a six-month period. The
Compensation Committee of the Companys Board of Directors administers the 2007 ESPP. An aggregate
of 1,000,000 shares of the Companys common stock have been reserved for issuance under the 2007
ESPP. As of March 31, 2008, an aggregate of 17,024 shares were purchased under the 2007 ESPP for a
total of $89,000. The Company recognized $38,000 of compensation expense related to the 2007 ESPP
for the three months ended March 31, 2008.
15
5. Net Loss per Share
Basic net loss attributable to common stockholders per share is computed by dividing net loss
attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for
the period. Diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per share includes the potential
dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or
converted into common stock. The calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share for the three
months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 is summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders |
|
$ |
(3,496 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,358 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding |
|
|
24,766,375 |
|
|
|
8,623,982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to common stockholders per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
|
$ |
(0.14 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted net loss attributable to common stockholders per share are identical for all
periods presented in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. If the Companys
outstanding options, warrants and unvested restricted stock were exercised or converted into common
stock, the result would be anti-dilutive. The following summarizes the potential outstanding
common stock of the Company as of the end of each period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options to purchase common stock |
|
|
3,106,198 |
|
|
|
3,260,274 |
|
Shares of common stock into which outstanding warrants are convertible |
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,944 |
|
Unvested shares of restricted common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
3,106,198 |
|
|
|
3,385,053 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Fair Value Measurement
In the first quarter of 2008, the Company adopted SFAS No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements, for financial assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair value
measurements, but provides guidance on how to measure fair value by providing a fair value
hierarchy used to classify the source of the information.
SFAS No. 157 establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used
to measure fair value. This hierarchy requires entities to maximize the use of observable inputs
and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value
are as follows:
|
|
|
Level 1 Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the
measurement date for identical unrestricted assets or liabilities. |
|
|
|
|
Level 2 Quoted prices in markets that are not active or financial instruments for
which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
|
Level 3 Prices or valuations that require inputs that are both significant to the
fair value measurement and unobservable. |
The fair value measurement of an asset or liability is based on the lowest level of any input
that is significant to the fair value assessment. The Companys investments that are measured at
fair value on a recurring basis are generally classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair
value hierarchy.
16
The following table presents the Companys financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at
fair value as of March 31, 2008 by level within the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets at |
|
|
Fair Value Measurement
Using |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
Money market funds |
|
|
$ |
28,251 |
|
|
$ |
28,251 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Corporate debt investments |
|
|
|
22,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
|
|
8,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial paper |
|
|
|
35,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash equivalents and investments |
|
|
|
94,498 |
|
|
$ |
28,251 |
|
|
$ |
66,247 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
|
13,523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents and investments |
|
|
$ |
108,021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Business and Geographic Segment Information
The Company manages its operations on a consolidated basis for purposes of assessing
performance and making operating decisions. Accordingly, the Company does not have reportable
segments. Revenues by geographic area for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 were as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
United States |
|
$ |
9,534 |
|
|
$ |
7,670 |
|
All foreign countries |
|
|
4,117 |
|
|
|
2,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated total |
|
$ |
13,651 |
|
|
$ |
10,455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Legal Proceedings
On May 8, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
captioned Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al. , Case No. 1:07-cv-01210-WMN. Since then, two
other putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court of Maryland
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar
allegations, captioned Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01351-JFM and
Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01425-WMN. In addition, a fourth putative
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and other parties making similar
allegations, captioned Barry Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH.
Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, and an order entered on or about June 29, 2007, the
United States District Court of the Southern District of New York has transferred the Pincus case
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the Court).
These actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Companys common stock pursuant to an allegedly false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Companys March 9, 2007 IPO. These lawsuits allege
violations of Section 11, Section 12 and Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, as
amended, in connection with allegedly material misleading statements and/or omissions contained in
the Companys registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of class action status, compensatory and
rescission damages, a rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and costs on
behalf of a putative class.
On September 4, 2007, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the four putative class action
lawsuits into a single civil action. In that same order, the Court
also appointed Ms. Sandra Amrhein as lead plaintiff, the law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and Tydings &
Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. On October 4, 2007, Ms. Amrhein filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been asserted in one or more of
the four original actions.
On November 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On April 23, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. A
scheduling conference with the Court is expected to occur in May 2008.
17
The Court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can be certified. At this
time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in these actions. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.
From time to time, the Company is involved in other disputes and legal actions arising in the
ordinary course of its business.
9. Commitments and Contingencies
On February 27, 2008, the Company and E. Wayne Jackson III, the Companys Chief Executive
Officer, elected not to renew the term of the Employment Agreement, dated as of May 6, 2002, by and
between Mr. Jackson and the Company. As a result, Mr. Jacksons employment as the Companys Chief
Executive Officer is scheduled to expire at the close of business on May 5, 2008. Mr. Jackson has
agreed to continue to serve in his role as Chief Executive Officer until a successor is named. In
connection with the decision not to renew the term of Mr. Jacksons employment agreement, on
February 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Jackson entered into a transition agreement. The Company
accrued $316,000 in the first quarter of 2008 related to severance and benefits as outlined under
the transition agreement and based on the Companys anticipation that Mr. Jackson will perform the
necessary services set forth in the transition agreement. Upon
completion of all requirements of the transition agreement, Mr.
Jacksons unvested equity awards will accelerate and become
fully vested. The Company will record the remaining unamortized stock
compensation expense at that time.
The Company purchases components for its products from a variety of suppliers and uses several
contract manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for its products. During the normal course
of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate component supply,
the Company enters into agreements with contract manufacturers and suppliers that allow them to
procure inventory based upon information provided by the Company. In certain instances, these
agreements allow the Company the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust the Companys
requirements based on its business needs prior to firm orders being placed. Consequently, a portion
of the Companys reported purchase commitments arising from these agreements are firm,
non-cancelable, and unconditional commitments. As of March 31, 2008, the Company had total purchase
commitments for inventory of approximately $5.1 million.
The Company maintains office space in the United Kingdom for which the lease agreement
requires that the Company return the office space to its original condition upon vacating the
premises. The present value of the costs associated with this retirement obligation is
approximately $140,000, payable upon termination of the lease. This cost is being accreted based on
estimated discounted cash flows over the lease term.
10. Subsequent Event
On April 8, 2008, the Company entered into a second amendment to the lease agreement for its
headquarters in Columbia, Maryland, which expands the leased space by approximately 12,000 square
feet. The monthly rental fee for the additional space ranges from $13,500 to $14,400 per month for
a term beginning April 1, 2008 and expiring May 31, 2010.
18
Item 2. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
Certain statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q may constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words or phrases
would be, will allow, intends to, will likely result, are expected to, will continue,
is anticipated, estimate, project, or similar expressions, or the negative of such words or
phrases, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking
statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. Because such statements
include risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or
implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these
differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q,
particularly in Risk Factors, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Statements made herein are as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and should not be relied upon as of any subsequent date. Unless otherwise
required by applicable law, we do not undertake, and we specifically disclaim, any obligation to
update any forward-looking statements to reflect occurrences, developments, unanticipated events or
circumstances after the date of such statement.
The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations
should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes that
appear elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
and in Risk Factors in Part II, Item 1A in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Our actual results could
differ materially from those discussed in or implied by the forward-looking statements.
Introduction
Managements discussion and analysis of financial condition, changes in financial condition
and results of operations is provided as a supplement to the accompanying consolidated financial
statements and notes to help provide an understanding of Sourcefire, Inc.s financial condition and
results of operations. This item of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is organized as follows:
|
|
|
Overview. This section provides a general description of our business, the
performance indicators that we use in assessing our financial condition and results of
operations, and anticipated trends that we expect to affect our financial condition and
results of operations. |
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations. This section provides an analysis of our results of
operations for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as compared to the three months
ended March 31, 2007. |
|
|
|
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources. This section provides an analysis of our cash
flows for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and a discussion of our capital
requirements and the resources available to us to meet those requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates. This section discusses accounting
policies that are considered important to our financial condition and results of
operations, require significant judgment or require estimates on our part in applying
them. Our significant accounting policies, including those considered to be critical
accounting policies, are summarized in Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial
statements. |
Overview
We are a leading provider of Enterprise Threat Management, or ETM, solutions for information
technology infrastructures of commercial enterprises (e.g., healthcare, financial services,
manufacturing, energy, education, retail, telecommunications) and federal and state government
organizations. The Sourcefire 3D Systemcomprised of multiple Sourcefire hardware and
software product offeringsprovides a comprehensive, intelligent network defense that unifies
intrusion prevention system, or IPS, network behavior analysis, or NBA, network access control, or
NAC, and vulnerability assessment, or VA, solutions under a common management framework. This ETM
approach equips our customers with an efficient and effective layered security defenseprotecting
computer network assets before, during and after an attack.
19
We sell our network security solutions to a diverse customer base that includes 29 of the
Fortune 100 and over half of the 30 largest U.S. government agencies. We also manage two of the
security industrys leading open source initiatives, Snort and ClamAV.
Key Financial Metrics and Trends
Pricing and Discounts
We maintain a standard price list for all of our products. Additionally, we have a corporate
policy that governs the level of discounts our sales organization may offer on our products, based
on factors such as transaction size, volume of products, federal or state programs, reseller or
distributor involvement and the level of technical support commitment. Our total product revenue
and the resulting cost of revenue and gross profit percentage are directly affected by our ability
to manage our product pricing policy. Although to date we have not experienced pressure to reduce
our prices, competition is increasing and, in the future, we may be forced to reduce our prices to
remain competitive.
Revenue
We currently derive revenue from product sales and services. Product revenue is principally
derived from the sale of our network security solutions. Our network security solutions include a
perpetual software license bundled with a third-party hardware platform. Services revenue is
principally derived from technical support and professional services. We typically sell technical
support to complement our network security product solutions. Technical support entitles a customer
to product updates, new rule releases and both telephone and web-based assistance for using our
products. Our professional services revenue includes optional installation, configuration and
tuning, which we refer to collectively as network security deployment services. These network
security deployment services typically occur on-site after delivery has occurred.
Product sales are typically recognized as revenue at shipment of the product to the customer,
whether sold directly or through resellers. For sales made through distributors and original
equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, we do not recognize revenue until we receive a monthly sales
report indicating the product volume sold to end user customers. We recognize revenue from services
when the services are performed. For technical support services, we recognize revenue ratably over
the term of the support arrangement, which is generally 12 months. Our support agreements generally
provide for payment in advance and automatic renewals as evidenced by customer payment.
We
sell our network security solutions globally. However, 70% and 73% of our revenue for the
three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, was generated by sales to U.S.-based
customers. We expect that our revenue from customers based outside of the United States will
increase in amount and as a percentage of total revenue as we strengthen our international
presence. We also expect that our revenue from sales through OEMs and distributors will increase in
amount and as a percentage of total revenue as we expand our relationships with these third
parties.
Our product revenue has historically been highly seasonal, with more than one-third of our
total product revenue in recent fiscal years generated in the fourth quarter and more than 60% in
the second half of the year. The timing of our year-end shipments could materially affect our
fourth quarter product revenue in any fiscal year and sequential quarterly comparisons. Revenue
from our government customers has occasionally been influenced by the September 30th fiscal
year-end of the U.S. federal government, which has historically resulted in our revenue from
government customers being highest in the third quarter. Although we do not expect these general
seasonal patterns to change substantially in the future, our revenue within a particular quarter is
often affected significantly by the unpredictable procurement patterns of our customers. Our
prospective customers usually spend a long time evaluating and making purchase decisions for
network security solutions. Historically, many of our customers have not finalized their purchasing
decisions until the final weeks or days of a quarter. We expect these purchasing patterns to
continue in the future. Therefore, a delay in even one large order beyond the end of the quarter
could materially reduce our anticipated revenue for a quarter. Because many of our expenses must be
incurred before we expect to generate revenue, delayed orders could negatively impact our results
of operations for a particular period and could therefore cause us to fail to meet the financial
performance expectations of securities industry research analysts or investors.
20
Cost of Revenue
Cost of product revenue includes the cost of the hardware platform bundled into our network
security solution, royalties for third-party software included in our network security solution,
materials and labor that are incorporated in the quality assurance of our products, logistics,
warranty, shipping and handling costs and, in the limited instance where we lease our network
security solutions to our customers, depreciation and amortization. Hardware costs, which are our
most significant cost item, generally have not fluctuated materially as a percentage of revenue in
recent years because competition among hardware platform suppliers has remained strong and,
therefore, unit hardware costs have remained consistent. Because of the competition among hardware
suppliers and our outsourcing of the manufacture of our products to three separate domestic
contract manufacturers, we currently have no reason to expect that our cost of product revenue as a
percentage of total product revenue will change significantly in the foreseeable future due to
hardware pricing increases. However, hardware or other costs of manufacturing may increase in the
future. We incur labor and associated overhead expenses, such as occupancy costs and fringe
benefits costs, as part of managing our outsourced manufacturing process. These costs are included
as a component of our cost of product revenue, but they have not been material to date.
Cost of services revenue includes the direct labor costs of our employees and outside
consultants engaged to furnish those services, as well as their travel and associated direct
material costs. Additionally, we include in cost of services revenue an allocation of overhead
expenses such as occupancy costs, fringe benefits and supplies, as well as the cost of time and
materials to service or repair the hardware component of our products covered under a renewed
support arrangement beyond the manufacturers warranty. We anticipate incurring an increasing
amount of these services costs in the future for additional personnel to support and service our
growing customer base.
Gross Profit
Our gross profit is affected by a variety of factors, including competition, the mix and
average selling prices of our products, our pricing policy, technical support and professional
services, new product introductions, the cost of hardware platforms, the cost of labor to generate
such revenue and the mix of distribution channels through which our products are sold. Although we
have not had to reduce the prices of our products or vary our pricing policy in recent years, our
gross profit would be adversely affected by price declines if we are unable to reduce costs on
existing products and fail to introduce new products with higher margins. Currently, product sales
typically have a lower gross profit as a percentage of revenue than our services due to the cost of
the hardware platform. Our gross profit for any particular quarter could be adversely affected if
we do not complete a sufficient level of sales of higher-margin products by the end of the quarter.
As discussed above, many of our customers do not finalize purchasing decisions until the final
weeks or days of a quarter, so a delay in even one large order of a higher-margin product could
reduce our total gross profit percentage for that quarter. For the three months ended March 31,
2008 and 2007, gross margin was 78% for both periods. Based on current market conditions, we do not
expect these percentages to change significantly in the foreseeable future, although unexpected
pricing pressures or an increase in hardware or other costs would cause our gross profit percentage
to decline.
Operating Expenses
Research and Development. Research and development expenses consist primarily of payroll,
benefits and related occupancy and other overhead for our engineers, costs for professional
services to test our products, and costs associated with data used by us in our product
development.
We have significantly expanded our research and development capabilities and expect to
continue to expand these capabilities in the future. We are committed to increasing the level of
innovative design and development of new products as we strive to enhance our ability to serve our
existing commercial and federal government markets as well as new markets for security solutions.
To meet the changing requirements of our customers, we will need to fund investments in several
development projects in parallel. Accordingly, we anticipate that our research and development
expenses will continue to increase in absolute dollars for the foreseeable future, but should
decline moderately as a percentage of total revenue as we expect to grow our revenues more rapidly
than our research and development expenditures.
21
Sales and Marketing. Sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of salaries, incentive
compensation, benefits and related costs for sales and marketing personnel; trade show,
advertising, marketing and other brand-building costs; marketing consultants and other professional
services; training, seminars and conferences; travel and related costs; and occupancy and other
overhead costs.
As we focus on increasing our market penetration, expanding internationally and continuing to
build brand awareness, we anticipate that selling and marketing expenses will continue to increase
in absolute dollars, but decrease as a percentage of our revenue, in the future.
General and Administrative. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries,
incentive compensation, benefits and related occupancy and other overhead costs for executive,
finance, information system, human resources and administrative personnel; legal, accounting and
tax preparation and advisory fees; travel and related costs; information systems and infrastructure
costs; and corporate insurance.
General and administrative expenses increased during the period of time leading up to our IPO
and, as we operate as a public company, we have incurred additional expenses for costs associated
with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, directors and officers
liability insurance, our investor relations function, and an increase in personnel to perform SEC
reporting functions.
Stock-Based Compensation. Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted the fair value recognition
provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Boards (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting
Standard (SFAS) No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, using the prospective transition method, which
requires us to apply its provisions only to awards granted, modified, repurchased or cancelled
after the effective date. Under this transition method, stock-based compensation expense recognized
beginning January 1, 2006 is based on the grant date fair value of stock awards granted or modified
after January 1, 2006.
As a result of adopting SFAS No. 123(R) on January 1, 2006, based on the estimated grant date
fair value of stock-based awards, we recognized aggregate stock-based compensation expense of $922,000 and $524,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. We use the Black-Scholes option
pricing model to estimate the fair value of granted stock options. The use of option valuation
models requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected term and the
expected stock price volatility.
Results of Operations
Revenue. The following table shows products and technical support and professional services
revenue (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Products |
|
$ |
6,851 |
|
|
$ |
5,650 |
|
|
$ |
1,201 |
|
|
|
21 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
54 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technical support and professional services |
|
|
6,800 |
|
|
|
4,805 |
|
|
|
1,995 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
46 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue |
|
$ |
13,651 |
|
|
$ |
10,455 |
|
|
$ |
3,196 |
|
|
|
31 |
% |
The increase in our product revenue during the three months ended March 31, 2008 as compared
to 2007 was driven primarily by higher demand for our enterprise
class 3D products, sales of which increased by
$930,000. In addition, royalty income increased by $610,000. These revenue
increases were partially offset by a decrease in sales of our defense center products of $390,000.
The increase in our services revenue resulted from our support services being provided to a larger
installed customer base comprised of new customers, as well as current customers who renewed their
maintenance subscriptions.
22
Cost of revenue. The following table shows products and technical support and professional
services cost of revenue (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Products |
|
$ |
1,997 |
|
|
$ |
1,556 |
|
|
$ |
441 |
|
|
|
28 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technical support and professional services |
|
|
1,041 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
313 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue |
|
$ |
3,038 |
|
|
$ |
2,284 |
|
|
$ |
754 |
|
|
|
33 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in product cost of revenue was driven primarily by higher volume demand for our
sensor products, for which we must procure and provide the hardware platform to our customers. We
did not experience a material increase in our cost per unit of hardware platforms, which is the
largest component of our product cost of revenue. The increase in our services cost of revenue was
attributable to increased hardware service expense and our hiring of additional personnel to both
service our larger installed customer base and to provide training and professional services to our
customers.
Gross profit. The following table shows products and technical support and professional
services gross profit (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Products |
|
$ |
4,854 |
|
|
$ |
4,094 |
|
|
$ |
760 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
39 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technical support and professional services |
|
|
5,759 |
|
|
|
4,077 |
|
|
|
1,682 |
|
|
|
41 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
42 |
% |
|
|
39 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
10,613 |
|
|
$ |
8,171 |
|
|
$ |
2,442 |
|
|
|
30 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
78 |
% |
|
|
78 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit as a percentage of total revenue between periods remained relatively flat for
both products and services revenue.
Operating expense. The following table highlights our operating expenses (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Research and development |
|
$ |
3,111 |
|
|
$ |
2,501 |
|
|
$ |
610 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
23 |
% |
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales and marketing |
|
|
7,234 |
|
|
|
5,947 |
|
|
|
1,287 |
|
|
|
22 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
53 |
% |
|
|
57 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative |
|
|
4,414 |
|
|
|
2,328 |
|
|
|
2,086 |
|
|
|
90 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
22 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
492 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
36 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
$ |
15,251 |
|
|
$ |
11,138 |
|
|
$ |
4,113 |
|
|
|
37 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
112 |
% |
|
|
107 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2008 increased over the
prior-year quarter, primarily due to an increase in payroll, benefits and overhead expenses of
$526,000. These increased expenses resulted from the hiring of additional personnel in our research
and development department to support the release of updates and enhancements to our 3D products.
The increase in research and development expenses also included an increase in stock-based
compensation expense of $93,000.
Sales and marketing expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2008 increased over the
prior-year quarter, primarily due to an increase of $685,000 in payroll and benefit expenses for
additional sales and marketing
personnel, an increase of $219,000 in sales travel and
travel-related expenses and an increase of $134,000 for stock-based compensation expense.
23
General and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2008 increased over
the prior-year quarter, primarily due to an increase of payroll and benefit expenses of $335,000
for personnel hired in our accounting, information technology, human resources and legal
departments, severance and benefit expenses of $316,000 associated with the transition agreement with E. Wayne Jackson,
III, our Chief Executive Officer, an increase of $151,000 in stock-based compensation expense, an
increase of $888,000 in corporate development expenses and professional fees related to audit, tax
and regulatory compliance, and an increase of $96,000 for D&O
insurance premiums, which substantially increased beginning in March
2007 due to our IPO.
Depreciation and amortization expense for the three months ended March 31, 2008 increased over
the prior-year quarter, primarily due to additional lab and testing equipment purchased for our
engineering department and computers purchased for personnel hired since March 31, 2007.
Other income. The following table shows our other income, net (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Other income, net |
|
$ |
1,204 |
|
|
$ |
491 |
|
|
$ |
713 |
|
|
|
145 |
% |
Percentage of total revenue |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income for the three months ended March 31, 2008 increased over the prior-year quarter,
primarily due to an increase in interest and investment income as a result of higher cash and
investment balances resulting from our March 2007 IPO.
Income tax expense. The following table shows our provision for income taxes (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
Variance |
|
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
% |
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
NM |
NM not meaningful
We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount of future tax
benefit that is more likely than not to be realized. As of March 31, 2008, our net deferred tax assets
were fully reserved, except for a $39,000 benefit expected to be available to offset foreign tax
liabilities in the future. As of March 31, 2007, our net deferred tax assets were fully reserved. The
provision for income taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 relate to foreign
income taxes.
Seasonality
Our product revenue has tended to be seasonal. In our third quarter, we have historically
benefited from the Federal governments fiscal year end purchasing activity. This increase has been
partially offset by European sales, which have tended to decline significantly in the summer months
due to vacation practices in Europe and the resulting delay in capital purchase activities until
the fall. We have historically generated a significant portion of our product revenue in the fourth
quarter due to increased activity in Europe, coupled with North American enterprise customers who
operate on a calendar year budget and often wait until the fourth
quarter to make their most significant capital equipment purchases. The timing of these shipments could materially affect our year-end product
revenue. Currently, we do not see any indication that these seasonal patterns will change
significantly in the foreseeable future.
Quarterly Timing of Revenue
On a quarterly basis, we have usually generated the majority of our product revenue in the
final month of each quarter. We believe this occurs for two reasons. First, many customers wait
until the end of the quarter to extract favorable pricing terms from their vendors, including
Sourcefire. Second, our sales personnel, who have a strong
incentive to meet quarterly sales
targets, have tended to increase their sales activity as the end of a quarter nears, while their
participation in sales management review and planning activities are typically scheduled at the
beginning of a quarter.
24
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash Flows
Operating
Activities. The decrease of $332,000 in net cash provided by
operating activities during the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
compared to the same period in 2007, was primarily due to an increase
in our net loss, offset partially by changes in working capital and
deferred revenue and an increase in our stock-based compensation
expense.
Investing
Activities. The increase of $9.9 million in net cash provided by
investing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
compared to the same period in 2007, was primarily due to maturities
and sales of investments.
Financing
Activities. The decrease of $83.9 million in net cash provided by
financing activities during the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
compared to the same period in 2007, was primarily due to the $83.9
million in net cash proceeds of our IPO that closed in the first quarter of
2007.
As
of March 31, 2008, we had unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and investments of $108.0
million and working capital of $98.1 million.
Liquidity Requirements
We manufacture and distribute our products through contract manufacturers and OEMs. This
approach provides us with the advantage of relatively low capital investment and significant
flexibility in scheduling production and managing inventory levels. The majority of our products
are delivered to our customers directly from our contract manufacturers. Accordingly, our contract
manufacturers are responsible for purchasing and stocking the components required for the
production of our products, and they invoice us when the finished goods are shipped. By leasing
our office facilities, we also minimize the cash needed for expansion. Our capital spending is
generally limited to leasehold improvements, computers, office furniture and product-specific test
equipment.
Our short-term liquidity requirements through March 31, 2009 consist primarily of the funding
of capital expenditures and working capital requirements. We believe that cash flow from operations
will be sufficient to meet these short-term requirements. In the event that cash flow from
operations is not sufficient, we expect to fund these amounts through the use of existing cash and
investment resources.
As described above, our product sales are, and are expected to continue to be, highly
seasonal. This seasonality typically results in a significant amount of cash provided by our
operating activities during the first half of the year and lower or negative operating cash flows
during the second half of the year. We also believe that our current cash reserves are sufficient
for any short-term needs arising from the seasonality of our business.
Our long-term liquidity requirements consist primarily of obligations under our operating
leases and purchase commitments. We believe that cash flow from operations will also be sufficient
to meet these long-term requirements.
In addition, we may utilize cash resources, equity financing or debt financing to fund
acquisitions or investments in complementary businesses, technologies or product lines.
25
Contractual Obligations
The following table describes our commitments to settle contractual obligations in cash as of
March 31, 2008 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
One Year |
|
1-3 Years |
|
3-5 Years |
Operating Leases |
|
$ |
4,372 |
|
|
$ |
1,530 |
|
|
$ |
2,260 |
|
|
$ |
582 |
|
Purchase Commitments(1) |
|
|
5,134 |
|
|
|
5,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We purchase components from a variety of suppliers and use several contract
manufacturers to provide manufacturing services for our products. During the normal course of
business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help ensure adequate component
supply, we enter into agreements with contract manufacturers and suppliers that allow them to
procure inventory based upon information provided by us. In certain instances, these
agreements allow us the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust our requirements based on our
business needs prior to firm orders being placed. Consequently, a portion of our reported
purchase commitments arising from these agreements are firm, non-cancelable and unconditional
commitments. As of March 31, 2008, we had total purchase commitments for inventory of
approximately $5.1 million. |
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these consolidated financial
statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenue, costs and expenses and related disclosures. We evaluate our estimates
and assumptions on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from these estimates.
We believe that, of our significant accounting policies, which are fully described in
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in Part II, Item 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007, the following accounting policies involve a greater degree of
judgment and complexity. Accordingly, we believe that the following accounting policies are the
most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our consolidated financial condition and
results of operations.
Revenue Recognition. We recognize substantially all of our revenue in accordance with AICPA
Statement of Position (SOP) No. 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, as amended by SOP No. 98-4
and SOP No. 98-9. For each arrangement, we defer revenue recognition until persuasive evidence of
an arrangement exists, such as a signed contract; delivery of the product has occurred and there
are no remaining obligations or substantive customer acceptance provisions; the fee is fixed or
determinable; and collection of the fee is probable.
We allocate the total arrangement fee among each deliverable based on the fair value of each
of the deliverables, determined based on vendor-specific objective evidence. If vendor-specific
objective evidence of fair value does not exist for each of the deliverables, we defer all revenue
from the arrangement until the earlier of the point at which sufficient vendor-specific objective
evidence of fair value can be determined for any undelivered elements or all elements of the
arrangement have been delivered. However, if the only undelivered elements are elements for which
we currently have vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value, we recognize revenue for the
delivered elements based on the residual method.
We have established vendor-specific objective evidence of fair value for our technical support
based upon actual renewals of each type of technical support that is offered and for each customer
class. Technical support and technical support renewals are currently priced based on a percentage
of the list price of the respective product or software and historically have not varied from a
narrow range of values in the substantial majority of our arrangements. We defer and recognize
revenue related to technical support ratably over the contractual period of the technical support
arrangement, which generally ranges between 12 and 48 months. The vendor-specific objective
evidence of fair value of our other services is based on the price for these same services when
they are sold
separately. We defer and recognize revenue for services that are sold either on a stand-alone
basis or included in multiple element arrangements as the services are performed.
26
Changes in our judgments and estimates about these assumptions could materially impact the
timing of our revenue recognition.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted the fair value
recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123(R) using the prospective transition method, which requires
us to apply its provisions only to awards granted, modified, repurchased or cancelled after the
effective date. Under this transition method, stock-based compensation expense recognized beginning
January 1, 2006 is based on the grant date fair value of stock awards granted or modified after
January 1, 2006. As we had used the minimum value method for valuing our stock options under the
disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock Based Compensation, all options
granted prior to January 1, 2006 continue to be accounted for under Accounting Principles Board
Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, or APB No. 25. Additionally, the pro
forma disclosures that were required under the original provisions of SFAS No. 123 are no longer
provided for outstanding awards accounted for under the intrinsic-value method of APB No. 25
beginning in periods after the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).
Pursuant to SFAS No. 123(R), the fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of
grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model, which requires us to make assumptions as to
volatility, risk-free interest rate, expected term of the awards, and expected forfeiture rate.
The use of option valuation models requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, including
the expected term and the expected stock price volatility. Additionally, the recognition of expense
requires the estimation of the number of options that will ultimately vest and the number of
options that will ultimately be forfeited.
Under the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R), the fair value of share-based awards is recognized as
expense over the requisite service period, net of estimated forfeitures. We have assumed a
forfeiture rate of 15% per annum for options and 10% per annum for restricted stock grants. We will
record additional expense if the actual forfeiture rate is lower than estimated, and we will record
a recovery of prior expense if the actual forfeiture rate is higher than estimated. We rely on
historical experience of employee turnover to estimate our expected forfeitures.
Accounting
for Income Taxes. We account for income taxes in accordance with
SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. Deferred income taxes are recorded for the expected tax consequences
of temporary differences between the tax basis of assets and liabilities for financial reporting
purposes and amounts recognized for income tax purposes. We record a valuation allowance to reduce
deferred tax assets to the amount of future tax benefit that is more likely than not to be
realized. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, net deferred tax assets were fully reserved
except for a foreign deferred tax benefit of $39,000 and $29,000, respectively, expected to be available to offset foreign
tax liabilities in the future. We recorded a provision for income taxes of $62,000 and $12,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, related to foreign income taxes.
On January 1, 2007, we adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes, an interpretation of SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (FIN 48). FIN 48
clarifies the accounting for income taxes by prescribing a minimum recognition threshold a tax
position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. FIN 48 also
provides guidance on derecognition, measurement, classification, interest and penalties, accounting
in interim periods, disclosure and transition. The adoption of FIN 48 did not have an impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
Warranty. We warrant that our software will perform in accordance with its documentation for
a period of 90 days from the date of shipment. Similarly, we warrant that the hardware will perform
in accordance with its documentation for a period of one year from date of shipment. We further
agree to repair or replace software or products that do not conform to those warranties. The one
year warranty on hardware coincides with the hardware warranty that we obtain from the
manufacturer. We estimate the costs that may be incurred under our warranties and record a
liability at the time product revenue is recognized. Factors that affect our warranty liability
include the number of sold units, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and the
estimated cost per claim. We periodically assess the adequacy of our recorded warranty liability
and adjust the amounts as necessary. While
warranty costs have historically been within our expectations, it is possible that warranty
rates will change in the future based on new product introductions and other factors.
27
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts. We make estimates regarding the collectability of our
accounts receivable. When we evaluate the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts, we
consider multiple factors including historical write-off experience, the need for specific customer
reserves, the aging of our receivables, customer creditworthiness and changes in our customer
payment cycle. Historically, our allowance for doubtful accounts has been adequate based on actual
results. If any of the factors used to calculate the allowance for doubtful accounts change or does
not reflect the future ability to collect outstanding receivables, additional provisions for
doubtful accounts may be needed and the future results of operations could be materially affected.
Inventories. Inventory consists of hardware and related component parts and are stated at the
lower of cost (on a first-in, first-out basis) or market. A significant portion of our inventory
includes products used for customer testing and evaluation. This inventory is predominantly located
at the customers premises. Inventory that is obsolete or in excess of our forecasted demand is
written down to its estimated net realizable value based on historical usage, expected demand, and
evaluation unit age. Inherent in our estimates of market value in determining inventory valuation
are estimates related to economic trends, as well as technological obsolescence of our products.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles
and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 does not require any new fair
value measurements, but provides guidance on how to measure fair value by providing a fair value
hierarchy used to classify the source of the information. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No.
157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157
(FSP 157-2), which delays the effective date of
SFAS No. 157 by one year for all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except those
that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis (at
least annually). On January 1, 2008, we adopted SFAS
No. 157 for our financial assets and
liabilities. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not have a material impact on our financial statements. We have not
yet determined the impact on our consolidated financial statements, if any, from the adoption of
SFAS No. 157, as it pertains to our non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and
Financial Liabilities, which allows companies the option to measure financial assets or liabilities
at fair value and include unrealized gains and losses in net income rather than equity. We have
elected not to adopt SFAS No. 159.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations. SFAS No.
141R will significantly change the accounting for business combinations in a number of areas,
including the treatment of contingent consideration, contingencies, acquisition costs, in-process
research and development and restructuring costs. In addition, under SFAS No. 141R, changes in
deferred tax asset valuation allowances and acquired income tax uncertainties in a business
combination after the measurement period will impact income tax expense. SFAS 141R is effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and we will adopt this standard on January 1, 2009.
We have not yet determined the impact, if any, of SFAS No. 141R on our consolidated financial
statements.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Non-controlling Interests in Consolidated
Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51. SFAS No. 160 will change the accounting and
reporting for minority interests, which will be re-characterized as non-controlling interests and
classified as a component of equity. This new consolidation method will significantly change the
accounting for transactions with minority interest holders. SFAS No. 160 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2008, and we will adopt this standard on January 1, 2009. We
have not yet determined the impact, if any, of SFAS No. 160 on our consolidated financial
statements.
28
Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Foreign Currency Risk
Nearly all of our revenue is derived from transactions denominated in U.S. dollars, even
though we maintain sales and business operations in foreign countries. As such, we have exposure to
adverse changes in exchange rates, particularly the Euro, British pound and Yen, associated with
operating expenses of, and cash held in, our foreign operations, but we believe this exposure to be
immaterial at this time. As we grow our international operations, our exposure to foreign currency
risk could become more significant. We do not currently engage in currency hedging activities to
limit the risk of exchange rate fluctuations.
Interest Rate Sensitivity
We had unrestricted cash, cash equivalents and investments totaling approximately $108.0
million at March 31, 2008. The unrestricted cash and cash equivalents are held for working capital
purposes while investments, made in accordance with our low-risk investment policy, take advantage
of higher interest income yields. In accordance with our investment policy, we do not enter into
investments for trading or speculative purposes. Some of the securities in which we invest,
however, may be subject to market risk. This means that a change in prevailing interest rates may
cause the fair value amount of the investment to fluctuate. To minimize this risk in the future, we
intend to maintain our portfolio of cash equivalents, short- and long-term investments in a variety
of securities, including commercial paper, money market funds, debt securities and certificates of
deposit. Due to the nature of these investments, we believe that we do not have any material
exposure to changes in the fair value of our investment portfolio as a result of changes in
interest rates.
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of Sourcefires Disclosure Controls and Internal Controls. Our management, with
the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, has evaluated
the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended which we refer to as
the Exchange Act, pursuant to Rule 13a-15(c) under the Exchange Act as of the end of the period
covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls
and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be
disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in applicable SEC rules and forms and is
accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Limitations. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control systems 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. Because of the inherent
limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that
all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected. These
inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and
that breakdowns can occur because of simple errors or mistakes. Controls can also be circumvented
by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management
override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part upon certain
assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design
will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time,
controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of
compliance with our policies or procedures. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective
control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. We continuously
evaluate our internal controls and make changes to improve them.
29
Changes in Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting. There was no change in our internal
controls over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange
Act, that occurred during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over
financial reporting.
30
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
For a discussion of pending legal proceedings, see Note 8 Legal Proceedings in the Notes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I of this Form 10-Q.
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
Set forth below and elsewhere in this report and in other documents we file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, are risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to
differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this
report. The descriptions below include any material changes to and supersede the description of the
risk factors affecting our business previously disclosed in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors of our
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
Our expected transition to a new chief executive officer could be disruptive to our business, and
our inability to hire or retain other key personnel would also slow our growth.
On February 27, 2008, we announced that we and E. Wayne Jackson III, our Chief Executive
Officer, had agreed not to renew the term of Mr. Jacksons employment contract with us, which is
scheduled to expire at the close of business on May 5, 2008. Our board of directors has initiated
an external search process for a new Chief Executive Officer to succeed Mr. Jackson, who
will remain in his current role as Chief Executive Officer until we hire a successor.
While Mr. Jackson is fully cooperating with the search process, there can be no assurances
that the transition to a new Chief Executive Officer will be smooth. Our success depends in part on
having a successful Chief Executive Officer, yet we face significant competition for such an
executive. We may not be able to find a suitable successor for the Chief Executive Officer position
in a timely manner, and there are also no assurances that a new Chief Executive Officer would lead
us in a successful manner. Any failure to implement a smooth transition to such a successor could
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
In addition to the transition of our Chief Executive Officer position, our business is also
dependent on our ability to hire, retain and motivate highly qualified personnel, including other
senior management, sales and technical professionals. In particular, as part of our growth
strategy, we intend to expand the size of our direct sales force domestically and internationally
and to hire additional customer support and professional services personnel. However, competition
for qualified services personnel is intense, and if we are unable to attract, train or retain the
number of highly qualified sales and services personnel that our business needs, our reputation,
customer satisfaction and potential revenue growth could be seriously harmed. To the extent that we
hire personnel from competitors, we may also be subject to allegations that they have been
improperly solicited or divulged proprietary or other confidential information.
In light of the transition arrangement with Mr. Jackson as our Chief Executive Officer, our
future success will depend to a significant extent on the continued services of Martin Roesch, our
founder, and our other executive officers and senior personnel. Although we have recently adopted
retention plans applicable to certain of these officers, including Mr. Roesch, there can be no
assurance that we will be able to retain their services. The loss of the services of one or more of
these individuals could adversely affect our business and could divert other senior management time
in searching for their replacements.
We are in the process of implementing a new enterprise resource planning system and any material
disruption, malfunction or problem with the implementation or operation of this system may result
in disruption to our business, operating processes and internal controls.
31
The efficient operation of our business is dependent on the successful operation of our
information systems. In particular, we rely on our information systems to process financial
information, manage inventory and administer our sales transactions. In recent years, we have
experienced a considerable growth in transaction volume, headcount and reliance upon international
resources in our operations. Our information systems need to be sufficiently scalable to support
the continued growth of our operations and the efficient management of our business. In an effort
to improve the efficiency of our operations, achieve greater automation and support the growth of
our business, we are in the process of implementing a new enterprise resource planning system. As
we implement this system, we will be required to modify a number of operational processes and
internal control procedures. We expect to finalize implementation of this system in the third
quarter of 2008, and we cannot assure you that, upon implementation, the system will work as we
currently intend. Any material disruption, malfunction or similar problems with the implementation
or operation of this system could have a material negative effect on our business and results of
operations. In addition, if our information system resources are inadequate, we may be required to
undertake costly upgrades and the growth of our business could be harmed.
As a result of becoming a public company, we are obligated to develop and maintain proper and
effective internal controls over financial reporting and are subject to other requirements that
will be burdensome and costly. We may not complete our analysis of our internal controls over
financial reporting in a timely manner, or these internal controls may not be determined to be
effective, which may adversely affect investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the
value of our common stock.
Beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, we will
be required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 404), to furnish a
report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting. This assessment will need to include disclosure of any material weaknesses
identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. Our auditors may
also be required to issue an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over
financial reporting for the year ended December 31, 2008.
We are continuing the challenging process of compiling the system and processing documentation
before we perform the evaluation needed to comply with Section 404. We are also implementing a new
enterprise resource planning system in an effort to improve the efficiency of our operations,
achieve greater automation and support the growth of our business. We currently expect to complete
implementation of this system in the third quarter of 2008, which will require additional
modifications of our internal controls in order to comply with Section 404. We may not be able to
complete our evaluation, testing and any required remediation in a timely fashion. During the
evaluation and testing process, if we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal
control over financial reporting, we will be unable to assert that our internal control is
effective. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is
effective, or if our auditors are unable to attest that our internal control over financial
reporting is effective, we could lose investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our
financial reports, which could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
Failure to comply with these rules might make it more difficult for us to obtain certain types of
insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we might be forced to accept
reduced policy limits and coverage and/or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or
similar coverage. The impact of these events could also make it more difficult for us to attract
and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, on committees of our board of
directors, or as executive officers.
In addition, as a public company, we have and will continue to incur significant additional
legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, and our
administrative staff has been and will continue to be required to perform additional tasks. For
example, we have created and/or revised the roles and duties of our board committees, adopted
disclosure controls and procedures, retained a transfer agent and adopted an insider trading policy
and bear all of the internal and external costs of preparing and distributing periodic public
reports in compliance with our obligations under the securities laws. In addition, changing laws,
regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, and related
regulations implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ Global Market, are
creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and
making some activities more time-consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to
varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their
application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and
governing bodies. We
intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this
investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of
managements time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our
efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by
regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may
initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.
32
We have had operating losses since our inception, we expect operating expenses to increase in the
foreseeable future and we may never reach or maintain profitability.
We have incurred operating losses each year since our inception in 2001. Our net loss was
approximately $3.5 million and $2.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. Our
accumulated deficit as of March 31, 2008 is approximately $48.0 million. Becoming profitable will
depend in large part on our ability to generate and sustain increased revenue levels in future
periods. Although our revenue has generally been increasing, there can be no assurances that we
will become profitable in the near future or at any other time. We may never achieve profitability
and, even if we do, we may not be able to maintain or increase our level of profitability. We
expect that our operating expenses will continue to increase in the foreseeable future as we seek
to expand our customer base, increase our sales and marketing efforts, continue to invest in
research and development of our technologies and product enhancements and incur significant costs
associated with being a public company. These efforts may be more costly than we expect and we may
not be able to increase our revenue enough to offset our higher operating expenses. In addition, if
our new products and product enhancements fail to achieve adequate market acceptance, our revenue
will suffer. If we cannot increase our revenue at a greater rate than our expenses, we will not
become or remain profitable.
We face intense competition in our market, especially from larger, better-known companies, and we
may lack sufficient financial or other resources to maintain or improve our competitive position.
The market for network security monitoring, detection, prevention and response solutions is
intensely competitive, and we expect competition to increase in the future. We may not compete
successfully against our current or potential competitors, especially those with significantly
greater financial resources or brand name recognition. Our chief competitors include large software
companies, software or hardware network infrastructure companies, smaller software companies
offering relatively limited applications for network and Internet security monitoring, detection,
prevention or response and small and large companies offering point solutions that compete with
components of our product offerings.
Mergers or consolidations among these competitors, or acquisitions of our competitors by large
companies, present heightened competitive challenges to our business. For example, Cisco Systems,
Inc., McAfee, Inc., 3Com Corporation, Juniper Networks, Inc. and IBM have acquired, during the past
several years, smaller companies that have intrusion detection or prevention technologies. These
acquisitions may make these combined entities more formidable competitors to us if such products
and offerings are effectively integrated. Large companies may have advantages over us because of
their longer operating histories, greater brand name recognition, larger customer bases or greater
financial, technical and marketing resources. As a result, they may be able to adapt more quickly
to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements. They also have greater
resources to devote to the promotion and sale of their products than we have. In addition, these
companies have reduced and could continue to reduce, the price of their security monitoring,
detection, prevention and response products and managed security services, which intensifies
pricing pressures within our market.
Several companies currently sell software products (such as encryption, firewall, operating
system security and virus detection software) that our customers and potential customers have
broadly adopted. Some of these companies sell products that perform functions comparable to some of
our products. In addition, the vendors of operating system software or networking hardware may
enhance their products to include functions similar to those that our products currently provide.
The widespread inclusion of comparable features comparable to our software in operating system
software or networking hardware could render our products less competitive or obsolete,
particularly if such features are of a high quality. Even if security functions integrated into
operating system software or networking hardware are more limited than those of our products, a
significant number of customers may accept more limited functionality to avoid purchasing
additional products such as ours.
One of the characteristics of open source software is that anyone can offer new software
products for free under an open source licensing model in order to gain rapid and widespread market
acceptance. Such competition can develop without the degree of overhead and lead time required by
traditional technology companies. It is possible for new competitors with greater resources than
ours to develop their own open source security solutions, potentially reducing the demand for our
solutions. We may not be able to compete successfully against current and future
competitors. Competitive pressure and/or the availability of open source software may result
in price reductions, reduced revenue, reduced operating margins and loss of market share, any one
of which could seriously harm our business.
33
New competitors could emerge or our customers or distributors could internally develop alternatives
to our products, and either such development could impair our sales.
We may face competition from emerging companies as well as established companies who have not
previously entered the market for network security products. Established companies may not only
develop their own network intrusion detection and prevention products, but they may also acquire or
establish product integration, distribution or other cooperative relationships with our current
competitors. Moreover, our large corporate customers and potential customers could develop network
security software internally, which would reduce our potential revenue. New competitors or
alliances among competitors may emerge and rapidly acquire significant market share due to factors
such as greater brand name recognition, a larger installed customer base and significantly greater
financial, technical, marketing and other resources and experience.
Our quarterly operating results are likely to vary significantly and be unpredictable, in part
because of the purchasing and budget practices of our customers, which could cause the trading
price of our stock to decline.
Our operating results have historically varied significantly from period to period, and we
expect that they will continue to do so as a result of a number of factors, most of which are
outside of our control, including:
|
|
|
the budgeting cycles, internal approval requirements and funding available to our
existing and prospective customers for the purchase of network security products; |
|
|
|
|
the timing, size and contract terms of orders received, which have historically been
highest in the fourth quarter (representing more than one-third of our total revenue in
recent years), but may fluctuate seasonally in different ways; |
|
|
|
|
the level of perceived threats to network security, which may fluctuate from period to
period; |
|
|
|
|
the level of demand for products sold by original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs,
resellers and distributors that incorporate and resell our technologies; |
|
|
|
|
the market acceptance of open-source software solutions; |
|
|
|
|
the announcement or introduction of new product offerings by us or our competitors,
and the levels of anticipation and market acceptance of those products; |
|
|
|
|
price competition; |
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions, both domestically and in our foreign markets; |
|
|
|
|
the product mix of our sales; and |
|
|
|
|
the timing of revenue recognition for our sales. |
In particular, the network security technology procurement practices of many of our customers
have had a measurable influence on the historical variability of our operating performance. Our
prospective customers usually exercise great care and invest substantial time in their network
security technology purchasing decisions. As a result, our sales cycles are long, generally between
six and twelve months and often longer, which further impacts the variability of our results.
Additionally, many of our customers have historically finalized purchase decisions in the last
weeks or days of a quarter. A delay in even one large order beyond the end of a particular quarter
can substantially diminish our anticipated revenue for that quarter. In addition, many of our
expenses must be incurred before we generate revenue. As a result, the negative impact on our
operating results would increase if our revenue fails to meet expectations in any period.
The cumulative effect of these factors will likely result in larger fluctuations and
unpredictability in our quarterly operating results than in the operating results of many other
software and technology companies. This variability and unpredictability could result in our
failing to meet the revenue or operating results expectations of securities industry analysts or
investors for a particular period. If we fail to meet or exceed such expectations for these or any
other reasons, the market price of our shares could fall substantially, and we could face costly
securities class action suits as a result. Therefore, you should not rely on our operating results
in any quarter as being indicative of our operating results for any future period, nor should you
rely on other expectations, predictions or projections of our future revenue or other aspects of
our results of operations.
34
Economic, market and political conditions may adversely affect our revenue growth and our efforts
to achieve profitability.
Our business is influenced by a range of factors that are beyond our control. These include:
|
|
|
general economic and business conditions; |
|
|
|
|
the overall demand for network security products and services; and |
|
|
|
|
constraints on budgets and changes in spending priorities of corporations and government
agencies. |
A general weakening of the economy in the United States or of the global economy, or a
curtailment in corporate spending due to factors that affect one or more of the industries to which
we sell our products and services, could delay and decrease customer purchases, which could
adversely affect our revenue growth and results of operations. For example, the decline in
operating performance of financial institutions associated with the problems in the subprime
mortgage industry could cause our current or potential financial institution customers to delay or
forego purchases of our products and services. Our customers include, but are not limited to,
financial institutions, defense contractors, health care providers, information technology
companies, telecommunications companies and retailers. Similarly, a reduction in the budgets or
spending priorities of government agencies could adversely affect our revenue growth and results of
operations.
The market for network security products is rapidly evolving, and the complex technology
incorporated in our products makes them difficult to develop. If we do not accurately predict,
prepare for and respond promptly to technological and market developments and changing customer
needs, our competitive position and prospects will be harmed.
The market for network security products is relatively new and is expected to continue to
evolve rapidly. Moreover, many customers operate in markets characterized by rapidly changing
technologies and business plans, which require them to add numerous network access points and adapt
increasingly complex enterprise networks, incorporating a variety of hardware, software
applications, operating systems and networking protocols. In addition, computer hackers and others
who try to attack networks employ increasingly sophisticated new techniques to gain access to and
attack systems and networks. Customers look to our products to continue to protect their networks
against these threats in this increasingly complex environment without sacrificing network
efficiency or causing significant network downtime. The software in our products is especially
complex because it needs to effectively identify and respond to new and increasingly sophisticated
methods of attack, without impeding the high network performance demanded by our customers.
Although the market expects speedy introduction of software to respond to new threats, the
development of these products is difficult and the timetable for commercial release of new products
is uncertain. Therefore, we may in the future experience delays in the introduction of new products
or new versions, modifications or enhancements of existing products. If we do not quickly respond
to the rapidly changing and rigorous needs of our customers by developing and introducing on a
timely basis new and effective products, upgrades and services that can respond adequately to new
security threats, our competitive position and business prospects will be harmed.
If our new products and product enhancements do not achieve sufficient market acceptance, our
results of operations and competitive position will suffer.
We spend substantial amounts of time and money to research and develop new products and
enhanced versions of Snort, the Defense Center and our 3D Sensor and RNA products to incorporate
additional features, improved
functionality or other enhancements in order to meet our customers rapidly evolving demands
for network security in our highly competitive industry. When we develop a new product or an
advanced version of an existing product, we typically expend significant money and effort upfront
to market, promote and sell the new offering. Therefore, when we develop and introduce new or
enhanced products, they must achieve high levels of market acceptance in order to justify the
amount of our investment in developing and bringing the products to market.
35
Our new products or enhancements could fail to attain sufficient market acceptance for many
reasons, including:
|
|
|
delays in introducing new, enhanced or modified products; |
|
|
|
|
defects, errors or failures in any of our products; |
|
|
|
|
inability to operate effectively with the networks of our prospective customers; |
|
|
|
|
inability to protect against new types of attacks or techniques used by hackers; |
|
|
|
|
negative publicity about the performance or effectiveness of our intrusion prevention
or other network security products; |
|
|
|
|
reluctance of customers to purchase products based on open source software; and |
|
|
|
|
disruptions or delays in the availability and delivery of our products, which problems
are more likely due to our just-in-time manufacturing and inventory practices. |
If our new products or enhancements do not achieve adequate acceptance in the market, our
competitive position will be impaired, our revenue will be diminished and the effect on our
operating results may be particularly acute because of the significant research, development,
marketing, sales and other expenses we incurred in connection with the new product.
If existing customers do not make subsequent purchases from us or if our relationships with our
largest customers are impaired, our revenue could decline.
In the three months ended March 31, 2008, existing customers that purchased additional
products and services from us, whether for new locations or additional technology to protect
existing networks and locations, generated a majority of our total revenue for each respective
period. Part of our growth strategy is to sell additional products to our existing customers and,
in particular, to sell our RNA products to customers that previously bought our Intrusion Sensor
products. We may not be effective in executing this or any other aspect of our growth strategy. Our
revenue could decline if our current customers do not continue to purchase additional products from
us. In addition, as we deploy new versions of our existing Snort, 3D Sensor and RNA products or
introduce new products, our current customers may not require the functionality of these products
and may not purchase them.
We also depend on our installed customer base for future service revenue from annual
maintenance fees. Our maintenance and support agreements typically have durations of one year. No
single customer contributed greater than 10% of our recurring maintenance and support revenues in
the three months ended March 31, 2008. If customers choose not to continue their maintenance
service, our revenue may decline.
If we cannot attract sufficient government agency customers, our revenue and competitive position
will suffer.
Contracts with the U.S. federal and state and other national and state government agencies
accounted for 8% and 7% of our total revenue for three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. We lost many government agency customers when a foreign company tried unsuccessfully
to acquire us in late 2005 and early 2006. Since then, we have been attempting to regain government
customers, which subjects us to a number of risks, including:
|
|
|
Procurement. Contracting with public sector customers is highly competitive and can
be expensive and time-consuming, often requiring that we incur significant upfront time
and expense without any assurance that we will win a contract; |
|
|
|
|
Budgetary Constraints and Cycles. Demand and payment for our products and services
are impacted by public sector budgetary cycles and funding availability, with funding
reductions or delays adversely impacting public sector demand for our products, including
delays caused by continuing resolutions or other temporary funding arrangements; |
36
|
|
|
Modification or Cancellation of Contracts. Public sector customers often have
contractual or other legal rights to terminate current contracts for convenience or due
to a default. If a contract is cancelled for convenience, which can occur if the
customers product needs change, we may only be able to collect for products and services
delivered prior to termination. If a contract is cancelled because of default, we may
only be able to collect for products and alternative products and services delivered to
the customer; |
|
|
|
|
Governmental Audits. National governments and state and local agencies routinely
investigate and audit government contractors administrative processes. They may audit
our performance and pricing and review our compliance with applicable rules and
regulations. If they find that we improperly allocated costs, they may require us to
refund those costs or may refuse to pay us for outstanding balances related to the
improper allocation. An unfavorable audit could result in a reduction of revenue, and may
result in civil or criminal liability if the audit uncovers improper or illegal
activities; and |
|
|
|
|
Replacing Existing Products. Many government agencies already have installed network
security products of our competitors. It can be very difficult to convince government
agencies or other prospective customers to replace their existing network security
solutions with our products, even if we can demonstrate the superiority of our products. |
We are subject to risks of operating internationally that could impair our ability to grow our
revenue abroad.
We market and sell our software in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia,
and we plan to establish additional sales presence in these and other parts of the world.
Therefore, we are subject to risks associated with having worldwide operations. Sales to customers
located outside of the United States accounted for 30% of our total revenue for the three months
ended March 31, 2008 and 27% for the three months ended March 31, 2007. The expansion of our
existing operations and entry into additional worldwide markets will require significant management
attention and financial resources. We are also subject to a number of risks customary for
international operations, including:
|
|
|
economic or political instability in foreign markets; |
|
|
|
|
greater difficulty in accounts receivable collection and longer collection periods; |
|
|
|
|
unexpected changes in regulatory requirements; |
|
|
|
|
difficulties and costs of staffing and managing foreign operations; |
|
|
|
|
import and export controls; |
|
|
|
|
the uncertainty of protection for intellectual property rights in some countries; |
|
|
|
|
costs of compliance with foreign laws and laws applicable to companies doing business
in foreign jurisdictions; |
|
|
|
|
management communication and integration problems resulting from cultural differences
and geographic dispersion; |
|
|
|
|
multiple and possibly overlapping tax structures; and |
|
|
|
|
foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. |
To date, a substantial portion of our sales have been denominated in U.S. dollars, and we have
not used risk management techniques or hedged the risks associated with fluctuations in foreign
currency exchange rates. In the future, if we do not engage in hedging transactions, our results of
operations will be subject to losses from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.
In the future, we may not be able to secure financing necessary to operate and grow our business as
planned.
In the future, we may need to raise additional funds to expand our sales and marketing and
research and development efforts or to make acquisitions. Additional equity or debt financing may
not be available on favorable
terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to
fund the expansion of our sales and marketing and research and development efforts or take
advantage of acquisition or other opportunities, which could seriously harm our business and
operating results. If we issue debt, the debt holders would have rights senior to common
stockholders to make claims on our assets and the terms of any debt could restrict our operations,
including our ability to pay dividends on our common stock. Furthermore, if we issue additional
equity securities, stockholders would experience dilution, and the new equity securities could have
rights senior to those of our common stock.
37
Our inability to acquire and integrate other businesses, products or technologies could seriously
harm our competitive position.
In order to remain competitive, we intend to acquire additional businesses, products or
technologies. If we identify an appropriate acquisition candidate, we may not be successful in
negotiating the terms of the acquisition, financing the acquisition, or effectively integrating the
acquired business, product or technology into our existing business and operations. Any
acquisitions we are able to complete may not be accretive to earnings or result in the realization
of any expected strategic benefits. Further, completing a potential acquisition and integrating an
acquired business could significantly divert managements time and resources from the operation of
our business.
If other parties claim commercial ownership rights to Snort or ClamAV, our reputation, customer
relations and results of operations could be harmed.
While we created a majority of the current Snort code base and the current ClamAV code base, a
portion of the current code for both Snort and ClamAV was created by the combined efforts of
Sourcefire and the open source software community, and a portion was created solely by the open
source community. We believe that the portions of the Snort code base and the ClamAV base code
created by anyone other than by us are required to be licensed by us pursuant to the GNU General
Public License, or GPL, which is how we currently license Snort and ClamAV. There is a risk,
however, that a third party could claim some ownership rights in Snort or ClamAV, attempt to
prevent us from commercially licensing Snort or ClamAV in the future (rather than pursuant to the
GPL as currently licensed) or claim a right to licensing royalties. Any such claim, regardless of
its merit or outcome, could be costly to defend, harm our reputation and customer relations or
result in our having to pay substantial compensation to the party claiming ownership.
Our products contain third party open source software, and failure to comply with the terms of the
underlying open source software licenses could restrict our ability to sell our products.
Our products are distributed with software programs licensed to us by third party authors
under open source licenses, which may include the GPL, the GNU Lesser Public License, or LGPL,
the BSD License and the Apache License. These open source software programs include, without
limitation, Snort®, ClamAVTM, Linux, Apache, Openssl, Etheral, IPTables,
Tcpdump and Tripwire. These third party open source programs are typically licensed to us for a
minimal fee or no fee at all, and the underlying license agreements generally require us to make
available to the open source user community the source code for such programs, as well as the
source code for any modifications or derivative works we create based on these third party open
source software programs. With the exception of Snort and ClamAV, we have not created any
modifications or derivative works to any other open source software programs referenced above. We
regularly release updates and upgrades to the Snort and ClamAV software programs under the terms
and conditions of the GNU GPL version 2.
Included with our software and/or appliances are copies of the relevant source code and
licenses for the open source programs. Alternatively, we include instructions to users on how to
obtain copies of the relevant open source code and licenses. Additionally, if we combine our
proprietary software with third party open source software in a certain manner, we could, under the
terms of certain of these open source license agreements, be required to release the source code of
our proprietary software. This could also allow our competitors to create similar products, which
would result in a loss of our product sales. We do not provide end users with a copy of the source
code to our proprietary software because we believe that the manner in which our proprietary
software is aligned with the relevant open source programs does not create a modification or
derivative work of that open source program requiring the distribution of our proprietary source
code. Our ability to commercialize our products by incorporating third party open source software
may be restricted because, among other reasons:
38
|
|
|
the terms of open source license agreements may be unclear and subject to varying
interpretations, which could result in unforeseen obligations regarding our proprietary
products; |
|
|
|
|
it may be difficult to determine the developers of open source software and whether
such licensed software infringes another partys intellectual property rights; |
|
|
|
|
competitors will have greater access to information by obtaining these open source
products, which may help them develop competitive products; and |
|
|
|
|
open source software potentially increases customer support costs because licensees
can modify the software and potentially introduce errors. |
We could be prevented from selling or developing our products if the GNU General Public License and
similar licenses under which our products are developed and licensed are not enforceable or are
modified so as to become incompatible with other open source licenses.
A number of our products and services have been developed and licensed under the GNU General
Public License and similar open source licenses. These licenses state that any program licensed
under them may be liberally copied, modified and distributed. It is possible that a court would
hold these licenses to be unenforceable in that or other litigation or that someone could assert a
claim for proprietary rights in a program developed and distributed under them. Any ruling by a
court that these licenses are not enforceable, or that open source components of our product
offerings may not be liberally copied, modified or distributed, may have the effect of preventing
us from distributing or developing all or a portion of our products. In addition, licensors of open
source software employed in our offerings may, from time to time, modify the terms of their license
agreements in such a manner that those license terms may no longer be compatible with other open
source licenses in our offerings or our end user license agreement, and thus could, among other
consequences, prevent us from continuing to distribute the software code subject to the modified
license.
The software program Linux is included in our products and is licensed under the GPL. The GPL
is the subject of litigation in the case of The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines
Corp., pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. It is possible that
the court could rule that the GPL is not enforceable in such litigation. Any ruling by the court
that the GPL is not enforceable could have the effect of limiting or preventing us from using Linux
as currently implemented.
Efforts to assert intellectual property ownership rights in our products could impact our standing
in the open source community, which could limit our product innovation capabilities.
If we were to undertake actions to protect and maintain ownership and control over our
proprietary intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademark rights and trade
secrets, our standing in the open source community could be diminished which could result in a
limitation on our ability to continue to rely on this community as a resource to identify and
defend against new viruses, threats and techniques to attack secure networks, explore new ideas and
concepts and further our research and development efforts.
Our proprietary rights may be difficult to enforce, which could enable others to copy or use
aspects of our products without compensating us.
We rely primarily on copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret laws, confidentiality
procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary rights. As of the date hereof, we
have three patents issued and 33 applications pending for examination in the U.S. and foreign
jurisdictions. We also hold numerous registered United States and foreign trademarks and have a
number of trademark applications pending in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions. Valid
patents may not be issued from pending applications, and the claims allowed on any patents may not
be sufficiently broad to protect our technology or products. Any issued patents may be challenged,
invalidated or circumvented, and any rights granted under these patents may not actually provide
adequate protection or competitive advantages to us. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary
rights, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain and use
information that we regard as proprietary. Policing unauthorized use of our technologies or
products is difficult. Our products incorporate open source Snort and
ClamAV software, which is readily available to the public. To the extent that our proprietary
software is included by others in what are purported to be open source products, it may be
difficult and expensive to enforce our rights in such software. In addition, the laws of some
foreign countries do not protect our proprietary rights to as great an extent as do the laws of the
United States, and many foreign countries do not enforce these laws as diligently as U.S.
government agencies and private parties. It is possible that we may have to resort to litigation to
enforce and protect our copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets, which litigation could
be costly and a diversion of management resources. If we are unable to protect our proprietary
rights to the totality of the features in our software and products (including aspects of our
software and products protected other than by patent rights), we may find ourselves at a
competitive disadvantage to others who need not incur the additional expense, time and effort
required to create products similar to ours.
39
In limited instances we have agreed to place, and in the future may place, source code for our
software in escrow, other than the Snort and ClamAV source code, which are publicly available. In
most cases, the source code may be made available to certain of our customers and OEM partners in
the event that we file for bankruptcy or materially fail to support our products. Release of our
source code may increase the likelihood of misappropriation or other misuse of our software. We
have agreed to source code escrow arrangements in the past only rarely and usually only in
connection with prospective customers considering a significant purchase of our products and
services.
Claims that our products infringe the proprietary rights of others could harm our business and
cause us to incur significant costs.
Technology products such as ours, which interact with multiple components of complex networks,
are increasingly subject to infringement claims as the functionality of products in different
industry segments overlaps. In particular, our RNA technology is a new technology for which we have
yet be issued a patent. It is possible that other companies have patents with respect to technology
similar to our technology, including RNA. 10 of our 33 pending patent applications relate to our
RNA technology and were filed in 2004 and 2005. If others filed patent applications before us,
which contain allowable claims within the scope of our RNA technology, then we may be found to
infringe on such patents, if and when they are issued. We are aware of at least one company that
has filed an application for a patent that, on its face, contains claims that may be construed to
be within the scope of the same broad technology area as our RNA technology. That company,
NetClarity, previously filed a suit against us for misappropriation and incorporation in our
products of its proprietary rights, as well as making claims that our RNA technology and 3D
security solutions are covered by claims in its pending patent application. This pending patent
application has not issued as a patent. On June 7, 2007, we reached a definitive agreement with
NetClarity, Inc. to settle this lawsuit and on June 13, 2007, the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts entered a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice.
Unless and until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, issues a patent to an
applicant, there can be no way to assess a potential patentees right to exclude. Depending on the
timing and substance of these patents and patent applications, our products, including our RNA
technology, may be found to infringe the proprietary rights of others, and we may be subject to
litigation with respect to any alleged infringement. The application of patent law to the software
industry is particularly uncertain, as the PTO has only recently begun to issue software patents in
large numbers, and there is a backlog of software-related patent applications pending claiming
inventions whose priority dates may pre-date development of our own proprietary software.
Additionally, in our customer contracts we typically agree to indemnify our customers if they incur
losses resulting from a third party claim that their use of our products infringes upon the
intellectual property rights of a third party. Any potential intellectual property claims against
us, with or without merit, could:
|
|
|
be very expensive and time consuming to defend; |
|
|
|
|
require us to indemnify our customers for losses resulting from such claims; |
|
|
|
|
cause us to cease making, licensing or using software or products that incorporate the
challenged intellectual property; |
|
|
|
|
cause product shipment and installation delays; |
|
|
|
|
require us to redesign our products, which may not be feasible; |
40
|
|
|
divert managements attention and resources; or |
|
|
|
|
require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements in order to obtain the right
to use a necessary product or component. |
Royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be available on acceptable terms, or at
all. A successful claim of infringement against us and our failure or inability to license the
infringed or similar technology could prevent us from distributing our products and cause us to
incur great expense and delay in developing non-infringing products.
We rely on software licensed from other parties, the loss of which could increase our costs and
delay software shipments.
We utilize various types of software licensed from unaffiliated third parties. For example, we
license database software from MySQL that we use in our 3D Sensors, our RNA Sensors and our Defense
Centers. Our Agreement with MySQL permits us to distribute MySQL software on our products to our
customers worldwide until December 31, 2010. We amended our MySQL agreement on December 29, 2006 to
give us the unlimited right to distribute MySQL software in exchange for a one-time lump-sum
payment. We believe that the MySQL agreement is material to our business because we have spent a
significant amount of development resources to allow the MySQL software to function in our
products. If we were forced to find replacement database software for our products, we would be
required to expend resources to implement a replacement database in our products, and there would
be no guarantee that we would be able to procure the replacement on the same or similar commercial
terms.
In addition to MySQL, we rely on other open source software, such as the Linux operating
system, the Apache web server and OpenSSL, a secure socket layer implementation. These open source
programs are licensed to us under various open source licenses. For example, Linux is licensed
under the GNU General Public License Version 2, while Apache and OpenSSL are licensed under other
forms of open source license agreements. If we could no longer rely on these open source programs,
the functionality of our products would be impaired, and we would be required to expend significant
resources to find suitable alternatives.
Our business would be disrupted if any of the software we license from others or functional
equivalents of this software were either no longer available to us, no longer offered to us on
commercially reasonable terms or offered to us under different licensing terms and conditions. For
example, our business could be disrupted if the widely-used Linux operating system were to be
released under the new Version 3 of the GNU General Public License, as we could be required to
expend significant resources to ensure that our use of Linux, as well as the manner in which our
proprietary and other third party software work with Linux, complies with the new version of the
GNU General Public License. Additionally, we would be required to either redesign our products to
function with software available from other parties or develop these components ourselves, which
would result in increased costs and could result in delays in our product shipments and the release
of new product offerings. Furthermore, we might be forced to limit the features available in our
current or future products. If we fail to maintain or renegotiate any of these software licenses,
we could face significant delays and diversion of resources in attempting to license and integrate
a functional equivalent of the software.
Defects, errors or vulnerabilities in our software products would harm our reputation and divert
resources.
Because our products are complex, they may contain defects, errors or vulnerabilities that are
not detected until after our commercial release and installation by our customers. We may not be
able to correct any errors or defects or address vulnerabilities promptly, or at all. Any defects,
errors or vulnerabilities in our products could result in:
|
|
|
expenditure of significant financial and product development resources in efforts to
analyze, correct, eliminate or work-around errors or defects or to address and eliminate
vulnerabilities; |
|
|
|
|
loss of existing or potential customers; |
|
|
|
|
delayed or lost revenue; |
|
|
|
|
delay or failure to attain market acceptance; |
41
|
|
|
increased service, warranty, product replacement and product liability insurance
costs; and |
|
|
|
|
negative publicity, which would harm our reputation. |
In addition, because our products and services provide and monitor network security and may
protect valuable information, we could face claims for product liability, tort or breach of
warranty. Anyone who circumvents our security measures could misappropriate the confidential
information or other valuable property of customers using our products, or interrupt their
operations. If that happens, affected customers or others may sue us. In addition, we may face
liability for breaches of our product warranties, product failures or damages caused by faulty
installation of our products. Provisions in our contracts relating to warranty disclaimers and
liability limitations may be deemed by a court to be unenforceable. Some courts, for example, have
found contractual limitations of liability in standard computer and software contracts to be
unenforceable in some circumstances. Defending a lawsuit, regardless of its merit, could be costly
and divert management attention. Our business liability insurance coverage may be inadequate or
future coverage may be unavailable on acceptable terms or at all.
Our networks, products and services are vulnerable to, and may be targeted by, hackers.
Like other companies, our websites, networks, information systems, products and services may
be targets for sabotage, disruption or misappropriation by hackers. As a leading network security
solutions company, we are a high profile target and our networks, products and services may have
vulnerabilities that may be targeted by hackers. Although we believe we have sufficient controls in
place to prevent disruption and misappropriation, and to respond to such situations, we expect
these efforts by hackers to continue. If these efforts are successful, our operations, reputation
and sales could be adversely affected.
We utilize a just-in-time contract manufacturing and inventory process, which increases our
vulnerability to supply disruption.
Our ability to meet our customers demand for certain of our products depends upon obtaining
adequate hardware platforms on a timely basis, which must be integrated with our software. We
purchase hardware platforms through our contract manufacturers from a limited number of suppliers
on a just-in-time basis. In addition, these suppliers may extend lead times, limit the supply to
our manufacturers or increase prices due to capacity constraints or other factors. Although we work
closely with our manufacturers and suppliers to avoid shortages, we may encounter these problems in
the future. Our results of operations would be adversely affected if we were unable to obtain
adequate supplies of hardware platforms in a timely manner or if there were significant increases
in the costs of hardware platforms or problems with the quality of those hardware platforms.
We depend on a single source to manufacture our enterprise class intrusion sensor product; if that
sole source were to fail to satisfy our requirements, our sales revenue would decline and our
reputation would be harmed.
We rely on one manufacturer, Bivio Networks, to build the hardware platform for three models
of our intrusion sensor products that are used by our enterprise class customers. These enterprise
class intrusion sensor products are purchased directly by customers for their internal use and are
also utilized by third party managed security service providers to provide services to their
customers. Revenue resulting from sales of these enterprise class intrusion sensor products
accounted for approximately 20% of our product revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2008,
and approximately 8% of our product revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2007. The
unexpected termination of our relationship with Bivio Networks would be disruptive to our business
and our reputation, which could result in a material decline in our revenue as well as shipment
delays and possible increased costs as we seek and implement production with an alternative
manufacturer.
We depend on resellers and distributors for our sales; if they fail to perform as expected, our
revenue will suffer.
Part of our business strategy involves entering into additional agreements with resellers and
distributors that permit them to resell our products and service offerings. Revenue resulting from
our resellers and distributors accounted for approximately 59% of our total revenue in the three
months ended March 31, 2008, and
approximately 48% of our total revenue in the three months ended March 31, 2007. For the three
months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, no single reseller, distributor, customer or OEM accounted
for more than 10% of our total revenue. There is a risk that our pace of entering into such
agreements may slow, or that our existing agreements may not produce as much business as we
anticipate. There is also a risk that some or all of our resellers or distributors may be acquired,
may change their business models or may go out of business, any of which could have an adverse
effect on our business.
42
If we do not continue to establish and effectively manage our OEM relationships, our revenue could
decline.
Our ability to sell our network security software products in new markets and to increase our
share of existing markets will be impaired if we fail to expand our indirect distribution channels.
Our sales strategy involves the establishment of multiple distribution channels domestically and
internationally through strategic resellers, system integrators and OEMs. We have alliances with
OEMs such as Nortel and Nokia and we cannot predict the extent to which these companies will be
successful in marketing or selling our software. Our agreements with these companies could be
terminated on short notice, and they do not prevent our OEMs, systems integrators, strategic
resellers or other distributors from selling the network security software of other companies,
including our competitors. Nortel and Nokia, or any other OEM, system integrator, strategic
reseller or distributor, could give higher priority to other companies software or to their own
software than they give to ours, which could cause our revenue to decline.
Our inability to effectively manage our expected headcount growth and expansion and our additional
obligations as a public company could seriously harm our ability to effectively run our business.
Our historical growth has placed, and our intended future growth is likely to continue to
place, a significant strain on our management, financial, personnel and other resources. We will
likely not continue to grow at our historical pace due to limits on our resources. We have grown
from 190 employees at March 31, 2007 to 242 employees at March 31, 2008. Since January 1, 2005, we
have opened additional sales offices and have significantly expanded our operations. This rapid
growth has strained our facilities and required us to lease additional space at our headquarters.
In several recent quarters, we have not been able to hire sufficient personnel to keep pace with
our growth. In addition to managing our expected growth, we have substantial additional obligations
and costs as a result of becoming a public company in March 2007. These obligations include
investor relations, preparing and filing periodic SEC reports, developing and maintaining internal
controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls, compliance with corporate governance
rules, Regulation FD and other requirements imposed on public companies by the SEC and the NASDAQ
Global Market that we did not experience as a private company. Fulfilling these additional
obligations will make it more difficult to operate a growing company. Any failure to effectively
manage growth or fulfill our obligations as a public company could seriously harm our ability to
respond to customers, the quality of our software and services and our operating results. To
effectively manage growth and operate a public company, we are in the process of implementing an
enterprise-wide information management system that includes new accounting, finance, management
information and human resource systems and controls. Any failure by us to implement this system as
planned, including any failure to adequately train personnel to use the new system, complete the
implementation on schedule, complete the implementation within our budget or successfully
transition our existing systems to the new system, could require us to devote significant
additional management attention and financial resources, which could negatively affect the
operation of our business.
The price of our common stock may be subject to wide fluctuations.
Prior to our IPO in March 2007, there was not a public market for our common stock. The market
price of our common stock is subject to significant fluctuations. Among the factors that could
affect our common stock price are the risks described in this Risk Factors section and other
factors, including:
|
|
|
quarterly variations in our operating results compared to market expectations; |
|
|
|
|
changes in expectations as to our future financial performance, including financial
estimates or reports by securities analysts; |
|
|
|
|
changes in market valuations of similar companies; |
|
|
|
|
liquidity and activity in the market for our common stock; |
|
|
|
|
actual or expected sales of our common stock by our stockholders; |
43
|
|
|
strategic moves by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings; |
|
|
|
|
general market conditions; and |
|
|
|
|
domestic and international economic, legal and regulatory factors unrelated to our
performance. |
Stock markets in general have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to
the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely
affect the trading price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.
We and certain of our officers and directors have been named as co-defendants in, and are the
subject of, certain legal proceedings which may result in substantial costs and divert managements
attention and resources.
As described in Legal Proceedings above, multiple federal securities class action lawsuits
have been filed naming our company and certain of our officers and directors as co-defendants. We
are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation. It is possible that these matters
could be resolved adversely to us, could result in substantial costs and could divert managements
attention and resources, which could harm our business.
Risks associated with legal liability often are difficult to assess or quantify, and their
existence and magnitude can remain unknown for significant periods of time. While we maintain
director and officer insurance, the amount of insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover a
claim, and the continued availability of this insurance cannot be assured. We may in the future be
the target of additional proceedings, and these proceedings may result in substantial costs and
divert managements attention and resources.
Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public markets, or the perception that they
might occur, could reduce the price that our common stock might otherwise attain.
As
of April 30, 2008, we had 24,989,055 outstanding shares of common stock. This number includes
6,185,500 shares of our common stock that we sold in our IPO, which has been and may in the future
be resold at any time in the public market. This number also includes an aggregate of approximately
12.0 million shares held by directors, officers and venture capital funds that invested in
Sourcefire prior to our initial public offering, and who may sell such shares at their discretion
subject to certain volume limitations. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the
public market, as a result of the exercise of registration rights or otherwise, or the perception
that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and may
make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem
appropriate.
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition
of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our
stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws,
each of which became effective in March 2007 upon completion of our IPO, contain provisions that
may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in our management. These provisions include a
classified board of directors, a prohibition on actions by written consent of our stockholders, and
the ability of our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval. In
addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203
of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits stockholders owning in excess of 15% of
our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us. Although we believe these
provisions collectively provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential
acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if the offer may be
considered beneficial by some stockholders. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent
attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more
difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for
appointing the members of our management.
44
Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
In March 2007, we completed the initial public offering of shares of our common stock. Our
portion of the net proceeds from the initial public offering was approximately $83.9 million after
deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. We intend to use the net
proceeds from the offering for working capital and other general corporate purposes, including
financing growth, developing new products and funding capital expenditures. Pending such usage, we
have invested the net proceeds in interest-bearing, investment grade securities.
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
Not applicable.
Item 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
None.
Item 5. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
Item 6. EXHIBITS
The following documents are filed as Exhibits with this report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporation by Reference |
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
|
File |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filed with |
Number |
|
Exhibit Description |
|
Form |
|
Number |
|
Exhibit |
|
File Date |
|
this 10-Q |
3.1
|
|
Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation
|
|
10-Q
|
|
1-33350
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
5/4/2007 |
|
|
3.2
|
|
Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws
|
|
10-Q
|
|
1-33350
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
5/4/2007 |
|
|
4.1
|
|
Form of stock certificate of common stock
|
|
S-1/A
|
|
333-138199
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
3/6/2007 |
|
|
10.1
|
|
Transition Agreement with E. Wayne Jackson, III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
10.2
|
|
2008 Management Incentive Compensation Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
10.3
|
|
Executive Retention Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
10.4
|
|
Executive Change in Control Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
32.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
45
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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, on May 2, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOURCEFIRE, INC.
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ E. Wayne Jackson, III
|
|
|
|
E. Wayne Jackson, III |
|
|
|
Chief Executive
Officer (duly authorized officer) |
|
|
|
By: |
/s/
Todd P. Headley
|
|
|
|
Todd P. Headley |
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
(principal financial officer) |
|
|
|
By: |
/s/
Nicholas G. Margarites
|
|
|
|
Nicholas G. Margarites |
|
|
|
Chief Accounting Officer and Vice
President of Finance (principal accounting officer) |
|
46