Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED September 30, 2003
OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                     TO                    .

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

4988 GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054
(408) 235-5500
(ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE, OF
THE REGISTRANT’S PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)

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

          Indication by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated file (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act)  Yes x   No o

          As of October 31, 2003, registrant had outstanding 74,875,623 shares of Common Stock.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE ON FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

          This Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: statements related to industry trends and future growth in the markets for cable modem systems; our strategies for reducing the cost of our products; our product development efforts; the effect of GAAP accounting pronouncements on our recognition of revenues; our future research and development; the timing of our introduction of new products; the timing and extent of deployment of our products by our customers; and future profitability. We usually use words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “future,” “intend,” or “certain” or the negative of these terms or similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Discussions containing such forward-looking statements may be found throughout the document. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. We disclaim any obligation to update these forward-looking statements as a result of subsequent events. The business risks discussed in Part 1, Item 2 of this Report on Form 10-Q, among other things, should be considered in evaluating our prospects and future financial performance.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
INDEX TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

2

Table of Contents

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

See accompanying notes.

3

Table of Contents

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

See accompanying notes.

4

Table of Contents

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

See accompanying notes.

5

Table of Contents

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

1.

Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Description of Business

          Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., or Company, was incorporated under the laws of the State of California on January 20, 1993. In July 1998, the Company reincorporated in the State of Delaware.

          The Company develops, markets and sells Cable Modem Termination Systems, or CMTSs, customer premise equipment, or CPE, including cable modems and digital video equipment. Our CMTS and CPE products enable cable operators to provision, deliver and manage cost-effective broadband Internet access and voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. Our digital video equipment allows cable and satellite operators to provide advanced digital video services to subscribers.

Basis of Presentation

          The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for interim financial information and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements at September 30, 2003 and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002 have been included.

          Results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of results for the entire fiscal year or future periods. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included in the Company’s Form 10-K dated March 27, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The accompanying balance sheet at December 31, 2002 is derived from audited consolidated financial statements at that date.

Reclassifications

          Certain amounts in the 2002 financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2003 presentation.

Basis of Consolidation

          The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates

          The preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles 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. Estimates are based on historical experience, input from sources outside of the Company, and other relevant facts and circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Areas that are particularly significant include the Company’s valuation of its accounts receivable and inventory reserves, the assessment of recoverability and the measurement of impairment of fixed assets, and the recognition of restructuring reserves.

6

Table of Contents

Stock-based compensation

          The Company accounts for stock-based compensation for its employees using the intrinsic value method presented in Accounting Principles Board, or APB, Statement No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” or APB No. 25, and related interpretations, and complies with the disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, Interpretation No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” or SFAS No. 123, and with the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure Amendment of SFAS No. 123.” Under APB No. 25, compensation expense is based on the difference, as of the date of the grant, between the fair value of the stock and the exercise price. The Company accounts for stock options issued to non-employees in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 123 and Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF, Issue No. 96-18, “Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services.”

          The following table illustrates the effect on net loss and loss per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to stock-based employee compensation (in thousands, except per share amounts):

Inventory

          Inventory is stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market. The components of inventory are as follows (in thousands):

7

Table of Contents

Purchase Obligations

          The Company records losses on commitments to purchase inventory in accordance with Statement 10 of Chapter 4 of Accounting Release Bulletin No. 43. The Company’s policy for valuation of inventory and commitments to purchase inventory, including the determination of obsolete or excess inventory, requires it to perform a detailed assessment of inventory at each balance sheet date which includes a review of, among other factors, an estimate of future demand for products within specific time horizons, generally six months or less as well as product lifecycle and product development plans. Given the rapid technological change in the technology and communications equipment industries as well as significant, unpredictable changes in capital spending by the Company’s customers, the Company believes that assessing the value of inventory using generally a six month time horizon is appropriate.

          The estimates of future demand that the Company uses in the valuation of inventory are the basis for the revenue forecast, which is also consistent with its short-term manufacturing plan. Based on this analysis, the Company reduces the cost of inventory that it specifically identifies and considers obsolete or excessive to fulfill future sales estimates. The Company defines excess inventory as inventory that will no longer be used in the manufacturing process. Excess inventory is generally defined as inventory in excess of projected usage, and is determined using the Company’s best estimate of future demand at the time, based upon information then available.

          For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003, the Company reversed approximately $2.0 million and $8.1 million, respectively, of inventory provisions, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company reversed approximately $0.6 million and $13.1 million, respectively, of inventory provisions, which were previously recorded as cost of goods sold. The Company reversed these provisions as it was able to sell inventory originally considered to be excess or obsolete.

          On February 26, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with Solectron Corporation, or Solectron to settle all outstanding obligations under two manufacturing agreements between the Company and Solectron. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid Solectron approximately $3.9 million, and each party released all claims that it may have had against the other party. Additionally, the Company received selected inventory from Solectron. The Company previously accrued $6.0 million toward the settlement of the Solectron matter as a vendor cancellation charge in the fourth quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2001. In the first quarter of 2003, in connection with the Solectron settlement, the Company reversed $2.1 million of the accrued vendor cancellation charges.

          On September 29, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with Flextronics (Israel) Ltd., an Israeli company, or Flextronics, to purchase inventory from Flextronics and settle all outstanding claims between the Company and Flextronics. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid Flextronics approximately $1.5 million to be applied toward the purchase of future inventory from Flextronics, if any. Additionally, each party released all claims that it may have had against the other party. The Company previously accrued $2.0 million toward the settlement of the Flextronics matter as a vendor cancellation charge in the second quarter of 2001. In the third quarter of 2003, in connection with the Flextronics settlement, the Company reversed $0.5 million of the accrued vendor cancellation charges included in cost of goods sold.

          As of September 30, 2003, the Company had $53.0 million of purchase obligations, of which $3.9 million are included on the balance sheet as accrued vendor cancellation charges. The remaining obligations are expected to become payable at various times through the first quarter of 2004.

Net Loss Per Share

          A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of basic and diluted net loss per share is provided as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):

8

Table of Contents

          Options to purchase 17,634,021 and 16,309,988 shares of common stock were outstanding at September 30, 2003 and September 30, 2002, respectively, and warrants to purchase 425,593 and 2,408,300 shares of common stock were outstanding at September 30, 2003 and September 30, 2002, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share, since the effect would have been antidilutive.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

          Accumulated other comprehensive loss presented in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets consists of net unrealized gains or losses on short-term investments and accumulated net foreign currency translation gains or losses.

The following are the components of comprehensive loss (in thousands):

Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Standards

          In May 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB issued SFAS No. 150, “Accounting For Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity” which establishes standards for how an issuer of financial instruments classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity. It requires that certain financial instruments, which under previous guidance were accounted for as equity, must now be accounted for as liabilities. The financial instruments affected include mandatory redeemable stock, certain financial instruments that require or may require the issuer to buy back some of its shares in exchange for cash or other assets and certain obligations that can be settled with shares of stock. SFAS No. 150 is effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003, and otherwise is effective at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

          In April 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 149, “Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” SFAS No. 149 amends and clarifies financial accounting and

9

Table of Contents

reporting for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts (collectively referred to as derivatives) and for hedging activities under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” This statement is effective for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003, and did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

          In January 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.” Interpretation No. 46 clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51 and applies immediately to any variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003 and to variable interest entities in which an interest is obtained after that date. This Interpretation is applicable to the Company in the quarter ending December 31, 2003, for interests acquired in variable interest entities prior to February 1, 2003. This Interpretation requires variable interest entities to be consolidated if the equity investment at risk is not sufficient to permit an entity to finance its activities without support from other parties or the equity investors lack specified characteristics. The adoption of this Interpretation will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

          In November 2002, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.” EITF Issue No. 00-21 provides guidance on how to account for certain arrangements that involve the delivery or performance of multiple products, services and/or rights to use assets. The provisions of EITF Issue No. 00-21 will apply to revenue arrangements entered into in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2003. The adoption of EITF Issue No. 00-21 did not have any significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

2.

Contingencies

          Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in federal court. The plaintiff in the first of these lawsuits purported to represent a class whose members purchased the Company’s securities between February 2, 2000 and April 11, 2000. The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the Company’s technology. The allegations in the other lawsuits were substantially the same and, on August 24, 2000, all of these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The court hearing the consolidated action has appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

          On September 21, 2000, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint containing factual allegations nearly identical to those in the original lawsuits. The consolidated class action complaint, however, alleged claims on behalf of a class whose members purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000. On October 30, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. On March 14, 2001, after defendants’ motion had been fully briefed and argued, the court issued an order granting in part defendants’ motion and giving plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. On April 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint. On June 15, 2001, defendants moved to dismiss this new complaint and oral argument on the motion occurred on December 17, 2001. On March 29, 2002, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On February 24, 2003, the court certified the plaintiffs’ proposed class. Since then, the parties have completed nearly all discovery from fact witnesses and have begun, but not finished, expert witness discovery.

          Both defendants and plaintiffs have filed summary judgment motions. Defendants’ motion seeks judgment as to plaintiffs’ entire claim. Plaintiffs’ motion seeks a determination that certain of the defendants’ class period statements were false.

          On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants’ motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. This motion is now under submission.

10

Table of Contents

          On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties’ summary judgment motions. On September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice of the Court and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.

          The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. The Company considers the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these allegations.

          On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County. This lawsuit is titled Bertram v. Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. (Bertram). The Bertram complaint contains factual allegations similar to those alleged in the federal securities class action lawsuit. The complaint asserts causes of action for unlawful business practices, unfair and fraudulent business practices, and false and misleading advertising. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of “all persons or entities in the State of California and such other persons or entities outside California that have been and are adversely affected by defendants’ activity, and as the Court shall determine is not inconsistent with the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction.” Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief. Defendants removed the Bertram case to the United States District Court, Central District of California and, on January 19, 2001, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on defendants’ motion was held March 26, 2001 and the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action and denied Plaintiffs’ motion requesting remand. On April 5, 2001, Defendants moved for an order requiring further proceedings, if any to take place in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion and eventually entered into a stipulation to go forward in the Northern District. On July 9, 2001, a status conference was held in this case before Judge Patel. Plaintiffs did not appear for the conference, and the court requested that defendants submit an order dismissing the Bertram action with prejudice, which the defendants have submitted to the court. On August 7, 2002, the court held another conference at which it entered an order dismissing the Bertram case. The court’s order permits the individual plaintiffs in the Bertram case to pursue any claims that they may have as members of the purported class in the related, consolidated class action discussed above. Plaintiffs have appealed this order and filed their opening brief in the Court of Appeals. Defendants’ answering brief is due on November 24, 2003, and plaintiffs’ optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of defendants’ brief.

          The Company believes that the allegations in the Bertram case, as with the allegations in the federal securities case, are without merit and intends to contest the matter vigorously. However, these litigation matters could prove to be costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be no assurances about the eventual outcome.

          On May 7, 2002, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against five of its current directors, two former directors and two former officers. This lawsuit is titled Campbell vs. Rakib, et al., and is pending in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. The Company is a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, which alleges claims relating to essentially the same purportedly misleading statements that are at issue in the pending securities class action. In that litigation, the Company disputes making any misleading statements. The derivative complaint also alleges claims relating to stock sales by certain of the director and officer defendants.

          On July 12, 2002, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against three of its current directors, one former officer and three former investors. This lawsuit is titled O’Brien vs. Rakib, et al., and is pending in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The Company is a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, which alleges claims relating to essentially the same purportedly misleading statements that are at issue in the pending securities class action. In that litigation, the Company disputes making any misleading statements. The derivative complaint also alleges claims relating to stock sales by certain of the director and officer defendants. The plaintiff in the O’Brien case has dismissed the investor defendants without prejudice.

          Since the Campbell and O’Brien cases were filed, the parties have taken steps to have these cases consolidated in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. On October 4, 2002, the California

11

Table of Contents

Superior Court, County of San Francisco entered an order providing for the transfer of the O’Brien case. On October 29, 2002, plaintiff in the O’Brien case submitted certain materials to the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara to effectuate that transfer, which is now complete. The O’Brien case is now consolidated with the Campbell case.

          The Company believes that there are many defects in the Campbell and O’Brien derivative complaints.

          On September 3, 2002, Uniscor Ltd. (an Israeli company under voluntary liquidation) and Flextronics filed a claim with the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel against the Company and Radwiz Ltd., or Radwiz, the Company’s subsidiary, alleging that damages of NIS 25,000,000 (approximately $5.0 million US dollars) were inflicted on them by the Company’s alleged failure to comply with its contractual obligations to accept and pay for components manufactured by Flextronics in the first quarter of 2001 pursuant to projections it had received from Radwiz. The Company filed a statement of defense denying the allegations, after which the parties accepted the Court’s recommendation to transfer the case to non-binding mediation. On September 29, 2003, the Company settled the dispute with Flextronics and paid to Flextronics $1,475,000 as part of the settlement.

          On January 19, 2003, Omniband Group Limited, a Russian company, or Omniband, filed a request for arbitration with the Zurich Chamber of Commerce, claiming damages in an amount of $2,094,970 allegedly caused by the Company’s breach of an agreement to sell to Omniband certain equipment pursuant to an agreement between Omniband and Radwiz, dated February 22, 2000. The Company believes that the allegations are baseless and intends to present a vigorous defense in the arbitration proceedings.

          The Company, as well as its customers, has received letters from third parties claiming that the Company’s technology and products infringe on the third parties’ patents. The Company has consulted with its patent counsel and is in the process of reviewing the allegations made by such third parties. The Company does not know whether the third parties will pursue their claims of patent infringement in court, and if they do, whether the Company would be found to infringe the third parties’ patents. If the Company is found to have infringed such third party patents, the Company could be subject to substantial damages and/or an injunction preventing us from selling our products and conducting our business. Additionally, such third parties and additional third parties could assert infringement claims against the Company in the future. Any such claim of patent infringement, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation, cause product shipment delays or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Such royalty or licensing agreements may not be available on terms acceptable to the Company or at all.

          The Company is currently a party to various other legal proceedings, in addition to those noted above, and may become involved from time to time in other legal proceedings in the future. While the Company currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these other proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or overall results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an unfavorable ruling to occur in any of the Company’s legal proceedings, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs. The estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s financial position or overall results of operations for any of the above legal proceedings could change in the future.

3.

Operating Segment Information

          Since late 2000, the worldwide telecom and satellite industries have experienced severe downturns that have resulted in significantly reduced purchases of new broadband equipment. Because of this overall drop in demand, the Company has refocused its efforts on the cable industry, and has significantly reduced its investment in the telecom and satellite businesses. Consequently, beginning in 2003, the Company’s previously reported Telecom segment no longer meets the quantitative threshold for disclosure and the Company now operates as one business segment. Therefore, operating segment disclosure for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003 is not provided.

12

Table of Contents

          Prior to December 31, 2002, the Company operated primarily in two principal operating segments: Cable Broadband Access Systems (Cable) and Telecom Carrier Access Systems (Telecom). The Cable segment consisted primarily of TeraComm System, TJ line of DOCSIS cable modems, Bluewave line of DOCSIS CMTS, and the CherryPicker family of Digital Video Management Systems that are sold primarily to cable operators for the deployment of data, video and voice services over the existing cable infrastructure. The Telecom segment consisted primarily of MiniPlex DSL Systems, IPTL Converged Voice and Data Service System and Mainsail products, which are sold to providers of broadband services for the deployment of voice and data services over the existing copper wire infrastructure. The Company determined these reportable operating segments based upon how the businesses were managed and operated.

          Information on reportable segments is as follows (in thousands):

13

Table of Contents

          Three customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (29%, 13%, and 13%) for the three months ended September 30, 2003. Two customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (25% and 14%) for the three months ended September 30, 2002. Three customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (20%, 17%, and 12%) for the nine months ended September 30, 2003. One customer accounted for 10% or more of total revenues (32%) for the nine months ended September 30, 2002. No other customer accounted for more than 10% of revenues during these periods.

4.

Restructuring Charges and Asset Write-offs

Restructuring

          2003 Restructuring

          During the first quarter of 2003, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a restructuring plan to continue to conform the expense and revenue levels and to better position the Company for future growth and eventual profitability. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $2.7 million related to employee termination costs. As of September 30, 2003, the employment of 81 employees has been terminated throughout the Company, and the Company paid $2.7 million in termination costs. In the second quarter of 2003, the Company reversed $86,000 of previously accrued termination costs due to a change in estimate. At September 30, 2003, no restructuring charges remain accrued.

14

Table of Contents

          A summary of the 2003 accrued restructuring charges is as follows (in thousands):

           2002 Restructuring

          During the third quarter of 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a restructuring plan to conform the expense and revenue levels and to better position the Company for future growth and eventual profitability. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $3.6 million of which $2.3 million related to employee termination costs and the remaining $1.3 million related to costs for excess leased facilities. At September 30, 2003, restructuring charges of $1.2 million remain accrued. As of September 30, 2003, the employment of 153 employees has been terminated throughout the Company, and the Company paid $2.2 million in termination costs and $0.2 million in excess facility costs. During 2002, we reclassified $0.1 million of excess termination costs to leased facilities due to a change in estimate. The Company anticipates the remaining restructuring accrual, primarily relating to excess leased facilities, will be utilized for servicing operating lease payments or negotiated buyout of operating lease commitments, through 2005.

          The following table summarizes the costs and activities during 2003, related to the 2002 restructuring (in thousands):

2001 Restructuring

          During 2001, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a restructuring plan to streamline the Company’s organizational structure worldwide. The Company incurred restructuring charges in the amount of $12.7 million in fiscal year 2001 of which $3.6 million remained accrued at September 30, 2003. Of the total restructuring charges recorded during fiscal year 2001, $3.2 million related to employee termination costs throughout the Company, and the remaining $9.5 million related primarily to costs for excess leased facilities. During 2003, the Company reversed $0.3 million of previously accrued termination costs due to a change in estimate. The Company anticipates utilizing the remaining restructuring accrual, which relates to servicing operating lease payments or negotiated buyout of operating lease commitments, through 2005.

15

Table of Contents

          The following table summarizes the costs and activities during 2003, related to the 2001 restructuring (in thousands):

Asset Write-offs

          For the nine months ended September 30, 2003, the Company wrote off $0.4 million of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. The Company wrote-off $17,000 of fixed assets in the three months ended September 30, 2003. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company wrote off $1.4 million of fixed assets, which were determined to have no remaining useful life. Additionally, in the second quarter of 2002, the Company recorded a $4.0 million charge to write-off goodwill.

5.

Advertising

          In December 2001, the Company entered into co-marketing arrangements with Shaw Communications Inc., or Shaw and Rogers Communications Inc., or Rogers, which was then a related party (see Note 6). The Company paid $7.5 million to Shaw and $0.9 million to Rogers, and recorded these amounts as other current assets. In July 2002, the Company began amortizing these prepaid assets and charging them against Cable revenues in accordance with EITF 01-09, “Accounting for Consideration given by a Vendor to a Customer or Reseller in Connection with the Purchase or Promotion of the Vendor’s Products.” The Company will charge the remaining $1.4 million of amortization of these assets against revenues in the next quarter ending December 31, 2003. Amounts charged against revenues in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003, totaled approximately $1.4 million and $4.2 million, respectively. The amount charged against revenues in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002, totaled approximately $1.4 million.

6.

Related Party Transactions

          Lewis Solomon, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee is also a member of the Board of Directors of Harmonic, Inc., or Harmonic. In April 2002, the Company entered into a reseller agreement with Harmonic to sell certain of the Company’s products. The agreement appoints Harmonic as an authorized, non-exclusive reseller of certain of the Company’s video products. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2003, related party revenue includes $0.5 million and $1.5 million, respectively, of revenue from Harmonic. The Company recorded $0.3 million and $0.4 million, respectively of revenue related to Harmonic for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002.

          Alek Krstajic, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, was the Senior Vice President of Interactive Services, Sales and Product Development for Rogers until January 2003. Beginning April 1, 2003, the Company no longer recognize revenue related to Rogers as related party revenue as Rogers was no longer considered to be a related party. In the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Company recognized $1.4 million of Rogers’s related party revenue, net of amortization of co-marketing expense (See Note 5). For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company recognized revenue

16

Table of Contents

of $0.3 million and $6.2 million, respectively in connection with product shipments to Rogers, net of amortization of co-marketing expense beginning in the third quarter of 2002.

          Cost of related party product revenues in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations consists of direct and indirect product costs. Accounts receivable from Harmonic totaled approximately $0.2 million at September 30, 2003. Accounts receivable from Rogers totaled approximately $0.4 million at September 30, 2002. Accounts receivable from Harmonic totaled approximately $0.1 million at September 30, 2002. None of the related parties is a supplier to the Company.

7.

Product Warranties

          The Company provides for estimated product warranty expenses when it sells the related products. Because warranty estimates are forecasts that are based on the best available information — mostly historical claims experience - claims costs may differ from amounts provided. An analysis of changes in the liability for product warranties for the nine months ended September 30, 2003, is as follows (in thousands):