Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004

OR

Commission File Number: 000-22793

PRICESMART, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

9740 SCRANTON RD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121

(Address of principal executive offices, Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (858) 404-8800

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrant’s knowledge in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

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

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of February 29, 2004 was $27,250,527, based on the last reported sale of $7.05 per share on February 27, 2004.

As of November 12, 2004, a total of 15,301,736 shares of Common Stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Company’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 are incorporated by reference into Part II of this Form 10-K.

Portions of the Company’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on February 25, 2005 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

PRICESMART, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

For the Year Ended August 31, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Business

This Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements concerning PriceSmart, Inc.’s (“PriceSmart” or the “Company”) anticipated future revenues and earnings, adequacy of future cash flow and related matters. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements containing the words “expect,” “believe,” “will,” “may,” “should,” “project,” “estimate,” “scheduled” and like expressions, and the negative thereof. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the statements, including foreign exchange risks, political or economic instability of host countries, and competition as well as those risks described in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission reports, including the risk factors referenced in this Form 10-K. See “Factors That May Affect Future Performance.”

PriceSmart’s business consists primarily of international membership shopping warehouse clubs similar to, but smaller in size than, warehouse clubs in the United States. The number of warehouse clubs in operation, as of August 31, 2004 and August 31, 2003, the Company’s ownership percentages and basis of presentation for financial reporting purposes by each country or territory are as follows:

During fiscal 2004, the Company opened a new U.S.-style membership shopping warehouse club in the Philippines and closed its warehouse club in Guam. At the end of fiscal 2004, the total number of consolidated warehouse clubs in operation was 26, operating in 12 countries and one U.S. territory in comparison to 26 warehouse clubs operating in 12 countries and two U.S. territories at the end of fiscal 2003, and 26 consolidated warehouse clubs operating in ten countries and two U.S. territories at the end of fiscal 2002. The average life of the 26 warehouse clubs in operation as of August 31, 2004 was 47 months. The average life of the 26 warehouse clubs in operation as of August 31, 2003 was 36 months. The Company anticipates opening a new warehouse club in San Jose, Costa Rica sometime in the second half of 2005. The Company had three additional warehouse clubs in Mexico as part of a 50/50 joint venture with Grupo Gigante, S.A. de C.V. as of the end of fiscal years 2004 and 2003.

In addition to the warehouse clubs operated directly by the Company or through joint ventures, there were 12 warehouse clubs in operation (11 in China and one in Saipan, Micronesia) licensed to and operated by local business people, through which the Company had been primarily earning a licensee fee on a per warehouse club basis (see “International Licensee Business”), at the end of fiscal 2004, compared to 14 licensed warehouse clubs at the end of fiscal 2003.

International Warehouse Club Business

The Company owns and operates U.S.-style membership shopping warehouse clubs through majority or wholly owned ventures operating in Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia using the trade name “PriceSmart.” The warehouse clubs sell basic consumer goods, to individuals and businesses, typically comprised of approximately 45% U.S.-sourced merchandise and approximately 55% locally sourced merchandise, with an emphasis on quality and low prices. By offering low prices on brand name and private label merchandise, the warehouse clubs seek to generate sufficient sales volumes to operate profitably at relatively low gross profit margins. The typical no-frills warehouse club-type buildings range in size from 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of selling space and are located primarily in urban areas to take advantage

1

of dense populations and relatively higher levels of disposable income. Product selection includes perishable foods and basic consumer products. Ancillary services include food services, bakery, tire centers, photo centers, pharmacy and optical departments. The shopping format generally includes an annual membership fee of approximately $25.

Typically, when entering a new market the Company enters into licensing and technology transfer agreements with a newly created joint venture company (whose majority stockholder is the Company and whose minority stockholders are local business people) pursuant to which the Company provides its know-how package, which includes training and management support, as well as access to the Company’s computer software systems and distribution channels. The license also includes the right to use the “PriceSmart” mark and certain other trademarks. The Company believes that the local business people have been interested in entering into such joint ventures and obtaining such licenses for a variety of reasons, including the successful track record of the Company’s management team and its smaller format membership clubs, the opportunity to purchase U.S.-sourced products, the benefits of the Company’s modern distribution techniques and the opportunity to obtain exclusive rights to use the Company’s trademarks in the region.

Business Strategy

PriceSmart’s mission is to efficiently operate U.S.-style membership warehouse clubs in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines that sell high quality merchandise at low prices to PriceSmart members and that provide fair wages and benefits to PriceSmart employees as well as a fair return to PriceSmart stockholders. The Company delivers quality imported U.S. brand-name and locally sourced products to its small business and consumer members in a warehouse club format that provides the highest possible value to its members. By focusing on providing exceptional value on quality merchandise in a low cost operating environment, the Company seeks to grow sales volume and membership which in turn will allow for further efficiencies and price reductions and ultimately improved value to our members.

Membership Policy

PriceSmart’s membership fee structure was specifically designed to allow pricing flexibility from country to country. The Company believes that membership reinforces customer loyalty. In addition, membership fees provide a continuing source of revenue. PriceSmart has two primary types of members: Business and Diamond (individual).

Business owners and managers qualify for Business membership. PriceSmart promotes Business membership through its merchandise selection and its marketing programs primarily targeting wholesalers, institutional buyers and retailers. Business members pay an annual membership fee which approximates $25 for a primary and spouse membership card and approximately $12 for additional add-on membership cards. Individual members pay an annual membership fee which approximates $25 and an approximate fee of $12 for an add-on membership card.

The Company recognizes membership fee revenues over the term of the membership, which is 12 months. Deferred revenue is presented separately on the face of the balance sheet and totaled $4.2 million and $4.1 million as of August 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. PriceSmart’s membership agreements contain an explicit right to refund if its customers are dissatisfied with their membership. The Company’s historical rate of membership fee refunds has been approximately 0.5% of membership income, or approximately $45,000, $42,000 and $45,000 for each of the years ended August 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

Expansion Plans

In the past, the Company has rapidly expanded into new countries and markets as part of its strategy to gain volume buying benefits and to move quickly into underserved areas. The Company is currently focusing its management attention on improving the operations of its current locations and believes that its existing portfolio provides the opportunity for improved sales and profitability. However, the Company continues to identify and evaluate various options for expansion, particularly in the countries in which it has already established a strong market presence. In that regard, the Company recently announced that it has acquired land in San Jose, Costa Rica for the future construction of a fourth warehouse club in that country.

2

Warehouse Club Closings and Asset Impairment

During fiscal 2003, the Company closed three warehouse clubs, one each in Dominican Republic, Ortigas, Metro Manila, Philippines and Guatemala. The Company also closed its warehouse club in Guam on December 24, 2003 and its Commerce, California distribution center on August 31, 2004. The decision to close the warehouse clubs resulted from the determination that the locations were not conducive to the successful operation of a PriceSmart warehouse club.

As a result of the closures mentioned above, during fiscal 2003, the Company recorded closure costs and impairment charges of $7.2 million related to those warehouse clubs closed as of August 31, 2003. Impairment charges of $1.9 million were included in the $7.2 million, reflecting the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of those long-lived assets (building improvements and fixtures and equipment) that were not expected to be utilized at future warehouse club locations. Also during fiscal 2003, the Company recorded non-cash asset impairment charges of $4.5 million to write-down long-lived assets related to underperforming warehouse clubs in Guam (subsequently closed in fiscal 2004) and the United States Virgin Islands. These charges also reflected the difference between the carrying value and fair value of those long-lived assets that were not expected to be utilized at future warehouse club locations. The fair value of long-lived assets was based on estimated selling prices for similar assets.

During fiscal 2004, the Company recorded approximately $3.5 million of additional closure costs related to the four closed warehouse clubs and one closed distribution center. The Company also recorded approximately $3.2 million in non-cash impairment charges related to the write-down of the carrying value of the building at the closed warehouse club in the Philippines. This charge results from revised cash flow estimates regarding the marketability of the land and building for this location. The original estimate regarding the market price of leasing these assets was derived from negotiations that discontinued during the second quarter of fiscal 2004. At that time, the Company believed the price being offered was a reasonable estimate of market value. However, during the third quarter an offer was received at a significantly lower price; therefore, the Company revised its estimates downward.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, due to the historical operating losses and management’s assessment as to the inability to recover the full carrying amount of its investment in PSMT Mexico, S.A. de C.V., the Company recorded charge of $3.1 million to reduce the Company’s “investment in unconsolidated affiliate.” The Company is a 50% shareholder in PSMT Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and accounts for its investment under the equity accounting method.

International Licensee Business

The Company had 12 warehouse clubs in operation (11 in China and one in Saipan, Micronesia) licensed to and operated by local business people at the end of fiscal 2004, through which the Company had been primarily earning license fees on a per warehouse club basis, and also earns other fees in connection with certain licensing and technology transfer agreements and sales of products purchased from the Company.

During the second fiscal quarter of 2004, representatives of the Company and its China licensee held discussions with regards to payments to be made by the licensee to the Company under the PRC Technology License Agreement (Amended) entered into in February 2001. In this regard, the licensee has failed to satisfy certain of these payment obligations, has asked the Company to relieve it from some of the payment obligations and has sought related modifications to the parties’ relationship. During the pendency of the parties’ discussions, the Company agreed to a temporary moratorium on certain payment obligations. In October 2004, the Company concluded that, in view of the lack of substantive progress arising from the parties’ discussions, it should proceed with sending a notice of default relating to the licensee’s non-payment. Accordingly, on October 7, 2004, the Company issued a notice of default to the licensee, demanding the payment of $1,403,845 within 30 days for previously unbilled license fees and interest. As of November 18, 2004 such payment has not been received. Accordingly, the Company currently plans to terminate the PRC Technology License Agreement (Amended), as well as the PRC Trademark License Agreement which also has been entered into by the Company and the licensee. As a result of the above, the Company has fully reserved the outstanding receivable by recording a bad debt expense of $0.6 million and did not record revenue from this license relationship in the fourth quarter.

Intellectual Property Rights

It is the Company’s policy to obtain appropriate proprietary rights protection for trademarks by filing applications for registrable marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and in certain foreign countries. In addition, the Company relies on copyright and trade secret laws to protect its proprietary rights. The Company attempts to protect its trade secrets and other proprietary information through agreements with its joint venturers, employees, consultants and suppliers and other similar measures. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful in protecting its proprietary rights. While management believes that the Company’s trademarks, copyrights and other proprietary know-how have significant value, changing technology and the competitive marketplace make the Company’s future success dependent principally upon its employees’ technical competence and creative skills for continuing innovation.

3

There can be no assurance that third parties will not assert claims against the Company with respect to existing and future trademarks, trade names, sales techniques or other intellectual property matters. In the event of litigation to determine the validity of any third-party’s claims, such litigation could result in significant expense to the Company and divert the efforts of the Company’s management, whether or not such litigation is determined in favor of the Company.

While the Company has registered under various classifications the mark “PriceSmart” in several countries, certain registration applications remain pending; because of objections by one or more parties, there can be no assurance that the Company will obtain all such registrations or that the Company has proprietary rights to the marks.

In August 1999, the Company and Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“AWG”) entered into an agreement regarding the trademark “PriceSmart” and related marks containing the name “PriceSmart.” The Company has agreed not to use the “PriceSmart” mark or any related marks containing the name “PriceSmart” in connection with the sale or offer for sale of any goods or services within AWG’s territory of operations, including the following ten states: Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Illinois, Tennessee and Kentucky. The Company, however, may use the mark “PriceSmart” or any mark containing the name “PriceSmart” on the internet or any other global computer network whether within or outside such territory, and in any national advertising campaign that cannot reasonably exclude the territory, and the Company may use the mark in connection with various travel services. AWG has agreed not to oppose any trademark applications filed by the Company for registration of the mark “PriceSmart” or related marks containing the name “PriceSmart,” and AWG has further agreed not to bring any action for trademark infringement against the Company based upon the Company’s use outside the territory (or with respect to the permitted uses inside the territory) of the mark “PriceSmart” or related marks containing the name “PriceSmart.”

Employees

As of August 31, 2004, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries had a total of 3,314 employees. Approximately 94% of the Company’s employees were employed outside of the United States.

Seasonality

Historically, the Company’s merchandising businesses have experienced holiday retail seasonality in their markets. In addition to seasonal fluctuations, the Company’s operating results fluctuate quarter-to-quarter as a result of economic and political events in markets served by the Company, the timing of holidays, weather, the timing of shipments, product mix, and currency effects on the cost of U.S.-sourced products which may make these products more expensive in local currencies and less affordable. Because of such fluctuations, the results of operations of any quarter are not indicative of the results that may be achieved for a full fiscal year or any future quarter. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company’s future results will be consistent with past results or the projections of securities analysts.

Factors That May Affect Future Performance

The Company had a substantial net loss in fiscal 2003 and 2004 and may continue to incur losses in future periods. The Company incurred net losses attributable to common stockholders of approximately $32.1 million in fiscal 2003, including asset impairment and closing cost charges of approximately $11.7 million, and approximately $33.3 million in fiscal 2004, including $9.8 million of asset impairment and closing charges. The Company is seeking ways to improve sales, margins, expense controls and inventory management in an effort to return the Company to profitability. The Company is also seeking to reduce its carrying costs by seeking alternative uses for, disposing of or leasing buildings and fixtures from its closed warehouse clubs. However, if these efforts fail to adequately reduce costs, or if the Company’s sales are less than it projects, the Company may continue to incur losses in future periods.

The Company is required to comply with financial covenants governing its outstanding indebtedness. Under the terms of debt agreements to which the Company and/or one or more of its wholly owned or majority owned subsidiaries are parties, the Company must comply with specified financial maintenance covenants, which include among others, current ratio, debt service, interest coverage and leverage ratios. As of August 31, 2004, the Company was in compliance with all of these covenants, except for the following: (i) current ratio and cash flow to debt service and projected debt service ratio for a $5.0 million note (with a remaining balance of $4.1 million), however, the Company repaid the remaining balance of this note on of September 15, 2004; (ii) debt service ratio for a $11.3 million note (with a remaining balance of $2.6 million), for which the Company has requested but not yet received a written waiver of its noncompliance; (iii) interest cost/EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) ratio for a $6.0 million note (with a remaining balance of $4.0 million), for which the Company has requested but not yet received a written waiver of its noncompliance; and (iv) debt to

4

equity ratio for a $7.0 million note (with a remaining balance of $3.9 million), for which the Company has requested, but not yet received, a written waiver. The Company also has $27.9 million of indebtedness outstanding that, upon a default by the Company under other indebtedness, allows the lender to accelerate the indebtedness and prohibits the Company from incurring additional indebtedness.

If the Company fails to comply with the covenants governing its indebtedness, the lenders may elect to accelerate the Company’s indebtedness and foreclose on the collateral pledged to secure the indebtedness. In addition, if the Company fails to comply with the covenants governing its indebtedness, the Company may need additional financing in order to service or extinguish the indebtedness. Some of the Company’s vendors also extend trade credit to the Company and allow payment for products upon delivery. If these vendors extend less credit to the Company or require pre-payment for products, the Company’s cash requirements and financing needs may increase further. The Company may not be able to obtain financing or refinancing on terms that are acceptable to the Company, or at all.

The Company’s financial performance is dependent on international operations, which exposes it to various risks. The Company’s international operations account for nearly all of the Company’s total sales. The Company’s financial performance is subject to risks inherent in operating and expanding the Company’s international membership business, which include: (i) changes in and interpretation of tariff and tax laws and regulations, as well as inconsistent enforcement of laws and regulations, (ii) the imposition of foreign and domestic governmental controls, (iii) trade restrictions, (iv) greater difficulty and costs associated with international sales and the administration of an international merchandising business, (v) thefts and other crimes, (vi) limitations on U.S. company ownership in foreign countries, (vii) product registration, permitting and regulatory compliance, (viii) volatility in foreign currency exchange rates, (ix) the financial and other capabilities of the Company’s joint venturers and licensees, and (x) general political as well as economic and business conditions.

Any failure by the Company to manage its widely dispersed operations could adversely affect the Company’s business. The Company began an aggressive growth strategy in April 1999, opening 20 new warehouse clubs over a two and a half year period. As of August 31, 2004, the Company had in operation 26 consolidated warehouse clubs in 12 countries and one U.S. territory (four each in Panama and the Philippines; three in Costa Rica; two each in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Trinidad; and one each in Aruba, Barbados, Jamaica, Nicaragua and the United States Virgin Islands). The Company opened one new warehouse club in Aseana City, Metropolitan Manila, Philippines in early June 2004.

The success of the Company’s business will depend to a significant degree on the Company’s ability to (i) efficiently operate warehouse clubs on a profitable basis and (ii) maintain positive comparable warehouse club sales growth in the applicable markets. In addition, the Company will need to continually evaluate the adequacy of the Company’s existing personnel, systems and procedures, including warehouse management and financial and inventory control. Moreover, the Company will be required to continually analyze the sufficiency of the Company’s inventory distribution channels and systems and may require additional facilities in order to support the Company’s operations. The Company may not adequately anticipate all the changing demands that will be imposed on these systems. An inability or failure to retain effective warehouse personnel or to update the Company’s internal systems or procedures as required could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although the Company has taken and continues to take steps to improve significantly its internal controls, there may be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies that the Company has not yet identified. Subsequent to the completion of its audit of, and the issuance of an unqualified report on the Company’s financial statements for the year ended August 31, 2003, Ernst & Young LLP issued the Company a management letter identifying deficiencies that existed in the design or operation of the Company’s internal controls that it considered to be material weaknesses in the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controls pursuant to standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The deficiencies reported by Ernst & Young LLP indicated that the Company’s internal controls relating to revenue recognition did not function properly to prevent the recordation of net warehouse sales that failed to satisfy the requirements of SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements,” and the Company’s internal controls failed to identify that the Philippines and Guam subsidiaries failed to perform internal control functions to reconcile their accounting records to supporting detail on a timely basis. These material control weaknesses were identified during fiscal 2003 by the Company and brought to the attention of Ernst & Young LLP and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

The Company has taken steps to strengthen control processes in order to identify and rectify past accounting errors and to prevent the situations that resulted in the need to restate prior period financial statements from recurring. These measures may not completely eliminate the material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls identified by the Company and by Ernst & Young LLP, and the Company may have additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in its internal controls that neither Ernst & Young LLP nor the Company’s management has yet identified. If

5

any such material weakness were to exist, the Company may not be able to prevent or detect a material misstatement of its annual or interim consolidated financial statements. Further, despite its efforts to improve its internal control structure, the Company may not be entirely successful in remedying internal control deficiencies that were previously identified. Any failure to timely remediate control gaps discovered in the implementation of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or otherwise could harm our operating results and cause investors to lose confidence in the Company’s reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s stock price.

The Company is currently defending litigation relating to its financial restatement. Following the announcement of the restatement of its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2003 in November 2003, the Company received notice of six class action lawsuits filed against it and certain of its former directors and officers purportedly brought on behalf of certain of its current and former holders of the Company’s common stock, and a seventh class action lawsuit filed against it and certain of its former directors and officers purportedly on behalf of certain holders of the Company’s Series A preferred stock and a class of common stock purchasers. These suits generally allege that the Company issued false and misleading statements during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in violation of federal securities laws. All of the federal securities actions were consolidated by an order dated September 9, 2004, which also appointed a lead plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class of common stock purchasers. The lead plaintiff is to file a consolidated complaint in late November 2004, and the Company will have until late January 2005 to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint.

On September 3, 2004, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with respect to the action brought on behalf of a purported sub-class of plaintiffs comprised of unaffiliated purchasers of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock. On November 8, 2004 the settlement was approved. Terms of the settlement include: (i) dismissal of the Series A Preferred lawsuit; (ii) the entry of an order releasing claims that were or could have been brought by the Series A subclass arising out of or relating to the purchase or ownership of the Series A preferred stock; (iii) the Series A Preferred subclass will be offered the opportunity to exchange their Series A preferred stock for shares of the Company’s common stock valued at such purpose at a price of $10.00 per share; and (iv) the payment by the Company of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $325,000 (to be funded by the Company’s director and officer liability insurance policy).

If the Company chooses to settle the remaining consolidated class action lawsuit without going to trial, it may be required to pay the plaintiffs a substantial sum in the form of damages. Alternatively, if these remaining cases go to trial and the Company is ultimately adjudged to have violated federal securities laws, the Company may incur substantial losses as a result of an award of damages to the plaintiffs.

On September 3, 2004, the Company also entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for a stockholder derivative suit purportedly brought on the Company’s own behalf against its current and former directors and officers, alleging among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty. The same complaint also alleges that various officers and directors violated California insider trading laws when they sold shares of the Company’s stock in 2002 because of their alleged knowledge of the accounting issues that caused the restatement. In the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties agreed that the prosecution and pendency of the litigation was a factor in the Company’s agreement to seek to implement the Financial Program announced by the Company on September 3, 2004. On November 12, 2004, the settlement was approved. Terms of the settlement include: (i) dismissal with prejudice of the derivative lawsuit; (ii) the entry of a judgment containing a release for the benefit of defendants; and (iii) payment by the Company of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $325,000 (to be funded by the Company’s director and officer liability insurance policy).

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has informed the Company that it is conducting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the restatement.

The indemnification provisions contained in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements between the Company and its current and former directors and officers require the Company to indemnify its current and former directors and officers who are named as defendants against the allegations contained in these suits unless the Company determines that indemnification is unavailable because the applicable current or former director or officer failed to meet the applicable standard of conduct set forth in those documents. While the Company has directors and officers liability insurance (subject to a $1.0 million retention and a 20% co-pay provision), the Company has been informed that its insurance carriers are reserving all of their rights and defenses under the policy (including the right to deny coverage) and it is otherwise uncertain whether the insurance will be sufficient to cover all damages that the Company may be required to pay. Further, regardless of coverage and the ultimate outcome of these suits, litigation of this type is expensive and will require that the Company devote substantial resources and management attention to defend these proceedings. Moreover, the mere presence of these lawsuits may materially harm the Company’s business and reputation. The Company has and will continue to incur substantial legal and other professional service costs in connection with the stockholder lawsuits and responding to the inquiries of the SEC. The amount of any future costs in this respect cannot be determined at this time.

6

The Company faces significant competition. The Company’s international merchandising businesses compete with exporters, wholesalers, other membership merchandisers, local retailers and trading companies in various international markets. Some of the Company’s competitors may have greater resources, buying power and name recognition. There can be no assurance that additional competitors will not decide to enter the markets in which the Company operates or that the Company’s existing competitors will not compete more effectively against the Company. The Company may be required to implement price reductions in order to remain competitive should any of the Company’s competitors reduce prices in any of the Company’s markets. Moreover, the Company’s ability to operate profitably in new markets, particularly small markets, may be adversely affected by the existence or entry of competing warehouse clubs or discount retailers.

The Company faces difficulties in the shipment of and inherent risks in the importation of merchandise to its warehouse clubs. The Company’s warehouse clubs import approximately 45% of the merchandise that they sell, which originate from varying countries and are transported over great distances, typically over water, which results in: (i) substantial lead times needed between the procurement and delivery of product, thus complicating merchandising and inventory control methods, as well as expense controls, (ii) the possible loss of product due to theft or potential damage to, or destruction of, ships or containers delivering goods, (iii) product markdowns as a result of it being cost prohibitive to return merchandise upon importation, (iv) product registration, tariffs, customs and shipping regulation issues in the locations the Company ships to and from, and (v) substantial ocean freight and duty costs. Moreover, each country in which the Company operates has different governmental rules and regulations regarding the importation of foreign products. Changes to the rules and regulations governing the importation of merchandise may result in additional delays or barriers in the Company’s deliveries of products to its warehouse clubs or product it selects to import. For example, several of the countries in which the Company’s warehouse clubs are located have imposed restrictions on the importation of some U.S. beef products because of concerns about Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly referred to as “mad cow disease.” As a result of these restrictions, the sales of U.S. beef products may be impaired for the duration of these restrictions and may continue following the lifting of these restrictions because of perceptions about the safety of U.S. beef among people living in these countries. In addition, only a limited number of transportation companies service the Company’s regions. The inability or failure of one or more key transportation companies to provide transportation services to the Company, any collusion among the transportation companies regarding shipping prices or terms, changes in the regulations that govern shipping tariffs or the importation of products, or any other disruption in the Company’s ability to transport the Company’s merchandise could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The success of the Company’s business requires effective assistance from local business people. As a result, existing disputes with minority interest shareholders or other disputes with local business people upon whom the Company depends could adversely affect the Company’s business. Several of the risks associated with the Company’s international merchandising business may be within the control (in whole or in part) of local business people with whom it has established formal and informal strategic relationships or may be affected by the acts or omissions of these local business people. In some cases, these local business people previously held minority interests in joint venture arrangements and now hold shares of the Company’s common stock. No assurances can be provided that these local business people will effectively help the Company in their respective markets. The failure of these local business people to assist the Company in their local markets could harm the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In July 2003, the Company’s 34% minority interest shareholder in the Company’s Guatemalan operations (PriceSmart (Guatemala) S.A.) contended, among other things, that both the Company and the minority interest shareholder are currently entitled to receive a 15% return upon respective capital investments in the Guatemalan operations. The Company has reviewed the claim and other pertinent information in relationship to the Guatemalan joint venture agreement, as amended, and does not concur with the minority shareholder’s conclusion. The Guatemalan minority shareholder continues to assert a right to receive a 15% annual return on its capital investment. In addition, the minority shareholder has advised the Company that it believes that PriceSmart (Guatemala), S.A. has been inappropriately charged by the Company with regard to various fees, expenses and certain related matters. The Company has responded that it disagrees with virtually all of these additional assertions, and the minority shareholder has advised that it may commission an audit with regard to such matters. The Company expects that it and the Guatemalan minority shareholder will continue to review these matters and discuss their differences, but there can be no assurance of mutually acceptable resolution via negotiation of these matters or that any resolution will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

In addition, the Company’s two minority shareholders in the Philippines (which together comprise a 48% ownership interest in the Company’s Philippine operations (PSMT Philippines, Inc.)) have taken the position that an “impasse” of the Board of Directors of PSMT Philippines, Inc. has been reached. These minority shareholders have therefore sought to invoke the “buy-sell” provisions of the parties’ Shareholders’ Agreement (pursuant to which one shareholder may offer to purchase the interest of the other shareholders (at an appraised value) at which point the offeree

7

shareholder may make a counter offer and the process continues until an offer is accepted). The Company contends, among other things, that pursuant to the terms of the Shareholders’ Agreement no “impasse” can be reached (and hence the buy-sell provisions do not become applicable) until after the respective shareholders’ principal representatives have met to discuss pending issues. It is currently anticipated that the Company and the Philippine minority shareholders will continue to review these matters and discuss differences, but there can be no assurance of a mutually acceptable resolution via negotiation of these matters or that any resolution will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

Also, the Company has agreements with Banco Promerica and its affiliates (collectively “Promerica”) by which the Company and Promerica have issued co-branded credit cards, used primarily in its Latin American segment, that reduce the costs to the Company of credit card processing fees associated with the use of these cards in its warehouse clubs. Edgar Zurcher, who is a director of the Company, is also Chairman of the Board of Banca Promerica (Costa Rica) and is also a director of Banco Promerica (El Salvador). If, for any reason, the Company were unable to continue to offer the co-branded credit card and if the Company was unable to promptly enter into a similar program with another credit card service provider, the result would be an increase in the Company’s costs and potentially a negative effect on sales.

The Company is exposed to weather and other risks associated with international operations. The Company’s operations are subject to the volatile weather conditions and natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes, which are encountered in the regions in which the Company’s warehouse clubs are located and which could result in significant damage to, or destruction of, or temporary closure of the Company’s warehouse clubs. For example, during September 2004, while no damage was sustained from the multiple hurricanes in the Caribbean, a total of eight days of sales were lost due to selected warehouse club closures resulting from heavy rains, local flooding and government advisories to stay off the roads. Losses from business interruption may not be adequately compensated by insurance and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Declines in the economies of the countries in which the Company operates its warehouse clubs would harm its business. The success of the Company’s operations depends to a significant extent on a number of factors that affect discretionary consumer spending, including employment rates, business conditions, consumer spending patterns and customer preferences and other economic factors in each of the Company’s foreign markets. Adverse changes in these factors, and the resulting adverse impact on discretionary consumer spending, would affect the Company’s growth, sales and profitability. In addition, a significant decline in these economies may lead to increased governmental ownership or regulation of the economy, higher interest rates, increased barriers to entry such as higher tariffs and taxes, and reduced demand for goods manufactured in the United States. Any general instability in the national or regional economies of the foreign countries, in which the Company currently operates, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

A few of the Company’s stockholders have control over the Company’s voting stock, which will make it difficult to complete some corporate transactions without their support and may prevent a change in control. As of October 29, 2004, Robert E. Price, who is the Company’s Chairman of the Board and Interim Chief Executive Officer, and Sol Price, a significant stockholder of the Company and father of Robert E. Price, together with their affiliates, comprise a group that may be deemed to beneficially own 62.0% of the Company’s common stock. Because the group may be deemed to beneficially own, in the aggregate, more than 50.0% of the Company’s common stock, PriceSmart is a “controlled company” within the meaning of Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4350(c)(5). As a result of their beneficial ownership, these stockholders have the ability to control the outcome of all matters submitted to the Company’s stockholders for approval, including the election of directors. In addition, this ownership could discourage the acquisition of the Company’s common stock by potential investors and could have an anti-takeover effect, possibly depressing the trading price of the Company’s common stock.

The loss of key personnel could harm the Company’s business. The Company depends to a large extent on the performance of its senior management team and other key employees, such as U.S. ex-patriots in certain locations where the Company operates, for strategic business direction. The loss of the services of any members of the Company’s senior management or other key employees could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is subject to volatility in foreign currency exchange. The Company, primarily through majority or wholly owned subsidiaries, conducts operations primarily in Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia, and as such is subject to both economic and political instabilities that cause volatility in foreign currency exchange rates or weak economic conditions. As of August 31, 2004, the Company had a total of 26 consolidated warehouse clubs operating in 12 foreign countries and one U.S. territory, 19 of which operate under currencies other than the U.S. dollar. For fiscal 2004,

8

approximately 78% of the Company’s net warehouse sales were in foreign currencies. Also, as of August 31, 2004, the Company had three warehouse clubs in Mexico, through a 50/50 joint venture accounted for under the equity method of accounting, which operate under the Mexican Peso. The Company may enter into additional foreign countries in the future or open additional locations in existing countries, which may increase the percentage of net warehouse sales denominated in foreign currencies.

Foreign currencies in most of the countries where the Company operates have historically devalued against the U.S. dollar and are expected to continue to devalue. For example, the Dominican Republic experienced a net currency devaluation of 81% between the end of fiscal 2002 and the end of fiscal 2003 and 13% (significantly higher at certain points of the year) between the end of fiscal 2003 and the end of fiscal 2004. Foreign exchange transaction losses, including repatriation of funds, which are included as a part of the costs of goods sold in the consolidated statement of operations, for fiscal 2004, 2003 and 2002 were approximately $579,000, $605,000 and $1.2 million, respectively.

The Company faces the risk of exposure to product liability claims, a product recall and adverse publicity. The Company markets and distributes products, including meat, dairy and other food products, from third-party suppliers, which exposes the Company to the risk of product liability claims, a product recall and adverse publicity. For example, the Company may inadvertently redistribute food products that are contaminated, which may result in illness, injury or death if the contaminants are not eliminated by processing at the foodservice or consumer level. The Company generally seeks contractual indemnification and insurance coverage from its suppliers. However, if the Company does not have adequate insurance or contractual indemnification available, product liability claims relating to products that are contaminated or otherwise harmful could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to successfully market its products and on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if a product liability claim is not successful or is not fully pursued, the negative publicity surrounding a product recall or any assertion that the Company’s products caused illness or injury could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reputation with existing and potential customers and on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” could adversely affect the Company’s future results of operations and financial position. In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” which was adopted by the Company, effective September 1, 2001. Under the new rules, goodwill and intangible assets deemed to have indefinite lives will no longer be amortized but will be subject to annual impairment tests in accordance with the Statement. As of August 31, 2002, the Company had goodwill of approximately $23.1 million. The Company performed its impairment test on goodwill as of August 31, 2004 and August 31, 2003, and no impairment losses were recorded. In the future, the Company will test for impairment at least annually. Such tests may result in a determination that these assets have been impaired. If at any time the Company determines that an impairment has occurred, the Company will be required to reflect the impaired value as a part of operating income, resulting in a reduction in earnings in the period such impairment is identified and a corresponding reduction in the Company’s net asset value. A material reduction in earnings resulting from such a charge could cause the Company to fail to be profitable or increase the amount of its net loss in the period in which the charge is taken or otherwise to fail to meet the expectations of investors and securities analysts, which could cause the price of the Company’s stock to decline.

The Company faces increased costs and compliance risks associated with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Like many smaller public companies, the Company faces a significant impact from required compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 404 requires management of public companies to evaluate, and the independent auditors to attest to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the evaluation performed by management. The Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted rules implementing Section 404 for public companies as well as disclosure requirements. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, has adopted documentation and attestation standards that the independent auditors must follow in conducting its attestation under Section 404. The Company is currently preparing for, and incurring significant expenses related to compliance with Section 404, which for fiscal year 2005 has been estimated at approximately $1.7 million. However, it cannot be assured that the Company and its advisors have adequately projected the cost or duration of implementation or planned sufficient personnel for the project, and more costs and time could be incurred than currently anticipated. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to effectively meet all of the requirements of Section 404 as currently known to the Company in the currently mandated timeframe. Any failure to effectively implement new or improved internal controls, or to resolve difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm the Company’s operating results, cause it to fail to meet reporting obligations, result in management’s being required to give a qualified assessment of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting or the Company’s independent auditors’ providing an adverse opinion regarding management’s assessment. Any such result could cause investors to lose confidence in the Company’s reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s stock price.

9

Item 2. Properties

Warehouse Club Properties. The Company, through its majority or wholly owned ventures or equity joint venture, owns and/or leases properties in each country or territory in which it operates warehouse clubs. All buildings, both owned and leased, are constructed by independent contractors. The following is a summary of warehouse club locations currently owned and/or leased by country or territory:

10

Corporate Headquarters. The Company maintains its headquarters at 9740 Scranton Road, San Diego, California 92121-1745. The Company leases approximately 35,000 square feet of office space at a rate $47,115 per month, with a 2% annual increase. The current term expires on March 31, 2011. The Company also leases a 32,387 square foot facility in Commerce, California at a rate of $16,546 per month that expires on May 31, 2005. The use of the Commerce, California facility was discontinued on August 31, 2004, resulting in a charge of $149,000 to the financial statements ended as of the same date. Additionally, the Company leases two facilities in Miami, Florida. The first is an 85,000 square foot facility leased at a rate of $43,370 per month that expires on June 30, 2005. The second is a 24,700 square foot facility leased at a rate of $29,601 per month that expires on February 28, 2006. The Company believes that its existing facilities are adequate to meet its current needs and that suitable additional or alternative space will be available on commercially reasonable terms as needed.

Environmental Matters. The Company agreed to indemnify Price Enterprises, Inc. (“PEI”) for all of PEI’s liabilities (including obligations to indemnify Costco with respect to environmental liabilities) arising out of PEI’s prior ownership of certain properties and the real properties transferred by Costco to PEI that PEI sold prior to the special dividend of the Company’s common stock by PEI on August 29, 1997 (“Distribution”). The Company’s ownership of real properties and its agreement to indemnify PEI could subject it to certain environmental liabilities. As discussed below, certain properties are located in areas of current or former industrial activity, where environmental contamination may have occurred.

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and remediate releases or threatened releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products located at such property, and may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage and for investigation and remediation costs incurred by such parties in connection with the contamination. Under certain of these laws, liability may be imposed without regard to whether the owner knew of or caused the presence of the contaminants. These costs may be substantial, and the presence of such substances, or the failure to remediate properly the contamination on such property, may adversely affect the owner’s ability to sell or lease such property or to borrow money using such property as collateral. Certain federal and state laws require the removal or encapsulation of asbestos-containing material in poor condition in the event of remodeling or renovation. Other federal, state and local laws have been enacted to protect sensitive environmental resources, including threatened and endangered species and wetlands. Such laws may restrict the development and diminish the value of property that is inhabited by an endangered or threatened species, is designated as critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species or is characterized as wetlands.

In 1994, Costco engaged environmental consultants to conduct Phase I assessments (involving investigation without soil sampling or groundwater analysis) at each of the properties that Costco transferred to PEI in 1994, including the Properties. The Company is unaware of any environmental liability or noncompliance with applicable environmental laws or regulations arising out of the Properties or the real properties transferred by Costco to PEI and sold prior to the Distribution that the Company believes would have a material adverse effect on its business, assets or results of operations. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that the Company’s knowledge is complete with regard to, or that the Phase I assessments have identified, all material environmental liabilities.

The Company is aware of certain environmental issues, which the Company does not expect to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, cash flow or liquidity, relating to three properties transferred from Costco to PEI that were sold prior to the Distribution. The Company agreed to indemnify PEI for environmental liabilities arising out of such properties. Set forth below are summaries of certain environmental matters relating to these properties:

Meadowlands: The Meadowlands site is an unimproved, 12.9-acre site located in Meadowlands, New Jersey. A prior owner used this site as a debris disposal area. Elevated levels of heavy metals (including a small area contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl) and petroleum hydrocarbons are present in soil at the Meadowlands site. To date, the Company has not been advised that PEI has been notified by any governmental authority, and is not otherwise aware, of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products in connection with the Meadowlands site. PEI sold the Meadowlands site on August 11, 1995. Nevertheless, PEI’s previous ownership of the Meadowlands site creates the potential of liability for remediation costs associated with groundwater beneath the site.

Silver City: The Silver City site contains petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater. There are no known receptors (groundwater users) down gradient of the Silver City site and the extent of soil and groundwater contamination is limited. On March 20, 1996, PEI sold the Silver City site and retained responsibility for certain environmental matters. The Company is continuing to remediate the soil and groundwater at this property under supervision of local authorities.

11

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including those identified below. The Company evaluates such matters on a case by case basis, and vigorously contests any such legal proceedings or claims which the Company believes are without merit.

Following the announcement of the restatement of its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2003 in November 2003, the Company received notice of six class action lawsuits filed against it and certain of its former directors and officers purportedly brought on behalf of certain of its current and former holders of the Company’s common stock, and a seventh class action lawsuit filed against it and certain of its former directors and officers purportedly on behalf of certain holders of the Company’s Series A preferred stock and a class of common stock purchasers. These suits generally allege that the Company issued false and misleading statements during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in violation of federal securities laws. All of the federal securities actions were consolidated by an order dated September 9, 2004, which also appointed a lead plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class of common stock purchasers. The lead plaintiff is to file a consolidated complaint in late November 2004, and the Company will have until late January 2005 to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint.

On September 3, 2004, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with respect to the action brought on behalf of a purported sub-class of plaintiffs comprised of unaffiliated purchasers of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock. On November 8, 2004 the settlement was approved. Terms of the settlement include: (i) dismissal of the Series A Preferred lawsuit; (ii) the entry of an order releasing claims that were or could have been brought by the Series A subclass arising out of or relating to the purchase or ownership of the Series A preferred stock; (iii) the Series A Preferred subclass will be offered the opportunity to exchange their Series A preferred stock for shares of the Company’s common stock valued at such purpose at a price of $10.00 per share; and (iv) the payment by the Company of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $325,000 (to be funded by the Company’s director and officer liability insurance policy).

If the Company chooses to settle the remaining consolidated class action lawsuit without going to trial, it may be required to pay the plaintiffs a substantial sum in the form of damages. Alternatively, if these remaining cases go to trial and the Company is ultimately adjudged to have violated federal securities laws, the Company may incur substantial losses as a result of an award of damages to the plaintiffs.

On September 3, 2004, the Company also entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for a stockholder derivative suit purportedly brought on the Company’s own behalf against its current and former directors and officers, alleging among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty. The same complaint also alleges that various officers and directors violated California insider trading laws when they sold shares of the Company’s stock in 2002 because of their alleged knowledge of the accounting issues that caused the restatement. In the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties agreed that the prosecution and pendency of the litigation was a factor in the Company’s agreement to seek to implement the Financial Program announced by the Company on September 3, 2004. On November 12, 2004, the settlement was approved. Terms of the settlement include: (i) dismissal with prejudice of the derivative lawsuit; (ii) the entry of a judgment containing a release for the benefit of defendants; and (iii) payment by the Company of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $325,000 (to be funded by the Company’s director and officer liability insurance policy).

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has informed the Company that it is conducting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the restatement.

The indemnification provisions contained in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements between the Company and its current and former directors and officers require the Company to indemnify its current and former directors and officers who are named as defendants against the allegations contained in these suits unless the Company determines that indemnification is unavailable because the applicable current or former director or officer failed to meet the applicable standard of conduct set forth in those documents. While the Company has directors and officers liability insurance (subject to a $1.0 million retention and a 20% co-pay provision), the Company has been informed that its insurance carriers are reserving all of their rights and defenses under the policy (including the right to deny coverage) and it is otherwise uncertain whether the insurance will be sufficient to cover all damages that the Company may be required to pay. Further, regardless of coverage and the ultimate outcome of these suits, litigation of this type is expensive and will require that the Company devote substantial resources and management attention to defend these proceedings. Moreover, the mere presence of these lawsuits may materially harm the Company’s business and reputation. The Company has and will continue to incur substantial legal and other professional service costs in connection with the stockholder lawsuits and responding to the inquiries of the SEC. The amount of any future costs in this respect cannot be determined at this time.

12

In July 2003, the Company’s 34% minority interest shareholder in the Company’s Guatemalan operations (PriceSmart (Guatemala) S.A.) contended, among other things, that both the Company and the minority interest shareholder are currently entitled to receive a 15% return upon respective capital investments in the Guatemalan operations. The Company has reviewed the claim and other pertinent information in relationship to the Guatemalan joint venture agreement, as amended, and does not concur with the minority shareholder’s conclusion. The Guatemalan minority shareholder continues to assert a right to receive a 15% annual return on its capital investment. In addition, the minority shareholder has advised the Company that it believes that PriceSmart (Guatemala), S.A. has been inappropriately charged by the Company with regard to various fees, expenses and certain related matters. The Company has responded that it disagrees with virtually all of these additional assertions, and the minority shareholder has advised that it may commission an audit with regard to such matters. The Company expects that it and the Guatemalan minority shareholder will continue to review these matters and discuss their differences, but there can be no assurance of mutually acceptable resolution via negotiation of these matters or that any resolution will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

In addition, the Company’s two minority shareholders in the Philippines (which together comprise a 48% ownership interest in the Company’s Philippine operations (PSMT Philippines, Inc.)) have taken the position that an “impasse” of the Board of Directors of PSMT Philippines, Inc. has been reached. These minority shareholders have therefore sought to invoke the “buy-sell” provisions of the parties’ Shareholders’ Agreement (pursuant to which one shareholder may offer to purchase the interest of the other shareholders (at an appraised value) at which point the offeree shareholder may make a counter offer and the process continues until an offer is accepted). The Company contends, among other things, that pursuant to the terms of the Shareholders’ Agreement no “impasse” can be reached (and hence the buy-sell provisions do not become applicable) until after the respective shareholders’ principal representatives have met to discuss pending issues. It is currently anticipated that the Company and the Philippine minority shareholders will continue to review these matters and discuss differences, but there can be no assurance of a mutually acceptable resolution via negotiation of these matters or that any resolution will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of any such legal proceedings or claims will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, operating results, cash flow or liquidity. However, such matters are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that the ultimate outcome could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, operating results, cash flow or liquidity in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

The Company did not submit any matters to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004. However, a Special Meeting of the Company’s Stockholders was held on October 29, 2004 at the Company’s headquarters and the following Financial Program was approved:

A private placement of an aggregate of 3,164,726 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $.0001 per share (“Common Stock”), at a price of $8 per share, to The Price Group, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Price Group”), to be funded through the conversion of a $25.0 million bridge loan, together with accrued and unpaid interest, extended to the Company by the Price Group in August 2004.

The issuance of an aggregate of 2,200,000 shares of Common Stock to the Sol and Helen Price Trust, the Price Family Charitable Fund, the Robert and Allison Price Charitable Remainder Trust, the Robert and Allison Price Trust 1/10/75 (collectively, the “Price Trusts”) and the Price Group (collectively, with the Price Trusts, the “Series B Holders”) in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of the Company’s 8% Series B Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock, par value $.0001 per share (the “Series B Preferred Stock”).

The issuance of an aggregate of 2,597,200 shares Common Stock, valued for such purpose at a price of $8 per share, to the Price Group in exchange for up to $20.0 million of current obligations, plus accrued and unpaid interest, owed by the Company to the Price Group.

The issuance of up to 15,787,001 shares of Common Stock in connection with a rights offering pursuant to rights to be distributed to the holders of outstanding shares of Common Stock.

The issuance of up to 3,125,000 shares of Common Stock, at a price of $8 per share, to the Price Group to ensure that the above-mentioned rights offering generates at least $25.0 million in proceeds.

13

The issuance of up to 2,223,817 shares of Common Stock associated with an offer to exchange Common Stock, valued for such purpose at a price of $10 per share, to the holders of all of the shares of the Company’s 8% Series A Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock, par value $.0001 per share (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred Stock at its initial stated value of $20.0 million plus all accrued and unpaid dividends.

An amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company to increase the number of authorized shares of Common Stock from 20,000,000 to 45,000,000 shares.

The Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders is currently scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on February 25, 2005, at the Hilton San Diego Mission Valley in San Diego, California. Matters to be voted on will be included in the Company’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and distributed to stockholders prior to the meeting.

14

PART II

Item 5. Market for Common Stock and Related Stockholder Matters

The information required by Item 5 is incorporated herein by reference to PriceSmart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 under the heading “Market for Common Stock and Related Stockholder Matters.”

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The information required by Item 6 is incorporated herein by reference to PriceSmart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 under the heading “Selected Financial Data.”

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The information required by Item 7 is incorporated herein by reference to PriceSmart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

The information required by Item 7A is incorporated herein by reference to PriceSmart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 under the heading “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.”

Item 8. Financial Statements

The information required by Item 8 is incorporated herein by reference to PriceSmart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004 under the heading “Financial Statements.”

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in its reports pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

As required by SEC Rule 13a-15(b), the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Interim Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the year covered by this report. Based on the foregoing, its Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer determined that disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level.

There has been no change in internal controls over financial reporting during the most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, internal controls over financial reporting.

15

PART III

Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

PriceSmart has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its Interim Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer and controller, and to all of its other officers, directors, employees and agents. The code of ethics is available on PriceSmart’s web site at http://www.pricesmart.com/IR/Investors.htm. PriceSmart intends to disclose future amendments to, or waivers from, certain provision of its code of ethics within five business days following the date of such amendment or waiver.

The additional information required by Item 10 is incorporated herein by reference from PriceSmart’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled for February 25, 2005 under the headings “Election of Directors,” “Information Regarding Directors,” “Executive Officers of the Company” and “Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act.”

Item 11. Executive Compensation

The information required by Item 11 is incorporated herein by reference from PriceSmart’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled for February 25, 2005 under the headings “Information Regarding the Board,” “Executive Compensation and Other Information” and “Performance Graph.”

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The information required by Item 12 is incorporated herein by reference from PriceSmart’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled for February 25, 2005 under the headings “Securities Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information.”

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

The information required by Item 13 is incorporated herein by reference from PriceSmart’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled for February 25, 2005 under the heading “Certain Transactions.”

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The information required by Item 14 is incorporated herein by reference from PriceSmart’s definitive Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled for February 25, 2005 under the heading “Independent Accountants.”

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K

Report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of August 31, 2004 and 2003

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three years ended August 31, 2004

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the three years ended August 31, 2004

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three years ended August 31, 2004

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

16

On July 26, 2004, the Company filed a Form 8-K under Items 5, 7, and 10 announcing that the Company’s Board of Directors approved an amendment to the Purchase Order Financing Agreement dated July 21, 2004 and waived inconsistencies with the Companies Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

See “Schedule II: Valuation and Qualifying Accounts” attached to this report

17

PRICESMART, INC.

EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS

* Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SCHEDULE II

PRICESMART, INC.

VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

(amounts in thousands)

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.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.