Attached files

file filename
EX-32.1 - EXHIBIT 32.1 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-321.htm
EX-31.1 - EXHIBIT 31.1 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-311.htm
EX-32.2 - EXHIBIT 32.2 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-322.htm
EX-23.1 - EXHIBIT 23.1 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-231.htm
EX-21.1 - EXHIBIT 21.1 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-211.htm
EX-31.2 - EXHIBIT 31.2 - KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.ktos20151227ex-312.htm

 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
FORM 10-K
 
 
(Mark One)
 
 
 
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 27, 2015
 
 
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
Commission file number 001-34460
KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
 
Delaware
 
13-3818604
 
 
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
4820 Eastgate Mall, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 812-7300
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
area code, of Registrant’s principal executive offices)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT
 
Title of Each Class
 
Name of each exchange on which registered
 
 
Common Stock, par value $0.001
 
The NASDAQ Global Select Market
 
 
Right to purchase Shares of Series C Preferred Stock
 
 
 
SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No ý
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No ý
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 ý  No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).   Yes ý  No o
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 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. ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:
 
Large accelerated filer o
 
Accelerated filer ý
 
 
Non-accelerated filer o
 
Smaller reporting company o
 
 
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   Yes o  No ý
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 28, 2015, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $302.5 million, based on the closing sale price for shares of the registrant’s common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market on such date. This disclosure excludes shares of common stock held by executive officers, directors and stockholders whose individual ownership exceeds 10% of the common stock outstanding on June 28, 2015 because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for any other purpose.
As of March 4, 2016, 59,583,344 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.
 



Documents Incorporated by Reference
Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K incorporate information by reference from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement filed pursuant to Regulation 14A in connection with the registrant’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this annual report on Form 10-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K.



2


KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
 FORM 10-K
 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 27, 2015
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
Page
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2



All references to “us,” “we,” “our,” the “Company” and “Kratos” refer to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and its subsidiaries.
FORWARD‑LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) contains “forward-looking statements” relating to our future financial performance, the market for our services and our expansion plans and opportunities. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements reflect our current beliefs, expectations and projections, are based on assumptions, and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results or achievements to differ materially from any future results or achievements expressed in or implied by our forward-looking statements. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The most important risk and uncertainties that could cause our actual results or achievements to differ materially from the results or achievements expressed in or implied by our forward-looking statements, include, but are not limited to those specifically addressed in Item 1A “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements reflect our views and assumptions only as of the date such forward-looking statements are made. Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

PART I.

Item 1. Business.

Overview

Kratos is a mid-tier government contractor at the forefront of the U.S. Department of Defense’s (the “DoD”) Third Offset Strategy. Kratos is a leading technology, intellectual property and proprietary product and solution company focused on the U.S. and its allies’ national security. Kratos’ primary focus areas are unmanned systems, satellite communications, microwave electronics, cyber security/warfare, missile defense and combat systems. We believe that our technology, intellectual property, proprietary products and designed in positions on our customers’ platforms and systems is a competitive advantage and high barrier to entry into our markets. Our work force is primarily technically oriented and highly skilled with a significant number holding national security clearances. Our entire organization is focused on executing our strategy of becoming the leading technology and intellectual property based company in our industry.

Industry Update
 
Faced with significant budget pressures, in recent years the U.S. Government has implemented reductions in government spending, including reductions in appropriations for the DoD and other federal agencies, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (“BCA”), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Pursuant to the terms of the BCA, a sequestration went into effect in March 2013 resulting in a 7.8% reduction to the DoD budget for fiscal year (the period running from October 1st to September 30th, a “FY”) 2013 to $495.5 billion, excluding funding for military personnel. The DoD budget was approximately $496.0 billion in FY 2014 and remains at a similar level in FY 2015. The DoD base budget excludes funding for overseas contingency operations, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which are appropriated separately and are not currently subject to the BCA.
On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, formalizing the terms of a two-year budget agreement which raises the U.S. debt ceiling and lifts the sequestration spending caps by $80.0 billion. Under the budget agreement, the total federal spending increase over the BCA topline funding caps will be $50.0 billion in FY 2016 and $30.0 billion in FY 2017, with the amounts divided equally between defense and domestic priorities. The overall discretionary budget will be $1.067 trillion in FY 2016 and $1.07 trillion in FY 2017. The FY 2016 discretionary defense budget will be $548.1 billion, a $25.0 billion increase over the BCA topline funding caps.

Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the Obama Administration will receive $33.0 billion of the $38.0 billion national defense spending increase it sought in FY 2016. In summary the budget agreement:

extends the BCA out to 2025;
suspends the U.S. debt limit/ceiling until March 2017;

3


increased spending caps for FY 2016 and FY 2017 by $80.0 billion, including $50.0 billion in FY 2016 and $30.0 billion in FY 2017, split evenly between defense and domestic priorities; and
includes a FY 2016 DoD base budget of $548.0 billion; and includes a FY 2016 overseas contingency operation budget of $59.0 billion.

Current Reporting Segments
 
The Company operates in three reportable segments. The Kratos Government Solutions (“KGS”) reportable segment is comprised of an aggregation of KGS operating segments, including our microwave electronic products, satellite communications, modular systems and rocket support operating segments. The Unmanned Systems (“US”) reportable segment consists of our unmanned aerial system and unmanned ground and seaborne system businesses. The Public Safety & Security (“PSS”) reportable segment provides independent integrated solutions for advanced homeland security, public safety, critical infrastructure, and security and surveillance systems for government and commercial applications. We organize our business segments based primarily on the nature of the products, solutions and services offered. Transactions between segments are negotiated and accounted for under terms and conditions similar to other government and commercial contracts, and these intercompany transactions are eliminated in consolidation. For additional information regarding our reportable segments, see Note 13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. From a customer and solutions perspective, we view our business as an integrated whole, leveraging skills and assets wherever possible.

Discontinued Operations

On August 21, 2015, the Company completed the sale of the U.S. and U.K. operations of its Electronic Products Division to Ultra Electronics Holdings plc (“Ultra”), a public limited company formed under the laws of England and Wales and traded on the London Stock Exchange, and Ultra Electronics Defense Inc. (the “Buyer”), a Delaware corporation ultimately owned by Ultra (the “Transaction”). Pursuant to the terms of that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated May 31, 2015, by and among the Company, Ultra and the Buyer (the “Purchase Agreement”), the Company sold to the Buyer all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of its wholly owned subsidiary Herley Industries, Inc. (“Herley”) and certain of Herley’s subsidiaries, including Herley-CTI, Inc., EW Simulation Technology, Ltd. and Stapor Research, Inc. (collectively, the “Herley Entities”), for $260.0 million in cash plus $5.0 million for taxes incurred as part of the Transaction, less a $2.0 million escrow to satisfy any purchase price adjustments, and an estimated working capital adjustment of $8.3 million. The Purchase Agreement also contains certain non-compete and indemnification provisions. Under the Purchase Agreement, the Company entered into an agreement to indemnify the Buyer for any pre-acquisition tax liabilities.  As a result of this arrangement, the Company recorded amounts that have historically been classified as unrecognized tax benefits into other long term liabilities.  The Company also agreed to indemnify Ultra for pre-existing environmental conditions for a period of five years from the closing date and with a maximum indemnification payment of $34.0 million. The Company does not believe payments will be required under the indemnification provision, and the assessment of the fair value is immaterial. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, a joint 338(h)(10) election has been made for income tax purposes, providing a “step up” in tax basis to Ultra. The Company incurred approximately $11.5 million in transaction-related costs. The gain on sale of $80.8 million is subject to changes in the indemnification obligations. In accordance with ASC 360-10-45-9, Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360) and ASC 205-20-45-3 Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205), the Herley Entities were reported in discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements for all periods presented. For additional information regarding discontinued operations, see Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Immediately prior to the closing of the Transaction, the outstanding shares of the capital stock of (i) General Microwave Corporation, a New York corporation, and its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries General Microwave Israel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, General Microwave Israel (1987) Ltd., an Israeli company, and Herley GMI Eyal Ltd., an Israeli company, (ii) MSI Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary Micro Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation, and (iii) Herley-RSS, Inc., a Delaware corporation, were distributed as a dividend by Herley to the Company and will continue their current operations as wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company.

In November 2015, the Company and Ultra settled the working capital adjustment at $8.1 million, and the net cash position at closing, resulting in a net payment to the Company of $2.7 million. This represents the payment from escrow to the Company of $2.0 million, as well as the payment from Ultra of $0.7 million, reflecting the difference in the estimated working capital and actual working capital and the net cash position at the close of the Transaction. In December 2015, the Company submitted to Ultra for reimbursement the maximum $5.0 million for taxes incurred as part of the Transaction, which was reimbursed in January 2016.

Following the sale of the Herley Entities, the Company, on August 21, 2015, paid down the $41.0 million outstanding on the Company’s $110.0 million Credit and Security Agreement, dated May 14, 2014 (the “Credit Agreement”), by and among

4


the Company, the lenders from time to time party thereto, SunTrust Bank, as Agent (the “Agent”), PNC Bank, National Association, as Joint Lead Arranger and Documentation Agent, and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., as Joint Lead Arranger and Sole Book Runner, and on September 22, 2015, repurchased $175.0 million of the $625.0 million of 7.00% Senior Secured Notes due in 2019 at par, in accordance with the Indenture, dated May 14, 2014 (the “Indenture”), among the Company, all of the Company’s 100% owned domestic subsidiaries (the “Subsidiary Guarantors”) and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Collateral Agent.

Competitive Strengths
Kratos’ primary competitive strengths are our intellectual property, proprietary products, customer relationships and the designed in position of our technology and products into our customers’ platforms and systems.
Highly Specialized Experience. Kratos and our work force have years of experience working on and with the U.S. and its allies’ national security platforms and systems.
We believe that Kratos is one of the industry leaders in our core business areas including, unmanned systems, satellite communications, microwave products, missile systems and radars, missile defense, directed energy weapons, cyber security and warfare, and training systems.
Kratos’ work force of approximately 2,900 employees have specialized national security related experience with the majority performing their duties at customer locations, secure manufacturing facilities or critical infrastructure sites.
Specialized national security focus aligned with mission-critical national security priorities. Continued concerns related to the threats posed by certain foreign nations and terrorists have caused the U.S. Government to identify national security as an area of functional and spending priority. Budget pressures, particularly related to DoD spending, have placed a premium on developing and fielding low-cost, high-technology solutions to assist in national security missions. Our primary capabilities and areas of focus, listed below, are strongly aligned with the objectives of the U.S. Government:
Unmanned systems
Satellite communications and radio frequency detection
Electronic warfare, attack, missile, and radar systems
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
Ballistic missile defense
Command, control and combat systems
Cybersecurity and information assurance
Specialized training systems

Diverse base of key contracts with low concentration. Many of our contracts are single-award and or sole source in nature, where Kratos is the only awardee by the customer. In many cases, our ability to obtain single award, sole source contracts is due to our intellectual property, proprietary products, past performance qualifications and relative experience. We have a highly diverse base of contracts with no contract representing more than 5% of 2015 revenue. Our fixed-price contracts, the vast majority of which are production contracts, represent approximately 80% of our 2015 revenue. Our cost-plus-fee contracts and time and materials contracts represent approximately 14% and 6%, respectively, of our 2015 revenue. We believe our diverse base of key contracts and low reliance on any one contract provides us with a stable, balanced revenue stream.
In-depth understanding of customer missions. We have a reputation for successfully providing mission-critical products, solutions and services to our customers. Our long-term relationships with the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and other national security related customers and agencies enable us to develop an in-depth understanding of their missions and technical requirements. In addition, the majority of our employees are located at our customer locations, at secure manufacturing facilities or at critical infrastructure locations, all of which provides Kratos with valuable strategic insight into our customers’ ongoing missions and future program requirements. This understanding of our customers’ missions, requirements and needs, in conjunction with the strategic location of our employees, enables us to offer technical solutions tailored to our customers’ specific requirements and evolving mission objectives. In addition, once we are on-site with a customer, we have historically been successful in winning new and recompete business.
Significant cash flow visibility driven by stable backlog. As of December 27, 2015, our total backlog (see Backlog below) was approximately $0.9 billion, of which approximately $528.7 million was funded backlog. The majority of our sales are from orders issued under long-term contracts, typically three to five years in duration. Our contract backlog provides visibility into stable future revenue and cash flow over a diverse set of contracts.

5


Highly skilled employees and an experienced management team. We deliver our services through a skilled and primarily technically oriented workforce of approximately 2,900 employees. Our senior managers have significant experience with U.S. Government agencies, the U.S. military and U.S. Government contractors. Many of our employees hold national security clearances. Members of our management team have experience growing businesses both organically and through acquisitions. We believe that the cumulative experience and differentiated expertise of our personnel in our core focus areas, coupled with our sizable employee base, allow us to qualify for and bid on larger projects in a prime contracting role.
Our Strategy
Our strategy is to continue to grow our business as a proprietary product and intellectual property focused national security company, focused on Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (“C5ISR”), providing highly differentiated technology, products, solutions and services in our core areas of focus. We execute our strategy by delivering comprehensive, leading technology products, high-end engineering services, technical solutions, product manufacturing, and engineering solutions to U.S. Government agencies. To achieve our objective, we intend to primarily focus on internal growth by selectively investing in strategic growth areas, curtailing such investments when deemed appropriate, and eliminating unnecessary or duplicative costs where possible.
Internal Growth
We are focused on generating internal growth by capitalizing on our intellectual property, proprietary products, current contract base and customer relationships and by making targeted discretionary investments in strategic growth areas including unmanned tactical systems, satellite communications and microwave electronic products, which have the highest potential for growth and in which we will retain the intellectual property rights.
Expand Technology Product, Solution and Service Offerings Provided to Existing customers. We are focused on expanding the technology, products, solutions and services we provide to our current customers by leveraging our strong relationships, technical capabilities and past performance record and by offering a wider range of comprehensive technology rich products and solutions. In regard to areas of specialization, our product and service offerings include manufacturing of specialized defense electronics products, integrated technology solutions for satellite communications and specialized unmanned aerial aircraft, targets, Unmanned Aerial Systems (“UAS”) and Unmanned Ground Systems (“UGS”). We believe our understanding of customer missions, processes, needs and requirements, and our ability to deliver low cost, technology leading products and solutions, position us well for success in the current constrained budget environment.
Capitalize on Current Contract Base. We are pursuing new program and contract opportunities and awards as we build the business with our expanding technology base, contract portfolio, and product, solution and service offerings. We are also aggressively pursuing several new national security programs, including air and missile defense radar, F-35 aircraft, Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar, directed energy systems, hypersonic systems, electromagnetic rail gun systems, next generation ballistic missile targets, denied environment systems, UAS, UGS, tactical unmanned aircraft systems, small satellite command and control systems, and robotics. We also are aggressively pursuing task orders under existing contract vehicles to maximize our revenue and strengthen our customer relationships. We have developed several internal tools that facilitate our ability to track, prioritize and win task orders under these vehicles. Combining these tools with our technical expertise, our strong past performance record and our knowledge of our customers’ needs should position us to win additional task orders.
Expand Customer and Contract Base. We are also focused on expanding our customer base into areas with significant growth opportunities by leveraging our technology, intellectual property, proprietary products, capabilities, industry reputation, long-term customer relationships and diverse contract base. We anticipate that this expansion will enable us both to pursue additional higher value work and to further diversify our revenue base across additional U.S. Government, international and commercial customers.
Improve Operating Margins. We believe that we have opportunities to increase our operating margins and improve profitability by capitalizing on our corporate infrastructure investments and internally developed tools, improving efficiencies and reducing costs, and concentrating our efforts on increasing the percentage of revenues generated from high value-added contracts.
Investment in Strategic Growth Areas. Over the past several years, we have made significant investments in strategic growth areas including the unmanned tactical aircraft systems area. Specifically, we have increased internally funded research and development, capital expenditures and infrastructure investments including bid and proposal and new business capture and pursuit expenses. We have made these investments with the intention of retaining the intellectual property rights and design packages for unmanned platforms and systems, and to secure a sole source position in these strategic growth areas. Once we have either secured these sole source positions or in the event our solution is not selected, we will curtail our investments in these areas, which we expect will improve our margins and cash flows at that time, and if our products enter production.

6


Capitalize on Corporate Infrastructure Investments. In recent periods, we have made significant investments in our senior management and corporate infrastructure for cyber security threats to our Company, increased and changing regulations we are subject to, and the changing national security environment. These investments also included hiring senior executives with significant experience in the national security industry, strengthening our internal controls over financial reporting and accounting staff in support of public company reporting requirements, and expanding our backlog and bid and proposal pipeline. We will be allocating additional resources in our pursuit of new, larger and highly technical contract opportunities. We believe our management experience and corporate infrastructure can support a company with a much larger revenue base than ours. Accordingly, we believe that, to the extent our revenue grows, we will be able to leverage this infrastructure base and increase our operating margins.
Customers
A representative list of our customers in our KGS and US segments during 2015 included the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, Missile Defense Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”), the U.S. Southern Command, U.S. intelligence community and certain classified customers. In 2015, representative customers in the PSS segment included Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, Prince George’s County Public Schools, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Alamo Colleges, University of New Hampshire, City of Galveston, Texas Orthopedic Hospital, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Prudential, New York University, Fidelity, Scripps Clinic, PNC Bank, Halliburton, AT&T, Chevron, Mellon Bank, Calpine Power Plants, Capital Health, DuPont Fabros, BP America, University of Houston, Meridian Health and Memorial Hermann Hospital System.
Revenue from the U.S. Government (which includes FMS) includes revenue from contracts for which we are the prime contractor as well as those for which we are a subcontractor and the ultimate customer is the U.S. Government. Revenues from U.S. Government agency customers in aggregate accounted for approximately 62%, 57% and 61% of total revenues in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively.

Revenues from foreign customers were approximately $76.5 million or 9%, $89.0 million or 12%, and $73.2 million or 11% of total revenue for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 28, 2014, and December 27, 2015, respectively.

Backlog
 
As of December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015, our backlog was approximately $1.0 billion and $0.9 billion, respectively, of which $585.8 million was funded in 2014 and $528.7 million was funded in 2015. Backlog is our estimate of the amount of revenue we expect to realize over the remaining life of awarded contracts and task orders that we have in hand as of the measurement date. Our total backlog consists of funded and unfunded backlog. We define funded backlog as estimated future revenue under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus our estimate of the future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts that are under firm orders. Our funded backlog does not include the full potential value of our contracts because Congress often appropriates funds to be used by an agency for a particular program of a contract on a yearly or quarterly basis even though the contract may call for performance over a number of years. As a result, contracts typically are only partially funded at any point during their term, and all or some of the work to be performed under the contracts may remain unfunded unless and until Congress makes subsequent appropriation and the procuring agency allocates funding to the contract.

Unfunded backlog reflects our estimate of future revenue under awarded government contracts and task orders for which either funding has not yet been appropriated or the expenditure has not yet been authorized. Our total backlog does not include estimates of revenue from government wide acquisition contracts (“GWACs”) or General Services Administration (“GSA”) schedules beyond awarded or funded task orders, but our unfunded backlog does include estimates of revenue beyond awarded or funded task orders for other types of indefinite delivery or indefinite quantity contracts based on our experience under such contracts and similar contracts. Unfunded backlog also includes priced options, which consist of the aggregate contract revenues expected to be earned as a result of a customer exercising an option period that has been specifically defined in the original contract award.
 
Contracts undertaken by us may extend beyond one year. Accordingly, portions are carried forward from one year to the next as part of backlog. Because many factors affect the scheduling of projects, no assurance can be given as to when revenue will be realized on projects included in our backlog. Although funded backlog represents only business that is considered to be firm, we cannot guarantee that cancellations or scope adjustments will not occur. The majority of funded backlog represents contracts with terms that would entitle us to all or a portion of our costs incurred and potential fees upon cancellation by the customer.
 

7


Management believes that year-to-year comparisons of backlog are not necessarily indicative of future revenues. The actual timing of receipt of revenues, if any, on projects included in backlog could change because many factors affect the scheduling of projects. In addition, cancellation or adjustments to contracts may occur. Backlog is typically subject to large variations from quarter to quarter as existing contracts are renewed or new contracts are awarded. Additionally, all U.S. Government contracts included in backlog, whether or not funded, may be terminated at the convenience of the U.S. Government.

Employees
As of December 27, 2015, we had a work force of approximately 2,900 full-time, part-time and on-call employees.
Competition
Our market is competitive and includes a number of companies in the U.S. defense and security integration industries. Many of the companies that we compete against have significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources and generate greater revenues than we do. Competition in the KGS and US segments include tier one, large U.S. Government contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, SAIC, Leidos, Engility, ITT Systems, CSRA, Raytheon, BAE Systems, L3, Orbital/ATK, Boeing, and CACI. While we view other government contractors as competitors, we also team with these companies in joint proposals or in the delivery of our products, solutions and services for customers. Tier two competitors include smaller government contractors such as AeroVironment, API Technologies, iRobot and AAR. Intense competition and long operating cycles are key characteristics of our business within the defense industry. It is also common in the defense industry for work on major programs to be shared among a number of companies. A company competing to be a prime contractor or subcontractor on an award may, upon final award of the contract to another competitor, become a subcontractor for the final prime contractor. It is not unusual to compete for a contract award with a peer company and simultaneously perform as a supplier to or be a customer of that same competitor on other contracts, or vice versa. The nature of major defense programs, conducted under binding contracts, allows companies that perform well to benefit from a level of program continuity not frequently found in other industries. Competition in the PSS segment includes Siemens Building Technology, Johnson Controls, and Convergint Technologies, among others.
We believe that the principal competitive factors in our ability to win new business include our intellectual property, proprietary products and technology. Also important is our past performance qualifications, customer relationships, domain and technology expertise, the ability to replace contract vehicles, the ability to deliver results within budget (time and cost), reputation, accountability, staffing flexibility, and project management expertise. Additionally, our ability to deliver cost effective products, solutions and services that meet our customers’ requirements is a key differentiator. The current federal procurement environment is driven primarily by “low price, technically acceptable” contract award decisions. Accordingly, innovation and the ability for a contractor to quickly deliver a low cost, technically compliant solution or product are critical in the current competitive environment. In addition, competitor bid protests have become more prevalent in the current competitive environment, resulting in further delay of contract procurement activity.
In the U.S. defense, IT, and services markets, the U.S. Government has stressed competition and affordability in connection with its future procurement of products and services. This has led to fewer sole source awards, as well as more emphasis on cost competitiveness. In addition, the DoD has announced several initiatives to improve efficiency, refocus priorities, modify contract terms, and enhance DoD best practices including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. See the Industry Background section in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the Industry Update section in Item 1 “Business” contained within this Annual Report. These initiatives, when implemented, together with planned reductions in defense spending levels, are likely to result in fewer new opportunities for our industry as a whole with more demanding terms. A reduced opportunity set is likely to intensify competition within the industry as companies compete for a more limited set of new programs.
Research and Development
We believe that our future success depends upon our ability to continue to develop new products and services, and enhancements to and applications for our existing products and services. Our research and development expenses were $19.7 million, $18.6 million and $16.2 million in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. We intend to continue our focus on research and development as a key strategy for growth, which will focus on investments in those fields that we believe will offer the greatest opportunity for growth and profitability. Our current primary internal research and development (“IR&D”) focus areas include unmanned systems, electronic warfare, satellite communications and signal monitoring.

8


Intellectual Property
We believe that our continued success depends in large part on our proprietary technology, the intellectual skills of our employees and the ability of our employees to continue to innovate. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, as well as confidentiality agreements, to establish and protect our proprietary rights.
As of December 27, 2015, we held a number of U.S. and foreign patents. We do not consider our business to be materially dependent upon any individual patent. We will continue to file and pursue patent applications when and where appropriate to attempt to protect our rights in our proprietary technologies. We also encourage our employees to continue to invent and develop new technologies so as to maintain our competitiveness in the marketplace.
We own or have rights to use certain trademarks, service marks and trade names that we use in conjunction with the operation of our business. Certain of our trademarks have also been registered in selected foreign countries.
Government Regulation
We are subject to various government regulations, including various U.S. Government regulations as a contractor and subcontractor to the agencies of the U.S. Government. Among the most significant U.S. Government regulations affecting our business are:
the Federal Acquisition Regulations and supplemental agency regulations, which comprehensively regulate the formation, administration, and performance under government contracts;
the Truth in Negotiations Act, which requires certification and disclosure of all cost and pricing data in connection with contract negotiations;
the Cost Accounting Standards, which impose accounting requirements that govern our right to reimbursement under cost-based government contracts;
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits U.S. companies from providing anything of value to a foreign official to help obtain, retain or direct business, or obtain any unfair advantages;
the False Claims Act and the False Statements Act, which, respectively, impose penalties for payments made on the basis of false facts provided to the government and impose penalties on the basis of false statements, even if they do not result in a payment; and
laws, regulations and executive orders restricting the use and dissemination of information classified for national security purposes and the exportation of certain products and technical data.
We also need special security clearances to continue working on and advancing certain of our projects with the U.S. Government. Classified programs generally will require that we comply with various Executive Orders, federal laws and regulations and customer security requirements that may include restrictions on how we develop, store, protect and share information, and may require our employees to obtain government clearances.
The nature of the work we do for the federal government may also limit the parties who may invest in or acquire us. Export laws may keep us from providing potential foreign acquirers with a review of the technical data they would be acquiring. In addition, there are special requirements for foreign parties who wish to buy or acquire control or influence over companies that control technology or produce goods in the security interests of the U.S. There may need to be a review under the Exon-Florio provisions of the Defense Production Act. Finally, the government may require a prospective foreign owner to establish intermediaries to actually run that part of the company that does classified work, and establishing a subsidiary and its separate operation may make such an acquisition less appealing to such potential acquirers.
In addition, the export from the U.S. of certain of our products may require the issuance of a license by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations as kept in force by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, as amended. Some of our products may require the issuance of a license by the U.S. Department of State under the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, which licenses are generally harder to obtain and take longer to obtain than do Export Administration Act licenses.
Our business may require compliance with state or local laws designed to limit the uses of personal user information gathered online or require online services to establish privacy policies.

9


Material Availability
We procure critical material and subsystems from both domestic and global supply partners. These supply sources may be single sources for certain components and the material provided may have extended lead times. To support our continuing customer needs, we have taken steps to mitigate sourcing risks. This includes working closely with our suppliers to ensure future material and subsystem availability to support our manufacturing plans. In some cases, we have elected to stock reserve material to ensure future availability.
Environmental
Our manufacturing operations are subject to many requirements under environmental laws. In the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and similar state agencies administer laws that restrict the emission of pollutants into the air, discharges of pollutants into bodies of water and disposal of pollutants in the ground. Violations of these laws can result in significant civil and criminal penalties and incarceration. The failure to obtain a permit for certain activities may be a violation of environmental law and subject the owner and operator to civil and criminal sanctions. Most environmental agencies also have the power to shut down an operation if it is operating in violation of environmental law. U.S. laws also typically allow citizens to bring private enforcement actions in some situations. Outside the U.S., the environmental laws and their enforcement vary and may be more burdensome. We have management programs and processes in place that are intended to minimize the potential for violations of these laws.
Other environmental laws, primarily in the U.S., address the contamination of land and groundwater and require the clean-up of such contamination. These laws may apply not only to the owner or operator of an on-going business, but also to the owner of land contaminated by a prior owner or operator. In addition, if a parcel is contaminated by the release of a hazardous substance, such as through its historic use as a disposal site, any person or company that has contributed to that contamination, whether or not it has a legal interest in the land, may be subject to a requirement to clean up the parcel.
Available Information
We file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We make available on our website under “Investor Relations/Financial Information/SEC Filings,” free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the SEC. Our website address is www.kratosdefense.com. You may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains our reports, proxy and information statements, and other information at www.sec.gov.
References to our website and the SEC’s website in this report are provided as a convenience and do not constitute, and should not be viewed as, incorporation by reference of the information contained on, or available through, such websites. Such information should not be considered a part of this report, unless otherwise expressly incorporated by reference in this report.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors. 
You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained herein as well as the information included in this Annual Report and other reports and filings made with the SEC in evaluating our business and prospects. Risks and uncertainties, in addition to those we describe below, that are not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business and financial results could be harmed and the price of our common stock could decline. You should also refer to the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our Consolidated Financial Statements and the related Notes.
Risks Related to Our Business
The U.S. Government provides a significant portion of our revenue, and our business could be adversely affected by changes in the fiscal policies of the U.S. Government and governmental entities.
In fiscal 2013, 2014 and 2015, we generated 62%, 57% and 61%, respectively, of our total revenues from contracts with the U.S. Government (including all branches of the U.S. military and FMS), either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. We expect to continue to derive most of our revenues from work performed under U.S. Government contracts. See the Industry Update section in Item 1 “Business” contained within this Annual Report for a discussion of the current budgetary and funding constraints on U.S. Government spending and legislation enacted to reduce the U.S. federal deficit. As

10


a result, we have experienced and expect to continue to experience reduced or delayed awards on some of our programs, with a related negative impact to our revenues, earnings and cash flows. Competitor bid protests also have become more prevalent in the current competitive environment resulting from decreased government spending, which has led to further contract award delays. In addition, any future changes to the fiscal policies of the U.S. Government and foreign governmental entities may decrease overall government funding for defense and homeland security, result in delays in the procurement of our products and services due to lack of funding, cause the U.S. Government and government agencies to reduce their purchases under existing contracts, or cause them to exercise their rights to terminate contracts at-will or to abstain from exercising options to renew contracts, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.
If we fail to establish and maintain important relationships with government agencies and prime contractors, our ability to successfully maintain and develop new business may be adversely affected.
Our reputation and relationship with the U.S. Government, and in particular with the agencies of the DoD and the U.S. intelligence community, are key factors in maintaining and developing new business opportunities. In addition, we often act as a subcontractor or in “teaming” arrangements in which we and other contractors bid together on particular contracts or programs for the U.S. Government or government agencies. We expect to continue to depend on relationships with other prime contractors for a portion of our revenue for the foreseeable future. Negative press reports regarding conflicts of interest, poor contract performance, employee misconduct, information security breaches or other aspects of our business, regardless of accuracy, could harm our reputation. Additionally, as a subcontractor or team member, we often lack control over fulfillment of a contract, and poor performance on the contract could tarnish our reputation, even when we perform as required. As a result, we may be unable to successfully maintain our relationships with government agencies or prime contractors, and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to maintain our existing business and compete successfully for new business.
Many of our contracts contain performance obligations that require innovative design capabilities, are technologically complex, require state-of-the-art manufacturing expertise, or are dependent upon factors not wholly within our control. Failure to meet these obligations could adversely affect our profitability and future prospects. Early termination of client contracts or contract penalties could adversely affect results of operations.

We design, develop, and manufacture technologically advanced and innovative products and services, which are applied by our customers in a variety of environments. Problems and delays in development or delivery as a result of issues with respect to design, technology, licensing and intellectual property rights, labor, inability to achieve learning curve assumptions, manufacturing materials or components could prevent us from meeting requirements. Either we or the customer may generally terminate a contract for material uncured breach by the other. If we breach a contract or fail to perform in accordance with contractual service levels, delivery schedules, performance specifications, or other contractual requirements we could be terminated for default, and we may be required to refund money previously paid to us by the customer or to pay penalties or other damages. Even if we have not breached, we may deal with various situations from time to time that may result in the amendment or termination of a contract. These steps can result in significant current period charges and/or reductions in current or future revenue. Other factors that may affect revenue and profitability include inaccurate cost estimates, design issues, unforeseen costs and expenses not covered by insurance or indemnification from the customer, diversion of management focus in responding to unforeseen problems, and loss of follow-on work.
If our subcontractors or suppliers fail to perform their contractual obligations, our performance and reputation as a contractor and our ability to obtain future business could suffer.
As a prime contractor, we often rely upon other companies as subcontractors to perform work we are obligated to perform for our customers. As we secure more work under certain of our contracts, we expect to require an increasing level of support from subcontractors that provide complementary and supplementary services to our offerings. We are responsible for the work performed by our subcontractors, even though in some cases we have limited involvement in that work. If one or more of our subcontractors fails to satisfactorily perform the agreed-upon services on a timely basis or violates U.S. Government contracting policies, laws or regulations, our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor or meet our customers’ expectations may be compromised. In extreme cases, performance or other deficiencies on the part of our subcontractors could result in a customer terminating our contract for default. A termination for default could expose us to liability, including liability for the agency’s costs of re-procurement, could damage our reputation and could hurt our ability to compete for future contracts.
We also are required to procure certain materials and parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. The inability of a supplier to meet our needs or the appearance of counterfeit parts in our products could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

11


We face intense competition from many competitors that have greater resources than we do, which could result in price reductions, reduced profitability or loss of market share.
We operate in highly competitive markets and generally encounter intense competition to win contracts from many other firms, including mid-tier federal contractors with specialized capabilities, large defense contractors and IT services providers. Competition in our markets may increase as a result of a number of factors, such as the entrance of new or larger competitors, including those formed through alliances or consolidation, or the reduction in the overall number of government contracts. We may also face competition from prime contractors for whom we currently serve as subcontractors or teammates if those prime contractors choose to offer customer services of the type that we are currently providing. Recently, procurement awards have been based on lowest price, technically acceptable proposals. In addition, we may face competition from our subcontractors who, from time-to-time, seek to obtain prime contractor status on contracts for which they currently serve as a subcontractor to us.

Many of our competitors have greater financial, technical, marketing and public relations resources, larger customer bases and greater brand or name recognition than we do. Such competitors may be able to utilize their substantially greater resources and economies of scale to, among other things:

divert sales from us by winning very large‑scale government contracts, a risk that is enhanced by the recent trend in government procurement practices to bundle services into larger contracts and the recent trend of awards on a lowest price, technically acceptable basis;
divert sales from us by the award of government contracts to our competitors who may be willing to bid at substantially lower prices;
force us to charge lower prices; or
adversely affect our relationships with current customers, including our ability to continue to win competitively awarded engagements in which we are the incumbent.

In the event that the market for products in our US segment expands, we expect that competition will intensify as additional competitors enter the market and current competitors expand their product lines. In order to secure contracts successfully when competing with larger, well-financed companies, we may be forced to agree to contractual terms that provide for lower aggregate payments to us over the life of the contract, which could adversely affect our margins. In addition, larger diversified competitors serving as prime contractors may be able to supply underlying products and services from affiliated entities, which would prevent us from competing for subcontracting opportunities on these contracts. If we lose business to our competitors or are forced to lower our prices, our revenue and operating profits could decline.

Our business is dependent upon our ability to keep pace with the latest technological changes.
The market for our services is characterized by rapid change and technological improvements. Failure to respond in a timely and cost-effective way to these technological developments would result in serious harm to our business and operating results. We have derived, and we expect to continue to derive, a substantial portion of our revenues from providing innovative engineering services and technical solutions that are based upon today’s leading technologies and that are capable of adapting to future technologies. As a result, our success will depend, in part, on our ability to develop and market service offerings that respond in a timely manner to the technological advances of our customers, evolving industry standards and changing customer preferences.
We believe that, in order to remain competitive in the future, we will need to continue to invest significant financial resources to develop new offerings and technologies or to adapt or modify our existing offerings and technologies, including through internal research and development, acquisitions and joint ventures or other teaming arrangements. These expenditures could divert our attention and resources from other projects, and we cannot be sure that these expenditures will ultimately lead to the timely development of new offerings and technologies or identification of and expansion into new markets. Due to the design complexity of our products, we may, in the future, experience delays in completing the development and introduction of new products. Any delays could result in increased costs of development or deflect resources from other projects. In addition, there can be no assurance that the market for our products will develop or continue to expand or that we will be successful in newly identified markets as we currently anticipate. The failure of our technology to gain market acceptance could significantly reduce our revenues and harm our business. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that our competitors will not develop competing technologies that gain market acceptance in advance of our products.

Additionally, the possibility exists that our competitors might develop new technology or offerings that might cause our existing technology and offerings to become obsolete. If we fail in our new product development efforts or our products or

12


services fail to achieve market acceptance more rapidly as compared to our competitors, our ability to procure new contracts could be negatively impacted, which could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

If the UAS and UGS markets do not experience significant growth, if we cannot expand our customer base or if our
products do not achieve broad acceptance, then we may not be able to achieve our anticipated level of growth.

For the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015, our US segment accounted for 10.1% of our total revenue. We cannot
accurately predict the future growth rate or size of this market. Demand for our products may not increase, or may decrease,
either generally or in specific markets, for particular types of products or during particular time periods. There are only a
limited number of major programs under which the U.S. military, our primary customer, is currently funding the development or purchase of our UAS and UGS products. Although we are seeking to expand our US customer base to include foreign
governments, domestic non-military agencies and commercial customers, we cannot assure that our efforts will be
successful. The expansion of the UAS and UGS markets in general, and the market for our products in particular, depends on a number of factors, including the following:

customer satisfaction with these types of systems as solutions;
the cost, performance and reliability of our products and products offered by our competitors;
customer perceptions regarding the effectiveness and value of these types of systems;
limitations on our ability to market our US products and services outside the U.S. due to U.S.
government regulations; and
marketing efforts and publicity regarding these types of systems.

Even if UAS and UGS gain wide market acceptance in general, our specific products may not adequately address market requirements or may not gain market acceptance. If these types of systems generally, or our products specifically, do not gain wide market acceptance, then we may not be able to achieve our anticipated level of growth and our revenue and results of operations may suffer.

Loss of our GSA contracts or GWACs could impair our ability to attract new business.
We are a prime contractor under several GSA contracts and GWAC vehicles. We believe that our ability to provide services under these contracts will continue to be important to our business because of the multiple opportunities for new engagements each contract provides. If we were to lose our position as prime contractor on one or more of these contracts, we could lose substantial revenues and our operating results could suffer. GSA contracts and other GWACs typically have a one or two-year initial term with multiple options exercisable at the government customer’s discretion to extend the contract for one or more years. We cannot be assured that our government customers will continue to exercise the options remaining on our current contracts, nor can we be assured that our future customers will exercise options on any contracts we may receive in the future.
Government contracts differ materially from standard commercial contracts, involve competitive bidding and may be subject to cancellation or delay without penalty.
Government contracts frequently include provisions that are not standard in private commercial transactions and are subject to laws and regulations that give the U.S. Government rights and remedies not typically found in commercial contracts, including provisions permitting the U.S. Government to:
terminate our existing contracts;
reduce potential future income from our existing contracts;
modify some of the terms and conditions in our existing contracts;
suspend or permanently prohibit us from doing business with the U.S. Government or with any specific government agency;
impose fines and penalties;
subject us to criminal prosecution;
suspend work under existing multiple year contracts and related task orders if the necessary funds are not appropriated by Congress;
decline to exercise an option to extend an existing multiple year contract; and
claim rights in technologies and systems invented, developed or produced by us.

In addition, government contracts are frequently awarded only after formal competitive bidding processes, which have been and may continue to be protracted and typically impose provisions that permit cancellation in the event that necessary funds are unavailable to the government agency. Competitive procurements impose substantial costs and managerial time and effort in order to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us. In many cases, unsuccessful bidders

13


for government contracts are provided the opportunity to formally protest certain contract awards through various agencies, administrative and judicial channels. We have experienced an increase in competitor bid protests on contracts on which we were the successful bidder due to the competitive environment resulting from decreased government spending. The protest process may substantially delay a successful bidder’s contract performance, result in cancellation of the contract award entirely and distract management. We may not be awarded contracts for which we bid, and substantial delays or cancellation of purchases may follow our successful bids as a result of such protests.
Certain of our government contracts also contain “organizational conflict of interest” clauses that could limit our ability to compete for certain related follow-on contracts. For example, when we work on the design of a particular solution, we may be precluded from competing for the contract to install that solution. While we actively monitor our contracts to avoid these conflicts, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to avoid all organizational conflict of interest issues.
We may not receive the full amounts estimated under the contracts in our backlog, which could reduce our revenue in future periods below the levels anticipated. This makes backlog an uncertain indicator of future operating results.
Backlog is typically subject to large variations from quarter to quarter and comparisons of backlog from period to period are not necessarily indicative of future revenues. The contracts comprising our backlog may not result in actual revenue in any particular period or at all, and the actual revenue from such contracts may differ from our backlog estimates. The timing of receipt of revenues, if any, on projects included in backlog could change because many factors affect the scheduling of projects. Cancellation of or adjustments to contracts may occur. Additionally, all U.S. Government contracts included in backlog, whether or not funded, may be terminated at the convenience of the U.S. Government. The failure to realize all amounts in our backlog could adversely affect our revenues and gross margins. As a result, our funded, unfunded and total backlog as of any particular date may not be an accurate indicator of our future earnings.
A preference for minority-owned, small and small disadvantaged businesses could impact our ability to be a prime contractor on certain governmental procurements.
As a result of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) set-aside program, the federal government may decide to restrict certain procurements only to bidders that qualify as minority-owned, small, or small disadvantaged businesses. As a result, we would not be eligible to perform as a prime contractor on those programs and in general would be restricted to no more than 49% of the work as a subcontractor on those programs. An increase in the amount of procurements under the SBA set-aside program may impact our ability to bid on new procurements as a prime contractor or restrict our ability to compete on incumbent work that is placed in the set-aside program.
U.S. Government in-sourcing could result in loss of business opportunities and personnel.
The U.S. Government has continued to reduce the percentage of contracted services in favor of more federal employees through an initiative called “in-sourcing.”  Over time, in-sourcing could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.   Specifically, as a result of in-sourcing government procurements for services could be fewer and smaller in the future.  In addition, work we currently perform could be in-sourced by the federal government and, as a result, our revenues could be reduced. Moreover, our employees could also be hired by the government.  This loss of our employees would necessitate the need to retain and train new employees.  Accordingly, the effect of in-sourcing or the continuation of in-sourcing at a faster-than-expected rate, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats, including cybersecurity threats, and other disruptions.
Many of the systems we develop, install and maintain involve managing and protecting information involved in intelligence, national security and other sensitive or classified U.S. Government functions. We face various security threats, including cybersecurity threats, to gain unauthorized access to this sensitive information. Such threats can come from external as well as internal sources. We also face threats to the safety of our directors, officers, and employees; threats to the security of our facilities and infrastructure; and threats from terrorist acts. Although we utilize various procedures and controls to monitor these threats and mitigate our exposure to such threats, there can be no assurance that these procedures and controls will be sufficient in preventing security threats from materializing. If any of these events were to materialize, they could lead to the loss of sensitive information, critical infrastructure, personnel or capabilities essential to our operations and prevent us from being eligible for further work on sensitive or classified systems for U.S. Government customers. Further, any losses we incur from such a security breach could exceed the policy limits under our errors and omissions and product liability insurance. Any losses we incur, any damage to our reputation or any limitations on our eligibility for additional work resulting from a security

14


breach could materially reduce our revenue and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Cybersecurity attacks in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in mission critical systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. We have experienced cybersecurity attacks and may experience them in the future. These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from remedial actions, loss of business, loss of proprietary and trade secret information or potential liability.
If we experience systems or service failure, our reputation could be harmed and our customers could assert claims against us for damages or refunds.
We create, implement and maintain IT solutions that are often critical to our customers’ operations. We have experienced, and may in the future experience, some systems and service failures, schedule or delivery delays and other problems in connection with our work. If we experience these problems, we may:
lose revenue due to adverse customer reaction;
be required to provide additional services to a customer at no charge;
cause customers to postpone, cancel or fail to renew contracts;
receive negative publicity, which could damage our reputation and adversely affect our ability to attract or retain customers; and
suffer claims for substantial damages.

We cannot ensure that provisions in our customer contracts will be legally sufficient to protect us if we are sued.

In addition, our errors and omissions and product liability insurance coverage may not be adequate, may not continue to be available on reasonable terms or in sufficient amounts to cover one or more large claims, or the insurer may disclaim coverage as to some types of future claims. The successful assertion of any large claim against us could seriously harm our business. Even if not successful, these claims may result in significant legal and other costs, be a distraction to our management and harm our reputation.
Our products are complex and could have unknown defects or errors, which may increase our costs, harm our reputation with customers, give rise to costly litigation, or divert our resources from other purposes.

Our products, including but not limited to unmanned vehicles, aerial targets, and ballistic missile targets, are extremely complex and must operate successfully with complex products from other vendors. Despite testing, our products have contained defects and errors and may in the future contain defects, errors, or performance problems when first introduced, when new versions or enhancements are released, or even after these products have been used by our customers for a period of time. These problems could result in expensive and time-consuming design modifications or warranty charges, delays in the introduction of new products or enhancements, significant increases in our service and maintenance costs, diversion of our personnel’s attention from our product development efforts, exposure to liability for damages, damaged customer relationships, and harm to our reputation, any of which could materially harm our results of operations. In addition, increased development and warranty costs could be substantial and could reduce our operating margins.

The existence of any defects, errors, or failures in our products or the misuse of our products could also lead to lawsuits against us, result in injury, death, or property damage, and significantly damage our reputation and support for our products in general.

Although we maintain insurance policies, we cannot provide assurance that this insurance will be adequate to protect us from all material judgments and expenses related to potential future claims or that these levels of insurance will be available in the future at economical prices or at all. A successful liability claim could result in substantial cost to us. Even if we are fully insured as it relates to a claim, the claim could nevertheless diminish our brand and divert management’s attention and resources, which could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Due to the volatile and flammable nature of certain components of our products and equipment, fires or explosions may
disrupt our business or cause significant injuries, which could adversely affect our financial results.

The development and manufacture of certain of our products involves the handling of a variety of explosive and flammable materials as well as high power equipment. From time to time, these activities may result in incidents that could

15


cause us to temporarily shut down or otherwise disrupt some manufacturing processes, causing production delays and resulting in liability for workplace injuries and/or fatalities. We have safety and loss prevention programs that require detailed reviews of process changes and new operations, along with routine safety audits of operations involving explosive materials, to mitigate such incidents, as well as a variety of insurance policies. However, we cannot ensure that we will not experience such incidents in the future or that any such incidents will not result in production delays or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our financial results may vary significantly from quarter to quarter.

We expect our revenue and operating results to vary from quarter to quarter. Reductions in revenue in a particular quarter could lead to lower profitability in that quarter because a relatively large amount of our expenses are fixed in the short-term. We may incur significant operating expenses during the start-up and early stages of large contracts and may not be able to recognize corresponding revenue in that same quarter. We may also incur additional expenses when contracts are terminated or expire and are not renewed.

In addition, payments due to us from our customers may be delayed due to billing cycles or as a result of failures of government budgets to gain congressional and administration approval in a timely manner. The U.S. Government’s fiscal year ends September 30. If a federal budget for the next federal fiscal year has not been approved by that date in each year, our customers may have to suspend engagements that we are working on until a budget has been approved. Any such suspensions may reduce our revenue in the fourth quarter of the federal fiscal year or the first quarter of the subsequent year. The U.S. Government’s fiscal year end can also trigger increased purchase requests from customers for equipment and materials. Any increased purchase requests we receive as a result of the U.S. Government’s fiscal year end would serve to increase our third or fourth quarter revenue, but will generally decrease profit margins for that quarter, as these activities generally are not as profitable as our typical offerings.
Additional factors that may cause our financial results to fluctuate from quarter to quarter include those addressed elsewhere in this Item 1A “Risk Factors” and the following factors, among others:
the terms of customer contracts that affect the timing of revenue recognition;
variability in demand for our services and solutions;
commencement, completion or termination of contracts during any particular quarter;
timing of shipments and product deliveries;
timing of award or performance incentive fee notices;    
timing of significant bid and proposal costs;
the costs of remediating unknown defects, errors or performance problems of our product offerings;
variable purchasing patterns under GSA contracts, GWACs, blanket purchase agreements and other indefinite delivery or indefinite quantity contracts;
restrictions on and delays related to the export of defense articles and services;
costs related to government inquiries;
strategic decisions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs and joint ventures;
strategic investments or changes in business strategy;
changes in the extent to which we use subcontractors;
seasonal fluctuations in our staff utilization rates;
changes in our effective tax rate, including changes in our judgment as to the necessity of the valuation allowance recorded against our deferred tax assets; and
the length of sales cycles.

Significant fluctuations in our operating results for a particular quarter could cause us to fall out of compliance with the financial covenants related to our debt, which if not waived, could restrict our access to capital and cause us to take extreme measures to pay down our debt under the Credit Agreement. In addition, fluctuations in our financial results could cause our stock price to decline. See the risks and uncertainties related to our ability to raise additional capital below in “We may need additional capital to fund the growth of our business, and financing may not be available on favorable terms or at all.”

Our margins and operating results may suffer if we experience unfavorable changes in the proportion of cost-plus-fee or fixed‑price contracts in our total contract mix.

Although fixed-price contracts entail a greater risk of a reduced profit or financial loss on a contract compared to other types of contracts we enter into, fixed-price contracts typically provide higher profit opportunities because we may be able to benefit from cost savings and operating efficiencies. In contrast, cost-plus-fee contracts are subject to statutory limits on profit

16


margins and generally are the least profitable of our contract types. Our U.S. Government customers typically determine what type of contract we enter into. Cost-plus-fee and fixed-price contracts in our federal business accounted for approximately 14% and 80%, respectively, of our federal business revenues for the year ended December 27, 2015. To the extent that we enter into more cost-plus-fee or less fixed-price contracts in proportion to our total contract mix in the future, our margins and operating results may suffer.

Our cash flow and profitability could be reduced if expenditures are incurred prior to the final receipt of a contract.
We provide various professional services, specialized products, and sometimes procure equipment and materials on behalf of our customers under various contractual arrangements. From time to time, in order to ensure that we satisfy our customers’ delivery requirements and schedules, we may elect to initiate procurement in advance of receiving final authorization from the government customer or a prime contractor. If our government or prime contractor customer’s requirements should change or if the government or the prime contractor should direct the anticipated procurement to another contractor or if the equipment or materials become obsolete or require modification before we are under contract for the procurement, our investment in the equipment or materials might be at risk if we cannot efficiently resell them. This could reduce anticipated earnings or result in a loss, and negatively affecting our cash flow and profitability.
We have incurred and may continue to incur goodwill impairment charges in our reporting entities, which could harm our profitability.
As of December 27, 2015, goodwill represented approximately 54% of our total assets. We periodically review the carrying values of our goodwill to determine whether such carrying values exceed the fair market value. If impairment testing indicates that the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the goodwill of the reporting unit is deemed impaired. Accordingly, an impairment charge would be recognized for that reporting unit in the period identified.
The identification and measurement of impairment involves the estimation of the fair value of reporting units. Accounting for impairment contains uncertainty because management must use judgment in determining appropriate assumptions to be used in the measurement of fair value. The estimates of fair value of reporting units are based on the best information available as of the date of the assessment, incorporate management assumptions about expected future cash flows and contemplate other valuation techniques. Future cash flows can be affected by changes in industry or market conditions, among other things.

Given the current market conditions and continued economic uncertainty in the U.S. defense industry, including sequestration and issues surrounding the national debt ceiling, our future revenues, profits and cash flows could be substantially lower than our current projections. Our ability to penetrate new international markets could also impact our current projections. Additional market factors could impact our projections and our ability to successfully develop new products and platforms. For example, our US reporting unit forecasts include the successful completion of certain performance criteria on new unmanned systems platforms, and acceptance of new unmanned systems platforms on a technical basis as well as from a political and government budgetary standpoint. In addition, market-based inputs to the calculations in the impairment test, such as weighted average cost of capital, and market multiples, could also be negatively impacted. Such circumstances may result in the future deterioration of the fair value of our reporting units and an impairment of our goodwill. Due to continual changes in market and general business conditions, we cannot predict whether, and to what extent, our goodwill and long-lived intangible assets may be impaired in future periods. Any resulting impairment loss could harm our profitability and financial condition.

Failure to properly manage projects may result in additional costs or claims.
Our engagements often involve large scale, highly complex projects. The quality of our performance on such projects depends in large part upon our ability to manage the relationship with our customers and to effectively manage the project and deploy appropriate resources, including third-party contractors and our own personnel, in a timely manner. Any defects or errors or failure to meet customers’ expectations could result in claims for substantial damages against us. Our contracts generally limit our liability for damages that arise from negligent acts, error, mistakes or omissions in rendering services to our customers. However, we cannot be sure that these contractual provisions will protect us from liability for damages in the event we are sued. In addition, in certain instances, we guarantee customers that we will complete a project by a scheduled date. If the project experiences a performance problem, we may not be able to recover the additional costs we will incur, which could exceed revenues realized from a project. Finally, if we underestimate the resources or time we need to complete a project with capped or fixed fees, our operating results could be adversely affected.

17


We use estimates when accounting for contracts, and any changes in such estimates could have an adverse effect on our profitability and our overall financial performance.
When agreeing to contractual terms, our management makes assumptions and projections about future conditions and events, many of which extend over long periods. These projections assess the productivity and availability of labor, complexity of the work to be performed, cost and availability of materials, impact of delayed performance and timing of product deliveries. Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenues and costs at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, assumptions are made regarding the length of time to complete a contract since costs also include expected increases in wages, prices for materials and allocated fixed costs. Similarly, assumptions are made regarding the future impact of our efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives, awards or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating revenue and profit rates and are recorded when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated performance. Suppliers’ assertions are also assessed and considered in estimating costs and profit rates.
Because of the significance of the judgment and estimation processes described above, it is possible that materially different amounts could be obtained if different assumptions were used or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may have a material adverse effect upon the profitability of one or more of the affected contracts, future period financial reporting and performance.
Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.
Federal and state income tax laws impose restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss (“NOL”) and tax credit carryforwards in the event that an “ownership change” occurs for tax purposes, as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 382”).  As a result of the restrictions under Section 382, the Company’s federal annual utilization of NOL carryforwards were limited to at least $27.0 million a year for the first five years succeeding the March 2010 ownership change and at least $11.6 million for each year thereafter subject to separate limitations for Acquired NOLs.  If the entire limitation amount is not utilized in a year, the excess can be carried forward and utilized in future years.  For the year ended December 27, 2015, there was no impact of such limitations on the income tax provision since the amount of taxable income did not exceed the cumulative annual limitation amount. In addition, future equity offerings or acquisitions that have equity as a component of the purchase price could also cause an “ownership change.”  If and when any other “ownership change” occurs, utilization of the NOL or other tax attributes may be further limited.   As discussed elsewhere, deferred tax assets relating to the NOL and credit carryforwards are offset by a full valuation allowance. In addition, utilization of state tax loss carryforwards is dependent upon sufficient taxable income apportioned to the states.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We may need additional capital to fund the growth of our business, and financing may not be available on favorable terms or at all.

We currently anticipate that our available capital resources, including our Credit Agreement and operating cash flow, will be sufficient to meet our expected working capital and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, these resources may not be sufficient to fund the long-term growth of our business. If we determine that it is necessary to raise additional funds, either through an expansion or refinancing of our agreement or through public or private debt or equity financings, additional financing may not be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may continue indefinitely or intensify, which could adversely affect our ability to access these markets. Limitations on our borrowing base contained in our Credit Agreement may limit our access to capital, and we could fall out of compliance with financial and other covenants contained in our Credit Agreement which, if not waived, would restrict our access to capital and could require us to pay down our existing debt under the Credit Agreement. Our lenders may not agree to extend additional or continuing credit under our Credit Agreement or waive restrictions on our access to capital. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not be able to take advantage of available opportunities, develop new products or otherwise respond to competitive pressures and our business, operating results or financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Past acquisitions and future acquisitions could prove difficult to integrate, disrupt our business, dilute stockholder value and strain our resources.

We have in the past and may, in the future, acquire additional businesses that we believe could complement or expand our business or increase our customer base. Integrating the operations of acquired businesses successfully or otherwise

18


realizing any of the anticipated benefits of acquisitions, including anticipated cost savings and additional revenue opportunities, involves a number of potential challenges. The failure to meet these integration challenges could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. Realizing the benefits of acquisitions depends in part on the integration of operations and personnel. These integration activities are complex and time-consuming, and we may encounter unexpected difficulties or incur unexpected costs, including:

our inability to achieve the operating synergies anticipated in the acquisitions;
diversion of management attention from ongoing business concerns to integration matters;
difficulties in consolidating and rationalizing IT platforms and administrative infrastructures;
complexities associated with managing the geographic separation of the combined businesses and consolidating multiple physical locations where management may determine consolidation is desirable;
difficulties in integrating personnel from different corporate cultures while maintaining focus on providing consistent, high quality customer service;
difficulties or delays in transitioning U.S. Government contracts pursuant to federal acquisition regulations;
challenges in demonstrating to customers of Kratos and to customers of acquired businesses that the acquisition will not result in adverse changes in customer service standards or business focus;
possible cash flow interruption or loss of revenue as a result of change of ownership transitional matters; and
inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs.

Acquired businesses may have liabilities or adverse operating issues that we fail to discover through due diligence prior to the acquisition. In particular, to the extent that prior owners of any acquired businesses or properties failed to comply with or otherwise violated applicable laws or regulations, or failed to fulfill their contractual obligations to the U.S. Government or other customers, we, as the successor owner, may be financially responsible for these violations and failures and may suffer reputational harm or otherwise be adversely affected. Acquisitions also frequently result in the recording of goodwill and other intangible assets that are subject to potential impairment in the future that could harm our financial results. In addition, if we finance acquisitions by issuing debt or equity securities, our existing stockholders may be diluted, which could affect the market price of our stock. Acquisitions and/or the related equity financings could also impact our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards. As a result, if we fail to properly evaluate acquisitions or investments, we may not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such acquisitions, and we may incur costs in excess of what we anticipate. Acquisitions frequently involve benefits related to integration of operations. The failure to successfully integrate the operations or otherwise to realize any of the anticipated benefits of the acquisition could seriously harm our results of operations.
If we are unable to manage our growth, our business and financial results could suffer.
Sustaining our growth has placed significant demands on our management, as well as on our administrative, operational and financial resources. For us to continue to manage our growth, we must continue to improve our operational, financial and management information systems and expand, motivate and manage our workforce. Additionally, our future financial results depend in part on our ability to profitably manage our growth on a combined basis with the businesses we have acquired and those we may acquire in the future. If we are unable to manage our growth while maintaining our quality of service and profit margins, or if new systems that we implement to assist in managing our growth do not produce the expected benefits, our business, prospects, financial condition or operating results could be adversely affected.
The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our relationships with U.S. Government customers and disrupt the management of our business.
We believe that the success of our business and our ability to operate profitably depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management. We rely on our senior management to generate business and execute programs successfully. In addition, the relationships and reputation that many members of our senior management team have established and maintain with U.S. Government personnel contribute to our ability to maintain strong customer relationships and to identify new business opportunities. The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our ability to identify and secure new contracts, to maintain good customer relations and to otherwise manage our business.
If we fail to attract and retain skilled employees or employees with the necessary national security clearances, we might not be able to perform under our contracts or win new business.
The growth of our business and revenue depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of highly qualified individuals who have advanced IT and/or engineering skills. These employees are in great demand and are likely to remain a limited resource in the foreseeable future. In addition, certain U.S. Government contracts require us, and some of our employees, to maintain national security clearances. Obtaining and maintaining national security clearances for

19


employees involves a lengthy process, and it is difficult to identify, recruit and retain employees who already hold national security clearances. Further, some of our contracts contain provisions requiring us to staff an engagement with personnel that the customer considers key to our successful performance under the contract. In the event we are unable to provide these key personnel or acceptable substitutions, the customer may terminate the contract. As a result, if we are unable to recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees, we may lose revenue and our ability to maintain and grow our business could be limited.
Moreover, in a tight labor market our direct labor costs could increase or we may be required to engage large numbers of subcontractor personnel, which could cause our profit margins to suffer. Conversely, if we maintain or increase our staffing levels in anticipation of one or more projects and the projects are delayed, reduced or terminated, we may underutilize the additional personnel, which would increase our general and administrative expenses, reduce our earnings and possibly harm our results of operations.
We are subject to the requirements of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual for our facility security clearance, which is a prerequisite to our ability to perform on classified contracts for the U.S. Government.
A facility security clearance is required for a company to perform on classified contracts for the DoD and certain other agencies of the U.S. Government. Security clearances are subject to regulations and requirements including the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (“NISPOM”), which specifies the requirements for the protection of classified information released or disclosed in connection with classified U.S. Government contracts.
We require certain facility and personnel security clearances to perform our classified U.S. Government related business. As such, we must comply with the requirements of the NISPOM and any other applicable U.S. Government industrial security regulations. If we were to violate the terms and requirements of the NISPOM or any other applicable U.S. Government industrial security regulations (which apply to us under the terms of classified contracts), any of our cleared facilities could lose its facility security clearance. We cannot be certain that we will be able to maintain our facility security clearances. If for some reason one or more of our facility security clearances is invalidated or terminated, we would not be able to continue to perform on classified contracts at that facility and would not be able to enter into new classified contracts, which could adversely affect our revenues. Failure to comply with the NISPOM or other security requirements may subject us to civil or criminal penalties, loss of access to classified information, loss of a U.S. Government contract, or potentially debarment as a government contractor.
We may be unable to realize any benefit from our cost reduction and restructuring effort and our profitability may be hurt or our business otherwise might be adversely affected.
We have engaged in cost reduction and restructuring activities in the past, including the recent dispositions of the U.S. and U.K. operations of our Electronic Products Division and the Herley Entities, and we may engage in other cost reduction restructuring activities in the future. These types of cost reduction and restructuring activities are complex. If we do not successfully manage our current cost reduction and restructuring activities, or any other cost reduction and restructuring activities that we may take in the future, any expected efficiencies and benefits might be delayed or not realized, and our operations and business could be disrupted. In addition, the costs associated with implementing cost reduction and restructuring activities might exceed expectations, which could result in additional future charges.
Risks Related to Our International Operations
Revenues derived from our international business could be subject to global economic downturn and hardship.

Our international business represents 11% of our total revenue, which may be impacted by changes in foreign national priorities and government budgets and may be further impacted by global economic conditions and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Continued international economic uncertainty and reductions in consumer spending may result in reductions in our revenue. Additionally, disruptions in international credit markets may materially limit consumer credit availability and restrict credit availability of our customers. Any reduction in international sales of our solutions resulting from reductions in consumer spending or continued disruption in the availability of credit to retailers or consumers, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

20


Our international business exposes us to additional risks.
Our operations outside of the U.S. are subject to risks that are inherent in conducting business under non-U.S. laws, regulations and customs, including those related to:

foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, potentially reducing the U.S. dollars we receive for sales denominated in foreign currency;
the possibility that unfriendly nations or groups could boycott our solutions;
political conditions in the markets in which we operate;
potential increased costs associated with overlapping tax structures;
import-export control;
more limited protection for intellectual property rights in some countries;
difficulties and costs associated with staffing and managing foreign operations;
unexpected changes in regulatory requirements;
the difficulties of compliance with a wide variety of foreign laws and regulations;
longer accounts receivable cycles in certain foreign countries, whether due to cultural differences, exchange rate fluctuation or other factors;
technology transfer restrictions;
changes to our distribution networks; and
our employees.

These risks, individually or in the aggregate, could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. For example, we are subject to compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws, which generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. While our employees and agents are required to comply with these laws, we cannot be sure that our internal policies and procedures will always protect us from violations of these laws, despite our commitment to legal compliance and corporate ethics. The occurrence or allegation of these types of risks may adversely affect our business, performance, prospects, value, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, our international contracts may include industrial cooperation agreements requiring specific in-country purchases, investments, manufacturing agreements or other financial obligations, known as offset obligations, and provide for penalties if we fail to meet such requirements. The impact of these factors is difficult to predict, but one or more of them could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) or other applicable trade compliance regulations could result in significant sanctions including fines, more onerous compliance requirements and debarments from export privileges or loss of authorizations needed to conduct aspects of our international business. A violation of ITAR or other applicable trade regulations could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Risks Related to Our Outstanding Indebtedness
We have substantial indebtedness, which could adversely affect our cash flow, financial condition and business.
As of December 27, 2015, we had approximately $445.1 million of total indebtedness outstanding, which includes $3.3 million of unamortized original issue discount and $4.3 million of unamortized debt issuance costs. As a result of this indebtedness, our interest payment obligations are significant. The degree to which we are leveraged could have adverse effects on our business, including the following:
it may limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industries in which we operate;
it may require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes;
it may restrict us from making strategic acquisitions or exploiting business opportunities;
it may place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt;
it may limit our ability to borrow additional funds;
it may prevent us from raising the funds necessary to repurchase our outstanding Notes tendered to us if there is a change of control, which would constitute a default under the Indenture governing such notes and under our Credit Agreement; and

21


it may decrease our ability to compete effectively or operate successfully under adverse economic and industry conditions.

Our high level of indebtedness increases the risk that we may default on our debt obligations. We may be unable to generate sufficient cash flow to pay the interest on our debt. If we are unable to service our indebtedness, we will be forced to adopt an alternative strategy that may include actions such as reducing capital expenditures, reducing internal investments in research and development efforts, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness or seeking additional equity capital. These alternative strategies may not be affected on satisfactory terms, if at all, and they may not yield sufficient funds to make required payments on our indebtedness.
If, for any reason, we are unable to meet our debt service and repayment obligations, we would be in default under the terms of the agreements governing our debt, which would allow our creditors at that time to declare certain outstanding indebtedness to be due and payable, which would in turn trigger cross‑acceleration or cross‑default rights between the relevant agreements. In addition, our lenders could compel us to apply all of our available cash to repay our borrowings or they could prevent us from making payments on our indebtedness. If the amounts outstanding under any of our indebtedness were to be accelerated, our assets may not be sufficient to repay in full the money owed to the lenders or to our other debt holders.
We and our subsidiaries may incur more debt, which may increase the risks associated with our substantial leverage, including our ability to service our indebtedness.
The agreements governing our debt permit us, under some circumstances, to incur certain additional indebtedness or obligations. To the extent that we incur additional indebtedness or such other obligations, the risks associated with our substantial leverage described above, including our possible inability to service our debt, would increase.
Changes in our credit ratings or macroeconomic conditions may affect our liquidity, increasing borrowing costs and limiting our financing options.
Macroeconomic conditions, such as increased volatility or disruption in the credit markets, could adversely affect our ability to refinance existing debt or obtain additional financing at terms satisfactory to us, thereby affecting our resources to support operations or to fund new initiatives. In addition, if our credit ratings are lowered, borrowing costs for future long-term debt or short-term credit facilities may increase and our financing options, including our access to the unsecured credit market, could be limited. We may also be subject to restrictive covenants that would reduce our flexibility.

A portion of our business is conducted through foreign subsidiaries, and the failure to generate sufficient cash flow from these subsidiaries, or otherwise repatriate or receive cash from these subsidiaries, could result in our inability to repay our indebtedness.
As of December 27, 2015, approximately 12% of our consolidated assets, based on book value, and 11% of our consolidated revenues for the year ended December 27, 2015, were held by foreign subsidiaries, which do not guarantee the Notes (as defined below). Our ability to meet our debt service obligations with cash from foreign subsidiaries will depend upon the results of operations of these subsidiaries and may be subject to legal, contractual or other restrictions and other business considerations. In addition, dividend and interest payments to us from the foreign subsidiaries may be subject to foreign withholding taxes, which would reduce the amount of funds we receive from such foreign subsidiaries. Dividends and other distributions from our foreign subsidiaries may also be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates and legal and other restrictions on repatriation, which could further reduce the amount of funds we receive from such foreign subsidiaries.
In general, when an entity in a foreign jurisdiction repatriates cash to the U.S., the amount of such cash is treated as a dividend taxable at current U.S. tax rates. Accordingly, upon the distribution of cash to us from our foreign subsidiaries, we will be subject to U.S. income taxes. Although foreign tax credits may be available to reduce the amount of the additional tax liability, these credits may be limited and only offset the tax paid in the foreign jurisdiction, not the excess of the U.S. tax rate over the foreign tax rate. Therefore, to the extent that we must use cash generated in foreign jurisdictions to make principal or interest payments on our debt, there may be a cost associated with repatriating the cash to the U.S.

22


The agreements governing our debt impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us and our subsidiaries that may prevent us and our subsidiaries from pursuing certain business opportunities and restrict our ability to operate our business.
The Indenture and the Credit Agreement subject us, and our subsidiaries, to several financial and other restrictive covenants, including limitations on liens or indebtedness, payment of dividends, transactions with affiliates, and mergers, sales or other dispositions of our assets.
Our Credit Agreement also requires us to comply with specified financial ratios, including a borrowing base availability and minimum fixed charge coverage ratio which is required to be maintained if borrowing levels, as defined, under the Credit Agreement, occur under the line of credit. Many factors, including events beyond our control, may affect our ability to comply with these covenants and financial ratios. We cannot be sure we will meet our debt-related obligations or that lenders will waive any failure to meet those obligations. Any failure to meet those debt-related obligations could result in an event of default under our other indebtedness and the acceleration of such indebtedness.

The restrictions contained in the Indenture and in our Credit Agreement could also limit the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries to plan for or react to market conditions, meet capital needs or otherwise restrict their activities or business plans and adversely affect the ability to finance their operations, enter into acquisitions or to engage in other business activities that would be in their interest.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may be unable to protect our intellectual property rights.
We rely on a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and nondisclosure agreements to protect our proprietary intellectual property. Our efforts to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights may not be sufficient. We cannot be sure that our pending patent applications will result in the issuance of patents to us, that patents issued to or licensed by us in the past or in the future will not be challenged or circumvented by competitors or that these patents will remain valid or sufficiently broad to preclude our competitors from introducing technologies similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications. In addition, our ability to enforce and protect our intellectual property rights may be limited in certain countries outside the U.S., which could make it easier for competitors to capture market position in such countries by utilizing technologies that are similar to those developed or licensed by us. Competitors also may harm our sales by designing products that mirror the capabilities of our products or technology without infringing on our intellectual property rights. If we do not obtain sufficient protection for our intellectual property, or if we are unable to effectively enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitiveness could be impaired, which would limit our growth and future revenue.
We may be harmed by intellectual property infringement claims.
We may become subject to claims from our employees or third parties who assert that software and other forms of intellectual property that we use in delivering services and solutions to our customers infringe upon intellectual property rights of such employees or third parties. Our employees develop some of the software and other forms of intellectual property that we use to provide our services and solutions to our customers, but we also license technology from other vendors. If our employees, vendors, or other third parties assert claims that we or our customers are infringing on their intellectual property rights, we could incur substantial costs to defend those claims. If any such infringement claims were ultimately successful, we could be required to cease selling or using products or services that incorporate the challenged software or technology, obtain a license or additional licenses from our employees, vendors, or other third parties, or redesign our products and services that rely on the challenged software or technology.
Disclosure of trade secrets could cause harm to our business
We attempt to protect our trade secrets by entering into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with third parties, our employees and consultants. However, these agreements can be breached and, if they are, there may not be an adequate remedy available to us. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade secret is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, our competitors could market services or products similar to our services and products, which could reduce demand for our offerings. Any litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets or determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources, with no assurance of success.

23


Risks Related to Regulatory, Environmental and Legal Issues
Our failure to comply with complex procurement laws and regulations could cause us to lose business and subject us to a variety of penalties.
We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts, which affect how we do business with our customers, prime contractors, subcontractors and vendors and may impose added costs on us. New regulations or procurement requirements (including, for example regulations regarding counterfeit and corrupt parts, supply chain diligence and cyber security) or changes to current requirements could increase our costs and risk of non-compliance. Our role as a contractor to agencies and departments of the U.S. Government results in our being routinely subject to investigations and reviews relating to compliance with various laws and regulations, including those associated with organizational conflicts of interest, procurement integrity, bid integrity and claim presentation, among others. These investigations may be conducted without our knowledge. Adverse findings in these investigations or reviews can lead to criminal, civil or administrative proceedings, and we could face civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or debarment from doing business with U.S. Government agencies. In addition, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation and competitive position if allegations of impropriety were made against us, whether or not true. If our reputation or relationship with U.S. Government agencies were impaired, or if the U.S. Government otherwise ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us, our revenue and operating profit would decline.
Our contracts and administrative processes and systems are subject to audits and cost adjustments by the U.S. Government, which could reduce our revenue, disrupt our business or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations.
U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), routinely audit and investigate government contracts and government contractors’ administrative processes and systems. These agencies review our performance on contracts, pricing practices, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. They also review the adequacy of our compliance with government standards for our accounting and management of internal control systems, including our: control environment and overall accounting system, general IT system, budget and planning system, purchasing system, material management and accounting system, compensation system, labor system, indirect and other direct costs system, and billing system and estimating system used for pricing on government contracts. Both contractors and the U.S. Government agencies conducting these audits and reviews have come under increased scrutiny. The current audits and reviews have become more rigorous, and the standards to which contractors are being held are being more strictly interpreted, increasing the likelihood of an audit or review resulting in an adverse outcome. During the course of its current audits, the DCAA is closely examining and questioning several of our established and disclosed practices that it had previously audited and accepted, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate conclusion that will be reached.
A finding of significant control deficiencies in our system audits or other reviews can result in decremented billing rates to our U.S. Government customers until the control deficiencies are corrected and our corrections are accepted by Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”). Government audits and reviews may conclude that our practices are not consistent with applicable laws and regulations and result in adjustments to contract costs and mandatory customer refunds. Such adjustments can be applied retroactively, which could result in significant customer refunds. Our receipt of adverse audit findings or the failure to obtain an “approved” determination of our various accounting and management internal control systems, including our changes to indirect cost and direct labor estimating systems, from the responsible U.S. Government agency could significantly and adversely affect our business, including our ability to bid on new contracts and our competitive position in the bidding process. A determination of non-compliance with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards could also result in the U.S. Government imposing penalties and sanctions against us, including withholding of payments, suspension of payments and increased government scrutiny that could delay or adversely affect our ability to invoice and receive timely payment on contracts, perform contracts or compete for contracts with the U.S. Government.

We have submitted incurred cost claims through 2014. The actual indirect cost audits by the DCAA have been completed for our subsidiaries for fiscal 2010. Although we have recorded contract revenues subsequent to fiscal 2010 based upon costs that we believe will be approved upon final audit or review, we do not know the outcome of any ongoing or future audits or reviews and, if future adjustments exceed our estimates, our profitability would be adversely affected.


24


Our employees or others acting on our behalf may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, which could cause us to lose contracts.

We are exposed to the risk that employee fraud or other misconduct from our employees or others acting on our behalf could occur. Misconduct by employees or others could include intentional failures to comply with U.S. Government procurement regulations, engaging in unauthorized activities or falsifying time records. Misconduct by our employees or others acting on our behalf could also involve the improper use of our customers’ sensitive or classified information, which could result in regulatory sanctions against us, serious harm to our reputation, a loss of contracts and a reduction in revenues. It is not always possible to deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses, which could cause us to lose contracts or cause a reduction in revenues. In addition, alleged or actual misconduct by employees or others acting on our behalf could result in investigations or prosecutions of persons engaged in the subject activities, which could result in unanticipated consequences or expenses and management distraction for us regardless of whether we are alleged to have any responsibility.
If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.
Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports, our operating results could be misstated, our reputation may be harmed and the trading price of our stock could be negatively affected. Our management has concluded that there are no material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 27, 2015. However, although we continue to devote substantial time and resources to the documentation and testing of our controls, there can be no assurance that our controls over financial processes and reporting will be effective in the future or that material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls will not be discovered in the future. Any failure to remediate any future material weaknesses or implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our Consolidated Financial Statements or other public disclosures. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.
We are subject to environmental laws and potential exposure to environmental liabilities. This may affect our ability to develop, sell or rent our property or to borrow money where such property is required to be used as collateral.
We use hazardous materials common to the industries in which we operate. We are required to follow federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations regarding the handling, storage and disposal of these materials, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and the Toxic Substances Control Act. We could be subject to fines, suspensions of production, alteration of our manufacturing processes or interruption or cessation of our operations if we fail to comply with present or future laws or regulations related to the use, storage, handling, discharge or disposal of toxic, volatile or otherwise hazardous chemicals used in our manufacturing processes. These regulations could require us to acquire expensive remediation equipment or to incur significant other expenses to comply with environmental regulations. Our failure to control the handling, use, storage or disposal of, or adequately restrict the discharge of, hazardous substances could subject us to liabilities and production delays, which could cause us to miss our customers’ delivery schedules, thereby reducing our sales for a given period. We may also have to pay regulatory fines, penalties or other costs (including remediation costs), which could materially reduce our profits and adversely affect our financial condition. Permits are required for our operations, and these permits are subject to renewal, modification and, in some cases, revocation.
In addition, under environmental laws, ordinances or regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of some kinds of petroleum products or other hazardous substances on, under, or in its property, adjacent or nearby property, or offsite disposal locations, without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or caused, the presence of the contaminants, and regardless of whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. We have incurred, and may incur in the future, liabilities under CERCLA and other environmental laws at our current or former facilities, adjacent or nearby properties or offsite disposal locations. The costs associated with future cleanup activities that we may be required to conduct or finance may be material. The presence of, or failure to remediate properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect the ability to sell or rent the property or to borrow funds using the property as collateral. Additionally, we may become subject to claims by third parties based on damages, including personal injury and property damage, and costs resulting from the disposal or release of hazardous substances into the environment.


25


Regulations related to “conflict minerals” may cause us to incur additional expenses and could limit the supply and increase the cost of certain metals used in manufacturing our products.

We are subject to regulations requiring disclosures of specified minerals, known as conflict minerals, that are necessary to the functionality or production of products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured by public companies. The rule requires companies to perform due diligence, disclose and report whether or not such minerals originate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country. The rule can affect sourcing at competitive prices and availability in sufficient quantities of certain minerals used in the manufacture of our products, including tantalum, tin, gold and tungsten. The number of suppliers who provide conflict-free minerals is limited. In addition, there are costs associated with complying with the disclosure requirements, such as costs related to determining the source of certain minerals used in our products, as well as costs of changes to products, processes, or sources of supply as a consequence of such verification activities. Since our supply chain is complex, we are not always able to sufficiently verify the origins of the relevant minerals used in our products through the due diligence procedures we implemented, which may harm our reputation. In addition, we may encounter challenges to satisfy those customers who require that all of the components of our products be certified as conflict-free, which could place us at a competitive disadvantage if we are unable to do so.

Litigation may distract us from operating our business.
Litigation that may be brought by or against us could cause us to incur significant expenditures and distract our management from the operation of our business. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that we would prevail in such litigation or resolve such litigation on terms favorable to us, which may adversely affect our financial results and operations. See Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a further discussion of our legal proceedings.

Natural disasters or severe weather conditions could disrupt our business and result in loss of revenue or higher expenses.
Our business depends on maintaining operations at our facilities and being able to operate at our customer facilities and project locations. A serious, prolonged interruption or damage due to power outage, telecommunications outage, terrorist attack, earthquake, hurricane, fire, flood or other natural disaster, or other interruption could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. While we insure against certain business interruption risks, such insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses incurred as a result of natural or other disasters.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock
Some of our contracts with the U.S. Government are classified, which may limit investor insight into portions of our business.
We derive a portion of our revenues from programs with the U.S. Government that are subject to security restrictions (classified programs) that preclude the dissemination of information that is classified for national security purposes. We are limited in our ability to provide details about these classified programs, their risks or any disputes or claims relating to such programs. As a result, investors and others might have less insight into our classified programs than our other businesses and, therefore, less ability to fully evaluate the risks related to our classified business.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile.
The price of our stock has been in the past, and will continue to be, subject to fluctuations as a result of a number of factors, including: our operating results fail to meet market or analysts’ expectations; general fluctuations in the stock market; actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results based on reduced and/or delayed government spending or the threat thereof; fluctuations in the stock prices of companies in our industry; changes in earnings estimated by securities analysts or our ability to meet those estimates; and domestic and foreign economic conditions. Such volatility has had a significant effect on the market prices of many companies’ securities for reasons unrelated to their operating performance and, in the past, has led to securities class action litigation. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could have an adverse effect on our business.


26


Your percentage of ownership in us may be diluted in the future.
As with any publicly traded company, your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise, including equity awards that we expect will be granted to our directors, officers and employees.

Certain provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws, as amended, and of Delaware law, may prevent or delay an acquisition of our company, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our second amended and restated bylaws, as amended, and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

the inability of our stockholders to call a special meeting;
rules regarding how stockholders may present proposals or nominate directors for election at stockholder
meetings;
the right of our board to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval;
a super-majority requirement to amend our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; and
the ability of our directors, and not stockholders, to fill vacancies on our board of directors.

Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between us and any holder of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock.

We believe these provisions may help protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make our company immune from takeovers. In addition, although we believe these provisions collectively provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders. These provisions may also frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management team by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

At December 27, 2015, we owned or leased approximately 1.7 million square feet of floor space at approximately 85 separate locations, primarily in the U.S., for manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, administration and various other uses. At December 27, 2015, we leased to third parties approximately 147,159 square feet of our leased facilities, and had vacant floor space of approximately 20,000 square feet. We continually evaluate our current and future space capacity in relation to current and projected future staffing levels. We maintain our properties in good operating condition and believe that the productive capacity of our properties is adequate to meet current contractual requirements and those for the foreseeable future.
We have major operations at the following locations:
Kratos Government Solutions: Huntsville, AL; San Diego, CA; Colorado Springs, CO; Orlando, FL; Baltimore and Lanham, MD; Dallastown, PA; Charleston and Walterboro, SC; and Dahlgren, Alexandria and Chantilly, VA. Locations outside the U.S. include France, Israel and the United Kingdom.
Unmanned Systems: San Diego and Sacramento, CA; and Fort Walton Beach, FL.
Public Safety and Security: Fullerton, CA; Newport, DE; Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; Fairlawn, NJ; and Houston, TX.
Corporate and other locations: San Diego, CA.

27


The following is a summary of our floor space at December 27, 2015:
Square feet (in thousands)
 
 
Owned
 
Leased
 
Total
Kratos Government Solutions
 
449

 
866

 
1,315

Unmanned Systems
 
20

 
180

 
200

Public Safety and Security
 

 
164

 
164

Corporate (includes San Diego operations of KGS, US and PSS segments)
 

 
34

 
34

      Total
 
469

 
1,244

 
1,713


See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding commitments under leases.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings.
 
See Note 14 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a further discussion of our legal proceedings.
 
Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information
Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and is traded under the symbol “KTOS”.
The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated, as reported by NASDAQ:
 
High
Low
Year Ended December 27, 2015:
 
 
Fourth Quarter
$
5.11

$
3.66

Third Quarter
$
6.38

$
3.89

Second Quarter
$
7.11

$
5.36

First Quarter
$
5.96

$
4.85

Year Ended December 28, 2014:
 
 
Fourth Quarter
$
7.03

$
4.28

Third Quarter
$
7.99

$
6.84

Second Quarter
$
9.00

$
7.03

First Quarter
$
8.34

$
7.00

Holders of Record
On March 4, 2016, the closing sale price of our common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $3.87 per share. On March 4, 2016, there were 407 shareholders of record of our common stock.

Dividend Policy

We have not declared any cash dividends since becoming a public company. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the growth and development of the business and, therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in

28


the foreseeable future. In addition, our ability to pay dividends is restricted by both the Indenture and the Credit Agreement, each as discussed in the section entitled “Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report. Any future determination to pay cash dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent upon our future financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, general business conditions and other relevant factors as determined by our board of directors.



29



Performance Graph
The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the “Exchange Act”), except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.
The following performance graph presents a comparison of the five year cumulative stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total return of a broad equity market index, the Russell 2000 Stock Index, and two customized peer groups consisting of the companies listed below, for the period commencing December 27, 2010 and ending December 27, 2015. The performance graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the Russell 2000 Stock Index and the peer groups, and further assumes that all dividends were reinvested and all returns are market-cap weighted. The historical information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.
 
COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
 
 
Among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. the Russell 2000 Index,
Old Peer Group (1), and New Peer Group (2)
 
 
*$100 invested on 12/31/10 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending December 31.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(1)
The companies included in the Company’s Old Peer Group are: AAR Corp., AeroVironment Inc., American Science & Engineering Inc., API Technologies Corp., Comtech Telecommunications Corp., iRobot Corp., and Mercury Systems Inc.
(2)
The companies included in the Company’s New Peer Group are: AAR Corp., AeroVironment Inc., American Science & Engineering Inc., API Technologies Corp., Arotech Corp., Comtech Telecommunications Corp., CPI Aerostructures Inc., Ducommun Inc., Frequency Electronics Inc., iRobot Corp., and Sparton Corp.

30


Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities
None.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
None.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes thereto and with Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained within this Annual Report. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of operating results to be expected in the future.
Amounts in millions except per share amounts
 
December 25,
2011
 
December 30,
2012
 
December 29,
2013
 
December 28,
2014
 
December 27,
2015
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revenues
$
620.5

 
$
849.6

 
$
844.1

 
$
763.0

 
$
657.1

Gross profit
157.1

 
212.6

 
204.5

 
179.4

 
161.8

Operating income (loss)
20.5

 
(69.9
)
 
18.2

 
5.3

 
(4.5
)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes
2.0

 
(2.3
)
 
1.1

 
3.9

 
(11.4
)
Loss from continuing operations
(19.3
)
 
(115.3
)
 
(29.5
)
 
(75.7
)
 
(33.2
)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations
(4.9
)
 
0.9

 
(7.7
)
 
(2.3
)
 
53.0

Net income (loss)
$
(24.2
)
 
$
(114.4
)
 
$
(37.2
)
 
$
(78.0
)
 
$
19.8

Loss from continuing operations per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
(0.70
)
 
$
(2.46
)
 
$
(0.52
)
 
$
(1.31
)
 
$
(0.56
)
Diluted
$
(0.70
)
 
$
(2.46
)
 
$
(0.52
)
 
$
(1.31
)
 
$
(0.56
)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
(0.18
)
 
$
0.02

 
$
(0.13
)
 
$
(0.04
)
 
$
0.90

Diluted
$
(0.18
)
 
$
0.02

 
$
(0.13
)
 
$
(0.04
)
 
$
0.90

Net income (loss) per common share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
$
(0.88
)
 
$
(2.44
)
 
$
(0.65
)
 
$
(1.35
)
 
$
0.34

Diluted
$
(0.88
)
 
$
(2.44
)
 
$
(0.65
)
 
$
(1.35
)
 
$
0.34

Weighted average shares:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
27.4

 
46.9

 
56.8

 
57.6

 
58.7

Diluted
27.4

 
46.9

 
56.8

 
57.6

 
58.7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 25,
2011
 
December 30,
2012
 
December 29,
2013
 
December 28,
2014
 
December 27,
2015
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$
67.9

 
$
48.4

 
$
54.2

 
$
33.5

 
$
28.5

Working capital
202.9

 
172.0

 
174.9

 
147.1

 
148.0

Total assets
1,192.3

 
1,264.7

 
1,201.6

 
1,131.2

 
903.3

Short-term debt
1.6

 
1.5

 
1.3

 
1.1

 
1.0

Long-term debt
607.7

 
610.8

 
613.9

 
655.4

 
444.1

Long-term debt premium
22.9

 
18.7

 
14.5

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity
$
312.6

 
$
324.1

 
$
295.8

 
$
224.3

 
$
254.2



31


The 2011 and 2012 Consolidated Statements of Operations Data and Consolidated Balance Sheet Data were impacted by the acquisitions we completed in those periods. The Consolidated Statements of Operations Data reflect the results from operations for each of the acquired companies from the date of acquisition and forward, which contributed an aggregate $261.3 million increase in revenues from 2011 to 2012. We incurred acquisition related expenses of $12.5 million and $0.2 million for fiscal 2011, and 2014, respectively, and a benefit of $2.7 million and $3.8 million related to acquisition items for fiscal 2012 and 2013 respectively. In 2012, we incurred an impairment of goodwill and intangible assets of $96.6 million. The 2014 Consolidated Statement of Operations Data includes a loss on extinguishment of debt of $39.1 million related to the refinance of the $625.0 million 10% Senior Secured Notes (the “10% Notes”) due in 2017 with the $625.0 million 7.00% Senior Secured Notes due in 2019 (the “7% Notes”). The 2015 Consolidated Financial Statements Data includes an $80.8 million gain on the disposal of discontinued operations before taxes and a loss of $3.4 million on extinguishment of debt.

The 2011 and 2012 Consolidated Balance Sheet Data reflects the impact of our acquisitions as well as the issuance of $625.0 million in 10% Senior Secured Notes and the issuance of approximately 39.3 million common shares which were used to fund the acquisitions. The 2014 Consolidated Balance Sheet Data reflects the refinancing of the $625.0 million 10% Notes with $625.0 million of 7% Notes. The net proceeds of the 7% Notes was $618.5 million after an original issue discount of $6.5 million. The Company utilized the net proceeds from the 7% Notes, a $41.0 million draw on a Credit Agreement, as well as cash from operations to extinguish the 10% Senior Secured Notes. The 2015 Consolidated Balance Sheet Data includes repayment of $41.0 million outstanding on the Company’s $110.0 million Credit Agreement and the repurchase of $175.0 million of the 7% Notes at par.

The Consolidated Financial Statements Data has been recast to reflect the disposition of the Herley Entities which are reported in discontinued operations. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our discontinued operations. The Consolidated Balance Sheet Data has also been recast to reflect the adoption of Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-03 (“ASU 2015-03”), Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. ASU 2015-03 requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of ASU 2015-03.

Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
 
In addition to historical information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ substantially from those expressed in or implied by any forward-looking statements herein due to a number of factors, including but not limited to the risks and uncertainties described in this Item 7, in Item 1A Risk Factors and elsewhere in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements reflect our views and assumptions only as of the date such forward-looking statements are made. Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our audited Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report and other reports and filings made with the SEC.

Overview

Kratos is a mid-tier government contractor at the forefront of the DoD’s Third Offset Strategy. Kratos is a leading technology, intellectual property and proprietary product and solution company focused on the U.S. and its allies’ national security. Kratos’ primary focus areas are unmanned systems, satellite communications, microwave electronics, cyber security/warfare, missile defense and combat systems. We believe that our technology, intellectual property, proprietary products and designed in positions on our customers’ platforms and systems is a competitive advantage and high barrier to entry into our markets. Our work force is primarily technically oriented and highly skilled with a significant number holding national security clearances. Our entire organization is focused on executing our strategy of becoming the leading technology and intellectual property based company in our industry.
 
Our primary end customers are U.S. Government agencies, including the DoD, classified agencies, intelligence agencies, other national security agencies and homeland security related agencies. We also conduct business with local, state and foreign governments and domestic and international commercial customers. In fiscal 2013, 2014 and 2015, we generated 62%, 57% and 61%, respectively, of our total revenues from contracts with the U.S. Government (including all branches of the U.S. military), either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. We believe our stable customer base, strong customer relationships, intellectual property, specialized and differentiated products, broad array of contract vehicles, “designed in” positions on strategic national security platforms, our targeted investments in strategic growth areas, large employee base

32


possessing specialized skills, security clearances, specialized manufacturing facilities and equipment, extensive list of past performance qualifications, and significant management and operational capabilities position us for success.

We were incorporated in the state of New York on December 19, 1994 and began operations in March 1995. We reincorporated in the state of Delaware in 1998.

Industry Background

Faced with significant budget pressures, in recent years the U.S. Government has implemented reductions in government spending, including reductions in appropriations for the DoD and other federal agencies, pursuant to the BCA, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Pursuant to the terms of the BCA, a sequestration went into effect in March 2013 resulting in a 7.8% reduction to the DoD budget for FY 2013 to $495.5 billion, excluding funding for military personnel. The DoD budget was approximately $496.0 billion in FY 2014 and remains at a similar level in FY 2015. The DoD base budget excludes funding for overseas contingency operations, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which are appropriated separately and are not currently subject to the BCA.
On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, formalizing the terms of a two year budget agreement which raises the U.S. debt ceiling and lifts the sequestration spending caps by $80.0 billion. Under the budget agreement, the total federal spending increase over the BCA topline funding caps will be $50.0 billion in FY 2016 and $30.0 billion in FY 2017, with the amounts divided equally between defense and domestic priorities. The overall discretionary budget will be $1.067 trillion in FY 2016 and $1.07 trillion in FY 2017. The FY 2016 discretionary defense budget will be $548.1 billion, a $25.0 billion increase over the BCA topline funding caps.

Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the Obama Administration will receive $33.0 billion of the $38.0 billion national defense spending increase it sought in FY 2016. In summary the budget agreement:

extends the BCA out to 2025;
suspends the U.S. debt limit/ceiling until March 2017;
increased spending caps for FY 2016 and FY 2017, by $80.0 billion, including $50.0 billion in FY 2016 and $30.0 billion in FY 2017, split evenly between defense and domestic priorities; and
includes a FY 2016 DoD base budget of $548.0 billion; and includes a FY 2016 overseas contingency operation budget of $59.0 billion.

Current Reporting Segments

The Company operates in three reportable segments. The KGS reportable segment is comprised of an aggregation of KGS operating segments, including our microwave electronic products, satellite communications, modular systems and rocket support operating segments. The US reportable segment consists of our unmanned aerial system and unmanned ground and seaborne system businesses. The PSS reportable segment provides independent integrated solutions for advanced homeland security, public safety, critical infrastructure, and security and surveillance systems for government and commercial applications. We organize our business segments based primarily on the nature of the products, solutions and services offered. For additional information regarding our reportable segments, see Note 13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. From a customer and solutions perspective, we view our business as an integrated whole, leveraging skills and assets wherever possible.

Discontinued Operations

On August 21, 2015, the Company completed the sale of the U.S. and U.K. operations of its Electronic Products Division to Ultra and the Buyer in the Transaction. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Company sold to the Buyer all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of its wholly owned subsidiary Herley and the Herley Entities, for $260.0 million and $5.0 million for taxes incurred as part of the Transaction, less a $2.0 million escrow to satisfy any purchase price adjustments and a working capital adjustment of approximately $8.3 million.

In November 2015, the Company and Ultra settled the working capital adjustment at $8.1 million, and the net cash position at closing, resulting in a net payment to the Company of $2.7 million. This represents the payment from escrow to the Company of $2.0 million, as well as the payment from Ultra of $0.7 million, reflecting the difference in the estimated working capital and actual working capital and the net cash position at the close of the Transaction. In December 2015, the Company submitted to Ultra for reimbursement the maximum $5.0 million for taxes incurred as part of the Transaction, which was reimbursed in January 2016.

33



The Company’s December 27, 2015 consolidated financial statements have been recast for all periods presented to reflect the disposition of the Herley Entities which are reported in discontinued operations. The Company’s Comparison of Results and Liquidity and Capital Resources in its Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015 also reflect the recast. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our discontinued operations.

Key Financial Statement Concepts

As of December 27, 2015, we consider the following factors to be important in understanding our financial statements.

KGS’ and US’ business with the U.S. Government and prime contractors is generally performed under fixed-price, cost reimbursable, or time and materials contracts. Cost reimbursable contracts for the U.S. Government provide for reimbursement of costs plus the payment of a fee. Some cost reimbursable contracts include incentive fees that are awarded based on performance on the contract. Under time and materials contracts, we are reimbursed for labor hours at negotiated hourly billing rates and reimbursed for travel and other direct expenses at actual costs plus applied general and administrative expenses. In accounting for our long-term contracts for production of products and services provided to the U.S. Government and provided to our PSS segment customers under fixed-price contracts, we utilize both cost-to-cost and units delivered measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting in accordance with the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605, Revenue Recognition. Under the units delivered measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, sales are recognized as the units are accepted by the customer generally using sales values for units in accordance with the contract terms. We estimate profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract based on deliveries or as computed on the basis of the estimated final average unit costs plus profit. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts.

We consider the following factors when determining if collection of a receivable is reasonably assured: comprehensive collection history; results of our communications with customers; the current financial position of the customer; and the relevant economic conditions in the customer’s country. If we have had no prior experience with the customer, we may review reports from various credit organizations to ensure that the customer has a history of paying its creditors in a reliable and effective manner. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate and adversely affect their financial ability to make payments, additional allowances would be required. Additionally, on certain contracts whereby we perform services for a prime/general contractor, a specified percentage of the invoiced trade accounts receivable may be retained by the customer until we complete the project. We periodically review all retainages for collectability and record allowances for doubtful accounts when deemed appropriate, based on our assessment of the associated risks.

We monitor our policies and procedures with respect to our contracts on a regular basis to ensure consistent application under similar terms and conditions as well as compliance with all applicable government regulations. In addition, costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are routinely audited by the DCAA.

We manage and assess the performance of our businesses based on our performance on individual contracts and programs obtained generally from government organizations with consideration given to our Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates discussed below. Due to the Federal Acquisition Regulation rules that govern our business, most types of costs are allowable, and we do not focus on individual cost groupings (such as cost of sales or general and administrative costs) as much as we do on total contract costs, which are a key factor in determining contract operating income. As a result, in evaluating our operating performance, we look primarily at changes in sales and service revenues, and operating income, including the effects of significant changes in operating income. Changes in contract estimates are reviewed on a contract-by-contract basis and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision in accordance with GAAP. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete the project, which determine the project’s percentage complete, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates.


34


Results of Operations

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 28, 2014 to the Year ended December 27, 2015

Revenues. Revenues by reportable segment for the years ended December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015 are as follows (in millions):

 
 
2014
 
2015
 
$ Change
 
% Change
Unmanned Systems
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
$

 
$

 
$

 

Product sales
 
81.5

 
66.3

 
(15.2
)
 
(18.7
)%
Total Unmanned Systems
 
81.5

 
66.3

 
(15.2
)
 
(18.7
)%
Kratos Government Solutions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
207.4

 
209.5

 
2.1

 
1.0
 %
Product sales
 
277.7

 
236.6

 
(41.1
)
 
(14.8
)%
Total Kratos Government Solutions
 
485.1

 
446.1

 
(39.0
)
 
(8.0
)%
Public Safety & Security
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
183.4

 
144.7

 
(38.7
)
 
(21.1
)%
Product sales
 
13.0

 

 
(13.0
)
 
(100.0
)%
Total Public Safety & Security
 
196.4

 
144.7

 
(51.7
)
 
(26.3
)%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total service revenues
 
390.8

 
354.2

 
(36.6
)
 
(9.4
)%
Total product sales
 
372.2

 
302.9

 
(69.3
)
 
(18.6
)%
Total revenues
 
$
763.0

 
$
657.1

 
$
(105.9
)
 
(13.9
)%

Revenues decreased $105.9 million from $763.0 million in 2014 to $657.1 million in 2015. The decrease in revenues was primarily attributable to our PSS business due in part to a one-time shipment of sophisticated communication equipment of $13.0 million that occurred in the second quarter of 2014, as well as due to the completion or wind-down of certain security installation projects and due to the Company’s change in strategic direction in the fourth quarter of 2014 to capture higher margin work and only selectively bid on larger security integration projects that traditionally generate lower margins, resulting in aggregate reduced service revenues in the PSS segment of $38.7 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. In addition, for the year ended December 27, 2015, KGS segment revenue decreased by $39.0 million due primarily to reduced shipments of our specialized ground equipment products of $38.6 million, delays in orders and awards as a result of the challenging federal government and DoD funding environment, and continued reduction in our legacy government services business of $14.7 million, which includes reset work on legacy weapons systems, all of which adversely impacted the timing of new contract awards, bookings and our revenues, offset partially by growth in our simulation and training business and in technical government services where we support directed energy weapons and electromagnetic railgun efforts, which aggregated a net increase of $16.4 million. Revenues in our US segment decreased by $15.2 million primarily as a result of a reduction in shipments of certain of our aerial target products due to delays in the timing of follow-on and new international contract awards.

Product sales decreased $69.3 million from $372.2 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 to $302.9 million for the year ended December 27, 2015, primarily as a result of the decline in product shipments due to the factors discussed above in our KGS, PSS and US segments. As a percentage of total revenue, product revenues were 48.8% for the year ended December 28, 2014 as compared to 46.1% for the year ended December 27, 2015. Service revenues decreased by $36.6 million from $390.8 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 to $354.2 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. The decrease was primarily related to the change in strategic direction and the completion of larger security installation projects in our PSS segment as well as the continued reduction in our legacy government services business as discussed above.

As described in our “Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates” below and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report, we utilize both the cost-to-cost and units delivered measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting for recognizing revenue as provided for in Topic 605. When revenue is calculated using the percentage-of-completion method, total costs incurred to date are compared to total estimated costs to complete the contract. These estimates are reviewed monthly on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the

35


revision. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete projects, which determine the project’s percentage of completion, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates. During the reporting periods contained herein, we did experience revenue and margin adjustments on certain projects based on the aforementioned factors, but the effect of such adjustments, both positive and negative, when evaluated in total were determined to be immaterial to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Cost of revenues.  Cost of revenues decreased from $583.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 to $495.3 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. The $88.3 million decrease in cost of revenues was primarily a result of decreased revenue discussed above.

Gross margin percentage increased from 23.5% for the year ended December 28, 2014 compared to 24.6% for the year ended December 27, 2015. Margins on services increased from 22.1% for the year ended December 28, 2014 to 24.8% for the year ended December 27, 2015, due primarily to a more favorable mix of revenues. Margins on product sales decreased for the year ended December 28, 2014 as compared to December 27, 2015 from 25.0% to 24.5%, respectively, primarily as a result of a change in mix of products sold. Margins in the KGS segment increased from 25.3% for the year ended December 28, 2014 to 25.4% for the year ended December 27, 2015, primarily as a result of change in the mix of products sold. Margins in the US segment decreased from 23.2% for the year ended December 28, 2014 to 16.3% for the year ended December 27, 2015, primarily due to a less favorable mix of products produced and shipped and due to increased contract costs primarily reflecting retrofits required to conform to required design configuration changes identified in recent successful demonstration test flights recorded on certain international aerial target projects in the year ended December 27, 2015. Margins in the PSS segment increased from 19.3% for the year ended December 28, 2014 to 26.0% for the year ended December 27, 2015 as a result of a more favorable mix of revenues, resulting from the strategic shift in focus on smaller sized, higher margin projects and only selectively bidding on larger sized lower margin projects, the completion of certain lower margin projects, as well as the impact of cost reduction actions that were taken during the year ended December 27, 2015.

Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A).  SG&A decreased $2.9 million from $153.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 to $150.7 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. The decrease was primarily the result of a $6.1 million reduction of amortization of intangibles in 2015, as a result of certain intangible assets being fully amortized, as well as cost reduction actions taken by the Company, offset partially by increased discretionary investments to pursue business opportunities in the unmanned tactical aircraft market. As a percentage of revenues, SG&A increased from 20.1% for fiscal 2014 to 22.9% for fiscal 2015. Excluding amortization of intangibles of $19.1 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 and amortization of intangibles of $13.0 million for the year ended December 27, 2015, SG&A increased as a percentage of revenues from 17.6% to 21.0% for the year ended December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015, respectively, due primarily to the decline in revenues discussed previously, as well as the impact of the public company corporate SG&A costs which are not allocable to the Herley Entities which have been classified as discontinued operations. In addition, due to contract award delays specifically in our unmanned and modular systems businesses, the reduced volumes have resulted in increased unabsorbed overhead costs.

Internal research and development (IR&D) expenses.  IR&D expenses decreased from $18.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 to $16.2 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. As a percentage of revenues, IR&D increased from 2.4% of revenues for the year ended December 28, 2014 to 2.5% of revenues for the year ended December 27, 2015. IR&D expenditures are primarily related to investments we are making in conjunction with our customers and prospective customers, with the objectives of the Company’s products being the new platform for or “designed in” to certain new long term program opportunities and the Company owning certain intellectual property rights for products that support these programs primarily in our unmanned systems and microwave electronic businesses as well as technology upgrades and refresh activities that are necessary for the next generation of our existing product lines primarily in our satellite communications business.

Unused office space and other restructuring. The expense of $1.7 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 was primarily due to an estimated excess facility accrual of office space at our Sacramento, California administrative facilities, and employee termination costs related to personnel reduction actions taken during the year. The benefit of $0.7 million for the year ended December 27, 2015 was due to a reduction of the liability for unused office space at our Columbia, Maryland facility resulting from the execution of a recent sublease arrangement, partially offset by an impairment of leasehold improvements and office furniture and equipment at that location, and employee termination costs related to personnel reduction actions taken during the year.

Other expense, net.  Other expense, net decreased from $77.1 million to $40.1 million for the years ended December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015, respectively. The decrease in expense of $37.0 million was primarily related to

36


$39.1 million loss on the extinguishment of the 10% Notes in the second quarter of 2014 and a reduction in interest expense as a result of the refinancing of our 10% Notes with our 7% Notes.

Provision (benefit) for income taxes. The provision for income taxes changed from a provision of $3.9 million on a loss of $71.8 million from continuing operations before income taxes for the year ended December 28, 2014 to a benefit of $11.4 million on a loss before income taxes of $44.6 million for the year ended December 27, 2015. The provision for the year ended December 28, 2014 was primarily comprised of a provision for foreign and state taxes increased by the change in the indefinite life deferred tax liability. The benefit for the year ended December 27, 2015 was primarily due to the intra-period allocation rules in ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes. Intra-period allocation rules require the Company to allocate its provision for income taxes between continuing operations and other categories of earnings, such as discontinued operations. In periods in which there is a pre-tax loss from continuing operations and pre-tax income in other categories of earnings, such as discontinued operations, the Company must allocate the tax provision to other categories of earnings. A related tax benefit is then recorded in continuing operations. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our income taxes.

Income (loss) from discontinued operations. Revenue from discontinued operations decreased from $108.9 million to $59.7 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015, respectively. The reduction is primarily due to the sale of the Herley Entities which occurred on August 21, 2015, and therefore reflects the operating performance through the date of sale compared to a full year’s operating results for the comparable prior year. The net loss from discontinued operations was $2.3 million for the year ended December 27, 2014 and net income was $53.0 million for the year ended December 27, 2015 which includes the gain on sale of the Herley Entities of $80.8 million. The loss and income for the two years also reflects interest expense allocated to discontinued operations of $15.0 million and $9.1 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015, respectively.

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 29, 2013 to the Year ended December 28, 2014

Revenues. Revenues by reportable segment for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 28, 2014 are as follows (in millions):

 
 
2013
 
2014
 
$ Change
 
% Change
Unmanned Systems
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
$

 
$

 
$

 
 
Product sales
 
121.6

 
81.5

 
(40.1
)
 
(33.0
)%
Total Unmanned Systems
 
121.6

 
81.5

 
(40.1
)
 
(33.0
)%
Kratos Government Solutions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
233.9

 
207.4

 
(26.5
)
 
(11.3
)%
Product sales
 
278.9

 
277.7

 
(1.2
)
 
(0.4
)%
Total Kratos Government Solutions
 
512.8

 
485.1

 
(27.7
)
 
(5.4
)%
Public Safety & Security
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Service revenues
 
209.7

 
183.4

 
(26.3
)
 
(12.5
)%
Product sales
 

 
13.0

 
13.0

 
100.0
 %
Total Public Safety & Security
 
209.7

 
196.4

 
(13.3
)
 
(6.3
)%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total service revenue
 
443.6

 
390.8

 
(52.8
)
 
(11.9
)%
Total product sales
 
400.5

 
372.2

 
(28.3
)
 
(7.1
)%
Total revenue
 
$
844.1

 
$
763.0

 
$
(81.1
)
 
(9.6
)%

Revenues decreased $81.1 million from $844.1 million in 2013 to $763.0 million in 2014. The decrease in revenues was primarily due to contract delays as a result of competitor protests on awards made to Kratos, a decline in shipments of our defense products, and delays in orders and awards as a result of the challenging federal government and DoD funding environment, all of which adversely impacted the timing of new contract awards, bookings and the Company’s revenues. Additionally, revenues in our KGS Segment were also adversely impacted by a decrease resulting from the expected completion of two sizable satellite communications projects as the scope of work completed its natural contract life cycle transitioning from production to sustainment, which impacted revenue by approximately $18.5 million, and continued ongoing

37


weakness and increased competition and commoditization in our legacy government services businesses of approximately $26.1 million. Revenues in our US Segment were impacted by the reduction of shipments of certain of our aerial target products due primarily to delays in the timing of follow-on and new international contract awards. These reductions in our KGS and US segments were partially offset by growth in our simulation and training business of $18.8 million in our KGS Segment. PSS segment revenue decreased by $13.3 million, which was primarily due to the delay in contract awards and project starts in 2014 offset by the delivery of security related communication equipment of $13.0 million.

Product sales decreased $28.3 million from $400.5 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 to $372.2 million for the year ended December 28, 2014, primarily as a result of the decline in product shipments due to the factors discussed above. As a percentage of total revenue, product revenues were 47.4% for the year ended December 29, 2013 as compared to 48.8% for the year ended December 28, 2014. Service revenues decreased by $52.8 million from $443.6 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 to $390.8 million for the year ended December 28, 2014. The decrease was primarily related to reductions in the legacy government service revenues and other service contracts in the KGS segment, which reductions were being experienced industry wide as a result of declining DoD budgets, changes in certain DoD procurement rules and other factors, as well as due to the expected completion of two sizable satellite communications projects.

As described in our “Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates” below and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report, we utilize both the cost-to-cost and units delivered measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting for recognizing revenue as provided for in Topic 605. When revenue is calculated using the percentage-of-completion method, total costs incurred to date are compared to total estimated costs to complete the contract. These estimates are reviewed monthly on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete projects, which determine the project’s percentage of completion, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates. During the reporting periods contained herein, we did experience revenue and margin adjustments on certain projects based on the aforementioned factors, but the effect of such adjustments, both positive and negative, when evaluated in total were determined to be immaterial to our Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report.

Cost of revenues.  Cost of revenues decreased from $639.6 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 to $583.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014. The $56.0 million decrease in cost of revenues was primarily a result of decreased revenue discussed above.

Gross margin percentage declined from 24.2% for the year ended December 29, 2013 compared to 23.5% for the year ended December 28, 2014. Margins on services decreased from 24.4% for the year ended December 29, 2013 to 22.1% for the year ended December 28, 2014, due primarily to an unfavorable mix of revenues and decreased margins in our PSS segment. Margins on product sales increased for the year ended December 29, 2013 as compared to December 28, 2014 from 24.0% to 25.0%, respectively, primarily as a result of a change in mix of products sold. Margins in the KGS segment increased from 24.7% for the year ended December 29, 2013 to 25.3% for the year ended December 28, 2014, primarily as a result of change in the mix of products sold. Margins in the US segment increased from 19.4% for the year ended December 29, 2013 to 23.2% for the year ended December 28, 2014, primarily as a result of increased costs recorded of approximately $5.5 million on certain aerial target contracts to reflect retrofits necessary to address design changes recorded in the year ended December 29, 2013, compared to net increased costs recorded of $3.1 million for similar retrofit related matters and a contract conversion adjustment on certain of our unmanned aerial platforms recorded in the year ended December 28, 2014. Margins in the PSS segment decreased from 25.8% for the year ended December 29, 2013 to 19.3% for the year ended December 28, 2014 as a result of decreased service margins and due to costs incurred on two sizable projects, which were completed in 2014 or were near-completion, under which we were in the process of submitting or had submitted change orders to customers to reimburse us for the work we performed at our customers’ request, but for which we had not completed negotiations for such change orders, and therefore had not reflected the estimated value of these change orders in our revenues.

Selling, general and administrative expenses.  SG&A decreased $19.2 million from $172.8 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 to $153.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014. The decrease was primarily the result of a $13.7 million reduction of amortization of intangibles in 2014, as a result of certain intangible assets being fully amortized, as well as cost reduction actions taken by the Company. As a percentage of revenues, SG&A decreased from 20.5% for fiscal 2013 to 20.1% for fiscal 2014. Excluding amortization of intangibles of $32.8 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 and amortization of intangibles of $19.1 million for the year ended December 28, 2014, SG&A increased as a percentage of revenues from 16.6% to 17.6% for the year ended December 29, 2013 and December 28, 2014, respectively, primarily as a result of the decline in revenues discussed previously, and increased compliance costs including internal cyber security costs

38


incurred to protect the Company’s assets, and Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and audit compliance costs including internal audit and external audit costs.

Merger and acquisition related items.  Merger and acquisition expenses increased $4.0 million from a benefit of $3.8 million to $0.2 million expense for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 28, 2014, respectively.  The benefit of $3.8 million in 2013 was due to the reduction in a $3.1 million liability as a result of our final settlement of our obligations related to former officers and directors of Integral Systems, Inc. (“Integral”) on July 1, 2013, as well as a $2.7 million settlement, net of associated legal fees, arising from a contract dispute with a former subcontractor of the Company pursuant to a settlement agreement executed in December 2013. Both of these benefits were offset partially by legal fees and settlements related to prior acquisitions.

Internal research and development (IR&D) expenses.  IR&D expenses decreased from $19.7 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 to $18.6 million for the year ended December 28, 2014. As a percentage of revenues, IR&D increased from 2.3% of revenues for the year ended December 29, 2013 to 2.4% of revenues for the year ended December 28, 2014 as a result of certain investments the Company made primarily related to new programs and platforms in the electronic products business, the unmanned systems area, and the satellite communications business.

Unused office space and other restructuring. The benefit of $2.4 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 was due to a reduction in the excess facility accrual of office space at the Columbia, Maryland administrative facilities, partially offset by expenses related to workforce reductions as a result of cost reduction initiatives we implemented across the Company. The expense of $1.7 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 was primarily due to an estimated excess facility accrual of office space at our Sacramento, California administrative facilities, as well as due to employee termination costs related to personnel reduction actions taken during the year.

Other expenses, net.  Other expense, net increased from $46.6 million to $77.1 million for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 28, 2014, respectively. The increase in expense of $30.5 million was primarily related to $39.1 million loss on the extinguishment of the Company’s 10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, offset by a $7.0 million reduction in interest expense, resulting from the refinance of the Company’s 10% Senior Secured Notes to the 7% Senior Secured Notes.

Provision (benefit) for income taxes. The provision for income taxes changed from a provision of $1.1 million on a loss of $28.4 million from continuing operations before income taxes for the year ended December 29, 2013 to a provision of $3.9 million on a loss before income taxes of $71.8 million for the year ended December 28, 2014. The provision for the year ended December 29, 2013 was primarily comprised of a provision for foreign and state taxes offset by a tax benefit related to a statute of limitations expiration of unrecognized tax benefits. The provision for the year ended December 28, 2014 was primarily comprised of a provision for foreign and state taxes increased by the change in the indefinite life deferred tax liability. See Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our income taxes.

Loss from discontinued operations. The loss from discontinued operations of $7.7 million for the year ended December 29, 2013 and the loss of $2.3 million for the year ended December 28, 2014 is primarily attributable to interest expense allocated to discontinued operations of $17.5 million and $15.0 million for the years ended December 29, 2013 and December 28, 2014, respectively. Revenue from discontinued operations decreased from $114.5 million to $108.9 million for the year ended December 30, 2013 and December 29, 2014, respectively. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our discontinued operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources
 
As of December 27, 2015, we had cash and cash equivalents of $28.5 million compared with cash and cash equivalents of $33.5 million as of December 28, 2014, which includes $10.8 million and $10.3 million, respectively, of cash and cash equivalents held by our foreign subsidiaries. We are not presently aware of any restrictions on the repatriation of these funds, however, they are essentially considered permanently invested in these foreign subsidiaries. If these funds were needed to fund our operations or satisfy obligations in the U.S. they could be repatriated, and their repatriation into the U.S. may cause us to incur additional U.S. income taxes or foreign withholding taxes. Any additional taxes could be offset, in part or in whole, by foreign tax credits. The amount of such taxes and application of tax credits would be dependent on the income tax laws and other circumstances at the time these amounts are repatriated. Based on these variables, it is not practicable to determine the income tax liability that might be incurred if these earnings were to be repatriated. We do not currently intend to repatriate these earnings.


39


Our total debt, including capital lease obligations, principal due on the Notes, other term debt, the discount of $3.3 million on the Notes issued, and debt issuance costs of $4.3 million decreased by $211.4 million from $656.5 million as of December 28, 2014 to $445.1 million as of December 27, 2015. The decrease in debt was due to the repurchase of $175.0 million of Notes and the repayment of $41.0 million on the Credit Agreement.

We use our operating cash flow to finance trade accounts receivable, fund necessary increases in inventory, fund capital expenditures, our IR&D investments, and our ongoing operations, service our debt and make strategic acquisitions. Financing trade accounts receivable is necessary because, on average, our customers do not pay us as quickly as we pay our vendors and employees for their goods and services since a number of our receivables are contractually billable and due to us only when certain contractual milestones are achieved. Our days sales outstanding on our receivables can be impacted and can fluctuate due to contractual billing milestones under which we are unable to bill and collect certain amounts until the milestones have been satisfied. Financing increases in inventory balances is necessary to fulfill shipment requirements to meet delivery schedules of our customers. Cash from continuing operations is primarily derived from our customer contracts in progress and associated changes in working capital components.
 
A summary of our net cash provided by (used in) operating activities from continuing operations from our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows is as follows (in millions):
 
 
Year Ended
 
December 29, 2013
 
December 28, 2014
 
December 27, 2015
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities from continuing operations
$
21.9

 
$
2.5

 
$
(29.7
)
 
Our cash provided by operating activities was impacted by interest expense we paid related to our Senior Secured Notes. We paid $63.8 million, $57.1 million, and $43.8 million in interest expense in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. Cash provided by operating activities in 2014 and 2015 was also negatively impacted by reduced operating income which reflected discretionary investments we have made in internally funded research and development and increased SG&A expenditures primarily related to business capture pursuits in the tactical unmanned aircraft systems initiatives, as well as changes in working capital accounts.

Our cash used in investing activities from continuing operations is summarized as follows (in millions):
 
 
Year Ended
 
December 29, 2013

 
December 28, 2014
 
December 27, 2015
Investing activities:
 
 
 

 
 

Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
$
2.2

 
$
(2.6
)
 
$

Proceeds from sale of assets

 

 
0.9

Change in restricted cash
0.4

 
(0.4
)
 
4.7

Capital expenditures
(13.3
)
 
(11.6
)
 
(11.3
)
Net cash used in investing activities from continuing operations
$
(10.7
)
 
$
(14.6
)
 
$
(5.7
)
 
Net cash used in investing activities was primarily driven by capital expenditures in 2013, 2014, and 2015 which reflects investments we made for certain machinery, test equipment, and demonstration units in our unmanned aerial systems business, and to a lesser degree, investments we made in our microwave electronic products business, and our satellite communications business.

40




Cash used in financing activities from continuing operations is summarized as follows (in millions):
 
 
 
Year Ended
 
 
December 29, 2013
 
December 28, 2014
 
December 27, 2015
Financing activities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
 
$

 
$
618.5

 
$

  Extinguishment of long-term debt
 

 
(661.5
)
 
(175.0
)
Proceeds from the issuance of common stock
 

 

 

Cash paid for contingent acquisition consideration
 
(2.1
)
 

 
(1.1
)
Borrowings under credit facility
 

 
41.0

 

Repayment under credit facility
 
(1.0
)
 
(1.0
)
 
(42.0
)
Debt issuance costs
 

 
(10.0
)
 

Proceeds from the exercise of restricted stock units, employee stock options, and employee stock purchase plan
 
1.5

 
3.3

 
3.4

Other
 
(0.4
)
 

 

Net cash used in financing activities from continuing operations
 
$
(2.0
)
 
$
(9.7
)
 
$
(214.7
)


Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended December 28, 2014 reflects refinancing $625.0 million of our 10% Senior Secured Notes due in 2017 with $625.0 million of 7.00% Senior Secured Notes due in 2019 as well as a $41.0 million borrowing on our new Credit Agreement. We utilized the net proceeds from the 7% Notes of $618.5 million, and the $41.0 million draw on our Credit Agreement to retire the 10% Notes for $661.5 million. Net cash flows used in financing activities from continuing operations for the year ended December 27, 2015 was primarily due to the repurchase of $175.0 million of our 7% Notes and the repayment of $41.0 million outstanding on our Credit Agreement.

Cash provided by (used in) discontinued operations is summarized as follows (in millions):
 
 
 
Year Ended
 
 
December 29, 2013

 
December 28, 2014
 
December 27, 2015
Net operating cash flows provided by (used in) discontinued operations
 
$
(1.4
)
 
$
4.1

 
$
2.8

Net investing cash flows provided by (used in) discontinued operations
 
(2.0
)
 
(2.6
)
 
242.5

 
The operating cash flow from discontinued operations for the years ended December 29, 2013, December 28, 2014 and December 27, 2015 is substantially related to Herley Industries, Inc. and certain of Herley’s subsidiaries. The investing cash flow from discontinued operations for the year ended December 27, 2015 reflects cash provided of $243.2 million which is related to the sale of the Herley Entities, net of related transaction expenses.

7.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2019

In May 2014, we refinanced our $625.0 million 10% Notes with $625.0 million of newly issued 7% Notes. The net proceeds from the issuance of the 7% Notes was $618.5 million after an original issue discount of $6.5 million. We incurred debt issuance costs of $8.8 million associated with the new 7% Notes. We utilized the net proceeds from the 7% Notes, a $41.0 million draw on our Credit Agreement discussed below, as well as cash from operations to extinguish the 10% Notes. The total reacquisition price of the 10% Notes was $661.5 million, including a $31.2 million early termination fee, the write-off of $15.5 million of unamortized issue costs, $12.9 million of unamortized premium, along with $5.3 million of additional interest while in escrow, which resulted in a loss on extinguishment of $39.1 million.

We completed the offering of the 7% Notes (hereafter the “Notes”) in a private placement conducted pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”). The Notes are governed by the Indenture among

41


us, the Subsidiary Guarantors and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Collateral Agent. A Subsidiary Guarantor can be released from its guarantee if (a) all of the Capital Stock issued by such Subsidiary Guarantor or all or substantially all of the assets of such Subsidiary Guarantor are sold or otherwise disposed of; (b) we designate such Subsidiary Guarantor as an Unrestricted Subsidiary; (c) we exercised our legal defeasance option or its covenant defeasance option; or (d) upon satisfaction and discharge of the Indenture or payment in full in cash of the principal of, premium, if any, accrued and unpaid interest.

The holders of the Notes have a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of the Subsidiary Guarantors, except with respect to accounts receivable, inventory, deposit accounts, securities accounts, cash, securities and general intangibles (other than intellectual property), on which the holders of the Notes have a second priority lien to the Company’s $110.0 million Credit Agreement.

We pay interest on the Notes semi-annually, in arrears, on May 15 and November 15 of each year.
The Notes include customary covenants and events of default as well as a consolidated fixed charge ratio of 2.0:1 for the incurrence of additional indebtedness. Negative covenants include, among other things, limitations on additional debt, liens, negative pledges, investments, dividends, stock repurchases, asset sales and affiliate transactions. Events of default include, among other events, non-performance of covenants, breach of representations, cross-default to other material debt, bankruptcy, insolvency, material judgments and changes in control. As of December 27, 2015, we were in compliance with the covenants contained in the Indenture governing the Notes.

On or after May 15, 2016, we may redeem some or all of the Notes at 105.25% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes through May 15, 2017, 102.625% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes through May 15, 2018 and 100% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. In addition, we may redeem up to 35% of the Notes at 107% of the aggregate principal amount of such notes plus accrued and unpaid interest before May 15, 2016 with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings. We may also redeem some or all of the Notes before May 15, 2016 at a redemption price of 100% of the principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the redemption date, plus a “make whole” premium. In addition, at one time prior to May 15, 2016, we may redeem up to 10% of the original aggregate principal amount of the Notes issued under the Indenture at a redemption price of 103% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption.

On October 16, 2014, the Company exchanged the outstanding Notes for an equal amount of new Notes that have been registered under the Act. The terms of the Notes issued in the exchange offer are identical in all material respects to the terms of the Notes, except the Notes issued in the exchange offer have been registered under the Act.

The terms of the Indenture requires that the net cash proceeds from asset dispositions be either utilized to (i) repay or prepay amounts outstanding under the Company’s Credit Agreement unless such amounts are reinvested in similar collateral, (ii) make an investment in assets that replace the collateral of the Notes or (iii) a combination of both (i) and (ii). To the extent there are any remaining net proceeds from the asset disposition after application of (i) and (ii), such amounts are required to be utilized to repurchase Notes at par after 360 days following the asset disposition.

Following the sale of the Company’s U.S. and U.K. Electronic Products Division (see Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), the Company, on September 22, 2015, repurchased $175.0 million of the Notes at par, in accordance with the Indenture and on August 21, 2015 paid down the $41.0 million outstanding on the Company’s $110.0 million Credit Agreement.

The total reacquisition price of the Notes was $178.4 million including the write off of $1.8 million of unamortized issue costs, $1.4 million of unamortized discount, along with $0.2 million of legal fees, which resulted in a loss on extinguishment of $3.4 million.

To the extent there are any unapplied net proceeds from the asset disposition 360 days following the sale, such amounts are required to be utilized to repurchase Notes at par at that time. At December 27, 2015, the Company has approximately $4.0 million to $6.0 million of estimated remaining net proceeds that it intends to invest in replacement collateral under the Indenture within the 360 days following the asset disposition.


42


Other Indebtedness

$110.0 Million Credit Agreement

On May 14, 2014, the Company replaced its credit facility with KeyBank National Association and entered into the Credit Agreement.  The Credit Agreement established a five-year senior secured revolving credit facility in the maximum amount of $110.0 million (subject to a potential increase of the maximum principal amount to $135.0 million, subject to the Agent’s and applicable lenders’ approval as described therein), consisting of a subline for letters of credit in the amount not to exceed $50.0 million, as well as a swingline loan in an aggregate principal amount at any time outstanding not to exceed $10.0 million. The Credit Agreement is secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of the guarantors thereunder, subject to certain exceptions and permitted liens. The Credit Agreement has a first priority lien on accounts receivable, inventory, deposit accounts, securities accounts, cash, securities and general intangibles (other than intellectual property). On all other assets, the Credit Agreement has a second priority lien junior to the lien securing the Notes.

The Credit Agreement contains certain covenants, which include, but are not limited to, restrictions on indebtedness, liens, and investments, and limits on other various payments, as well as a financial covenant relating to a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.15:1. Events of default under the terms of the Credit Agreement include, but are not limited to: failure of the Company to pay any principal of any loans in full when due and payable; failure of the Company to pay any interest on any loan or any fee or other amount payable under the Credit Agreement within three business days after the date when due and payable; failure of the Company or any of its subsidiaries to comply with certain covenants and agreements, subject to applicable grace periods and/or notice requirements; or any representation, warranty or statement made in or pursuant to the Credit Agreement or any related writing or any other material information furnished by the Company or any of its subsidiaries to the Agent or the lenders shall prove to be false or erroneous; and the occurrence of an event or condition having or reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect, which includes a material adverse effect on the business, operations, condition (financial or otherwise) or prospects of the Company or the ability of the Company to repay its obligations. Where an event of default arises from certain bankruptcy events, the commitments shall automatically and immediately terminate and the principal of, and interest then outstanding on, all of the loans shall become immediately due and payable. Subject to certain notice requirements and other conditions, upon the occurrence of an event of default, including the occurrence of a condition having or reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect, commitments may be terminated and the principal of, and interest then outstanding on, all of the loans may become immediately due and payable. At December 27, 2015 and December 28, 2014, no event of default had occurred and the Company believed that events or conditions having a material adverse effect, giving rise to an acceleration of any amounts outstanding under the Credit Agreement, had not occurred and was remote.

Borrowings under the Credit Agreement may take the form of a base rate revolving loan, Eurodollar revolving loan or swingline loan.  Base rate revolving loans and swingline loans will bear interest at a rate per annum equal to the sum of the applicable margin from time to time in effect plus the highest of (i) the Agent’s prime lending rate, as in effect at such time, (ii) the federal funds rate, as in effect at such time, plus 0.50% per annum, and (iii) the adjusted London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) determined at such time for an interest period of one month, plus 1.00% per annum. Eurodollar revolving loans will bear interest at a rate per annum equal to the sum of the applicable margin from time to time in effect plus the adjusted LIBOR rate. The applicable margin varies between 1.50% - 2.00% for base rate revolving loans and swingline loans and 2.50% - 3.00% for Eurodollar loans, and is based on several factors including our then-existing borrowing base and the Lender’s total commitment amount and revolving credit exposure. The calculation of our borrowing base takes into account several items relating to us and our subsidiaries, including amounts due and owing under billed and unbilled accounts receivables, then-held eligible raw materials inventory, work-in-process inventory, and applicable reserves.

On May 31, 2015, the Company entered into a third amendment (the “Third Amendment”) to the Credit Agreement. Under the terms of the Third Amendment, the definitions of certain terms of the Credit Agreement were modified, the disposition of the Herley Entities was approved by the lenders, a minimum $175.0 million repurchase of the Notes by the Company was required, and the payment in full of the outstanding balance of the Credit Agreement was required. Additionally, the measurement of the fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.15:1 was modified as follows: (i) the fixed charge coverage ratio will not be measured as of the quarterly reporting period ending on or about June 30, 2015, or as of the end of any quarterly reporting period ending after June 30, 2015, if on such date (a) there are no outstanding revolving loans or swingline loans and (b) the aggregate amount outstanding under letters of credit is less than or equal to $17.0 million, and (ii) as to any subsequent quarterly reporting period ending after June 30, 2015, and not covered by (i) above, a fixed charge coverage ratio of at least 1.05:1 will be applied if the percentage of (a) outstanding revolving loans plus the sum of the outstanding swingline loans and outstanding letters of credit that are in excess of $17.0 million, to (b) the revolving credit commitment, minus the Herley Disposition Proceeds Reinvestment Reserve, as defined below, is greater than 0.00% but less than 15.00% or a fixed charge

43


coverage ratio of 1.10:1 will be applied if the aforementioned percentage is equal to or greater than 15.00% but less than 25.00%. In all other instances, the fixed charge coverage ratio remains at 1.15:1. For purposes of computing the fixed charge coverage ratio, consolidated interest expense in connection with the repurchase of Notes with proceeds from the sale of the Herley Entities shall be deemed to have occurred on the first day of the most recently completed four quarterly reporting period.

The terms of the Third Amendment also included the establishment of a reserve (the “Herley Disposition Proceeds Reinvestment Reserve”), that will reduce the maximum $110.0 million total borrowing base on the credit facility. With the sale of the Herley Entities, this reserve will be based upon the collateral carrying value under the Credit Agreement of the Herley Entities disposed. The reserve and therefore the maximum borrowing base will be adjusted monthly for the subsequent cumulative reinvestment in similar collateral assets over a period not to exceed 360 days from the sale of the Herley Entities. As of December 27, 2015, the reserve on the maximum borrowings, adjusted for cumulative reinvestment in similar collateral assets since the sale of the Herley Entities was $4.9 million, resulting in a reduced maximum facility of $105.1 million. To the extent that reinvestment occurs in similar collateral assets, the facility will be reinstated accordingly up to a maximum of $110.0 million. The Company expects to make investments in assets that will replace the collateral which will reinstate the maximum facility to the full $110.0 million.

On August 19, 2015, the Company entered into a fourth amendment (the “Fourth Amendment”) to the Credit Agreement. Among other things, the Fourth Amendment provides for a modification of the Third Amendment as it relates to when the minimum fixed charge coverage ratio will be measured based upon the Company’s outstanding borrowings. Outstanding borrowings for purposes of computing the applicable minimum fixed charge coverage ratio exclude any letter of credit exposure outstanding of $17.0 million plus the amount of letters of credit outstanding for the divested Herley Entities for which a cash deposit has been placed in escrow by the Buyer to cover the amount of such outstanding letters of credit, should the letters of credit be pulled.

As of December 27, 2015, there were no borrowings outstanding on the Credit Agreement and $11.1 million was outstanding on letters of credit, resulting in net borrowing base availability of $60.1 million. The Company was in compliance with the financial covenants as of December 27, 2015.

Debt Acquired in Acquisition of Herley

We assumed a $10.0 million ten-year term loan with a bank in Israel that Herley entered into on September 16, 2008 in connection with the acquisition of one of its wholly owned subsidiaries. The balance as of December 27, 2015 was $2.7 million, and the loan is payable in quarterly installments of $0.3 million plus interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.5%. The loan agreement contains various covenants including a minimum net equity covenant as defined in the loan agreement. We were in compliance with the financial covenants of the loan agreement as of December 27, 2015.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have no off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Regulation S-K, Item 303(a)(4)(ii).


44


Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and other commitments at December 27, 2015, and the effect such obligations could have on our liquidity and cash flow in future periods (in millions):

 
Payments due/forecast by Period
 
Total
 
2016
 
2017 - 2018
 
2019 - 2020
 
2021 and After
Debt, net of interest(1)
$
452.7

 
$
1.0

 
$
1.7

 
$
450.0

 
$

Estimated interest on debt(2)
106.5

 
31.6

 
63.1

 
11.8

 

Purchase orders(3)
95.8

 
81.6

 
14.2

 

 

Operating leases(4)
73.5

 
19.5

 
31.3

 
19.6

 
3.1

Unrecognized tax benefits, including interest and penalties(5)

 

 

 

 

Total commitments and recorded liabilities
$
728.5

 
$
133.7

 
$
110.3

 
$
481.4

 
$
3.1


(1)
The Notes in the aggregate outstanding principal amount of $450.0 million are due May 15, 2019. See Note 4 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for further details.

(2)
Includes interest payments based on current interest rates for variable rate debt and the Notes. See Note 4 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within in this Annual Report for further details.

(3)
Purchase orders include commitments in which a written purchase order has been issued to a vendor, but the goods have not been received or services have not been performed.

(4)
We have entered into or acquired various non-cancelable operating lease agreements that expire on various dates through 2025. The amounts include $5.5 million in excess facility costs and exclude expected sublease income. See Note 5 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for further details.

(5)
Our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 27, 2015 included a $3.6 million noncurrent liability for uncertain tax positions, all of which may result in cash payments. The future payments related to uncertain tax positions have not been presented in the table above due to the uncertainty of the amounts and timing of cash settlements with the taxing authorities.

As of December 27, 2015, we have $11.1 million of standby letters of credit outstanding. Our letters of credit are primarily related to milestone payments received from foreign customers for which the customer has not yet received the product. Additional information regarding our financial commitments at December 27, 2015 is provided in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Annual Report, specifically Note 14.

Other Liquidity Matters

We intend to fund our cash requirements with cash flows from operating activities and borrowings under the Credit Agreement. We believe these sources should be sufficient to meet our cash needs for at least the next 12 months. As discussed in Item 1A “Risk Factors” contained within this Annual Report, our quarterly and annual operating results have fluctuated in the past and may vary in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are external to our control. If the conditions in our industry deteriorate or our customers cancel or postpone projects or if we are unable to sufficiently increase our revenues or further reduce our expenses, we may experience, in the future, a significant long-term negative impact to our financial results and cash flows from operations. In such a situation, we could fall out of compliance with our financial and other covenants which, if not waived, could limit our liquidity and capital resources.

Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates
 
We have identified the following critical accounting policies that affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements. The preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, stockholders’ equity, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On a periodic basis, as

45


deemed necessary, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, allowance for doubtful accounts, valuation of inventory including the reserves for excess and obsolete inventory, valuation of long-lived assets including identifiable intangibles and goodwill, accounting for income taxes including the related valuation allowance, warranties, contingencies and litigation, contingent acquisition consideration, stock-based compensation, and losses on unused office space. We explain these accounting policies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report and at relevant sections in this discussion and analysis. These estimates are based on the information that is currently available and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could vary from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions and such differences may be material.

Revenue recognition. We generate our revenue from three different types of contractual arrangements: cost-plus-fee contracts, time-and-materials contracts, and fixed-price contracts. Revenue on cost-plus-fee contracts is recognized to the extent of allowable costs incurred plus an estimate of the applicable fees earned. We consider fixed fees under cost-plus-fee contracts to be earned in proportion to the allowable costs incurred in performance of the contract. We recognize the relevant portion of the expected fee to be awarded by the customer at the time such fee can be reasonably estimated, based on factors such as our prior award experience and communications with the customer regarding performance, including any interim performance evaluations rendered by the customer. Revenue on time-and-materials contracts is recognized to the extent of billable rates times hours delivered for services provided, to the extent of material cost for products delivered to customers, and to the extent of expenses incurred on behalf of the customers.

We have three basic categories of fixed-price contracts: fixed unit price, fixed-price level of effort, and fixed-price completion. Revenue recognition methods on fixed-price contracts will vary depending on the nature of the work and the contract terms. Revenues on fixed-price service contracts are recorded as work is performed in accordance with Topic 605. Topic 605 generally requires revenue to be deferred until all of the following have occurred: (1) there is a contract in place, (2) delivery has occurred or services have been provided, (3) the price is fixed or determinable, and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. Revenues on fixed-price contracts that require delivery of specific items may be recorded based on a price per unit as units are delivered. Revenue for fixed-price contracts in which we are paid a specific amount to provide services for a stated period of time is recognized ratably over the service period.

A portion of our fixed-price completion contracts are within the scope of Topic 605. For these contracts, revenue is recognized using the percentage-of-completion method based on the ratio of total costs incurred to date compared to estimated total costs to complete the contract. Estimates of costs to complete include material, direct labor, overhead, and allowable indirect expenses for our government contracts. These cost estimates are reviewed and, if necessary, revised monthly on a contract-by-contract basis. If, as a result of this review, we determine that a loss on a contract is probable, then the full amount of estimated loss is charged to operations in the period it is determined that it is probable a loss will be realized from the full performance of the contract.

In accounting for our long-term contracts for production of products provided to the U.S. Government, we utilize both cost-to-cost and units delivered measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting under the provisions of Topic 605. Under the units delivered measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, sales are recognized as the units are accepted by the customer generally using sales values for units in accordance with the contract terms. We estimate profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract based on units delivered or as computed on the basis of the estimated final average unit costs plus profit. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts. Significant management judgments and estimates, including but not limited to the estimated costs to complete projects, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. A cancellation, schedule delay, or modification of a fixed-price contract that is accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method may adversely affect our gross margins for the period in which the contract is modified or canceled. Under certain circumstances, a cancellation or negative modification could result in us having to reverse revenue that we recognized in a prior period, thus significantly reducing the amount of revenues we recognize for the period in which the adjustment is made. Correspondingly, a positive modification may positively affect our gross margins. In addition, a schedule delay or modifications can result in an increase in estimated cost to complete the project, which would also result in an impact to our gross margin. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management made different judgments or utilized different estimates.

It is our policy to review any arrangement containing software or software deliverables and services against the criteria contained in FASB ASC Topic 985, Software (“Topic 985”) and related technical practice aids. Under the provisions of Topic 985, we review the contract value of software deliverables and services and determine allocations of the contract value based on Vendor Specific Objective Evidence (“VSOE”). All software arrangements requiring significant production, modification, or customization of the software are accounted for in conformity with Topic 605.

46



Our contracts may include the provision of more than one of our services (“multiple element arrangements”). In these situations, we apply the guidance of Topic 605. Accordingly, for applicable arrangements, revenue recognition includes the proper identification of separate units of accounting and the allocation of revenue across all elements based on relative fair values, with proper consideration given to the guidance provided by other authoritative literature.

For multiple element arrangements that include hardware products containing software essential to the hardware products’ functionality and undelivered non-software services, we allocate revenue to all deliverables based on their relative selling prices. In such circumstances, we use a hierarchy to determine the selling price to be used for allocating revenue to deliverables: (i) VSOE, (ii) third-party evidence of selling price (“TPE”), and (iii) best estimate of the selling price (“ESP”).

VSOE generally exists only when we sell the deliverable separately and is the price actually charged by us for that deliverable. TPE is determined based on competitor prices for similar deliverables when sold separately. Generally, our offerings contain significant differentiation such that comparable pricing of products with similar functionality cannot be obtained. Furthermore, we are unable to reliably determine what similar competitor products’ selling prices are on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, we typically are not able to obtain TPE of selling price. ESP reflects our best estimates of what the selling prices of elements would be if they were sold regularly on a stand-alone basis. We determine ESP for a product or service by considering multiple factors including, but not limited to major product groupings, geographies, market conditions, competitive landscape, internal costs, gross margin objectives and pricing practices. The determination of ESP is made through consultation with our management, taking into consideration our marketing strategy.

We account for multiple element arrangements that consist only of software or software-related products, including the sale of upgrades to previously sold software, in accordance with industry specific software accounting guidance. For such transactions, revenue on arrangements that include multiple elements is allocated to each element based on the relative fair value of each element, and fair value is determined by VSOE. If we cannot objectively determine the fair value of any undelivered element included in such multiple element arrangements, we defer revenue until all elements are delivered and services have been performed, or until fair value can objectively be determined for any remaining undelivered elements. Under certain of our contractual arrangements, we may also recognize revenue for out-of-pocket expenses in accordance with Topic 605. Depending on the contractual arrangement, these expenses may be reimbursed with or without a fee.

Under certain of our contracts, we provide supplier procurement services and materials for our customers. We record revenue on these arrangements on a gross or net basis in accordance with Topic 605. Depending on the specific circumstances of the arrangement we consider the following criteria, among others, for recording revenue on a gross or net basis:

(1)
whether we act as a principal in the transaction;

(2)
whether we take title to the products;

(3)
whether we assume risks and rewards of ownership, such as risk of loss for collection, delivery or returns;

(4)
whether we serve as an agent or broker, with compensation on a commission or fee basis; and

(5)
whether we assume the credit risk for the amount billed to the customer subsequent to delivery.

For our federal contracts, we follow U.S. Government procurement and accounting standards in assessing the allowability and the allocability of costs to contracts. Due to the significance of the judgments and estimation processes, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying circumstances were to change. We closely monitor compliance with, and the consistent application of, our critical accounting policies related to contract accounting. Business operations personnel conduct periodic contract status and performance reviews. When adjustments in estimated contract revenues or costs are required, any significant changes from prior estimates are included in earnings in the current period. Also, regular and recurring evaluations of contract cost, scheduling and technical matters are performed by management personnel who are independent from the business operations personnel performing work under the contract. Costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are scrutinized for compliance with regulatory standards by our personnel, and are subject to audit by the DCAA.

From time to time, we may proceed with work based on customer direction prior to the completion and signing of formal contract documents. We have a formal review process for approving any such work. Revenue associated with such work is recognized only when it can be reliably estimated and realization is probable. We base our estimates on previous experiences

47


with the customer, communications with the customer regarding funding status, and our knowledge of available funding for the contract or program.

Allowance for doubtful accounts. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the potential inability of certain customers to make required future payments on amounts due to us. Management determines the adequacy of this allowance by periodically evaluating the aging and past due nature of individual customer accounts receivable balances and considering the customer’s current financial situation as well as the existing industry economic conditions and other relevant factors that would be useful towards assessing the risk of collectability. If the future financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in their inability to make specific required payments, additions to the allowance for doubtful accounts may be required. In addition, if the financial condition of our customers improves and collections of amounts outstanding commence or are reasonably assured, then we may reverse previously established allowances for doubtful accounts. Changes to estimates of contract value are recorded as adjustments to revenue and not as a component of the allowance for doubtful accounts. We write off accounts receivable when they become uncollectible and payments subsequently received on such receivables are credited to the allowance for doubtful accounts.

Long-lived and Intangible Assets. We account for long-lived assets in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 360 Property, Plant, and Equipment (“Topic 360”). Topic 360 addresses financial accounting and reporting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets and requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability is measured by comparing the carrying amount of an asset to the expected future net cash flows generated by the asset. If it is determined that the asset may not be recoverable and if the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated fair value, an impairment charge is recognized to the extent of the difference. Topic 360 requires companies to separately report discontinued operations, including components of an entity that either have been disposed of (by sale, abandonment or in a distribution to owners) or classified as held for sale. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell.

In accordance with Topic 360, we assess the impairment of identifiable intangibles and long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors we consider important which could individually or in combination trigger an impairment review include the following:

significant underperformance relative to expected historical or projected future operating results;
significant changes in the manner of our use of the acquired assets or the strategy for our overall business;
significant negative industry or economic trends;
significant decline in our stock price for a sustained period; and
our market capitalization relative to net book value.

If we determined that the carrying value of intangibles and long-lived assets may not be recoverable based upon the existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment, we would record an impairment equal to the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over its estimated fair value.

Goodwill and Purchased Intangibles. The purchase price of an acquired business is allocated to the underlying tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair market values, with the excess recorded as goodwill. Such fair market value assessments require judgments and estimates that can be affected by contract performance and other factors over time, which may cause final amounts to differ materially from original estimates.

We have established certain accruals in connection with indemnities and other contingencies from our acquisitions. These accruals and subsequent adjustments have been recorded during the purchase price allocation period for acquisitions. The accruals were determined based upon the terms of the purchase or sales agreements and, in most cases, involve a significant degree of judgment. Management has recorded these accruals in accordance with its interpretation of the terms of the purchase or sale agreements, known facts, and an estimation of probable future events based on management’s experience. Any changes to recorded estimates will be recognized through earnings.

We perform our impairment test for goodwill in accordance with Topic 350. We assess goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level, which is defined as an operating segment or one level below an operating segment, referred to as a component. We determine our reporting units by first identifying our operating segments, and then assessing whether any components of these segments constitute a business for which discrete financial information is available and where segment management regularly reviews the operating results of that component. We aggregate components within an operating segment that have similar economic characteristics.


48


KGS has four operating segments: Defense Rocket Support Services (“DRSS”), Microwave Electronics Division (“ME”), Technical and Training Solutions (“TTS”), and Modular Systems (“MS”) that provide technology based defense solutions, involving products and services, primarily for mission critical U.S. National Security priorities, with the primary focus relating to the nation’s C5ISR requirements. The PSS operating segment provides integrated solutions for advanced homeland security, public safety, critical infrastructure security, and security and surveillance systems for government, industrial and commercial customers. The US reportable segment provides unmanned aerial systems and unmanned ground and seaborne systems. The Company has identified its reporting units to be the DRSS, ME, TTS, and MS operating segments, within its KGS reportable segment, the US reportable segment, and the PSS reportable segment to be tested for potential impairment in its fiscal year 2015 annual test.
We also perform impairment tests for goodwill whenever evidence of potential impairment exists. When it is determined that impairment has occurred, a charge to operations is recorded. In order to test for potential impairment, we estimate the fair value of each of our reporting units based on a comparison and weighting of the income approach, specifically the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of our reporting units based upon comparable market prices and recent transactions and also validates the reasonableness of the implied multiples from the income approach. We reconcile the fair value of our reporting units to our market capitalization on the last business day of fiscal October and assume a control premium.

In testing for impairment of our goodwill, we make assumptions about the amount and timing of future expected cash flows, terminal growth rates, appropriate discount rates, market multiples, and the control premium a controlling shareholder could be expected to pay:

The timing of future cash flows within our DCF analysis is based on our most recent forecasts and other estimates. Our historical growth rates and operating results are not indicative of our projected growth rates and operating results as a consequence of our acquisitions and divestitures.

The terminal growth rate is used to calculate the value of cash flows beyond the last projected period in our DCF analysis and reflects our best estimates for stable, perpetual growth of our reporting units.

We use estimates of market participant weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”) as a basis for determining the discount rates to apply to our reporting units’ future expected cash flows. The significant assumptions within our WACC are: (a) equity risk premium, (b) beta, (c) size premium adjustments, (d) cost of debt and (e) capital structure assumptions. In addition, we use a company specific risk adjustment which is a subjective adjustment that, by its very nature does not include market related data, but instead examines the prospects of the reporting unit relative to the broader industry to determine if there are specific factors which may make it more “risky” relative to the industry.

Recent historical market multiples are used to estimate future market pricing.

We use an estimated control premium in reconciling the aggregate value of our reporting units to our market capitalization. As discussed in Topic 350, control premiums may effectively cause a company’s aggregate fair value of its reporting unit(s) to exceed its current market capitalization due to the ability of a controlling shareholder to benefit from synergies and other intangible assets that arise from such control. As a result, the measurement of fair value of an entity with a collection of assets and liabilities that operate together to produce cash flows is different from the fair value measurement of that entity’s individual securities, hence, the reason a control premium is paid.

We review intangible assets subject to amortization for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. Impairment losses, where identified, are determined as the excess of the carrying value over the estimated fair value of the long-lived asset. We assess the recoverability of the carrying value of assets held for use based on a review of projected undiscounted cash flows.

The goodwill of the PSS, US, and KGS reportable segments are $35.6 million, $97.3 million and $350.5 million, respectively, at December 27, 2015.

In determining the fair value of our reporting units, there are key assumptions related to our future operating performance and revenue growth. If the actual operating performance and financial results are not consistent with our assumptions an impairment in our $483.4 million goodwill and $36.5 million long-lived intangibles could occur in future periods. In particular, the US reporting unit fair value includes assumptions that the development of the high performance

49


Unmanned Combat Aerial System (“UCAS”) product is successful and we are awarded future contracts for the UCAS product and other new tactical unmanned aircraft systems. Additionally, the US reporting unit fair value assumes that we will receive follow on orders for the Sub-Sonic Aerial Target (“SSAT”), which is currently under contract with the US Navy. For certain of our reporting units, the fair value includes assumptions of the entry to new international markets for which we have not yet penetrated. Additional risks for goodwill across all reporting units include, but not limited to the risks discussed in Item 1A “Risk Factors” contained within this Annual Report and:

a decline in our stock price and resulting market capitalization, if we determine the decline is sustained and is indicative of a reduction in the fair value below the carrying value of our reporting units;
a decrease in available government funding, including budgetary constraints affecting U.S. Government spending generally, or specific departments or agencies;
changes in U.S. Government programs or requirements, including the increased use of small business providers;
our failure to reach our internal forecasts could impact our ability to achieve our forecasted levels of cash flows and reduce the estimated discounted value of our reporting units;
volatility in equity and debt markets resulting in higher discount rates; and
market and political factors that could impact the success of new products, especially related to new unmanned systems platforms.

It is not possible at this time to determine if an impairment charge would result from these factors, or, if it does, whether such charge would be material. We will continue to monitor our goodwill for potential impairment indicators.

Accounting for income taxes and tax contingencies. FASB ASC Topic 740 Income Taxes (“Topic 740”) provides the accounting treatment for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements. Topic 740 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. Topic 740 also provides guidance on derecognizing, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.

As part of the process of preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements, we are required to estimate our provision for income taxes in each of the tax jurisdictions in which we conduct business. This process involves estimating our actual current tax expense in conjunction with the evaluation and measurement of temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of certain items for tax and accounting purposes. These temporary differences result in the establishment of deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are recorded on a net basis and included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We then assess on a periodic basis the probability that our net deferred tax assets will be recovered and therefore realized from future taxable income and to the extent we believe that recovery is not more likely than not, a valuation allowance is established to address such risk resulting in an additional related provision for income taxes during the period.

Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities, tax contingencies, unrecognized tax benefits, and any required valuation allowance, including taking into consideration the probability of the tax contingencies being incurred. Management assesses this probability based upon information provided to us by our tax advisers, our legal advisers and similar tax cases. If at a later time our assessment of the probability of these tax contingencies changes, our accrual for such tax uncertainties may increase or decrease.

We have a valuation allowance at December 27, 2015 due to management’s overall assessment of risks and uncertainties related to our future ability to realize and, hence, utilize certain deferred tax assets, primarily consisting of net operating losses, carry forward temporary differences and future tax deductions resulting from certain types of stock option exercises, before they expire.

The 2015 effective tax rate at December 27, 2015 for annual and interim reporting periods could be impacted if uncertain tax positions that are not recognized at December 27, 2015 are settled at an amount which differs from our estimate. Finally, during 2015 and thereafter, if we are impacted by a change in the valuation allowance as of December 27, 2015 resulting from a change in judgment regarding the realizability of deferred tax assets beyond December 27, 2015, such effect will be recognized in the interim period in which the change occurs.

Contingencies and litigation. We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings. We estimate a range of liability related to pending litigation where the amount and range of loss can be estimated. We record our estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable. Where a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss and no amount in the range is more likely than any other number in the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the claim in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450 Contingencies. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability related to our pending litigation and revise our estimates. Revisions in our estimates of potential liability

50


could materially impact our results of operations. See Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” contained within this Annual Report for additional information.

Stock-based Compensation. We account for stock-based compensation arrangements in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation (“Topic 718”), which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based payment awards to employees and directors based on estimated fair values.

The valuation provisions of Topic 718 apply to new awards and to awards that are outstanding on the effective date and subsequently modified or canceled. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model and a lattice options pricing model for market condition options to estimate the fair value of our stock options at the grant date. The Black-Scholes option pricing model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. The lattice options pricing model breaks down the time to expiration into potentially a very large number of time intervals, or steps which makes it possible to check at every point in an option’s life for the possibility of early exercise. Our employee stock options are generally subject to vesting restrictions and are generally not transferable.

Valuing options requires highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility over the term of the award, the expected life of an option and the number of awards ultimately expected to vest. Changes in these assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimates of an option. Furthermore, the estimated fair value of an option does not necessarily represent the value that will ultimately be realized by an employee. We used historical data to estimate the expected forfeiture rate, intrinsic and historical data to estimate the expected price volatility, and a weighted-average expected life formula to estimate the expected option life. The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for the estimated life of the option.

Estimates of stock-based compensation expenses are significant to our Consolidated Financial Statements, but these expenses are based on option valuation models and will never result in the payment of cash by us. For this reason, and because we do not view stock-based compensation to be significant as related to our operational performance, we exclude estimated stock-based compensation expense when evaluating the business performance of our operating segments.
 
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
 
See Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of recent accounting pronouncements.

Item 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
 
 Interest Rate and Foreign Currency Risks

We are exposed to market risk, primarily related to interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates.

Exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates to our outstanding debt. We are exposed to interest rate risk, primarily through our borrowing activities under the Credit Agreement discussed underLiquidity and Capital Resources” above. Based on our current outstanding balances, a 1% change in the LIBOR rate would not materially impact our financial position. We manage exposure to these risks through our operating and financing activities and, when deemed appropriate, through the use of derivative financial instruments. Derivative financial instruments are viewed as risk management tools and are not used for speculation or for trading purposes. Derivative financial instruments were contracted with investment grade counterparties to reduce exposure to interest rate risk on our prior credit facilities.

Exposure to market risk for foreign currency exchange rate risk is related to receipts from customers, payments to suppliers and intercompany loans denominated in foreign currencies. Accordingly, a strengthening of the U.S. dollar (“USD”) will negatively impact revenues and gross margins expressed in consolidated USD terms. We currently enter into limited foreign currency forward contracts to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk because exchange rate fluctuations have had, and we expect will have, minimal impact on our operating results and cash flows.

Cash and cash equivalents as of December 27, 2015 were $28.5 million and are primarily invested in money market interest bearing accounts. A hypothetical 10% adverse change in the average interest rate on our money market cash investments and short-term investments would have had no material effect on our net loss for the year ended December 27, 2015.


51


Commodity Price Risk Management

We purchase commodities for use in our manufacturing processes. We typically purchase these commodities at market prices, and as a result are affected by market price fluctuations. We have decided not to hedge these exposures as they are deemed immaterial.
 
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Our Consolidated Financial Statements and supplementary data required by this item are set forth at the pages indicated in Item 15(a) (1) and 15(a) (2), respectively.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
None.

Item 9A.  Controls and Procedures.
 
Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act, designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 Rule 13a-15(b) and 15d-15(b) promulgated under the Exchange Act, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Based on the foregoing, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 27, 2015.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that internal controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in the 2013 Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the results of our evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 27, 2015.

Our internal control over financial reporting has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP,  an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report appearing below, which expresses an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 27, 2015.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial accounting and reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

52



Item 9B. Other Information.
None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.


Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules.

(a)(1)
Financial Statements
The Consolidated Financial Statements of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, are included in a separate section of this Annual Report beginning on page F-1.

(a)(2)
Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable or are not required or the information required to be set forth therein is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or the notes thereto.

53



(a) (3).  Exhibits.
 
 
 
 
 
Incorporated by
Reference
 
 
Exhibit
Number
 
Exhibit Description
 
Form
 
Filing Date (File No.)
 
Exhibit
 
Filed-
Furnished
Herewith
2.1+
 
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 7, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Lanza Acquisition, Co. and Herley Industries, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Annex A to the Prospectus Supplement dated February 8, 2011, pursuant to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.)
 
424
 
02/08/2011
(333-161340)
 
n/a
 
 
2.2+
 
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 15, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Integral Systems, Inc., IRIS Merger Sub Inc., and IRIS Acquisition Sub LLC.
 
8-K
 
05/18/2011
(001-34460)
 
2.1
 
 
2.3+
 
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated May 31, 2015, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Herley Industries, Inc., Ultra
 
10-Q
 
08/06/2015
(001-34460)
 
2.4
 
 
3.1
 
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc
 
10-Q
 
11/13/2001
 (000-27231)
 
4.1
 
 
3.2
 
Certificate of Ownership and Merger of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. into Wireless Facilities, Inc.
 
8-K
 
09/14/2007
 (000-27231)
 
3.1
 
 
3.3
 
Certificate of Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
 
10-Q
 
11/03/2009
(001-34460)
 
3.1
 
 
3.4
 
Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A Preferred Stock.
 
10-Q
 
11/13/2001
 (000-27231)
 
4.2
 
 
3.5
 
Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series B Preferred Stock (included as Exhibit A to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of May 16, 2002 among the Company, Meritech Capital Partners II L.P., Meritech Capital Affiliates II L.P., MCP Entrepreneur Partners II L.P., Oak Investment Partners X, L.P., Oak X Affiliates Fund, L.P., Oak Investment Partners IX, L.P., Oak IX Affiliates Fund, L.P., Oak IX Affiliates Fund-A, L.P., and the KLS Trust dated July 14, 1999).
 
8-K/A
 
06/05/2002
(000-27231)
 
4.1
 
 
3.6
 
Certificate of Designation of Series C Preferred Stock.
 
8-K
 
12/17/2004
(000-27231)
 
3.1
 
 
3.7
 
Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
 
8-K
 
03/15/2011
(001-34460)
 
3.1
 
 
3.8
 
Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
 
10-Q
 
11/07/2014
(001-34460)
 
3.8
 
 
4.1
 
Specimen Stock Certificate.
 
10-K
 
03/02/2011
(001-34460)
 
4.1
 
 

54


4.2
 
Indenture, dated as of May 14, 2014, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Issuer, the Guarantors as named therein and party thereto, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Collateral Agent (including the Form of 7.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2019).
 
8-K
 
05/15/2014
(001-34460)
 
4.1
 
 
4.3
 
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of May 14, 2014, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Issuer, and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., as Representative of the Initial Purchasers.
 
8-K
 
05/15/2014
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.1
 
Commitment Letter, dated February 7, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Jefferies Group, Inc., Key Capital Corporation and OPY Credit Corp.
 
8-K
 
02/07/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.2#
 
Form of Indemnification Agreement by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and its directors and executive officers.
 
10-Q
 
08/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.8
 
 
10.3#
 
1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
 
S-1
 
08/18/1999
(333-85515)
 
10.5
 
 
10.4#
 
2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan.
 
10-Q
 
11/14/2000
 (000-27231)
 
10.2
 
 
10.5#
 
Form of Stock Option Agreement and Form of Stock Option Grant Notice used in connection with the 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan.
 
10-Q
 
11/14/2000
(000-27231)
 
10.3
 
 
10.6#
 
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan.
 
8-K
 
11/24/2004
(000-27231)
 
10.44
 
 
10.7#
 
2005 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
S-8
 
08/01/2005
(333-127060)
 
99.2
 
 
10.8#
 
Form of Stock Option Agreement pursuant to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
S-8
 
08/01/2005
(333-127060)
 
99.1
 
 
10.9#
 
Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units under the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
8-K
 
01/17/2007
(000-27231)
 
99.3
 
 
10.10#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.10
 
 
10.11#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.11
 
 
10.12#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.12
 
 
10.13#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.13
 
 
10.14#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.14
 
 
10.15#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. Amended and Restated 2006 New Employee Stock Option Plan.
 
S-8
 
04/08/2011
(333-173383)
 
4.15
 
 
10.16#
 
2011 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
DEF 14A
 
04/15/2011
(001-34460)
 
n/a
 
 
10.17#
 
Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units and Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement pursuant to the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
8-K
 
11/18/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.2
 
 
10.18#
 
2014 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
DEF 14A
 
04/11/2014
(001-34460)
 
n/a
 
 

55


10.19#
 
Form of Restricted Stock Unit Grant & Notice and Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement pursuant to the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan.
 
10-Q
 
11/07/2014
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.20#
 
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 22, 2010, by and between Kratos Government Solutions, Inc. and David Carter.
 
10-K
 
03/02/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.15
 
 
10.21#
 
First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense Engineering Solutions, Inc. and David Carter.
 
10-Q
 
11/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.9
 
 
10.22#
 
Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Eric DeMarco.
 
10-Q
 
08/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.3
 
 
10.23#
 
Second Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Deanna Lund.
 
10-Q
 
08/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.4
 
 
10.24#
 
Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Deborah S. Butera.
 
10-Q
 
08/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.8
 
 
10.25#
 
Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Public Safety & Security Solutions, Inc. and Ben Goodwin.
 
10-Q
 
11/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.10
 
 
10.26#
 
Sublease Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2009, by and between Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as Sublessor, and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Sublessee.
 
10-K
 
03/11/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.26
 
 
10.27
 
Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 12, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Subsidiary Guarantors set forth therein, Jefferies & Company, Inc., B. Riley & Co., LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. and Noble International Investments, Inc.
 
8-K
 
05/25/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.28
 
Security Agreement, dated as of May 19, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Guarantors set forth therein and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Collateral Agent.
 
8-K
 
05/25/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.2
 
 
10.29
 
Intercreditor Agreement, dated as of May 19, 2010, by and among Wilmington Trust FSB, as Indenture Agent, and KeyBank National Association, as Credit Facility Agent.
 
8-K
 
05/25/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.3
 
 
10.30
 
Credit Agreement, dated as of March 3, 2010, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., KeyBank National Association, as Administrative Agent and Lender, Bank of America, N.A., as Syndication Agent and Lender, and the other financial institutions parties, thereto with Keybanc Capital Markets and Banc of America Securities, LLC as Co-Lead Arrangers and Book Runners.
 
8-K
 
03/08/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 

56


10.31
 
First Amendment Agreement, dated as of December 13, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Borrower, the Lenders named therein and KeyBank National Association, as Lead Arranger, Sole Book Runner and Administrative Agent.
 
8-K
 
12/16/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.32
 
Second Amendment Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2011, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Lenders named therein and KeyBank National Association.
 
8-K
 
02/07/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.3
 
 
10.33
 
Purchase Agreement, dated March 22, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Acquisition Co. Lanza Parent, Lanza Acquisition Co., Jefferies & Company, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.
 
8-K
 
03/29/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.34
 
Security Agreement, dated March 25, 2011, by and among Acquisition Co. Lanza Parent, the Grantors named therein and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Collateral Agent.
 
8-K
 
03/29/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.2
 
 
10.35
 
Credit and Security Agreement, dated as of May 19, 2010, as amended and restated as of July 27, 2011, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Borrower, the Lenders named therein and KeyBank National Association, as Lead Arranger, Sole Book Runner and Administrative Agent.
 
8-K
 
07/29/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.36
 
First Amendment Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., as Borrower, the Lenders named therein, and Key Bank National Association, as Lead Arranger, Sole Book Runner and Administrative Agent.
 
8-K
 
11/18/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 
10.37
 
Purchase Agreement, dated July 14, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Guarantors named therein, Jefferies & Company, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. and B. Riley & Co., LLC, as amended by that certain Joinder Agreement, dated July 27, 2011.
 
10-Q
 
11/04/2011
(001-34460)
 
10.2
 
 
10.38
 
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement of Derivative Claims, dated as of January 5, 2010.
 
10-Q
 
04/29/2010
(001-34460)
 
10.6
 
 
10.39#
 
Herley Industries, Inc. Amended and Restated 2010 Stock Plan, and the related Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units and Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement.
 
S-8
 
03/08/2012
(333-179977)
 
4.10
 
 
10.40#
 
Amended and Restated Integral Systems, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan, and the related Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units and Restricted Stock Units and Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement.
 
S-8
 
03/08/2012
(333-179977)
 
4.11
 
 
10.41
 
Second Amendment to Credit and Security Agreement, dated as of May 4, 2012, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Lenders named therein, and KeyBank National Association.
 
8-K
 
05/08/2012
(001-34460)
 
10.1
 
 

57