Docoh
Loading...

NVDA NVIDIA

Filed: 28 Nov 06, 7:00pm
Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 


FORM 10-Q/A

 


 

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

For the quarterly period ended April 30, 2006

OR

 

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

Commission file number: 0-23985

 


NVIDIA CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 


 

Delaware 94-3177549

(State or Other Jurisdiction of

Incorporation or Organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

2701 San Tomas Expressway

Santa Clara, California 95050

(408) 486-2000

(Address, including Zip Code, of Registrant's Principal Executive Offices

and Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code)

 


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

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

x  Large accelerated filer    ¨  Accelerated filer    ¨  Non-accelerated filer

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

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of May 12, 2006 was 352,513,038 shares.

 



Table of Contents

EXPLANATORY NOTE

We are amending our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2006 as filed on May 31, 2006, or the Original Filing, to restate our consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005, and the related disclosures.

The restatement of the Original Filing reflected in this Form 10-Q/A, includes adjustments arising from the determinations of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, or Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, from conducting a voluntary review of the Company’s stock option practices covering the time from the Company’s initial public offering in 1999 (fiscal year 2000) through June 2006.

For more information on these matters, including a detailed discussion of the effect of the restatement, please refer to Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

As a result of the findings of the Audit Committee, we concluded that we need to amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 29, 2006, as filed on March 16, 2006, to restate our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 29, 2006, January 30, 2005, and January 25, 2004 and the related disclosures. The Form 10-K/A also includes the restatement of selected consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended January 29, 2006, January 30, 2005, January 25, 2004, January 26, 2003, and January 27, 2002, and the unaudited quarterly financial data for each of the quarters in the years ended January 29, 2006 and January 30, 2005. We also concluded that we need to amend our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, originally filed on May 31, 2006, to restate our condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 and the related disclosures. We will also restate the July 31, 2005 financial statements included in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006. We will restate the October 30, 2005 financial statements with the filing of our October 29, 2006 Form 10-Q; however, Exhibit 99.1 to our Form 10-K/A included information concerning our unaudited consolidated financial data as of and for the three and nine month periods ended October 30, 2005. We have not amended and we do not intend to amend any of our other previously filed annual reports on Form 10-K or quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods affected by the restatement or adjustments other than this amended Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended April 30, 2006 and the amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 30, 2006.

All of the information in this Form 10-Q/A is as of April 30, 2006 and does not reflect events occurring after the date of the Original Filing, other than the restatement, or to modify or to update disclosures (including the exhibits to the Original Filing, except for the updated Exhibits 31.1, 31.2, 32.1, and 32.2 described below) affected by subsequent events. For the convenience of the reader, this Form 10-Q/A sets forth the Original Filing in its entirety, as amended by and to reflect the restatement. The following sections of this Form 10-Q/A were adjusted to reflect the findings of the Audit Committee:

Part I — Item 1 — Unaudited Financial Statements;

Part I — Item 2 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations;

Part I — Item 4 — Controls and Procedures;

Part II — Item 1A — Risk Factors; and

Part II — Item 6 — Exhibits

This Form 10-Q/A should be read in conjunction with our amended Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 29, 2006, our periodic filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, subsequent to the date of the Original Filing, and any Current Reports filed on Form 8-K subsequent to the date of the Original Filing. In addition, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC, this Form 10-Q/A includes updated certifications from our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer as Exhibits 31.1, 31.2, 32.1 and 32.2.

The SEC may disagree with the manner in which we have accounted for and reported, or not reported, the financial impact of past option grant measurement date errors, and there is a risk that its inquiry could lead to circumstances in which we may have to further restate our prior financial statements, amend prior SEC filings, or otherwise take other actions not currently contemplated. In addition, the SEC may issue guidance on disclosure requirements related to the financial impact of past option grant measurement date errors that may require us to amend this filing or prior filings with the SEC to provide additional disclosures pursuant to this guidance. Any such circumstance could also lead to future delays in filing of our subsequent SEC reports and the delisting of our common stock from the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

 

i


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION

FORM 10-Q/A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

      Page
  Explanatory Note  i
PART I: FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.

  Financial Statements (Unaudited)  
  Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of April 30, 2006, as restated and January 29, 2006, as restated  1
  Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended April 30, 2006, as restated and May 1, 2005, as restated  2
  Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended April 30, 2006, as restated and May 1, 2005, as restated  3
  Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements  4

Item 2.

  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations  25

Item 3.

  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk  37

Item 4.

  Controls and Procedures  37
PART II: OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

  Legal Proceedings  41

Item 1A.

  Risk Factors  41

Item 2.

  Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds  54

Item 3.

  Defaults Upon Senior Securities  54

Item 4.

  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders  55

Item 5.

  Other Information  55

Item 6.

  Exhibits  55

Signature

  56

 

ii


Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

   April 30, 2006  January 29,
2006
 
   (As Restated)(1)  (As Restated)(1) 
ASSETS   

Current assets:

   

Cash and cash equivalents

  $487,763  $551,756 

Marketable securities

   467,290   398,418 

Accounts receivable, net

   391,270   318,186 

Inventories

   346,431   254,870 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

   28,545   24,387 

Deferred income taxes

   2,682   2,682 
         

Total current assets

   1,723,981   1,550,299 

Property and equipment, net

   180,206   178,152 

Deposits and other assets

   31,028   27,477 

Goodwill

   204,603   145,317 

Intangible assets, net

   22,989   15,421 

Deferred income taxes, non-current

   38,021   38,021 
         
  $2,200,828  $1,954,687 
         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY   

Current liabilities:

   

Accounts payable

  $298,147  $179,395 

Accrued liabilities

   236,379   259,264 
         

Total current liabilities

   534,526   438,659 

Deferred income tax liabilities

   —     —   

Other long-term liabilities

   17,682   20,036 

Commitments and contingencies - see Note 12 and Note 14

   

Stockholders’ equity:

   

Preferred stock

   —     —   

Common stock

   371   360 

Additional paid-in capital

   1,073,047   965,604 

Deferred compensation

   —     (3,604)

Treasury stock

   (262,142)  (212,142)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net

   (2,451)  (1,957)

Retained earnings

   839,795   747,731 
         

Total stockholders' equity

   1,648,620   1,495,992 
         
  $2,200,828  $1,954,687 
         

(1)See Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

1


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(In thousands, except per share data)

(Unaudited)

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   (As Restated)(1)  (As Restated)(1) 

Revenue

  $681,807  $583,846 

Cost of revenue (A)

   393,134   373,985 
         

Gross profit

   288,673   209,861 

Operating expenses:

   

Research and development (A)

   123,202   87,835 

Sales, general and administrative (A)

   63,962   43,217 
         

Total operating expenses

   187,164   131,052 
         

Operating income

   101,509   78,809 

Interest income

   8,808   3,895 

Interest expense

   (1)  (10)

Other income (expense), net

   (244)  488 
         

Income before income tax expense

   110,072   83,182 

Income tax expense

   18,712   17,660 
         

Income before change in accounting principle

   91,360   65,522 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of income tax

   704   —   
         

Net income

  $92,064  $65,522 
         

Basic net income per share:

   

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.26  $0.19 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $—    $—   
         

Basic net income per share

  $0.26  $0.19 
         

Shares used in basic per share computation

   347,937   337,294 
         

Diluted net income per share:

   

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.23  $0.18 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.01  $—   
         

Diluted net income per share

  $0.24  $0.18 
         

Shares used in diluted per share computation

   389,428   361,029 
         

____________

   
(A)Results for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 include stock-based compensation expense net of associated payroll taxes, as restated, as follows:
   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   (As Restated)(1)  (As Restated)(1) 

Cost of revenue

  $1,227  $292 

Research and development

   14,426   1,922 

Sales, general and administrative

   6,572   (4,841)

 

(1)See Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

2


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   (As Restated)(1)  (As Restated)(1) 

Cash flows from operating activities:

   

Net income

  $92,064  $65,522 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:

   

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

   (704)  —   

In-process research and development

   602   —   

Depreciation and amortization

   24,031   24,897 

Stock-based compensation

   24,111   2,750 

Bad debt expense (recovery)

   255   (341)

Deferred income tax

   —     —   

Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation

   (7,330)  —   

Changes in operating assets and liabilities net of acquisitions:

   

Accounts receivable

   (64,135)  49,430 

Inventories

   (87,958)  7,759 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

   (3,332)  (2,050)

Deposits and other assets

   (3,406)  (1,644)

Accounts payable

   107,729   (56,077)

Accrued liabilities

   (32,391)  (667)
         

Net cash provided by operating activities

   49,536   89,579 
         

Cash flows from investing activities:

   

Purchases of marketable securities

   (92,344)  (56,411)

Sales and maturities of marketable securities

   22,523   65,304 

Purchases of property and equipment and intangible assets

   (20,667)  (13,504)

Acquisition of businesses, net of cash and cash equivalents

   (67,026)  —   
         

Net cash used in investing activities

   (157,514)  (4,611)
         

Cash flows from financing activities:

   

Common stock issued under employee stock plans

   86,655   36,011 

Stock repurchase

   (50,000)  (48,467)

Other

   —     (20)

Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation

   7,330   —   
         

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   43,985   (12,476)
         

Change in cash and cash equivalents

   (63,993)  72,492 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

   551,756   208,512 
         

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

  $487,763  $281,004 
         

Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:

   

Cash paid for interest

  $—    $10 
         

Cash paid for income taxes, net

  $24,645  $901 
         

Other non-cash activities:

   

Application of customer advance to accounts receivable

  $—    $8,062 
         

Unrealized losses from marketable securities

  $824  $556 
         

Deferred compensation

  $3,604  $3 
         

(1)See Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

3


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, Regulation S-X. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments except as otherwise noted, considered necessary for a fair statement of results of operations and financial position have been included. The results for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for any future period. The following information should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 29, 2006. 

Fiscal year

We operate on a 52 or 53-week year, ending on the Sunday nearest January 31. The first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006 were both 13-week quarters.

Reclassifications

Certain prior fiscal year balances were reclassified to conform to the current fiscal year presentation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, accounts receivable, inventories, stock-based compensation, income taxes and contingencies. These estimates are based on historical facts and various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable.

Note 2 - Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings

In May 2006, following media reports of stock option accounting investigations at other companies, the management of NVIDIA decided to conduct a review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. Management advised our Board of Directors of the review at a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors on May 25, 2006. The Board of Directors directed management to report its findings to the Audit Committee. Management presented its findings to the Audit Committee in late June 2006. Following that presentation, the Audit Committee determined that it should perform its own independent review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. The Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, began its review on approximately June 29, 2006.

The Audit Committee’s review was completed on November 13, 2006 when the Audit Committee reported its findings to the full Board of Directors. The review covered option grants to all employees, directors and consultants for all grant dates during the period from our initial public offering in January 1999 through June 2006. As part of its review, the Audit Committee determined whether the correct measurement dates had been used under applicable accounting principles for these options. The measurement date means the date on which the option is deemed granted under applicable accounting principles, namely Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees and related interpretations, and is the first date on which all of the following are known: (1) the individual employee who is entitled to receive the option grant, (2) the number of options that an individual employee is entitled to receive, and (3) the option’s exercise price.

Based on the findings of the Audit Committee and our internal review, we identified a number of occasions on which we used an incorrect measurement date for financial accounting and reporting purposes. These errors resulted primarily from our use during our fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002, of certain date selection methods discussed below which resulted in employees receiving options with stated exercise prices lower than the market prices as measured based upon the actual grant dates. We ceased using such practices beginning in our fiscal year 2003. The Audit Committee found that, beginning in our fiscal year 2003, we improved our stock option grant processes and have generally granted and priced our employee stock options in an objective and consistent manner since that time. However, for one Company-wide annual stock option grant we made in fiscal 2004, we did not finalize the number of options allocated to each employee as of the stated grant date in May 2003, which resulted in stock-based compensation charges due to the change in the measurement date to the date the grants were finalized. The Audit Committee’s review did not identify any additional stock-based compensation charges from measurement date issues subsequent to that fiscal 2004 grant.

 

4


Table of Contents

In accordance with APB 25, with respect to periods through January 29, 2006, we should have recorded stock-based compensation expense to the extent that the fair market value of our common stock on the correct measurement date exceeded the exercise price of each option granted. For periods commencing January 30, 2006 (the beginning of our fiscal year 2007), we record stock-based compensation expense in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) (revised), or SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment. Changes in measurement dates have also contributed to incremental fair value of options under SFAS No. 123. As of the end of our fiscal year 2006, the unamortized incremental fair value charges resulting from the Audit Committee’s review were approximately $13.0 million, of which approximately $9.0 million are expected to be amortized in our fiscal year 2007.

As a result of the measurement date errors identified from the Audit Committee’s review, through January 29, 2006, we recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $127.4 million, net of related tax effects. These charges were based primarily on APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) charges and associated payroll taxes of $199.6 million on a pre-tax basis, which are being amortized over the vesting term of the stock options in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 28, or FIN 28,Accounting for Stock Appreciation Rights and Other Variable Stock Option or Award Plans. We have amortized a substantial portion of these charges to expense during our fiscal years 2000 to 2006. If an option is forfeited prior to vesting, we reverse both the charges amortized to expense in prior periods as well as any remaining unamortized deferred stock-based compensation associated with the forfeited options. Accordingly, our net stock-based compensation charges amortized to our statement of income are lower than the aggregate stock-based compensation charges based on APB 25 (intrinsic-value based). As of January 29, 2006, the remaining APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) unamortized deferred stock-based compensation related to the errors identified during the review was approximately $3.0 million.

The types of errors we identified were as follows:

Improper Measurement Dates forCompany-Wide Annual or Retention Stock Option Grants. We determined that, in connection with certain annual or retention stock option grants that we made to employees during our fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the final number of shares that an individual employee was entitled to receive was not determined and/or the proper approval of the related stock option grant had not been given until after the stated grant date. Therefore, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. In connection with stock option grants that we made to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during fiscal years 2001 and 2002, our practice was to grant stock options with an exercise price based upon the lowest closing price of our common stock in the last few days of the month of hire or the last few days of any subsequent month in the quarter of hire. The selection of the grant date of the related option grants would be made at the end of the fiscal quarter and was based on achieving the lowest exercise price for the affected employees. As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Year 2000. In connection with certain stock option grants to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during a portion of fiscal year 2000, our practice was to delay the selection of the related grant dates until the end of a two-month period in the fiscal quarter during which the employees who received the grants began their employment with NVIDIA. As a result of this practice, the exercise price of the related option grants was not determined until subsequent to the stated grant date. We also determined that, during fiscal year 2000, we generally set the grant date and exercise price of employee option grants for new hires and promotions at the lowest price of the last few business days of the month of their hire or promotion (or of the following month in certain two-month periods that were chosen for an indeterminate reason). As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options. In addition, we also determined that the exercise price or the number of options to be granted had not been determined, or the proper approval had not been given, for various other miscellaneous option grants during fiscal year 2000 until after the stated grant date - resulting in new measurement dates for accounting purposes for the related options.

Other Issues Identified.We also identified instances where stock option grants did not comply with applicable terms and conditions of the stock plans from which the grants were issued. For example, two grants were made to officers of NVIDIA by the chief executive officer under delegated authority; however, under the terms of the applicable plan, the option grant should have been made by our Board or the Compensation Committee. There were also instances where (1) option grants were made to a small group of employees who joined NVIDIA pursuant to a business combination, and to a few other employees in certain instances, with stated exercise prices below the fair market value of our common stock on the actual measurement date of the related grants; and (2) option grants were made to a few individuals who were contractors rather than employees, without recording the appropriate accounting charges. The accounting impact of these items was cumulatively less than $6.0 million. In addition, the Audit Committee did not find any evidence that these violations were committed for improper purposes.

 

5


Table of Contents

The Audit Committee carefully considered the involvement of current members of management in the option grant process and concluded that the evidence did not give rise to any concern about the integrity of any current officer or director of NVIDIA. The Audit Committee also found that the accounting errors and improper practices brought to light during their review were not motivated by any intent to mislead investors, improve NVIDIA’s reported financial results, or obtain any personal benefit. Based on its findings, the Audit Committee was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the integrity of former officers and employees.

As a result of the errors we identified, we have restated our historical financial statements from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006 to record $127.4 million of charges related to stock-based compensation and associated payroll tax expense, net of related income tax effects. These errors resulted in after-tax charges of $1.4 million, $11.7 million and $25.8 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the related after-tax charges for periods prior to our fiscal year ended January 25, 2004 was $88.4 million. These additional stock-based compensation expense charges were non-cash and had no impact on our reported revenue, cash, cash equivalents or marketable securities for each of the restated periods.

As part of the restatement, for the three month period ended April 30, 2006 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $1.1 million, a net benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $1.9 million, and associated income tax charges of $0.1 million. For the three month period ended May 1, 2005 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $2.5 million, a benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $5.1 million, and associated income tax charges of $1.5 million.

For all periods through the end of our fiscal year 2006, we have recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $190.2 million, associated payroll tax charges of $9.4 million and a related income tax benefit of $72.2 million.

As part of this restatement, we also accrued liabilities and recorded charges to operating costs and expenses for certain payroll tax contingencies related to the incremental stock-based compensation expense in the amount of $18.8 million for all annual periods from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006. We recorded such charges in the amount of $3.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.6 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Upon expiration of the related statute of limitations, we also recorded benefits from the reversal of previously-recorded payroll tax liabilities of $6.6 million and $2.8 million in our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. As a result, the net benefit to our statements of income was $3.5 million and $1.5 million for our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. The cumulative payroll tax expense for periods prior to our fiscal year 2004 was $12.8 million. For those stock option grants that we determined to have incorrect measurement dates for accounting purposes and that we had originally issued as incentive stock options, or ISOs, we recorded a liability for payroll tax contingencies in the event such grants would not be respected as ISOs under the principles of the Internal Revenue Code, or IRC, and the regulations thereunder. These liabilities were recorded with a charge to operating costs and expenses.

We also considered the application of Section 409A of the IRC to certain stock option grants where, under APB 25, intrinsic value existed at the time of grant. In the event such stock options grants are not respected as issued at fair market value at the original grant date under principles of the IRC and the regulations thereunder and are subject to Section 409A, we are considering potential remedial actions that may be available. We do not expect to incur a material charge as a result of any such potential remedial actions.

As a result of the findings of the Audit Committee, we concluded that we needed to amend our Original Filing and restate our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 29, 2006, January 30, 2005, and January 25, 2004 and the related disclosures, in an amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for our fiscal year ended January 29, 2006.

As a result of the restatement, the related disclosures included in Part I, Item 2, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” have been revised if indicated as restated.

 

6


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the impact of the additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects on our historical financial statements for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005.

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   As Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated  

As Previously
Reported

  Adjustments  As Restated 
   (In thousands, except per share data) 

Revenue

  $681,807  $—    $681,807  $583,846  $—    $583,846 

Cost of revenue

   393,050   84   393,134   373,693   292   373,985 
                         

Gross profit

   288,757   (84)  288,673   210,153   (292)  209,861 

Operating expenses:

       

Research and development

   122,404   798   123,202   85,913   1,922   87,835 

Sales, general and administrative

   65,668   (1,706)  63,962   48,058   (4,841)  43,217 
                         

Total operating expenses

   188,072   (908)  187,164   133,971   (2,919)  131,052 
                         

Operating income

   100,685   824   101,509   76,182   2,627   78,809 

Interest income

   8,808   —     8,808   3,895   —     3,895 

Interest expense

   (1)  —     (1)  (10)  —     (10)

Other income (expense), net

   (244)  —     (244)  488   —     488 
                         

Income before income tax expense

   109,248   824   110,072   80,555   2,627   83,182 

Income tax expense

   18,572   140   18,712   16,111   1,549   17,660 
                         

Income before change in accounting principle

   90,676   684   91,360   64,444   1,078   65,522 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (1)

   —     704   704   —     —     —   
                         

Net income

  $90,676  $1,388  $92,064  $64,444  $1,078  $65,522 
                         

Basic net income per share:

       

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.26  $—    $0.26  $0.19  $—    $0.19 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (1)

   —     —     —     —     —     —   
                         

Basic net income per share

  $0.26  $—    $0.26  $0.19  $—    $0.19 
                         

Shares used in basic per share computation

   347,937   —     347,937   337,294   —     337,294 
                         

Diluted net income per share:

       

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.23  $—    $0.23  $0.18  $—    $0.18 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (1)

   —     0.01   0.01   —     —     —   
                         

Diluted net income per share

  $0.23  $0.01  $0.24  $0.18  $—    $0.18 
                         

Shares used in diluted per share computation

   390,370   (942)  389,428   360,984   45   361,029 
                         

 


(1)Historically, prior to the restatement, we did not have material stock-based compensation charges. Accordingly, in our previously-reported financial statements there was no cumulative effect of adoption of SFAS 123(R). See Note 3 “Stock Based Compensation”.

 

7


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the impact of the additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects on our consolidated balance sheet as of April 30, 2006.

 

   April 30, 2006  January 29, 2006 
   As
Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated  As
Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated 
   (in thousands) 
ASSETS       

Current assets:

       

Cash and cash equivalents

  $487,763  $—    $487,763  $551,756  $—    $551,756 

Marketable securities

   467,290   —     467,290   398,418   —     398,418 

Accounts receivable, net

   391,270   —     391,270   318,186   —     318,186 

Inventories

   346,366   65   346,431   254,792   78   254,870 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

   28,545   —     28,545   24,387   —     24,387 

Deferred income taxes

   1,393   1,289   2,682   1,393   1,289   2,682 
                         

Total current assets

   1,722,627   1,354   1,723,981   1,548,932   1,367   1,550,299 

Property and equipment, net

   180,206   —     180,206   178,152   —     178,152 

Deposits and other assets

   31,028   —     31,028   27,477   —     27,477 

Goodwill

   204,603   —     204,603   145,317   —     145,317 

Intangible assets, net

   22,989   —     22,989   15,421   —     15,421 

Deferred income taxes, non-current

   —     38,021   38,021   —     38,021   38,021 
                         
  $2,161,453  $39,375  $2,200,828  $1,915,299  $39,388  $1,954,687 
                         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY       

Current liabilities:

       

Accounts payable

  $298,147  $—    $298,147  $179,395  $—    $179,395 

Accrued liabilities

   236,239   140   236,379   259,264   —     259,264 
                         

Total current liabilities

   534,386   140   534,526   438,659   —     438,659 

Deferred income tax liabilities

   8,260   (8,260)  —     8,260   (8,260)  —   

Other long-term liabilities

   10,156   7,526   17,682   10,624   9,412   20,036 

Commitments and contingencies - see Note 12 and Note 14

       

Stockholders’ equity:

       

Preferred stock

   —     —     —     —     —     —   

Common stock

   371   —     371   360   —     360 

Additional paid-in capital

   907,097   165,950   1,073,047   798,071   167,533   965,604 

Deferred compensation

   —     —     —     (1,676)  (1,928)  (3,604)

Treasury stock

   (262,142)  —     (262,142)  (212,142)  —     (212,142)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net

   (2,451)  —     (2,451)  (1,957)  —     (1,957)

Retained earnings

   965,776   (125,981)  839,795   875,100   (127,369)  747,731 
                         

Total stockholders’ equity

   1,608,651   39,969   1,648,620   1,457,756   38,236   1,495,992 
                         
  $2,161,453  $39,375  $2,200,828  $1,915,299  $39,388  $1,954,687 
                         

 

8


Table of Contents

Note 3 - Stock-Based Compensation

Effective January 30, 2006, we adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), or SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment. SFAS No. 123(R) establishes accounting for stock-based awards exchanged for employee services. Accordingly, stock-based compensation cost is measured at grant date, based on the fair value of the awards, and is recognized as expense over the requisite employee service period.

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R)

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we applied Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related interpretations to account for our stock-based employee compensation plans. As such, compensation expense was recorded if on the date of grant the current fair value per share of the underlying stock exceeded the exercise price per share. We provided the disclosures required under SFAS No. 123,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, as amended by SFAS No. 148,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosures, in our periodic reports.

 

9


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

The pro forma information required under SFAS No. 123(R) for periods prior to fiscal 2007, as if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to awards granted under our equity incentive plans, was as follows for the three months ended May 1, 2005:

 

   Three Months Ended
May 1, 2005
 
   (As Restated) 
   (In thousands, except
per share data)
 

Net income, as reported

  $65,522 

Add: Stock-based employee compensation expense included in reported net income, net of related tax effects

   2,167 

Deduct: Stock-based employee compensation expense determined under fair value based method for all awards, net of related tax effects

   (19,357)
     

Pro forma net income

  $48,332 
     

Basic net income per share - as reported

  $0.19 

Basic net income per share - pro forma

  $0.14 

Diluted net income per share - as reported

  $0.18 

Diluted net income per share - pro forma

  $0.14 

Impact of the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R)

We elected to adopt the modified prospective application method beginning January 30, 2006 as provided by SFAS No. 123(R). Accordingly, during the three months ended April 30, 2006, we recorded stock-based compensation expense equal to the amount that would have been recognized if the fair value method required for pro forma disclosure under SFAS No. 123 had been in effect for expense recognition purposes, adjusted for estimated forfeitures for unvested grants issued prior to January 29, 2006. For option grants issued after January 29, 2006, fair value was measured based on the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R). We recognized stock-based compensation expense using the straight-line attribution method. Previously reported amounts have not been restated. The effect of recording stock-based, net of associated payroll taxes, compensation for the three month period ended April 30, 2006 was as follows:

 

   Three Months Ended
April 30, 2006
 
   (As Restated) 
   (In thousands, except
per share data)
 

Stock-based compensation expense by type of award:

  

Employee stock options

  $21,619 

Employee stock purchase plan

   1,601 

Amount capitalized as inventory

   (995)
     

Total stock-based compensation

   22,225 

Tax effect of stock-based compensation

   (2,736)
     

Net effect on net income

  $19,489 
     

Effect on net income per share:

  

Basic

  $0.06 

Diluted

  $0.05 

Our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) resulted in a cumulative benefit from accounting change of $0.7 million for the three months ended April 30, 2006, which reflects the net cumulative impact of estimating forfeitures in the determination of period expense, rather than recording forfeitures when they occur as previously permitted.

Prior to adopting SFAS No. 123(R), we presented all tax benefits resulting from the exercise of stock options as operating cash flows in our Statement of Cash Flows. However, as required by our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) during the three months ended April 30, 2006, we began classifying cash flows resulting from excess tax benefits as a part of cash flows from financing activities. Excess tax benefits are realized tax benefits from tax deductions for exercised options in excess of the deferred tax asset attributable to stock-based compensation for such options. The effect of this change in classification on our Statement of Cash Flows for the three months ended April 30, 2006 is as follows:

 

10


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

   Three Months Ended
April 30, 2006
 
   

(As Restated)

(In thousands)

 

Cash flows from operations

  $(7,330)

Cash flows from financing activities

  $7,330 

As of January 30, 2006, we had unearned stock-based compensation related to stock options of $167.9 million before the impact of estimated forfeitures. In our pro forma footnote disclosures prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we accounted for forfeitures upon occurrence. SFAS No. 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Accordingly, as of January 30, 2006, we estimated that stock-based compensation expense for the awards that are not expected to vest was $32.4 million, and, therefore, the unearned stock-based compensation expense related to stock options was adjusted to $135.5 million after estimated forfeitures.

During the three months ended April 30, 2006, we granted approximately 5.9 million stock options with an estimated total grant date fair value of $63.9 million and a weighted average grant date fair value of $10.86 per option. Of this amount, we estimated that the stock-based compensation expense related to the awards that are not expected to vest was $12.3 million. During the three months ended April 30, 2006, we recorded stock-based compensation expense related to stock options of $21.6 million.

As of April 30, 2006, the aggregate amount of unearned stock-based compensation expense related to our stock options was $190.3 million, adjusted for estimated forfeitures, which we will recognize over an estimated weighted average amortization period of 2.3 years.

Approximately $1.0 million of stock-based compensation was capitalized as inventory at April 30, 2006.

Stock-based compensation expense that would have been recorded under APB No. 25 during the three months ended April 30, 2006 was approximately $1.7 million. Upon our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we reclassified the unearned stock-based compensation expense balance of approximately $3.6 million that would have been recorded under APB No. 25 to additional-paid-in-capital in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Valuation Assumptions

During the three months ended May 1, 2005, we transitioned from a Black-Scholes model to a binomial model for calculating the estimated fair value of new stock-based compensation awards granted under our stock option plans. As a result of regulatory guidance, including SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107,Share-Based Payment, and in anticipation of the impending effective date of SFAS No. 123(R), we reevaluated the assumptions we used to estimate the value of employee stock options and shares issued under our employee stock purchase plan, beginning with stock options granted and shares issued under our employee stock purchase plan in our first quarter of fiscal 2006. At that time, our management also determined that the use of implied volatility is expected to be more reflective of market conditions and, therefore, could reasonably be expected to be a better indicator of our expected volatility than historical volatility. Additionally, in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, we began segregating options into groups for employees with relatively homogeneous exercise behavior in order to calculate the best estimate of fair value using the binomial valuation model. As such, the expected term assumption used in calculating the estimated fair value of our stock-based compensation awards using the binomial model is based on detailed historical data about employees' exercise behavior, vesting schedules, and death and disability probabilities. Our management believes the resulting binomial calculation provides a more refined estimate of the fair value of our employee stock options. For our employee stock purchase plan we continued to use the Black-Scholes model. The fair value of stock options granted under our stock option plans and shares issued under our employee stock purchase plan have been estimated at the date of grant using a straight-line attribution method with the following assumptions:

 

11


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

   

Stock Options

Three Months Ended

  

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

Three Months Ended

   April 30,
2006
  

May 1,

2005

  

April 30,

2006

  

May 1,

2005

   (Using a binomial model)  (Using the Black-Scholes model)

Expected life (in years)

  3.6 - 5.1  3.6 - 5.1  0.5 - 2.0  0.5 - 2.0

Risk free interest rate

  4.7%  4.0%  1.6% - 4.6%  1.6% - 1.8%

Volatility

  39% - 41%  37% - 48%  30% - 45%  41%

Dividend yield

  —    —    —    —  

Equity Incentive Program

Overview. We consider equity compensation to be long term compensation and an integral component of our efforts to attract and retain exceptional executives, senior management and world-class employees. We believe that properly structured equity compensation aligns the long-term interests of stockholders and employees by creating a strong, direct link between employee compensation and stock appreciation, as stock options are only valuable to our employees if the value of our common stock increases after the date of grant.

2000 Nonstatutory Equity Incentive Plan. The 2000 Nonstatutory Equity Incentive Plan, or the 2000 Plan, provides for the issuance of our common stock to employees and affiliates who are not directors, officers or 10% stockholders. The 2000 Plan provides for the issuance of nonstatutory stock options, stock bonuses and restricted stock purchase rights. Option grants issued under the 2000 plan generally expire in six to 10 years. Grants made after May 8, 2003 generally have six year terms. Until April 2004, initial options granted to new employees would vest over four years, with 25% of the shares vesting one year from the date of grant and the remaining 75% of the shares vesting each quarter over the subsequent three years. During this same time period, stock options granted to existing employees generally would vest each quarter over a four-year period from the date of grant. Beginning in April 2004, initial options granted to new employees generally vest over a three-year period on a quarterly basis. Grants to existing employees in recognition of performance generally also vest over a three-year period; however, these option grants typically do not begin vesting until the second anniversary of the date of grant, after which time these option grants will usually vest in quarterly increments over the remaining one-year period.

1998 Equity Incentive Plan. The Equity Incentive Plan, or the 1998 Plan, provides for the issuance of stock bonuses, restricted stock purchase rights, stock appreciation rights, incentive stock options or nonstatutory stock options. Option grants issued under the 1998 Plan generally expire in six to ten years. Vesting periods are determined by the Board of Directors, or Board, or the Compensation Committee of the Board. Initial option grants made after February 10, 2004 under the 1998 Plan to new employees generally vest over a three year period on a quarterly basis. Subsequent option grants to existing employees are generally granted for performance and generally vest quarterly over a three year period, however these option grants will typically not begin vesting until the second anniversary of the date of grant, after which time the option will usually vest in quarterly increments over the remaining one-year period.

1998 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan. In February 1998, our Board of Directors adopted the 1998 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, or the Directors Plan, to provide for the automatic grant of non-qualified options to purchase shares of our common stock to our directors who are not employees or consultants or an affiliate of NVIDIA.

 

12


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

In July 2000, the Board of Directors amended the 1998 Plan to incorporate the automatic grant provisions of the Directors’ Plan into the 1998 Plan. Future automatic grants to non-employee directors will be made according to the terms of the Directors’ Plan, but will be made out of the 1998 Plan until such time as shares may become available for issuance under the amended Directors’ Plan. In May 2002, the Directors’ Plan was amended further to reduce the number of shares granted to our non-employee directors. The altered automatic grant provisions of the Directors’ Plan are also incorporated into the 1998 Plan. In March 2006, the Board amended the Directors’ Plan, to reduce the number of shares issuable pursuant to each of the initial non-employee director stock option grant and the annual non-employee director stock option grant by 40%. The Directors’ Plan was also amended to eliminate the annual option grant made to members of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The terms of the amended Directors’ Plan are described below.

 

  Initial Grants. Initial stock option grants of 90,000 are automatically made to each non-employee director who is elected or appointed to our Board on the date of election or appointment.

 

  Annual Grants—Board Members. On August 1st of each year, each non-employee director is automatically granted an option to purchase 30,000 shares. These options begin to vest quarterly on the second anniversary of the date of grant and will be fully vested on the third anniversary of the date of grant.

 

  Annual Grants—Committee Members. On August 1st of each year, each non-employee director who is a member of a committee of the Board is automatically granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares. These options vest in full on the first anniversary of the date of the grant. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, Board members will no longer receive a Committee grant for serving as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan.The 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or the Purchase Plan, is intended to qualify as an “employee stock purchase plan” under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the Purchase Plan, the Board has authorized participation by eligible employees, including officers, in periodic offerings following the adoption of the Purchase Plan. Under the Purchase Plan, separate offering periods shall be no longer than 27 months. Under the current offering adopted pursuant to the Purchase Plan, each offering period is 24 months, which is divided into four purchase periods of 6 months.

Employees are eligible to participate if they are employed by NVIDIA or an affiliate of NVIDIA as designated by the Board. Employees who participate in an offering may have up to 10% of their earnings withheld pursuant to the Purchase Plan up to certain limitations and applied on specified dates determined by the Board to purchase shares of our common stock. The Board may increase this percentage at its discretion, up to 15%. The price of common stock purchased under the Purchase Plan will be equal to the lower of the fair market value of the common stock on the commencement date of each offering period and the purchase date of each offering period at 85% at the fair market value of the common stock on the relevant purchase date. Employees may end their participation in the Purchase Plan at any time during the offering period, and participation ends automatically on termination of employment with us and in each case their contributions are refunded.

 

13


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

The following table summarizes the combined activity under the 2000 Plan, 1998 Plan, and the Directors Plan for the three months ending April 30, 2006:

 

   Options
Available for
Grant
  Options
Outstanding
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price Per
Share
  

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term

(in years)

  

Aggregate
Intrinsic

Value

Balances, January 29, 2006

  31,310,976  87,958,480  $9.50    

Authorized

  —    —     —      

Granted

  (5,884,805) 5,884,805   27.28    

Exercised

  —    (9,445,011)  7.93    

Cancelled

  612,846  (612,846)  11.44    
            

Balances, April 30, 2006

  26,039,017  83,785,428  $10.91  4.3  $1,534,687,162
            

Vested and expected to vest at April 30, 2006

   80,625,294  $10.79  4.3  $1,485,924,168
          

Options exercisable at April 30, 2006

   45,769,764  $8.07  4.0  $969,392,214
          

The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pretax intrinsic value for in-the-money options at April 30, 2006, based on the $29.22 closing stock price of our common stock on the NASDAQ National Market, which would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options as of that date. The total number of in-the-money options outstanding and exercisable as of April 30, 2006 was 83.5 million and 45.8 million, respectively.

During the three months ended April 30, 2006:

 

Weighted average grant date fair value of options granted

  $10.86 per share

Total fair value of shares vested

  $18.0 million

Total intrinsic value of options exercised

  $161.8 million

Total cash received from employees as a result of employee stock option exercises

  $74.9 million

Tax benefits realized as a result of employee stock option exercises

  $11.4 million

We settle employee stock option exercises with newly issued common shares. We do not have any equity instruments outstanding other than options described above as of April 30, 2006.

 

14


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Note 4 - Net Income Per Share

Basic net income per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share is computed using the weighted average number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding during the period, using the treasury stock method. Under the treasury stock method, the effect of stock options outstanding is not included in the computation of diluted net income per share for periods when their effect is anti-dilutive, which in the current period includes consideration of unearned stock-based compensation as required by SFAS No. 123(R). The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted net income per share computations for the periods presented:

 

   Three Months Ended
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005
   (As Restated)  (As Restated)
   (In thousands, except per share data)

Numerator:

    

Net income

  $92,064  $65,522

Denominator:

    

Denominator for basic net income per share, weighted average shares

   347,937   337,294

Effect of dilutive securities:

    

Weighted average effect of dilutive securities

   41,491   23,735
        

Denominator for diluted net income per share, weighted average shares

   389,428   361,029
        

Net income per share:

    

Basic net income per share

  $0.26  $0.19

Diluted net income per share

  $0.24  $0.18

Diluted net income per share does not include the effect of 6.4 million and 21.7 million stock options as of April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005, respectively, which were anti-dilutive.

Note 5 - Acquisition of ULi Electronics, Inc.

On February 20, 2006, we completed our acquisition of ULi Electronics, Inc., or ULi, a core logic developer for the personal computer, or PC industry. The acquisition represents our ongoing investment in our platform solution strategy and is expected to strengthen our sales, marketing, and customer engineering presence in Taiwan and China. The aggregate purchase price consisted of cash consideration of approximately $53.1 million, including $0.9 million of direct acquisition costs.

Our allocation of the purchase price of ULi has been prepared on a preliminary basis and reasonable changes are expected as additional information becomes available. The following is a summary of estimated fair values of the assets we acquired and liabilities we assumed as of the date of acquisition:

 

   Fair
Market Value
  

Straight-
Line Depreciation/

Amortization Period

   (In thousands)   

Cash

  $21,551  

Accounts receivable

   8,148  —  

Inventories

   2,607  —  

Other assets

   888  —  

Property and equipment

   1,097  4 - 55 months

Goodwill

   32,287  —  

Intangible assets:

   

Existing technology

   2,490  3 years

Customer relationships

   653  3 years
      

Total assets acquired

   69,721  
      

Current liabilities

   (15,765) —  

Acquisition related expenses

   (881) —  
      

Total liabilities assumed

   (16,646) 
      

Net assets acquired

  $53,075  
      

 

15


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

The pro forma results of operations have not been presented for the acquisition of ULi because the effect of this acquisition was not considered material.

Note 6 - Acquisition of Hybrid Graphics Ltd.

On March 29, 2006, we completed our acquisition of Hybrid Graphics Ltd., or Hybrid Graphics. Hybrid Graphics is a developer of embedded 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional graphics software for handheld devices. We believe that the acquisition will enable the customers of both companies to deploy rich graphics solutions for the worldwide handheld market. The aggregate purchase price consisted of cash consideration of approximately $36.7 million, including $0.2 million of direct acquisition costs and $0.6 million of in-process research and development, or IPR&D.

Our allocation of the purchase price of Hybrid Graphics has been prepared on a preliminary basis and reasonable changes are expected as additional information becomes available. The following is a summary of estimated fair values of the assets we acquired and the liabilities we assumed as of the date of acquisition:

 

   Fair Market
Value
  Straight-
Line Depreciation/
Amortization
Period
   (In thousands)   

Cash

  $1,180  

Accounts receivable

   1,056  —  

Other assets

   74  —  

Property and equipment

   238  1 month -
36 months

In-process research and development

   602  —  

Goodwill

   26,983  —  

Intangible assets:

   

Existing technology

   5,179  3 years

Customer relationships

   2,650  3 years

Trademark

   482  3 years

Non-compete agreements

   72  3 years
      

Total assets acquired

   38,516  
      

Current liabilities

   (1,301) —  

Acquisition related expenses

   (242) —  

Long-term liabilities

   (301) —  
      

Total liabilities assumed

   (1,844) 
      

Net assets acquired

  $36,672  
      

The amount of the IPR&D represents the value assigned to research and development projects of Hybrid Graphics that had commenced but had not yet reached technological feasibility and had no alternative future use. In accordance with SFAS No. 2,Accounting for Research and Development Costs, as clarified by FIN 4,Applicability of FASB Statement No. 2 to Business Combinations Accounted for by the Purchase Method an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 2, amounts assigned to IPR&D meeting the above-stated criteria were charged to expense as part of the allocation of the purchase price.

The pro forma results of operations have not been presented for the acquisition of Hybrid Graphics because the effect of this acquisition was not considered material.

Note 7 - Guarantees

Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, Interpretation No. 45, or FIN 45,Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, requires that upon issuance of a guarantee, the guarantor must recognize a liability for the fair value of the obligation it assumes under that guarantee. In addition, FIN 45 requires disclosures about the guarantees that an entity has issued, including a tabular reconciliation of the changes of the entity’s product warranty liabilities.

 

16


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

We record a reduction to revenue for estimated product returns at the time revenue is recognized primarily based on historical return rates. The reductions to revenue for estimated product returns for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 are as follows:

 

Description

  Balance at Beginning
of Period
  Additions (1)  Deductions (2)  Balance at End of
Period
      (In thousands)   

Three months ended April 30, 2006

       

Allowance for sales returns

  $10,239  $11,775  $(10,448) $11,566
                

Three months ended May 1, 2005

       

Allowance for sales returns

  $11,687  $5,931  $(6,813) $10,805
                

(1)Allowances for sales returns are charged as a reduction to revenue.
(2)Represents amounts written off against the allowance for sales returns.

In connection with certain agreements that we have executed in the past, we have at times provided indemnities to cover the indemnified party for matters such as tax, product and employee liabilities. We have also on occasion included intellectual property indemnification provisions in our technology related agreements with third parties. Maximum potential future payments cannot be estimated because many of these agreements do not have a maximum stated liability. As such, we have not recorded any liability in our consolidated financial statements for such indemnifications.

Note 8 - Comprehensive Income

Comprehensive income consists of net income and other comprehensive income or loss. Other comprehensive income or loss components include unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities, net of tax. The components of comprehensive income, net of tax, were as follows:

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30,
2006
  

May 1,

2005

 
   (As Restated)  (As Restated) 
   (In thousands) 

Net income

  $92,064  $65,522 

Net change in unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities

   (811)  (719)

Tax effect of the change in unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities

   325   144 

Reclassification adjustments for net realized (gains) losses on available-for-sale securities included in net income

   (13)  163 

Tax effect of reclassification adjustments for net realized (gains) losses on available-for-sale securities included in net income

   5   (33)
         

Total comprehensive income

  $91,570  $65,077 
         

 

17


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Note 9 - 3dfx Asset Purchase

During fiscal year 2002, we completed the purchase of certain assets from 3dfx Interactive, Inc., or 3dfx, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $74.2 million. The 3dfx asset purchase was accounted for under the purchase method of accounting and closed on April 18, 2001. Under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the cash consideration due at the closing was $70.0 million, less $15.0 million that was loaned to 3dfx pursuant to a Credit Agreement dated December 15, 2000. The Asset Purchase Agreement also provided, subject to the other provisions thereof, that if 3dfx properly certified that all its debts and other liabilities had been provided for, then we would have been obligated to pay 3dfx four million shares of NVIDIA common stock. If 3dfx could not make such a certification, but instead properly certified that its debts and liabilities could be satisfied for less than $25.0 million, then 3dfx could have elected to receive a cash payment equal to the amount of such debts and liabilities and a reduced number of shares of our common stock, with such reduction calculated by dividing the cash payment by $25.00 per share. If 3dfx could not certify that all of its debts and liabilities had been provided for, or could not be satisfied for less than $25.0 million, we would not be obligated under the agreement to pay any additional consideration for the assets.

In October 2002, 3dfx filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2003, we were served with a complaint filed by the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court which sought, among other things, payments from us as additional purchase price related to our purchase of certain assets of 3dfx. In early November 2005, after many months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 3dfx reached a conditional settlement of the Trustee’s claims against NVIDIA. This conditional settlement, which will be subject to the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court, calls for a payment of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million relates to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million relates to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. As such, during the three months ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx. Please see Note 14 for further information regarding this litigation.

The 3dfx asset purchase price of $95.0 million and $4.2 million of direct transaction costs were allocated based on fair values presented below.

 

   Fair Market Value  Straight-Line Amortization Period
   (In thousands)  (Years)

Property and equipment

  $2,433  1-2

Trademarks

   11,310  5

Goodwill

   85,418  —  
      

Total

  $99,161  
      

The final allocation of the purchase price of the 3dfx assets is contingent upon the amount of and circumstances surrounding additional consideration, if any, that we may pay related to the 3dfx asset purchase.

 

18


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Note 10 - Goodwill and Intangible Assets

We are currently amortizing our intangible assets with definitive lives over periods ranging from 1 to 5 years on a straight-line basis. The components of our amortizable intangible assets are as follows:

 

   April 30, 2006  January 29, 2006
   Gross
Carrying
Amount
  Accumulated
Amortization
  Net Carrying
Amount
  Gross
Carrying
Amount
  Accumulated
Amortization
  Net Carrying
Amount
   (In thousands)

Technology licenses

  $21,586  $(14,573) $7,013  $21,586  $(13,595) $7,991

Patents

   23,750   (20,939)  2,811   23,750   (19,911)  3,839

Acquisition-related

   38,612   (25,861)  12,751   27,086   (24,516)  2,570

Trademarks

   11,310   (11,310)  —     11,310   (10,807)  503

Other

   1,494   (1,080)  414   1,494   (976)  518
                        

Total intangible assets

  $96,752  $(73,763) $22,989  $85,226  $(69,805) $15,421
                        

The $11.5 million increase in the gross carrying amount of acquisition-related intangible assets is related to $3.1 million and $8.4 million of intangible assets that resulted from our acquisitions of ULi and Hybrid Graphics, respectively, during the three months ended April 30, 2006. Please refer to Note 5 and Note 6 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

Amortization expense associated with intangible assets for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 was $4.0 million and $4.3 million, respectively. Amortization expense for the net carrying amount of intangible assets at April 30, 2006 is estimated to be $9.9 million for the remainder of fiscal 2007, $8.1 million in fiscal 2008, $4.4 million in fiscal 2009, and $0.6 million in fiscal 2010 and thereafter.

As of April 30, 2006 and January 29, 2006, the carrying amount of goodwill is as follows:

 

   April 30,
2006
  January 29,
2006
   (in thousands)

3dfx

  $75,326  $75,326

MediaQ

   52,913   52,913

ULi

   32,287   —  

Hybrid Graphics

   26,983   —  

Other

   17,094   17,078
        

Total goodwill

  $204,603  $145,317
        

During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recorded $32.3 million and $27.0 million as goodwill related to our acquisitions of ULi and Hybrid Graphics, respectively. These acquisitions were accounted for under the purchase method of accounting. We intend to assign the goodwill related to our acquisition of ULi to our media and communications processor, or MCP, Business and the goodwill related to our acquisition of Hybrid Graphics to our Handheld graphics processing unit, or Handheld GPU, Business.

Note 11 - Marketable Securities

We account for our investment instruments in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, or SFAS No. 115,Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities. All of our cash equivalents and marketable securities are treated as “available-for-sale” under SFAS No. 115. Cash equivalents consist of financial instruments which are readily convertible into cash and have original maturities of three months or less at the time of acquisition. Marketable securities consist primarily of highly liquid investments with a maturity of greater than three months when purchased. We classify our marketable securities at the date of acquisition in the available-for-sale category as our intention is to convert them into cash for operations. These securities are reported at fair value with the related unrealized gains and losses included in accumulated other comprehensive income

 

19


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

(loss), a component of stockholders’ equity, net of tax. Realized gains and losses on the sale of marketable securities are determined using the specific-identification method. Net realized gains for the three months ended April 30, 2006 were not material, and net realized losses for the three months ended May 1, 2005 were $0.2 million.

Note 12 - Balance Sheet Components

Certain balance sheet components are as follows:

 

   April 30,
2006
  January 29,
2006
   (As Restated)  

(As Restated)

   (In thousands)

Inventories:

    

Raw materials

  $29,513  $25,743

Work in-process

   120,845   107,847

Finished goods

   196,073   121,280
        

Total inventories

  $346,431  $254,870
        

The significant increase in finished goods inventories primarily relates to our build-up of inventory levels of several of our new GeForce 7 products in the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

At April 30, 2006, we had outstanding inventory purchase obligations totaling $411.6 million.

 

   April 30,
2006
  January 29,
2006
   (As Restated)   
   (In thousands)

Accrued Liabilities:

    

Accrued customer programs

  $75,827  $90,056

Deferred revenue

   6,805   217

Taxes payable

   53,393   58,355

Accrued payroll and related expenses

   38,511   53,080

Deferred rent

   11,996   11,879

Accrued legal settlement

   30,600   30,600

Other

   19,247   15,077
        

Total accrued liabilities

  $236,379  $259,264
        

 

   April 30,
2006
  January 29,
2006
   (As Restated)  (As Restated)
   (In thousands)

Other Long-term Liabilities:

    

Asset retirement obligations

  $6,477  $6,440

Other long-term liabilities

   11,205   13,596
        

Total other long-term liabilities

  $17,682  $20,036
        

 

20


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Note 13 - Segment Information

Our Chief Executive Officer, who is considered to be our chief operating decision maker, or CODM, reviews financial information presented on an operating segment basis for purposes of making operating decisions and assessing financial performance. Our operating segments are organized to bring all of our major product groups in line with our strategy to position ourselves as the worldwide leader in programmable graphics processor technologies. We report financial information for four product-line operating segments to our CODM: the GPU Business is composed of products that support desktop PCs, notebook PCs and professional workstations; the MCP Business is composed of NVIDIA nForce products that operate as a single-chip or chipset that can off-load system functions, such as audio processing and network communications, and perform these operations independently from the host central processing unit, or CPU; our Handheld GPU Business is composed of products that support handheld personal digital assistants, cellular phones and other handheld devices; and our Consumer Electronics Business is concentrated in products that support video game consoles and other digital consumer electronics devices and is composed of revenue from our contractual arrangements with Sony Computer Entertainment, or SCE, to jointly develop a custom GPU incorporating our next-generation GeForce GPU and SCE’s system solutions in SCE’s PlayStation3, revenue from sales of our Xbox-related products, revenue from our license agreement with Microsoft relating to the successor product to their initial Xbox gaming console, the Xbox360, and related devices, and embedded graphics processor products. In addition to these operating segments, we have the “All Other” category that includes human resources, legal, finance, general administration, corporate marketing expenses, and stock-based compensation, which total $50.1 million and $21.0 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and 2006, respectively, that we do not allocate to our other operating segments. “All Other” also includes the results of operations of other miscellaneous operating segments that are neither individually reportable, nor aggregated with another operating segment. Revenue in the “All Other” category is primarily derived from sales of memory devices. Certain prior period amounts have been restated to conform to the presentation of our current fiscal quarter.

Our CODM does not review any information regarding total assets on an operating segment basis. Operating segments do not record intersegment revenue, and, accordingly, there is none to be reported. The accounting policies for segment reporting are the same as for NVIDIA as a whole.

 

   GPU  MCP  Handheld
GPU
  Consumer
Electronics
  All Other  Consolidated
               (As Restated)  (As Restated)
   (In thousands)

Three Months Ended April 30, 2006:

          

Revenue

  $452,431  $118,384  $30,721  $26,162  $54,109  $681,807

Depreciation and amortization expense

  $8,455  $4,153  $3,589  $84  $7,619  $23,900

Operating income (loss)

  $128,858  $2,983  $(1,424) $19,372  $(48,280)(A) $101,509

Three Months Ended May 1, 2005:

          

Revenue

  $409,926  $71,805  $7,762  $58,078  $36,275  $583,846

Depreciation and amortization expense

  $8,895  $3,246  $3,175  $360  $7,641  $23,317

Operating income (loss)

  $78,132  $6,923  $(15,860) $28,941  $(19,327)(A) $78,809

(A)Operating loss in the “All Other” category for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 includes credits of $ 824 and $ 2,627, respectively, related to restated stock-based compensation expense. Please refer to Note 2 of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

 

21


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Revenue by geographic region is allocated to individual countries based on the location to which the products are initially billed even if our customers’ revenue is attributable to end customers that are located in a different location. The following tables summarize information pertaining to our revenue from customers based on invoicing address in different geographic regions:

 

   Three Months Ended
   April 30,
2006
  May 1,
2005
   (In thousands)

Revenue:

    

United States

  $77,372  $97,805

Other Americas

   27,590   922

China

   179,720   68,743

Taiwan

   227,574   297,699

Other Asia Pacific

   111,218   54,831

Europe

   58,333   63,846
        

Total revenue

  $681,807  $583,846
        

Revenue from significant customers, those representing approximately 10% or more of total revenue for the respective periods, is summarized as follows:

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30,
2006
  May 1,
2005
 

Revenue:

   

Customer A

  6% 17%

Customer B

  14% 1%

Customer C

  7% 11%

Customer D

  9% 14%

Note 14 - Litigation

3dfx

On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA Corporation and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an agreement to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx. The 3dfx asset purchase agreement closed on April 18, 2001.

In May 2002, we were served with a California state court complaint filed by the landlord of 3dfx’s San Jose, California commercial real estate lease. In December 2002, we were served with a California state court complaint filed by the landlord of 3dfx’s Austin, Texas commercial real estate lease. The landlords’ complaints both assert claims for, among other things, interference with contract, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seek to recover, among other things, amounts owed on their leases with 3dfx in the aggregate amount of approximately $15 million. In October 2002, 3dfx filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The landlords’ actions were subsequently removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California and consolidated with a complaint filed by the Trustee in the 3dfx bankruptcy case for purposes of discovery. Upon motion by NVIDIA in 2005, the District Court withdrew the reference to the Bankruptcy Court and the landlord actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 10, 2005, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss the landlords’ respective amended complaints and allowed the landlords to have until February 4, 2006 to amend their complaints. The landlords re-filed claims against NVIDIA in early February 2006, and NVIDIA again filed motions requesting the District Court to dismiss all such claims. The District Court has taken those motions under submission and we await a ruling. Discovery is stayed pending this hearing and no trial date has been set in these actions. We believe the claims asserted against us by the landlords are without merit and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.

 

22


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

In March 2003, we were served with a complaint filed by the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent the interests of the 3dfx bankruptcy estate. The Trustee’s complaint asserts claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seeks additional payments from us. On October 13, 2005, the Court held a hearing on the Trustee’s motion for summary adjudication. On December 23, 2005, the Court issued its ruling denying the Trustee's Motion for Summary Adjudication in all material respects and holding that NVIDIA is prevented from disputing that the value of the 3dfx transaction to NVIDIA was less than $108.0 million. The Court expressly denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA were at least $108.0 million. In early November 2005, after many months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, or the Creditors’ Committee, reached a conditional settlement of the Trustee’s claims against NVIDIA. This conditional settlement, presented as the centerpiece of a proposed Plan of Liquidation in the bankruptcy case, is subject to a confirmation process through a vote of creditors and the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court after notice and hearing. The scope and schedule for that confirmation process has yet to be determined. The Trustee has advised that he intends to object to the settlement. The settlement with the Creditors’ Committee calls for a payment of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million relates to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million relates to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. Accordingly, during the three month period ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx.

The Bankruptcy Court, over objection of the Creditors’ Committee and NVIDIA, has ordered the discovery portion of the litigation to proceed while the conditional settlement is pending approval through the confirmation process. The expert discovery is now completed, but the Bankruptcy Court has yet to rule on two motions filed by the Trustee that could re-open discovery more generally. No trial date has been set in the Trustee's action. In addition, following the Trustee’s filing of a Form 8-K on behalf of 3dfx, in which the Trustee disclosed the terms of the proposed settlement agreement between NVIDIA and the Creditor’s Committee, certain shareholders of 3dfx filed a petition with the Bankruptcy Court to appoint an official committee to represent the claimed interests of 3dfx shareholders. That petition was granted and an Equity Holders' Committee was appointed. Since that appointment, the Equity Holders' Committee has filed a competing plan of reorganization/liquidation. The Equity Holders' plan assumes that 3dfx can raise additional equity capital that would be used to retire all of 3dfx's debts. Upon the payment of that debt, the Equity Holders' Committee contends that NVIDIA would be obliged to pay the stock consideration provided for in the asset purchase agreement. By virtue of stock splits since the execution of the asset purchase agreement, the stock consideration would now total four million shares of our common stock. The Equity Holders' Committee filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court for an order giving it standing to bring that lawsuit to enforce the Asset Purchase Agreement. Over our objection, the Court granted that motion on May 1, 2006 and the Equity Holders’ Committee filed its Complaint for Declaratory Relief against NVIDIA that same day. On May 11, 2006, NVIDIA filed a motion with the District Court for leave to appeal the order granting standing to the Equity Holders’ Committee. We also asked the Bankruptcy Court to stay the litigation while that motion for leave to appeal is pending. If the litigation is not stayed, then NVIDIA will move to dismiss the Equity Holders' Committee's complaint. That motion must be filed no later than June 1, 2006. In the meantime, the Bankruptcy Court still has not set a schedule for presentation of either of the proposed plans of reorganization and liquidation to the creditors for a vote.

Opti Incorporated

On October 19, 2004, Opti Incorporated, or Opti, filed a complaint for patent infringement against NVIDIA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In its complaint, Opti asserted that unspecified NVIDIA chipsets infringe five United States patents held by Opti. Opti seeks unspecified damages for our alleged conduct, attorneys’ fees and triple damages for alleged willful infringement by NVIDIA. We filed a response to this complaint in December 2004. A case management conference was held in July 2005 where a trial date was set for July 2006. A court mandated mediation was held in January 2006 and did not resolve the matter. The discovery period formally ended on May 6, 2006. On April 13, 2006, a Markman hearing took place and on April 24, 2006, the District Court issued a ruling adopting Opti's proposed construction on 13 of the 15 terms at issue. In May 2006, Opti dropped from the lawsuit two of the five United States patents that Opti alleged NVIDIA infringes. We continue to prepare for trial. We believe the claims asserted against us are without merit and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously. We do not have sufficient information to determine whether a loss is probable. As such, we have not recorded any liability in our consolidated financial statements for such loss, if any.

 

23


Table of Contents

NVIDIA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

Note 15 - Stock Repurchase Program

On August 9, 2004, we announced that our Board of Directors, or the Board, had authorized a stock repurchase program to repurchase shares of our common stock, subject to certain specifications, up to an aggregate maximum amount of $300.0 million. On March 6, 2006, we announced that the Board had approved a $400.0 million increase to the original stock repurchase program we had announced in August 2004. As a result of this increase, the amount of common stock the Board of Directors has authorized to be repurchased has now been increased to a total of $700.0 million. As part of our stock repurchase program, we have entered into and we may continue to enter into structured share repurchase transactions with financial institutions. These agreements generally require that we make an up-front payment in exchange for the right to receive a fixed number of shares of our common stock upon execution of the agreement, and a potential incremental number of shares of our common stock, within a pre-determined range, at the end of the term of the agreement. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we repurchased 2.1 million shares of our common stock for $50.0 million under a structured share repurchase transaction, which we recorded on the trade date of the transaction. Through the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we have repurchased an aggregate of 19.1 million shares under our stock repurchase program for a total cost of $263.2 million. Subsequent to April 30, 2006, we entered into a structured share repurchase transaction to repurchase shares of our common stock for $75.0 million that we expect to settle prior to the end of our second quarter of fiscal 2007.

Note 16 - Stockholders' Equity and Stock Split

In March 2006, our Board of Directors approved a two-for-one stock split of our outstanding shares of common stock to be effected in the form of a 100% stock dividend. The stock split was effective on Thursday, April 6, 2006 for stockholders of record at the close of business on Friday, March 17, 2006. Each stockholder of record received one additional share for every outstanding share of common stock held. The transfer agent distributed the shares resulting from the split on April 6, 2006. All share and per-share numbers contained herein, for all periods presented, reflect this stock split.

Note 17 - Subsequent Events Related to the Review of Stock Option Practices (Discussed in Note 2 of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements)

Listing on The NASDAQ Stock Market

On September 11, 2006, NVIDIA filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission to report that it would not timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006. On September 12, 2006 NVIDIA announced that it would request a hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel, or the Panel, in response to the receipt of a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter on September 11, 2006 indicating that NVIDIA was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued listing as set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14). As anticipated, the letter was issued in accordance with NASDAQ procedures due to the delayed filing of NVIDIA’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006. Pending a decision by the Panel, NVIDIA shares will remain listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. On October 19, 2006, we appeared for an oral hearing before the Panel. The Panel confirmed that our appeal had stayed the delisting action pending a final written decision by the Panel. The Panel’s decision is still pending. There can be no assurances that the Panel will grant our request for continued listing; however, by filing all of our required periodic reports with the SEC, we believe that we will have remedied our non-compliance with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14).

Lawsuits related to our historical stock option granting practices

Since September 29, 2006, nine derivative cases have been filed in state and federal courts asserting claims concerning errors related to our historical stock option granting practices and associated accounting for stock-based compensation expense. These complaints have been filed in various courts, including the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. All cases purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of NVIDIA against members of our board of directors and several of our current and former officers. The cases are not currently consolidated, although all allege in substantially similar fashion claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider selling, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, constructive fraud, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to recover for NVIDIA, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, punitive damages, treble damages for insider selling, and fees and costs. Plaintiffs also seek an accounting, a constructive trust and other equitable relief. We intend to take all appropriate action in response to these complaints.

We voluntarily contacted the SEC regarding the Audit Committee’s review and, as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q/A, the SEC is continuing the inquiry of our historical stock option grant practices it began in late August 2006. In October 2006, we met with the SEC and provided it with a review of the status of the Audit Committee’s review and in November 2006 we voluntarily provided the SEC with further documents. We plan to continue to cooperate with the SEC in its inquiry.

 

24


Table of Contents

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. When used in this report, the words “expects,” “believes,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “plans,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements relate to future periods and include, but are not limited to, statements as to the features, benefits, capabilities, performance, production and availability of our technologies and products, seasonality, possible acquisitions and the results of acquisitions, product cycles, our gross margin, product mix, our inventories, average selling prices, our strategies as to our primary businesses, growth of and factors contributing to the growth of our primary businesses, our competitors' focuses, expensing of stock options, the impact of stock-based compensation expense, use of the binomial model, our critical accounting policies, mix and sources of revenue, anticipated revenue, our relationship with SCE, our expectations regarding increases in and reasons for our expenditures, capital expenditures, our cash flow and cash balances, our liquidity, uses of cash, charges we many take, investments and marketable securities, our stock repurchase program, our results of operations, the filings we intend to amend, the periods we are restating, our competition and our competitive position, our intellectual property, the importance of our strategic relationships, customer demand, reliance on a limited number of customers, our internal control over financial reporting, our disclosure controls and procedures, our continued listing on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, litigation or regulatory action arising from the Audit Committee’s review and our restatements, Section 409A of the IRC and possible remedial measures, adoption of best practices in connection with the Audit Committee’s review, our taxes, our international operations, our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, our foreign currency risk strategy, and compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risks discussed below as well as unanticipated decreases in average selling prices of a particular product, difficulties associated with conducting international operations, increased sales of lower margin products, difficulty in collecting accounts receivable, our inability to decrease inventory purchase commitments, our inability to compete in new markets, the write-down of the value of inventory, entry of new competitors in our established markets, reduction in demand for or market acceptance of our products or our customers’ products, defects in our products, the impact of competitive pricing pressure, new product announcements or introductions by our competitors, disruptions in our relationships with our key suppliers, fluctuations in general economic conditions, failure to achieve design wins, the seasonality of the PC and in the markets of our other primary businesses, international and political conditions, the concentration of sales of our products to a limited number of customers, decreases in demand for our products, delays in the development of new products by us or our partners, delays in volume production of our products, developments in and expenses related to litigation, the outcome of litigation or regulatory actions, determination by the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel to delist our stock, and the matters set forth under Item 1A. - Risk Factors. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. Except as required by law, we expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

In this report, all references to “NVIDIA,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” mean NVIDIA Corporation and our subsidiaries.

NVIDIA, GeForce, SLI, NVIDIA GoForce, NVIDIA Quadro, and NVIDIA nForce are our trademarks or registered trademarks in the United States and other countries. We also refer to trademarks of other corporations and organizations in this document.

 

25


Table of Contents

Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings

In May 2006, following media reports of stock option accounting investigations at other companies, the management of NVIDIA decided to conduct a review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. Management advised our Board of Directors of the review at a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors on May 25, 2006. The Board of Directors directed management to report its findings to the Audit Committee. Management presented its findings to the Audit Committee in late June 2006. Following that presentation, the Audit Committee determined that it should perform its own independent review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. The Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, began its review on approximately June 29, 2006.

The Audit Committee’s review was completed on November 13, 2006 when the Audit Committee reported its findings to the full Board of Directors. The review covered option grants to all employees, directors and consultants for all grant dates during the period from the Company’s initial public offering in January 1999 through June 2006. As part of its review, the Audit Committee determined whether the correct measurement dates had been used under applicable accounting principles for these options. The measurement date means the date on which the option is deemed granted under applicable accounting principles, namely Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees and related interpretations, and is the first date on which all of the following are known: (1) the individual employee who is entitled to receive the option grant, (2) the number of options that an individual employee is entitled to receive, and (3) the option’s exercise price.

Based on the findings of the Audit Committee and our internal review, we identified a number of occasions on which we used an incorrect measurement date for financial accounting and reporting purposes. These errors resulted primarily from our use during our fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002, of certain date selection methods discussed below which resulted in employees receiving options with stated exercise prices lower than the market prices as measured based upon the actual grant dates. We ceased using such practices beginning in our fiscal year 2003. The Audit Committee found that, beginning in our fiscal year 2003, we improved our stock option grant processes and have generally granted and priced our employee stock options in an objective and consistent manner since that time. However, for one Company-wide annual stock option grant we made in fiscal 2004, we did not finalize the number of options allocated to each employee as of the stated grant date in May 2003, which resulted in stock-based compensation charges due to the change in the measurement date to the date the grants were finalized. The Audit Committee’s review did not identify any additional stock-based compensation charges from measurement date issues subsequent to that fiscal 2004 grant.

In accordance with APB 25, with respect to periods through January 29, 2006, we should have recorded stock-based compensation expense to the extent that the fair market value of our common stock on the correct measurement date exceeded the exercise price of each option granted. For periods commencing January 30, 2006 (the beginning of our fiscal year 2007), we record stock-based compensation expense in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) (revised), or SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment. Changes in measurement dates have also contributed to incremental fair value of options under SFAS No. 123. As of the end of our fiscal year 2006, the unamortized incremental fair value charges resulting from the Audit Committee’s review were approximately $13.0 million, of which approximately $9.0 million are expected to be amortized in our fiscal year 2007.

As a result of the measurement date errors identified from the Audit Committee’s review, through January 29, 2006, we recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $127.4 million, net of related tax effects. These charges were based primarily on APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) charges and associated payroll taxes of $199.6 million on a pre-tax basis, which are being amortized over the vesting term of the stock options in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 28, or FIN 28,Accounting for Stock Appreciation Rights and Other Variable Stock Option or Award Plans. We have amortized a substantial portion of these charges to expense during our fiscal years 2000 to 2006. If an option is forfeited prior to vesting, we reverse both the charges amortized to expense in prior periods as well as any remaining unamortized deferred stock-based compensation associated with the forfeited options. Accordingly, our net stock-based compensation charges amortized to our statement of income are lower than the aggregate stock-based compensation charges based on APB 25 (intrinsic-value based). As of January 29, 2006, the remaining APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) unamortized deferred stock-based compensation related to the errors identified during the review was approximately $3.0 million.

The types of errors we identified were as follows:

Improper Measurement Dates forCompany-Wide Annual or Retention Stock Option Grants. We determined that, in connection with certain annual or retention stock option grants that we made to employees during our fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the final number of shares that an individual employee was entitled to receive was not determined and/or the proper approval of the related stock option grant had not been given until after the stated grant date. Therefore, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. In connection with stock option grants that we made to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during fiscal years 2001 and 2002, our practice was to grant stock options with an exercise price based upon the lowest closing price of our common stock in the last few days of the month of hire or the last few days of any subsequent month in the quarter of hire. The selection of the grant date of the related option grants would be made at the end of the fiscal quarter and was based on achieving the lowest exercise price for the affected employees. As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

 

26


Table of Contents

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Year 2000. In connection with certain stock option grants to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during a portion of fiscal year 2000, our practice was to delay the selection of the related grant dates until the end of a two-month period in the fiscal quarter during which the employees who received the grants began their employment with NVIDIA. As a result of this practice, the exercise price of the related option grants was not determined until subsequent to the stated grant date. We also determined that, during fiscal year 2000, we generally set the grant date and exercise price of employee option grants for new hires and promotions at the lowest price of the last few business days of the month of their hire or promotion (or of the following month in certain two-month periods that were chosen for an indeterminate reason). As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options. In addition, we also determined that the exercise price or the number of options to be granted had not been determined, or the proper approval had not been given, for various other miscellaneous option grants during fiscal year 2000 until after the stated grant date - resulting in new measurement dates for accounting purposes for the related options.

Other Issues Identified.We also identified instances where stock option grants did not comply with applicable terms and conditions of the stock plans from which the grants were issued. For example, two grants were made to officers of NVIDIA by the chief executive officer under delegated authority; however, under the terms of the applicable plan, the option grant should have been made by our Board or the Compensation Committee. There were also instances where (1) option grants were made to a small group of employees who joined NVIDIA pursuant to a business combination, and to a few other employees in certain instances, with stated exercise prices below the fair market value of our common stock on the actual measurement date of the related grants; and (2) option grants were made to a few individuals who were contractors rather than employees, without recording the appropriate accounting charges. The accounting impact of these items was cumulatively less than $6.0 million. In addition, the Audit Committee did not find any evidence that these violations were committed for improper purposes.

The Audit Committee carefully considered the involvement of current members of management in the option grant process and concluded that the evidence did not give rise to any concern about the integrity of any current officer or director of NVIDIA. The Audit Committee also found that the accounting errors and improper practices brought to light during their review were not motivated by any intent to mislead investors, improve NVIDIA’s reported financial results, or obtain any personal benefit. Based on its findings, the Audit Committee was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the integrity of former officers and employees.

As a result of the errors we identified, we have restated our historical financial statements from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006 to record $127.4 million of charges related to stock-based compensation and associated payroll tax expense, net of related income tax effects. These errors resulted in after-tax charges of $1.4 million, $11.7 million and $25.8 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the related after-tax charges for periods prior to our fiscal year ended January 25, 2004 was $88.4 million. These additional stock-based compensation expense charges were non-cash and had no impact on our reported revenue, cash, cash equivalents or marketable securities for each of the restated periods.

As part of the restatement, for the three month period ended April 30, 2006 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $1.1 million, a net benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $1.9 million, and associated income tax charges of $0.1 million. For the three month period ended May 1, 2005 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $2.5 million, a benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $5.1 million, and associated income tax charges of $1.5 million.

For all periods through the end of our fiscal year 2006, we have recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $190.2 million, associated payroll tax charges of $9.4 million and a related income tax benefit of $72.2 million.

As part of this restatement, we also accrued liabilities and recorded charges to operating costs and expenses for certain payroll tax contingencies related to the incremental stock-based compensation expense in the amount of $18.8 million for all annual periods from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006. We recorded such charges in the amount of $3.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.6 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Upon expiration of the related statute of limitations, we also recorded benefits from the reversal of previously-recorded payroll tax liabilities of $6.6 million and $2.8 million in our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. As a result, the net benefit to our statements of income was $3.5 million and $1.5 million for our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. The cumulative payroll tax expense for periods prior to our fiscal year 2004 was $12.8 million. For those stock option grants that we determined to have incorrect measurement dates for accounting purposes and that we had originally issued as incentive stock options, or ISOs, we recorded a liability for payroll tax contingencies in the event such grants would not be respected as ISOs under the principles of the Internal Revenue Code, or IRC, and the regulations thereunder. These liabilities were recorded with a charge to operating costs and expenses.

We also considered the application of Section 409A of the IRC to certain stock option grants where, under APB 25, intrinsic value existed at the time of grant. In the event such stock options grants are not respected as issued at fair market value at the original grant date under principles of the IRC and the regulations thereunder and are subject to Section 409A, we are considering potential remedial actions that may be available. We do not expect to incur a material charge as a result of any such potential remedial actions.

As a result of the findings of the Audit Committee, we concluded that we needed to amend our Original Filing and restate our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 29, 2006, January 30, 2005, and January 25, 2004 and the related disclosures, in an amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for our fiscal year ended January 29, 2006.

As a result of the restatement, the related disclosures included in Part I, Item 2, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” have been revised if indicated as restated.

 

27


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the impact of the additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects on our historical financial statements for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005.

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   As Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated(1)  

As Previously
Reported

  Adjustments  As Restated(1) 
   (In thousands, except per share data) 

Revenue

  $681,807  $—    $681,807  $583,846  $—    $583,846 

Cost of revenue (A)

   393,050   84   393,134   373,693   292   373,985 
                         

Gross profit

   288,757   (84)  288,673   210,153   (292)  209,861 

Operating expenses:

       

Research and development (A)

   122,404   798   123,202   85,913   1,922   87,835 

Sales, general and administrative (A)

   65,668   (1,706)  63,962   48,058   (4,841)  43,217 
                         

Total operating expenses

   188,072   (908)  187,164   133,971   (2,919)  131,052 
                         

Operating income

   100,685   824   101,509   76,182   2,627   78,809 

Interest income

   8,808   —     8,808   3,895   —     3,895 

Interest expense

   (1)  —     (1)  (10)  —     (10)

Other income (expense), net

   (244)  —     (244)  488   —     488 
                         

Income before income tax expense

   109,248   824   110,072   80,555   2,627   83,182 

Income tax expense

   18,572   140   18,712   16,111   1,549   17,660 
                         

Income before change in accounting principle

   90,676   684   91,360   64,444   1,078 �� 65,522 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (2)

   —     704   704   —     —     —   
                         

Net income

  $90,676  $1,388  $92,064  $64,444  $1,078  $65,522 
                         

Basic net income per share:

       

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.26  $—    $0.26  $0.19  $—    $0.19 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (2)

   —     —     —     —     —     —   
                         

Basic net income per share

  $0.26  $—    $0.26  $0.19  $—    $0.19 
                         

Shares need in basic per share computation

   347,937   —     347,937   337,294   —     337,294 
                         

Diluted net income per share:

       

Prior to cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

  $0.23  $—    $0.23  $0.18  $—    $0.18 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (2)

   —     0.01   0.01   —     —     —   
                         

Diluted net income per share

  $0.23  $0.01  $0.24  $0.18  $—    $0.18 
                         

Shares used in diluted per share computation

   390,370   (942)  389,428   360,984   45   361,029 
                         

 


(A)Results for the three months ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005 include stock-based compensation expense net of associated payroll taxes, as restated, as follows:
   Three Months Ended 
   April 30, 2006  May 1, 2005 
   (As Restated)(1)  (As Restated)(1) 

Cost of revenue

  $1,227  $292 

Research and development

   14,426   1,922 

Sales, general and administrative

   6,572   (4,841)

 

(1)See Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
(2)Historically, prior to the restatement, we did not have material stock-based compensation charges. Accordingly, in our previously-reported financial statements there was no cumulative effect of adoption of SFAS 123(R). See Note 3 “Stock Based Compensation”.

 

28


Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the impact of the additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects on our consolidated balance sheet as of April 30, 2006.

 

   April 30, 2006  January 29, 2006 
   As
Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated  As
Previously
Reported
  Adjustments  As Restated 
   (in thousands) 
ASSETS       

Current assets:

       

Cash and cash equivalents

  $487,763  $—    $487,763  $551,756  $—    $551,756 

Marketable securities

   467,290   —     467,290   398,418   —     398,418 

Accounts receivable, net

   391,270   —     391,270   318,186   —     318,186 

Inventories

   346,366   65   346,431   254,792   78   254,870 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

   28,545   —     28,545   24,387   —     24,387 

Deferred income taxes

   1,393   1,289   2,682   1,393   1,289   2,682 
                         

Total current assets

   1,722,627   1,354   1,723,981   1,548,932   1,367   1,550,299 

Property and equipment, net

   180,206   —     180,206   178,152   —     178,152 

Deposits and other assets

   31,028   —     31,028   27,477   —     27,477 

Goodwill

   204,603   —     204,603   145,317   —     145,317 

Intangible assets, net

   22,989   —     22,989   15,421   —     15,421 

Deferred income taxes, non-current

   —     38,021   38,021   —     38,021   38,021 
                         
  $2,161,453  $39,375  $2,200,828  $1,915,299  $39,388  $1,954,687 
                         
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY       

Current liabilities:

       

Accounts payable

  $298,147  $—    $298,147  $179,395  $—    $179,395 

Accrued liabilities

   236,239   140   236,379   259,264   —     259,264 
                         

Total current liabilities

   534,386   140   534,526   438,659   —     438,659 

Deferred income tax liabilities

   8,260   (8,260)  —     8,260   (8,260)  —   

Other long-term liabilities

   10,156   7,526   17,682   10,624   9,412   20,036 

Commitments and contingencies - see Note 12 and Note 14

       

Stockholders’ equity:

       

Preferred stock

   —     —     —     —     —     —   

Common stock

   371   —     371   360   —     360 

Additional paid-in capital

   907,097   165,950   1,073,047   798,071   167,533   965,604 

Deferred compensation

   —     —     —     (1,676)  (1,928)  (3,604)

Treasury stock

   (262,142)  —     (262,142)  (212,142)  —     (212,142)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net

   (2,451)  —     (2,451)  (1,957)  —     (1,957)

Retained earnings

   965,776   (125,981)  839,795   875,100   (127,369)  747,731 
                         

Total stockholders’ equity

   1,608,651   39,969   1,648,620   1,457,756   38,236   1,495,992 
                         
  $2,161,453  $39,375  $2,200,828  $1,915,299  $39,388  $1,954,687 
                         

 

29


Table of Contents

Overview

Our Company

NVIDIA Corporation is the worldwide leader in programmable graphics processor technologies. Our products enhance the end-user experience on consumer and professional computing devices. We have four major product-line operating segments: the graphics processing unit, or GPU, Business; the media and communications processor, or MCP, Business; the Handheld GPU Business, and the Consumer Electronics Business. Our GPU Business is composed of products that support desktop personal computers, or PCs, notebook PCs and professional workstations; our MCP Business is composed of NVIDIA nForce products that operate as a single-chip or chipset that can off-load system functions, such as audio processing and network communications, and perform these operations independently from the host central processing unit, or CPU; our Handheld GPU Business is composed of products that support handheld personal digital assistants, cellular phones and other handheld devices; and our Consumer Electronics Business is concentrated in products that support video game consoles and other digital consumer electronics devices and is composed of our contractual arrangements with Sony Computer Entertainment, or SCE, to jointly develop a custom GPU incorporating our next-generation GeForce GPU and SCE’s system solutions in SCE’s PlayStation3, sales of our Xbox-related products, revenue from our license agreement with Microsoft Corporation, or Microsoft, relating to the successor product to their initial Xbox gaming console, the Xbox360, and related devices, and embedded graphics processor products. We were incorporated in California in April 1993 and reincorporated in Delaware in April 1998. Our headquarter facilities are in Santa Clara, California. Our Internet address iswww.nvidia.com.

Original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, original design manufacturers, or ODMs, add-in-card manufacturers, system builders and consumer electronics companies worldwide utilize NVIDIA embedded graphics processors

Seasonality

Our industry is largely focused on the consumer products market. Due to the seasonality in this market, we typically expect to see stronger revenue performance in the second half of the calendar year related to the back-to-school and holiday seasons.

Recent Developments, Future Objectives and Challenges

GPU Business

The combination of our GeForce 7 and GeForce 6 series of GPUs and our Scalable Link Interface, or SLI, technology has created a new class of gaming PCs and professional workstations. SLI technology takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the peripheral component interconnect, or PCI, Express bus architecture to allow two NVIDIA-based graphics cards to operate in a single PC or professional workstation.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we shipped eight new GeForce 7 series GPUs for desktop and notebook PCs, and now offer a top-to-bottom family of GeForce 7 GPUs. In March 2006, we shipped our first Quad SLI system for desktop PCs, enabling the use of four GPUs per system. We also shipped the GeForce Go 7800 GTX notebook GPU featuring SLI technology for notebook PCs.

We expect additional growth in our GPU Business during the remainder of fiscal 2007. We believe that sales of our desktop GPU products will be increased by share gains from our anticipated position in the market, the release of Microsoft’s next generation operating system, Microsoft Windows Vista, or Vista, the introduction of high-definition, or HD, and Blu-ray video. The GeForce 7 and GeForce 6 series of desktop and notebook GPUs are designed to be compatible with Vista. We believe that in the upcoming year there will be increased demand for HD and Blu-ray video, and that SCE’s PlayStation3 will be a key driver of demand for Blu-ray video. We expect HD and Blu-ray video to promote increased demand for the video processing capabilities of our next generation GPUs.

MCP Business

In February 2006, we completed our acquisition of ULi Electronics, Inc., or ULi, a core logic developer for the PC industry. This acquisition represents our ongoing investment in our platform solution strategy and is expected to strengthen our sales, marketing, and customer engineering presence in Taiwan and China.

In March 2006, we shipped our first integrated graphics processor, or IGP, core-logic solution for Advanced Micro Devices, or AMD,-based notebook PCs - the GeForce Go 6100 GPU and NVIDIA nForce Go 430 MCP. This core logic solution is the industry’s first high-definition IGP to provide hardware accelerated H.264 high-definition video playback.

Our NVIDIA nForce product line has achieved record revenue for seven consecutive quarters. We believe that the transition by AMD to K8, our extension into new segments, and our entry into the Intel market with our first ever mainstream Intel nForce4 MCPs will make our MCP Business one of our fastest growing businesses. Furthermore, we believe that our ability to simultaneously innovate using our GPU, MCP, and software knowledge base will allow us to make additional platform innovations in the future.

 

30


Table of Contents

Handheld GPU Business

In March 2006, NVIDIA and Intel Corporation, or Intel, announced a collaboration to bring a high-performance 3-dimensional, or 3D, gaming and multimedia platform to handheld devices. The collaboration combines the NVIDIA GoForce family of handheld GPUs with Intel’s newest processor family, which is based on the third-generation Intel XScale architecture, to deliver a powerful development platform to content developers.

Our NVIDIA GoForce handheld GPUs are now shipping in the new Motorola 3G RAZR V3X and the new Sony Ericsson Walkman phones. Our newest handheld GPU, the NVIDIA GoForce 5500 GPU, has been designed into Digital Video Broadcast—Handheld, or DVB-H, phones in North America and Europe, and Integrated Services Digital Broadcasting—Terrestrial, or ISDB-T, phones in Japan. Two out of the first three DVB-H television service launches in the world are based on phones powered by our handheld GPU.

In addition, in March 2006 we acquired Hybrid Graphics Ltd., a developer of embedded 2D and 3D graphics software for handheld devices. We believe that this acquisition will enable the customers of both companies to deploy rich graphics solutions for the worldwide handheld market.

Our strategy in the Handheld GPU Business is to lead innovation and capitalize on the emergence of the cellular phone as a versatile consumer lifestyle device and to build a new class of low power GPUs for multimedia rich devices like 3G cell phones, smart phones, and portable media players. The increasing availability of digital media content for 3G has increased demand for our handheld GPUs. We believe that the graphics and multimedia capability of our handheld GPUs has put us in the position to benefit from the increasing multimedia demands of smart phones. We believe that there will be an increase in demand for mobile video products that deliver compelling and tangible improvements to the overall end user experience of these new services, and we believe that we are well positioned to increase our share of the handheld segment.

Gross Margin Improvement

We continue to remain intensely focused on improving our gross margin. Beginning in fiscal 2005, we implemented profit improvement initiatives across our company, which were designed to improve business and operational processes. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, our gross margin was 42.3%, which represents an increase of 210 basis points from our gross margin of 40.2% for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006, and an increase of 640 basis points from our gross margin of 35.9% for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. In addition to the positive impact on our gross margin from our implementation of profit improvement measures, we also realized improvement in the gross margin from our Handheld GPU Business, as well as a significant contribution from our GeForce 7 products, which have experienced higher than average gross margins.

Our gross margin is significantly impacted by product mix, which is often difficult to estimate with accuracy and thus if we achieve significant revenue growth in our lower margin businesses, it may negatively impact our gross margin. We believe that we can continue to improve our gross margin during the second half of fiscal 2007.

Stock-Based Compensation

Effective January 30, 2006, we adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), or SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment. SFAS No. 123(R) establishes accounting for stock-based awards exchanged for employee services. Accordingly, stock-based compensation cost is measured at grant date, based on the fair value of the awards, and is recognized as expense over the requisite employee service period. As such, our stock-based compensation expense totaled $22.2 million, net of associated payroll taxes, during the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

Subsequent Events

Listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market. On September 11, 2006, NVIDIA filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC to report that we would not timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006. On September 12, 2006 NVIDIA announced that we would request a hearing before the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel, or the Panel, in response to the receipt of a NASDAQ Staff Determination letter on September 11, 2006 indicating that NVIDIA was not in compliance with the filing requirements for continued listing as set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14). As anticipated, the letter was issued in accordance with NASDAQ procedures due to the delayed filing of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 30, 2006. Pending a decision by the Panel, NVIDIA common stock will remain listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. On October 19, 2006, we appeared for an oral hearing before the Panel and the Panel confirmed that our appeal had stayed the delisting action pending a final written decision by the Panel. The Panel’s decision is still pending. There can be no assurances that the Panel will grant our request for continued listing; however, by filing all of our required periodic reports with the SEC, we believe that we will have remedied our non-compliance with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14).

Lawsuits related to our historical stock option granting practices. Since September 29, 2006, nine derivative cases have been filed in state and federal courts asserting claims concerning errors related to our historical stock option granting practices and associated accounting for stock-based compensation expense. These complaints have been filed in various courts, including the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. All cases purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of NVIDIA against members of our board of directors and several of our current and former officers. The cases are not currently consolidated, although all allege in substantially similar fashion claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider selling, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, constructive fraud, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to recover for NVIDIA, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, punitive damages, treble damages for insider selling, and fees and costs. Plaintiffs also seek an accounting, a constructive trust and other equitable relief. We intend to take all appropriate action in response to these complaints.

We voluntarily contacted the SEC regarding the Audit Committee’s review and, as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q/A, the SEC is continuing the inquiry of our historical stock option grant practices it began in late August 2006. In October 2006, we met with the SEC and provided it with a review of the status of the Audit Committee’s review and in November 2006 we voluntarily provided the SEC with further documents. We plan to continue to cooperate with the SEC in its inquiry.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, cost of revenue, expenses and related disclosure of contingencies. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, accounts receivable, inventories, stock-based compensation, income taxes, and goodwill. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities.

 

31


Table of Contents

Stock-Based Compensation. Effective January 30, 2006, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R). We estimate the fair value of stock options using a binomial model, consistent with the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R) and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107,Share-Based Payment. Option-pricing models require the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the price volatility of the underlying stock. During the first quarter of fiscal 2006, we determined that the use of implied volatility is expected to be more reflective of market conditions and, therefore, could reasonably be expected to be a better indicator of our expected volatility than historical volatility. Additionally, during the first quarter of fiscal 2006 we began segregating options into groups for employees with relatively homogeneous exercise behavior in order to calculate the best estimate of fair value using the binomial valuation model. As such, the expected term assumption used in calculating the estimated fair value of our stock-based compensation awards using the binomial model is based on detailed historical data about employees' exercise behavior, vesting schedules, and death and disability probabilities. In addition, we are required to estimate the expected forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those shares expected to vest. We estimate the forfeiture rate based on historical experience of our stock-based awards that are granted, exercised and cancelled. We believe the resulting binomial calculation provides a more refined estimate of the fair value of our employee stock options. For our employee stock purchase plan, we decided to continue to use the Black-Scholes model to calculate the estimated fair value.

Other than related to our implementation of SFAS No. 123(R) during the three months ended April 30, 2006, as described above, there were no other material changes in our critical accounting policies and estimates during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 from those disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, or Form 10-K/A, for the year ended January 29, 2006. Please see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in our Form 10-K/A for a discussion of our critical accounting policies and estimates.

Results of Operations

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain items in our condensed consolidated income statements expressed as a percentage of revenue.

 

   Three Months Ended 
   April 30,
2006
  May 1, 2005 
   (As Restated)  (As Restated) 

Revenue

  100.0% 100.0%

Cost of revenue

  57.7  64.1 
       

Gross profit

  42.3  35.9 

Operating expenses:

   

Research and development

  18.1  15.0 

Sales, general and administrative

  9.4  7.4 
       

Total operating expenses

  27.5  22.4 
       

Operating income

  14.8  13.5 

Interest and other income, net

  1.3  0.7 
       

Income before income tax expense

  16.1  14.2 

Income tax expense

  2.7  3.0 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of income tax

  0.1  —   
       

Net income

  13.5% 11.2%
       

Three Months Ended April 30, 2006 and May 1, 2005

Revenue

Our operating segments are organized to bring all of our major product groups in line with our strategy to position ourselves as the worldwide leader in programmable graphics processor technologies. We report financial Revenue was $681.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and $583.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, which represented an increase of 16.8%.

GPU Business.GPU Business revenue increased by 10.4% to $452.4 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 compared to $409.9 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The $42.5 million increase was primarily the result of increased sales of our desktop products, led by our GeForce 7-based products, which we began selling in the second quarter of fiscal 2006. In addition, sales of our NVIDIA professional workstation products and notebook products also continued to improve due to an increased mix of GeForce 7-based products. The increased sales of desktop, notebook and professional workstation products were offset by lower average selling prices.

 

32


Table of Contents

MCP Business.MCP Business revenue increased by 64.9% to $118.4 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 compared to $71.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The MCP business increase of $46.6 million is primarily due to sales of newer NVIDIA nForce4 products introduced during the third quarter of fiscal 2006, and NVIDIA nForce5 products shipped during the first quarter of fiscal 2007. In addition, revenue also increased as a result of our acquisition of ULi in February 2006.

Handheld GPU Business.Handheld GPU Business revenue increased by 295.8% to $30.7 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 compared to $7.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The Handheld GPU Business increase of $22.9 million is due to increased product sales related to high-end feature phone products and revenue recognized as a result of a development contract.

Consumer Electronics Business.Consumer Electronics Business revenue decreased by 54.9% to $26.2 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 compared to $58.1 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The decrease in our Consumer Electronics Business is a result of discontinued sales of our Xbox-related products to Microsoft, partially offset by revenue recognized from our contractual arrangements with SCE to jointly develop a custom GPU incorporating our next-generation GeForce GPU and SCE’s system solutions in SCE’s PlayStation3. The second quarter of fiscal 2006 was the last quarter during which we recognized revenue from the sale of our Xbox-related products to Microsoft.

Concentration of Revenue

Revenue from sales to customers outside of the United States and other Americas accounted for 85% and 83% of revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and 2006, respectively. Revenue by geographic region is allocated to individual countries based on the location to which the products are initially billed even if the foreign contract equipment manufacturers, or CEMs’, add-in board and motherboard manufacturers’ revenue is attributable to end customers in a different location. The increase in the percentage of revenue from sales to customers outside of the United States and other Americas for fiscal 2007 as compared to fiscal 2006 is primarily due to decreased sales of processors used in the Microsoft Xbox product, which were billed to Microsoft in the United States.

Sales to our largest customer accounted for approximately 14% of our revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and approximately 1% of our revenue for the same customer for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. No other customers accounted for 10%, or greater, of our revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

Gross Profit

Gross profit consists of total revenue, net of allowances, less cost of revenue. Cost of revenue consists primarily of the cost of semiconductors purchased from subcontractors, including wafer fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, manufacturing support costs, including labor, overhead and non-cash stock-based compensation associated with such purchases, final test yield fallout, inventory provisions and shipping costs. Cost of revenue also includes development costs for license and service arrangements. Gross margin is the percentage of gross profit to revenue. Our gross margin can vary in any period depending on a number of factors, including the mix of types of products sold, average selling prices, introduction of new products, sales discounts, unexpected pricing actions by our competitors, the cost of product components, and the yield of wafers produced by the foundries that manufacture our products. Our gross margin was 42.3% and 35.9% for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and the fist quarter of fiscal 2006, respectively.

GPU Business.The gross margin of our GPU Business increased during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to the first quarter of 2006 primarily due to the success of our GeForce 7 series GPUs, which have experienced higher gross margins than our previous generations of GPUs.

MCP Business.The gross margin of our MCP Business decreased during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2006 primarily due to inventory reserves that we recorded as a charge to cost of revenue of approximately $4.1 million related to certain NVIDIA nForce purchase commitments that we believed exceeded future demand.

Handheld GPU Business.The gross margin of our Handheld GPU Business increased during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2006. This increase is due to the write-off in the first quarter of fiscal 2006 of certain handheld products that we believed exceeded the demand of our handheld customers, which at that time was heavily concentrated at one OEM.

Consumer Electronics Business.The gross margin of our Consumer Electronics Business increased during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2006 primarily due to development, software and license revenue from our contractual arrangements with SCE for the development of its PlayStation3 computer entertainment system.

 

33


Table of Contents

Consolidated Gross Margin

The improvement in our gross margin reflects our continuing focus on delivering cost effective product architectures, enhancing business processes and delivering profitable growth. However, our gross margin is significantly impacted by product mix, which is often difficult to estimate with accuracy and thus if we achieve significant revenue growth in our lower margin businesses, it may negatively impact our gross margin for the second quarter of fiscal 2007. We believe that we can continue to improve our gross margin during the second half of fiscal 2007.

Operating Expenses

Research and Development

 

   Three Months Ended  $
Change
  %
Change
 
   April 30,
2006
  May 1, 2005   
   (As Restated)  (As Restated)       
   (in millions)       

Research and Development:

     

Salaries and benefits

  $68.0  $48.9  $19.1  39%

Computer software and lab equipment

   12.9   10.9   2.0  18%

New product development

   7.5   6.8   0.7  10%

Facility expense

   8.1   7.8   0.3  4%

Depreciation and amortization

   15.0   14.3   0.7  5%

Stock-based compensation

   14.4   1.9   12.5  658%

License and development project costs

   (5.8)  (4.7)  (1.1) 23%

Other

   3.1   1.9   1.2  63%
              

Total

  $123.2  $87.8  $35.4  40%
              

Research and development as a percentage of net revenue

   18%  15%  

Research and development expenses were $123.2 million and $87.8 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively, an increase of $35.4 million, or 40%. This increase was primarily due to a $19.1 million increase in salaries and benefits related to 709 additional personnel, which included employees from both ULi and Hybrid Graphics, and an increase in payroll taxes due to an increase in stock option exercises. In addition, during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 we recorded $14.4 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense related to research and development employees, an increase of $12.5 million, as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). Computer software and lab equipment increased $2.0 million due to an increased allocation of information technology-related expenses based on the growth in our headcount, as well as purchases of software packages and computer systems for new personnel. These increases were offset by an increase of $1.1 million in license and development project costs, primarily related to development costs related to our collaboration with SCE and other engineering costs related to different development contracts, that are classified as cost of revenue in our condensed consolidated income statement or were capitalized on our condensed consolidated balance sheet and will be expensed on a percentage of completion basis.

We anticipate that we will continue to devote substantial resources to research and development, and we expect these expenses to increase in absolute dollars in the foreseeable future due to the increased complexity and the greater number of products under development. Research and development expenses are likely to fluctuate from time to time to the extent we make periodic incremental investments in research and development and these investments may be independent of our current level of revenue.

Sales, General and Administrative

 

   Three Months Ended  $
Change
  %
Change
 
   April 30,
2006
  May 1, 2005   
   (As Restated)  (As Restated)       
   (in millions)       

Sales, General and Administrative:

     

Salaries and benefits

  $32.8  $26.2  $6.6  25%

Advertising and promotions

   14.5   12.1   2.4  20%

Legal and accounting fees

   4.2   4.9   (0.7) (14)%

Facility expense

   4.0   3.1   0.9  29%

Depreciation and amortization

   7.9   8.0   (0.1) (1)%

Stock-based compensation (1)

   6.6   (4.8)  11.4  (238)%

Other

   (6.0)  (6.3)  0.3  (5)%
              

Total

  $64.0  $43.2  $20.8  48%
              

Sales, general and administrative as a percentage of net revenue

   9%  7%  

(1)Stock-based compensation includes charges/credits relating to payroll taxes accrued for as part of the restatement. See Note 2 of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information

 

34


Table of Contents

Sales, general and administrative expenses were $64.0 million and $43.2 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively, an increase of $20.8 million, or 48%. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recorded $6.6 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense related to sales, general and administrative employees, an increase of $11.4 million, as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). Salaries and benefits increased $6.6 million related to 170 additional personnel and an increase in payroll taxes due to an increase in stock option exercises. Advertising and promotions increased $2.4 million primarily related to an increase in marketing development fund programs and an increase in travel related expenses primarily due to our ongoing international expansion, offset by a decrease in advertising expense.

We expect sales, general and administrative expenses to continue to increase in absolute dollars as we continue to support our operations, expand our sales, launch our new products and protect our business interests and these expenses may be independent of our current level of revenue.

Stock-Based Compensation

Stock-based compensation expense, totaled $22.2 million during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 as compared to a credit of $2.6 million during the first quarter of fiscal 2006. Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we applied Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related interpretations to account for our stock-based employee compensation plans. As such, compensation expense was recorded if on the date of grant the current fair value per share of the underlying stock exceeded the exercise price per share. Please see Item 2, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” for further discussion of our stock-based compensation expense recorded under APB 25.

We elected to adopt the modified prospective application method beginning January 30, 2006 as provided by SFAS No. 123(R). Accordingly, during the three months ended April 30, 2006, we recorded stock-based compensation expense equal to the amount that would have been recognized if the fair value method required for pro forma disclosure under SFAS No. 123 had been in effect for expense recognition purposes, adjusted for estimated forfeitures. We recognize SFAS No.123 stock-based compensation expense using the straight-line attribution method. As of April 30, 2006, the unearned stock-based compensation balance was $190.3 million and will be recognized over an estimated weighted average amortization period of 2.3 years. We anticipate that our stock-based compensation expense will increase during the second quarter of fiscal 2007. Stock-based compensation charges are included in the “all other” category for segment reporting purposes.

Interest Income

Interest income consists of interest earned on cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. Interest income was $8.8 million and $3.9 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively, an increase of $4.9 million. This increase was primarily the result of higher average balances of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and higher yields during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 when compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2006.

Income Taxes

We recognized income tax expense of $18.7 million and $17.7 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively. Income tax expense as a percentage of income before taxes, or our annual effective tax rate, was 17% for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and 21.2% for the first quarter of fiscal 2006. Our effective tax rate is lower than the United States Federal Statutory rate of 35% due primarily to income earned in lower tax jurisdictions.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of April 30, 2006, we had $955.1 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, an increase of $4.9 million from the end of fiscal 2006. Our portfolio of cash equivalents and marketable securities is managed by several financial institutions. Our investment policy requires the purchase of top-tier investment grade securities, the diversification of asset type and certain limits on our portfolio duration.

Operating activities generated cash of $49.5 million and $89.6 million during the first three months of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively. Cash flows from operating activities for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 were derived primarily from our net income of $92.1 million. On our consolidated balance sheet, accounts payable increased $118.8 million and inventories increased $91.6 million primarily as a result of our build-up of inventories, related mostly to several of our newly-introduced GeForce 7 products in anticipation of future sales of such products. Accounts receivable increased $73.1 million, primarily due to increased sales and decreased linearity of sales and decreased cash collections during the first quarter of fiscal 2007 when compared to the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recorded $24.1 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). Accrued liabilities decreased $22.9 million primarily due to a $14.6 million decrease in payroll and related tax accruals as a result of the timing of the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2007.

Cash used in investing activities has consisted primarily of investments in marketable securities and purchases of property and equipment, which include leasehold improvements for our facilities, and the purchase of intangible assets and businesses. Our investing activities used cash of $157.5 million and $4.6 million during the first three months of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively. Net cash used by investing activities during the first three months of fiscal 2007 included net purchases of $69.8 million of marketable securities, a cash expenditure of $35.5 million, net of cash and cash equivalents acquired, for our acquisition of Hybrid Graphics and a cash expenditure of $31.5 million, net of cash and cash equivalents acquired, for our acquisition of ULi, and $20.7 million for capital expenditures for purchases of new research and development equipment, software, and hardware equipment. We expect to spend approximately $60.0 million to $80.0 million for capital expenditures unrelated to acquisitions during the remainder of fiscal 2007. In addition, we may continue to use cash in connection with the acquisition of businesses or assets.

Financing activities generated cash of $43.9 million and used cash of $12.5 million during the first three months of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively. Net cash generated by financing activities during the first three months of fiscal 2007 was primarily a result of $86.7 million of proceeds that we received from common stock issued under our employee stock plans, offset by $50.0 million of cash used in our stock repurchase program.

 

35


Table of Contents

Stock Repurchase Program

On August 9, 2004, we announced that our Board of Directors, or the Board, had authorized a stock repurchase program to repurchase shares of our common stock, subject to certain specifications, up to an aggregate maximum amount of $300.0 million. On March 6, 2006, we announced that the Board had approved a $400.0 million increase to the original stock repurchase program we had announced in August 2004. As a result of this increase, the amount of common stock the Board has authorized to be repurchased has now been increased to a total of $700.0 million. As part of our share repurchase program, we have entered into and we may continue to enter into structured share repurchase transactions with financial institutions. These agreements generally require that we make an up-front payment in exchange for the right to receive a fixed number of shares of our common stock upon execution of the agreement, and a potential incremental number of shares of our common stock, within a pre-determined range, at the end of the term of the agreement. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we repurchased 2.1 million shares of our common stock for $50.0 million under a structured share repurchase transaction, which we recorded on the trade date of the transaction. Through the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we have repurchased an aggregate of 19.1 million shares under our stock repurchase program for a total cost of $263.2 million. Subsequent to April 30, 2006, we entered into a structured share repurchase transaction to repurchase shares of our common stock for $75.0 million that we expect to settle prior to the end of our second quarter of fiscal 2007.

Operating Capital and Capital Expenditure Requirements

We believe that our existing cash balances and anticipated cash flows from operations will be sufficient to meet our operating, acquisition and capital requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, there is no assurance that we will not need to raise additional equity or debt financing within this time frame. Additional financing may not be available on favorable terms or at all and may be dilutive to our then-current stockholders. We also may require additional capital for other purposes not presently contemplated. If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital, we could be required to curtail capital equipment purchases or research and development expenditures, which could harm our business. Factors that could affect our cash used or generated from operations and, as a result, our need to seek additional borrowings or capital include:

 

  decreased demand and market acceptance for our products and/or our customers’ products;

 

  inability to successfully develop and produce in volume production our next-generation products;

 

  competitive pressures resulting in lower than expected average selling prices; and

 

  new product announcements or product introductions by our competitors.

For additional factors see “Business Risks - Our operating results are unpredictable and may fluctuate, and if our operating results are below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our stock could decline.”

Contractual Obligations

There were no material changes in our contractual obligations from those disclosed in our Form 10-K/A. Please see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources” in our Form 10-K/A for a description of our contractual obligations.

 

36


Table of Contents

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Interest Rate Risk

We invest in a variety of financial instruments, consisting principally of investments in commercial paper, money market funds and highly liquid debt securities of corporations, municipalities and the United States government and its agencies. These investments are denominated in United States dollars. As of April 30, 2006, we had $955.1 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

We account for our investment instruments in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, or SFAS No. 115,Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities. All of the cash equivalents and marketable securities are treated as “available-for-sale” under SFAS No. 115. Investments in both fixed rate and floating rate interest earning instruments carry a degree of interest rate risk. Fixed rate securities may have their market value adversely impacted due to a rise in interest rates, while floating rate securities may produce less income than expected if interest rates fall. Due in part to these factors, our future investment income may fall short of expectations due to changes in interest rates or we may suffer losses in principal if we are forced to sell securities that decline in market value due to changes in interest rates. However, because we classify our debt securities as “available-for-sale”, no gains or losses are recognized due to changes in interest rates unless such securities are sold prior to maturity or declines in fair value are determined to be other than temporary. These securities are reported at fair value with the related unrealized gains and losses included in accumulated other comprehensive income, a component of stockholders’ equity, net of tax.

Exchange Rate Risk

We consider our direct exposure to foreign exchange rate fluctuations to be minimal. Currently, sales and arrangements with third-party manufacturers provide for pricing and payment in United States dollars, and, therefore, are not subject to exchange rate fluctuations. Increases in the value of the United States’ dollar relative to other currencies would make our products more expensive, which could negatively impact our ability to compete. Conversely, decreases in the value of the United States’ dollar relative to other currencies could result in our suppliers raising their prices in order to continue doing business with us. To date, we have not engaged in any currency hedging activities, although we may do so in the future. Fluctuations in currency exchange rates could harm our business in the future.

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Audit Committee Review into Past Option Grants and Practices and Restatement

In May 2006, following media reports of stock option accounting investigations at other companies, the management of NVIDIA decided to conduct a review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. Management advised our Board of Directors of the review at a regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors on May 25, 2006. The Board of Directors directed management to report its findings to the Audit Committee. Management presented its findings to the Audit Committee in late June 2006. Following that presentation, the Audit Committee determined that it should perform its own independent review of stock option grants made by NVIDIA. The Audit Committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, began its review on approximately June 29, 2006.

The Audit Committee’s review was completed on November 13, 2006 when the Audit Committee reported its findings to the full Board of Directors. The review covered option grants to all employees, directors and consultants for all grant dates during the period from the Company’s initial public offering in January 1999 through June 2006. As part of its review, the Audit Committee determined whether the correct measurement dates had been used under applicable accounting principles for these options. The measurement date means the date on which the option is deemed granted under applicable accounting principles, namely Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees and related interpretations, and is the first date on which all of the following are known: (1) the individual employee who is entitled to receive the option grant, (2) the number of options that an individual employee is entitled to receive, and (3) the option’s exercise price.

Based on the findings of the Audit Committee and our internal review, we identified a number of occasions on which we used an incorrect measurement date for financial accounting and reporting purposes. These errors resulted primarily from our use during our fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002, of certain date selection methods discussed below which resulted in employees receiving options with stated exercise prices lower than the market prices as measured based upon the actual grant dates. We ceased using such practices beginning in our fiscal year 2003. The Audit Committee found that, beginning in our fiscal year 2003, we improved our stock option grant processes and have generally granted and priced our employee stock options in an objective and consistent manner since that time. However, for one Company-wide annual stock option grant we made in fiscal 2004, we did not finalize the number of options allocated to each employee as of the stated grant date in May 2003, which resulted in stock-based compensation charges due to the change in the measurement date to the date the grants were finalized. The Audit Committee’s review did not identify any additional stock-based compensation charges from measurement date issues subsequent to that fiscal 2004 grant.

 

37


Table of Contents

In accordance with APB 25, with respect to periods through January 29, 2006, we should have recorded stock-based compensation expense to the extent that the fair market value of our common stock on the correct measurement date exceeded the exercise price of each option granted. For periods commencing January 30, 2006 (the beginning of our fiscal year 2007), we record stock-based compensation expense in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) (revised), or SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment. Changes in measurement dates have also contributed to incremental fair value of options under SFAS No. 123. As of the end of our fiscal year 2006, the unamortized incremental fair value charges resulting from the Audit Committee’s review were approximately $13.0 million, of which approximately $9.0 million are expected to be amortized in our fiscal year 2007.

As a result of the measurement date errors identified from the Audit Committee’s review, through January 29, 2006, we recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $127.4 million, net of related tax effects. These charges were based primarily on APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) charges and associated payroll taxes of $199.6 million on a pre-tax basis, which are being amortized over the vesting term of the stock options in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 28, or FIN 28,Accounting for Stock Appreciation Rights and Other Variable Stock Option or Award Plans. We have amortized a substantial portion of these charges to expense during our fiscal years 2000 to 2006. If an option is forfeited prior to vesting, we reverse both the charges amortized to expense in prior periods as well as any remaining unamortized deferred stock-based compensation associated with the forfeited options. Accordingly, our net stock-based compensation charges amortized to our statement of income are lower than the aggregate stock-based compensation charges based on APB 25 (intrinsic-value based). As of January 29, 2006, the remaining APB 25 (intrinsic value-based) unamortized deferred stock-based compensation related to the errors identified during the review was approximately $3.0 million.

The types of errors we identified were as follows:

Improper Measurement Dates forCompany-Wide Annual or Retention Stock Option Grants. We determined that, in connection with certain annual or retention stock option grants that we made to employees during our fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the final number of shares that an individual employee was entitled to receive was not determined and/or the proper approval of the related stock option grant had not been given until after the stated grant date. Therefore, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. In connection with stock option grants that we made to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during fiscal years 2001 and 2002, our practice was to grant stock options with an exercise price based upon the lowest closing price of our common stock in the last few days of the month of hire or the last few days of any subsequent month in the quarter of hire. The selection of the grant date of the related option grants would be made at the end of the fiscal quarter and was based on achieving the lowest exercise price for the affected employees. As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options.

Improper Measurement Dates for Stock Option Grants during Fiscal Year 2000. In connection with certain stock option grants to newly-hired employees (and, to a much lesser degree, retention grants to existing employees) during a portion of fiscal year 2000, our practice was to delay the selection of the related grant dates until the end of a two-month period in the fiscal quarter during which the employees who received the grants began their employment with NVIDIA. As a result of this practice, the exercise price of the related option grants was not determined until subsequent to the stated grant date. We also determined that, during fiscal year 2000, we generally set the grant date and exercise price of employee option grants for new hires and promotions at the lowest price of the last few business days of the month of their hire or promotion (or of the following month in certain two-month periods that were chosen for an indeterminate reason). As a result of these practices, the measurement date for such options for accounting purposes was actually subsequent to the stated grant date, resulting in new measurement dates for the related options. In addition, we also determined that the exercise price or the number of options to be granted had not been determined, or the proper approval had not been given, for various other miscellaneous option grants during fiscal year 2000 until after the stated grant date — resulting in new measurement dates for accounting purposes for the related options.

Other Issues Identified.We also identified instances where stock option grants did not comply with applicable terms and conditions of the stock plans from which the grants were issued. For example, two grants were made to officers of NVIDIA by the chief executive officer under delegated authority; however, under the terms of the applicable plan, the option grant should have been made by the our Board or the Compensation Committee. There were also instances where (1) option grants were made to a small group of employees who joined NVIDIA pursuant to a business combination, and to a few other employees in certain instances, with stated exercise prices below the fair market value of our common stock on the actual measurement date of the related grants; and (2) option grants were made to a few individuals who were contractors rather than employees, without recording the appropriate accounting charges. The accounting impact of these items was cumulatively less than $6.0 million. In addition, the Audit Committee did not find any evidence that these violations were committed for improper purposes.

 

38


Table of Contents

The Audit Committee carefully considered the involvement of current members of management in the option grant process and concluded that the evidence did not give rise to any concern about the integrity of any current officer or director of NVIDIA. The Audit Committee also found that the accounting errors and improper practices brought to light during their review were not motivated by any intent to mislead investors, improve NVIDIA’s reported financial results, or obtain any personal benefit. Based on its findings, the Audit Committee was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the integrity of former officers and employees.

As a result of the errors we identified, we have restated our historical financial statements from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006 to record $127.4 million of charges related to stock-based compensation and associated payroll tax expense, net of related income tax effects. These errors resulted in after-tax charges of $1.4 million, $11.7 million and $25.8 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the related after-tax charges for periods prior to our fiscal year ended January 25, 2004 was $88.4 million. These additional stock-based compensation expense charges were non-cash and had no impact on our reported revenue, cash, cash equivalents or marketable securities for each of the restated periods.

As part of the restatement, for the three month period ended April 30, 2006 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $1.1 million, a net benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $1.9 million, and associated income tax charges of $0.1 million. For the three month period ended May 1, 2005 we recorded incremental stock-based compensation charges of $2.5 million, a net benefit for payroll taxes resulting from the expiration of statute of limitations of $5.1 million, and associated income tax charges of $1.5 million.

For all periods through the end of our fiscal year 2006, we have recorded aggregate non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $190.2 million, associated payroll tax charges of $9.4 million and a related income tax benefit of $72.2 million.

As part of this restatement, we also accrued liabilities and recorded charges to operating costs and expenses for certain payroll tax contingencies related to the incremental stock-based compensation expense in the amount of $18.8 million for all annual periods from our fiscal year 2000 through our fiscal year 2006. We recorded such charges in the amount of $3.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.6 million for our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Upon expiration of the related statute of limitations, we also recorded benefits from the reversal of previously-recorded payroll tax liabilities of $6.6 million and $2.8 million in our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. As a result, the net benefit to our statements of income was $3.5 million and $1.5 million for our fiscal years 2006 and 2005, respectively. The cumulative payroll tax expense for periods prior to our fiscal year 2004 was $12.8 million. For those stock option grants that we determined to have incorrect measurement dates for accounting purposes and that we had originally issued as incentive stock options, or ISOs, we recorded a liability for payroll tax contingencies in the event such grants would not be respected as ISOs under the principles of the Internal Revenue Code, or IRC, and the regulations thereunder. These liabilities were recorded with a charge to operating costs and expenses.

We also considered the application of Section 409A of the IRC to certain stock option grants where, under APB 25, intrinsic value existed at the time of grant. In the event such stock options grants are not respected as issued at fair market value at the original grant date under principles of the IRC and the regulations thereunder and are subject to Section 409A, we are considering potential remedial actions that may be available. We do not expect to incur a material charge as a result of any such potential remedial actions.

As a result of the findings of the Audit Committee, we concluded that we needed to amend our Original Filing and restate our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 29, 2006, January 30, 2005, and January 25, 2004 and the related disclosures in an amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for our fiscal year ended January 29, 2006.

Management’s Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Internal Control over Stock Option Grant Practices

In assessing whether our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of April 30, 2006, management considered, among other things, the impact of the restatement of the financial statements for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the nature of the restatement as disclosed in Note 2 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the effectiveness of internal control in this area as of April 30, 2006.

Management’s Consideration of the Restatement

In coming to the conclusion that our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of January 29, 2006, management considered, among other things, the control deficiencies related to accounting for stock based compensation and the control environment. Management also considered the conclusions of the Audit Committee, following an extensive review of our past and current stock option grants and practices, that: (a) while NVIDIA used incorrect accounting measurement dates for certain stock option grants, as more fully discussed above, those errors were not a result of fraud; and (b) our option grant practices had improved significantly since May 2003. These control deficiencies resulted in the need to restate our previously-issued financial statements as disclosed in Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings”, of the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Management has concluded that the control deficiencies that resulted in the restatement of the previously-issued financial statements did not constitute a material weakness as of January 29, 2006 because management determined that as of January 29, 2006 there were effective controls designed and in place to prevent or detect a material misstatement and, therefore, the likelihood of our financial statements being materially misstated is remote.

Specifically, during our fiscal years 2003 through 2006, NVIDIA implemented new policies and processes to provide greater internal controls over our stock option grant approvals, including:

 

  enhanced processes surrounding Company-wide annual and semi-annual performance grants, especially pertaining to advanced planning, approval timelines, documentation, and communication;

 

  improved procedures related to the administration of option grants related to newly-hired employees;

 

  hiring of additional qualified personnel in the areas of financial accounting and reporting as well as legal;

 

  documentation and testing of key controls in the area of stock administration, including controls based in processes driven by our human resource department;

 

39


Table of Contents
  review and approval by the Compensation Committee of our stock option grant guidelines and policies;

 

  timely approval of stock option grants by the Compensation Committee;

 

  enhanced focus on the establishment of guidelines in order to achieve a high level of objectivity in the determination of stock option grants made to all employees; and

 

  increased review of our stock option grant plans and approval processes and documentation by our legal counsel.

Management has concluded therefore that the control deficiencies that resulted in the restatement of the previously issued financial statements did not constitute a material weakness as of January 29, 2006.

Audit Committee’s Recommended Further Measures Regarding Stock Option Grants

The Audit Committee noted that management had significantly improved our stock option grant practices since May 2003. However, the Audit Committee recommended, and our Board of Directors approved, the following best practices, which we intend to adopt, for consideration in light of its review into our past stock option grant processes:

 

  establish pre-determined grant dates for all stock option grants made by NVIDIA;

 

  the Compensation Committee should establish stock option grant budgets and guidelines on no less than an annual basis, to be reviewed on a semi-annual basis;

 

40


Table of Contents
  the Compensation Committee should be provided with enhanced support to ensure that its monitoring of the compliance by the Company with the Compensation Committee’s guidelines, the applicable stock plan terms and conditions, and the related accounting for stock option grants;

 

  our management should report quarterly to the Audit Committee regarding our stock option grant practices, including compliance with internal procedures, proper accounting principles, and applicable disclosure requirements;

 

  we should improve documentation of option grant approvals and approved grants should be promptly entered into our financial records and stock option database; and

 

  our stock administration personnel should continue to receive regular training.

Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Based on their evaluation as of April 30, 2006, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act) were effective to ensure that the material information required to be disclosed by us in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A was recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and instructions for Form 10-Q.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting during our last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls, will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within NVIDIA have been detected.

PART II: OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Please see Part I, Item 1, Note 14, “Litigation” and Note 17, “Subsequent Events Related to the Review of Stock Option Practices”, for discussion of our legal proceedings.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

An updated description of the risk factors associated with our business is set forth below. This description includes any material changes to and supersedes the description of risk factors associated with our business previously disclosed in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of our Form 10-K/A.

Business Risks

In evaluating NVIDIA and our business, the following factors should be considered in addition to the other information in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, or Form 10-Q/A. Any one of the following risks could seriously harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, which could cause our stock price to decline. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations.

Risks Related to Our Operations

The matters relating to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors’ review of our historical stock option granting practices and the restatement of our consolidated financial statements may result in future litigation, which could harm our financial results.

On August 10, 2006, NVIDIA announced that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, was conducting a review of our stock option practices covering the time from NVIDIA’s initial public offering in 1999 (our fiscal year 2000) through June 2006. As described in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, the  Audit Committee has reached a conclusion that incorrect measurement dates were used for financial accounting purposes for stock option grants in certain prior periods. As a result, NVIDIA has recorded additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense, and related tax effects, related to stock option grants.

 

41


Table of Contents

The Audit Committee’s review of NVIDIA’s stock option practices identified a number of occasions on which the measurement date used for financial accounting and reporting purposes for stock options granted to certain of our employees was different from the actual grant date. To correct these accounting errors, we amended our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 30, 2006 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended April 30, 2006, to restate the consolidated financial statements contained in those reports.

This review of our historical stock option granting practices has required us to incur substantial expenses for legal, accounting, tax and other professional services, has diverted our management’s attention from our business, and could in the future adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our historical stock option granting practices and the restatement of our prior financial statements have exposed us to greater risks associated with litigation and regulatory proceedings. As described in Part II, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings”, several derivative complaints have been filed pertaining to allegations relating to stock option grants. We cannot assure you that these or future similar complaints, or any future litigation or regulatory action will result in the same conclusions reached by the Audit Committee. The conduct and resolution of these matters will be time consuming, expensive and distracting from the conduct of our business.

We voluntarily contacted the SEC regarding the Audit Committee’s review and, as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q/A, the SEC is continuing the inquiry of our historical stock option grant practices it began in late August 2006. In October 2006, we met with the SEC and provided it with a review of the status of the Audit Committee’s review and in November 2006 we voluntarily provided the SEC with further documents. We plan to continue to cooperate with the SEC in its inquiry.

While we believe that we have made appropriate judgments in concluding the correct measurement dates for option grants, the SEC may disagree with the manner in which we have accounted for and reported, or not reported, the financial impact of past option grant measurement date errors, and there is a risk that its inquiry could lead to circumstances in which we may have to further restate our prior financial statements, amend prior SEC filings, or otherwise take other actions not currently contemplated. Any such circumstance could also lead to future delays in filing of our subsequent SEC reports and the delisting of our common stock from the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Furthermore, if we are subject to adverse findings in any of these matters, we could be required to pay damages or penalties or have other remedies imposed upon us which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Please see Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings” of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.

Because our gross margin for any period depends on a number of factors, our failure to forecast any change in such factors could adversely affect our gross margin.

We continue to pursue measures in an effort to improve our gross margin. Our gross margin for any period depends on a number of factors, such as: the mix of our products sold; average selling prices; introduction of new products; sales discounts; unexpected pricing actions by our competitors; the cost of product components; and the yield of wafers produced by the foundries that manufacture our products. If we incorrectly forecast the impact of any of the aforementioned factors on our business, we may be unable to take action in time to counteract any negative impact on our gross margin. In addition, if we are unable to meet our gross margin target for any period or the target set by analysts, the trading price of our common stock may decline.

Our failure to estimate customer demand properly may result in excess or obsolete inventory or, conversely, may result in inadequate inventory levels, either of which could adversely affect our financial results.

Our inventory purchases are based upon future demand forecasts, which may not accurately predict the quantity or type of our products that our customers will want in the future. In forecasting demand, we must make multiple assumptions any of which may prove to be incorrect. Situations that may result in excess or obsolete inventory, which could result in write-downs of the value of our inventory and/or a forced reduction in average selling prices, and where our gross margin could be adversely affected include:

 

  if there were a sudden and significant decrease in demand for our products;

 

  if there were a higher incidence of inventory obsolescence because of rapidly changing technology and customer requirements;

 

  if we fail to estimate customer demand properly for our older products as our newer products are introduced; or

 

  if our competition were to take unexpected competitive pricing actions.

Conversely, if we underestimate our customers’ demand for either our older or newer products, we may have inadequate manufacturing capability and may not be able to obtain sufficient inventory to fill our customers’ orders on a timely basis, which could adversely affect our revenue results. Even if we are able to increase production levels to meet customer demand, we may not be able to do so in a cost effective or timely manner. Inability to fill our customers' orders on a timely basis could damage our customer relationships, result in lost revenue, cause a loss in market share or damage our reputation.

 

42


Table of Contents

Because we order materials in advance of anticipated customer demand our ability to reduce our inventory purchase commitments quickly in response to any revenue shortfalls is limited.

Substantially all of our sales are made on the basis of purchase orders rather than long-term agreements. As a result, we may commit resources to the production of products without having received advance purchase commitments from customers. Any inability to sell products to which we have devoted significant resources could harm our business. In addition, cancellation or deferral of product orders could result in our holding excess inventory, which could adversely affect our gross margin and restrict our ability to fund operations. We may build inventories during periods of anticipated growth. Additionally, because we often sell a substantial portion of our products in the last month of each quarter and, therefore, we recognize a substantial portion of our revenue in the last month of each quarter, we may not be able to reduce our inventory purchase commitments in a timely manner in response to any revenue shortfalls. We could be subject to excess or obsolete inventories and be required to take corresponding inventory write-downs if growth slows or if we incorrectly forecast product demand, which could negatively impact our gross margin and financial results.

We are dependent on key personnel and the loss of these employees could negatively impact our business.

Our performance is substantially dependent on the performance of our executive officers and key employees. None of our executive officers or employees is bound by an employment agreement, meaning our relationships with our executive officers and employees are at will. We do not have “key person” life insurance policies on any of our employees. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers, technical personnel or other key employees, particularly Jen-Hsun Huang, our President and Chief Executive Officer, would harm our business. Our success will depend on our ability to identify, hire, train and retain highly qualified technical and managerial personnel. Our failure to attract and retain the necessary technical and managerial personnel would harm our business. The integration of new executives or personnel could disrupt our ongoing operations.

Failure to achieve expected manufacturing yields for existing and/or new products could reduce our gross margin and could adversely affect our ability to compete effectively.

Semiconductor manufacturing yields are a function both of product design, which is developed largely by us, and process technology, which typically is proprietary to the manufacturer. Since low yields may result from either design or process technology failures, yield problems may not be effectively determined or resolved until an actual product exists that can be analyzed and tested to identify process sensitivities relating to the design rules that are used. As a result, yield problems may not be identified until well into the production process. Resolution of yield problems requires cooperation by and communication between us and the manufacturer.

Because of our potentially limited access to wafer fabrication capacity from our manufacturers, any decrease in manufacturing yields could result in an increase in our per unit costs and force us to allocate our available product supply among our customers. This could potentially harm customer relationships, our reputation, our revenue and our gross profit. Our wafer manufacturers may be unable to achieve or maintain acceptable manufacturing yields in the future. Our inability to achieve planned yields from our wafer manufacturers could reduce our gross margin. We also face the risk of product recalls or product returns resulting from design or manufacturing defects that are not discovered during the manufacturing and testing process. A significant number of product returns due to a defect or recall could damage our reputation and result in our customers working with our competitors.

To stay competitive, we may have to invest more resources in research and development than anticipated, which could increase our operating expenses and negatively impact our operating results.

If new competitors, technological advances by existing competitors or other competitive factors require us to invest significantly greater resources than anticipated in research and development efforts, our operating expenses would increase. We have substantially increased our engineering and technical resources and have 1,997 full-time employees engaged in research and development as of April 30, 2006, compared to 1,654 employees as of January 29, 2006. Research and development expenditures were $123.2 million and $87.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, respectively. Research and development expenses for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 included $14.4 million related to non-cash stock-based compensation, net of associated payroll taxes, which we recorded in that quarter as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). If we are required to invest significantly greater resources than anticipated in research and development efforts without an increase in revenue, our operating results could decline. In order to remain competitive, we anticipate that we will continue to devote substantial resources to research and development, and we expect these expenses to increase in absolute dollars in the foreseeable future due to the increased complexity and the greater number of products under development as well as hiring additional employees. Research and development expenses are likely to fluctuate from time to time to the extent we make periodic incremental investments in research and development and these investments may be independent of our level of revenue.

 

43


Table of Contents

Our operating expenses are relatively fixed and we may have limited ability to reduce operating expenses quickly in response to any revenue shortfalls.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, our operating expenses, which are comprised of research and development expenses and sales, general and administrative expenses, represented 27.5% of our total revenue as compared to 22.4% of our total revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2006. Operating expenses for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 included $20.9 million related to non-cash stock-based compensation, net of associated payroll taxes, which we recorded in that quarter as a result of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). Since we often recognize a substantial portion of our revenue in the last month of each quarter, we may not be able to adjust our operating expenses in a timely manner in response to any revenue shortfalls. If we are unable to reduce operating expenses quickly in response to any revenue shortfalls, our financial results would be negatively impacted.

Failure to transition to new manufacturing process technologies could adversely affect our operating results and gross margin.

Our strategy is to utilize the most advanced manufacturing process technology appropriate for our products and available from commercial third-party foundries. Use of advanced processes may have greater risk of initial yield problems and higher product cost. Manufacturing process technologies are subject to rapid change and require significant expenditures for research and development. We continuously evaluate the benefits of migrating to smaller geometry process technologies in order to improve performance and reduce costs. We currently use 0.15 micron, 0.14 micron, 0.13 micron, 0.11 micron, and 90 nanometer process technologies for our families of GPUs, MCPs and Handheld GPUs.

We have experienced difficulty in migrating to new manufacturing processes in the past and, consequently, have suffered reduced yields, delays in product deliveries and increased expense levels. We may face similar difficulties, delays and expenses as we continue to transition our products to smaller geometry processes. Moreover, we are dependent on our relationships with our third-party manufacturers to migrate to smaller geometry processes successfully. The inability by us or our third-party manufacturers to effectively and efficiently transition to new manufacturing process technologies may adversely affect our operating results and our gross margin.

Our operating results are unpredictable and may fluctuate, and if our operating results are below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our stock could decline.

Many of our revenue components fluctuate and are difficult to predict, and our operating expenses are largely independent of revenue in any particular period. It is, therefore, difficult for us to accurately forecast revenue and profits or losses. As a result, it is possible that in some quarters our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline, perhaps substantially. We believe that our quarterly and annual results of operations may continue to be affected by a variety of factors that could harm our revenue, gross profit and results of operations.

Any one or more of the factors discussed in this Form 10-Q/A or other factors could prevent us from achieving our expected future revenue or net income. Accordingly, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. In addition, the results of any quarterly or full fiscal year period are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for a subsequent quarter or a full fiscal year.

Risks Related to Our Products

If we are unable to achieve design wins, our products may not be adopted by our target markets and customers either of which could negatively impact our financial results.

The future success of our business depends to a significant extent on our ability to develop new competitive products for our target markets and customers. We believe achieving design wins, which entails having our existing and future products chosen for hardware components or subassemblies designed by PC OEMs, ODMs, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers, will aid our future success. Our OEM, ODM, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers’ customers typically introduce new system configurations as often as twice per year, typically based on spring and fall design cycles. Accordingly, when our customers are making their design decisions, our existing products must have competitive performance levels or we must timely introduce new products in order to be included in new system configurations. This requires that we do the following:

 

  anticipate the features and functionality that customers and consumers will demand;

 

  incorporate those features and functionalities into products that meet the exacting design requirements of OEMs, ODMs, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers;

 

44


Table of Contents
  price our products competitively; and

 

  introduce products to the market within the limited design cycle for OEMs, ODMs, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers.

If OEMs, ODMs, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers do not include our products in their systems, they will typically not use our products in their design systems until at least the next design configuration. Therefore, we endeavor to develop close relationships with our OEMs and ODMs in an attempt to allow us to better anticipate and address customer needs in new products so that our products will achieve design wins.

Our ability to achieve design wins also depends in part on our ability to identify and be compliant with evolving industry standards. Unanticipated changes in industry standards could render our products incompatible with products developed by major hardware manufacturers and software developers, including AMD, Intel and Microsoft. Such changes would require us to invest significant time and resources to redesign our products to be compliant with relevant standards. If our products are not in compliance with prevailing industry standards for a significant period of time, our ability to achieve design wins could suffer. If we are unable to achieve new design wins for existing or new customers, we may lose market share and our operating results would be negatively impacted.

Achievement of design wins may not result in the success of our products and could result in a loss of market share.

The process of being qualified for inclusion in an OEM product can be lengthy and could cause us to miss a cycle in the demand of end users for a particular product feature, which also could result in a loss of market share and harm our business. Even if we do have design wins for OEM and ODM products, we may not be able to successfully develop or introduce new products in sufficient volumes within the appropriate time to meet both the OEM, ODM, add-in board and motherboard manufacturers’ design cycles as well as other market demand. Additionally, even if we achieve a significant number of design wins, there can be no assurance that our OEM and ODM customers will actually take the design to production or that the design will be commercially successful. Furthermore, there may be changes in the timing of product orders due to unexpected delays in the introduction of our customers’ products that could negatively impact the success of our products. Any of these factors could result in a loss of market share and could negatively impact our financial results.

Our business results could be adversely affected if our product development efforts are unsuccessful.

We have in the past experienced delays in the development of some new products. Any delay in the future or failure of our GPUs or other processors to meet or exceed specifications of competitive products could materially harm our business. The success of our new product introductions will depend on many factors, including the following:

 

  proper new product definition;

 

  timely completion and introduction of new product designs;

 

  the ability of third-party manufacturers to effectively manufacture our new products in a timely manner;

 

  dependence on third-party subcontractors for assembly, testing and packaging of our products and in meeting product delivery schedules and maintaining product quality;

 

45


Table of Contents
  the quality of any new products;

 

  differentiation of new products from those of our competitors;

 

  market acceptance of our products and our customers' products; and

 

  availability of adequate quantity and configurations of various types of memory products.

A critical component of our product development effort is our partnerships with leaders in the computer aided design, or CAD, industry. We have invested significant resources to develop relationships with industry leaders, including Cadence Design Systems, Inc. and Synopsys, Inc., often assisting these companies in the product definition of their new products. We believe that forming these relationships and utilizing next-generation development tools to design, simulate and verify our products will help us remain at the forefront of the 3D graphics, communications and networking segments and develop products that utilize leading-edge technology on a rapid basis. We believe this approach assists us in meeting the new design schedules of PC OEMs and other manufacturers. If these relationships are not successful, we may not be able to develop new products in a timely manner, which could result in a loss of market share, a decrease in revenue and a negative impact on our operating results. Our failure to successfully develop, introduce or achieve market acceptance for new processors would harm our business.

Our failure to identify new market or product opportunities, or develop new products could harm our business.

As our GPUs or other processors develop and competition increases, we anticipate that product life cycles at the high end will remain short and average selling prices will decline. In particular, we expect average selling prices and gross margins for our processors to decline as each product matures and as unit volume increases. As a result, we will need to introduce new products and enhancements to existing products to maintain or improve overall average selling prices and gross margins. In order for our processors to achieve high volumes, leading PC OEMs, ODMs, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers must select our processor for design into their products, and then successfully complete the designs of their products and sell them. We may be unable to successfully identify new product opportunities or to develop and bring to market new products in a timely fashion. In addition, we cannot guarantee that new products we develop will be selected for design into PC OEMs’, ODMs’, and add-in board and motherboard manufacturers’ products, that any new designs will be successfully completed, or that any new products will be sold.

As the complexity of our products and the manufacturing process for our products increases, there is an increasing risk that we will experience problems with the performance of our products and that there will be delays in the development, introduction or volume shipment of our products. We may experience difficulties related to the production of current or future products or other factors that may delay the introduction or volume sale of new products we develop. In addition, we may be unable to successfully manage the production transition risks with respect to future products. Failure to achieve any of the foregoing with respect to future products or product enhancements could result in rapidly declining average selling prices, reduced margins and reduced demand for products or loss of market share. In addition, technologies developed by others may render our processors non-competitive or obsolete or result in our holding excess inventory, any of which would harm our business.

We could suffer a loss of market share if our products contain significant defects.

Products as complex as those we offer may contain defects or experience failures when introduced or when new versions or enhancements to existing products are released. We have in the past discovered defects and incompatibilities with customers’ hardware in some of our products and may experience delays or loss of revenue to correct any defects or incompatibilities in the future. Errors in new products or releases after commencement of commercial shipments could result in failure to achieve market acceptance or loss of design wins. Our products typically go through only one verification cycle prior to beginning volume production and distribution. As a result, our products may contain defects or flaws that are undetected prior to volume production and distribution. If these defects or flaws exist and are not detected prior to volume production and distribution, we may be required to reimburse customers for costs to repair or replace the affected products in the field. We may also be required to incur additional research and development costs to find and correct the defect, which could divert the attention of our management and engineers from the development of new products. These costs could be significant and could adversely affect our business and operating results. We may also suffer a loss of reputation and/or a loss in our market share, either of which could materially harm our financial results.

Risks Related to Our Partners and Customers

There can be no assurance that the PlayStation3 will achieve long term commercial success.

In April 2005, we finalized our definitive agreement with SCE to jointly develop a custom GPU incorporating our next-generation GeForce GPU and SCE’s system solutions in SCE’s PlayStation3. Our collaboration with SCE includes license fees and royalties for the PlayStation3 and all derivatives, including next-generation digital consumer electronics devices. In addition, we are licensing software development tools for creating shaders and advanced graphics capabilities to SCE. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recognized $23.4 million of revenue from our contractual arrangements with SCE. Depending on the ultimate success of this next-generation platform, we expect to generate up to $100 million in revenue annually from license fees and royalties over the next five years, with the possibility of additional royalties for several years thereafter. There can be no assurance that the PlayStation3 will achieve long term commercial success, given the intense competition in the game console market. Additionally, we do not have control over the launch date or pricing of the Playstation3. As such, we do not have control over when we will receive royalties. If we do not receive royalties as we anticipate, our revenue and gross margin may be adversely affected.

 

46


Table of Contents

We may not be able to realize the potential financial or strategic benefits of business acquisitions, which could hurt our ability to grow our business, develop new products or sell our products.

In the past we have acquired and invested in other businesses that offered products, services and technologies that we believed would help expand or enhance our products and services or help expand our distribution channels. We may enter into future acquisitions of, or investments in, businesses, in order to complement or expand our current businesses or enter into a new business market. For example, in February 2006 we completed the acquisition of ULi for $53.1 million paid in cash, and in March 2006 we completed the acquisition of Hybrid Graphics for $36.7 million paid in cash. If we do consider other acquisitions, a strategic alliance or a joint venture, the negotiations could divert management’s attention as well as other resources. For any previous or future acquisition or investment, including ULi and Hybrid Graphics, the following risks could impair our ability to grow our business and develop new products, and ultimately, could impair our ability to sell our products, which could negatively impact our growth or our financial results:

 

  difficulty in combining the technology, products, operations or workforce of the acquired business with our business;

 

  disruption of our ongoing businesses:

 

  difficulty in realizing the potential financial or strategic benefits of the transaction;

 

  diversion of management’s attention from our business;

 

  difficulty in maintaining uniform standards, controls, procedures and policies;

 

  disruption of or delays in ongoing research and development efforts;

 

  diversion of capital and other resources;

 

  assumption of liabilities;

 

  diversion of resources and unanticipated expenses resulting from litigation arising from potential or actual business acquisitions or investments;

 

  difficulties in entering into new markets in which we have limited or no experience and where competitors in such markets have stronger positions; and

 

  impairment of relationships with employees and customers, or the loss of any of our key employees or of our target’s key employees, as a result of the integration of new businesses and management personnel.

In addition, the consideration for any future acquisition could be paid in cash, shares of our common stock, the issuance of convertible debt securities or a combination of cash, convertible debt and common stock. If we pay all or a portion of the purchase price in cash, our cash reserves would be reduced. If the consideration is paid with shares of our common stock, or convertible debentures, the holdings of our existing stockholders would be diluted. We cannot forecast the number, timing or size of future acquisitions, or the effect that any such acquisitions might have on our operations or financial results.

We sell our products to a small number of customers and our business could suffer by the loss of any of these customers.

We have only a limited number of customers and our sales are highly concentrated. Sales to our largest customer accounted for approximately 14% of our revenue during the first quarter of fiscal 2007. Although a small number of our other customers represents the majority of our revenue, their end customers include a large number of OEMs and system integrators throughout the world who, in many cases, specify the graphics supplier. Our sales process involves achieving key design wins with leading PC OEMs and major system builders and supporting the product design into high volume production with key CEMs, ODMs, motherboard and add-in board manufacturers. These design wins in turn influence the retail and system builder channel that is serviced by CEMs, ODMs, motherboard and add-in board manufacturers. Our distribution strategy is to work with a small number of leading independent CEMs, ODMs, motherboard manufacturers, add-in board manufacturers and distributors, each of which has relationships with a broad range of system builders and leading PC OEMs. If we were to lose sales to our PC OEMs, CEMs, ODMs, motherboard and add-in board manufacturers and were unable to replace the lost sales with sales to different customers, or if they were to significantly reduce the number of products they order from us, our revenue may not reach or exceed the expected level in any period, which could harm our financial condition and our results of operations.

We depend on foundries and independent contractors to manufacture our products and these third parties may not be able to satisfy our manufacturing requirements, which would harm our business.

We do not manufacture the semiconductor wafers used for our products and do not own or operate a wafer fabrication facility. Our products require wafers manufactured with state-of-the-art fabrication equipment and techniques. We utilize industry-leading suppliers, such as Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, or Chartered, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, or TSMC, and United Microelectronics Corporation, or UMC, to produce our semiconductor wafers and utilize independent subcontractors

 

47


Table of Contents

We are dependent on third parties located outside of the United States for assembly, testing and packaging of our products, which reduces our control over the delivery and quantity of our products.

Our processors are assembled and tested by independent subcontractors, such as Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Amkor Technology Inc., King Yuan Electronics Co., LTD, Siliconware Precision Industries Company Ltd., and STATS ChipPAC Incorporated, all of which are located outside of the United States. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these subcontractors. As a result of our dependence on third-party subcontractors for assembly, testing and packaging of our products, we do not directly control product delivery schedules or product quality. Demand for qualified independent subcontractors to assemble and test products is high. If demand for these subcontractors exceeds the number of qualified subcontractors, we may experience capacity constraints, which could result in product shortages, a decrease in the quality of our products or an increase in product cost. Any of our subcontractors may decide to prioritize the orders of one of our competitors over our orders. Any product shortages, quality assurance problems or political instability outside of the United States could increase the costs of manufacture, assembly or testing of our products, which could cause our gross margin to decline. Due to the amount of time typically required to qualify assemblers and testers, we could experience significant delays in the shipment of our products if we are required to find alternative third parties to assemble or test our products or components. Any such delays could result in a loss of reputation or a decrease in sales to our customers.

As we continue to work directly with more foreign customers, any difficulties in collecting accounts receivable could harm our operating results and financial condition.

Our accounts receivable are highly concentrated and make us vulnerable to adverse changes in our customers' businesses and to downturns in the economy and the industry. In addition, difficulties in collecting accounts receivable or the loss of any significant customer could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. We continue to work directly with more foreign customers and it may be difficult to collect accounts receivable from them. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. This allowance consists of an amount identified for specific customers and an amount based on overall estimated exposure. In addition, we purchase credit insurance on selected customers’ accounts receivable balances in an effort to further mitigate our exposure for such losses. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional allowances may be required, we may be required to defer revenue recognition on sales to affected customers and we may be required to pay higher credit insurance premiums, which could adversely affect our operating results. We may have to record additional reserves or write-offs and/or defer revenue on certain sales transactions in the future, which could negatively impact our financial results.

We rely on third-party vendors to supply software development tools to us for the development of our new products and we may be unable to obtain the tools necessary to develop or enhance new or existing products.

When we design and develop new products or product enhancements, we rely on third-party software development tools to assist us in the design, simulation and verification of new products or enhancements to existing products. Although we currently are not dependent on any one vendor for the supply of these tools, some or all of these tools may not be readily available in the future. Additionally, the software development tools available at the time that we are designing, simulating or verifying a product may not be sophisticated enough or technologically advanced enough for our purposes. For example, we have experienced delays in the introduction of products in the past as a result of the inability of then available software development tools to fully simulate the complex features and functionalities of our products. Therefore, the design requirements necessary to meet consumer demands for more features and greater functionality from our processors in the future may exceed the capabilities of the software development tools that are available to us. If the software development tools we use become unavailable or fail to produce designs that meet consumer demands, we may miss design cycles or lose design wins either of which could result in a loss of market share, a decrease in revenue or negatively impact our operating results.

Risks Related to Our Competition

The market for GPU, MCP, and Handheld GPUs is highly competitive and we may be unable to compete.

The market for GPUs, MCPs and Handheld GPUs is intensely competitive and is characterized by rapid technological change, evolving industry standards and declining average selling prices. We believe that the principal competitive factors in this market are performance, breadth of product offerings, access to customers and distribution channels, backward-forward software support, conformity to industry standard application programming interfaces, manufacturing capabilities, price of processors and total system costs of add-in boards and motherboards. We believe that our ability to remain competitive will depend on how well we are able to anticipate the features and functions that customers will demand and whether we are able to deliver consistent volumes of our products at acceptable levels of quality. We expect competition to increase both from existing competitors and new market entrants with products that may be less costly than ours, or may provide better performance or additional features not provided by our products, which could harm our business.

 

48


Table of Contents

An additional significant source of competition is from companies that provide or intend to provide GPU, MCP, and Handheld GPU solutions. Some of our competitors may have or be able to obtain greater marketing, financial, distribution and manufacturing resources than we do and may be more able to adapt to customer or technological changes. Our current competitors include the following:

 

  suppliers of GPUs, including MCPs that incorporate 3D graphics functionality as part of their existing solutions, such as ATI, Intel, Silicon Integrated Systems, Inc., or SIS, VIA Technologies, Inc., or VIA, and XGI Technology Inc.;

 

  suppliers of discrete MCPs that incorporate a combination of networking, audio, communications and input/output, or I/O, functionality as part of their existing solutions, such as ATI Technologies, Inc., or ATI, Broadcom Corporation, or Broadcom, Intel, SIS, and VIA; and

 

  suppliers of GPUs or GPU intellectual property that incorporate advanced graphics functionality as part of their existing solutions, such as ATI, Bitboys, Broadcom, Fujitsu Limited, Imagination Technologies Ltd., NEC Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, Renesas Technology Corp., Seiko-Epson, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Toshiba America, Inc.

If and to the extent we offer products outside of the consumer and enterprise PC, notebook, workstation, PDA, cellular phone, and video game console markets, we may face competition from some of our existing competitors as well as from companies with which we currently do not compete. We cannot accurately predict if we will compete successfully in any new markets we may enter. If we are unable to compete in our current and any new markets, our financial results will suffer.

As Intel continues to pursue platform solutions, we may not be able to successfully compete.

We expect substantial competition from Intel’s strategy of selling platform solutions, such as when Intel achieved success with its Centrino platform solution. In addition to the Centrino notebook platform solution, it has announced a desktop initiative branded as VIIV, and we expect that Intel will extend this strategy to other segments including professional workstations and servers. To the extent Intel is successful with this strategy, we may not be able to successfully compete in these segments.

Risks Related to Market Conditions

We are subject to risks associated with international operations which may harm our business.

A significant portion of our semiconductor wafers are manufactured, assembled, tested and packaged by third-parties located outside of the United States. Additionally, we generated 85% and 83% of revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 and 2006, respectively, from sales to customers outside the United States and other Americas. The manufacture, assembly, test and packaging of our products outside of the United States and sales to customers outside of the United States and other Americas subjects us to a number of risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States and other Americas, including, but not limited to:

 

  international economic and political conditions;

 

  unexpected changes in, or impositions of, legislative or regulatory requirements;

 

  labor issues in foreign countries;

 

  cultural differences in the conduct of business;

 

  inadequate local infrastructure;

 

  delays resulting from difficulty in obtaining export licenses for certain technology, tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers and restrictions;

 

  transportation delays;

 

  longer payment cycles;

 

49


Table of Contents
  difficulty in collecting accounts receivable;

 

  fluctuations in currency exchange rates;

 

  imposition of additional taxes and penalties;

 

  different legal standards with respect to protection of intellectual property;

 

  the burdens of complying with a variety of foreign laws; and

 

  other factors beyond our control, including terrorism, civil unrest, war and diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Avian flu.

If sales to any of our customers outside of the United States and other Americas are delayed or cancelled because of any of the above factors, our revenue may be negatively impacted.

We have offices outside of the United States, including offices in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, India, France, Russia, Germany, and England. We also have a subsidiary in Finland. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we added 333 international employees to our international operations. Our operations in our international locations are subject to many of the risks contained in the above list. We intend to continue to expand our international operations and expect to open other international offices. Difficulties with our international operations, including finding appropriate staffing and office space, may divert management’s attention and other resources any of which could negatively impact our operating results.

Currently, all of our arrangements with third-party manufacturers and subcontractors provide for pricing and payment in United States dollars as are sales to our customers located outside of the United States and other Americas. Increases in the value of the United States’ dollar relative to other currencies would make our products more expensive, which would negatively impact our ability to compete. Conversely, decreases in the value of the United States’ dollar relative to other currencies could result in our suppliers raising their prices in order to continue doing business with us. To date, we have not engaged in any currency hedging activities, although we may do so in the future. Fluctuations in currency exchange rates could harm our business in the future.

We are dependent on the PC market and the rate of its growth has and may in the future have a negative impact on our business.

We derive the majority of our revenue from the sale of products for use in the desktop PC and notebook PC markets, including professional workstations. We expect to continue to derive most of our revenue from the sale or license of products for use in the desktop PC and notebook PC markets in the next several years. A reduction in sales of PCs, or a reduction in the growth rate of PC sales, will reduce demand for our products. Moreover, changes in demand could be large and sudden. Since PC manufacturers often build inventories during periods of anticipated growth, they may be left with excess inventories if growth slows or if they incorrectly forecast product transitions. In these cases, PC manufacturers may abruptly suspend substantially all purchases of additional inventory from suppliers like us until their excess inventory has been absorbed, which would have a negative impact on our business.

If our products do not continue to be adopted by the consumer and enterprise PC, notebook, workstation, PDA, cellular phone, and video game console markets or if the demand in these markets for new and innovative products decreases, our business and operating results would suffer.

Our success depends in part upon continued broad adoption of our processors for 3D graphics in consumer and enterprise PC, notebook, workstation, PDA, cellular phone, and video game console applications. The market for processors has been characterized by unpredictable and sometimes rapid shifts in the popularity of products, often caused by the publication of competitive industry benchmark results, changes in pricing of dynamic random-access memory devices and other changes in the total system cost of add-in boards, as well as by severe price competition and by frequent new technology and product introductions. Only a small number of products have achieved broad market acceptance and such market acceptance, if achieved, is difficult to sustain due to intense competition and frequent new technology and product introductions. Since the GPU Business is our core business, our financial results would suffer if for any reason our current or future GPUs do not continue to achieve widespread adoption by the PC market. If we are unable to complete the timely development of products or if we were unable to successfully and cost-effectively manufacture and deliver products that meet the requirements of the consumer and enterprise PC, notebook, workstation, PDA, cellular phone, and video game console markets, we may experience a decrease in revenue which could negatively impact our operating results. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the industry will continue to demand new products with improved standards, features or performance. If our customers, such as OEMs, ODMs, add-in-card manufacturers, system builders and consumer electronics companies, do not continue to design products that require more advanced or efficient processors and/or the market does not continue to demand new products with increased performance, features, functionality or standards, sales of our products could decline.

 

50


Table of Contents

Our failure to comply with any applicable environmental regulations could result in a range of consequences, including fines, suspension of production, excess inventory, sales limitations, and criminal and civil liabilities.

We may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products and making producers of those products financially responsible for the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of those products. For example, the semiconductor industry is moving towards becoming compliant with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, or RoHS Directive, which will become effective in July 2006. The RoHS Directive is European legislation that restricts the use of a number of substances, including lead. Similarly, the State of California has adopted certain restrictions, which go into effect in 2007, that restrict the use of certain materials in electronic products, that are intended to harmonize with the RoHS directive and other states are contemplating similar legislation. China has promulgated use restrictions on the same substances as the RoHS directive, but has not yet defined either the scope of the affected products or an effective date of any such restrictions.

Also, we could face significant costs and liabilities in connection with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, or WEEE. The WEEE directs members of the European Union to enact laws, regulations, and administrative provisions to ensure that producers of electric and electronic equipment are financially responsible for the collection, recycling, treatment and environmentally responsible disposal of certain products sold into the market after August 15, 2005 and from products in use prior to that date that are being replaced. We continue to evaluate the impact of specific registration and compliance activities required by WEEE. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, China and Japan, the cumulative impact of which could be significant.

It is possible that unanticipated supply shortages, delays or excess non-compliant inventory may occur as a result of such regulations. Failure to comply with any applicable environmental regulations could result in a range of consequences including fines, suspension of production, excess inventory, sales limitations, and criminal and civil liabilities.

Our business is cyclical in nature and an industry downturn could harm our financial results.

Our business is directly affected by market conditions in the highly cyclical semiconductor industry, including alternating periods of overcapacity and capacity constraints, variations in manufacturing costs and yields, significant expenditures for capital equipment and product development and rapid technological change. If we are unable to respond to changes in our industry, which can be unpredictable and rapid, in an efficient and timely manner, our operating results could suffer. In particular, from time to time, the semiconductor industry has experienced significant and sometimes prolonged downturns characterized by diminished product demand and accelerated erosion of average selling prices. If we cannot take appropriate actions such as reducing our manufacturing or operating costs to sufficiently offset declines in demand during a downturn, our revenue and earnings will suffer.

Risks Related to Government Action, Regulatory Action, Intellectual Property, and Litigation

Expensing employee stock options materially and aversely affects our reported operating results and could adversely affect our competitive position as well.

Since inception, we have used stock options and our employee stock purchase program as fundamental components of our compensation packages. We believe that these incentives directly motivate our employees and, through the use of vesting, encourage our employees to remain with us. As a result of adjustments arising from our restatement described in Note 2, “Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements, Audit Committee and Company Findings,” of the Notes to our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, our operating results contain recorded amounts of stock-based compensation expense. For our fiscal years 2000 through 2006, this stock-based compensation expense was calculated using primarily the intrinsic value-based method under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, or APB 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees and related interpretations. In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment, which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based compensation payments. Although the SEC delayed the effective date of SFAS No. 123(R), it is now effective. SFAS No. 123(R) requires that we record compensation expense for stock options and our employee stock purchase plan using the fair value of those awards. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we recorded $22.2 million related to stock-based compensation, net of associated payroll tax, which negatively impacted our operating results. We believe that SFAS No. 123(R) will continue to negatively impact our operating results.

To the extent that SFAS No. 123(R) makes it more expensive to grant stock options or to continue to have an employee stock purchase program, we may decide to incur increased cash compensation costs. In addition, actions that we may take to reduce stock-based compensation expense that may be more severe than any actions our competitors may implement may make it difficult to attract, retain and motivate employees, which could adversely affect our competitive position as well as our business and operating results.

 

51


Table of Contents

We are currently involved in patent litigation, which, if not resolved favorably, could require us to pay damages.

We are currently involved in patent litigation. On October 19, 2004, Opti Incorporated, or Opti, filed a complaint for patent infringement against NVIDIA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In its complaint, Opti asserted that unspecified NVIDIA chipsets infringe five United States patents held by Opti. Opti seeks unspecified damages for our alleged conduct, attorneys’ fees and triple damages for alleged willful infringement by NVIDIA. We filed a response to this complaint in December 2004. A case management conference was held in July 2005 where a trial date was set for July 2006. A court mandated mediation was held in January 2006 and did not resolve the matter. The discovery period formally ended on May 6, 2006. On April 13, 2006, a Markman hearing took place and on April 24, 2006, the District Court issued a ruling adopting Opti's proposed construction on 13 of the 15 terms at issue. In May 2006, Opti dropped two of the five United States patents that it alleged that NVIDIA infringes. We continue to prepare for trial. We believe the claims asserted against us are without merit and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.

Our defenses against Opti may be unsuccessful. If this case continues to move forward, or if other patent litigation matters involving us arise, we expect that they will result in additional legal and other costs, regardless of the outcome, which could be substantial.

Our industry is characterized by vigorous protection and pursuit of intellectual property rights and positions which could result in significant expense.

The semiconductor industry is characterized by vigorous protection and pursuit of intellectual property rights and positions, which have resulted in protracted and expensive litigation. The graphics processor industry, in particular, has been recently characterized by the aggressive pursuit of intellectual property positions, and we expect our competitors and others will continue to aggressively pursue intellectual property positions. The technology that we use to design and develop our products and that is incorporated into our products may be subject to claims that it infringes the patents or intellectual property rights of others. Our success is dependent on our ability to develop new products without infringing or misappropriating the intellectual property rights of others or by licensing the intellectual property of third parties. As such, we have licensed technology from third parties for incorporation into our products, and expect to continue to enter into license agreements with third parties for future products. These licenses may result in royalty payments to third parties, the cross licensing of technology by us or payment of other consideration. If these arrangements are not concluded on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our competitive position and our business could suffer.

Our ability to compete will be harmed if we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property.

We rely primarily on a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secrets, employee and third-party nondisclosure agreements and licensing arrangements to protect our intellectual property in the United States and internationally. We have numerous patents issued, allowed and pending in the United States and in foreign countries. Our patents and pending patent applications relate to technology used by us in connection with our products, including our processors. We also rely on international treaties and organizations and foreign laws to protect our intellectual property. The laws of certain foreign countries in which our products are or may be manufactured or sold, including various countries in Asia, may not protect our products or intellectual property rights to the same extent as by the laws of the United States. This makes the possibility of piracy of our technology and products more likely. We continuously assess whether and where to seek formal protection for particular innovations and technologies based on such factors as the:

 

  commercial significance of our operations and our competitors’ operations in particular countries and regions;

 

  location in which our products are manufactured;

 

  our strategic technology or product directions in different countries; and

 

  degree to which intellectual property laws exist and are meaningfully enforced in different jurisdictions.

Our pending patent applications and any future applications may not be approved. In addition, any issued patents may not provide us with competitive advantages or may be challenged by third parties. The enforcement of patents by others may harm our ability to conduct our business. Others may independently develop substantially equivalent intellectual property or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or intellectual property. Our failure to effectively protect our intellectual property could harm our business.

 

52


Table of Contents

Litigation to defend against alleged infringement of intellectual property rights or to enforce our intellectual property rights and the outcome of such litigation could result in substantial costs to us.

From time to time we receive notices or are included in legal actions alleging that we have infringed patents or other intellectual property rights owned by third parties. We expect that as the number of issued hardware and software patents increases and as competition in our product lines intensifies, the volume of intellectual property infringement claims may increase. We may become involved in future lawsuits or other legal proceedings alleging

 

  assert claims of infringement;

 

  enforce our patents

 

  protect our trade secrets or know-how; or

 

  determine the enforceability, scope and validity of the propriety rights of others.

If infringement claims are made against us, we may seek licenses under the claimants’ patents or other intellectual property rights. In addition, we or an indemnified customer may be required to obtain a license to a third parties’ patents or intellectual property. However, licenses may not be offered to us at all or on terms acceptable to us, particularly by competitors. If we fail to obtain a license from a third party for technology that we use or that is used in one of our products used by an indemnified customer, we could be subject to substantial liabilities or have to suspend or discontinue the manufacture and sale of one or more of our products either of which could reduce our revenue and harm our business. Furthermore, the indemnification of a customer may increase our operating expenses which could negatively impact our operating results.

Alternatively, we may initiate claims or litigation against third parties for infringement of our proprietary rights or to establish the validity of our proprietary rights, which could be costly. If we have to initiate a claim, our operating expenses may increase which could negatively impact our operating results. Additionally, if one of our patents is invalidated or found to be unenforceable, we would be unable to license the patent which could result in a loss of revenue.

Regardless of the outcome, litigation or negotiations involving intellectual property rights can be very costly and can divert management’s attention from other matters. We may be unsuccessful in defending or pursuing these lawsuits or claims. An unfavorable ruling could include significant damages, invalidation of a patent or family of patents, indemnification of customers, payment of lost profits, or, when it has been sought, injunctive relief.

Our operating results may be adversely affected if we are subject to unexpected tax liabilities.

We are subject to taxation by a number of taxing authorities both in the United States and throughout the world. Tax rates vary among the jurisdictions in which we operate. Significant judgment is required in determining our provision for our income taxes as there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, any of the below could cause our effective tax rate to be materially different than that which is reflected in historical income tax provisions and accruals:

 

  the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed;

 

  adjustments to estimated taxes upon finalization of various tax returns;

 

  changes in available tax credits;

 

  changes in share-based compensation expense;

 

  changes in tax laws, the interpretation of tax laws either in the United States or abroad or the issuance of new interpretative accounting guidance related to uncertain transactions and calculations where the tax treatment was previously uncertain; and

 

  the resolution of issues arising from tax audits with various tax authorities.

Should additional taxes be assessed as a result of any of the above, our operating results could be adversely affected.

 

53


Table of Contents

While we believe that we currently have adequate internal control over financial reporting, we are exposed to risks from legislation requiring companies to evaluate those internal controls.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires our management to report on, and our independent registered public accounting firm to attest to, the effectiveness of our internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. We have an ongoing program to perform the system and process evaluation and testing necessary to comply with these requirements. This legislation is relatively new and neither companies nor accounting firms

Risks Related to our Common Stock

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and our agreement with Microsoft could delay or prevent a change in control.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock. These provisions include the following:

 

  the ability of the board of directors to create and issue preferred stock without prior stockholder approval;

 

  the prohibition of stockholder action by written consent;

 

  a classified board of directors; and

 

  advance notice requirements for director nominations and stockholder proposals.

On March 5, 2000, we entered into an agreement with Microsoft in which we agreed to develop and sell graphics chips and to license certain technology to Microsoft and its licensees for use in the Xbox. Under the agreement, if an individual or corporation makes an offer to purchase shares equal to or greater than 30% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, Microsoft may have first and last rights of refusal to purchase the stock. The Microsoft provision and the other factors listed above could also delay or prevent a change in control of NVIDIA.

ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

Period

  Total Number
of Shares
Purchased
  Average
Price Paid
per Share
  Total Number
of Shares
Purchased as
Part of Publicly
Announced
Plans of
Programs
  Approximate
Dollar Value of
Shares that
May Yet Be
Purchased
Under the Plans
or Programs (1)

January 30, 2006 through February 26, 2006

  —    $—    —    $86,846,554

February 27, 2006 through March 26, 2006

  —    $—    —    $486,846,554

March 27, 2006 through April 30, 2006

  2,079,440(3) $24.04  2,079,440(3) $436,846,554
            

Total

  2,079,440  $24.04(2) 2,079,440  
            

(1)On August 9, 2004, we announced that our Board had authorized a stock repurchase program to repurchase shares of our common stock, subject to certain specifications, up to an aggregate maximum amount of $300.0 million. On March 6, 2006, we announced that the Board had approved a $400.0 million increase to the original stock repurchase program we had announced in August 2004. As a result of this increase, we have an ongoing authorization from the Board, subject to certain specifications, to repurchase shares of our common stock up to an aggregate maximum amount of $700.0 million on the open market, in negotiated transactions or through structured stock repurchase agreements through August 2007.
(2)Represents weighted average price paid per share during the first quarter of fiscal 2007.
(3)As part of our share repurchase program, we have entered into and we may continue to enter into structured share repurchase transactions with financial institutions. During the first quarter of fiscal 2007, we repurchased 2.1 million shares of our common stock for $50.0 million under a structured share repurchase transaction. This transaction required that we make an up-front payment. Subsequent to April 30, 2006, we entered into a structured share repurchase transaction to repurchase shares of our common stock for $75.0 million that we expect to settle prior to the end of our second quarter of fiscal 2007.

ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

Not applicable.

 

54


Table of Contents

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None.

ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION

None.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT INDEX

 

Exhibit No.  

Exhibit Description

  Form  File
Number
  Exhibit  Filing
Date
  

Filed

Herewith

3.3  Bylaws of NVIDIA Corporation, Amended and Restated as of March 7, 2006  10-K  0-23985  3.3  3/16/06  
10.1  Form of Indemnity Agreement between NVIDIA Corporation and each of its directors and officers  8-K  0-23985  10.1  3/07/06  
10.2  1998 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended  8-K  0-23985  10.2  3/13/06  
10.3+  NVIDIA Corporation Fiscal Year 2007 Variable Compensation Plan  8-K  0-23985  10.1  4/03/06  
10.4+  1998 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, as amended  8-K  0-23985  10.2  4/03/06  
31.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
31.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
32.1#  Certification of Chief Executive Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
32.2#  Certification of Chief Financial Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *

+Management contract, compensatory plan or arrangement.
#The certifications attached as Exhibit 32.1 and Exhibit 32.2 accompany this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of NVIDIA Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-Q/A, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

55


Table of Contents

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on November 29, 2006.

 

NVIDIA Corporation
By: 

/s/ MARVIN D. BURKETT

 

Marvin D. Burkett

Chief Financial Officer

(Duly Authorized Officer and

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

 

56


Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

 

Exhibit No.  

Exhibit Description

  Form  File
Number
  Exhibit  Filing
Date
  

Filed

Herewith

3.3  Bylaws of NVIDIA Corporation, Amended and Restated as of March 7, 2006  10-K  0-23985  3.3  3/16/06  
10.1  Form of Indemnity Agreement between NVIDIA Corporation and each of its directors and officers  8-K  0-23985  10.1  3/07/06  
10.2  1998 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended  8-K  0-23985  10.2  3/13/06  
10.3+  NVIDIA Corporation Fiscal Year 2007 Variable Compensation Plan  8-K  0-23985  10.1  4/03/06  
10.4+  1998 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, as amended  8-K  0-23985  10.2  4/03/06  
31.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
31.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
32.1#  Certification of Chief Executive Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *
32.2#  Certification of Chief Financial Officer as required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended          *

+Management contract, compensatory plan or arrangement.
#The certifications attached as Exhibit 32.1 and Exhibit 32.2 accompany this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of NVIDIA Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-Q/A, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

1