UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

FORM 10-K/A

Amendment No. 1

 

 

 

 

Commission file number 1-12665

AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

2828 North Haskell

Dallas, Texas 75204

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

 

214-841-6111

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

NONE

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 of Section 15(d) of the Act.

  Yes o     No þ

 

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 the past 90 days.

  Yes o     No þ

 

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

 

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):

 

Large accelerated filer þ     Accelerated filer o     Non-accelerated filer o

 

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

 

As of January 12, 2007, 92,314,491 shares of Class A common stock and 6,599,372 shares of Class B common stock were outstanding. The aggregate market value of the Class A common voting stock held by nonaffiliates of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. as of the last business day of the second quarter of fiscal year 2007 approximated $4,411,795,197.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: None

 

 

AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.

 

FORM 10-K/A
for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006

 

 

This Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006 and filed on January 23, 2007, is being filed solely for the purpose of correcting printing errors in Notes 2 and 28 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, contained in Item 8 of such Annual Report on Form 10-K. Specifically, the following changes were made:

 

Note 2

 

With respect to the adjustments to our Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows:

 

(i) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 — in the line item “Proceeds from stock options exercised” under the sub-heading “Cash flows from financing activities,” the amount of $36,596 appearing in the Adjustments column for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, was moved to the As Restated column for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, and the amount of $34,262 appearing in the As Restated column for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, was moved to the As Reported column for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004.

 

Note 28

 

With respect to the restated quarterly financial information for each of the quarters in fiscal years 2006 and 2005:

 

(i) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 — in the line item “Proceeds from stock options exercised” under the sub-heading “Cash flows from financing activities,” the amount of $13,040 was added in the As Reported column for the three months ended September 30, 2004.

 

(ii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the six months ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 — in the line item “Proceeds from stock options exercised” under the sub-heading “Cash flows from financing activities,” the amount of $18,595 was added in the As Reported column for the six months ended December 31, 2004.

 

(iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 — in the line item “Proceeds from stock options exercised” under the sub-heading “Cash flows from financing activities,” the amount of $28,868 was added in the As Reported column for the nine months ended March 31, 2005.

 

This Amendment conforms our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed, to the version that was certified by our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. No other changes to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006 are being made by means of this filing and this Amendment does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K or modify or update those disclosures affected by subsequent events. References to our Annual Report on Form 10-K in this report shall refer to the same discussions in this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

 

We conducted an internal investigation into our historical stock option grant practices during the period 1994 to 2005 and the related disclosure in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, filed May 15, 2006 in response to a pending informal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a grand jury subpoena issued by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. That internal investigation was conducted by a special committee of our Board of Directors consisting of all the independent directors with the assistance of specially-engaged independent outside legal counsel. That investigation has now been completed and our Board of Directors received a report on the results of that investigation on November 9, 2006. Please see “Review of Stock Option Grant Practices” in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 2 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion related to our investigation.

 

Subsequent to the conclusion of our internal investigation, we concluded that our consolidated financial statements for each of the first three quarters of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, each of the quarters of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 and each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004, as well as the selected consolidated financial data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 should be restated to record additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense resulting from stock options granted during 1994 to 2005 that were incorrectly accounted for under generally accepted accounting principles and related income tax effects. Related income tax effects include deferred income tax benefits on the compensation expense, and additional income tax liabilities, with adjustments to additional paid-in capital and estimated penalties and interest related to the application of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and related Treasury Regulations to stock-based executive compensation previously deducted, that is now no longer deductible as a result of revised measurement dates of certain stock option grants. We have also included in our restatements additional income tax liabilities and estimated penalties and interest, with adjustments to additional paid-in capital and income tax expense, related to certain cash and stock-based executive compensation deductions previously taken under Section 162(m), which we believe may now be non-deductible as a result of information that has been obtained by us in connection with our internal investigation, due to factors unrelated to revised measurement dates. Our decision to restate our financial statements was based on the facts obtained by management and the special committee.

 

As a result of the foregoing, we have restated herein our financial statements for each of the first three quarters of fiscal year 2006, each of the quarters of fiscal year 2005 and for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 in our Consolidated Financial Statements. We present the effects of the restatement on our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 in Item 6, “Selected Consolidated Financial Data.” We show the effects of the restatement on each of the first three quarters of fiscal year 2006 and each of the quarters of fiscal year 2005 in Note 28 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

We have determined that the cumulative, pre-tax, non-cash stock-based compensation expense resulting from revised measurement dates was approximately $51.2 million during the period from our initial public offering in 1994 through June 30, 2006. The corrections made in the restatement relate to options covering approximately 19.4 million shares. We recorded additional stock-based compensation expense of $2.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 and $6.1 million and $7.5 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $35.5 million for fiscal years ending prior to fiscal 2004. Previously reported total revenues were not impacted by our restatement.

 

The following table summarizes the impact of our restatement (dollars in thousands):

 

 

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, as we present restated quarterly financial information for each of the quarters in fiscal years 2006 and 2005 in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

The impact of the restatements on the interim periods of each of the first three quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 and each of the quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 are disclosed in Note 28 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. These restatements did not have a material impact on our analysis of results of operations, financial position and changes in financial position included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of our previously filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Accordingly, we have not updated those discussions and analyses in our restatement.

 

General

 

We are a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 company with approximately 58,000 employees providing business process outsourcing and information technology services to commercial and government clients. We were incorporated in Delaware on June 8, 1988 and are based in Dallas, Texas. Our clients have time-critical, transaction-intensive business and information processing needs, and we typically service these needs through long-term contracts.

 

Our services enable businesses and government agencies to focus on core operations, respond to rapidly changing technologies and reduce expenses associated with business processes and information processing. Our business strategy is to expand our client base and enhance our service offerings through both marketing and acquisitions. Our marketing efforts focus on developing long-term relationships with clients that choose to outsource mission critical business processes and information technology requirements. Our business expansion has been accomplished both from internal growth as well as through acquisitions. Since inception, our acquisition program has resulted in growth and diversification of our client base, expansion of services and products offered, increased economies of scale and geographic expansion.

 

Revenues for fiscal year 2006 totaled approximately $5.4 billion. We have two reporting segments which serve commercial and government clients. Our Commercial segment accounted for approximately $3.2 billion, or 59% of our fiscal year 2006 revenues. We provide business process outsourcing, information technology services, systems integration services and consulting services to our commercial sector clients. We provide services to a variety of clients worldwide, including healthcare providers and payors, manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, utilities, entertainment companies, higher education institutions, financial institutions, insurance and transportation companies. Our business process outsourcing services include administration, human resources and related consulting, finance and accounting, customer care, and payment services. Our information technology services include mainframe, midrange, desktop, network, consulting and web-hosting solutions. Our systems integration services include application development and implementation, applications outsourcing, technical support and training, as well as network design and installation services. Our consulting services include retirement, health and welfare, communications and compensation services to human resource departments of companies in various industries and information technology consulting services to the healthcare industry and others.

 

We are a leading provider of business process outsourcing, information technology services and systems integration services to government agencies. During fiscal year 2006, revenues from our Government segment accounted for approximately $2.2 billion, or 41% of our revenues. We provide technology-based services with a focus on transaction processing and program management services such as Medicaid fiscal agent services, child support payment processing, electronic toll collection, loan processing, and traffic violations processing. We provide fare collection and parking management systems to customers in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. We design, develop, implement, and operate large-scale health and human services programs and the information technology solutions that support those programs. Our Government segment includes our relationship with the United States Department of Education (the “Department of Education”), for which we service Federal student loans, including their Direct Student Loan program. This relationship represents approximately 4% of our consolidated revenues and is our largest single client.

 

Market Overview

 

The demand for our services has grown in recent years, and we believe that this will continue to increase in the future as a result of strategic, financial and technological factors. These factors include:

 

 

Business Strategy

 

The key components of our business strategy include the following:

 

Expand Client Base — We seek to develop long-term relationships with new clients by leveraging our subject matter expertise, world-wide data manufacturing capabilities and infrastructure of information technology products and services. Our primary focus is to increase our revenues by obtaining new clients with recurring requirements for business process and information technology services.

 

Expand Existing Client Relationships — We seek to expand existing client relationships by increasing the scope and breadth of services we provide.

 

Build Recurring Revenues — We seek to enter into long-term relationships with clients to provide services that meet their ongoing business requirements while supporting their mission critical business process or information technology needs.

 

Consulting Services — We seek to provide consulting services in certain vertical markets where we can utilize our resources and thought leadership to attempt to both expand the services we provide to our existing business process outsourcing and information technology services clients and respond to new client’s needs.

 

Provide Flexible Solutions — We offer custom-tailored business process and information technology solutions using a variety of proprietary and third-party licensed software on multiple hardware and systems software platforms and domestic and international workforces that are able to expand and contract in relation to clients’ business volumes.

 

Invest in Technology — We respond to technological advances and the rapid changes in the requirements of our clients by committing substantial amounts of our resources to the operation of multiple hardware platforms, the customization of products and services that incorporate new technology on a timely basis and the continuous training of our personnel.

 

Maximize Economies of Scale — Our strategy is to develop and maintain a significant client and account/transaction base to create sufficient economies of scale that enable us to achieve competitive costs.

 

Complete Strategic and Tactical Acquisitions — Our acquisition strategy is to acquire companies to expand the products and services we offer to existing clients, to obtain a presence in new, complementary markets and to expand our geographic presence. We have acquired and may continue to acquire businesses with a consulting practice to provide thought leadership in certain markets.

 

Attract, Train and Retain Employees — We believe that attracting, training, and retaining high quality employees is essential to our growth. We seek to hire motivated individuals with strong character and leadership traits and provide them with ongoing technological and leadership skills training.

 

Segment Information

 

During the last three fiscal years, our revenues by segment were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

Please refer to Note 26 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of our segments.

 

Commercial

 

Within the Commercial segment, which represents approximately 59% of our fiscal year 2006 consolidated revenues, we provide our clients with business process outsourcing, information technology services, systems integration services and consulting services. Pricing for our services in the commercial market varies by type of service. For business process outsourcing services, we typically price these services on the basis of the number of accounts, resources utilized or transactions processed. For consulting services, we typically price these services on a time and materials or fixed fee basis. Our information technology services are normally priced on a resource utilization basis. Resources utilized include processing time, the number of desktops managed, professional services and consulting, data storage and retrieval utilization, customer accounts, customer employee headcount and output media utilized. Our systems integration services are generally offered on a time and materials basis to clients under short-term contractual arrangements.

 

Business Process Outsourcing

Our commercial business process outsourcing practice is focused in five major categories.

 

Administration — We provide healthcare claims processing and related consulting, mailroom services and total records management services to our clients.

 

Human Resources — We provide benefit claims processing, benefit and other human resources consulting services, employee services call centers, defined benefit, defined contribution and health and welfare benefits administration, employee relocation, training administration and learning services, payroll services, vendor administration, and employee assistance programs. The human resources consulting business provides actuarial services and human resource advisory services in the area of employee benefit and compensation plan design and strategy, employee communication, and human resource management.

 

Finance and Accounting — We provide revenue/invoice accounting, disbursement processing, expense reporting, procurement, payroll, cash management, fixed asset accounting, tax processing, general ledger and other services associated with finance and accounting that are process and technology sensitive.

 

Customer Care — We provide dispatch and activation services, call center services and technical support.

 

Payment Services — We provide loan origination and servicing and clearinghouse services.

 

We receive client information in all media formats including over the web, EDI, fax, voice, paper, microfilm, computer tape, optical disk, or CD ROM. Information is typically digitized upon receipt and sent through our proprietary workflow software, which is tailored to our clients’ process requirements. Utilizing network technology, we have developed expertise in transmitting data around the world to our international workforce. We have approximately 15,000 employees in Mexico, India, Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala, Canada, Spain, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, Malaysia, and the Philippines, as well as a number of other countries, that primarily support our commercial business process and information technology services. A majority of our business process outsourcing workforce is compensated using performance-based metrics, and as a result, their individual compensation varies with our clients’ transaction volumes, together with the quality and productivity generated by the workforce.

 

Information Technology Services

We offer a complete range of information technology services solutions to businesses desiring to improve the performance of their information technology organizations. Our information technology services solutions include the delivery of information processing services on a remote basis from host data centers that provide processing capacity, network management and desktop support. Information processing services include mainframe, mid-range, desktop, network, consulting and web-hosting solutions.

 

We provide our information technology services solutions through extensive data center networks that support our commercial and government clients. Our data centers and clients are connected via an extensive telecommunications network. We monitor and maintain local and wide area networks on a seven-day, 24 — hour basis and provide shared hub satellite transmission service as an alternative to multi-drop and point-to-point hard line telecommunications networks.

 

Systems Integration Services

Our systems integration services include application development and implementation, applications outsourcing, technical support and training, as well as network design and installation services. Our systems integration services include the development of web-based applications and web-enablement of information technology assets, allowing our clients to conduct business with their customers and business partners via the Internet. We also provide systems integration services to clients who are deploying client/server architectures, advanced networks and outsourcing legacy applications maintenance.

 

Consulting Services

We provide human resources consulting services to major corporations. Our human resources consulting services include actuarial services and the design and implementation of retirement, health and welfare, compensation, communications and broader human resources programs. Our services assist clients with managing their human capital more efficiently helping them to meet business objectives while lowering their overall costs. We also provide information technology consulting services to the healthcare industry and others.

 

Government

 

We are a leading provider of business process outsourcing, information technology services and system integration services to government agencies. Approximately 41% of our fiscal year 2006 consolidated revenues were derived from contracts with government clients. Our Government segment includes our relationship with the Department of Education, for which we service Federal student loans, including their Direct Student Loan program, and which represents approximately 4% of our consolidated revenues. Our services help government agencies reduce operating costs, increase revenue streams and increase the quality of services to citizens. Government clients may terminate most of these contracts at any time, without cause, for convenience or lack of funding. Additionally, government contracts are generally subject to audits and investigations by government agencies. If the government finds that we improperly charged any costs to a contract, the costs are not reimbursable or, if already reimbursed, the cost must be refunded to the government.

 

Pricing for our services in the government market is generally determined based on the number of transactions processed, the number of human services cases managed or, in instances where a systems development project is required, for example, in government healthcare, we generally price our services on a fixed fee basis for the development work.

 

In connection with the sale of the Divested Federal Business (defined below) in November 2003, we entered into a five-year non-competition agreement with Lockheed Martin Corporation that generally prohibits us from offering services or products that were previously provided by the Divested Federal Business. This non-competition agreement does not prohibit us from entering into the Federal government market for services not previously provided by the Divested Federal Business, such as the Federal healthcare market, nor does it restrict us from expanding our relationship with the Department of Education.

 

Government and Community Solutions

We are a major provider of child support payment processing services, including high volume remittance processing and disbursements, as well as associated employer outreach and customer service activities. We also provide electronic benefits transfer, which is the issuance of food stamps and cash benefits through magnetic stripe cards with redemption through point of sale devices and automated teller machines.

 

We provide information technology software and services in support of state and local courts for case management and juror selection management. We provide government records management via indexing and recording solutions. We provide records management software to the fire service industry. The product is scalable, manages all aspects of fire department record management and is integrated with other public safety systems. These products include mobile applications for in the field data entry and presentation of vital fire service information.

 

For city and county governments, we develop and support integrated application suites that assist in meeting administrative and financial accounting requirements. We also provide tax products and services to county government.

 

We provide information technology services to state and local governments throughout the United States. Our information technology services include full data center management, application integration and maintenance, network management and security, seat management, helpdesk services, and disaster recovery services.

 

Government Healthcare Solutions

We design, develop, implement and operate large-scale healthcare programs such as Medicaid, child and pharmacy benefit management programs, and the information technology solutions that support those programs. We support approximately 22 million program recipients and process nearly 545 million Medicaid healthcare claims annually, representing more than $42 billion in provider payments. As a leading government program pharmacy benefits administrator, we serve 27 programs in 24 states and the District of Columbia. We also operate state pharmacy benefits management programs that assist states in controlling prescription drug costs, pharmacy intervention and surveillance, and the processing of drug claims.

 

Transportation Solutions

We focus on six areas in our transportation solutions unit: electronic toll collection, fare collection for transit systems, off-street parking systems, motor vehicle services, commercial vehicle operations and roadside enforcement programs. Within electronic toll collection, we offer toll agencies an array of services including the operation of the back-office customer service center, lane installation and integration, and toll processing. We currently operate the E-Z Pass programs in New Jersey and New York, the largest electronic toll collection programs in the world. In fare collection, we have an installed base of urban and interurban transit systems. Our fare collection systems are in operation in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. We are also a leader in off-street parking systems, with installations in U.S. airports and smaller-scale systems in parking garages, car parks, and other parking facilities in North America as well as Europe. Within motor vehicle services, we assist states in processing fuel tax and registration revenues. Within commercial vehicle operations, we offer a nationwide network that electronically checks safety credentials and weighs trucks at highway speed, granting participating truckers authorization to bypass open weigh stations and ports-of-entry without stopping. Finally, in our roadside enforcement programs we process on-street parking violations, provide turnkey photo systems for red light and speed enforcement, and provide billing and collection solutions for emergency medical services.

 

U.S. Department of Education

Our largest contract is with the Department of Education. We have provided loan servicing for the Department of Education’s Direct Student Loan program for over ten years. In 2003 the Department conducted a competitive procurement for its “Common Services for Borrowers” initiative (“CSB”). CSB was a modernization initiative which integrated a number of services for the Department, allowing the Department to increase service quality while saving overall program costs. In November 2003 the Department awarded us the CSB contract. Under this contract we provide comprehensive loan servicing, consolidation loan processing, debt collection services on delinquent accounts, IT infrastructure operations and support, maintenance and development of information systems, and portfolio management services for the Department of Education’s Direct Student Loan program. We are also developing software for use in delivering these services. The CSB contract has a 5-year base term which began in January 2004 and provides the Department of Education five one-year options to extend after the base term. We estimate that our revenues from the CSB contract will exceed $1 billion in total over the base term of the contract. Annual revenues from this contract represent approximately 4% of our fiscal year 2006 revenues. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation — Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2006 — Subsequent Events” for a description of how a potential change in our software development model may affect our results of operations and financial condition.

 

Finance and Revenue Solutions

We are a leading provider of unclaimed property collection services, currently serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

 

Revenues by Service Line

 

Our revenues by service line over the past three years are shown in the following table (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

Client Base

 

We achieve growth in our client base through marketing our business process, information technology and system integration services and acquiring companies that allow us to expand our service offerings. Within the Commercial segment, we serve the major vertical markets that spend heavily on technology including healthcare providers and payors, manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors,

utilities, entertainment companies, higher education institutions, financial institutions, insurance and transportation companies. Within the Government segment, our clients include a wide variety of federal, state and municipal governments and agencies including the U.S. Department of Education. Our business with government clients is subject to various risks, including the reduction or modification of contracts due to changing government needs and requirements. We may lose clients due to mergers, business failures, or clients’ conversion to a competing processor or to an in-house system. Government contracts, by their terms, generally can be terminated for convenience by the government, which means that the government may terminate the contract at any time, without cause. Please refer to “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for further discussion of the risks related to our business.

 

Our five largest clients accounted for approximately 13%, 15% and 14% of our fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004 revenues, respectively. Our largest client, the Department of Education, represented approximately 4%, 5% and 5% of our consolidated revenues for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

Geographic information

 

Approximately 95%, 97% and 97% of our consolidated revenues for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, were derived from domestic clients. As of June 30, 2006 and 2005, approximately 92% and 93% of our long-lived assets, respectively, were located in the United States. Of our long-lived assets located outside the United States, the largest concentrations are in France, with approximately 2% of our total long-lived assets as of June 30, 2006 and in Mexico, with approximately 1.6% of our total long-lived assets as of June 30, 2005. Please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with our international operations.

 

Competition

 

The markets for our services are intensely competitive and highly fragmented. We believe our competitive advantage comes from our use of world-class technology, subject matter expertise, process reengineering skills, proprietary software, global production model, productivity-based compensation and the price of services.

 

We compete in the commercial market by offering value added business process outsourcing, information technology and system integration services. The competition for our commercial outsourcing services is primarily the in-house departments performing the function we are seeking to outsource, as well as Accenture, Computer Sciences Corporation, Electronic Data Systems Corporation (“EDS”), Hewitt Associates, International Business Machines (“IBM”), Perot Systems, and, to a lessor extent, Indian service providers. We may be required to purchase technology assets from prospective clients or to provide financial assistance to prospective clients in order to obtain their contracts. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources and thus, may have a greater ability to obtain client contracts where sizable asset purchases, investments or financing support are required.

 

We compete in the government market by offering a broad range of business process outsourcing services and information technology services. Competition in the government market is fragmented by line of services and we are a leading provider in most of the areas we serve. We primarily compete in the government market with Accenture, Convergys, EDS, IBM, JP Morgan, Maximus, Roper Industries, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Coventry Health Care, Inc. and Unisys Corp.

 

In the future, competition could continue to emerge from large computer hardware or software providers and consulting companies as they shift their business strategy to include services. Competition has also emerged from European and Indian service providers seeking to expand into our markets and from large consulting companies seeking operational outsourcing opportunities.

 

Employees

 

We believe that our success depends on our continuing ability to attract and retain skilled technical, marketing and management personnel. As of June 30, 2006, we had approximately 58,000 employees, including approximately 42,000 employed domestically, with the balance employed in our international operations. Of our domestic employees, approximately 70 are represented by a union. Approximately 1,100 of our international employees are represented by unions, primarily in Mexico. Approximately 1,100 of our European employees and approximately 300 of our employees in Brazil are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Employment arrangements for our international employees are often governed by works or labor council arrangements. We have had no work stoppages or strikes by our employees. Management considers its relations with employees and union officials to be good. Please see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with our international operations.

 

As of June 30, 2006, approximately 48,000 domestic and international employees provide services to our commercial clients and approximately 10,000 of primarily domestic employees provide services to our government clients.

 

Certifications and Governance

 

We have included the CEO and CFO certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2, respectively, to this fiscal year 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The Annual CEO Certification, as required by Section 303A.12(a) of the NYSE’s listing rules, regarding our compliance with the corporate governance listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), was submitted to the NYSE on December 29, 2006.

 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Reports

 

All of our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, filed with or furnished to the SEC on or after May 14, 1996 are available free of charge through our internet website, www.acs-inc.com, as soon as reasonably practical after we have electronically filed such material with, or furnished it to, the SEC. Information contained on our internet website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the SEC maintains an internet site containing reports, proxy and information statements, and other information filed electronically at www.sec.gov. You may also read and copy this information, for a copying fee, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 to obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room.

 

The risks described below should not be considered to be comprehensive and all-inclusive. Additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we currently think are immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any events occur that give rise to the following risks, our business, financial condition, cash flow or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected, and as a result, the trading price of our Class A common stock could be materially and adversely impacted. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with other information set forth in this report, including our Consolidated Financial Statements and the related Notes.

 

We have issued debt and have a substantial uncommitted facility available to us. Our debt service cost could limit cash flow available to fund our operations, and may limit our ability to obtain further debt or equity financing.

As of June 30, 2006, we have outstanding approximately $500 million of Senior Notes (as defined below in Item 3. Legal Proceedings — Declaratory Action with Respect to Alleged Default and Purported Acceleration of our Senior Notes) we sold in a public offering in June 2005, and approximately $1.1 billion is drawn under our Credit Facility (defined in Item 7). In addition, we may become obligated under our Term Loan Facility (defined in Item 7) by an additional $3 billion for certain permitted purposes, with the right under certain circumstances to exercise uncommitted accordion features of the Revolving Facility (defined in Item 7) that could increase the Credit Facility by an additional $750 million, up to an additional combined $3.75 billion. Subsequent to June 30, 2006, we increased the Term Loan Facility by $1 billion for securities repurchases, all of which has been drawn as of August 31, 2006. Substantially all of our assets are pledged to secure our Credit Facility and our Senior Notes (defined in Item 3). If we are fully drawn under our Credit Facility (including the increase resulting from the accordion features of the Revolving Facility), the book value of our equity may be in a deficit position. The interest rates under the Credit Facility fluctuate with changes in the market rates and with changes in our leverage ratio. Thus, our debt service cost will increase as market interest rates increase and as our leverage ratio increases. It will be necessary to utilize cash flow from operating activities to fund debt service cost related to our indebtedness. If we fail to have sufficient cash flow to satisfy the debt service cost of our indebtedness, then we could default on our indebtedness, resulting in foreclosure on the assets used to conduct our business. In addition, reduction of our available cash flow may negatively impact our business, including our ability to make future acquisitions, ability to compete for customer contracts requiring upfront capital costs, and our ability to meet our other obligations. Further, the amount of our indebtedness and our reduction in available cash flow may limit our ability to obtain further debt or equity financing.

 

Alleged defaults and purported acceleration of our Senior Notes, if upheld in litigation, could have a negative impact on our cash flow and divert resources that could otherwise be utilized in our business operations.

As is discussed under Item 3 of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the holders of our Senior Notes have alleged that we have defaulted under our Senior Notes and have accelerated payment of the principal and accrued interest on the Senior Notes. We have taken the position that no default and no acceleration has occurred with respect to the Senior Notes or otherwise under the Indenture, and filed a lawsuit against the Trustee (defined in Item 3) in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, seeking a declaratory judgment affirming our position. There can be no assurance of the outcome of that lawsuit. If a final

judgment is rendered that there has been a default and acceleration has occurred, then we may have to pay the principal and accrued interest under the Senior Notes. While we do have availability under our Credit Facility to draw funds to repay the Senior Notes, there may be a decrease in our credit availability that could otherwise be used for other corporate purposes, such as acquisitions and share repurchases.

 

The complexity of regulatory environments in which we operate has increased and may continue to increase our costs.

Our business is subject to increasingly complex corporate governance, public disclosure, accounting and tax requirements and environmental legislation that have increased both our costs and the risk of noncompliance. Because our Class A common stock and Senior Notes are publicly traded, we are subject to certain rules and regulations for federal, state and financial market exchange entities (including the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the SEC and NYSE). We have implemented new policies and procedures and continue developing additional policies and procedures in response to recent corporate scandals and laws enacted by Congress. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we have made a significant effort to comply with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (including, among other things the development of policies and procedures to satisfy the provisions thereof regarding internal control over financial reporting, disclosure controls and procedures and certification of financial statements appearing in periodic reports) and the formation of a compliance department to develop policies and monitor compliance with laws (including, among others, privacy laws, export control laws, rules and regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Controls and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act). Our effort to comply with these new regulations have resulted in, and are likely to continue resulting in, increased general and administrative expenses and diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities.

 

We are subject to the oversight of the SEC and other regulatory agencies and investigations by those agencies could divert management’s focus and could have a material adverse impact on our reputation and financial condition.

As a result of this regulation and oversight, we may be subject to legal and administrative proceedings. As previously disclosed, we are currently the subject of an ongoing SEC and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation related to our historical stock option grant practices. As a result of these investigations, a number of derivative shareholder actions have been filed, as discussed in Item 3 of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As the result of these investigations and shareholder actions, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal costs and a significant amount of time of our senior management has been focused on these matters that otherwise would have been directed toward the growth and development of our business. We have concluded our internal investigation of our stock option grant practices as discussed in Item 7. The SEC and DOJ investigations are continuing and until these investigations of our stock option grant practices are complete, we are unable to predict the effect, if any, that these investigations and lawsuits will have on our business and financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. We cannot assure that the SEC and/or DOJ will not seek to impose fines or take other actions against us that could have a significant negative impact on our financial condition. In addition, publicity surrounding the SEC’s and DOJ’s investigations, the derivative causes of actions, or any enforcement action, even if ultimately resolved favorably for us, could have a material adverse impact on our cash flows, financial condition, results of operations or business.

 

Reductions of our credit rating may have an adverse impact on our business.

The ratings agencies have reduced the ratings on our current outstanding obligations resulting in our ratings being below investment grade. There may be additional reductions in our ratings if we incur additional indebtedness, including amounts that may be drawn under our Credit Facility. Below investment grade ratings could negatively impact our ability to renew contracts with our existing customers, limit our ability to compete for new customers, result in increased premiums for surety bonds to support our customer contracts, and/or result in a requirement that we provide collateral to secure our surety bonds. Further, certain of our commercial outsourcing contracts provide that in the event our credit ratings are downgraded to specified levels, the customer may elect to terminate its contract with us and either pay a reduced termination fee or, in some limited instances, no termination fee. A credit rating downgrade could adversely affect these customer relationships.

 

A decline in revenues from or a loss of significant clients could reduce our profitability and cash flow.

Our revenues, profitability, financial condition and cash flow could be materially adversely affected by the loss of significant clients and/or the reduction of volumes and services provided to our significant clients as a result of, among other things, their merger or acquisition, divestiture of assets or businesses, contract expiration, non-renewal or early termination (including termination for convenience) or business failure or deterioration. In addition, we incur fixed costs related to our information technology services and business process outsourcing clients. Therefore the loss of any one of our significant clients could leave us with a significantly higher

level of fixed costs than is necessary to serve our remaining clients, thereby reducing our profitability and cash flow. See Item 1, Part I — Client Base.

 

Our ability to recover capital investments in connection with our contracts is subject to risk.

In order to attract and retain large outsourcing contracts we sometimes make significant capital investments to perform the agreement, such as purchases of information technology equipment and costs incurred to develop and implement software. The net book value of such assets recorded, including a portion of our intangible assets, could be impaired, and our earnings and cash flow could be materially adversely affected in the event of the early termination of all or a part of such a contract or the reduction in volumes and services thereunder for reasons such as, among other things, a client’s merger or acquisition, divestiture of assets or businesses, business failure or deterioration, or a client’s exercise of contract termination rights.

 

We have non-recurring revenue, which subjects us to a risk that our revenues from year to year may fluctuate.

Revenue generated from our non-recurring services, including our consulting and unclaimed property escheatment services, may increase or decrease in relation to the revenue generated from our recurring services, such as business process outsourcing and information technology outsourcing. Our mix of non-recurring and recurring revenues is impacted by acquisitions as well as growth in our non-recurring lines of business. There is less predictability and certainty in the timing and amount of revenue generated by our non-recurring services and, accordingly, our revenues, results of operations and cash flow may be significantly impacted by the timing and amounts of revenues generated from our non-recurring services.

 

The markets in which we operate are highly competitive and we may not be able to compete effectively.

We expect to encounter additional competition as we address new markets and new competitors enter our existing markets. If we are forced to lower our pricing or if demand for our services decreases, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow may be materially and adversely affected. Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources, and they may be able to use their resources to adapt more quickly to new or emerging technologies, to devote greater resources to the promotion and sale of their products and services, or to obtain client contracts where sizable asset purchases, investments or financing support are required. In addition, we must frequently compete with a client’s own internal business process and information technology capabilities, which may constitute a fixed cost for the client. In the future, competition could continue to emerge from large computer hardware or software providers as they shift their business strategy to include services. Competition has also emerged from European and Indian offshore service providers seeking to expand into our markets and from large consulting companies seeking operational outsourcing opportunities. See discussion in Item 1, Part I — Competition.

 

We may not be able to make acquisitions that will complement our growth.

Historically, we have made a significant number of acquisitions that have expanded the products and services we offer, provided a presence in a complementary business or expanded our geographic presence. We intend to continue our acquisition strategy. See Item 1, Part I — Business Strategy. We cannot, however, make any assurances that we will be able to identify any potential acquisition candidates or consummate any additional acquisitions or that any future acquisitions will be successfully integrated or will be advantageous to us. Without additional acquisitions, we are unlikely to maintain historical total growth rates.

 

A failure to properly manage our operations and our growth could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We have rapidly expanded our operations in recent years. We intend to continue expansion in the foreseeable future to pursue existing and potential market opportunities. Some market opportunities require that we develop software to perform the services we become contractually obligated to perform, such as our loan servicing activities and our Medicaid activities. This rapid growth places a significant demand on our management and operational resources. In order to manage growth effectively, we must design, develop, implement and improve our operational systems, which includes the design, development and implementation of software, if necessary, and timely development and implementation of procedures and controls. If we fail to design, develop and implement these systems and to make improvements to these systems, we may not be able to service our clients’ needs, hire and retain new employees, pursue new business opportunities, complete future acquisitions or operate our businesses effectively. We could also trigger contractual credits to clients or a contractual default. Failure to properly transition new clients to our systems, properly budget transition costs or accurately estimate new contract operational costs could result in delays in our contract performance, trigger service level penalties, impairments of fixed or intangible assets or result in contracts whose profit margins did not meet our expectations or our historical profit margins. Failure to properly integrate acquired operations could result in increased cost. As a result of any of these problems associated with expansion, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could be materially and adversely affected.

 

Our Government contracts are subject to termination rights, audits and investigations, which, if exercised, could negatively impact our reputation and reduce our ability to compete for new contracts.

Approximately 41% of our revenues are derived from contracts with state and local governments and from federal government agencies, including our contract with the Department of Education. Governments and their agencies may terminate most of these contracts at any time, without cause. Also, our Department of Education contract is subject to the approval of appropriations being made by the United States Congress to fund the expenditures to be made by the Federal government under this contract. Additionally, government contracts are generally subject to audits and investigations by government agencies. If the government finds that we improperly charged any costs to a contract, the costs are not reimbursable or, if already reimbursed, the cost must be refunded to the government. If the government discovers improper or illegal activities in the course of audits or investigations, the contractor may be subject to various civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from doing business with the government. Any resulting penalties or sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Further, the negative publicity that arises from findings in such audits, investigations or the penalties or sanctions therefore could have an adverse effect on our reputation in the industry and reduce our ability to compete for new contracts and may also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

 

We may incur delays in signing and commencing new business as the result of protests of government contracts that we are awarded.

After an award of a government contract, a competing bidder may protest the award. If we are awarded the contract and it is protested, it will be necessary to incur costs to defend the award of the contract. Costs to defend an award may be significant and could include hiring experts to defend the basis for the contract award. Some contract protests may take years to resolve. In some instances where we are awarded a contract, the contracting government entity may request that we sign a contract and commence services, even though the contract award has been protested. If the protest is upheld, then our contract would be terminated and the amounts due to us for services that have been performed to date would be subject to payment pursuant to the terms of the terminated contract. Such terms may not provide for full recovery of our incurred costs. In addition, if the government agency requests that we make changes to our contractual agreement during a protest period, but the government agency is unable or unwilling to modify the contract at the end of the protest period (whether or not we are successful in defending the protest), we may be unable to recover the full costs incurred in making such changes. In addition, we may suffer negative publicity as the result of any contract protest being upheld and our contract being terminated. Further, if there is a re-bid of the contract, we would incur additional costs associated with the re-bid process and be subject to a potential protest if we are awarded a subsequent contract.

 

The exercise of contract termination provisions and service level penalties may have an adverse impact on our business.

Most of our contracts with our clients permit termination in the event our performance is not consistent with service levels specified in those contracts, or require us to provide credits to our clients for failure to meet service levels. In addition, if clients are not satisfied with our level of performance, our clients may seek damages as permitted under the contract and/or our reputation in the industry may suffer, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow.

 

Some of our contracts contain fixed pricing or benchmarking provisions that could adversely affect our operating results and cash flow.

Many of our contracts contain provisions requiring that our services be priced based on a pre-established standard or benchmark regardless of the costs we incur in performing these services. Many of our contracts contain pricing provisions that require the client to pay a set fee for our services regardless of whether our costs to perform these services exceed the amount of the set fee. Some of our contracts contain re-pricing provisions which can result in reductions of our fees for performing our services. In such situations, we are exposed to the risk that we may be unable to price our services to levels that will permit recovery of our costs, and may adversely affect our operating results and cash flow.

 

Claims associated with our actuarial consulting and benefit plan management services could negatively impact our business.

In May 2005, we acquired the human resources consulting business of Mellon Financial Corporation, which includes actuarial consulting services related to commercial, governmental and Taft-Hartley pension plans. Providers of these types of consulting services have experienced frequent claims, some of which have resulted in litigation and significant settlements or judgments, particularly when investment markets have performed poorly and pension funding levels have been adversely impacted. In addition, our total benefits outsourcing business unit manages and administers benefit plans on behalf of its clients and is responsible for processing numerous plan transactions for current and former employees of those clients. We are subject to claims from the client and

its current and former employees if transactions are not properly processed. If any claim is made against us in the future related to our actuarial consulting services or benefit plan management services, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could be materially adversely affected as a result of the time and cost required to defend such a claim, the cost of settling such a claim or paying any judgments resulting therefrom, or the damage to our reputation in the industry that could result from the negative publicity surrounding such a claim.

 

The loss of our significant software vendor relationships could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to service our clients depends to a large extent on our use of various software programs that we license from a small number of primary software vendors. If our significant software vendors were to terminate, refuse to renew our contracts with them or offer to renew our contracts with them on less advantageous terms than previously contracted, we might not be able to replace the related software programs and would be unable to serve our clients or we would recognize reduced margins from the contracts with our clients, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, revenues, financial position, profitability and cash flow.

 

We may be subject to claims of infringement of third-party intellectual property rights which could adversely affect our business.

We rely heavily on the use of intellectual property. We do not own the majority of the software that we use to run our business; instead we license this software from a small number of primary vendors. If these vendors assert claims that we or our clients are infringing on their software or related intellectual property, we could incur substantial costs to defend these claims, which could have a material effect on our profitability and cash flow. In addition, if any of our vendors’ infringement claims are ultimately successful, our vendors could require us (1) to cease selling or using products or services that incorporate the challenged software or technology, (2) to obtain a license or additional licenses from our vendors, or (3) to redesign our products and services which rely on the challenged software or technology. If we are unsuccessful in the defense of an infringement claim and our vendors require us to initiate any of the above actions, then such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

 

We are subject to United States and foreign jurisdiction laws relating to individually identifiable information, and failure to comply with those laws, whether or not inadvertent, could subject us to legal actions and negatively impact our operations.

We process, transmit and store information relating to identifiable individuals, both in our role as a service provider and as an employer. As a result, we are subject to numerous United States (both Federal and state) and foreign jurisdiction laws and regulations designed to protect individually identifiable information, including social security numbers, financial and health information. For example, in 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and as required therein, the Department of Health and Human Services established regulations governing, among other things, the privacy, security and electronic transmission of individually identifiable health information. We have taken measures to comply with each of those regulations on or before the required dates. Another example is the European Union Directive on Data Protection, entitled “Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.” We have also taken steps to address the requirements of that Directive. Other United States (both Federal and state) and foreign jurisdiction laws apply to the processing of individually identifiable information as well, and additional legislation may be enacted at any time. Failure to comply with these types of laws may subject us to, among other things, liability for monetary damages, fines and/or criminal prosecution, unfavorable publicity, restrictions on our ability to process information and allegations by our clients that we have not performed our contractual obligations, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our profitability and cash flow.

 

We are subject to breaches of our security systems which may cause data privacy concerns.

Security systems have been implemented with the intent of maintaining the physical security of our facilities and to protect confidential information and information related to identifiable individuals from unauthorized access through our information systems, but we are subject to breach of security systems at the facilities at which we maintain such confidential customer information and information relating to identifiable individuals. In addition, we often rely on third parties to transport and deliver tapes and disks containing such information to and from our facilities. If unauthorized users gain physical access to the facility or electronic access to our information systems or third parties (during transport) lose tapes or disks containing such information, such information may be subject to theft and misuse. Any theft or misuse of such information could result in, among other things, unfavorable publicity, difficulty in marketing our services, allegations by our clients that we have not performed our contractual obligations and possible financial obligations for damages related to the theft or misuse of such information, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our profitability and cash flow. We anticipate that breaches of security will occur from time to time, but the magnitude and impact on our business of any future breach cannot be ascertained.

 

Budget deficits and/or fluctuations in the number of requests for proposals issued by, state and local governments and their agencies may adversely impactour business.

Approximately 41% of our revenues are derived from contracts with Federal, state and local governments and their agencies. Currently, many state and local governments with which we have contracts are facing potential budget deficits. Also, the number of requests for proposals issued by state and local government agencies are subject to fluctuation. A significant number of government contracts have provisions permitting termination by the contracting government agency for convenience. If state and local budgets were to be reduced, then services we provided could become non-essential and our contracts could be terminated and future contracting opportunities for government contracts would be limited. Such an event would reduce our revenue and profitability.

 

Our international operations are subject to a number of risks.

Recently we have expanded our international operations and also continually contemplate the acquisition of companies formed and operating in foreign countries. We have approximately 16,000 employees in Mexico, India, Ghana, Jamaica, Guatemala, Canada, Spain, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, France, Malaysia, and the Philippines, as well as a number of other countries, that primarily support our commercial business process and information technology services. Our international operations and acquisitions are subject to a number of risks. These risks include the possible impact on our operations of the laws of foreign countries where we may do business including, among others, data privacy, laws regarding licensing and labor council requirements. In addition, we may experience difficulty integrating the management and operations of businesses we acquire internationally, and we may have difficulty attracting, retaining and motivating highly skilled and qualified personnel to staff key managerial positions in our ongoing international operations. Further, our international operations are subject to a number of risks related to general economic and political conditions in foreign countries where we operate, including, among others, fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, cultural differences, political instability, employee work stoppages or strikes and additional expenses and risks inherent in conducting operations in geographically distant locations. Our international operations may also be impacted by trade restrictions, such as tariffs and duties or other trade controls imposed by the United States or other jurisdictions, as well as other factors that may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. Because of these foreign operations we are subject to regulations, such as those administered by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (“OFAC”) and export control regulations administered by the Department of Commerce. Violation of these regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against our officers, and prohibitions against exporting, as well as damage to our reputation, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

 

Armed hostilities and terrorist attacks may negatively impact the countries in which we operate.

Our operations and customers are located throughout the globe, including some politically unstable jurisdictions. Terrorist attacks and further acts of violence or war may cause major instability in the U.S. and other financial markets in which we operate. In addition, armed hostilities and acts of terrorism may directly impact our physical facilities and operations, which are located in North America, Central America, South America, Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia and the Middle East, or those of our clients. These developments subject our worldwide operations to increased risks and, depending on their magnitude, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

A failure to attract and retain necessary technical personnel, skilled management and qualified subcontractors may have an adverse impact on our business.

Because we operate in intensely competitive markets, our success depends to a significant extent upon our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled and qualified personnel and to subcontract with qualified, competent subcontractors. If we fail to attract, train, and retain, sufficient numbers of qualified engineers, technical staff and sales and marketing representatives or are unable to contract with qualified, competent subcontractors, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected. Experienced and capable personnel in the technology industry remain in high demand, and there is continual competition for their talents. Additionally, we may be required to increase our hiring in geographic areas outside of the United States, which could subject us to increased geopolitical and exchange rate risk. Our success also depends on the skills, experience, and performance of key members of our management team. The loss of any key employee or the loss of a key subcontract relationship could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flow, results of operations and prospects.

 

Risks associated with loans that we service may reduce our profitability and cash flow.

We service (for various lenders and under various service agreements) a portfolio of approximately $27.7 billion of loans, as of June 30, 2006, made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which loans are guaranteed by a Federal government agency. If a loan is in default, then a claim is made upon the guarantor. If the guarantor denies the claim because of a servicing error, then under

certain of the servicing agreements we may be required to purchase the loan from the lender. Upon purchase of the loan, we attempt to cure the servicing errors and either sell the loan back to the guarantor (which must occur within a specified period of time) or sell the loan on the open market to a third party. We are subject to the risk that we may be unable to cure the servicing errors or sell the loan on the open market. Our reserves, which are based on historical information, may be inadequate if our servicing performance results in the requirement that we repurchase a substantial number of loans, which repurchase could have a material adverse impact on our cash flow and profitability.

 

A disruption in utility or network services may have a negative impact on our business.

Our services are dependent on other companies providing electricity and other utilities to our operating facilities, as well as network companies providing connectivity to our facilities and clients. Since key portions of our business include information technology services and systems integration, we rely on network connectivity at all times. Many of our facilities are located in jurisdictions outside of the United States where the provision of utility services, including electricity and water, may not be consistently reliable. While there are backup systems in many of our operating facilities, an extended outage of utility or network services may have a material adverse effect on our operations, revenues, cash flow and profitability.

 

Our indemnification obligations may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Many of our contracts, including our agreements with respect to divestitures, include various indemnification obligations. If we are required to satisfy an indemnification obligation, we may have to spend time and cost to defend and settle claims for our indemnities, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, profitability and cash flow.

 

Other Risks

We have attempted to identify material risk factors currently affecting our business and company. However, additional risks that we do not yet know of, or that we currently think are immaterial, may occur or become material. These risks could impair our business operations or adversely affect revenues, cash flow or profitability.

 

None.

 

As of June 30, 2006, we have approximately 291 locations in the United States, of which 167 locations are occupied by Commercial operations, 123 locations are occupied by Government operations, and our company-owned facility in Dallas, Texas, which is occupied by primarily Commercial and Corporate functions. We also have 79 locations in 28 other countries, of which 55 locations are occupied by Commercial operations and 24 locations are occupied by Government operations. In addition, we also have employees in client-owned locations. We own approximately 1.2 million square feet of real estate space and lease approximately 8.3 million square feet. The leases expire from calendar years 2006 to 2018 and we do not anticipate any significant difficulty in obtaining lease renewals or alternate space. Our executive offices are located in Dallas, Texas at a company-owned facility of approximately 630,000 square feet, which also houses a host data center and other operations. We believe that our current facilities are suitable and adequate for our current business.

 

Regulatory Agency Investigations Relating to Stock Option Grant Practices

On March 3, 2006 we received notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is conducting an informal investigation into certain stock option grants made by us from October 1998 through March 2005. On June 7, 2006 and on June 16, 2006 we received requests from the SEC for information on all of our stock option grants since 1994. We have responded to the SEC’s requests for information and are cooperating in the informal investigation.

 

On May 17, 2006, we received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court, Southern District of New York requesting production of documents related to granting of our stock option grants. We have responded to the grand jury subpoena and have provided documents to the United States Attorney’s Office in connection with the grand jury proceeding. We have informed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York of the results of our internal investigation into our stock option grant practices and will continue to cooperate with these governmental entities and their investigations.

 

Internal Investigation Relating to Stock Option Grant Practices

Please refer to Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Review of Stock Option Grant Practices for a discussion of our internal investigation into our stock option grant practices and the results thereof.

 

Lawsuits Related to Stock Option Grant Practices

Several derivative lawsuits have been filed in connection with our stock option grant practices generally alleging claims related to breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment by certain of our directors and senior executives as follows:

 

Dallas County District Court

 

The Huntsinger, Oury, and Anchorage lawsuits were consolidated into one case in the Dallas District Court on June 5, 2006, and are now collectively known as the In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation case.

 

U.S. District Court of Delaware

 

Delaware Chancery Court

 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

 

The Alaska Electrical and Lunceford cases were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District Court of Texas on August 1, 2006, and are now collectively known as the In Re Affiliated Computer Services Derivative Litigation case.

 

Based on the same set of facts as alleged in the above causes of action, two lawsuits have been filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) alleging breach of ERISA fiduciary duties by the directors and officers as well as the ACS Benefits

Administrative Committee for retaining ACS common stock as an investment option in the ACS Savings Plan in light of the alleged stock option issues, as follows:

 

U.S. District Court of Texas, Northern District of Texas

 

On January 10, 2007, the Simeon case and the Burke case were consolidated and we expect that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed.

 

The cases described above are being vigorously defended. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

 

Declaratory Action with Respect to Alleged Default and Purported Acceleration of our Senior Notes

On September 22, 2006, we received a letter from CEDE & Co. (“CEDE”) sent on behalf of certain holders of our 5.20% Senior Notes due 2015 (the “5.20% Senior Notes”) issued by us under that certain Indenture dated June 6, 2005 (the “Indenture”) between us and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (the “Trustee”) advising us that we were in default of our covenants under the Indenture. The letter alleged that our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 by September 13, 2006, was a default under the terms of the Indenture. On September 29, 2006, we received a letter from CEDE sent on behalf of the same persons declaring an acceleration with respect to the 5.20% Senior Notes, as a result of our failure to remedy the default set forth in the September 22 letter related to our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006. The September 29 letter declared that the principal amount and premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on the 5.20% Senior Notes were due and payable immediately, and demanded payment of all amounts owed in respect of the 5.20% Senior Notes.

 

On September 29, 2006 we received a letter from the Trustee with respect to the 5.20% Senior Notes. The letter alleged that we were in default of our covenants under the Indenture with respect to the 5.20% Senior Notes, as the result of our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 on or before September 28, 2006. On October 6, 2006, we received a letter from the Trustee declaring an acceleration with respect to the 5.20% Senior Notes as a result of our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 on or before September 28, 2006. The October 6, 2006 letter declared the principal amount and premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on the 5.20% Senior Notes to be due and payable immediately, and demanded payment of all amounts owed in respect of the 5.20% Senior Notes.

 

In addition, our 4.70% Senior Notes due 2010 (the “4.70% Senior Notes”) were also issued under the Indenture and have identical default and acceleration provisions as the 5.20% Senior Notes. On October 9, 2006, we received letters from certain holders of the 4.70% Senior Notes issued by us under the Indenture, advising us that we were in default of our covenants under the Indenture. The letters alleged that our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 by September 13, 2006, was a default under the terms of the Indenture. On November 9, 10 and 16, 2006, we received letters from CEDE sent on behalf of certain holders of our 4.70% Senior Notes, declaring an acceleration of the 4.70% Senior Notes as the result of our failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006. The November 9, 10 and 16, 2006 letters declared the principal amount and premium, if any, and accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on the 4.70% Senior Notes to be due and payable immediately, and demanded payment of all amounts owed under the 4.70% Senior Notes.

 

It is our position that no default has occurred under the Indenture and that no acceleration has occurred with respect to the 5.20% Senior Notes or the 4.70% Senior Notes (collectively, the “Senior Notes”) or otherwise under the Indenture. Further we have filed a lawsuit against the Trustee in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, seeking a declaratory judgment affirming our position. On January 8, 2007, the Court entered an order substituting Wilmington Trust Company for the Bank of New York. On January 16, 2007, Wilmington Trust Company filed an answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim

seeks immediate payment of all principal and accrued and unpaid interest on the Senior Notes. Alternatively, the counterclaim seeks damages measured by the difference between the fair market value of the Senior Notes on or about September 22, 2006 and par value of the Senior Notes.

 

Unless and until there is a final judgment rendered in the lawsuit described above (including any appellate proceedings), no legally enforceable determination can be made as to whether the failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 is a default under the Indenture as alleged by the letters referenced above. If there is a final legally enforceable determination that the failure to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 is a default under the Indenture, and that acceleration with respect to the Senior Notes was proper, the principal and premium, if any, and all accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on the Senior Notes would be immediately due and payable.

 

In the event the claim of default against us made by certain holders of the Senior Notes is upheld in a court of law and we are required to payoff the Senior Notes, it is most likely that we would utilize the Credit Facility to fund such payoff. Under the terms of the Credit Facility, we can utilize borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility (defined in Item 7), subject to certain liquidity requirements, or may seek additional commitments for funding under the Term Loan Facility (defined in Item 7) of the Credit Facility (defined in Item 7). We estimate we have sufficient liquidity to meet both the needs of our operations and any potential payoff of the Senior Notes. While we do have availability under our Credit Facility to draw funds to repay the Senior Notes, there may be a decrease in our credit availability that could otherwise be used for other corporate purposes, such as acquisitions and share repurchases.

 

If our Senior Notes are refinanced or the determination is made that the outstanding balance is due to the noteholders, the remaining unrealized loss on forward interest rate agreements reported in other comprehensive income of $16.3 million ($10.2 million, net of income tax), unamortized deferred financing costs of $3.2 million ($2.1 million, net of income tax) and unamortized discount of $0.6 million ($0.4 million, net of income tax) associated with our Senior Notes as of June 30, 2006 may be adjusted and reported as interest expense in our Consolidated Statement of Income in the period of refinancing or demand.

 

Amendment, Consent and Waiver for our Credit Facility

On September 26, 2006, we received an amendment, consent and waiver from the lenders under our Credit Facility with respect to, among other provisions, waiver of any default or event of default arising under the Credit Facility as a result of our failure to comply with certain reporting covenants relating to other indebtedness, including covenants purportedly requiring the filing of reports with either the SEC or the holders of such indebtedness, so long as those requirements are complied with by December 31, 2006. As consideration for this amendment, consent and waiver, we paid a fee of $2.6 million.

 

On December 21, 2006, we received an amendment, consent and waiver from lenders under our Credit Facility. The amendment, consent and waiver includes the following provisions, among others:

 

(1) Consent to the delivery, on or prior to February 14, 2007, of (i) the financial statements, accountant’s report and compliance certificate for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 and (ii) financial statements and related compliance certificates for the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006, and waiver of any default arising from the failure to deliver any such financial statements, reports or certificates within the applicable time period provided for in the Credit Agreement, provided that any such failure to deliver resulted directly or indirectly from the previously announced investigation of the Company’s historical stock option grant practices (the “Options Matter”).

 

(2) Waiver of any default or event of default arising from the incorrectness of representations and warranties made or deemed to have been made with respect to certain financial statements previously delivered to the Agent as a result of any restatement, adjustment or other modification of such financial statements resulting directly or indirectly from the Options Matter.

 

(3) Waiver of any default or event of default which may arise from the Company’s or its subsidiaries’ failure to comply with reporting covenants under other indebtedness that are similar to those in the Credit Agreement (including any covenant to file any report with the Securities and Exchange Commission or to furnish such reports to the holders of such indebtedness), provided such reporting covenants are complied with on or prior to February 14, 2007.

 

(4) Amendments to provisions relating to the permitted uses of the proceeds of revolving loans under the Credit Agreement that (i) increase to $500 million from $350 million the aggregate principal amount of revolving loans that may be outstanding, the proceeds of which may be used to satisfy the obligations under the Company’s 4.70% Senior Notes due 2010 or 5.20% Senior Notes due 2015 and (ii) until June 30, 2007, decrease to $200 million from $300 million the minimum liquidity (i.e., the

aggregate amount of the Company’s unrestricted cash in excess of $50 million and availability under the Credit Agreement’s revolving facility) required after giving effect to such use of proceeds.

 

As consideration for this amendment, waiver and consent, we paid a fee of $1.3 million.

 

Investigation Regarding Photo Enforcement Contract in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

We and one of our Canadian subsidiaries, ACS Public Sector Solutions, Inc., received a summons issued February 15, 2006 by the Alberta Department of Justice requiring us and our subsidiary to answer a charge of a violation of a Canadian Federal law which prohibits giving, offering or agreeing to give or offer any reward, advantage or benefit as consideration for receiving any favor in connection with a business relationship. The charge covers the period from January 1, 1998 through June 4, 2004 and references the involvement of certain Edmonton, Alberta police officials. Two Edmonton police officials have been separately charged for violation of this law. The alleged violation relates to the subsidiary’s contract with the City of Edmonton for photo enforcement services. We acquired this subsidiary and contract from Lockheed Martin Corporation in August 2001 when we acquired Lockheed Martin IMS Corporation. The contract currently is on a month-to-month term with revenues of approximately $2.3 million, $2 million and $1.9 million (U.S. dollars) in fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. A renewal contract had been awarded to our subsidiary in 2004 on a sole source basis, but this renewal award was rescinded by the City of Edmonton and a subsequent request for proposals for an expanded photo enforcement contract was issued in September 2004. Prior to announcement of any award, however, the City of Edmonton suspended this procurement process pending the completion of the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which led to the February 15, 2006 summons. We conducted an internal investigation of this matter, and based on our findings from our internal investigation, we believe that our subsidiary has sustainable defenses to the charge. We notified the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission upon our receipt of the summons and continue to periodically report the status of this matter to them.

 

On October 31, 2006 legal counsel to the Alberta government withdrew the charge against ACS. The charge against our subsidiary has not been withdrawn and a preliminary hearing on this matter has been scheduled for September 7, 2007. We are unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of this matter at this time. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

 

Investigation Concerning Procurement Process at Hanscom Air Force Base

One of our subsidiaries, ACS Defense, LLC, and several other government contractors received a grand jury document subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in October 2002. The subpoena was issued in connection with an inquiry being conducted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The inquiry concerns certain IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery — Indefinite Quantity) procurements and their related task orders, which occurred in the late 1990s at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. In February 2004, we sold the contracts associated with the Hanscom Air Force Base relationship to ManTech International Corporation (“ManTech”); however, we have agreed to indemnify ManTech with respect to this DOJ investigation. The DOJ is continuing its investigation, but we have no information as to when the DOJ will conclude this process. We have cooperated with the DOJ in producing documents in response to the subpoena, and our internal investigation and review of this matter through outside legal counsel will continue through the conclusion of the DOJ investigatory process. We are unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of this matter at this time. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

 

Investigation Regarding Certain Child Support Payment Processing Contracts.

Another of our subsidiaries, ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (“ACS SLS”), and a teaming partner of this subsidiary, Tier Technologies, Inc. (“Tier”), received a grand jury document subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in May 2003. The subpoena was issued in connection with an inquiry being conducted by the Antitrust Division of the DOJ. We believe that the inquiry concerns the teaming arrangements between ACS SLS and Tier on child support payment processing contracts awarded to ACS SLS, and Tier as a subcontractor to ACS SLS, in New York, Illinois and Ohio but may also extend to the conduct of ACS SLS and Tier with respect to the bidding process for child support contracts in certain other states. Effective June 30, 2004, Tier was no longer a subcontractor to us in Ohio. Our revenue from the contracts for which Tier was a subcontractor was approximately $45.6 million, $43.5 million and $67 million for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, representing approximately 0.9%, 1% and 1.6% of our revenues for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Our teaming arrangement with Tier also contemplated the California child support payment processing request for proposals, which was issued in late 2003; however, we did not enter into a teaming agreement with Tier for the California request for proposals. Based on Tier’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we understand that on November 20, 2003 the DOJ granted conditional

amnesty to Tier in connection with this inquiry pursuant to the DOJ’s Corporate Leniency Policy. The policy provides that the DOJ will not bring any criminal charges against Tier as long as it continues to fully cooperate in the inquiry (and makes restitution payments if it is determined that parties were injured as a result of impermissible anticompetitive conduct). In May 2006 we were advised that one of our current employees (who has not been active in our government business segment since June 2005) and one former employee of ACS SLS, both of whom held senior management positions in the subsidiary during the period in question, have received target letters from the DOJ related to this inquiry. The DOJ is continuing its investigation, but we have no information as to when the DOJ will conclude this process. We have cooperated with the DOJ in producing documents in response to the subpoena, and our internal investigation and review of this matter through outside legal counsel will continue through the conclusion of the DOJ investigatory process. We are unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of this matter at this time. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

 

Investigation Regarding Florida Workforce Contracts

On January 30, 2004, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation’s (“AWI”) Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued a report that reviewed 13 Florida workforce regions, including Dade and Monroe counties, and noted concerns related to the accuracy of customer case records maintained by our local staff. Our total revenue generated from the Florida workforce services amounts to approximately 0.4%, 0.9% and 1% of our revenues for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In March 2004, we filed our response to the OIG report. The principal workforce policy organization for the State of Florida, which oversees and monitors the administration of the State’s workforce policy and the programs carried out by AWI and the regional workforce boards, is Workforce Florida, Inc. (“WFI”). On May 20, 2004, the Board of Directors of WFI held a public meeting at which the Board announced that WFI did not see a systemic problem with our performance of these workforce services and that it considered the issue closed. There were also certain contract billing issues that arose during the course of our performance of our workforce contract in Dade County, Florida, which ended in June 2003. However, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2005, we settled all financial issues with Dade County with respect to our workforce contract with that county and the settlement is fully reflected in our results of operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. We were also advised in February 2004 that the SEC had initiated an informal investigation into the matters covered by the OIG’s report, although we have not received any request for information or documents since the middle of calendar year 2004. On March 22, 2004, ACS SLS received a grand jury document subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The subpoena was issued in connection with an inquiry being conducted by the DOJ and the Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) into the subsidiary’s workforce contracts in Dade and Monroe counties in Florida, which also expired in June 2003, and which were included in the OIG’s report. On August 11, 2005, the South Florida Workforce Board notified us that all deficiencies in our Dade County workforce contract have been appropriately addressed and all findings are considered resolved. On August 25, 2004, ACS SLS received a grand jury document subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in connection with an inquiry being conducted by the DOJ and the Inspector General’s Office of the DOL. The subpoena relates to a workforce contract in Pinellas County in Florida for the period from January 1999 to the contract’s expiration in March 2001, which was prior to our acquisition of this business from Lockheed Martin Corporation in August 2001. Further, we settled a civil lawsuit with Pinellas County in December 2003 with respect to claims related to the services rendered to Pinellas County by Lockheed Martin Corporation prior to our acquisition of ACS SLS (those claims having been transferred with ACS SLS as part of the acquisition), and the settlement resulted in Pinellas County paying ACS SLS an additional $600,000. We are continuing our internal investigation of these matters through outside legal counsel and we are continuing to cooperate with the DOJ and DOL in connection with their investigations. At this stage of these investigations, we are unable to express an opinion as to their likely outcome. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, we completed the divestiture of substantially all of our welfare-to-workforce services business (See Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2006 for further information). However, we retained the liabilities for this business which arose from activities prior to the date of closing, including the contingent liabilities discussed above.

 

In addition to the foregoing, we are subject to certain other legal proceedings, inquiries, claims and disputes, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Although we cannot predict the outcomes of these other proceedings, we do not believe these other actions, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

 

During the fiscal fourth quarter covered by this report, no matter was submitted to a vote of our security holders.

 

Our Class A common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ACS.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our Class A common stock for the last two fiscal years as reported on the NYSE.

 

 

 

On January 12, 2007, the last reported sales price of our Class A common stock as reported on the NYSE was $48.86 per share. As of that date, there were approximately 90,000 record holders of our Class A common stock and one record holder of our Class B common stock.

 

Under the terms of our Credit Facility and Senior Notes (each as defined in Item 7), we are allowed to pay cash dividends. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be dependent upon our financial condition, results of operations, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and such other factors as the Board of Directors deems relevant. We intend to retain earnings for use in the operation of our business and, therefore, did not pay cash dividends in the fiscal years ended June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004 and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

 

The following table summarizes certain information related to our stock option and employee stock purchase plans.

 

 

 

 

On August 15, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors granted 2,091,500 options to employees under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan. Based on executive management’s recommendation, no stock option grants were made to corporate executive management pending substantive determination regarding corporate executive management’s actions in the matters related to the informal stock option investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the grand jury subpoena issued by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. However, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors agreed to grant options of 100,000 shares each to Ann Vezina, Chief Operating Officer, Commercial Solutions Group and Tom Burlin, Chief Operating Officer, Government Solutions Group, but those grants were deferred. The delay in the grants to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin was necessary at the time because there were insufficient shares remaining in the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan to make the grants to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin. Subsequent to August 15, 2006, there were a number of options granted under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan that terminated, which options then became available to grant to other employees, including Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin as discussed below.

 

Because of the investigation into our stock option grant practices, we were unable to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Annual Meeting of Stockholders was delayed, and the regularly scheduled meeting of our Board of Directors that was to have occurred in November 2006 was focused solely on stock option investigation matters and any other matters for consideration were deferred. Under our stock option granting policy (See Item 11, Part III), the day prior to or the day of that regularly scheduled November Board meeting, the Compensation Committee could have granted options to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who become ACS employees as a result of an acquisition. On the morning of December 9, 2006, the Compensation Committee met to discuss whether options, which were now available under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, should be granted to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who became ACS employees as a result of an acquisition. After consideration of the fact that options would have been granted in November, if the regularly scheduled Board meeting had not deferred consideration of matters other than the stock option investigation, the Compensation Committee met on December 9, 2006 and, as a result of their actions at that meeting, a grant of 692,000 shares was made to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who become ACS employees as a result of an acquisition, with such grants including 140,000 shares to Lynn Blodgett, who had been promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer; 75,000 shares to John Rexford who had been promoted to Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and named a director; and 100,000 shares each to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin which grants were in recognition of their recent promotions to Chief Operating Officers of the Commercial and Government Segments respectively, and has been approved by the Compensation Committee on August 15, 2006 but were deferred until shares were available for grant.

 

Tender Offer

On January 26, 2006, we announced that our Board of Directors authorized a modified “Dutch Auction” tender offer to purchase up to 55.5 million shares of our Class A common stock at a price per share not less than $56 and not greater than $63 (the “Tender Offer”). The Tender Offer commenced on February 9, 2006, and expired on March 17, 2006 (as extended), and was funded with proceeds from the Term Loan Facility (defined in Item 7). Our directors and executive officers, including our Chairman, Darwin Deason, did not tender shares pursuant to the Tender Offer. The number of shares purchased in the Tender Offer was 7,365,110 shares of Class A common stock at an average price of $63 per share plus transaction costs, for an aggregate purchase amount of $475.9 million. All of the shares purchased in the Tender Offer were retired as of June 30, 2006.

 

Share Repurchase Programs

Prior to the Tender Offer, our Board of Directors authorized three share repurchase programs totaling $1.75 billion of our Class A common stock. On September 2, 2003, we announced that our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $500 million of our Class A common stock; on April 29, 2004, we announced that our Board of Directors authorized a new, incremental share repurchase program of up to $750 million of our Class A common stock, and on October 20, 2005, we announced that our Board of Directors authorized an incremental share repurchase program of up to $500 million of our Class A common stock. These share repurchase plans were terminated on January 25, 2006 by our Board of Directors in contemplation of our Tender Offer, which was announced January 26, 2006 and expired March 17, 2006. The programs, which were open-ended, allowed us to repurchase our shares on the open market from time to time in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations, including shares that could be purchased pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The number of shares purchased and the timing of purchases was based on the level of cash and debt balances, general business conditions and other factors, including alternative investment opportunities, and purchases under these plans were funded from various sources, including, but not limited to, cash on hand, cash flow from operations, and borrowings under our credit facilities. Under our previously authorized share repurchase programs during fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, we had repurchased approximately 2.2 million, 4.9 million and 15 million shares, respectively, at a

total cost of approximately $115.8 million, $250.8 million and $743.2 million, respectively. We have reissued approximately 0.3 million, 0.6 million and 0.1 million shares, respectively, for proceeds of approximately $17.9 million, $28.5 million and $4.6 million, respectively, to fund contributions to our employee stock purchase plan and 401(k) plan during fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In July 2006, we reissued approximately 57,000 shares for proceeds totaling approximately $2.8 million to fund contributions to our employee stock purchase plan.

 

In June 2006, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $1 billion of our Class A common stock. The program, which was open ended, allowed us to repurchase our shares on the open market, from time to time, in accordance with the requirements of SEC rules and regulations, including shares that could be purchased pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The number of shares to be purchased and the timing of purchases was based on the level of cash and debt balances, general business conditions, and other factors, including alternative investment opportunities. As of June 30, 2006, we had repurchased approximately 5.5 million shares at a total cost of approximately $269.3 million and retired approximately 3.2 million of those shares. As of June 30, 2006, we had initiated purchases that had not yet settled for 1.3 million shares of our common stock with a total cost of $66.4 million. In August 2006, we completed the June 2006 Board of Directors authorized share repurchase program, purchasing a total of 19.9 million shares for an average price of $50.30. All of the shares repurchased under this authorization were retired as of the date of this report.

 

In August 2006, our Board of Directors authorized an additional share repurchase program of up to $1 billion of our Class A common stock. The program, which is open ended, will allow us to repurchase our shares on the open market, from time to time, in accordance with the requirements of SEC rules and regulations, including shares that could be purchased pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The number of shares to be purchased and the timing of purchases will be based on the level of cash and debt balances, general business conditions, and other factors, including alternative investment opportunities. No repurchases have been made under this additional share repurchase program as of the date of this filing. We expect to fund repurchases under this additional share repurchase program from borrowings under our Credit Facility.

 

Repurchase activity for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 is reflected in the table below. Please refer to the discussion above for the cumulative repurchases under our previous share repurchase programs.

 

 

Convertible Notes

On February 27, 2004, we completed the redemption of our 3.5% Convertible Subordinated Notes due February 15, 2006 (the “Convertible Notes”). Holders of 99.9% of all the outstanding Convertible Notes converted their Convertible Notes to 23.0234 shares of our Class A common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes in accordance with the procedures specified in the related indenture governing the Convertible Notes. As the result of such conversions, approximately 7.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were issued to such noteholders at the conversion price of $43.44 per share. The remaining Convertible Notes were redeemed in cash at 101.4% of the principal amount, resulting in a cash redemption of $269,000.

 

The following selected consolidated financial data is qualified by reference to and should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this document. Please see the discussions, “Review of Stock Option Grant Practices” and “Significant Developments — Fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004,” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a description of the more significant events, including business combinations, that impact comparability, as well as the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements (in thousands, except per share amounts).

 

Our financial results for fiscal years 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 have been restated as a result of the review of our internal investigation of our stock option grant practices discussed in footnote (i) to this schedule of selected consolidated financial data. Please see “Review of Stock Option Grant Practices” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 2 of our Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the adjustments to our selected consolidated financial data.

 

 

 

 

All statements in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations that are not based on historical fact are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (which Sections were adopted as part of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). While management has based any forward-looking statements contained herein on its current expectations, the information on which such expectations were based may change. These forward-looking statements rely on a number of assumptions concerning future events and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are outside of our control, that could cause actual results to materially differ from such statements. Such risks, uncertainties, and other factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, those set forth in Item 1A. of this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “Risk Factors.” In addition, we operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks may arise. Accordingly, investors should not place any reliance on forward-looking statements as a prediction of actual results. We disclaim any intention to, and undertake no obligation to, update or revise any forward-looking statement.

 

We report our financial results in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). However, we believe that certain non-GAAP financial measures and ratios, used in managing our business, may provide users of this financial information with additional meaningful comparisons between current results and prior reported results. Certain of the information set forth herein and certain of the information presented by us from time to time (including free cash flow and internal revenue growth) may constitute non-GAAP financial measures within the meaning of Regulation G adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We have presented herein and we will present in other information we publish that contains any of these non-GAAP financial measures a reconciliation of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure. The presentation of this additional information is not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable amounts determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States.

 

Overview

 

We derive our revenues from delivering comprehensive business process outsourcing and information technology services solutions to commercial and government clients. A substantial portion of our revenues is derived from recurring monthly charges to our clients under service contracts with initial terms that vary from one to ten years. We define recurring revenues as revenues derived from services that our clients use each year in connection with their ongoing businesses, and accordingly, exclude software license fees, short-term contract programming and consulting engagements, product installation fees, and hardware and software sales. However, as we add, through acquisitions or new service offerings, consulting or other services to enhance the value delivered and offered to our clients which are primarily short-term in nature, we may experience variations in our mix of recurring versus non-recurring revenues. Since inception, our acquisition program has resulted in growth and diversification of our client base, expansion of services and products offered, increased economies of scale and geographic expansion.

 

Management focuses on various metrics in analyzing our business and its performance and outlook. One such metric is our sales pipeline, which was approximately $1.6 billion of annual recurring revenues as of June 30, 2006. Our sales pipeline is a qualified pipeline of deals with signings anticipated within the next six months and excludes deals with annual recurring revenue over $100 million. Both the commercial and government pipelines have significant, quality opportunities across multiple lines of business and in multiple verticals, including business process outsourcing, commercial and government information technology services and healthcare. We analyze the cash flow generation qualities of each deal in our pipeline and make decisions based on its cash return characteristics. While the magnitude of our sales pipeline is an important indicator of potential new business signings and potential future internal revenue growth, actual new business signings and internal revenue growth depend on a number of factors including the effectiveness of our sales pursuit teams, competition for a deal, deal pricing and other risks described further in Item 1A. Risk Factors.

 

We use internal revenue growth as a measure of the organic growth of our business. Internal revenue growth is measured as total revenue growth less acquired revenue from acquisitions and revenues from divested operations. At the date of acquisition, we identify the trailing twelve months of revenue of the acquired company as the “pre-acquisition revenue of acquired companies.” Pre-acquisition revenue of the acquired companies is considered “acquired revenues” in our calculation, and revenues from the acquired company, either above or below that amount are components of “internal growth” in our calculation. We use the calculation of internal revenue growth to measure revenue growth excluding the impact of acquired revenues and the revenue associated with divested operations and we believe these adjustments to historical reported results are necessary to accurately reflect our internal revenue

growth. Revenues from divested operations are excluded from the internal revenue growth calculation in the periods following the effective date of the divestiture. Our measure of internal revenue growth may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies. Prior period internal revenue growth calculations are not restated for current period divestitures.

 

Management analyzes new business signings on a trailing twelve month basis as it is generally a better indicator of future growth than quarterly new business signings which can vary due to timing of contract execution. We define new business signings as recurring revenue from new contracts, including the incremental portion of renewals, signed during the period and represent the estimated first twelve months of revenue to be recorded under that contract after full implementation. We use new business signings as additional measures of estimating total revenue represented by contractual commitments, both to forecast prospective revenues and to estimate capital commitments. Revenues for new business signings are measured under GAAP. There are no third party standards or requirements governing the calculation of new business signings and our measure may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies.

 

Renewal rates are a key indicator of client satisfaction. Our fiscal year 2006 renewal rates were approximately 85%. We define total contract value as the estimated total revenues from contracts signed during the period and represents estimated total revenue over the term of the contract. We use total contract value as an additional measure of estimating total revenue represented by contractual commitments, both to forecast prospective revenues and to estimate capital commitments. Revenues for total contract value are measured under GAAP.

 

We compete for new business in the competitive IT services and business process outsourcing markets. The overall health of these markets and the competitive environment can be determined by analyzing several key metrics. One of the metrics we monitor is the overall expected operating margin of our new business signings which is a good indicator of our expected future operating margin given the long-term nature of our customer contracts. We are seeing that the overall expected operating margin of new business signings is consistent with our historical operating margin. While the expected operating margin on new business signings may change in the future, we believe the current expected operating margin trend supports a healthy competitive pricing environment.

 

Another metric of new business signings that we monitor is capital intensity, defined as capital expenditures and additions to intangible assets, of new business signings. Understanding the capital intensity of new business signings is helpful in determining the future free cash flow generating levels of our business. Historically the capital intensity in our business has ranged between 5-7%. During fiscal year 2006, the overall capital intensity of our business was slightly in excess of 8% due to approximately $60 million in investments that we made in certain areas of our business. These investments included investments related to integrating the Acquired HR Business and expanding our human resources outsourcing technology platform; investments made in our Government healthcare technology platforms; the expansion of our data center capacity with the addition of a new data center and investments to increase global production both in existing locations and new geographies. The expected capital intensity of new business signings during fiscal year 2006 was consistent with our historical range. We believe the expected capital intensity range of our new business signings reflects a healthy competitive environment and the related risks we are taking with respects to our new IT services and business process outsourcing business.

 

Retaining and training our employees is a key ingredient to our historical success and will continue to be a major factor in our future success. We consistently review our retention rates on a regional and global basis to ensure that we are competitive in hiring, retaining and motivating our employees. We perform benchmarking studies against some markets in which we compete to ensure our competitiveness in compensation and benefits and utilize employee surveys to gauge our employees’ level of satisfaction. We provide our employees ongoing technological and leadership training and will continue to do so to develop our employees and remain competitive. We utilize incentive based compensation as a means to motivate certain of our employees in both segments of our business and anticipate increasing our use of incentive based compensation in fiscal year 2007. We believe our use of incentive based compensation is a competitive advantage for ACS.

 

2007 Outlook

 

As a premier provider of business process outsourcing and information technology services, we believe we are well positioned to benefit from commercial and governmental entities’ demand to outsource non-core, mission-critical back office functions. Demand for commercial business process and information technology services is expected to remain healthy during fiscal year 2007. Areas of strong demand in the Commercial segment include transactional business process outsourcing, multi-scope human resources outsourcing, finance and accounting outsourcing, customer care outsourcing and traditional information technology services. We also anticipate healthy demand for our government services. In addition to the areas that we have marketed historically, such as government healthcare, municipal services, electronic payment services and transportation services and solutions, we continue to

believe that government entities could benefit from our commercial best practices around such areas as eligibility administration, human resources outsourcing, customer care and finance and accounting outsourcing. From a geographic perspective, we believe that there will continue to be strong demand in the United States and expect to see more business process outsourcing opportunities in Europe and abroad.

 

In order to capitalize on opportunities in these markets, we will continue to make certain investments and reorganizations in our business in fiscal year 2007. We recently completed strategic acquisitions in specific segments of our business including the learning outsourcing component of human resource outsourcing and the cost recovery segment of commercial healthcare markets. These acquisitions should allow us to capitalize on strong demand in these vertical markets. During fiscal year 2006, we performed a critical review of our operations and restructured certain operations and shed non-core businesses. We continued our restructuring activities in the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, and recorded certain restructuring charges and asset impairments arising from our discretionary decisions in that period. We believe that these restructuring activities will help us better compete in the diverse markets that we serve.

 

In the Commercial segment, we anticipate expanding our system integration services as well as application, development and maintenance services in selected vertical markets. We also plan to increase our penetration of low-cost delivery locations outside the United States. In the Government segment, we expect to leverage our broad international presence and subject matter expertise in the transportation services market. We also anticipate making investments in advanced Government healthcare systems which will address both state needs and attractive opportunities in the Federal healthcare market. In both segments, we plan to deepen our use of incentive based compensation.

 

Review of Stock Option Grant Practices

 

On March 3, 2006 we received notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is conducting an informal investigation into certain stock option grants made by us from October 1998 through March 2005. On June 7, 2006 and on June 16, 2006 we received requests from the SEC for information on all of our stock option grants since 1994. We have responded to the SEC’s requests for information and are cooperating in the informal investigation.

 

On May 17, 2006, we received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court, Southern District of New York requesting production of documents related to granting of our stock option grants. We have responded to the grand jury subpoena and have provided documents to the United States Attorney’s Office in connection with the grand jury proceeding. We have informed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York of the results of our internal investigation into our stock option grant practices and will continue to cooperate with these governmental entities and their investigations.

 

We initiated an internal investigation of our stock option grant practices in response to the pending informal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a subpoena from a grand jury in the Southern District of New York. The investigation reviewed our historical stock option grant practices during the period from 1994 through 2005, including all 73 stock option grants made by us during this period, and the related disclosure in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, filed May 15, 2006 (the “May 2006 Form 10-Q”).

 

The investigation was overseen by a special committee of the Board of Directors which consisted of all the independent members of the Board. The special committee retained Bracewell & Giuliani LLP as independent counsel to conduct the internal investigation. In November 2006 the results of the investigation were reported to the special committee, at which time the committee submitted recommendations for action to the Board. These recommendations are now being implemented by the Board substantially as submitted by the special committee.

 

During the course of the investigation, more than 2 million pages of electronic and hardcopy documents and emails were reviewed. In addition, approximately 40 interviews of current and former officers, directors, employees and other individuals were conducted. The independent directors, in their role as special committee members and as independent directors prior to formation of the committee, met extensively since the SEC informal investigation commenced to consider the matters related to the stock option grant practices. The investigation was necessarily limited in that the investigation team did not have access to certain witnesses with relevant information (including former Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey A. Rich) and due to the lack of metadata for certain electronic documentation prior to 2000.

 

The following background pertaining to our historical stock option grant practices was confirmed through the investigation. Option grants were typically initiated by our senior management or Darwin Deason, Chairman of the Board (and chairman of the compensation committee from 1994 through August 2003), on a prospective basis at times when they believed it was

appropriate to consider option grants and the price of our common stock was relatively low based on an analysis of, among other things, price-earnings multiples. With respect to each grant of options to senior executives, the Chairman gave a broad authorization to the CEO which included approval of option recipients and the number of stock options to be awarded to each recipient. In the case of non-senior management grants, the Chairman gave his general authorization for the awarding of options and the CEO would subsequently obtain his approval of option recipients and the number of stock options to be awarded. With respect to both senior executive and non-senior management grants, after the Chairman’s broad authorization, Jeffrey A. Rich, Mark A. King and/or Warren D. Edwards then selected the date to be recorded as the grant date as they, assisted by employees who reported to them, prepared the paperwork that documented the grant recommendations to be considered by the applicable compensation committee. Thus, between 1994 and 2005, grant dates and related exercise prices were generally selected by Mr. Rich, Mr. King, and/or Mr. Edwards. Mr. Rich served as CFO during the period prior to 1994 and until May 1995, President and Chief Operating Officer from May 1995 until February 1999, President and Chief Executive Officer from February 1999 until August 2002, and Chief Executive Officer from August 2002 until his resignation September 29, 2005. Mr. King served as CFO from May 1995 through March 2001, COO from March 2001 through August 2002, President and COO from August 2002 through September 2005, and President and CEO from September 2005 through November 26, 2006. Mr. Edwards served as CFO from March 2001 through November 26, 2006.

 

As described in our May 2006 Form 10-Q, our regular and special compensation committees used unanimous written consents signed by all members of the committee ratifying their prior verbal approvals of option grants to senior executives or options granted in connection with significant acquisitions. In connection with option grants to senior executives, the historical practice was for the Chairman, on or about the day he gave senior management his broad authorization to proceed with preparing paperwork for option grants, to call each of the compensation committee members to discuss and obtain approval for the grants. In cases where grants were awarded to senior executives and in large blocks to non-senior management the Chairman and members of the compensation committee discussed grants to senior executives specifically and, on certain occasions, acknowledged generally that a block of grants would be awarded to non-senior management as well. For grants to non-senior management which were not combined with senior executive grants, the Chairman and the committee members generally did not discuss the grants at the time the Chairman gave his broad authorization to senior management to proceed with preparing paperwork for option grants, but unanimous written consents were subsequently signed by the committee members in order to document the effective date of the grants.

 

The investigation concluded that in a significant number of cases Mr. Rich, Mr. King and/or Mr. Edwards used hindsight to select favorable grant dates during the limited time periods after Mr. Deason had given the officers his authorization to proceed to prepare the paperwork for the option grants and before formal grant documentation was submitted to the applicable compensation committee. No evidence was found to suggest that grant dates which preceded Mr. Deason’s broad authorization were ever selected. In a number of instances, our stock price was trending downward at the time Mr. Deason’s authorization was given, but started to rise as the grant recommendation memoranda were being finalized. The investigation found that in those instances Mr. Rich, Mr. King and/or Mr. Edwards often looked back in time and selected as the “grant date” a date on which the price was at a low, notwithstanding that the date had already passed and the stock price on the date of the actual selection was higher. Recommendation memoranda attendant to these grants were intentionally misdated at the direction of Mr. Rich, Mr. King and/or Mr. Edwards to make it appear as if the memoranda had been created at or about the time of the chosen grant date, when in fact, they had been created afterwards. As a result, stock options were awarded at prices that were at, or near, the quarterly low and we effectively granted “in the money” options without recording the appropriate compensation expense.

 

The evidence gathered in the investigation disclosed that aside from Mr. Rich, Mr. King and Mr. Edwards, one other of our current management employees, who is not an executive officer or director, was aware of the intentional misdating of documents. Based on the evidence reviewed, no other current executives, directors or management employees were aware of either the improper use of hindsight in selecting grant dates or the intentional misdating of documents. It was also determined that these improper practices were generally followed with respect to option grants made to both senior executives and other employees. No evidence was found to suggest that the practices were selectively employed to favor executive officers over other employees.

 

The Company has made only one individual stock option grant to Mr. Deason since the Company was founded in 1988. The investigation, after extensive analysis of the available evidence, could not conclude that the reported grant date for this stock option grant, July 23, 2002, was selected using hindsight. Mr. Deason has never exercised any options under this single individual option grant. (Two other option grants to Mr. Deason are being used by the Company as a means to partially fund its retirement obligations to Mr. Deason). See Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of Mr. Deason’s Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.

 

Further, with respect to our May 2006 Form 10-Q, the investigation concluded that Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements which stated, in part, that we did “not believe that any director or officer of the Company has engaged in the intentional backdating of stock option grants in order to achieve a more advantageous exercise price,” was inaccurate because, at the time the May 2006 Form 10-Q was filed, Mr. King and Mr. Edwards either knew or should have known that we awarded options through a process in which favorable grant dates were selected with the benefit of hindsight in order to achieve a more advantageous exercise price and that the term “backdating” was readily applicable to our option grant process. Neither Mr. King nor Mr. Edwards told our directors, outside counsel or independent accountants that our stock options were often granted by looking back and taking advantage of past low prices. Instead, both Mr. King and Mr. Edwards attributed the disparity between recorded grant dates and the creation dates of the paperwork attendant to the stock option grants to other factors that did not involve the use of hindsight.

 

The investigation concluded that the conduct of Mr. King and Mr. Edwards with regard to the misdating of recommendation memoranda as well as their conduct with regard to the May 2006 Form 10-Q violated our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers. As a result the special committee recommended that Mr. King and Mr. Edwards should resign. Effective November 26, 2006 each of Mr. King and Mr. Edwards resigned from all executive management positions with us. See “Departure of Executive Officers” below for a discussion of the terms of their separation.

 

The Board of Directors appointed Lynn Blodgett, who had been serving as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and as a director since September 2005, as President and Chief Executive Officer, and John Rexford, who had been serving as Executive Vice President — Corporate Development since March 2001, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and as a director, in each case effective on November 26, 2006. Mr. Blodgett and Mr. Rexford each have served in various executive capacities with us for over ten years.

 

In addition to the resignations of Mr. King and Mr. Edwards and the approval of the terms of their separation, the Board of Directors announced the following actions and decisions, some of which have already been implemented, as the result of the findings of our stock option investigation:

 

 

We have concluded that there were accounting errors with respect to a number of stock option grants. In general, these stock options were originally granted with an exercise price equal to the NYSE or NASDAQ closing market price for our common stock on the date set forth on unanimous written consents signed by one or more members of the appropriate Compensation Committees. We originally used the stated date of these consents as the “measurement date” for the purpose of accounting for them under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), and as a result recorded no compensation expense in connection with the grants.

 

We have concluded that a number of unanimous written consents were not fully executed or effective on the date set forth on the consents and that using the date stated thereon as the measurement date was incorrect. We have determined a revised measurement date for each stock option grant based on the information now available to us. The revised measurement date reflects the date for which there is objective evidence that the required granting actions necessary to approve the grants, in accordance with our corporate governance procedures, were completed. The accounting guidelines we used in determining the correct accounting measurement date for our option grants require clear evidence of final corporate granting action approving the option grants. Therefore, while the internal investigation did not conclude that option grant dates with respect to certain grants had been selected with hindsight, we nevertheless concluded in many cases that the accounting measurement dates for these grants should be adjusted because the final corporate granting action occurred after the original grant date reflected in our unanimous written consents. In cases where the closing market price on the revised measurement date exceeded the NYSE or NASDAQ closing market price on the original measurement date, we have recognized compensation expense equal to this excess over the vesting term of each option, in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” (“APB 25”) for periods ending on or before June 30, 2005. Additionally, beginning July 1, 2005, we have recognized compensation expense in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123(R)”) based on the fair value of stock options granted, using the revised measurement dates.

 

Subsequent to the delivery of the results of the investigation, we, with the approval of our Audit Committee, have determined that the cumulative non-cash stock-based compensation expense adjustment was material and that our consolidated financial statements for each of the first three quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, each of the quarters in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 and each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004, as well as the selected consolidated financial data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 should be restated to record additional stock-based compensation expense resulting from stock options granted during 1994 to 2005 that were incorrectly accounted for under GAAP, and related income tax effects. Related income tax effects include deferred income tax benefits on the compensation expense, and additional income tax liabilities, with adjustments to additional paid-in capital, and estimated penalties and interest, related to the application of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) and related Treasury Regulations (“Section 162(m)”) to stock-based executive compensation previously deducted, that is now no longer deductible as a result of revised measurement dates of certain stock option grants. We have also included in our restatements additional tax liabilities and estimated penalties and interest, with adjustments to additional paid-in capital and income tax expense, related to certain cash and stock-based executive compensation deductions previously taken under Section 162(m), which we believe may now be non-deductible as a result of information that has been obtained by us in connection with our internal investigation, due to factors unrelated to revised measurement dates. Our decision to restate our financial statements was based on the facts obtained by management and the special committee.

 

We have determined that the cumulative, pre-tax, non-cash stock-based compensation expense resulting from revised measurement dates was approximately $51.2 million during the period from our initial public offering in 1994 through June 30, 2006. The corrections relate to options covering approximately 19.4 million shares. We recorded additional stock-based compensation expense of $2.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 and $6.1 million and $7.5 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $35.5 million for fiscal years ending prior to fiscal 2004. Previously reported total revenues were not impacted by our restatement. The table below reflects the cumulative effect on our stockholders’ equity during the period from our initial public offering in 1994 through June 30, 2006 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The table below reflects the breakdown by year of the cumulative adjustment to retained earnings. Our consolidated financial statements included in previously filed periodic reports with the SEC for such periods have not been amended. The consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been restated. (in thousands)

 

 

 

 

 

In connection with the restatement of our consolidated financial statements discussed above, we assessed the impact of the findings of our internal investigation into our historical stock option grant practices and other tax matters on our reported income tax benefits and deductions, including income tax deductions previously taken for cash and stock-based executive compensation under the provisions of Section 162(m). In connection with that assessment, we determined that adjustments were required to our (i) income tax expense previously reported in our Consolidated Statements of Income; (ii) the tax benefits on stock option exercises previously reported in our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity and (iii) the deferred tax assets previously reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, in order to give effect to the impact of the investigation findings and those of our assessments.

 

In our Consolidated Statements of Income, we recorded deferred income tax benefits of $0.8 million, $2.2 million and $2.7 million for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $9.6 million for periods prior to fiscal year 2004 related to the stock-based compensation adjustments arising from revised measurement dates. Of these cumulative deferred income tax benefits of $15.3 million, $10.2 million has been realized through June 30, 2006 upon stock option exercises and has been reflected as a reduction of excess tax benefits previously recorded in additional paid-in capital. At June 30, 2006 and 2005, we recorded adjustments in our Consolidated Balance Sheets of $5.1 million and $9.2 million, respectively, to recognize deferred income tax assets on stock-based compensation relating to unexercised stock options remaining at those dates.

 

We also recorded current income tax benefits of $1.1 million, $0.6 million and $0.4 million for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $0.1 million for periods prior to fiscal year 2004 related to the income tax benefit of the estimated deductible interest expense on income tax underpayment deficiencies related to disallowed cash and stock-based executive compensation deductions previously taken under Section 162(m) as discussed in “Other tax matters” below. These income tax benefits are reduced by current income tax expense of $0 million, $0.6 million and $1.2 million for the fiscal years June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $2.8 million for periods prior to fiscal year 2004 related to disallowed cash based executive incentive

compensation deductions that were previously believed to qualify as a deduction under Section 162(m). The sum of these current and deferred income tax adjustments are reflected as income tax benefit, net, in the above tables.

 

The components of income tax benefit, net, are as follows (in thousands):

 

 

Other tax matters

The revision of measurement dates for certain stock option grants in connection with our internal investigation required us to assess our previous performance-based cash and stock-based executive compensation income tax deductions previously claimed under Section 162(m) during the applicable periods. As a result of those assessments, we have determined that certain previously claimed stock-based executive compensation deductions under Section 162(m) upon stock option exercise are no longer deductible as a result of revised in-the-money measurement dates. Accordingly, our restatements include adjustments to record additional income taxes payable in the amount of $13.4 million with a corresponding reduction of excess tax benefits previously recorded in additional paid-in capital. Our restatements also include adjustments to record additional income taxes payable in the amount of approximately $15 million with a corresponding reduction of excess tax benefits previously recorded in additional paid-in capital of $10.5 million and an increase in current income tax expense of $4.5 million, related to certain cash and stock-based executive compensation deductions previously taken under Section 162(m), which we believe may now be non-deductible as a result of information that has been obtained by us in connection with our internal investigation, due to factors unrelated to revised measurement dates. We have also recorded estimated penalties and interest in the amount of $3 million, $2.5 million and $2.5 million for the years ended June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $3.5 million for periods prior to fiscal year 2004 for these estimated income tax payment deficiencies.

 

At June 30, 2006, we have recorded approximately $37.9 million of additional income taxes payable, including estimated interest and penalties related to disallowed Section 162(m) executive compensation deductions either resulting from revised measurement dates or due to factors unrelated to revised measurement dates, but which were previously believed to qualify for Section 162(m) deductions. At this time, we cannot predict when the Section 162(m) underpayment deficiencies, together with interest and penalties, if any, will be paid. We expect to fund any such payment from cash flows from operating activities.

 

Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) provides that option holders with options granted with a below-market exercise price, to the extent the options were not vested as of December 31, 2004, may be subject to adverse Federal income tax consequences. Holders of these options will likely be required to recognize taxable income at the date of vesting for those options vesting after December 31, 2004, rather than upon exercise, on the difference between the amount of the fair market value of our Class A common stock on the date of vesting and the exercise price, plus an additional 20 percent penalty tax and interest on any

income tax to be paid. We will be amending the exercise price of certain outstanding stock options to avoid adverse tax consequences to individual option holders under Section 409A and all of our employees and executives (other than Mark A. King, former President and Chief Executive Officer; Warren D. Edwards, former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and one management employee) will be reimbursed to offset any loss of economic benefit related to such re-priced stock options. We will not be re-pricing all option grants for which accounting measurement dates were adjusted. Option grants to executives, employees and certain former employees whose options remain outstanding will be re-priced only to the extent necessary to avoid adverse tax consequences to the individuals, other than Mr. King, Mr. Edwards and one management employee. Grants to certain current and former officers and employee directors were required to be repriced on or before December 31, 2006 in order to comply with income tax regulations, and accordingly, on December 28, 2006, we repriced awards totaling 876,800 shares held by certain current and former officers and employee directors.

 

We expect to pay to certain current and former employees approximately $8 million in order to compensate such individuals for any increase in exercise price resulting from the matters which were the subject of the internal investigation, in order to avoid the adverse individual income tax impact of Section 409A due to revised measurement dates. The $8 million related to Section 409A will be paid to the affected individuals beginning in January 2008 and as the related stock options vest. We expect to fund any such payments from cash flows from operating activities, however, we have not yet determined the impact to our results of operations and financial condition. The increased exercise prices to be paid by optionholders upon their exercise is expected to offset, in the aggregate, the $8 million; however, the timing of any such exercises cannot be determined.

 

Departure of Executive Officers

 

On November 26, 2006, Mark A. King resigned as our President, Chief Executive Officer and as a director. In connection therewith, on November 26, 2006 we and Mr. King entered into a separation agreement (the “King Agreement”). The King Agreement provides, among other things, that Mr. King will remain with us as an employee providing transitional services until June 30, 2007. In addition, under the terms of the King Agreement, all unvested stock options held by Mr. King have been terminated as of November 26, 2006, excluding options that would have otherwise vested prior to August 31, 2007 which will be permitted to vest on their regularly scheduled vesting dates provided that Mr. King does not materially breach certain specified provisions of the King Agreement. The King Agreement also provides that the exercise price of Mr. King’s vested stock options will be increased to an amount determined by us in a manner consistent with the final determination of the review performed by us in conjunction with the audit of our financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 and the exercise price of certain vested options will be further increased by the amount by which the aggregate exercise price of stock options previously exercised by Mr. King would have been increased had the stock options not been previously exercised. Mr. King’s vested options, if unexercised, will expire no later than June 30, 2008. The King Agreement also subjects Mr. King to non-competition and non-solicitation covenants until December 31, 2009. In addition, the King Agreement provides that Mr. King’s severance agreement with us is terminated, Mr. King’s salary will be reduced during the transition period and Mr. King will not be eligible to participate in our bonus plans. Mr. King will be eligible to receive certain of our provided health benefits through December 31, 2009, the estimated cost of which is not material.

 

On November 26, 2006, Warren D. Edwards resigned as our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. In connection therewith, on November 26, 2006 we and Mr. Edwards entered into a separation agreement (the “Edwards Agreement”). The Edwards Agreement provides, among other things, that Mr. Edwards will remain with us as an employee providing transitional services until June 30, 2007. In addition, under the terms of the Edwards Agreement, all unvested stock options held by Mr. Edwards have been terminated as of November 26, 2006, excluding options that would have otherwise vested prior to August 31, 2007 which will be permitted to vest on their regularly scheduled vesting dates provided that Mr. Edwards does not materially breach certain specified provisions of the Edwards Agreement. The Edwards Agreement also provides that the exercise price of Mr. Edwards’ vested stock options will be increased to an amount determined by us in a manner consistent with the final determination of the review performed by us in conjunction with the audit of our financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. Mr. Edwards’ vested options, if unexercised, will expire no later than June 30, 2008. The Edwards Agreement also subjects Mr. Edwards to non-competition and non-solicitation covenants until December 31, 2009. In addition, the Edwards Agreement provides that Mr. Edwards’ severance agreement with us is terminated, Mr. Edwards’ salary will be reduced during the transition period and Mr. Edwards will not be eligible to participate in our bonus plans. Mr. Edwards will be eligible to receive certain of our provided health benefits through December 31, 2009, the estimated cost of which is not material.

 

On September 29, 2005, Jeffrey A. Rich submitted his resignation as a director and Chief Executive Officer. On September 30, 2005 we entered into an Agreement with Mr. Rich, which, among other things, provided the following: (i) Mr. Rich remained on our payroll and was paid his current base salary (of $820 thousand annually) through June 30, 2006; (ii) Mr. Rich was not eligible to participate in our performance-based incentive compensation program in fiscal year 2006; (iii) we purchased from Mr. Rich all options previously

granted to Mr. Rich that were vested as of the date of the Agreement in exchange for an aggregate cash payment, less applicable income and payroll taxes, equal to the amount determined by subtracting the exercise price of each such vested option from $54.08 per share and all such vested options were terminated and cancelled; (iv) all options previously granted to Mr. Rich that were unvested as of the date of the Agreement were terminated (such options had an in-the-money value of approximately $4.6 million based on the closing price of our stock on the New York Stock Exchange on September 29, 2005); (v) Mr. Rich received a lump sum cash payment of $4.1 million; (vi) Mr. Rich continued to receive executive benefits for health, dental and vision through September 30, 2007; (vii) Mr. Rich also received limited administrative assistance through September 30, 2006; and (viii) in the event Mr. Rich established an M&A advisory firm by January 1, 2007, we agreed to retain such firm for a two year period from its formation for $250 thousand per year plus a negotiated success fee for completed transactions. The Agreement also contains certain standard restrictions, including restrictions on soliciting our employees for a period of three years and soliciting our customers or competing with us for a period of two years. Mr. Rich has established an M&A advisory firm and in June 2006, we entered into an agreement with Rich Capital LLC, an M&A advisory firm owned by Mr. Rich. The agreement is for two years, during which time we will pay a total of $0.5 million for M&A advisory services, payable in equal quarterly installments. We paid approximately $63 thousand related to this agreement through June 30, 2006. However, we have currently suspended payment under this agreement pending a determination whether Rich Capital LLC is capable of performing its obligations under the contract in view of the internal investigation’s conclusions regarding stock options awarded to Mr. Rich.

 

In the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, we accrued $5.4 million ($3.4 million, net of income taxes) of compensation expense (recorded in wages and benefits in our Consolidated Statements of Income) related to the Agreement with Mr. Rich. In addition, the purchase of Mr. Rich’s unexercised vested stock options for approximately $18.4 million ($11.7 million, net of income taxes) was recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in capital. We made payments of approximately $23.6 million related to this Agreement during fiscal year 2006.

 

Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2006

 

New Business

During fiscal year 2006, we signed contracts with new clients and incremental business with existing clients representing $762.2 million of annualized recurring revenue. The Commercial segment contributed 73% of the new contract signings (based on annual recurring revenues) including contracts with Sprint, T-Mobile, MeadWestvaco, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, Verizon Wireless, Unum Provident and Aetna. The Government segment contributed 27% of the new contract signings (based on annual recurring revenues) including contracts with the State of Maryland and Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

 

Stock-based Compensation

On December 16, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS 123(R). SFAS 123(R) requires companies to measure all employee stock-based compensation awards using a fair value method and recognize compensation cost in its financial statements. We adopted SFAS 123(R) on a prospective basis beginning July 1, 2005 for stock-based compensation awards granted after that date and for unvested awards outstanding at that date using the modified prospective application method. Prior to July 1, 2005, we followed APB 25 in accounting for our stock-based compensation plans.

 

The adoption of SFAS 123(R) in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 resulted in prospective changes in our accounting for stock-based compensation awards, including recording stock-based compensation expense and the related deferred income tax benefit on a prospective basis and reflecting the excess tax benefits from the exercise of stock-based compensation awards in cash flows from financing activities.

 

The adoption of SFAS 123(R) resulted in the recognition of compensation expense of $35 million ($22.9 million, net of deferred income tax benefits), or $0.19 per basic share and $0.18 per diluted share, in wages and benefits in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended June 30, 2006. In accordance with the modified prospective application method of SFAS 123(R), prior period amounts have not been restated to reflect the recognition of stock-based compensation costs as determined under SFAS 123. The total compensation cost related to non-vested awards not yet recognized at June 30, 2006 was approximately $72.7 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 3.1 years.

 

In periods ending prior to July 1, 2005, the income tax benefits from the exercise of stock options were classified as net cash provided by operating activities pursuant to Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 00-15 “Classification in the Statement of Cash Flows of the Income Tax Benefit Received by a Company upon Exercise of a Nonqualified Employee Stock Option.” However, for periods ending after July 1, 2005, pursuant to SFAS 123(R), the income tax benefits exceeding the recorded deferred income tax

benefit and any pre-adoption “as-if” deferred income tax benefit from stock-based compensation awards (the excess tax benefits) are required to be reported in net cash provided by financing activities. For the year ended June 30, 2006, excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation awards of $14.3 million were reflected as an outflow in cash flows from operating activities and an inflow in cash flows from financing activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, resulting in a net impact of zero on cash. During fiscal years 2005 and 2004, income tax benefits from the exercise of stock options of $20.1 million and $20.2 million, respectively, were reflected as an inflow in cash flows from operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. However, had SFAS 123(R) been in effect for fiscal years 2005 and 2004, the portion of those income tax benefits that would have been characterized as excess tax benefit and reported as an outflow in cash flows from operating activities and an inflow in cash flows from financing activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows would have been $14.1 million and $14.8 million, respectively.

 

Acquisitions

In May 2006, we completed the acquisition of Intellinex, LLC, an Ernst & Young LLP enterprise specializing in integrated learning solutions. The transaction was valued at approximately $75.6 million plus related transaction costs and was funded from cash on hand. The purchase price was allocated to assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair value as of the date of acquisition. We believe this acquisition provides us with a global technology platform that we can leverage to deliver learning services to existing and potential clients, key management talent in the learning BPO markets, expanded content development and delivery capabilities and a broader presence in the rapidly growing learning BPO market. This acquisition should also allow us to better compete on multi-scope human resources BPO opportunities that include a learning component. We will also leverage this acquisition to develop and implement learning content and programs for our employees. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, June 1, 2006.

 

In December 2005, we completed the acquisition of the Transport Revenue division of Ascom AG (“Transport Revenue”), a Switzerland based communications company. Transport Revenue consists of three business units: fare collection, airport parking solutions and toll collection, with office locations across nine countries. The transaction was valued at approximately $100.5 million plus related transaction costs and was funded from borrowings under our Prior Facility (as defined below). We also paid a net working capital settlement of approximately $13.6 million which was funded from cash on hand and borrowings under our Credit Facility (defined below). We believe this acquisition launched us into the international transportation services industry and expanded our portfolio in the transit and parking payment markets and adds toll collection customers to our existing customer base. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Government segment from the effective date of the acquisition, December 1, 2005.

 

In July 2005, we completed the acquisition of LiveBridge, Inc. (“LiveBridge”), a customer care service provider primarily serving the financial and telecommunications industries. The transaction was valued at approximately $32 million plus a working capital adjustment of $2.5 million, excluding contingent consideration of up to $32 million based upon future financial performance, and was funded from cash on hand and borrowings under our Prior Facility (defined below). We believe this acquisition expanded our customer care service offerings in the finance and telecommunications industries and extended our global capabilities and operations by adding operational centers in Canada, India and Argentina. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, July 1, 2005.

 

We completed two other small acquisitions in fiscal year 2006, one in our Commercial segment and one in our Government segment.

 

These acquisitions are not considered material to our results of operations, either individually or in the aggregate: therefore, no pro forma information is presented.

 

Sale of Government welfare- to-workforce services business

In December 2005, we completed the divestiture of substantially all of our Government welfare-to-workforce services business (the “WWS Divestiture”) to Arbor E&T, LLC (“Arbor”), a wholly owned subsidiary of ResCare, Inc., for approximately $69 million, less transaction costs. The proceeds were collected in the third quarter of fiscal year 2006. Assets sold were approximately $29.8 million and liabilities assumed by Arbor were approximately $0.2 million, both of which were included in the Government segment. We retained the net working capital related to the WWS Divestiture. We recognized a pretax gain of $33.5 million ($20.1 million, net of income tax) in fiscal year 2006, upon the assignment of customer contracts to Arbor. Approximately $4.2 million of the consideration relates to certain customer contracts whose assignment to Arbor was not complete as of June 30, 2006, and is reflected as deferred proceeds in other accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2006. The transfers of these remaining contracts to Arbor were completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2007 upon receipt of customer consents. The after tax proceeds from the divestiture were primarily used for general corporate purposes.

 

Revenues from the WWS Divestiture were $104.2 million, $218 million and $237.4 million for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Operating income from the divested business, excluding the gain on sale, was $6.4 million, $11.5 million and $7.5 million for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

Additionally, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, we recorded a provision for estimated litigation settlement related to the WWS Divestiture. In connection with the transfer of the contracts and ongoing customer relationships to Arbor and due to a change in our estimate of collectibility of the retained outstanding receivables, we recorded a provision for uncollectible accounts receivable related to the WWS Divestiture. Total provisions recorded were $3.3 million ($2.1 million, net of income tax).

 

In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006, we completed the sale of a subsidiary related to the operations of the WWS Divestiture and recorded a loss on the sale of approximately $0.6 million ($1.0 million, net of income tax) and related charges of $0.2 million ($0.1 million, net of income tax).

 

The welfare-to-workforce services business is no longer strategic or core to our operating philosophy. These divestitures allow us to focus on our technology-enabled business process outsourcing and information technology service offerings.

 

Restructuring activities

During the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, we began a comprehensive assessment of our operations, including our overall cost structure, competitive position, technology assets and operating platform and foreign operations. As a result, we began certain restructuring initiatives and activities that are expected to enhance our competitive position in certain markets, and recorded certain restructuring charges and asset impairments arising from our discretionary decisions. We estimated a total of 1,300 employees would be involuntarily terminated as a result of these initiatives, consisting primarily of offshore processors and related management; however, we anticipate that a majority of these positions would be migrated to lower cost markets. As of June 30, 2006, approximately 950 employees have been involuntarily terminated. We anticipate the costs savings related to these involuntary terminations will be approximately $32 million of wages and benefits per year; however, some of the cost savings from these involuntary terminations will be reinvested in subject matter experts, project management talent and sales personnel as we look to further promote those lines of businesses that reflect the greatest potential for growth. Our assessment activities are ongoing and may result in further restructuring and related charges, the amount and timing of which cannot be determined at this time.

 

In our Commercial segment, we began an assessment of the cost structure of our global production model, particularly our offshore processing activities. We identified offshore locations in which our labor costs were no longer competitive or where the volume of work processed by the site no longer justifies retaining the location, including one of our Mexican facilities. In connection with this assessment, we recorded a restructuring charge for involuntary termination of employees related to the closure of those duplicative facilities or locations of $5.5 million for the year ended June 30, 2006, which is reflected in wages and benefits in our Consolidated Statements of Income, and $4.7 million for the year ended June 30, 2006, for impairments of duplicative technology equipment and facility costs, facility shutdown and other costs, which are reflected as part of total operating expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Income. We plan to further penetrate offshore labor markets. We expect these activities will consolidate our global production activities and enhance our competitive position.

 

In our Government segment, we began an assessment of our competitive position, evaluated our market strategies and the technology used to support certain of our service offerings. We began to implement operating practices that we utilize in our Commercial segment, including leveraging our proprietary workflow technology and implementing incentive based compensation, which is expected to reduce our operating costs and enhance our competitive position. In connection with these activities, we recorded a restructuring charge for involuntary termination of employees of $1 million for the year ended June 30, 2006, which is reflected in wages and benefits in our Consolidated Statements of Income, and $1.6 million for the year ended June 30, 2006 for asset impairment and other charges, principally for duplicative software as a result of recent acquisition activity, and is reflected in total operating expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Income. As discussed earlier, we completed the WWS Divestiture, which allows us to focus on our technology-enabled business process outsourcing and information technology service offerings.

 

The following table summarizes activity for the accrual for involuntary termination of employees for the year ended June 30, 2006 (in thousands), exclusive of the Acquired HR Business (defined below):

 

The June 30, 2006 accrual for involuntary termination of employees is expected to be paid primarily in fiscal year 2007 from cash flows from operating activities.

 

We substantially completed the integration of the Acquired HR Business in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006. The integration included the elimination of redundant facilities, marketing and overhead costs, and the consolidation of processes from the historical cost structure of the acquired Mellon organization. The liabilities recorded at closing for the Acquired HR Business include $22.3 million in involuntary employee termination costs for employees of the Acquired HR Business in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 95-3 “Recognition of Liabilities in Connection with a Purchase Business Combination.” During fiscal years 2006 and 2005, $13.9 million and $1.8 million in involuntary employee termination payments were made and charged against accrued compensation. We also recorded a $3.1 million reduction to the accrual and to goodwill in fiscal year 2006 as a result of a change in our estimates of severance to be paid. As of June 30, 2006, the balance of the related accrual was $3.5 million and is expected to be paid primarily in fiscal year 2007 from cash flows from operating activities.

 

In our Corporate segment, we determined that the costs related to the ownership of a corporate aircraft outweighed the benefits to the Company. During fiscal year 2006, we sold our corporate aircraft for approximately $3.4 million, net of transaction costs. These proceeds are reflected in cash flows from investing activities in purchases of property, equipment and software, net in our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. We recorded an asset impairment charge of $4.7 million in the year ended June 30, 2006 related to the sale of our corporate aircraft, which is reflected in other operating expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Income.

 

Share Repurchase Programs

In June 2006, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $1 billion of our Class A common stock. The program, which was open ended, allowed us to repurchase our shares on the open market, from time to time, in accordance with the requirements of SEC rules and regulations, including shares that could be purchased pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The number of shares to be purchased and the timing of purchases was based on the level of cash and debt balances, general business conditions, and other factors, including alternative investment opportunities. As of June 30, 2006, we had repurchased approximately 5.5 million shares at a total cost of approximately $269.3 million and retired approximately 3.2 million of those shares. As of June 30, 2006, we had initiated purchases that had not yet settled for 1.3 million shares of our common stock with a total cost of $66.4 million. In August 2006, we completed the June 2006 Board of Directors authorized share repurchase program, purchasing a total of 19.9 million shares for an average price of $50.30. All of the shares repurchased under this June 2006 authorization were retired as of the date of this report.

 

Under our share repurchase programs authorized prior to the Tender Offer, we had repurchased approximately 2.2 million, 4.9 million and 15 million shares, respectively, at a total cost of approximately $115.8 million, $250.8 million and $743.2 million, during fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. We have reissued approximately 0.3 million, 0.6 million and 0.1 million shares, respectively, for proceeds of approximately $17.9 million, $28.5 million and $4.6 million, respectively, to fund contributions to our employee stock purchase plan and 401(k) plan during fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In July 2006, we reissued approximately 57,000 shares for proceeds totaling approximately $2.8 million to fund contributions to our employee stock purchase plan.

 

Tender Offer

On January 26, 2006, we announced that our Board of Directors authorized a modified “Dutch Auction” tender offer to purchase up to 55.5 million shares of our Class A common stock at a price per share not less than $56 and not greater than $63 (the “Tender Offer”). The Tender Offer commenced on February 9, 2006, and expired on March 17, 2006 (as extended), and was funded with proceeds from the Term Loan Facility (defined below). Our directors and executive officers, including our Chairman, Darwin Deason, did not tender shares pursuant to the Tender Offer. The number of shares purchased in the Tender Offer was 7,365,110 shares of Class A common stock at an average price of $63 per share plus transaction costs, for an aggregate purchase amount of $475.9 million. All of the shares purchased in the Tender Offer were retired as of June 30, 2006.

 

Voting Rights of Our Chairman

In connection with the Tender Offer, Mr. Deason entered into a Voting Agreement with the Company dated February 9, 2006 (the “Voting Agreement”) in which he agreed to limit his ability to cause the additional voting power he would hold as a result of the Tender Offer to affect the outcome of any matter submitted to the vote of the stockholders of the Company after consummation of the Tender Offer. Mr. Deason agreed that to the extent his voting power immediately after the Tender Offer increased above the percentage amount of his voting power immediately prior to the Tender Offer, Mr. Deason would cause the shares representing such additional

voting power (the “Excess Voting Power”) to appear, not appear, vote or not vote at any meeting or pursuant to any consent solicitation in the same manner, and in proportion to, the votes or actions of all stockholders including Mr. Deason whose Class A and Class B shares shall, solely for the purpose of proportionality, be counted on a one for one vote basis (even though the Class B shares have ten votes per share).

 

As the result of the purchase of 7.4 million shares of Class A common stock in the Tender Offer, Mr. Deason’s percentage increase in voting power above the percentage amount of his voting power immediately prior to the Tender Offer was approximately 1.5%.

 

The Voting Agreement will have no effect on shares representing the approximately 36.7% voting power of the Company held by Mr. Deason prior to the Tender Offer, which Mr. Deason will continue to have the right to vote in his sole discretion, or on any increase in his voting percentage as a result of any share repurchases by the Company. The Voting Agreement also does not apply to any Class A shares that Mr. Deason may acquire after the Tender Offer through his exercise of stock options, open market purchases or in any future transaction that we may undertake (including any increase in voting power related to any Company share repurchase program). Other than as expressly set forth in the Voting Agreement, Mr. Deason continues to have the power to exercise all rights attached to the shares he owns, including the right to dispose of his shares and the right to receive any distributions thereon.

 

The Voting Agreement will terminate on the earliest of (i) the mutual agreement of the Company (authorized by not less than a majority of the vote of the then independent and disinterested directors) and Mr. Deason, (ii) the date on which Mr. Deason ceases to hold any Excess Voting Power, as calculated in the Voting Agreement, or (iii) the date on which all Class B shares are converted into Class A shares.

 

Mr. Deason and a special committee of the Board of Directors, consisting of our four independent directors, have not reached an agreement regarding the fair compensation to be paid to Mr. Deason for entering into the Voting Agreement. However, whether or not Mr. Deason and our special committee are able to reach agreement on compensation to be paid to Mr. Deason, the Voting Agreement will remain in effect.

 

This summary of the Voting Agreement is qualified in its entirety by the terms of the Voting Agreement, which is filed as Exhibit 9.1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed February 9, 2006.

 

Credit Agreement

On March 20, 2006, we and certain of our subsidiaries entered into a Credit Agreement with Citicorp USA, Inc., as Administrative Agent (“Citicorp”), Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as Sole Lead Arranger and Book Runner, with Morgan Stanley Bank, SunTrust Bank, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Wachovia Bank National Association, Bank of America, N.A., Bear Stearns Corporate Lending and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Co-Syndication Agents, and various other lenders and issuers (the “Credit Facility”). The Credit Facility provides for a senior secured term loan facility of $800 million, with the ability to increase it by up to $3 billion, under certain circumstances (the “Term Loan Facility”) and a senior secured revolving credit facility of $1 billion with the ability to increase it by up to $750 million (the “Revolving Facility”). Proceeds from advances under the Credit Facility are used to fund our Tender Offer, for general corporate purposes, to fund share repurchase programs and to fund acquisitions. See “Subsequent Events” below for discussion regarding our Term Loan Facility activity subsequent to June 30, 2006. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for further discussion of our credit arrangements.

 

Government Healthcare Contract

In April 2004, we were awarded a contract by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) to replace and operate the North Carolina Medicaid Management Information System (“NCMMIS”). There was a protest of the contract award; however, DHHS requested that we commence performance under the contract. One of the parties protesting the contract has continued to seek administrative and legal relief to set aside the contract award. However, we continued our performance of the contract at the request of DHHS. On June 12, 2006, we reported that contract issues had arisen and each of ACS and DHHS alleged that the other party has breached the contract. The parties entered into a series of standstill agreements in order to permit discussion of their respective issues regarding the contract and whether the contract would be continued or terminated. On July 14, 2006, the DHHS sent us a letter notifying us of the termination of the contract. We do not believe the agency has a valid basis for terminating the contract and intend to pursue legal action against DHHS. We filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, in Wake County, North Carolina, a complaint and motion to preserve records related to the contract. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, North Carolina produced records and represented to the Court that all records had been produced, after which the complaint was dismissed. In a letter dated August 1, 2006, DHHS notified us of its position that the value of reductions in compensation assessable against the compensation otherwise due to us under the contract is approximately $33 million. On August 14, 2006, we provided a detailed

response to that August 1, 2006 letter contending that there should be no reductions in compensation owed to us. Also, on August 14, 2006 and in accordance with the contract, we submitted our Termination Claim to DHHS seeking additional compensation of approximately $27.1 million. We recorded a charge to revenue of $4 million in fiscal year 2006 related to our assessment of realization of amounts previously recognized for the contract. On January 22, 2007, we filed a complaint in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, in Wake County, North Carolina against DHHS and the Secretary of DHHS seeking to recover damages in excess of $40 million that we have suffered as the result of actions of DHHS and its Secretary. Our claim is based on breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of warranty; and misappropriation of our trade secrets. In the complaint we are also requesting the court to grant a declaratory judgment that we were not in default under the contract; and a permanent injunction against the State from using our proprietary materials and disclosing our proprietary material to third parties.

 

Other

In January 2006, we announced that unsolicited discussions with a group of private-equity investors regarding a possible sale of the company had ended. We had considered alternatives to enhance shareholder value including the discussions with a group of private-equity investors, as well as the possible dual class recapitalization proposal described in our September 30, 2005 proxy statement.

 

Subsequent Events

 

Please see “Review of Stock Option Grant Practices” and “Departure of Executive Officers” above in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition for discussions of our internal investigation of our stock option grant practices and subsequent restatement of previously filed financial statements and the departure of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer as a result of that investigation.

 

Please see Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Senior Notes for a discussion of the declaratory action with respect to the alleged default and purported acceleration of our Senior Notes.

 

Please see Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Credit Facilities for a discussion of the amendments, consents and waivers we have received from the lenders under our Credit Facility.

 

In August 2006, our Board of Directors authorized an additional share repurchase program of up to $1 billion of our Class A common stock. The program, which is open ended, will allow us to repurchase our shares on the open market, from time to time, in accordance with the requirements of SEC rules and regulations, including shares that could be purchased pursuant to SEC Rule 10b5-1. The number of shares to be purchased and the timing of purchases will be based on the level of cash and debt balances, general business conditions, and other factors, including alternative investment opportunities. No repurchases have been made under this additional share repurchase program as of the date of this filing. We expect to fund repurchases under this additional share repurchase program from borrowings under our Credit Facility.

 

On July 6, 2006, we amended our Term Loan Facility and borrowed an additional $500 million on July 6, 2006 and an additional $500 million on August 1, 2006. As a result of the increase to the facility, the Applicable Margin, as defined in the Credit Facility, increased to LIBOR plus 200 basis points. The borrowing rate under the Term Loan Facility as of January 12, 2007 was 7.36%. We used the proceeds of the Term Loan Facility increase to finance the purchase of shares of our Class A common stock under the June 2006 $1 billion share repurchase authorization and for the payment of transaction costs, fees and expenses related to the increase in the Term Loan Facility.

 

Following the Tender Offer, our credit ratings were downgraded by Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, both to below investment grade. Standard & Poor’s further downgraded us to BB upon our announcement in June 2006 of the approval by our Board of Directors of a new $1 billion share repurchase plan. Fitch initiated its coverage of us in August 2006 at a rating of BB, except for our Senior Notes which were rated BB-. Standard & Poor’s downgraded our credit rating further, to B+, following our announcement on September 28, 2006 that we would not be able to file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 by the September 28, 2006 extended deadline.

 

In July 2006, we completed the acquisition of Primax Recoveries, Inc. (“Primax”), one of the industry’s oldest and largest health care cost recovery firms. The transaction was valued at approximately $40 million, plus related transaction costs excluding contingent consideration of up to $10 million based upon future financial performance and was funded from cash on hand and borrowings on our

Credit Facility. We believe this acquisition expands our payor offering to include subrogation and overpayment recovery services to help clients improve profitability while maintaining their valued relationships with plan participants, employers and providers.

 

In October 2006, we completed the acquisition of Systech Integrators, Inc. (“Systech”), an information technology solutions company offering an array of SAP system integration and consulting services. Systech’s services include SAP consulting services, systems integration and custom application development and maintenance. The transaction was valued at approximately $65 million plus contingent payments of up to $40 million based on future financial performance. The transaction was funded with a combination of cash on hand and borrowings under our Credit Facility. We believe this acquisition will enhance our position as a comprehensive provider of SAP services across numerous markets.

 

On August 15, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors granted 2,091,500 options to employees under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan. Based on executive management’s recommendation no stock option grants were made to corporate executive management pending substantive determination regarding corporate executive management’s actions in the matters related to the informal stock option investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the grand jury subpoena issued by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. However, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors agreed to grant options of 100,000 shares each to Ann Vezina, Chief Operating Officer, Commercial Solutions Group and Tom Burlin, Chief Operating Officer, Government Solutions Group, but those grants were deferred. The delay in the grants to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin was necessary at the time because there were insufficient shares remaining in the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan to make the grants to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin. Subsequent to August 15, 2006, there were a number of options granted under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan that terminated, which options then became available to grant to other employees, including Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin as discussed below.

 

Because of the investigation into our stock option grant practices, we were unable to timely file our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our Annual Meeting of Stockholders was delayed, and the regularly scheduled meeting of our Board of Directors that was to have occurred in November 2006 was focused solely on stock option investigation matters and any other matters for consideration were deferred. Under our stock option granting policy (See Item 11, Part III), the day prior to or the day of that regularly scheduled November Board meeting, the Compensation Committee could have granted options to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who become ACS employees as a result of an acquisition. On the morning of December 9, 2006 the Compensation Committee met to discuss whether options, which were now available under the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, should be granted to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who became ACS employees as a result of an acquisition. After consideration of the fact that options would have been granted in November, if the regularly scheduled Board meeting had not deferred consideration of matters other than the stock option investigation, the Compensation Committee met on December 9, 2006 and, as a result of their actions at that meeting, a grant of 692,000 shares was made to new hires, employees receiving a grant in connection with a promotion, or persons who become ACS employees as a result of an acquisition, with such grants including 140,000 shares to Lynn Blodgett, who had been promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer; 75,000 shares to John Rexford who had been promoted to Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and named a director; and 100,000 shares each to Ms. Vezina and Mr. Burlin which grants were in recognition of their recent promotions to Chief Operating Officers of the Commercial and Government Segments, respectively, and had been approved by the Compensation Committee on August 15, 2006 but were deferred until shares were available for grant.

 

Prior to 2002 we had guaranteed $11.5 million of certain loan obligations owed to Citicorp USA, Inc. by DDH Aviation, Inc., a corporate airplane brokerage company organized in 1997 (as may have been reorganized subsequent to July 2002, herein referred to as “DDH”). Our Chairman owned a majority interest in DDH. In consideration for that guaranty, we had access to corporate aircraft at favorable rates. In July 2002, our Chairman assumed in full our guaranty obligations to Citicorp and Citicorp released in full our guaranty obligations. As partial consideration for the release of our corporate guaranty, we agreed to provide certain administrative services to DDH at no charge until such time as DDH meets certain specified financial criteria. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, we purchased $1 million in prepaid charter flights at favorable rates from DDH. As of June 30, 2006 and 2005, we had $0.6 million and $0.6 million, respectively, remaining in prepaid flights with DDH. We made no payments to DDH during fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2007, we were notified by DDH of their intent to wind down operations; therefore, we recorded a charge of $0.6 million related to the unused prepaid charter flights. We anticipate that the administrative services referenced above will cease prior to June 30, 2007 as a result of the wind down of the DDH operations.

 

The CSB contract is our largest contract. We have provided loan servicing for the Department of Education’s Direct Student Loan program for over ten years. In 2003 the Department conducted a competitive procurement for its “Common Services for Borrowers” initiative (“CSB”). CSB was a modernization initiative which integrated a number of services for the Department, allowing the

Department to increase service quality while saving overall program costs. In November 2003 the Department awarded us the CSB contract. Under this contract we provide comprehensive loan servicing, consolidation loan processing, debt collection services on delinquent accounts, IT infrastructure operations and support, maintenance and development of information systems, and portfolio management services for the Department of Education’s Direct Student Loan program. We are also developing software for use in delivering these services. The CSB contract has a 5-year base term which began in January 2004 and provides the Department of Education five one-year options to extend after the base term. We estimate that our revenues from the CSB contract will exceed $1 billion in total over the base term of the contract. Annual revenues from this contract represent approximately 4% of our fiscal year 2006 revenues.

 

Through December 31, 2006 our capitalized expenditures for software development under the CSB contract have totaled approximately $113 million, of which approximately $38 million has been implemented with the current production system. Our model for development of software under the CSB contract may change and we may only be able to use a portion of the uncompleted software with the current production system. As a result, we may incur a material, non-cash, impairment of a portion of our remaining capitalized software development costs, which aggregate approximately $75 million. However, we currently cannot determine the amount, if any, of this potential impairment of our capitalized development costs.

 

Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2005

 

New Business

During fiscal year 2005, we signed contracts with new clients and incremental business with existing clients representing $700.2 million of annualized recurring revenue, which included $22.8 million related to the WWS Divestiture in fiscal year 2006. Excluding the $22.8 million related to the WWS Divestiture, the Commercial segment contributed 76% of the new contract signings (based on annual recurring revenues), including contracts with Nextel Partners to provide expanded customer care services and Chubb & Sons Corporation to provide information technology and human resource services. Excluding the $22.8 million related to the WWS Divestiture, the Government segment contributed 24% of the new contract signings (based on annual recurring revenues), including contracts with the State of Texas to support the statewide roll-out of the Medicaid Primary Care Case Management, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the Medicare-approved Transitional Assistance Card for Long Term Care Residents, and New Jersey’s Child Support Program to provide payment processing and debit card services.

 

Acquisitions

In May 2005, we completed the acquisition of the human resources consulting and outsourcing businesses of Mellon Financial Corporation (“Acquired HR Business”). The Acquired HR Business provides consulting services, benefit plan administration services, and multi-scope HR outsourcing services. The transaction was valued at approximately $405 million, plus related transaction costs and was initially funded from borrowings under our Prior Facility (as defined below). In fiscal year 2006, we paid a net working capital settlement of $19.6 million which was funded from cash on hand and borrowings under our Prior Facility. We believe this acquisition made us a stronger competitor in the end-to-end human resources marketplace and strengthened our position as a global provider of business process outsourcing services. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, May 1, 2005.

 

In January 2005, we completed the acquisition of Superior Consultant Holdings Corporation (“Superior”), acquiring all of the issued and outstanding shares of Superior through a cash tender offer, which was completed on January 25, 2005, and subsequent short-form merger, at a purchase price of $8.50 per share. Superior provides information technology consulting and business process outsourcing services and solutions to the healthcare industry. The transaction was valued at approximately $122.2 million (including payment of approximately $106 million for issued and outstanding shares, options, and warrants and additional amounts for debentures and other payments) plus related transaction costs and was funded from borrowings under our Prior Facility. We believe this acquisition expanded our provider healthcare subject matter expertise, as well as provided experience with major hospital information systems and additional healthcare management talent. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, January 25, 2005.

 

In August 2004, we acquired BlueStar Solutions, Inc. (“BlueStar”), an information technology outsourcer specializing in applications management of packaged enterprise resource planning and messaging services. The transaction was valued at approximately $73.5 million, plus related transaction costs. The transaction value includes $6.4 million attributable to the 9.2% minority interest we held in BlueStar prior to the acquisition; therefore, the net purchase price was approximately $67.1 million. Of this amount, approximately $61 million was paid to former BlueStar shareholders by June 30, 2005 and was funded from borrowings under our then existing credit facility and cash on hand. The remaining purchase price of approximately $6 million was paid in the first quarter of

fiscal year 2006. We believe that the acquisition of BlueStar improved our existing information technology services with the addition of applications management and messaging services. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, August 26, 2004.

 

In July 2004, we acquired Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (“Heritage”). Heritage provides clinical management and pharmacy cost containment solutions to 14 state Medicaid programs, over a dozen national commercial insurers and Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees and some of the largest employer groups in the country. The transaction was valued at approximately $23.1 million plus related transaction costs, excluding contingent consideration of up to $17 million maximum based upon future financial performance, and was funded from borrowings under our then existing credit facility and cash on hand. During fiscal year 2005, we accrued $6.3 million of contingent consideration, which was earned during the year. This amount was paid in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006. We believe this acquisition enhanced our clinical management and cost containment service offerings. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Government segment from the effective date of the acquisition, July 1, 2004.

 

We completed two other small acquisitions in fiscal year 2005, which are included in our Government segment.

 

These acquisitions are not considered material to our results of operations, either individually or in the aggregate: therefore, no pro forma information is presented.

 

Credit Arrangements

On June 6, 2005, we completed a public offering of $250 million aggregate principal amount of 4.70% Senior Notes due June 1, 2010 and $250 million aggregate principal amount of 5.20% Senior Notes due June 1, 2015 (collectively, the “Senior Notes”). The net proceeds from the offering of approximately $496 million, after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses, were used to repay a portion of the outstanding balance of our Prior Facility, part of which was incurred in connection with the acquisition of the human resources consulting and outsourcing businesses of Mellon Financial Corporation.

 

On October 27, 2004, we entered into a $1.5 billion, Five Year Competitive Advance and Revolving Credit Facility Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Syndication Agent, and a syndication of 19 other lenders (the “Prior Facility”). Proceeds from advances under the Prior Facility were used for general corporate purposes, to fund acquisitions and for repurchases under our share repurchase programs. A portion of the proceeds of the Revolving Facility was used to refinance approximately $73 million in outstanding indebtedness under the Prior Facility.

 

See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for further discussion of our credit arrangements.

 

Derivative instruments and hedging activities

In order to hedge the variability of future interest payments related to our Senior Notes resulting from changing interest rates, we entered into forward interest rate agreements in April 2005. The agreements were designated as cash flow hedges of forecasted interest payments in anticipation of the issuance of the Senior Notes. The notional amount of the agreements totaled $500 million and the agreements were terminated in June 2005 upon issuance of the Senior Notes. In fiscal year 2005 we recorded the settlement of the forward interest rate agreements of $19 million ($12 million, net of income tax) in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net, and will be amortized as an increase in reported interest expense over the term of the Senior Notes, with approximately $2.5 million to be amortized over the next 12 months. As of June 30, 2006 and 2005, accumulated other comprehensive loss, net includes $16.3 million ($10.2 million, net of income tax) and $18.9 million ($11.8 million, net of income tax) related to these forward interest rate agreements. During fiscal years 2006 and 2005, we amortized approximately $2.5 million and $0.2 million, respectively, to interest expense. The amount of gain or loss related to hedge ineffectiveness was not material.

 

Share Repurchases

During fiscal year 2005, we purchased approximately 4.9 million shares under our share repurchase programs for approximately $250.8 million and reissued 0.6 million shares for proceeds totaling $28.5 million to fund contributions to our employee stock purchase plan and 401(k) plan. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” for further discussion of our share repurchase programs.

 

Stock — based Compensation

As discussed in Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements, on February 2, 2005, our Board of Directors approved an amendment to stock options previously granted that did not become exercisable until five years from the date of grant to provide that such options

become exercisable when they vest. It is expected that future option grants will contain matching vesting and exercise schedules which we believe will result in a lower expected term.

 

Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2004

 

New Business

During fiscal year 2004, we signed contracts with new clients and incremental business with existing clients representing $621.5 million of annual recurring new revenue, which included $25.2 million related to a majority of the Federal business sold in November 2003 (the “Divested Federal Business”) and $19.7 million related to the WWS Divestiture in fiscal year 2006. Excluding the $25.2 million related to the Divested Federal Business and the $19.7 million related to the WWS Divestiture, the Commercial segment contributed 72% of new business signings, including contracts with McDonald’s Corporation to provide information technology services, The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company to provide human resources support and services and General Electric to provide finance and accounting services. Excluding the $25.2 million related to the Divested Federal Business and the $19.7 million related to the WWS Divestiture, the Government segment contributed 28% of new business signings, including a new contract with the U.S. Department of Education to provide comprehensive loan servicing, consolidation loan processing, debt collection and portfolio management services.

 

Acquisitions

In November 2003, we acquired Lockheed Martin Corporation’s commercial information technology service business. With this acquisition, we acquired four U.S. data centers, approximately 1,000 employees, and a diverse client base representing the manufacturing, automotive, retail, financial services, and communications industries. The transaction was valued at $107 million less a working capital settlement of $6.9 million, plus related transaction costs. We believe this transaction expanded our client bases representing the manufacturing, automotive, retail, financial services and communications industries and provided acquired clients with access to additional business process and information technology services. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements primarily in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, November 1, 2003.

 

In January 2004, we completed the acquisition of Patient Accounting Services Center, LLC (“PASC”), a provider of revenue cycle management for healthcare providers, including billing, accounts receivables, and collection services. The transaction was valued at approximately $94.9 million, excluding contingent consideration of a maximum of $25 million based on future financial performance, plus related transaction costs, and was funded from cash on hand. No payments were made related to the contingent consideration provision, which expired in January 2005. We believe this transaction expanded the suite of business process outsourcing solutions we can offer new and existing healthcare clients. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, January 3, 2004.

 

In February 2004, we completed the acquisition of Truckload Management Services, Inc. (“TMI”), an expedited document processing and business process improvement services provider for the trucking industry. The transaction was valued at approximately $28.1 million, excluding contingent consideration of a maximum of $14 million based upon future financial performance, plus related transaction costs. During fiscal years 2006 and 2005, we paid $1.4 million and $6.8 million of contingent consideration, which was earned during the respective years. We believe this transaction expanded our business process outsourcing service offerings in the transportation industry, adding document management and document processing services for long-haul trucking fleets to our list of services. The operating results of the acquired business are included in our financial statements in the Commercial segment from the effective date of the acquisition, February 1, 2004.

 

We completed two other small acquisitions in fiscal year 2004, one each in our Commercial segment and in our Government segment.

 

These acquisitions are not considered material to our results of operations, either individually or in the aggregate: therefore, no pro forma information is presented.

 

Divestitures

In November 2003, we completed the sale of the Divested Federal Business to Lockheed Martin Corporation for approximately $649.4 million, which included a cash payment of $586.5 million at closing and $70 million payable pursuant to a five-year non-compete agreement, less a working capital settlement of $7.1 million paid in the third quarter of fiscal year 2004. Assets sold were approximately $346.8 million and liabilities assumed by Lockheed Martin Corporation were approximately $67.9 million, both of which were primarily in the Government segment. We recognized a pretax gain of $285.3 million ($182.3 million, net of income tax)

in fiscal year 2004. We incurred $9.8 million ($6.2 million, net of income tax) for compensation costs associated with former Federal employees, which is reflected in wages and benefits in our Consolidated Statements of Income. The after tax proceeds from the divestiture were generally used to pay down debt, fund the acquisitions, including that of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s commercial information technology services business, Patient Accounting Services Center, LLC and Truckload Management Services, Inc., and fund our share repurchase programs.

 

Revenues from the Divested Federal Business, which are primarily included in the Government segment, were approximately $237.7 million for fiscal year 2004. This divestiture excluded, among others, our Department of Education relationship. Additionally, our Commercial and Government operations continue to serve as a subcontractor on portions of the Divested Federal Business.

 

In February 2004, we sold the contracts associated with the Hanscom Air Force Base relationship (“Hanscom”) to ManTech International Corporation (“ManTech”) for $6.5 million in cash. We recognized a pretax gain of $5.4 million ($3.4 million, net of income tax) for this transaction. For the Hanscom Air Force Base contracts, we reported revenue in our Government segment of approximately $0.4 million and $17.2 million for fiscal years 2005 and 2004, respectively. We have agreed to indemnify ManTech with respect to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation related to purchasing activities at Hanscom during the period 1998-2000 (see Item 3. Legal Proceedings for further discussion). In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004, we sold an additional small contractual relationship to ManTech. We reported revenue in our Government segment of approximately $0.3 million, $0.2 million and $3.1 million for the years ended June 30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, for this contract.

 

The sales of the Divested Federal Business to Lockheed Martin Corporation and the contracts sold to ManTech International Corporation now allow us to focus on our business process and information technology service offerings in the commercial, state and local, and Federal education and healthcare markets.

 

U.S. Department of Education

In November 2003, the U.S. Department of Education awarded us the Common Services for Borrowers contract. This contract includes comprehensive loan servicing, consolidation loan processing, certain debt collection services on delinquent accounts, IT infrastructure operations and support, maintenance and development of information systems and portfolio management services. The new, five-year base contract replaced our then existing contract with the Department of Education and will integrate a number of services, which will allow the Department of Education to increase service quality while saving overall program costs. The contract is estimated at more than $1 billion in revenue over the five-year period and was effective January 1, 2004. The contract also includes provisions for five one-year extensions. See “Significant Developments — Fiscal Year 2006 — Subsequent Events” above for a discussion of our contract with the Department of Education.

 

Commercial Contract

On May 17, 2004, we announced that our outsourcing agreement with Gateway, Inc. was being terminated as a result of Gateway’s March 2004 acquisition of eMachines, Inc., which significantly changed its business strategy. The transition of the majority of the outsourcing operations back to Gateway occurred by the end of the first quarter of our fiscal year 2005. The outsourcing agreement contributed approximately $22.5 million and $47.4 million in revenue during fiscal years 2005 and 2004, respectively. Concurrent with the termination of our outsourcing relationship with Gateway, we also terminated our obligation to purchase products and services from Gateway.

 

Convertible Notes

On February 27, 2004, we completed the redemption of our 3.5% Convertible Subordinated Notes due February 15, 2006 (the “Convertible Notes”). Holders of 99.9% of all the outstanding Convertible Notes converted their Convertible Notes to 23.0234 shares of our Class A common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes in accordance with the procedures specified in the related indenture governing the Convertible Notes. As the result of such conversions, approximately 7.3 million shares of our Class A common stock were issued to such noteholders at the conversion price of $43.44 per share. The remaining Convertible Notes were redeemed in cash at 101.4% of the principal amount, resulting in a cash redemption of $269,000.

 

Government Healthcare Contract

In 2001, we were awarded a contract by the Georgia Department of Community Health (“DCH”) to develop, implement and operate a system to administer health benefits to Georgia Medicaid recipients as well as state government employees (the “Georgia Contract”). This system development project was large and complex and anticipated the development of a system that would process both Medicaid and state employee claims. The Medicaid phase of this project was implemented on April 1, 2003. Various disputes arose

because of certain delays and operational issues that were encountered in this phase. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, in connection with a settlement in principle, we recorded a $6.7 million reduction in revenue resulting from the change in our percentage-of-completion estimates primarily as a result of the termination of Phase II of the contract, a charge of $2.6 million to services and supplies associated with the accrual of wind-down costs associated with the termination of Phase II and an accrual of $10 million in other operating expenses to be paid to DCH pursuant to the settlement which was paid in the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. On July 21, 2004, we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with DCH to settle these disputes. The terms of the definitive settlement, which were substantially the same as those announced in January 2004, include the $10 million payment by us to DCH; a payment by DCH to us of $9 million in system development costs; escrow of $11.8 million paid by DCH, with $2.4 million of the escrowed funds to be paid to us upon completion of an agreed work plan ticket and reprocessing of July 2003 — June 2004 claims, and the remaining $9.4 million of escrowed funds to be paid to us upon final certification of the system by the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the governing Federal regulatory agency; cancellation of Phase II of the contract; and an agreement to settle outstanding operational invoices resulting in a payment to us of over $8.2 million and approximately $7 million of reduction in such invoices. In April 2005, CMS certified the system effective as of August 1, 2003. DCH requested funding level information from CMS for the period from the system implementation date, April 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003. In June 2006, ACS received a disbursement from the escrow account of approximately $7.7 million related to certification of the system. The parties continue to discuss the remaining $1.7 million (of the $9.4 million) in the escrow account related to system certification. Our work related to the remaining $2.4 million in escrow is continuing.

 

Other

On August 13, 2004, we entered into a settlement agreement with former employees of Gibraltar Savings Association and/or First Texas Savings Association, whereby we paid $10 million in cash in August 2004 to settle in full their claims against us. We accrued the $10 million related to this settlement in other operating expenses in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004.

Revenue Growth

 

Internal revenue growth is measured as total revenue growth less acquired revenue from acquisitions and revenues from divested operations. At the date of acquisition, we identify the trailing twelve months of revenue of the acquired company as the “pre-acquisition revenue of acquired companies.” Pre-acquisition revenue of the acquired companies is considered “acquired revenues” in our calculation, and revenues from the acquired company, either above or below that amount are components of “internal growth” in our calculation. We use the calculation of internal revenue growth to measure revenue growth excluding the impact of acquired revenues and the revenue associated with divested operations and we believe these adjustments to historical reported results are necessary to accurately reflect our internal revenue growth. Revenues from divested operations are excluded from the internal revenue growth calculation in the periods following the effective date of the divestiture. Prior period internal revenue growth calculations are not restated for current period divestitures. Our measure of internal revenue growth may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies. The following table sets forth the calculation of internal revenue growth (in thousands):

 

Consolidated

 

 

Commercial

 

 

Government

 

 

 

Results of Operations

 

Information for fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 has been restated in the following table, as discussed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Review of Stock Option Grant Practices and in Note 2 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

The impact of the restatements on the interim periods of each of the first three quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 and each of the quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 are disclosed in Note 28 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. These restatements did not have a material impact on our analysis of results of operations, financial position and changes in financial position included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of our previously filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Accordingly, we have not updated those discussions and analyses in our restatement.

 

The following table sets forth the items from our Consolidated Statements of Income expressed as a percentage of revenues. Please refer to the comparisons below for discussion of items affecting these percentages.

 

 

Comparison of Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year 2005