tickdelta
Sign in

Tickdelta is free for now. Sign up and get Pro free

← Screener

NXPINXP Semiconductors

Technology · Semiconductors · Nasdaq

NXP Semiconductors N.V. is a global semiconductor company and a long-standing supplier in the industry, with over 70 years of innovation and operating history. 10-K, Item 1

Employees
32,169
CEO
Rafael Sotomayor
Next results
around Feb 2, 2027
Compare with peers → Embed

When the SEC's staff reviews a filing, it writes to the company with numbered questions, and the company answers each one in a letter. SEC publishes the exchange once the review is over, at least 20 business days later. Below: what the staff asked NXPI, and the company's answer to each question, quoted from the letters. A question is not an accusation; most reviews end with the company adding detail to its next filing.

Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2022

2023-11-08 to 2023-11-21 · 2 questions · 1 letter from the SEC, 1 from the company
Review closed 2023-11-21
Non-GAAP measuresResults discussion (MD&A)
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations · Results of Operations, page 33
SEC asked (1)
Where you describe two or more business reasons that contributed to a material change in a financial statement line item between periods, please quantify, where possible, the extent to which each change contributed to the overall change in that line item. As an example, we note that you attribute the change in gross profit on page 36 to a number of partially offsetting factors.
Rest of the question

See Item 303(a) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release No. 33-8350. Table 4: Financial Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Results (unaudited), page 8

NXPI answered
The Company respectfully acknowledges the Staff’s comment and we confirm that in future filings, when we describe two or more business reasons that contributed to a material change in a financial statement line item between periods, we will quantify, where possible, the extent to which each factor contributed to the overall change in that line item.

Table 4: Financial Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Results (unaudited), page 8

1.Your presentation in this table gives the appearance of a full non-GAAP income statement.
Rest of the answer

Please note that the presentation of a full non-GAAP income statement, or a presentation that gives the appearance of one, may place undue prominence on the non-GAAP information and give the impression that the non-GAAP income statement represents a comprehensive basis of accounting. Confirm to us that you will not present full non-GAAP consolidated income statements or their equivalents in future filings. Refer to Question 102.10(a) and (c) of the Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations on Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

Response: The Company respectfully acknowledges the Staff’s comment and we confirm that we will revise the referenced table in future filings so that the presentation of the reconciliation tables do not resemble a full non-GAAP income statement. The following reflects the revised presentation as applied to the GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliations for Form 8-K filed July 25, 2023 (the “Q2 2023 Earnings Release”).

Q2 2023 Earnings Release Non-GAAP Reconciliations Revised Presentation

Table 4: Financial Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Results (unaudited)

($ in millions)

Three months ended

July 2, 2023

April 2, 2023

July 3, 2022

GAAP Gross Profit

$ 1,881 $ 1,770 $ 1,882

PPA Effects

(14) (13) (14)

Restructuring

— 2 3

Share-based compensation

(13) (13) (12)

Other incidentals

(18) (22) (10)

Non-GAAP Gross Profit

$ 1,926 $ 1,816 $ 1,915

GAAP Gross margin

57.0 % 56.7 % 56.8 %

Non-GAAP Gross margin

58.4 % 58.2 % 57.8 %

GAAP Research and development

$ (589) $ (577) $ (542)

— (14) 1

(51) (52) (45)

(1) (1) (3)

Non-GAAP Research and development

$ (537) $ (510) $ (495)

GAAP Selling, general and administrative

$ (274) $ (280) $ (265)

PPA effects

— (1) (1)

— (6) —

(38) (34) (32)

(2) (21) (3)

Non-GAAP Selling, general and administrative

$ (234) $ (218) $ (229)

GAAP Operating income (loss)

$ 937 $ 825 $ 943

(95) (99) (149)

— (18) 4

(102) (99) (89)

(21) (44) (16)

Non-GAAP Operating income (loss)

$ 1,155 $ 1,085 $ 1,193

GAAP Operating margin

28.4 % 26.4 % 28.5 %

Non-GAAP Operating margin

35.0 % 34.8 % 36.0 %

GAAP Income tax benefit (provision)

$ (158) $ (118)

Income tax effect

22 49

Non-GAAP Income tax benefit (provision)

$ (180) $ (167)

GAAP Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders

$ 698 $ 615

(95) (99)

— (18)

(102) (99)

(21) (44)

Other adjustments

20 41

Non-GAAP Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders

$ 896 $ 834

GAAP net income (loss) per common share attributable to stockholders – diluted

$ 2.67 $ 2.35

(0.37) (0.38)

— (0.07)

(0.39) (0.38)

(0.08) (0.17)

0.08 0.16

Non-GAAP net income (loss) per common share attributable to stockholders - diluted

$ 3.43 $ 3.19

If the Staff has any questions or requires any additional information regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me at +31 40 2729999.

Read in the reply ↗
In its next report

First report after the company's reply of 2023-11-17: 10-K filed 2024-02-22 ↗, against the 10-K filed 2023-03-01 ↗.

Tickdelta does not hold the text of both reports, so they are not compared here.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations · Results of Operations, page 33
SEC asked (2)
Your presentation in this table gives the appearance of a full non-GAAP income statement. Please note that the presentation of a full non-GAAP income statement, or a presentation that gives the appearance of one, may place undue prominence on the non- GAAP information and give the impression that the non-GAAP income statement represents a comprehensive basis of accounting.
Rest of the question

Confirm to us that you will not present full non-GAAP consolidated income statements or their equivalents in future filings. Refer to Question 102.10(a) and (c) of the Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations on Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

NXPI answered

No numbered answer found in the reply. Read the reply ↗

In its next report

First report after the company's reply of 2023-11-17: 10-K filed 2024-02-22 ↗, against the 10-K filed 2023-03-01 ↗.

Tickdelta does not hold the text of both reports, so they are not compared here.

Also in this review: closing letter, 2023-11-21

Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2020

2021-05-25 to 2021-06-16 · 1 question · 1 letter from the SEC, 1 from the company
Review closed 2021-06-16
Note 18 Share-based Compensation · Stock Options, page 104
SEC asked
Please explain to us why you believe it is appropriate to use the simplified method to estimate the expected term of your option awards. Please also tell us when you expect sufficient historical information to be available in order to determine the expected life assumptions. Refer to SAB Topic 14:D.2.
NXPI answered
The Company respectfully advises the Staff that it has determined that it is appropriate to use the simplified method to estimate the expected term of its option awards because the Company has concluded that it does not have sufficient historical option exercise data to provide a reasonable basis on which to estimate the expected term of the options.

NXP last granted stock options in April 2016. Subsequent to NXP’s initial public offering (“IPO”) in August 2010 and through April 2016, NXP awarded stock options under the Company’s long-term incentive plans.
Rest of the answer

These post-IPO stock options were considered “plain vanilla” options, with a vesting period of four years and a term of ten years.

From 2010-2016, the period during which the post-IPO stock options were granted, the Company considered SAB Topic 14.D.2. During that period of time, the Company concluded that it did not have sufficient historical exercise data to provide a reasonable basis upon which to estimate expected term due to the limited period of time its equity shares had been publicly traded. Specifically the Company considered that the majority of stock option exercises during the 2010-2016 time period were related to stock options granted in a materially different phase in the Company’s life, the pre-IPO period. In addition, the pre-IPO stock options had materially different terms than the post-IPO stock options, including significant restrictions on the ability to exercise these options. As such, the Company did not believe that the exercise history related to these pre-IPO stock options was an appropriate indicator of the future expected stock option life of the post-IPO stock options. The options granted subsequent to the IPO were granted for a period of less than six years with a term of ten years and did not provide for the requisite history to be utilized in the determination of a future expected stock option life in consideration of an expected life of up to 6.25 years under the simplified method as described in SAB Topic 14.D.2, as disclosed in Note 18 Share-based Compensation to the Financial Statements included in NXP’s Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2020.

Read in the reply ↗
In its next report

First report after the company's reply of 2021-06-04: 10-Q filed 2021-08-03 ↗, against the 10-Q filed 2021-04-27 ↗.

Tickdelta does not hold the text of both reports, so they are not compared here.

Also in this review: closing letter, 2021-06-16

Schedule 14D-9

2016-11-22 to 2016-12-22 · 8 questions · 3 letters from the SEC, 2 from the company
No closing letter
Non-GAAP measuresGoodwill and impairmentAcquisitions
SEC asked (1)
The disclosure indicates that members of the NXP Board present at the meeting duly and unanimously recommended that NXP shareholders accept the Offer. Item 4 of Schedule 14D-9 and corresponding Item 1012(a) of Regulation M-A, as well as Rule 14e-2(a) of Regulation 14E, require that the “filing person” and “subject company,” respectively, provide the required disclosures.
Rest of the question

Please revise to expressly state the subject company’s position with respect to the offer or alternatively clarify that the Board’s recommendation is being made on behalf of NXP. See Item 1000(f) of Regulation M-A for a definition of the term “subject company” in the context of Regulation M-A.

NXPI answered
The Company acknowledges the Staff’s comment and respectfully advises the

Staff that it considered the requirements of Rule 100(a)(2) of Regulation G, which provides that the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial information shall be quantitative for forward-looking information to the extent available without unreasonable efforts.
Rest of the answer

Below please find a brief legal analysis explaining why the Company believes that such a reconciliation would not be possible without unreasonable efforts.

Stock Based Compensation Expense

Stock based compensation expense for future periods would be particularly difficult for the Company to quantify without unreasonable efforts. The analysis would be particularly complicated and speculative as it would require the Company to project its future outstanding equity awards, which are contingent upon future grants to existing employees and future levels of hiring over a six-year period, the types of personnel hired, the types and amounts of equity compensation awards that would be necessary for existing employees and new hire grants, the vesting and timing of such awards and the then-current trading price of the Company’s shares (the “Shares”). It would also be impracticable without unreasonable efforts for the Company to forecast the various inputs in the calculation of the stock based compensation expense for each of these awards under Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, “Compensation—Stock Compensation” (“ASC

718”). For example, this would require, among other things, speculation regarding the then-current trading price of the Shares and the factors pertinent to the Black-Scholes-Merton pricing model such as assumptions as to volatility of the trading price of the Shares over the term of the awards, the expected term of the awards, the risk-free interest rate and the award forfeiture rate, in order to determine the fair value of the awards on the grant dates and amortize that expense over the respective vesting periods. The Company would also be required to forecast the amount and timing of employee equity award exercises to estimate the employer payroll tax associated with stock based compensation, which exercises are entirely dependent on the behavior of individual award holders.

Merger-Related Costs

Merger-related costs are inherently difficult to project because they vary widely in both amount and frequency, and future expenses will be significantly impacted by the current ongoing integration of Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd. (“Freescale”) in addition to the timing and nature of the Company’s potential future acquisitions (if any). The acquisition of Freescale closed on December 7, 2015 (the “Freescale Acquisition”). In Item 4, section B (page 20) of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 filed with the SEC on

February 26, 2016 (the “2015 Form 20-F”), the Company included the disclosure below about the Freescale integration:

Integration planning commenced shortly after the announcement of the Merger in March 2015. We expect the full integration process to take several years, with the initial focus on management consolidation and process integration. Work streams are underway in all of our business lines and the support functions. Integration activities that likely will have a multi-year horizon include, but are not limited to, harmonizing brands, product and vendor selections, system integration and supply chain integration.

The priorities are maintaining business and customer continuity while identifying and accelerating synergies and integrating organizations, processes and systems.

The integration activities will transform the way NXP operates over the next few years. The remaining discussion in this

“Business” section addresses the way we operate currently; however, the integration is likely to significantly impact most of these processes in future periods.

As such, estimating future merger-related costs would therefore require the Company to speculate about yet to be finalized ongoing strategic planning in relation to Freescale that will continue over the next several years. In addition, the Company would need to speculate about the occurrence of any potential future acquisitions. Although the Company continues to monitor and formalize integration plans for Freescale, there is still additional work to be done and significant decisions to be made with respect to harmonizing the two brands, product and vendor selections, system integration and supply chain integration that will likely require the Company to incur significant costs that it could not reasonably estimate at this time. In addition, the Company regularly evaluates potential acquisitions, but the decision whether to pursue a particular transaction depends on a large number of factors, which makes the occurrence and timing of future acquisitions impracticable to predict without unreasonable efforts. The Company would also have to speculate about the amount and timing of the merger-related costs that would be associated with those uncertain future acquisitions, which would be particularly challenging given that the amount and timing of those expenses often vary widely from one acquisition to another.

Purchase Price Accounting Effects; Amortization Expense of Acquisition-Related Intangibles

Purchase price accounting effects and the expense associated with the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles vary widely in amount and frequency and could be significantly impacted by the completion or abandonment of the research and development efforts related to the approximately $2 billion of in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) that the

Company acquired from Freescale. Purchase price accounting effects and the expense associated with the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles could also be impacted by the timing and nature of the Company’s potential future acquisitions (if any). During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company completed its valuation procedures related to the acquired IPR&D as well as other assets and liabilities. IPR&D is an indefinite lived asset until the completion or abandonment of the associated research and development effort. IPR&D will be amortized over an estimated useful life to be determined at the date the associated research and development effort is completed, or expensed immediately when, and if, the project is abandoned. Acquired IPR&D is not amortized during the period that it is considered indefinite lived, but rather is subject to annual testing for impairment or when there are indicators for impairment. Estimating the potential completion of the research and development or the ultimate abandonment of IPR&D would require the Company to speculate about the nature and timing of the associated amortization or impairment charges and such amortization and impairment charges could have a significant effect on the operating results of the Company. Assuming all of the projects were completed in the same fiscal year and assuming the estimated useful life was in-line with the estimated useful life of other developed technology the Company acquired from Freescale, there could be additional amortization expense of up to $400 million in any annual period presented in the Projections. In addition, estimating future expenses relative to future acquisitions would require the Company to speculate about the occurrence of the Company’s future acquisitions, which, as noted above, is inherently uncertain. The Company would also have to speculate about the value of the intangible assets to be acquired in connection with those uncertain future acquisitions, the time periods over which the value of those assets would be amortized and the related rates of amortization. The Company, in recent years, has completed acquisitions ranging from $10 million to $11.6 billion. Given that the value and nature of acquired intangibles varies widely from one acquisition to another it would be impracticable to estimate the value and related amortization of any potential future acquisition with any degree of reasonable reliability.

Asset Impairment Charges

The Company records goodwill and intangible impairment charges when the carrying amount of the assets exceeds their fair values. The timing of such impairment charges is very difficult to predict, and the amounts of those charges are determined through a complex valuation analysis that cannot be forecasted with any reasonable reliability. For the nine month period ended October 2, 2016, the Company recognized impairment charges of $89 million, for the years ended December 31, 2011 through

2015, impairment charges were nil. The Freescale Acquisition has significantly impacted the potential magnitude of any future impairment charges and the approximately $2 billion of acquired IPR&D from Freescale could result in the abandonment of projects that would result in significant impairment charges. Estimating future impairment charges would therefore require the Company to speculate regarding the future fair values of its goodwill and intangible assets.

Restructuring Charges

In recent years, the Company has recognized a wide range of restructuring charges. For example, for the years ended December 31, 2011 through 2015, the Company recognized restructuring charges of $81 million, $111 million, $40 million, $57 million and $264 million, for various restructuring activities ranging from small targeted initiatives to significant changes in structure. The Company may in the future determine to exit certain facilities and/or restructure its operations, each of those decisions being independent from one another. Additionally, as a result of the Freescale Acquisition, it is possible that future restructuring activity may increase significantly compared to historical restructuring activities. The amount and timing of the restructuring charges (and any reversals of charges recorded in prior periods) associated with these activities are wholly dependent upon the nature and timing of those restructuring activities. Restructuring charges could include, among other things, headcount reductions and associated severance and benefits cost, exit costs associated with closing office space or other locations and other contract cancellation charges, all of which are highly dependent upon the details of the particular restructuring activities. Estimating future restructuring charges (and reversals of charges) would require the Company to speculate about the occurrence and timing of future restructuring activities, which are both inherently uncertain. Moreover, the Company would have to speculate about the magnitude of the charges associated with those uncertain future restructuring activities, which would be even more difficult to estimate with any reasonable reliability.

Gains or Losses Related to Sales of Assets

In recent years, the Company has recognized a wide range of gains or losses related to sales of assets. For example, for the years ended

December 31, 2011 through 2015, the Company recognized gains or (losses) related to sales of assets of $(10) million, $20 million, $2 million, $10 million and $1,263 million. From time to time, the Company may decide to sell certain of its assets for strategic reasons. Gains or losses on such sales have been inconsistent in amount and frequency, and future gains or losses will be significantly impacted by the timing and nature of the Company’s decisions to conduct sales of its assets. The value of the Company’s assets substantially increased as a result of the Freescale Acquisition, so the Company cannot rely on historical gains and losses to estimate future gains and losses. Estimating future gains and losses would therefore require the Company to speculate about the timing of these future asset sales and the assets involved in any such sales, both of which are inherently uncertain. It would be impracticable to quantify with any reasonable reliability the book value of the relevant assets and the value to be received for such assets in order to determine the associated amount of the gain or loss on such sale.

The probable significance of each of the foregoing line items is high, as is the variability of these items from one period to another. As a result, though it was possible to forecast Non-GAAP Gross Margin, EBITDA, Non-GAAP Operating Margin, Non-GAAP Operating Income and Unlevered Free Cash Flow for the forecast period, it would be impracticable without unreasonable efforts to forecast the most comparable GAAP financial measures with any degree of reasonable reliability due to the variability and volatility of these components of the reconciliation. In addition, any attempt to reconcile these items would be misleading to the

Company’s shareholders for the reasons described above and especially in light of the fact that neither the NXP Board nor Qatalyst relied on any such reconciliation.

Therefore, because the reconciliation of the forward-looking non-GAAP financial measures presented to the most comparable GAAP financial measures cannot be created without unreasonable efforts, and would be misleading to the Company’s shareholders, for the reasons described above, the Company respectfully resubmits that such reconciliation is not required in accordance with Rule 100(a)(2) of Regulation G.

Read in the reply ↗
SEC asked (2)
We noticed the disclosure that the “NXP Board considered certain factors…” Item 4 of Schedule TO and corresponding Item 1012(b) of Regulation M-A, however, require that reasons, as distinguished from factors, be disclosed. Note also that conclusory statements are not considered sufficient disclosure. Please revise. Item 8. Additional Information (d) Certain NXP Management Projections, page 44
NXPI answered
In response to the Staff’s comment, the Company has revised its disclosure. Please refer to Amendment No. 3. Read in the reply ↗
SEC asked (3)
We note this section appears to include non-GAAP financial measures. Please revise to provide the disclosure required by Rule 100 of Regulation G.
NXPI answered
As explained above in response to the Staff’s first comment, the Company is unable to quantify merger-related costs and purchase price accounting adjustments without unreasonable efforts. Merger-related costs and purchase price accounting adjustments vary widely in amount and frequency and are significantly impacted by the timing and nature of the Company’s potential future acquisitions (if any) and these items have also been impacted by the Freescale Acquisition.
Rest of the answer

As noted above, given the uncertainty regarding the completion or abandonment of projects associated with the approximately $2 billion of IPR&D acquired from Freescale, it would be impracticable to estimate future merger-related costs and purchase price accounting adjustments based on historical acquisitions with any degree of reliability or certainty. Effects of future acquisitions are not reflected in the Company’s forecasted operating results. The Company would also have to speculate about the amount and timing of the acquisition, integration expenses to quantify merger-related costs and the value of intangible assets to quantify purchase price accounting adjustments, that would each be associated with those uncertain future acquisitions. This would be particularly challenging given that the amount and timing of such expenses and the value and nature of acquired intangibles often varies widely from one acquisition to another.

As explained above in response to the Staff’s first comment, expense associated with the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles varies widely in amount and frequency and is significantly impacted by the timing and nature of the Company’s potential future acquisitions (if any) and acquisition-related intangibles acquired in the Freescale Acquisition. To estimate future expenses, the Company would need to speculate about the occurrence of the Company’s future acquisitions and acquisition-related intangibles acquired in the Freescale Acquisition, which, as noted above, is inherently uncertain.

Per the Staff’s request, below please find the tabular disclosure that was included in Note 5, Identified Intangible Assets of the 2015 Form 20-F. The Company respectfully requests the Staff to refer to the description of the IPR&D above and please note that the table below does not contemplate IPR&D which could impact any period presented by an amount up to approximately $400 million, or 26% of the estimated amortization for 2017.

The estimated amortization expense for these identified intangible assets, excluding software, for each of the five succeeding years is:

Read in the reply ↗
SEC asked (4)
We note your statement on page 48 that “[n]either the Company nor any of its affiliates assumes any responsibility to holders of Shares for the accuracy of this information.” You may not disclaim responsibility for your disclosure given the attestation that accompanies the signature on the schedule. Please revise.
Rest of the question

See Rule 14d-102, which rule makes clear that the person signing the Schedule 14D-9 is representing, after due inquiry and to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that the information set forth in the schedule is true, complete and correct.

NXPI answered

No numbered answer found in the reply. Read the reply ↗

SEC letter of 2016-12-08 ↗ no reply letter on EDGAR
Item 8. Additional Information, page 8
SEC asked (1)
We note your response to our prior comment 3 from our letter dated November 22, 2016. We are continuing to evaluate the applicability of Rule 100 of Regulation G to the financial projection disclosures provided by NXP.
Rest of the question

The response, dated December 2, 2016, contends that a reconciliation of the financial projection information previously disclosed, if undertaken in accordance with Rule 100(a)(2) of Regulation G, would be “unreasonable.” For each of the items excluded when determining the non-GAAP financial measures that you list on page 3 of your response letter, please provide us with a brief but substantive legal analysis that supports NXP’s stated belief that reconciliation would be “unreasonable.”

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Item 8. Additional Information, page 8
SEC asked (2)
The response letter stated that “[t]hese items cannot be reliably quantified due to the combination of variability and volatility of such components and may, depending on the size of the components, have a significant impact on the reconciliation.” The final rule release in which Regulation G was adopted explained the registrant must identify information that is unavailable and disclose its probable significance.”
Rest of the question

The revised disclosure does not address the “probable significance” of the information effectively asserted as being unavailable. Please revise or advise.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Item 8. Additional Information, page 8
SEC asked (3)
Please explain why merger-related costs and purchase price accounting adjustments are unable to be quantified, even if qualified as an estimate. To the extent such costs and adjustments relate to past acquisitions, it appears that they could be estimated.
Rest of the question

Conversely, if such costs and adjustments relate to possible future acquisitions during the forecasted period, please explain to us whether the effects of those future acquisitions are reflected in your forecasted operating results. Please provide us with the same type of summary analysis for expenses associated with the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles. In addition, please provide us with a brief explanation as to whether or not asset impairment charges and gains or losses related to sales of assets may be estimated to the extent such amounts could become known during the forecasted period. If asset impairment and/or asset charges are not anticipated, please consider revising the disclosure to so state. The company and its management remain responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of their disclosures notwithstanding any review, comments, action or inaction by the staff.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

SEC letter of 2016-12-22 ↗ no reply letter on EDGAR
Item 8. Additional Information, page 2
SEC asked
We have reviewed and considered the revised disclosure provided in Amendment No. 3 to NXP’s Schedule 14D-9, and the corresponding written responses dated December 19, 2016 submitted in reply to our comments dated December 8, 2016.
Rest of the question

With the exception of the analysis and conclusions offered with respect to (1) stock-based compensation and (2) restructuring charges, we are unable to concur with the analysis and conclusions that relate to the other accounting measures referenced in your response letter. It does not appear to us that unreasonable efforts would be required to produce a reconciliation of those measures. Without expressing an opinion as to whether or not the disclosures within the Schedule 14D-9, including the amendments thereto, are compliant with Rule 100(a) of Regulation G, or a whether or not a reconciliation still needs to be undertaken, we will not issue any further comments concerning compliance with Rule 100(a) at this time. The company and its management remain responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of their disclosures notwithstanding any review, comments, action or inaction by the staff.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Also in this review: company letter, 2016-12-02

Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015

2016-09-02 to 2016-09-15 · 3 questions · 1 letter from the SEC, 0 from the company
Review closed 2016-09-15
Russia and UkraineRevenue
SEC letter of 2016-09-02 ↗ no reply letter on EDGAR
General
SEC asked (1)
You state on page 27 and elsewhere that LG and Samsung are among your ten largest OEM end customers. We are aware of publicly available information indicating that LG and Samsung operate in Sudan and may operate in Syria. Sudan and Syria are designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. Department of State and are subject to U.S. economic sanctions and export controls.
Rest of the question

Please describe to us the nature and extent of your past, current and anticipated contacts with Sudan and Syria, if any, whether through customers, distributors, or other direct or indirect arrangements. You should describe any products, technology or services you have provided to Sudan or Syria, directly or indirectly, and any agreements, arrangements or other contacts you have had with the governments of those countries or entities they control.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

General
SEC asked (2)
Please discuss the materiality of any contacts with Sudan and Syria you describe in response to the comment above, and whether the contacts constitute a material investment risk for your security holders. You should address materiality in quantitative terms, including the approximate dollar amounts of any revenues, assets and liabilities associated with Sudan and Syria for the last three fiscal years and the
Rest of the question

subsequent interim period. Also, address materiality in terms of qualitative factors that a reasonable investor would deem important in making an investment decision, including the potential impact of corporate activities upon a company’s reputation and share value. Various state and municipal governments, universities and other investors have proposed or adopted divestment or similar initiatives regarding investment in companies that do business with U.S.-designated state sponsors of terrorism. You should address the potential impact of the investor sentiment evidenced by such actions directed toward companies that have operations associated with Sudan and Syria.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

General
SEC asked (3)
You state on page 27 that Huawei and ZTE are among your ten largest OEM end customers. We are aware of news articles reporting that Huawei is effectively banned from selling its telecommunications network equipment in the United States and that the U.S. Department of Commerce is investigating Huawei for its alleged export or reexport of U.S. technology to Iran, Sudan and Syria in violation of U.S.
Rest of the question

export control laws. Also, information published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and reported by various news organizations indicates that ZTE has re-exported controlled items to sanctioned countries contrary to U.S. law, and that it planned and organized a scheme to establish, control and use a series of shell companies to re-export controlled items to Iran in violation of U.S. export control laws. Please address for us the possibility that this information will have adverse reputational and other effects upon you because of your significant business with Huawei and ZTE.

NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Also in this review: closing letter, 2016-09-15

Form F-4

2015-04-29 to 2015-05-28 · 9 questions · 2 letters from the SEC, 3 from the company
No closing letter
Results discussion (MD&A)DebtDerivatives and hedgingCritical estimatesRevenueIncome taxesRisk factors
Opinion of NXP’s Financial Advisor…, page 12
SEC asked (1)
We note from your disclosure on page 79 that NXP has agreed to pay $20 million to Credit Suisse contingent upon completion of the merger and that Credit Suisse has also agreed to act as a lead arranger in connection with debt financing described on page 14. Please disclose in this section the potential conflict of interest that could occur with these agreements and quantify the fees payable for the financing.
NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comment, the following language of the Registration Statement will be revised in Amendment No. 1 as follows (new language is underlined):

NXP has agreed to pay Credit Suisse for its financial advisory services to NXP in connection with the proposed merger an aggregate fee of $25 million, a portion of which was payable upon delivery of Credit Suisse’s opinion and approximately $20 million of which is contingent upon completion of the merger.
Rest of the answer

In addition, NXP has agreed to reimburse Credit Suisse for its reasonable expenses, including fees and expenses of legal counsel, and to indemnify Credit Suisse and related parties for certain liabilities and other items, including liabilities under the federal securities laws, arising out of or related to its engagement. Credit Suisse and certain of its affiliates also expect to participate in the financing for the merger, for which services Credit Suisse and its affiliates will receive a fee currently estimated to be approximately $27 million to $36 million contingent upon completion of the financing. The actual fee amount will depend on the timing of the closing of the merger. The NXP board approved both Credit Suisse’s engagement as financial advisor (and related fees) and Credit Suisse’s and its affiliates’ participation in such financing (and related fees) and understood that both arrangements provide for fees conditioned upon completion of the merger or related financing.

Read in the reply ↗
Opinion of Freescale’s Financial Advisor…, page 13
SEC asked (2)
We note from your disclosure on page 89 that Freescale has agreed to pay Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC a fee of approximately $41.8 million for its services that is contingent upon completion of the merger and that Morgan Stanley Senior Funding will act as a lead arranger in connection with the financing described on page 14.
Rest of the question

Please disclose in this section the potential conflict of interest that could occur with these agreements and quantify the fees payable for the financing.

NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comment, the following language of the Registration Statement will be revised in Amendment No. 1 as follows (new language is underlined):

In the two years prior to the date of its opinion, Morgan

Stanley and its affiliates have provided financing services to Freescale and NXP and have received aggregate fees of approximately $3.0 million from Freescale and approximately $11.9 million from NXP in connection with such services.
Rest of the answer

In the two years prior to the date of its opinion, Morgan Stanley and its affiliates have provided financial advisory and financing services for the sponsors, and have received an aggregate of approximately $39 million in connection with such services. In addition, Morgan Stanley and its affiliates have, in such time period, provided financial advisory and financing services to certain majority controlled affiliates and portfolio companies of each of the four sponsors and have received customary fees in connection with such services. Morgan Stanley is currently engaged on certain financing transactions (unrelated to the merger) for certain of the sponsors and certain majority controlled portfolio companies of the sponsors, for which it would expect to receive customary fees. Following the date of Morgan Stanley’s opinion, the signing of the merger agreement and the announcement of the merger, NXP approached Morgan Stanley and requested that an affiliate of Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., which we refer to in this joint proxy statement/prospectus as

“Morgan Stanley Senior Funding,” together with seven other financial institutions, serve as joint lead arranger and joint bookrunner with respect to NXP’s debt financing and provide a portion of the debt financing commitment. In light of Morgan Stanley’s engagement as financial advisor to Freescale, Morgan Stanley requested that Freescale consent to this proposed arrangement. Following consideration of the request and the potential conflict of interest, Freescale consented.

In connection with Morgan Stanley’s request for Freescale’s consent, Morgan Stanley agreed to implement certain procedures relating to the handling of confidential information. As consideration for the financing services, NXP has agreed to pay Morgan Stanley Senior Funding aggregate fees in an amount estimated, as of the date of this joint proxy statement/prospectus, to be in the range of approximately $10.3 million to $13.6 million, payment of which is contingent upon the closing of the merger and the associated debt financing for NXP. The actual fee amount will depend on the timing of the closing of the merger. Morgan Stanley may seek to provide financial advisory and financing services to Freescale, NXP and the sponsors

(including affiliates and portfolio companies of the sponsors) in the future and would expect to receive fees for the rendering of these services.

Read in the reply ↗
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects · Critical Accounting Estimates, page 42
SEC asked (3)
While we see that you have identified certain accounting policies as critical accounting estimates, the disclosure does not describe the specific aspects of any of those policies that cause them to be particularly judgmental or subjective and where reasonably possible changes in assumptions could have a material effect on your financial statements.
Rest of the question

In that regard, please tell us how your disclosure considers the interpretive guidance from Section V of the Commission Guidance Regarding Management´s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Release No 34-48960.

NXPI answered
We have considered the Staff’s comment and after evaluating our disclosures in regards to the interpretive guidance from Section V of the

Commission Guidance Regarding Management´s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Release No 34-48960 we would propose in future filings of our Form 20-F to prepare a disclosure on a basis substantially consistent with the following:

Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures in accordance with U.S.
Rest of the answer

GAAP requires our management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our Consolidated Financial Statements and the accompanying notes. Our management bases its estimates and judgments on historical experience, current economic and industry conditions and on various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

The methods, estimates, and judgments that we use in applying our accounting policies have a significant impact on the results that we report in our consolidated financial statements. Some of our accounting policies require us to make difficult and subjective judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates regarding matters that are inherently uncertain. Our most critical accounting estimates include:

• the valuation of inventory, which impacts gross margin;

the assessment of recoverability of goodwill, identified intangible assets and tangible fixed assets, which impacts gross margin or operating expenses when we record asset impairments or accelerate their depreciation or amortization;

revenue recognition, which impacts our results of operations;

the recognition of current and deferred income taxes (including the measurement of uncertain tax positions), which impacts our provision for income taxes;

the assumptions used in the determination of postretirement benefit obligations, which impacts operating expenses;

the assumptions used in the determination of share based compensation, which impacts gross margin and operating expenses; and the recognition and measurement of loss contingencies, which impacts gross margin or operating expenses when we recognize a loss contingency or revise the estimates for a loss contingency.

In the following section, we discuss these policies further, as well as the estimates and judgments involved.

Inventories

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. We regularly review our inventories and write down our inventories for estimated losses due to obsolescence. This allowance is determined for groups of products based on sales of our products in the recent past and/or expected future demand. Future demand is affected by market conditions, technological obsolescence, new products and strategic plans, each of which is subject to change with little or no forewarning. In estimating obsolescence, we utilize information that includes projecting future demand.

The need for strategic inventory levels to ensure competitive delivery performance to our customers are balanced against the risk of inventory obsolescence due to rapidly changing technology and customer requirements.

The change in our reserves for inventories was primarily due to the normal review and accrual of obsolete or excess inventory. If actual future demand or market conditions are less favorable than those projected by our management, additional inventory write-downs may be required.

Goodwill

Goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually or sooner whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the assets may be impaired. Such events or changes in circumstances can be significant changes in business climate, operating performance or competition, or upon the disposition of a significant portion of a reporting unit. A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of impairment has occurred between annual test dates. This impairment review compares the fair value for each reporting unit containing goodwill to its carrying value. Determining the fair value of a reporting unit involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions, including projected future cash flows, discount rates based on weighted average cost of capital and future economic and market conditions. We base our fair-value estimates on assumptions we believe to be reasonable. Actual cash flow amounts for future periods may differ from estimates used in impairment testing.

For the annual impairment assessment in 201X, we determined that for each of our reporting units, it was more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting units exceeded the carrying value. As a result, we concluded that performing the first step of the goodwill impairment test was not necessary for any reporting unit. During the fourth quarter of each of the prior two fiscal years, we have completed our annual impairment assessments and concluded that goodwill was not impaired in any of these years.

Impairment or disposal of identified intangible assets and tangible fixed assets

We perform reviews of property, plant and equipment, and certain identifiable intangibles, excluding goodwill, to determine if facts and circumstances indicate that the useful life is shorter than what we had originally estimated or that the carrying amount of assets may not be recoverable. If such facts and circumstances exist, we assess the recoverability of the long-lived assets by comparing the projected undiscounted net cash flows associated with the related asset or group of assets over their remaining lives against their respective carrying amounts. In the event such cash flows are not expected to be sufficient to recover the recorded value of the assets, the assets are written down to their estimated fair values based on the expected discounted future cash flows attributable to the assets or based on appraisals. Impairment losses, if any, are based on the excess of the carrying amount over the fair value of those assets.

The assumptions and estimates used to determine future values and remaining useful lives of our intangible and other long-lived assets are complex and subjective. They can be affected by various factors, including external factors such as industry and economic trends, and internal factors such as changes in our business strategy and our forecasts for specific product lines. No impairment or disposal of identified intangible assets and tangible fixed assets were required to be recognized in 201X, 201X and 201X.

Revenue recognition

The Company’s revenue is derived from sales to distributors, made-to-order sales to Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) and similar customers.

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or the service has been provided, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured, based on the terms and conditions of the sales contract. For made-to-order sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped and delivered to the customer and title and risk have passed to the customer. Acceptance of the product by the customer is generally not contractually required, since, for made-to-order customers, design approval occurs before manufacturing and subsequently delivery follows without further acceptance protocols. Payment terms used are those that are customary in the particular geographic market. When management has established that all aforementioned conditions for revenue recognition have been met and no further post-shipment obligations exist, revenue is recognized.

For sales to distributors, revenue is recognized upon sale to the distributor (sell-in accounting). We record reductions to sales associated with reserves for allowances for collectability, discounts, price protection, product returns and distributor incentive programs at the time the related sale is recognized. The establishment of such reserves is dependent on a variety of factors, including contractual terms, analysis of historical data, current economic conditions, industry demand and both the current and forecasted pricing environments.

The process of evaluating these factors is highly subjective and requires significant estimates, including, but not limited to, forecasted demand, returns, pricing assumptions and inventory levels. In future periods, additional provisions may be necessary due to a deterioration in the semiconductor pricing environment, reductions in anticipated demand for semiconductor products and/or lack of market acceptance for new products. If these factors result in a significant adjustment to our reserves, they could significantly impact our future operating results.

Distributor reserves estimate the impact of credits granted to distributors under certain programs common in the semiconductor industry whereby distributors receive certain price adjustments to meet individual competitive opportunities, or are allowed to return or scrap a limited amount of product in accordance with contractual terms agreed upon with the distributor, or receive price protection credits when our standard published prices are lowered from the price the distributor paid for product still in its inventory. The Company’s policy is to use a rolling historical experience rate, as well as a prospective view of products and pricing in the distribution channel for distributors who participate in our volume rebate incentive program, in order to estimate the proper provision for this program at the end of any given reporting period. We continually monitor the actual claimed allowances against our estimates, and we adjust our estimates as appropriate to reflect trends in pricing environments and inventory levels. Distributor reserves are also adjusted when recent historical data does not represent anticipated future activity.

Income taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the expected tax consequences of temporary differences between the tax basis of assets and liabilities and their reported amounts. Measurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities is based upon the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. Deferred tax liabilities for withholding taxes on dividends from subsidiaries are recognized in situations where the company does not consider the earnings indefinitely reinvested and to the extent that these withholding taxes are not expected to be refundable.

Deferred tax assets, including assets arising from loss carryforwards, are recognized, net of a valuation allowance, if based upon the available evidence it is more likely than not that the asset will be realized.

The income tax benefit from an uncertain tax position is recognized only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained upon examination by the relevant taxing authorities. The income tax benefit recognized is measured based on the largest benefit that is more than 50% likely to be realized upon resolution of the uncertainty. Unrecognized tax benefits are presented as a reduction to the deferred tax asset for related net operating loss carryforwards, unless these would not be available, in which case the uncertain tax benefits are presented together with the related interest and penalties as a liability, under accrued liabilities and other non-current liabilities based on the timing of the expected payment. Penalties are recorded as income tax expense, whereas interest is reported as financial expense in the statement of operations.

Postretirement benefits

The Company’s employees participate in pension and other postretirement benefit plans in many countries. The costs of pension and other postretirement benefits and related assets and liabilities with respect to the Company’s employees participating in defined-benefit plans are based upon actuarial valuations.

The projected defined-benefit obligation is calculated annually by qualified actuaries using the projected unit credit method. For the

Company’s major plans, the discount rate is derived from market yields on high quality corporate bonds. Plans in countries without a deep corporate bond market use a discount rate based on the local government bond rates.

In calculating obligation and expense, the Company is required to select actuarial assumptions. These assumptions include discount rate, expected long-term rate of return on plan assets and rates of increase in compensation costs determined based on current market conditions, historical information and consultation with and input from our actuaries. Changes in the key assumptions can have a significant impact to the projected benefit obligations, funding requirements and periodic pension cost incurred. A sensitivity analysis is provided in note 15, “Postretirement Benefit Plans”.

The Company determines the fair value of plan assets based on quoted prices or comparable prices for non-quoted assets. For a defined-benefit pension plan, the benefit obligation is the projected benefit obligation; for any other postretirement defined benefit plan it is the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation.

Share-based compensation

We recognize compensation expense for all share-based awards based on the grant-date estimated fair values, net of an estimated forfeiture rate. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the estimated fair value for certain awards. Share-based compensation cost for restricted share units (“RSU”s) with time-based vesting is measured based on the closing fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant, reduced by the present value of the estimated expected future dividends, and then multiplied by the number of RSUs granted. Share-based compensation cost for performance-based share units

(“PSU”s) granted with performance or market conditions is measured using a Monte Carlo simulation model on the date of grant.

Our valuation models and generally accepted valuation techniques require us to make assumptions and to apply judgment to determine the fair value of our awards. These assumptions and judgments include estimating the volatility of our stock price, expected dividend yield, employee turnover rates and employee stock option exercise behaviors. Due to the lack of extensive history as a public company, the computation of the expected volatility assumptions used in the Black-Scholes calculations for grants was based on historical volatilities and implied volatilities of our peer group companies. When establishing the expected life assumption, we used the ‘simplified’ method prescribed in ASC Topic 718 for companies that do not have adequate historical data. The risk-free interest rate is measured as the prevailing yield for a U.S. Treasury security with a maturity similar to the expected life assumption. We also estimate a forfeiture rate at the time of grant and revise this rate in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures or vesting differ from the original estimates.

We evaluate the assumptions used to value our awards on a quarterly basis. If factors change and we employ different assumptions, share-based compensation expense may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the past. If there are any modifications or cancellation of the underlying unvested securities, we may be required to accelerate, increase or cancel any remaining unearned share-based compensation expense.

Litigation and claims

We are regularly involved as plaintiffs or defendants in claims and litigation relating to matters such as commercial transactions and intellectual property rights. In addition, our divestments sometimes result in, or are followed by, claims or litigation by either party. From time to time, we also are subject to alleged patent infringement claims. We rigorously defend ourselves against these alleged patent infringement claims, and we rarely participate in settlement discussions. There can be no assurance that the Company’s accruals will be sufficient to cover the extent of its potential exposure to losses. Historically, legal actions have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

The estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based on currently available information in relation to the claims that have arisen and on the Company’s best estimate of such losses for those cases for which such estimate can be made. For certain claims, the Company believes that an estimate cannot currently be made. The estimated aggregate range requires significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many of them are currently in preliminary stages), the existence of multiple defendants (including the Company) in such claims whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the claims, and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such claims. Accordingly, the Company’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may be more than the current estimate.

Read in the reply ↗
Item 7.B, Related Party Transactions, page 58
SEC asked (4)
We note your cross reference to your disclosure in Note 20 on page F-33 and your description of “amounts related to revenue and expenses incurred in transactions with these related parties” and “your balances with these related parties.” Please tell us, and in future filings describe more specifically the nature and extent of these transactions as required by Item 7.B.
Rest of the question

of Form 20-F so that the party’s relationship and type of transaction are clear.

NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comment, as the Staff has previously noted, we have cross-referenced Item 7.B, Related Party Transactions, on page 58 of the Company’s 2014 Form 20-F to our disclosure in Note 20 on page F-33. The Company would note that this was done for practical purposes due to the substantial reduction in information that we had to disclose in this area for 2014. In Note 20, we disclose that the Company’s related parties are the members of the board of directors of NXP Semiconductors N.V., the members of the management team of NXP

Semiconductors N.V. and equity-accounted investees.
Rest of the answer

In addition, we further disclose that the Company has a number of strategic alliances and joint ventures and that as part of these relationships, in the ordinary course of business we enter into various sale and purchase transactions on terms comparable to transactions with third parties. We note, that as stated in Item 7.B.1, a Company should disclose “the nature and extent of any transactions or presently proposed transactions which are material to the company or the related party, or any transactions that are unusual in their nature or conditions, involving goods, services, or tangible or intangible assets, to which the company or any of its parent or subsidiaries was a party.” We respectfully submit that, for the year ended December 31, 2014, the transactions that we have with related parties are not material, individually or in the aggregate, quantitatively and qualitatively, and as such, our disclosure has been structured relative to this fact when considering the materiality requirements noted in Item 7.B.1. If in future years the transactions that we have with related parties are not deemed to be material, individually or in the aggregate, we would propose in future filings of our Form 20-F to explicitly confirm so in Item 7.B.1.

Read in the reply ↗
Item 18. Consolidated Financial Statements · Note 6 Provision for Income Taxes, page F-18
SEC asked (5)
In your rate reconciliation table you disclose that the tax incentives line item impacted your tax rate by (26.3%) and (30.2%) in the fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Please quantify and detail for us the nature of the significant components of this item, including the impact of the Dutch “Innovation box” tax rules. Refer to FASB ASC 740-10-50-12.
Rest of the question

Also, tell us how your disclosure about tax incentives considers the guidance from SAB Topic 11-C.

NXPI answered
We acknowledge the Staff’s comment and respectfully advise the Staff that we considered the provisions of ASC 740-10-50-12 as they relate to the reconciliation of our effective tax rate in preparing our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014. In response to the Staff’s comment, on page F-18 in Note 6, Provision for income taxes, the Company has disclosed that the significant components of the tax incentives line relate to the benefit resulting from the application of the Dutch “Innovation box” tax rules and from a predominant income tax holiday.
Rest of the answer

For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, as a percentage of income before income taxes and the effective income tax rate, the Dutch innovation box represented 18.0% and 18.3%, respectively, and the predominant tax holiday represented 4.3% and 6.5%, respectively.

Based upon the Staff’s comments, in future filings of our Form 20-F, we intend to include a line item in the reconciliation of the statutory income tax rate to the effective tax rate for the Dutch innovation box and for any other amounts that are material. In addition, we intend to prepare a disclosure on a basis substantially consistent with the following:

As previously disclosed, the Company benefits from income tax holiday incentives in certain jurisdictions which provide that we pay reduced income taxes in those jurisdictions for a fixed period of time that varies depending on the jurisdiction. Our predominant income tax holiday is expected to expire at the end of 2021. The impact of this tax holiday decreased foreign taxes by $XX million and $XX million for 201X and 201X, respectively. The benefit on net income per share (diluted) for 201X and 201X for this tax holiday was $X.XX and $X.XX, respectively.

Read in the reply ↗
Note 16 Debt, page F-28 · 2019 Cash Convertible Senior Notes, page F-29
SEC asked (6)
We see on page F-29 that the noteholders may convert their notes to cash prior to 2019 upon the occurrence of certain events. Please tell us and clarify in future filings, how these provisions of the notes are considered in the balance sheet classification of the liability.
NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comment, as the Staff has noted, on page F-29 of the Company’s 2014 Form 20-F, we have disclosed the conversion rights. Based upon the Staff’s comments, in future filings of our Form 20-F, we intend to prepare a disclosure on a basis substantially consistent with the following:

Impact of Conversion Contingencies on Financial Statements

At the end of each quarter until maturity of the Notes, NXP will reassess whether the stock price conversion condition has been satisfied.

If one of the early conversion conditions is satisfied in any future quarter, NXP would classify its net
Rest of the answer

liability under the Notes as a current liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of the end of that fiscal quarter. If none of the early conversion conditions have been satisfied in a future quarter prior to the one-year period immediately preceding the maturity date, NXP would classify its net liability under the Notes as a non-current liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of the end of that fiscal quarter. If the holders of the Notes elect to convert their Notes prior to maturity, any unamortized discount and transaction fees will be expensed at the time of conversion.

Read in the reply ↗
Note 16 Debt, page F-28 · 2019 Cash Convertible Senior Notes, page F-29
SEC asked (7)
We refer to the disclosure that you have concluded the cash conversion feature of the notes is required to be bifurcated from the debt instrument and recorded as a derivative liability. Please describe for us the terms of the cash conversion feature and the accounting literature which supports recognition of the derivative liability.
Rest of the question

In this regard, please also revise future filings to clearly disclose the terms of conversion right which resulted in the aforementioned accounting.

NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comments, in addition to the conversion rights noted above, on or after September 1, 2019 until the close of business on the second scheduled trading day immediately preceding the maturity date, holders may convert their Notes solely into cash at any time.

The conversion rate will initially be 9.7236 shares of our common stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes (equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $102.84 per share). The conversion rate and the corresponding conversion price are subject to certain adjustments.
Rest of the answer

The conversion price at any given time will be computed by dividing $1,000 by the conversion rate at such time. Upon conversion of a note, in lieu of delivering shares of our common stock, we will pay cash based on a daily conversion value calculated on a proportionate basis for each volume-weighted average price (“VWAP”) trading day in a

30 VWAP trading day observation period. In addition, following certain corporate events that occur prior to the maturity date, NXP is required to pay in cash a “make-whole” premium by increasing the conversion rate for a holder who elects to convert its Notes in connection with such a corporate event in certain circumstances.

The Company analyzed the Notes to determine whether the embedded cash settled conversion option should be bifurcated and accounted for separately. We concluded that the Notes would be considered debt hosts for purposes of this analysis as they have a stated maturity date and are legally debt instruments. As discussed above, through the cash settled conversion option the Notes permit investors, under certain circumstances, to participate in the price appreciation of NXP common stock above a stated price (subject to certain adjustments). This feature is economically similar to a conversion option in a conventional convertible debt instrument where investors have the right to convert their Notes into common stock; however instead of issuing shares of common stock, NXP is required to settle a conversion of the Notes in cash.

ASC 815-15-25-1(a-c) states that contracts that do not in their entirety meet the definition of a derivative instrument may contain embedded derivative instruments. An embedded derivative instrument is separated from the host contract and accounted for as a derivative instrument pursuant to ASC 815-15-25 if the following criteria are met.

The economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative instrument are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract.

Because the conversion feature is indexed to the common stock of the Company and the host is a debt host, the conversion feature is not clearly and closely related to the host contract.

The contract that embodies both the embedded derivative instrument and the host contract (i.e.: the hybrid instrument) is not re-measured at fair value with changes in fair value reported in earnings as they occur but rather at amortized cost.

Because the host contract is convertible debt, it is not measured at fair value with changes in fair value being reported in earnings. Furthermore, the Company does not elect the fair value option to account for the Notes.

A separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative instrument would, pursuant to ASC 815-10-15, be a derivative instrument subject to the requirements of ASC 815.

ASC 815-10-15-83 defines a derivative instrument as a financial instrument or other contract with all of the following characteristics:

a)

One or more underlying’s and one or more notional amounts or payment provisions, or both, b)

No initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors, and c)

Net settlement provisions (to be a derivative, the contract must either explicitly permit net settlement or place the receiving party in a position that is essentially equivalent to net settlement by delivery of a derivative instrument or an asset readily convertible to cash) A contract may be considered net settled when its settlement meets one of the following criteria in ASC 815-10-15-99:

i.

Net settlement under implicit or explicit terms ii.

Net settlement through a market mechanism outside the contract iii.

Net settlement through deliver of an asset that, because the delivered asset is readily convertible to cash, puts the recipient in a position not substantially different from net settlement (a gross settlement that is economically equivalent to a net settlement). Net settlement is a one-way transfer of an asset, usually cash or shares, from the counterparty in a loss position to the counterparty in a gain position that settles the obligation. In contrast, a gross settlement involves an exchange, whereby Party A transfers cash to Party B, and Party B transfers an asset to Party A.

conversion feature has the following components within ASC 815-10-15-83:

Underlying and Payment Provision: Number and price of shares into which the debt is convertible for determining the cash to be delivered upon conversion.

No initial net investment: This criterion is met because the conversion option requires an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors.

Net settlement: An embedded component can be net settled if the issuer (or counterparty investor) is permitted, by the terms of the contract, to settle the embedded component in cash. For example, if upon conversion a convertible debt instrument allows the issuer to deliver cash equal to the conversion value (par amount of the debt plus conversion option value), the embedded component (the conversion option) can be net settled under the contract terms. The Notes require cash settlement of the conversion option, therefore, the net settlement criteria has been met.

Company has concluded, per the analysis above, that the conversion option meets the definition of a derivative under ASC 815-10-15-83. In addition, per ASC 815-40-25 as the conversion option must be settled in cash, the conversion option does not meet the requirements for equity classification in ASC 815-40-25 and is not eligible for the scope exception for certain contracts involving an issuer’s own stock in ASC 815-10-15-74 and as such, the conversion option will be accounted for separately, initially being recorded at fair value with changes in the fair value recorded in earnings.

Based upon the Staff’s comments, in future filings of our Form 20-F, we intend to prepare a disclosure on a basis substantially consistent with the following (enhancements to existing disclosure underlined):

Cash Convertible

Notes Embedded Cash Conversion Option

The requirement that NXP must settle the conversion of the Notes in cash gives rise to a derivative instrument that must be bifurcated from the debt host. The embedded cash conversion option within the Cash Convertible Notes is required to be separated from the Cash Convertible Notes and accounted for separately as a derivative liability, with changes in fair value reported in our Consolidated Statements of Income in other (expense) income, net until the cash conversion option settles or expires. The initial fair value liability of the embedded cash conversion option simultaneously reduced the carrying value of the Cash Convertible Notes (effectively an original issuance discount). The embedded cash conversion option is measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis, within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of the embedded cash conversion option at December 31, 201X was approximately $XXX.X million which is recorded in other long-term liabilities in the accompanying balance sheet. For the year ended December 31, 201X, the change in the fair value of the embedded cash conversion option resulted in (gains)/losses of $XX.X million.

Read in the reply ↗
Note 16 Debt, page F-28 · 2019 Cash Convertible Senior Notes, page F-29
SEC asked (8)
We note the discussion within Risk Factors on page 18 that in conjunction with the issuance of the notes you also sold common stock warrants that are subject to changes in currency exchange rates leading to derivative accounting because the strike price is denominated in U.S. dollars, which is not your functional currency.
Rest of the question

In future filings please expand the disclosure in the notes to financial statements to clarify how the terms of the warrants are considered in the accounting determination.

NXPI answered
to the Staff’s comments, in future filings of our Form

20-F, we intend to prepare a disclosure on a basis substantially consistent with the following (enhancements to existing disclosure underlined):

In separate transactions, NXP also sold warrants, to various parties for the purchase of up to approximately 11.18 million shares of

NXP common stock at a price of $133.32 per share in a private placement pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Warrants expire on various dates from March 2, 2020, through April 30, 2020, and will be net share settled.
Rest of the answer

The fair value of the warrants is subject to changes in currency exchange rates because the warrants’ strike price is denominated in U.S. dollars, which is different from our functional currency, which is euros. As a result, the warrants are not considered indexed to our own stock, which in turn results in the warrants being classified as liabilities on our balance sheet with changes in the fair value of the warrants recognized in NXP’s Consolidated

Statements of Operations. As of December 31, 2015 the estimated fair value of the Warrants was $XXX.X million. The Warrants are included in diluted earnings per share to the extent the impact is dilutive. As of December 31, 2015, the

Warrants were not dilutive.

* * * *

* *

Please note that NXP has included certain changes to the Registration Statement other than those in response to the Staff’s comments.

Read in the reply ↗
Item 7.B, Related Party Transactions, page 58
SEC asked
We note your response to our prior comment 4. We note you state that “for the year ended December 31, 2014” the transactions are not material to the company or the related parties and that “our disclosure has been structured relative to this fact.” Please clarify whether you mean that you do not have any transactions requiring disclosure for the periods required by Item 7.B.
NXPI answered
Pursuant to Rule 461 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, NXP Semiconductors N.V. (the

“Registrant”) hereby requests acceleration of the effectiveness of the above-referenced Registration Statement on Form F-4, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 thereto, so that it will become effective at

4:00 p.m.
Rest of the answer

on Monday, June 1, 2015 or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

In connection with the foregoing request for acceleration of effectiveness, the Registrant hereby acknowledges that:

• should the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) or the staff of the Commission (the “Staff”), acting pursuant to delegated authority, declare the filing effective, it does not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing;

the action of the Commission or the Staff, acting pursuant to delegated authority, in declaring the filing effective, does not relieve the Registrant from its full responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing; and the Registrant may not assert Staff comments and the declaration of effectiveness as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.

Read in the reply ↗

Also in this review: company letter, 2015-05-28

Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012

2013-06-27 to 2013-07-16 · 5 questions · 1 letter from the SEC, 0 from the company
Review closed 2013-07-16
Results discussion (MD&A)Income taxesLegal and contingenciesNon-GAAP measures
SEC letter of 2013-06-27 ↗ no reply letter on EDGAR
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects, page 29
SEC asked (1)
We note from page 35 that you reversed $51 million related to an accounts receivable valuation allowance for the collection of accounts receivable amounts following a legal award and that the reversal impacted your gross profit. Please explain to us the nature of the legal award that you received and why you reversed your valuation allowance. Please also explain to us why the reversal impacted your gross profit.
NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Item 18. Consolidated Financial Statements, page F-1 · Note 14. Restructuring Charges, page F-39
SEC asked (2)
Please revise future filings to include a description of your exit or disposal activities, including the facts and circumstances leading to the expected activities and the expected completion date, consistent with FASB ASC 420-10-50-1(a). Please revise your MD&A in future filings to include all of the disclosures required by SAB Topic 5.P.4.
NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Note 18. Investments in Equity-accounted Investees, page F-45
SEC asked (3)
Please explain to us the nature of the loss you recorded of $46 million during fiscal year 2012 for extra provisions for litigation, claims and proceedings related to your equity investments.
NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Note 18. Investments in Equity-accounted Investees, page F-45
SEC asked (4)
Further, please explain to us the nature of the results relating to equity-accounted investees for the three months ended March 31, 2013 of $47 million shown in your Form 6-K dated April 23, 2013. If different, please also discuss and quantify the net benefit of the release of the legal provision in the three months ended March 31, 2013.
NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Note 18. Investments in Equity-accounted Investees, page F-45
SEC asked (5)
We note on page 2 that you present forward looking non-GAAP financial measures for the second quarter of 2013. Please revise future filings to include, to the extent available without unreasonable efforts, the reconciliations required by Item 10(e)(1)(i)(B) of Regulation S-K.
NXPI answered

No reply letter found.

Also in this review: closing letter, 2013-07-16

9 other letters: notices that a filing will not be reviewed, requests to declare a registration effective, and the like
  • 2022-04-12 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Registration Statement on Form S-4 · File No. 333-263731 ·...
  • 2022-04-12 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Registration Statement on Form S-4 · File No. 333-263732 ·...
  • 2022-04-12 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Funding LLC · Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 · File No. 333-263731 ·...
  • 2022-04-12 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Funding LLC · NXP USA, Inc. · Registration · Statement filed on Form S-4 · File...
  • 2022-03-25 · SEC: will not review the filing · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Registration Statement on Form S-4 · Filed March 21, 2022 ·...
  • 2022-03-25 · SEC: will not review the filing · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Registration Statement on Form S-4 · Filed March 21, 2022 ·...
  • 2016-09-15 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015 ·...
  • 2015-06-01 · SEC: review completed · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Form 20-F for fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 · Filed...
  • 2012-12-31 · NXPI: letter to the SEC · NXP Semiconductors N.V. · Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012 ·...

From the SEC's correspondence on EDGAR: staff letters (form UPLOAD) and company letters (form CORRESP), 29 letters filed since 2013-06-27. Questions and answers are matched by their numbers; topics come from words in each question. The reports are compared word for word (same form, before the first SEC letter against the first report after the company's reply). No AI.

Work on NXPI in a spreadsheet: Excel workbook (a sheet per section, ten years by column, charts, links to the filings) · CSV. For a Google Sheet that stays up to date, paste =IMPORTDATA("https://tickdelta.com/company/NXPI/export.csv") into a cell.