Note 1—Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Veeco Instruments Inc. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, “Veeco”, the “Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our”, unless the context indicates otherwise) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S.”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by U.S generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair presentation (consisting of normal recurring accruals) have been included. Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2013. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Consistent with prior years, we report interim quarters, other than fourth quarters which always end on December 31, on a 13-week basis ending on the last Sunday of each period. The interim quarter ends are determined at the beginning of each year based on the 13-week quarters. The 2013 interim quarter ends are March 31, June 30 and September 29. The 2012 interim quarter ends were April 1, July 1 and September 30. For ease of reference, we report these interim quarter ends as March 31, June 30 and September 30 in our interim condensed consolidated financial statements. We have reclassified certain amounts previously reported in our financial statements to conform to the current presentation, including amounts related to discontinued operations.

Accounting Review

During 2012, the Company commenced an internal investigation in response to information it received concerning certain issues, including contract documentation issues, related to a limited number of customer transactions in South Korea. During the review of information in connection with the internal investigation, questions were raised that prompted the Company to conduct a comprehensive and extensive review of its revenue recognition accounting for certain multiple element arrangements. The Company retained experienced counsel, assisted by an experienced outside accounting consulting firm, to oversee the accounting review undertaken by the Company. The Company completed that review in October 2013.

The delay in filing our periodic reports began with an announcement, on November 15, 2012, regarding our accounting review of our application of accounting principles related to the Company’s sales of multiple element arrangements of Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (“MOCVD”) systems in certain transactions originating in 2009 and 2010. We conducted examinations of our MOCVD transactions to determine whether the revenue and related expenses were recognized in the appropriate accounting period. Subsequently, we expanded our accounting review to other relevant transactions of similar multiple element arrangements arising since 2009. In the course of our accounting review, we have examined more than 100 multiple element arrangements.

The primary focus of the Company’s accounting review concerned whether the Company correctly interpreted and applied generally accepted accounting principles relating to revenue recognition for multiple element arrangements as set forth in Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104: Revenue Recognition, and ASC 605-25 - Revenue Recognition: Multiple Element Arrangements (formerly known as EITF 00-21 and EITF 08-01), to certain sales of Veeco products.

We often enter into large orders with our customers consisting of several elements. For accounting purposes, these are called multiple element arrangements, and can include systems, upgrades, spare parts, services, as well as certain other items. Our accounting review examined the selected sales transactions to determine whether the Company appropriately: (1) identified all of the elements in its arrangements with customers; (2) determined the proper units of accounting as part of the arrangements; and (3) allocated the arrangements’ consideration to each of the units of accounting under the applicable accounting standards. As a result of our accounting review we identified errors in the consolidated financial statements related to prior periods. The errors were primarily attributable to the misapplication of U.S. GAAP for recognizing revenue and related costs under multiple element arrangements and accounting for warranties. We assessed the materiality of these errors, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and concluded that these errors were not material, individually or in the aggregate, to our consolidated financial statements in 2012 or any other prior periods.

Notwithstanding the material weaknesses discussed in “Part I. Item 4. Controls and Procedures” and based upon the accounting review discussed above, our management has concluded that our consolidated financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects in accordance with U.S. GAAP for interim financial statements.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates made by management include: the best estimate of selling price for our products and services; allowance for doubtful accounts; inventory valuation; recoverability and useful lives of property, plant and equipment and identifiable intangible assets; investment valuations; fair value of derivatives; recoverability of goodwill and long-lived assets; recoverability of deferred tax assets; liabilities for product warranty; accruals for contingencies; equity-based payments, including forfeitures and performance based vesting; and liabilities for tax uncertainties. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

(Loss) Income Per Common Share

The following table sets forth the reconciliation of basic weighted average shares outstanding and diluted weighted average shares outstanding (in thousands):

	Three months ended		Six months ended
	June 30,		June 30,
	2013	2012	2013	2012
Basic weighted average shares outstanding	38,764	38,370	38,740	38,315
Dilutive effect of stock options and restricted stock	—	618	—	610
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding	38,764	38,988	38,740	38,925

Basic (loss) income per common share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted (loss) income per common share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares and common equivalent shares outstanding during the period.

Potentially dilutive securities attributable to outstanding stock options and restricted stock were approximately 0.9 million and 1.2 million common equivalent shares during the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, respectively. Potentially dilutive securities attributable to outstanding stock options and restricted stock were approximately 1.5 million and 1.3 million common equivalent shares during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, respectively.

Approximately 0.7 million and 0.6 million common equivalent shares were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share during the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, respectively, because their effect on loss per share was anti-dilutive due to the net loss sustained during the respective periods.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when all of the following criteria have been met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists with a customer; delivery of the specified products has occurred or services have been rendered; prices are contractually fixed or determinable; and collectability is reasonably assured. Revenue is recorded including shipping and handling costs and excluding applicable taxes related to sales. A significant portion of our revenue is derived from contractual arrangements with customers that have multiple elements, such as systems, upgrades, components, spare parts, maintenance and service plans. For sales arrangements that contain multiple elements, we split the arrangement into separate units of accounting if the individually delivered elements have value to the customer on a standalone basis. We also evaluate whether multiple transactions with the same customer or related party should be considered part of a multiple element arrangement, whereby we assess, among other factors, whether the contracts or agreements are negotiated or executed within a short time frame of each other or if there are indicators that the contracts are negotiated in contemplation of each other. When we have separate units of accounting, we allocate revenue to each element based on the following selling price hierarchy: vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) if available; third party evidence (“TPE”) if VSOE is not available; or our best estimate of selling price (“BESP”) if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. For the majority of the elements in our arrangements we utilize BESP. The accounting guidance for selling price hierarchy did not include BESP for arrangements entered into prior to January 1, 2011, and as such we recognized revenue for those arrangements as described below.

We consider many facts when evaluating each of our sales arrangements to determine the timing of revenue recognition, including the contractual obligations, the customer’s creditworthiness and the nature of the customer’s post-delivery acceptance provisions. Our system sales arrangements, including certain upgrades, generally include field acceptance provisions that may include functional or mechanical test procedures. For the majority of our arrangements, a customer source inspection of the system is performed in our facility or test data is sent to the customer documenting that the system is functioning to the agreed upon specifications prior to delivery. Historically, such source inspection or test data replicates the field acceptance provisions that will be performed at the customer’s site prior to final acceptance of the system. As such, we objectively demonstrate that the criteria specified in the contractual acceptance provisions are achieved prior to delivery and, therefore, we recognize revenue upon delivery since there is no substantive contingency remaining related to the acceptance provisions as of that date, subject to the retention amount constraint described below. For new products, new applications of existing products or for products with substantive customer acceptance provisions where we cannot objectively demonstrate that the criteria specified in the contractual acceptance provisions have been achieved prior to delivery, revenue and the associated costs are deferred and fully recognized upon the receipt of final customer acceptance, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria have been met.

Our system sales arrangements, including certain upgrades, generally do not contain provisions for right of return or forfeiture, refund, or other purchase price concessions. In the rare instances where such provisions are included, we defer all revenue until such rights expire. In many cases our products are sold with a billing retention, typically 10% of the sales price (the “retention amount”), which is typically payable by the customer when field acceptance provisions are completed. The amount of revenue recognized upon delivery of a system or upgrade is limited to the lower of i) the amount that is not contingent upon acceptance provisions or ii) the value allocated to the delivered elements, if such sale is part of a multiple-element arrangement.

For transactions entered into prior to January 1, 2011, under the accounting rules for multiple-element arrangements in place at that time, we deferred the greater of the retention amount or the relative fair value of the undelivered elements based on VSOE. When we could not establish VSOE or TPE for all undelivered elements of an arrangement, revenue on the entire arrangement was deferred until the earlier of the point when we did have VSOE for all undelivered elements or the delivery of all elements of the arrangement.

Our sales arrangements, including certain upgrades, generally include installation. The installation process is not deemed essential to the functionality of the equipment since it is not complex; that is, it does not require significant changes to the features or capabilities of the equipment or involve building elaborate interfaces or connections subsequent to factory acceptance. We have a demonstrated history of consistently completing installations in a timely manner and can reliably estimate the costs of such activities. Most customers engage us to perform the installation services, although there are other third-party providers with sufficient knowledge who could complete these services. Based on these factors, we deem the installation of our systems to be inconsequential and perfunctory relative to the system as a whole, and as a result, do not consider such services to be a separate element of the arrangement. As such, we accrue the cost of the installation at the time of revenue recognition for the system.

In Japan, where our contractual terms with customers generally specify title and risk and rewards of ownership transfer upon customer acceptance, revenue is recognized and the customer is billed upon the receipt of written customer acceptance.

Revenue related to maintenance and service contracts is recognized ratably over the applicable contract term. Component and spare part revenue are recognized at the time of delivery in accordance with the terms of the applicable sales arrangement.