The Company and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, can be condensed or omitted. The information included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with our annual consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

In the opinion of management, these condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the annual consolidated financial statements and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for the fair presentation of our financial position and operating results. The results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2015, for any other interim period or for any future period.

These condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and our subsidiaries, and intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. We record noncontrolling interests in our condensed consolidated financial statements which represent the ownership interest of minority shareholders in the equity of Gentium S.p.A., or Gentium. Our condensed consolidated financial statements include the results of operations of businesses we have acquired from the date of each acquisition for the applicable reporting periods.

Significant Risks and Uncertainties

Our financial results remain significantly influenced by sales of Xyrem. In the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, net product sales of Xyrem were $242.9 million and $703.4 million, respectively, which represented 71.7% and 71.9% of total net product sales, respectively. Our ability to maintain or increase sales of Xyrem in its approved indications is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the potential introduction of generic competition or an alternative sodium oxybate product that competes with Xyrem; changed or increased regulatory restrictions; our manufacturing partners’ ability to obtain sufficient quota from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA; any supply, manufacturing or distribution problems arising with any of our manufacturing and distribution partners, all of whom are sole source providers for us; any increase in pricing pressure from or restrictive conditions for reimbursement required by, and the availability of reimbursement from, third party payors; changes in healthcare laws and policy; continued acceptance of Xyrem by physicians and patients; changes to our label, including new safety warnings or changes to our boxed warning, that further restrict how we market and sell Xyrem; any failure of our transition to the final approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to meet the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA; and any further operational disruptions at the central pharmacy as a result of the transition to the final approved Xyrem REMS and resulting adverse impacts on Xyrem product sales.

Seven abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, have been filed with the FDA by third parties seeking to market generic versions of Xyrem. We have filed lawsuits seeking to prevent the introduction of a generic version of Xyrem that would infringe our patents, and the litigation proceedings are ongoing. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings. Although no trial date has been set in any of the ANDA suits, we anticipate that trial on some of the patents in the case against the first ANDA filer, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., or Roxane, could occur as early as the first quarter of 2016. In addition, in January 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed petitions for inter partes review, or IPR, by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to the validity of six patents covering the distribution system for Xyrem. In July 2015, the PTAB issued decisions instituting IPR trials with respect to these petitions, and we expect the PTAB to issue final decisions on the validity of the patents within a year of institution. In September and October 2015, certain of the ANDA filers filed petitions for IPR by the PTAB with respect to the validity of an additional patent covering the distribution system for Xyrem and with respect to the validity of one of our patents covering a method for prescribing Xyrem when it is being co-administered with divalproex sodium (also known as valproate or valproic acid). In addition, in April 2015, a hedge fund filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of one of our Xyrem distribution patents that is already the subject of one of the IPR petitions proceeding to trial before the PTAB. The PTAB issued a decision denying institution of IPR proceedings with respect to this petition. We cannot predict whether additional post-grant patent review challenges will be filed by any of the ANDA filers or any other entity, the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding, whether the PTAB will institute any petitioned IPR proceeding that has not yet been instituted, or the impact any IPR or other proceeding might have on ongoing ANDA litigation proceedings or other aspects of our Xyrem business. We expect that the approval of an ANDA that results in the launch of a generic version of Xyrem, or the approval and launch of other sodium oxybate products that compete with Xyrem, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

In late August 2015, we implemented the final Xyrem REMS approved by the FDA in late February 2015. The process under which enrolled patients receive Xyrem is complex and includes multiple mandatory steps taken by the central pharmacy. The transition to the final approved REMS necessitated significant operational changes at the central pharmacy and revised documentation requirements for patients and prescribers. In the third quarter of 2015, Xyrem product sales were impacted by operational disruption and resulting delays in prescription fills and refills. As physicians and patients familiarized themselves with the new REMS process and documentation requirements, the central pharmacy experienced a significantly increased volume of calls from patients and physicians’ offices that the pharmacy was not able to timely address, resulting in a backlog of prescription fills and refills that were delayed. We have identified and are addressing with the central pharmacy to the extent feasible the processes that led to the operational delays, and to date in the fourth quarter, we have observed an improvement in key operational metrics compared to the third quarter. However, we may experience further disruptions and resulting adverse impacts on Xyrem product sales. In addition, we cannot guarantee that our implementation of the Xyrem REMS will meet FDA requirements, that the ongoing assessments that we submit in accordance with the FDA’s Xyrem REMS approval will be satisfactory to the FDA, or that the Xyrem REMS will satisfy the FDA’s expectations in its anticipated evaluation of the Xyrem REMS on an ongoing basis. Any failure to transition to the Xyrem REMS to the satisfaction of the FDA or to comply with the REMS obligations could result in enforcement action by the FDA; lead to changes in our Xyrem REMS obligations; continue to negatively affect sales of Xyrem; result in additional costs and expenses for us; and/or take a significant amount of time, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Further, we cannot predict whether the FDA will seek to require or ultimately require modifications to the Xyrem REMS, including with respect to the distribution system, or seek to otherwise impose or ultimately impose additional requirements to the Xyrem REMS, or the potential timing, terms or propriety thereof. Any such modifications or additional requirements could potentially make it more difficult or expensive for us to distribute Xyrem, make it easier for future generic competitors, and/or negatively affect sales of Xyrem.

We may face pressure to develop a single shared REMS with potential generic competitors for Xyrem or to license or share intellectual property pertinent to the Xyrem REMS, which is the subject of multiple issued patents, or elements of the Xyrem REMS, with generic competitors. In January 2014, the FDA held an initial meeting with us and the three then-current sodium oxybate ANDA applicants to facilitate the development of a single shared REMS for sodium oxybate. In October 2015, the FDA held a telephonic meeting with us and the seven current sodium oxybate ANDA applicants to discuss the status of the development of a single shared REMS for sodium oxybate. The parties had regular interactions with respect to developing a single shared REMS prior to this meeting, and we are seeking to continue the interactions with the goal of developing a single shared REMS. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, interactions among the parties will continue or whether we will develop a single shared REMS. If we do not develop a single shared REMS or license or share intellectual property pertinent to our Xyrem REMS with generic competitors within a time frame or on terms that the FDA considers acceptable, the FDA may assert that its waiver authority permits it to approve the ANDA of one or more generic competitors with a separate REMS that differs from our approved Xyrem REMS. We cannot predict the outcome or impact on our business of any future action that we may take with respect to the development of a single shared REMS for sodium oxybate, licensing or sharing intellectual property pertinent to our Xyrem REMS, or the FDA’s response to a request by one or more ANDA applicants for a waiver of the requirement for a single shared REMS, including in connection with a certification that the applicant had been unable to obtain a license. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, other governmental authorities or others could claim or determine that we are using the Xyrem REMS in an anticompetitive manner (including in light of the FDA’s statement in the Xyrem REMS approval notice that the Xyrem REMS could be used in an anticompetitive manner inconsistent with applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) or have engaged in other anticompetitive practices.

Obtaining and maintaining appropriate reimbursement for Xyrem in the U.S. is increasingly challenging due to, among other things, the attention being paid to healthcare cost containment and prescription drug pricing, pricing pressure from third party payors and increasingly restrictive reimbursement conditions being imposed by third party payors. In this regard, we have experienced and expect to continue to experience increasing pressure from third party payors to agree to discounts, rebates or other pricing terms for Xyrem. Any such restrictive pricing terms or additional reimbursement conditions could have a material adverse effect on our Xyrem revenues. In addition, drug pricing by pharmaceutical companies has recently come under close scrutiny, particularly with respect to companies that have increased the price of products after acquiring those products from other companies. We expect that healthcare policies and reforms intended to curb healthcare costs will continue to be proposed, which could limit the prices that we charge for our products, including Xyrem, limit our commercial opportunity and/or negatively impact revenues from sales of our products. Also, price increases on Xyrem and our other products, and negative publicity regarding pricing and price increases generally, whether with respect to our products or products distributed by other pharmaceutical companies, could negatively affect market acceptance of Xyrem and our other products.

In the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, sales of our second largest product, Erwinaze/Erwinase (which we refer to in this report as Erwinaze unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires), were $56.3 million and $152.8 million, respectively, which represented 16.6% and 15.6% of total net product sales, respectively. We seek to maintain and increase sales of Erwinaze, as well as to make Erwinaze more widely available, through ongoing sales and marketing and research and development activities. However, our ability to successfully and sustainably maintain or grow sales of Erwinaze is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the limited population of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, and the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to E. coli-derived asparaginase within that population, as well as our need to apply for and receive marketing authorizations, through the European Union’s mutual recognition procedure or otherwise, in certain additional countries so we can launch promotional efforts in those countries. Another significant challenge to our ability to maintain current sales levels and to increase sales is our need to avoid supply interruptions of Erwinaze due to capacity constraints, production delays, quality challenges or other manufacturing difficulties. We have limited inventory of Erwinaze, which puts us at significant risk of not being able to meet product demand. Erwinaze is licensed from and manufactured by a single source, which was Public Health England, or PHE, through March 31, 2015. As of April 1, 2015, the facility at which Erwinaze is manufactured was transferred to Porton BioPharma Limited, or PBL, a limited liability company that is wholly-owned by the U.K. Secretary of State for Health. We are now working with PBL on matters related to Erwinaze supply. The current manufacturing capacity for Erwinaze is nearly completely absorbed by demand for the product. As a consequence of constrained manufacturing capacity, we have had an extremely limited ability to build an excess level of product inventory that could be used to absorb disruptions to supply resulting from any quality or other issues. If we continue to be subject to capacity constraints or experience quality or other manufacturing challenges in the future, we may be unable to build a desired excess level of product inventory, and our ability to supply the market may be compromised. Although we are taking steps to improve the Erwinaze manufacturing process, if our ongoing efforts are not successful, we could experience additional Erwinaze supply interruptions in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales of and revenues from Erwinaze and limit our potential future maintenance and growth of the market for this product. In addition, while we continue to work with the manufacturer of Erwinaze to evaluate potential steps to expand production capacity to increase the supply of Erwinaze over the longer term to address worldwide demand, our ability to maintain or increase sales of Erwinaze may be limited by our ability to obtain a sufficient supply of the product.

In furtherance of our growth strategy, we have made a significant investment in Defitelio/defibrotide. We added the product to our portfolio as a result of our acquisition of Gentium that closed in January 2014, or the Gentium Acquisition, and secured worldwide rights to the product by acquiring rights to defibrotide in the Americas in August 2014. Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from this investment is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including our ability to successfully maintain or grow sales of Defitelio in Europe, or obtain marketing approval in other countries, including the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. We began to launch Defitelio in certain European countries in 2014, and in 2015 we have continued to launch Defitelio in additional European countries on a rolling basis. We are in the process of making pricing and reimbursement submissions with respect to Defitelio in those European countries where Defitelio is not yet launched, including in countries where pricing and reimbursement approvals are required for launch. A key challenge to our success in maintaining or growing sales of Defitelio in Europe is our ability to obtain appropriate pricing and reimbursement approvals in those European countries where Defitelio is not yet launched. If we experience delays or unforeseen difficulties in obtaining favorable pricing and reimbursement approvals, planned launches in the affected countries would be delayed, or, if we are unable to ultimately obtain favorable pricing and reimbursement approvals in countries that represent significant markets, especially where a country’s reimbursed price influences other countries, our growth prospects in Europe could be negatively affected.

We are also engaged in activities related to the potential approval of defibrotide in the United States. In September 2015, the FDA accepted for filing with priority review our new drug application, or NDA, for defibrotide for the treatment of hepatic veno-occlusive disease, or VOD, with evidence of multi-organ dysfunction following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, or HSCT. Based on timelines established by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, we expect FDA review of the NDA to be completed by March 31, 2016. However, the FDA does not always meet the timelines established by PDUFA, and it is possible that the FDA’s review of our NDA will not be completed by the PDUFA date, in which case our plans for commercialization of defibrotide in the U.S. may be delayed. In any event, we cannot predict whether our NDA will be approved in a timely manner, if at all. It is possible that the FDA may ask an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, or ODAC, which provides the FDA with independent expert advice and recommendations, to review our NDA. The ODAC may recommend against approval of our NDA, may recommend conditioning approval on our conducting one or more potentially time-consuming and costly clinical trials to provide supporting data either before approval or as a post-marketing commitment, or may recommend more narrow or restricted labeling than we have proposed. In addition, approval of our NDA is dependent on our and our supplier’s ability to obtain FDA certification of Good Manufacturing Practices in connection with the manufacturing of the defibrotide drug compound and the processing of defibrotide into finished product for the U.S. market and on the outcome of FDA inspections of clinical sites and potentially other entities involved in the development of defibrotide. In May 2015, the FDA issued a Form 483 to the entity that manufactures the defibrotide finished product that included observations related to the facility where the product is manufactured. Failure by such entity to timely remediate the observations to the FDA’s satisfaction or the discovery of issues that impact the defibrotide finished product could have an adverse impact on the potential approval of our NDA for defibrotide, including the timing thereof.

We also face other challenges that could impact the anticipated value of Defitelio/defibrotide, including the limited size of the population of VOD patients who are indicated for treatment with Defitelio/defibrotide (particularly if the FDA requires more narrow or restricted labeling than we have proposed); the need to establish U.S. pricing and reimbursement support for the product in the event we are able to obtain U.S. marketing approval for defibrotide; the possibility that we may be required to conduct time-consuming and costly clinical trials as a condition of any U.S. marketing approval for the product; the lack of experience of U.S. physicians in diagnosing and treating VOD; and challenges to our ability to develop the product for additional indications. Any of these risks could have a material adverse effect on our anticipated revenue from Defitelio/defibrotide and our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

In addition to risks specifically related to Xyrem, Erwinaze and Defitelio/defibrotide, we are subject to other challenges and risks specific to our business, as well as risks and uncertainties common to companies in the pharmaceutical industry with development and commercial operations, including: the challenges of protecting and enhancing our intellectual property rights; delays or problems in the supply or manufacture of our products, particularly with respect to certain products as to which we maintain limited inventories, including products for which our supply demands are growing, and our dependence on single source suppliers to continue to meet our ongoing commercial demand or our requirements for clinical trial supplies; the need to obtain and maintain appropriate pricing and reimbursement for our products in an increasingly challenging environment due to, among other things, the attention being paid to healthcare cost containment and prescription drug pricing in the United States and worldwide; and the challenges of compliance with the requirements of the FDA, DEA, and non-U.S. regulatory agencies, including with respect to product labeling, requirements for distribution, obtaining sufficient DEA quotas where needed, marketing and promotional activities, adverse event reporting and product recalls or withdrawals.

Other risks and uncertainties related to our ability to execute on our strategy include: the challenges of achieving and maintaining commercial success of our products, such as obtaining sustained acceptance and support of our products by patients, physicians and payors; the risks and costs associated with business combination or product or product candidate acquisition transactions, such as the challenges inherent in the integration of acquired businesses with our historic business, the increase in geographic dispersion among our centers of operation, taking on the operation of a manufacturing plant as a result of the Gentium Acquisition and the risks that we may acquire unanticipated liabilities along with acquired businesses or otherwise fail to realize the anticipated benefits (commercial or otherwise) from such transactions; the difficulty and uncertainty of pharmaceutical product development, including the timing thereof, and the uncertainty of clinical success, such as the risk that results from preclinical studies and/or early clinical trials may not be predictive of results obtained in later and larger clinical trials that we are conducting or that we plan to conduct for our product candidates; the inherent uncertainty associated with the regulatory approval process, especially as we continue to undertake increased activities and make growing investment in our product pipeline development projects; our potential inability to identify and acquire, in-license or develop additional products or product candidates to grow our business; and possible restrictions on our ability and flexibility to pursue certain future corporate development and other opportunities as a result of our substantial outstanding debt obligations.

Concentrations of Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentrations of credit risk consist of cash and cash equivalents. Our investment policy permits investments in U.S. federal government and federal agency securities, corporate bonds or commercial paper issued by U.S. corporations, money market instruments, certain qualifying money market mutual funds, certain repurchase agreements, and tax-exempt obligations of U.S. states, agencies and municipalities and places restrictions on credit ratings, maturities, and concentration by type and issuer. We are exposed to credit risk in the event of a default by the financial institutions holding our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities and issuers of investments to the extent recorded on the balance sheet.

We are also subject to credit risk from our accounts receivable related to our product sales. We monitor our exposure within accounts receivable and record a reserve against uncollectible accounts receivable as necessary. We extend credit to pharmaceutical wholesale distributors and specialty pharmaceutical distribution companies, primarily in the United States, and to other international distributors and hospitals. Customer creditworthiness is monitored and collateral is not required. We monitor deteriorating economic conditions in certain European countries which may result in variability of the timing of cash receipts and an increase in the average length of time that it takes to collect accounts receivable outstanding. Historically, we have not experienced significant credit losses on our accounts receivable and we do not expect to have write-offs or adjustments to accounts receivable which would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations. As of September 30, 2015, five customers accounted for 88% of gross accounts receivable, including Express Scripts Specialty Distribution Services, Inc. and its affiliates, or Express Scripts, which accounted for 67% of gross accounts receivable and McKesson Corporation and its affiliates, or McKesson, which accounted for 10% of gross accounts receivable. As of December 31, 2014, five customers accounted for 86% of gross accounts receivable, including Express Scripts, which accounted for 66% of gross accounts receivable, and IDIS Limited, which accounted for 11% of gross accounts receivable.

We depend on single source suppliers and manufacturers for each of our products, product candidates and their active pharmaceutical ingredients.

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, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures in the condensed consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and on assumptions believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per Ordinary Share

Basic net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share is based on the weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding. Diluted net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share is based on the weighted-average number of ordinary shares outstanding and potentially dilutive ordinary shares outstanding.

Basic and diluted net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share were computed as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts):



	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2015		2014		2015		2014
Numerator:
Net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc	$	87,960	$	25,766	$	246,774	$	(23,225	)
Denominator:
Weighted-average ordinary shares used in per share calculation - basic	61,435		60,305		61,145		59,457
Dilutive effect of employee equity incentive and purchase plans	1,719		2,288		1,927		—
Dilutive effect of warrants	—		87		—		—
Weighted-average ordinary shares used in per share calculation - diluted	63,154		62,680		63,072		59,457

Net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share:
Basic	$	1.43	$	0.43	$	4.04	$	(0.39	)
Diluted	$	1.39	$	0.41	$	3.91	$	(0.39	)

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, potentially dilutive ordinary shares from employee equity incentive and purchase plans and warrants were not included in the diluted net loss attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share because the inclusion of such shares would have an anti-dilutive effect.

Potentially dilutive ordinary shares from our employee equity incentive and purchase plans, warrants and our 1.875% exchangeable senior notes due 2021, or the 2021 Notes, are determined by applying the treasury stock method to the assumed exercise of share options and warrants, the assumed vesting of outstanding restricted stock units, or RSUs, the assumed issuance of ordinary shares under our employee stock purchase plan, or ESPP, and the assumed issuance of ordinary shares upon exchange of the 2021 Notes. The potential issue of approximately 2.9 million ordinary shares issuable upon exchange of the 2021 Notes had no effect on diluted net income attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share because the average price of our ordinary shares for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 did not exceed the effective exchange price of $199.77 per ordinary share.

The following table represents the weighted-average ordinary shares that were excluded from the calculation of diluted net income (loss) attributable to Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc per ordinary share for the periods presented because including them would have an anti-dilutive effect (in thousands):



	Three Months Ended September 30,		Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2015	2014	2015	2014
1.875% exchangeable senior notes due 2021	2,878	1,502	2,878	506
Options to purchase ordinary shares and RSUs	1,644	883	1,517	5,475
Warrants to purchase ordinary shares	—	—	—	618
Ordinary shares under ESPP	—	—	—	130

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or the FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2015-03, “Interest - Imputation of Interest”, or ASU No. 2015-03. ASU No. 2015-03 requires debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the debt liability instead of as an asset. ASU No. 2015-03 does not affect the recognition and measurement guidance for debt issuance costs. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-15, “Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Presentation and Subsequent Measurement of Debt Issuance Costs Associated with Line-of-Credit Arrangements - Amendments to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to Staff Announcements at the June 2015 EITF Meeting”, or ASU No. 2015-15. ASU No. 2015-15 indicates that the guidance in ASU No. 2015-03 did not address presentation or subsequent measurement of debt issuance costs related to line of credit arrangements. Given the absence of authoritative guidance within ASU No. 2015-03, the SEC staff has indicated that they would not object to an entity deferring and presenting debt issuance costs as an asset and subsequently amortizing the costs ratably over the term of the line of credit arrangement, regardless of whether there are any outstanding borrowings on the line of credit arrangement. This guidance is effective for us beginning January 1, 2016 and requires retrospective application. This guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets or related disclosures.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software”, or ASU No. 2015-05. ASU No. 2015-05 provides guidance on whether a cloud computing arrangement contains a software license to be accounted for as internal-use software to assist in the evaluation of the accounting for fees paid by a customer in the arrangement. ASU No. 2015-05 will be effective for us beginning January 1, 2016 and may be applied either prospectively to new cloud computing arrangements or retrospectively. We are currently evaluating the impact of ASU 2015-05 on our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers”, or ASU No. 2014-09, which states that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To achieve this, an entity will need to identify the contract with a customer; identify the separate performance obligations in the contract; determine the transaction price; allocate the transaction price to the separate performance obligations in the contract; and recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies each performance obligation. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date”, which deferred by one year the effective date of ASU No. 2014-09 which will now be effective for us beginning January 1, 2018 and can be adopted on a full retrospective basis or on a modified retrospective basis. We are currently assessing our approach to the adoption of this standard and the potential impact on our results of operations and financial position.