XML 91 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.1.9
Intangible Assets And Goodwill
12 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2014
Goodwill and Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]  
Intangible Assets and Goodwill
Intangible Assets and Goodwill

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets are comprised of the following significant classes at November 30, 2014 and 2013 (in thousands):
 
 
November 30, 2014
 
November 30, 2013
 
Gross
Carrying
Amount
 
Accumulated
Amortization
 
Net Book
Value
 
Gross
Carrying
Amount
 
Accumulated
Amortization
 
Net Book
Value
Purchased technology
$
53,789

 
$
(39,575
)
 
$
14,214

 
$
44,793

 
$
(36,712
)
 
$
8,081

Customer-related and other
24,684

 
(18,320
)
 
6,364

 
19,543

 
(17,674
)
 
1,869

Total
$
78,473

 
$
(57,895
)
 
$
20,578

 
$
64,336

 
$
(54,386
)
 
$
9,950



We amortize intangible assets assuming no expected residual value. Amortization expense related to these intangible assets was $3.7 million, $2.1 million and $1.5 million in fiscal years 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Future amortization expense for intangible assets as of November 30, 2014 is as follows (in thousands):
 
2015
$
4,949

2016
3,879

2017
3,879

2018
3,063

2019
1,941

Thereafter
2,867

Total
$
20,578



Goodwill

Changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for fiscal year 2014 and 2013 are as follows (in thousands):

 
November 30, 2014
 
November 30, 2013
Balance, beginning of year
$
224,286

 
$
226,110

Additions
8,690

 
4,798

Disposals

 
(6,377
)
Translation adjustments
(140
)
 
(245
)
Balance, end of year
$
232,836

 
$
224,286



The additions to goodwill during fiscal year 2014 are related to the acquisitions of Modulus and BravePoint. The addition to goodwill during fiscal year 2013 is related to the acquisition of Rollbase. The disposal is related to the sale of the Apama product line.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, we began operating as three distinct business units: OpenEdge, Data Connectivity and Integration, and Application Development and Deployment, each with dedicated sales, product management and product marketing functions. As a result of these changes, we began segment reporting for our three business units beginning in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2014. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014, we reassigned goodwill to the new reporting units based on the relative fair values of the reporting units. This resulted in goodwill of $212.2 million being assigned to our OpenEdge reporting unit, $19.0 million being assigned to our Data Connectivity and Integration reporting unit, and $1.5 million being assigned to our Application Development and Deployment reporting unit.

We assess the impairment of goodwill on an annual basis and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset may not be recoverable. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014, we changed the date of our annual impairment testing for goodwill from December 15 to October 31. We believe this change in accounting principle is preferable because it better aligns the timing of the annual goodwill impairment testing with our planning and budgeting process, which is a key component of the tests, and alleviates administrative burden during our year-end reporting period.

During fiscal year 2014, we tested goodwill for impairment as of December 15, 2013, our previous annual testing date, and on October 31, 2014, our new annual testing date.

At the time of our December 15, 2013 annual test, we operated as a single operating segment with one reporting unit and consequently we evaluated goodwill for impairment based on an evaluation of the fair value of the Company as a whole. We performed our qualitative assessment and concluded that it was not more likely than not ("MLTN") that the fair value of our operating segment was less than its carrying value.

In connection with the reassignment of our goodwill to our new reporting units during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014, we performed goodwill impairment tests on both our old and new reporting units to ensure that no impairment existed prior to the reassignment of goodwill or resulted after the reassignment of goodwill. Prior to the reassignment of goodwill from our single operating segment with one reporting unit, we performed a qualitative assessment and concluded that it was not MLTN that the fair value of the reporting unit was less than its carrying value. After the reassignment of goodwill to our three reporting units, we compared the fair value of those reporting units to their carrying values under a Step 1 approach. The OpenEdge and Data Connectivity and Integration reporting units had fair values that significantly exceeded their carrying values, and as such, Step 2 of the impairment test was not required.

For the Application Development and Deployment reporting unit, the Step 1 test indicated that the fair value of this reporting unit was below its carrying value. We performed Step 2 of the impairment test which compared the implied fair value of the Application Development and Deployment reporting unit's goodwill to its carrying value. The implied fair value of goodwill is derived by performing a hypothetical purchase price allocation for the reporting unit as of the measurement date and allocating the reporting unit’s estimated fair value to its assets and liabilities. The residual amount from performing this allocation represents the implied fair value of goodwill. To the extent this amount is below the carrying value of goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded. As a result of completing Step 2, the Application Development and Deployment reporting unit's implied fair value of goodwill exceeded the carrying value of goodwill of $1.5 million, resulting in no impairment charge.

We recorded no goodwill impairment losses in fiscal years 2014, 2013 or 2012.