Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 000-29661

UTSTARCOM, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (510) 864-8800

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o      No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (check one):

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

As of July 30, 2009 there were 128,457,570 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding, par value $0.00125.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1—CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

UTSTARCOM, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)

See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

UTSTARCOM, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)

See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

UTSTARCOM, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)

See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

UTSTARCOM, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

NOTE 1 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND LIQUIDITY

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of UTStarcom, Inc. (“Company”) and its wholly and majority owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements. Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform to current period presentation.  Such reclassifications have no effect on net income as previously reported. The Company has evaluated subsequent events through August 7, 2009, which is the date the financial statements were issued.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared by the Company pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s December 31, 2008 financial statements, including the notes thereto, and the other information set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue, costs, expenses and gains and losses not affecting retained earnings that are reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying disclosures.  Actual results may be different.  See the Company’s 2008 Annual Report for discussion of the Company’s critical accounting policies and estimates.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s financial condition, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the periods indicated. The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the full year.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are presented on the basis that the Company is a going concern. The going concern assumption contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business.

The Company incurred net losses of $150.3 million, $195.6 million and $117.3 million during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded a net loss of $151.7 million. The Company recorded operating losses in 17 of the 18 consecutive quarters in the period ended June 30, 2009. At June 30, 2009, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $993.2 million. The Company incurred net cash outflows from operations of $55.2 million and $225.1 million in 2008 and 2007 respectively. Cash used in operations was $37.1 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.  At June 30, 2009, the Company had cash and cash equivalents of $272.6 million in the aggregate to meet the Company’s liquidity requirements of which $122.9 million was held by its subsidiaries in China. China imposes currency exchange controls on transfers of funds from/to China.  Going forward, the amount of cash available for transfer from the China subsidiaries for use by the Company’s non-China subsidiaries is limited both by the liquidity needs of the subsidiaries in China and by Chinese-government mandated limitations including currency exchange controls on transfers of funds outside of China. Management expects the Company to continue to incur losses and negative cash flows from operations over at least the remainder of 2009.

The Company’s only committed sources for borrowings are its credit facilities in China. Each borrowing under these facilities is subject to the banks’ then current favorable opinion of the credit worthiness of the Company’s China subsidiaries, the banks having funds available for lending, and other Chinese banking regulations and practices. As a result, management cannot be certain that borrowings under these facilities will be adequate, if available at all, to meet the Company’s liquidity requirements. In addition, these credit facilities expire in the second half of 2009. Upon expiration of these facilities, management is not certain that new credit facilities will be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if these facilities are renewed upon expiration, based on the Company’s recent financial performance, the total available credit may be reduced. Accordingly, management is not certain that borrowings under the Company’s credit facilities in China will be adequate to meet the Company’s financing requirements.

6

Table of Contents

In 2009 and 2008, the Company took a number of actions to improve its liquidity, including divesting the Company’s non-core businesses. In December 2008, management announced initiatives including efforts to eliminate functional duplications by consolidation of a number of functions into the Company’s China operations. In June 2009, management expanded the initiatives to include a worldwide reduction in workforce, outsourcing of manufacturing operations and optimizing research and development spending with a focus on selected products. Management believes that these initiatives, if executed successfully, will help achieve significant operating expense reductions by the fourth quarter of 2009 and enable the Company’s fixed cost base to be better aligned with operations, market demand and projected sales levels. If the level of sales anticipated by the Company’s financial plan does not materialize, the Company will need to take further actions to reduce costs and expenses or explore other cost reduction options.

Management believes that if the Company is able to achieve projected sales levels in 2009 and contain expenses and cash used in operations to levels contemplated in the Company’s 2009 financial plan, both the Company’s China and non-China operations will have sufficient liquidity to finance working capital and capital expenditure needs during the next 12 months. If the Company is not able to execute its 2009 financial plan successfully, the Company may need to obtain funds from equity or debt financings. There can be no assurance that additional financing, if required, will be available on terms satisfactory to the Company or at all, and if funds are raised in the future through issuance of preferred stock or debt, these securities could have rights, privileges or preference senior to those of the Company’s common stock and newly issued debt could contain debt covenants that impose restrictions on the Company’s operations. Further, any sale of newly issued debt or equity securities could result in additional dilution to the Company’s current shareholders.

Recently, global economies have experienced a significant downturn driven by a financial and credit crisis that will continue to challenge such economies for some period of time. Under the current macroeconomic environment there are significant risks and uncertainties inherent in management’s ability to forecast future results. The operating environment confronting the Company, both internally and externally, raises significant uncertainties. While improvements in the Company’s operating results, cash flows and liquidity are anticipated as the Company’s 2009 financial plan and management’s initiatives to control and reduce costs while maintaining and growing the Company’s revenue base are fully implemented, the Company’s recurring losses and expected negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded assets amounts or the amounts and classification of liabilities or any other adjustments that may be necessary if the entity is unable to continue as a going concern.

NOTE 2 - RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

During the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, the Company adopted the following accounting standards:

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 141 (revised), “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141(R)”). The standard changes the accounting for business combinations including the measurement of acquirer shares issued in consideration for a business combination, the recognition of contingent consideration, the accounting for preacquisition gain and loss contingencies, the recognition of capitalized in-process research and development, the accounting for acquisition-related restructuring cost accruals, the treatment of acquisition related transaction costs and the recognition of changes in the acquirer’s income tax valuation allowance. SFAS 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after January 1, 2009. The Company did not consummate any business combination transactions during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted FASB Statement No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“SFAS 161”), which amends and expands the disclosure requirements of FASB Statement No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”  (“SFAS 133”), with the intent to provide users of financial statements with an enhanced understanding of:  (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments; (b) how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS 133 and its related interpretations; and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows.  SFAS 161 requires qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments and disclosures about credit-risk-related contingent features in derivative instruments.  This statement applies to all entities and all derivative instruments.  There was no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations upon adoption of SFAS 161.

7

Table of Contents

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) EITF 03-6-1, “Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities” (“FSP EITF 03-6-1”). FSP EITF 03-6-1 provides that unvested share-based payment awards that contain non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are participating securities and shall be included in the computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class method. There was no material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements upon adoption of FSP EITF 03-6-1.

In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51” (“SFAS 160”). The standard changes the accounting for noncontrolling (minority) interests in consolidated financial statements including the requirements to classify noncontrolling interests as a component of consolidated stockholders’ equity, and the elimination of “minority interest” accounting in results of operations with earnings attributable to non-controlling interests reported as part of consolidated earnings. Previously, noncontrolling interests were recorded within “mezzanine” (or temporary) equity. Additionally, SFAS 160 revises the accounting for both increases and decreases in a parent’s controlling ownership interest. The Company’s adoption of SFAS 160, effective January 1, 2009, resulted in a $0.8 million reclassification of noncontrolling minority interests to shareholders’ equity on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2008.  Minority interest in losses of consolidated subsidiaries of $0.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 have been reclassified to net income attributable to noncontrolling interests on the condensed consolidated statement of operations to conform to the presentation requirements of SFAS 160. See Note 5, Comprehensive Loss, for additional SFAS 160 disclosures regarding the noncontrolling interest components of comprehensive loss.

In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS 157”). SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The provisions of this standard apply to current accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. Upon adoption, the provisions of SFAS 157 are to be applied prospectively with limited exceptions. Effective January 1, 2008, the Company adopted the measurement and disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 as it relates to financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP 157-2”), which delayed the effective date of SFAS 157 for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities except those recorded or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis. Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the measurement and disclosure requirements of SFAS 157 as it relates to non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. Examples include goodwill, intangibles, and other long-lived assets. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The additional disclosures required by SFAS 157 are included in Note 7.

During the second quarter of fiscal year 2009, the Company adopted the following accounting standards:

In April 2009, the FASB issued three FSPs that are intended to provide additional application guidance and enhance disclosures about fair value measurements and impairments of securities. FSP FAS 157-4, “Determining Whether a Market is Not Active and a Transaction Is Not Distressed”, provides guidance on determining fair value when there is no active market or where the price inputs being used represent distressed sales. FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, “Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments”, changes the method for determining when an other-than-temporary impairment exists for debt securities and the amount of the impairment to be recorded in earnings. FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim Disclosures About Fair Value of Financial Instruments”, requires fair value disclosures in both interim as well as annual financial statements in order to provide more timely information about the effects of current market conditions on financial instruments. Effective April 1, 2009, the Company adopted these three accounting standards. There was no material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements upon adoption of FSP FAS 157-4, FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, and FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1.

In May 2009, the FASB issued Statement No. 165, “Subsequent Events” (“SFAS 165”). SFAS 165 establishes the standards for accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date, but before the financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. The statement sets forth the circumstances under which an entity should recognize events or transactions occurring after the balance sheet date in its financial statements. The statement also identifies the disclosures that an entity should make about events or transactions that occurred after the balance sheet date. Effective April 1, 2009, the Company adopted SFAS 165. The adoption of SFAS 165 did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The additional disclosures required by SFAS 165 are included in Note 1.

8

Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In June 2009, the FASB issued Statement No. 166, “Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets—an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140” (“SFAS 166”). SFAS 166 eliminates the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity, creates more stringent conditions for reporting a transfer of a portion of a financial asset as a sale, clarifies other sale-accounting criteria, and changes the initial measurement of a transferor’s interest in transferred financial assets. SFAS 166 will be effective for transfers of financial assets in annual reporting periods beginning after November 15, 2009, and in interim periods within those first annual reporting periods with earlier adoption prohibited. SFAS 166 will be applicable to the Company in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. The Company is assessing the potential impact, if any, of the adoption of SFAS 166 on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In June 2009, the FASB issued Statement No. 167, “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)” (“SFAS 167”). SFAS 167 amends FIN 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (revised December 2003)—an interpretation of ARB No. 51” (“FIN 46(R)”) to require an enterprise to perform an analysis to determine whether the enterprise’s variable interest or interests give it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity as one with the power to direct the activities of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the variable interest. SFAS 167 will be effective as of the beginning of the annual reporting period commencing after November 15, 2009 and will be adopted by the Company in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. The Company is assessing the potential impact, if any, of the adoption of SFAS 167 on its consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In June 2009, the FASB issued Statement No. 168, The “FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles — a Replacement of FASB Statement No. 162” (“SFAS 168”). This standard establishes only two levels of GAAP, authoritative and nonauthoritative. The FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification”) will become the source of authoritative, nongovernmental GAAP, except for rules and interpretive releases of the SEC, which are sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. All other nongrandfathered, non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification will become nonauthoritative. This standard is effective for financial statements for interim or annual reporting periods ending after September 15, 2009.  The Company will begin to use the new guidelines and numbering system prescribed by the Codification when referring to GAAP in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009.  As the Codification was not intended to change or alter existing GAAP, it will not have any impact on its consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 3—DIVESTITURES

UTStarcom Personal Communications LLC (PCD)

On July 1, 2008, the Company completed the sale of UTStarcom Personal Communications LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“PCD”), to Personal Communications Devices, LLC (“PCD LLC”). The Company also invested $1.6 million in equity securities representing approximately a 2.6% interest in PCD LLC. The Company recorded a $3.8 million gain on sale of PCD net assets during 2008. In the second quarter of 2009, the Company recorded an additional $1.4 million gain resulting from an adjustment to reflect actual transaction-related costs. The total gain on sale of PCD net assets includes proceeds of $10.0 million held in escrow which were disbursed to the Company in July 2009. Pursuant to the original terms of the divestiture agreement, the Company was potentially entitled to receive up to a $50 million earnout payment in 2011 based on the achievement of cumulative earnings levels of PCD LLC through December 31, 2010.

Prior to June 30, 2008, PCD was a reportable segment of the Company. Concurrent with the closing of the divestiture transaction, the Company entered into a three-year supply agreement with PCD LLC whereby the Company indicated its intent to supply handset products to PCD LLC. In connection with the wind down of our Korea operations, in December 2008, we furnished PCD LLC with 180-day’s notice of termination of the supply agreement. Due to the continuing direct cash flows pursuant to the supply agreement beyond the one-year assessment period, starting from the date of sale, the sale of the PCD assets did not meet the criteria for presentation as a discontinued operation under SFAS 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”.

9

Table of Contents

On June 30, 2009, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with PCD LLC. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company waived its right to any earnout payments and granted a call option to PCD LLC for the Company’s $1.6 million investment in the equity securities of PCD LLC.  The Company also agreed to pay PCD LLC a total of $11.1 million which included warranty costs of approximately $8.4 million (see Note 8) and a reduction of revenue of approximately $2.7 million. In addition to the $11.1 million claim settlement, the Company recorded an additional $17.6 million of costs for inventory write-downs to net realizable value, write-downs of excess inventory and warranty reserves related to transactions with PCD LLC. The Company recorded these transactions in the second quarter of 2009, resulting in a decrease in revenue of approximately $2.7 million and an increase in cost of net sales of $26.0 million.

Sale of Assets to Marvell Technology Group Ltd:

In February 2006, the Company sold substantially all of the assets and selected liabilities of its semiconductor design business division to Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (“Marvell”). In connection with the sale of assets, the Company entered into a supply agreement with Marvell to purchase chipsets for the Company’s handset products over the next five years. The value allocated to the supply agreement of $20.2 million has been amortized in proportion to the quantities of chipsets purchased under the supply agreement. For the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, approximately $8.5 million and $4.3 million, respectively, have been amortized against cost of sales. During the first quarter of 2009, the Company revised its estimates of customer demand for certain handset products and determined that future chipset purchases from Marvell would be negligible. As a result, the Company fully amortized the remaining value of the supply agreement of $8.5 million in the first quarter of 2009.

NOTE 4 - EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding during the period, which excludes nonvested restricted stock. Diluted EPS presents the amount of net income (loss) available to each share of common stock outstanding during the period plus each share of common stock that would have been outstanding assuming the Company had issued shares of common stock for all dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the period. The Company’s potentially dilutive common shares include outstanding stock options, nonvested restricted stock and restricted stock units, convertible subordinated notes prior to their maturity on March 1, 2008, and Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) shares prior to termination of the ESPP effective May 15, 2009.

The following is a summary of the calculation of basic and diluted EPS:

10

Table of Contents

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, no potential common shares were dilutive because of the net loss in each of these periods. The following table summarizes the total potential shares of common stock that were excluded from the diluted per share calculation:

NOTE 5 - COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

Total comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 consisted of the following:

(1)          Comprehensive loss attributable to noncontrolling interests consisted primarily of net loss.

The changes in noncontrolling interests during the six months ended June 30, 2009 were as follows:

NOTE 6 — BALANCE SHEET DETAILS

As of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, total inventories consisted of the following:

11

Table of Contents

(1) Includes finished goods at customer sites of approximately $149.2 million and $138.0 million at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, for which the customer has taken possession, but based on specific contractual terms, title has not yet passed to the customer.

NOTE 7 - CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, INVESTMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Cash and cash equivalents, consisting primarily of bank deposits and money market funds, are recorded at cost which approximates fair value because of the short-term nature of these instruments. There were no available-for-sale securities investments included in cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2009 or December 31, 2008. Short-term investments, consisting of bank notes, were $3.4 million and $4.3 million at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.  During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company sold investments with a carrying value of $42.4 million and recognized gains of $39.7 million in other income, net.

At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, MRV Communications (“MRV”) is the only available-for-sale security investment recorded at fair value (see additional discussion below), all other long-term investments are in privately-held companies and are accounted for under the cost method.  Any unrealized holding gains or losses are reported as a component of other comprehensive income, net of related income tax effects.  Realized gains and losses are reported in earnings.  At June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the long-term investments included $0 million and $3.3 million of unrealized holding loss related to MRV which was recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income, respectively. There was no unrealized holding gain or loss in short-term investments.

The Company accepts bank notes receivable with maturity dates of between three and six months from its customers in China in the normal course of business.  The Company may discount these bank notes with banking institutions in China. During the three months ended June 30, 2009, there were no bank notes sold.  During the three months ended June 30, 2008, the Company sold $7.7 million of bank notes and recorded costs of approximately $0.1 million as a result of discounting the notes.  During the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, the Company sold $9.9 million and $30.5 million of bank notes, respectively, and recorded costs of less than $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively, as a result of discounting the notes.

The following table shows the break-down of the Company’s equity securities classified as long-term investments at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008:

12

Table of Contents

TET

In October 2008, the Company invested $4.8 million into Turnstone Environment Technologies LLC (“TET”), in exchange for approximately 22% of voting interest. The Company is not obligated to make further capital contributions. TET’s mission is to secure the licensing rights to environmentally friendly, renewable energy technologies for distribution to various emerging markets, with an initial focus on India. TET is considered as a variable interest entity where the Company is the primary beneficiary and does not hold a majority voting interest. The assets, liabilities and operating results of TET were determined to be immaterial as of December 31, 2008 and, therefore, were not consolidated.  As of and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the financial statements of TET were included in the consolidated balance sheet and the statement of operations of the Company (see Note 17).

MRV

On July 1, 2007, Fiberxon, an investment in which the Company had a 7% ownership interest, completed a merger with MRV, which is a publicly-traded company in an active market. In exchange for the Company’s interest in Fiberxon, the Company was entitled to receive $1.5 million in cash, 1,519,365 shares of MRV common stock valued at approximately $4.5 million and deferred consideration of approximately $2.7 million. The deferred consideration becomes payable upon the completion of certain milestones and may be reduced by legitimate claims of MRV for certain matters related to the merger. In the third quarter of 2007, the Company was paid the cash consideration of $1.5 million, received 1,519,365 shares of MRV common stock and recognized a gain on investment of $2.9 million.

During the second quarter of 2009, the trading of MRV common stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market was suspended as a result of MRV’s failure to file its delinquent periodic reports with the SEC after numerous extensions granted by the staff of the Nasdaq Stock Market.  As a result of the delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market, management re-evaluated the carrying value of this investment, including reviewing MRV’s cash position, recent financing activities, financing needs, earnings/revenue outlook, operational performance, and competition. Based on this review and consideration of the duration and extent of the decline in MRV fair value, the Company determined that the decline in MRV fair value was other-than-temporary and recorded a $3.8 million impairment charge for this investment in other income (expense), net in the second quarter of 2009. At both June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, MRV is the only investment accounted for under SFAS 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.”

PCD

In connection with the divestiture of PCD, the Company invested $1.6 million in shares of common stock representing approximately a 2.6% ownership interest of PCD LLC.  Under the Settlement Agreement dated June 30, 2009, the Company granted PCD LLC an option to repurchase the Company’s current equity position in PCD LLC within 90 days of the date of the Settlement Agreement at its original investment cost of $1.6 million.

Fair Value Measurements

SFAS No. 157 clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, SFAS No. 157 establishes a three-tier value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows: (Level 1) observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; (Level 2) inputs other than the quoted prices in active markets that are observable either directly or indirectly; and (Level 3) unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require us to develop our own assumptions. This hierarchy requires the Company to use observable market data, when available, and to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value. On a recurring basis, the Company measures certain financial assets at fair value, including its marketable securities.

At June 30, 2009, the Company’s investment in MRV, which is currently listed in an over-the-counter exchange, is recorded at fair value, classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy and its money market funds are recorded at cost which approximates fair value, classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.  The Company has no other financial assets or liabilities that are being measured at fair value at June 30, 2009.

13

Table of Contents

NOTE 8 - WARRANTY OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER GUARANTEES

The Company provides a warranty on its equipment and handset sales for a period generally ranging from one to two years from the time of final acceptance. At times, the Company has entered into arrangements to provide limited warranty services for periods longer than two years. The Company provides for the expected cost of product warranties at the time that revenue is recognized based on an assessment of past warranty experience and when specific circumstances dictate. The Company assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liability every quarter and makes adjustments to the liabilities if necessary. From time to time, the Company may be subject to additional costs related to non-standard warranty claims from its customers. If and when this occurs, the Company estimates additional accruals based on historical experience, communication with its customers and various assumptions that the Company believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Such additional warranty accruals are recorded in the period in which the additional costs are identified.

The following table summarizes the activity related to warranty obligations during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008:

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company recorded a special warranty charge related to certain handsets sold to PCD LLC.  Under the Settlement Agreement with PCD LLC (see Note 3), the Company agreed to pay PCD LLC $8.4 million to settle certain PCD LLC customers’ warranty claims arising from the handsets sold to PCD LLC.  The $8.4 million claim settlement is included in the accruals for warranties issued during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 in the table above.

Certain of the Company’s sales contracts include provisions under which customers would be indemnified by the Company in the event of, among other things, a third-party claim against the customer for intellectual property rights infringement related to the Company’s products.  There are no limitations on the maximum potential future payments under these guarantees.  The Company has not accrued any amount in relation to these provisions as no such claims have developed into assertable claims and the Company believes it has defensible rights to the intellectual property embedded in its products.

NOTE 9 - RESTRUCTURING COSTS AND OTHER INITIATIVES

Restructuring Costs

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded restructuring charges of $27.8 million and $32.6 million, respectively.  No restructuring charges were recorded in the comparable periods in 2008. The Company expects to incur additional restructuring charges over the next twelve months as it continues to execute the 2009 and 2008 Restructuring Plans.  The following describes the Company’s restructuring initiatives.

2009 Restructuring Plan

On June 9, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Company approved a restructuring plan (the “2009 Restructuring Plan”) designed to reduce the Company’s operating costs.  The 2009 Restructuring Plan includes a worldwide reduction in force of approximately 50% of the Company’s headcount, or approximately 2,300 employees located primarily in China and the United States and, to a lesser degree, other international locations.   During the second quarter of 2009, the Company

14

Table of Contents

recorded a restructuring charge of approximately $25.9 million related to the 2009 Restructuring Plan, including $24.7 million for severance and benefits related to approximately 1,850 employees and $1.2 million related to the estimated loss on a lease obligation which expires in 2013.

2008 Restructuring Plan

During fiscal 2008, the Company implemented a restructuring plan (the “2008 Restructuring Plan”) and recorded $13.1 million in restructuring charges primarily related to a global reduction in force across all functions and employee terminations at certain non-core operations which the Company is in the process of winding down. During the three and six months ended June 30,  2009, the Company recorded restructuring charges related to the 2008 Restructuring Plan of approximately $1.8 million and $6.4 million, respectively. The charges for the six months ended June 30, 2009 consist primarily of severance and benefits related to the transition of certain key functions, including finance, to China and lease costs related to a lease obligation which expires in fiscal year 2010. Approximately 60 employees are affected by the transition of these key functions to China.

2007 Restructuring Plan

At June 30, 2009 the restructuring accrual for the 2007 Plan included within other liabilities of approximately $0.7 million was related to a lease obligation which expires in fiscal year 2010.

The activity in the accrued restructuring balances related to the plans described above was as follows for the six months ended June 30, 2009:

15

Table of Contents

The following table shows the total amount of costs incurred by segment in connection with the restructuring plans:

The majority of the cash expenditures related to the 2009 and 2008 Restructuring Plans are expected to be paid in the third and fourth quarters of 2009, with lesser amounts expected to be paid in the first two quarters of 2010.  The remaining liabilities related to lease obligations are expected to be settled over the remaining lease term.

Other Initiatives

In June 2009, the Company announced its intention to consider a potential sale of its manufacturing, research and development, and administrative offices facility in Hangzhou, China. Accordingly, management performed a recoverability assessment of this asset at June 30, 2009.  Management initially considered whether using comparable market transaction activity (market comparison approach) to estimate the current fair value of the Hangzhou facility would be both feasible and sufficiently objective in the circumstances but concluded the secondary market for similar industrial properties from which to derive sales data was not sufficiently robust to place primary reliance on this valuation approach. Therefore, management primarily used the income capitalization approach to estimate fair value. This valuation approach involves estimating a current market rental for the facility through an analysis of rents of similar facilities, either in the locality or in comparable districts, and then using an applicable capitalization rate to estimate fair value. This resulted in determining the estimated fair value for the Hangzhou facility to be approximately $170 million at June 30, 2009, or approximately $8 million greater than the carrying value. No impairment charge was recorded as the estimated fair value of the Hangzhou facility exceeded carrying value. The income capitalization approach is subjective in nature and involves various assumptions about the capitalization rate and relevant market rents.

NOTE 10 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Securities Class Action Litigation

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class action lawsuits alleging federal securities violations were filed against the Company and various officers and directors of the Company. The actions have been consolidated in United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption In re UTStarcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-04-4908-JW (PVT). The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005. The First Amended Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and was brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company’s stock after April 16, 2003 and before September 20, 2004. On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding new allegations and extending the end of the class period to October 6, 2005. In addition to the Company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On March 21, 2007, the Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

16

Table of Contents

The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007. On July 13, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint. On March 14, 2008, the Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court’s March 14, 2008 dismissal order, the Company and the individual defendants filed objections to the form and content of the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2008, the Court overruled the objections. On September 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2009, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted defendants’ motion to strike.

Due to the status of this lawsuit and uncertainties related to litigation, management is unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, management is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

On September 4, 2007, a second shareholder class action complaint captioned Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. C-07-4578 SI, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and some of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning the Company’s historical equity award grants. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between July 24, 2002 and September 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court appointed James R. Bartholomew lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which changed the purported class period to between September 4, 2002 and July 24, 2007. On April 14, 2008, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008 which was filed by the lead plaintiff on May 16, 2008. On June 6, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the case.  On May 29, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  A final approval hearing is currently set for September 18, 2009.

Under the settlement, which remains subject to final court approval, the insurers would pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company would bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case.  It is uncertain whether the settlement will receive final court approval.  If the settlement does not receive final court approval, and litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Governmental Investigations

In December 2005, the U.S. Embassy in Mongolia informed the Company that it had forwarded to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) allegations that an agent of the Company’s Mongolia joint venture had offered payments to a Mongolian government official in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). The Company, through its Audit Committee, authorized an independent investigation into possible violations of the FCPA, and it has been in contact with the DOJ and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) regarding the investigation. The investigation has identified possible FCPA violations in Mongolia, Southeast Asia, India, and China, as well as possible violations of U.S. immigration laws. The DOJ has requested that the Company voluntarily produce documents related to the investigation, the SEC has subpoenaed the Company for documents, and the Company has received a Grand Jury Subpoena requiring the production of documents related to one aspect of the DOJ investigation, that is, training programs the Company had sponsored. The SEC has indicated it regards travel arrangements provided to customers in China in connection with certain systems contracts, and other conduct, as violations. The Company has executed tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations for the FCPA issues under investigation by the DOJ. Such proceedings may result in criminal or civil sanctions, penalties and disgorgements against the Company. If it is probable that an obligation of the Company exists and will result in an outflow of resources, a provision will be recorded if the amount can be reasonably estimated. Regulatory and legal proceedings as well as government investigation often involve complex legal issues and are subject to substantial uncertainties. Accordingly, management exercises considerable judgment in determining whether it is probable that such a proceeding will result in outflow of resources and whether the amount of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. The

17

Table of Contents

Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings and these judgments are subject to change as new information becomes available. At this time, the Company cannot predict when any inquiry will be completed or what the outcome of any inquiry will be. A judgment against the Company may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On November 17, 2006, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Ernesto Espinoza v. Ying Wu et al., Case No. RG06298775, was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the Superior Court of the County of Alameda, California. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants, among other things, breached their duties, were unjustly enriched, and violated the California Corporations Code in connection with the timing of stock option grants. The complaint names the Company as a nominal defendant and seeks unspecified monetary damages against the individual defendants and various forms of injunctive relief. On February 2, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants filed demurrers against the complaint. On April 11, 2007, the Court sustained the individual defendants’ demurrer, overruled the Company’s demurrer, ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and ordered the Company to answer the original complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint. On August 21, 2007, the individual defendants filed demurrers against the amended complaint. The Court sustained the individual defendants’ demurrers and ordered the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On September 26, 2008, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. On November 21, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed demurrers against the second amended complaint. On February 27, 2009, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer and ordered the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. On March 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. On May 5, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants filed demurrers against the third amended complaint.

Due to the status of this lawsuit and uncertainties related to litigation, management of the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, management of the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

IPO Allocation

On October 31, 2001, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, some of the Company’s directors and officers and various underwriters for the Company’s initial public offering. Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the cases were coordinated as In re Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-9604.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper underwriting practices concerning the allocation of IPO shares in exchange for excessive brokerage commissions, agreements to purchase shares at higher prices in the aftermarket and misleading analyst reports.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  The Company’s directors and officers have been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.  On February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss the claims brought by defendants, including the Company.  The order dismissed all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which alleges that registration statement filed in accordance with the IPO was misleading.

In 2007, a settlement that had been pending with the Court since 2004 was terminated by stipulation of the parties to the settlement, after a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in six test cases in the coordinated proceeding (the action involving the Company is not one of the test cases) made it unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval.  Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six test cases, which the defendants in those cases moved to dismiss. In 2008, the Court largely denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.  A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Court on April 2, 2009.  Under the settlement, which is subject to final Court approval, the insurers would pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company would bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to

18

Table of Contents

tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case.  On June 9, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.  It is uncertain whether the settlement will receive final Court approval.

Due to the preliminary status of these lawsuits and uncertainties related to litigation, management is unable at this time to estimate the effects of these complaints on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Patent Infringement Litigations

On February 16, 2005, the Company filed a suit against Starent for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the Complaint, the Company asserted that Starent infringes UTStarcom patent U.S. Reg. No. 6,829,473 (the “473 patent”) through Starent’s development and testing of a software upgrade for its customer’s installed ST-16 Intelligent Mobile Gateways. The Company seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Starent subsequently filed its answer and counterclaims, and the Company then filed a motion to dismiss Starent’s counterclaim. On July 19, 2005, the parties stipulated that Starent would file an amended answer and counterclaim and the Company then responded to Starent’s amended counterclaim. In early December 2006, the Company filed a reissue application for the ‘473 patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Starent has also filed for reexamination of the ‘473 patent. The reexamination and reissue are currently co-pending. The litigation is still in a preliminary stage, and is stayed pending the outcome of the reissue. The litigation and its outcome cannot be predicted, although management of the Company believes the litigation has merit. Nonetheless, management of the Company believes that any adverse judgment on Starent’s counterclaims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On May 8, 2007, the Company filed an additional suit against Starent and sixteen individual defendants (who were all former employees of 3Com’s CommWorks division, of which the Company acquired certain assets in May of 2003) in the Northern District of Illinois. The causes of action include claims for patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with business relations and prospective economic advantage and declarations of ownership of certain patent rights. The Company seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief.  After the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the misappropriation of trade secrets claims, on August 30, 2007, Defendants answered the Company’s complaint, denying the Company’s allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses and counterclaims.  The Company filed an Amended Complaint to allege additional related causes of action.  Starent moved to dismiss certain causes of action of the Amended Complaint.  On May 30, 2008, the Company amended its complaint to remove from suit U.S. patent 6,978,128, and to add additional factual allegations relating to all defendants in the case.  On July 23, 2008, the Court dismissed the Company’s trade secret and contract-based counts.  The Company asked the Court to clarify that ruling and filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint containing the trade secret and contract-based counts.  After initially granting Defendants’ motion to strike that complaint, the Court reconsidered its order and granted the Company leave to file it.  The Fourth Amended Complaint has been filed.  On October 14, 2008, Defendants moved to dismiss various counts of that Complaint, including again seeking to have the trade secret claims dismissed. On March 24, 2009, the Court ruled on Defendants’ Motion. The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s trade secret claims. However, to the extent the Company’s claims against Defendants for intentional interference with business relations are based on misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, the Court partially dismissed those claims, based upon the doctrine of preemption. The Court also dismissed, as not yet ripe for adjudication, one of the patent claims brought by the Company. Finally, the Court also dismissed contract-based claims and related claims against individual defendants who had previously been employed by the 3Com’s CommWorks division. On March 25, 2009, the Court denied the motion of Starent co-founder Anthony Schoener to dismiss him individually based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. On April 21, 2009, Defendants answered the remaining claims against them.

On August 27, 2008, the Company moved to dismiss Starent’s counterclaims.  On December 5, 2008, the Court partially granted this motion.  On January 9, 2009, Starent filed amended counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the asserted patents, tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage and trade secret misappropriation.  On January 26, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the counterclaims and asserted various affirmative defenses.  On April 21, 2009, in connection with Defendants’ answers to the Company’s claims that remained after the Court’s March 24, 2009 ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint, Starent and four of the Individual Defendants asserted counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the asserted patents, tortuous interference with prospective economic advantage and trade secret misappropriation. On May 14, 2009 the Company filed an answer to the counterclaims and asserted various affirmative defenses.

19

Table of Contents

On June 10, 2009, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby the Company agreed to dismiss its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against fifteen of the eighteen Individual Defendants (but not against Starent and three Individual Defendants), intentional interference with business relations (against all defendants), and four of the patent-related claims against the four Individual Defendants named in those claims. The Stipulation also includes an agreement whereby the patent-related counterclaims asserted against the Company by the four Individual Defendants are dismissed. The fifteen Individual Defendants also agreed not to file any future claims or counterclaims against the Company (or its successors or assignees) relating to this action unless the Company files further claims against them. On July 10, 2009, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby the Company agreed to dismiss its claim for copyright infringement against Starent.

Discovery and motion practice is ongoing in this litigation.  The Court has appointed a special master to handle discovery issues, issues related to identification of the trade secrets, summary judgments and certain other motions. The Company believes that any adverse judgment on Starent’s counterclaims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations of cash flows.

Other Litigation

The Company is a party to other litigation matters and claims that are normal in the course of operations, and while the results of such litigation matters and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management of the Company believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Letters of credit

The Company issues standby letters of credit primarily to support international sales activities outside of China and in support of purchase commitments.  When the Company submits a bid for a sale, often the potential customer will require that the Company issue a bid bond or a standby letter of credit to demonstrate its commitment through the bid process.  In addition, the Company may be required to issue standby letters of credit as guarantees for advance customer payments upon contract signing or performance guarantees.  The standby letters of credit usually expire without being drawn by the beneficiary thereof.  Finally, the Company may issue commercial letters of credit in support of purchase commitments.  As of June 30, 2009 the Company had outstanding letters of credit approximating $47.3 million. At June 30, 2009 the Company had short-term restricted cash of $15.1 million, and had long-term restricted cash of $18.4 million included in other long-term assets. These amounts primarily collateralize the Company’s issuances of standby and commercial letters of credit.

NOTE 11 — STOCK INCENTIVE PLANS

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company granted equity awards including restricted stock, restricted stock units and stock options. Such awards generally vest over a period of one to four years from the date of grant.  Restricted stock has the voting rights of common stock and the shares underlying restricted stock are issued and outstanding.

In February 2008, the Compensation Committee granted 1,073,333 performance-based awards to certain senior executive officers.  During the third quarter of 2008, 233,333 of these contingently issuable shares were forfeited as a result of employee terminations.  On October 6, 2008, the performance requirements with respect to 60,000 of these contingently issuable shares were eliminated; these restricted stock units have a fair value of $2.69 per share, which equals the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market on the measurement date of October 6, 2008. On February 18, 2009, the Committee determined, based on the Company’s and each executive officer’s level of performance during the Company’s 2008 fiscal year, that an additional 367,500 shares underlying the previously granted performance-based restricted stock units had been earned, each of these performance-based restricted stock units has a fair value of $1.27 per share, which equals the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market on the measurement date of February 18, 2009.  These restricted stock units vested 50% on February 27, 2009 and will vest 50% on February 26, 2010.

In February 2009, the Compensation Committee also granted to senior executive officers 313,293 restricted stock units with a four-year vesting and an additional 626,586 performance-based awards, subject to the attainment of goals determined by the Compensation Committee.  The Company may be subject to variable levels of expense related primarily to the varying levels of performance, as well as for fluctuations in the Company’s stock price as these awards are “marked to market” periodically prior to the date of the Compensation Committee’s determination on performance.

20

Table of Contents

To reduce the Company’s long term cost structure and manage shareholder dilution, the Company elected to terminate the ESPP program in February 2009 with an effective date of May 15, 2009.  The cancellation has been accounted for as a settlement of shares for no consideration.  This resulted in an immediate expense recognition of $1.2 million in the first quarter of 2009 associated with the unrecognized compensation for canceled purchase periods of the 24-month offering.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, an adjustment was made to increase the estimated forfeiture rate for equity awards of employees that are being included in the 2009 Restructuring Plan as the awards are not expected to ultimately vest.  The resulting net effect of the forfeiture rate adjustment was a decrease to the Company’s stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2009 by approximately $0.4 million.

Certain executives of the Company have employment contracts which provide for acceleration of all unvested equity awards in the event that the employee is terminated without cause.  During the three months ended June 30, 2009, several executives were involuntarily terminated as part of the 2009 Restructuring Plan. The unrecognized compensation costs related to the acceleration of approximately $0.4 million were recognized upon termination within restructuring.

The total stock-based compensation expense recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of operations was as follows:

Option activity as of June 30, 2009 and changes during the six months ended June 30, 2009 were as follows:

Nonvested restricted stock and restricted stock units as of June 30, 2009, and changes during the six months ended June 30, 2009, were as follows:

At June 30, 2009, there was approximately $13.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost, related to non-vested stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units, as measured, which the Company expects to recognize over a

21

Table of Contents

weighted-average period of 2.1 years. For additional information regarding the Company’s stock-based compensation plans, see the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.

NOTE 12 - INCOME TAXES

As of December 31, 2008, the Company’s gross unrecognized tax benefits totaled $92.8 million and are included in other long-term liabilities, net of certain deferred tax assets and the federal tax benefit of state income tax items totaling $82.1 million. If recognized, the portion of gross unrecognized tax benefits that would decrease the provision for income taxes and increase the Company’s net income is approximately $10.7 million.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company’s gross unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $66.7 million, net of certain deferred tax assets and the federal tax benefit of state income tax items totaling $57.7 million, were included in other long-term liabilities and other current liabilities. If recognized, the portion of gross unrecognized tax benefits that would decrease the provision for income taxes and increase the Company’s net income is approximately $9.0 million. The Company has reduced its total unrecognized tax benefits by approximately $26.5 million during the first quarter of 2009 due to statute of limitations expirations and settlements of income tax audits. The portion of this $26.5 million reduction of gross unrecognized tax benefits that decreased the provision for income taxes and increased the Company’s net income during the quarter was approximately $1.4 million. The total unrecognized tax benefits relate primarily to the allocations of revenue and costs among our global operations.

The Company recognizes interest expense and penalties related to the above unrecognized tax benefits within income tax expense. The Company had accrued interest and penalties of approximately $3.9 million as of December 31, 2008 and approximately $2.9 million as of June 30, 2009. The Company has reduced its interest expense and penalties recorded within income tax expense by approximately $1.4 million during the first quarter of 2009 due to statute of limitations expirations and settlements of income tax audits.

The Company is subject to taxation in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and various U.S. state and foreign jurisdictions. The Company is under audit by the taxing authorities in China on a recurring basis. The material jurisdictions that the Company is subject to examination are in the United States and China. The Company’s tax years for 1999 through 2008 are still open for examination in China. The Company’s tax years for 2006 through 2008 are still open for examination in the United States.

FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”) established criteria for recognizing or continuing to recognize only more-likely-than-not tax positions, which may result in income tax expense volatility in future periods. While the Company believes that it has adequately provided for all tax positions, amounts asserted by taxing authorities could be greater than the Company’s accrued position. Accordingly, additional provisions on income tax related matters could be recorded in the future as revised estimates are made or the underlying matters are settled or otherwise resolved.

In establishing its deferred income tax assets and liabilities, the Company makes judgments and interpretations based on the enacted tax laws and published tax guidance applicable to its operations. The Company records deferred tax assets and liabilities and evaluates the need for valuation allowances to reduce the deferred tax assets to realizable amounts. The likelihood of a material change in the Company’s expected realization of these assets is dependent on future taxable income and its ability to use foreign tax credit carryforwards and carrybacks.

Income tax expense was $4.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009 compared to $4.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008. Income tax expense was $6.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009 compared to a tax benefit of $0.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008.

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company made an assessment of the realizability of its deferred tax assets in Korea, which are included in the Handsets segment, and believes that it will not generate sufficient income to realize its deferred tax assets in Korea.  Therefore, it established a valuation allowance on its remaining net deferred tax assets in Korea.  The income tax expense associated with establishing the valuation allowance is $1.4 million. Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2009 also included a first quarter tax benefit of $2.8 million related to the recognition of previously

22

Table of Contents

unrecognized tax benefits and the reversal of interest and penalties due to statute of limitations expirations and income tax audit settlements.

The China Corporate Income Tax Law (“CIT Law”) was effective on January 1, 2008.  As a result of the enactment of regulations during the first quarter of 2008 which addressed CIT Law, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $11.7 million related to reversing a deferred tax liability on foreign withholding taxes related to the unremitted earnings of the Company’s subsidiaries which the Company had previously determined to not be permanently reinvested outside the United States.  The Company also accrued $3.2 million of foreign withholding taxes related to the realized gain on the sale of its investment in Gemdale.

For 2009 and 2008, the Company has not provided any tax benefit on any forecasted losses incurred and tax credits generated in the United States and other countries, because management believes that it is more likely than not that the tax benefit associated with these losses will not be realized. Also, for 2009 and 2008, the Company continues to accrue tax expense in jurisdictions where the Company has been historically profitable. Estimates of the annual effective tax rate at the end of the interim periods are based on evaluations of possible future events and transactions and may be subject to subsequent refinement or revision.

NOTE 13 - OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE), NET

Other income (expense), net for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively were comprised of the following:

NOTE 14 - SEGMENT REPORTING

To align the business units with its corporate strategy to focus on core businesses, on July 1, 2008 the Company sold PCD to PCD LLC (see Note 3). Prior to July 1, 2008, PCD sold and supported handsets other than PAS handsets, mainly in the United States. Included in the Other segment are Mobile Solutions Business Unit (“MSBU”) and Custom Solutions Business Unit (“CSBU”).  On July 31, 2008, the Company sold MSBU which was responsible for the development, sales and service of the Company’s wireless IPCDMA/IPGSM product line. In the first quarter of 2009, the Company completed the wind-down of CSBU and the consolidation of voice messaging technology into its Multimedia Communications segment. CSBU historically had been responsible for the development, sales and service of other non-core products. The consolidation of voice messaging technology into the Multimedia Communications segment did not have a significant impact on segment net sales or gross profit. As a result of these changes the Company revised its internal reporting structure, operating segments and reporting segments.

Effective January 1, 2009, the new reporting segments are as follows:

·                  Multimedia Communications—Focused on development and market opportunities in IPTV solutions and Wireless infrastructure technologies.

·                  Broadband Infrastructure—Focused on the Company’s portfolio of broadband products.

23

Table of Contents

·                  Handsets—Focused on mobile phone business with continued focus on the PAS and CDMA handset market, as well as data cards markets. Handset sales to PCD LLC, which commenced after the July 1, 2008 sale of PCD, are included in this segment.

·                  Services—Focused on providing services and support of the Company’s Broadband Infrastructure and Multimedia Communications product lines.

The Company’s chief operating decision makers make financial decisions based on information they receive from their internal management system and currently evaluate the operating performance of and allocate resources to the reporting segments based on segment revenue and gross profit. Cost of sales and direct expenses in relation to production are assigned to the reporting segments.  The accounting policies used in measuring segment assets and operating performance are the same as those used at the consolidated level.

Summarized below are the Company’s segment net sales, gross (loss) profit and segment margin for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 based on the current reporting segment structure: