UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x                               ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006

o                                  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                  to                 

Commission File Number: 000-29661

UTSTARCOM, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(510) 864-8800

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Common Stock, $0.00125 par value

(Title of class)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes o  No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.  Yes o  No x

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 o  No x

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer 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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 30, 2007) was approximately $580,658,573 based upon the closing price of $5.61 reported for such date on The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC. As of June 30, 2006, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $769,074,909 based upon the closing price of $7.79 reported for such date on The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of Common Stock held by persons who hold more than 10% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and shares held by officers and directors of the registrant, have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination is not necessarily conclusive for other purposes.

As of September 30, 2007, the registrant had 121,294,645 outstanding shares of Common Stock.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

UTSTARCOM, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

UTStarcom (which may be referred to as the Company, we, us, or our) means UTStarcom, Inc. or UTStarcom, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as the context requires. The name UTStarcom is a registered trademark of UTStarcom, Inc.

In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, references to and statements regarding China refer to mainland China, references to U.S. dollars or $ are to United States Dollars, and references to Renminbi are to Renminbi, the legal currency of China.

Unless specifically stated, information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K assumes an exchange rate of $7.80 Renminbi for one U.S. dollar, the exchange rate in effect as of December 31, 2006.

Throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K we incorporate by reference certain information from other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). Please refer to such information at www.sec.gov.

UTStarcom’s public filings, including our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to such reports, are available free of charge at our website, www.utstar.com. The information contained on our website is not being incorporated herein.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. Beginning on page 28 we discuss some of the risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those provided in the forward-looking statements.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Our consolidated financial statements and financial information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for accounting periods prior to the third quarter of 2006 have been restated.

Summary

In July 2007, the Company announced the Audit Committee was conducting an independent investigation of historical sales with certain customers in China and stated that it could not rule out the possibility that the outcome of the investigation could impact revenue recognized for certain of such contracts as recorded in previously issued financial statements. In September 2007, the Company announced the investigative phase of the Audit Committee’s investigation had been completed. After consultation with and upon the recommendation of management, the Audit Committee determined revenue in the Company’s Western Region of China was recognized earlier than it should have been and that the financial statements for the affected periods should be restated. The Company also announced that its previously issued financial statements for each of the fiscal years ended December 31 in the period 2000 through 2005, the financial statements for the interim periods contained in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with respect to each of these years, and the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with respect to each of the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2006 should not be relied upon. In this Annual Report we have corrected for the effects of net sales and related costs of net sales that were recorded earlier than they should have been. The net effect at December 31, 2005 was to reduce and defer previously recognized revenue and gross profit of $278.6 million and $97.7 million, respectively.

We also conducted a voluntary review of historical stock option practices under the direction of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors (“Governance Committee”). This review considered all option grant awards made in the period from February 29, 2000, shortly before the initial public offering of our Common Stock, through August 2006 for compliance with the various stock-based compensation accounting standards applicable during this period as well as the

3

rules of our stock option plans. We found that in a number of instances we did not use the proper date as the measurement date in determining whether stock options had been issued with exercise prices below the fair value of our common stock. Therefore, we have restated our previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 through 2005 to account for an additional $25.5 million of stock compensation expense that should have been recognized over the period together with an equal increase in additional paid-in capital to recognize the intrinsic value assigned to these issuances of equity securities. Related adjustments of payroll and income taxes resulted in an additional $0.5 million of expense being recognized for the 1998 through 2005 period and total stockholders’ equity being reduced by a total of $2.1 million at December 31, 2005. During the first six months of 2006 an additional $1.2 million of stock compensation expense was recognized, which reduces our previously reported operating results for this period.

In restating our previously issued financial statements for the investigations described above, we also corrected other previously reported amounts. We corrected our reporting for $80.3 million of net sales to certain third party resellers and $41.2 million of associated cost of net sales in 2005 to classify these amounts as related party net sales and related party cost of net sales classifications, respectively, because in 2006 we determined that sales to these entities were, in substance, sales to one of our significant shareholders, SOFTBANK CORP. The accounts receivable from these sales was similarly reclassified into accounts receivable from related parties in our 2005 balance sheets. We also corrected our reporting of $6.3 million of time deposits at March 31 and June 30, 2006 because they did not mature within three months. Formerly the time deposits had been reported in error as cash equivalents, but now these amounts are included in short-term investments in these balance sheets and in the statements of cash flows for the March and June 2006 reporting periods. The corrections for all 2006 and 2005 interim periods have been recorded in the condensed consolidated financial statements included in Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual Report.

None of these restatements has any effect on any of our December 31 cash balances; however, cash equivalents were reduced in the March and June 2006 periods due to the reclassifications described above.

Additional information about these restatements and their effects on our financial statements is presented below as well as in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

China Sales Investigation

The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (“Audit Committee”) engaged independent counsel to conduct an investigation of sales in China following a determination by the Internal Audit group that allegations of improper activities in a sales office in the Western Region were credible. The allegations were made by a Company employee using the Company’s whistle blower program. The independent counsel engaged forensic accountants, and this group is collectively referred to as the Investigating Team in the rest of this discussion.

In conducting its procedures, the Investigating Team found instances where the customer contracts that evidenced the arrangement contained obligations for the Company to deliver software upgrades when and if made available for the equipment sold for no additional consideration and for an unspecified period that could extend over the term of the contract. This additional contract obligation is an element of “post contract support.” In these cases, the Investigating Team found that the contract documentation for the same transaction submitted by the sales office to the Company’s China headquarters for accounting purposes and utilized by the Company in determining the amount of revenue recognized did not include evidence of such post contract support obligations.

Accounting standards governing revenue recognition for system sales require all revenue to be deferred while there are undelivered elements under the arrangement unless the seller has established vendor specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of fair value for such contract elements. Because these arrangements included such undelivered elements, revenue should be deferred based on the VSOE of the fair value of the underlying elements. VSOE of fair value represents the price charged when the same

4

element is sold separately. Since the Company does not sell this element separately, it has not established VSOE for such undelivered elements, and as such the revenue from such contracts is required to be deferred and recognized over the period the Company is obligated to provide the post contract support.

The China sales investigation covered each of the seven years in the period ended December 31, 2006 and included: investigating approximately 1,200 contracts in all of our five regions in China; reviews of the electronic files of 45 employees; and formal interviews of 96 employees in China. Additionally, the China sales investigation included reviewing contract files, performing various financial analyses including comparison of payments received per our accounting records to the contract terms, and computer forensic procedures where destruction of electronic documents was suspected. In the aggregate, the Investigating Team expended approximately 25,000 hours in conducting this investigation, which commenced in February 2007 and was completed in September 2007 when the independent counsel and forensic accountants presented their final report to the Audit Committee. In July 2007, we announced the Audit Committee was conducting an independent investigation of historical sales with certain customers in China and we stated that we could not rule out the possibility that the outcome of the investigation could impact revenue recognized for certain of such contracts as recorded in our previously issued financial statements.

Upon completion of the investigative phase of the independent investigation by the Audit Committee, our management:

·       conducted follow-up procedures to attempt to locate any additional relevant information to ensure the Company considered all available information and documents;

·       evaluated the accounting for identified system sales using the contract template and documentation found in the sales contract files from the Western Region offices. This included calculating the financial statement effects of correcting the accounting for all system sales where the contract template found at our sales offices contained post contract support obligations to recognize revenue and cost of net sales over estimated period of post contract support;

·       concluded that as a result of the existence of this undelivered post contract support obligation our previously issued financial statements should be restated to defer system sales contract revenue and the related cost of net sales over the estimated period of post contract support when a contract contained unspecified software upgrade rights.

The Audit Committee concurred with management’s decisions.

The effect of correcting improperly recognized revenue and cost of net sales is to (reduce) increase previously reported net sales, gross profit and net income by the following amounts (in thousands of dollars):

5

The cumulative effect of all of the China sales restatement adjustments to our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003 resulted in a decrease in retained earnings of $36.6 million, an increase in deferred revenue of $115.4 million to account for previously recognized sales, an increase in deferred costs of $75.7 million to account for previously recognized cost of net sales, and an increase in deferred tax assets of $3.0 million. In our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006, deferred revenue is $275.7 million, of which $35.6 million is classified as current and $240.1 million as non-current, and the deferred costs balance is $176.6 million. These amounts will be recognized in our consolidated statements of operations over the estimated remaining period of post contract support.

Upon completing its investigation, the Audit Committee concluded that the conditions and practices relating to systems contracts prevalent in the Western Region resulted primarily from the failure to prevent or detect instances of override related to controls in China over customer agreements, lack of proper management oversight, unclear record retention policies and procedures relating to systems contracts, and inadequate employee training. The Investigating Team and the Audit Committee also concluded that with respect to four regions other than the Western Region there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct or reason to suspect such occurred. The Investigating Team and the Audit Committee also concluded that there was no credible evidence of knowledge by senior management in China or the United States of the conditions and practices related to the Western Region of China that were discovered in the investigation. The Audit Committee concluded that local management in several of the sales offices in the Western Region of China did not submit appropriate information to the Company’s senior management in China and the United States. Therefore, in prior years, neither the Company’s management nor the Company’s independent registered accounting firm were able to properly evaluate the effect of that information on revenue recognition. The Audit Committee also concluded that certain members of management in China bear varying degrees of responsibility for inadequate oversight of activities. As a result, certain employees in China have either been terminated or placed on suspension for failure to provide adequate oversight of activities.

We have restructured the management of the Western Region sales organization and are working to identify and implement changes to our policies and procedures and enhance employee training to improve internal control consciousness and lessen the possibility of accounting errors occurring in the future.

Stock Option Accounting

In November 2006, we announced we had commenced a voluntary review of historical stock option practices under the leadership of the Governance Committee following a preliminary review by management which identified potential deficiencies and discrepancies in the documentation of stock option grants. The review considered all option grant awards made in the period from February 29, 2000, shortly before the initial public offering of our Common Stock, through August 2006 (“Review Period”) for compliance with the various stock-based compensation accounting standards applicable during the Review Period as well as the rules of our stock option plans. The Governance Committee engaged independent outside legal counsel to assist in the review who, in turn, engaged forensic accountants. (Separate law firms and separate forensic accounting firms were engaged by the Audit Committee and the Governance Committee for the China sales investigation and the stock option accounting review.) In the rest of this discussion, this group collectively is referred to as the Stock Option Review Team and their actions and activities are referred to as the Stock Option Review. The Stock Option Review Team members spent over 11,000 hours in this review, and the Governance Committee met with the Stock Option Review Team on more than a dozen occasions to receive, discuss, and consider the Stock Option Review Team’s information and findings.

At the time the review commenced, the Governance Committee consisted of three members of the Board of Directors, all of whom are independent directors. The Committee decided to delegate supervision of the review to Mr. Jeff Clarke, its Chairman, who joined our Board in 2005 and had not

6

served on the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Compensation Committee”) during the period under review. The Governance Committee also consisted of two other independent directors, Mr. Larry D. Horner and Mr. Thomas Toy, who also serve on the Board’s Compensation Committee. Mr. Allen Lenzmeier was appointed to the Governance Committee on April 27, 2007.

Review procedures included:

·       interviews of individuals involved with granting, advising, administering, or accounting for stock options, including current and former: management, members of the Board of Directors, employees, and non-employee professionals;

·       review of relevant stock administration, human resource, legal, and finance department files and records;

·       review of stock option grant information in select employee personnel files;

·       review by at least 30 attorneys and 15 forensic accountants of approximately 250,000 potentially relevant e-mails and documents in electronic format selected through electronic discovery techniques from over 1.8 million electronic documents processed;

·       review of the electronic database of the Company’s stock option activity maintained by a third party along with communications to and from this service provider;

·       reconciliation of grant activity from approval documents executed by the Compensation Committee with the electronic database;

·       reconciliation of stock option grant, exercise, and cancellation information from SEC filings with select employee personnel files and the electronic database;

·       statistical and judgmental pattern analysis;

·       follow-up on matters raising questions about the option granting process and its history, conduct of those involved with granting, advising, administering, or accounting for stock options, or the accounting treatment for stock options; and

·       follow-up on items or issues requested or identified by management or the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

The Stock Option Review Team, management, and the Governance Committee decided to group stock option grants into six award categories based on differences in what constituted substantive approval for each category under our stock option granting practices as well as giving consideration to the risk of intentional misstatement of the grant date. Guidance in a September 19, 2006 letter publicly issued by the SEC’s Chief Accountant focuses on the concept that a measurement date under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (“APB 25”), the accounting standard governing our stock option accounting through 2005, does not occur until the number of shares an individual employee is entitled to receive and the exercise price is determined with finality (i.e., no longer subject to change). This is the date on which substantive approval occurred, and depending on a company’s facts and circumstances the guidance from the SEC discussed above recognizes a company may determine that the measurement date for some stock option grants may occur before all required granting actions have occurred—such as final approval by the Compensation Committee. This alternative is available only when a review of all facts and circumstances supports a conclusion that substantive approval occurs earlier than when all required granting actions have occurred and there is no evidence of fraudulent or manipulative conduct in the company’s option granting practices.

7

In determining the measurement date to be used, the Stock Option Review Team, management, and the Governance Committee agreed to use the following definitions as constituting the proper measurement date, and generally these dates were used in testing the stated grant dates or establishing corrected measurement dates:

For 12 tested grant dates where a corrected measurement date was required, the Stock Option Review Team and management were unable to locate sufficient evidence to establish a corrected measurement date using our established criteria for the applicable option grant type. In these situations alternative available evidence was used to establish the corrected measurement date.

During the period covered by the Stock Option Review, we granted stock options on approximately 34 million shares of our Common Stock at 197 grant dates. The review specifically examined the appropriateness of the stated grant date for approximately 90% of the stock options granted, including all stock option grants made to directors and officers, all broadbase grants and all option grants made in connection with business acquisitions.

8

The findings of this review are summarized as follows:

(1)          Under APB 25 there is no expense adjustment arising from using the corrected measurement date for these grants because the amount the employee would have to pay to exercise these stock option grants exceeded the quoted market price of our Common Stock at the corrected measurement date, and therefore, these stock option grants contained no intrinsic value at the corrected measurement date.

(2)          The number of grants exceeds the number of grant dates because on certain grant dates more than one category of stock option grants were approved.

In late January 2007 the Governance Committee reported its interim findings concerning the use of incorrect measurement dates in our stock option accounting under APB 25 to our Board of Directors. On February 1, 2007, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors then concluded, in consultation with and upon the recommendation of management, that we should correct for errors in previously reported stock-based compensation expense through restatement of our previously issued financial statements and that our previously issued financial statements for all periods should no longer be relied upon. We communicated this decision in a February 1, 2007 public announcement.

A non-cash compensation charge, to be recognized as an expense over a grantee’s service period, arises under APB 25 if a stock option has intrinsic value at its measurement date. This intrinsic value is measured by the excess, if any, of the fair value at the date of grant of the underlying common stock over the stock option’s exercise price. Our practice has been to grant stock options with exercise prices equal to the closing price of our Common Stock at each grant date, to use the grant date as the measurement date for stock-based compensation purposes, and as such previously we had determined the granted stock options had no intrinsic value at their grant dates and no compensation expense was recognized. However, APB 25 states the measurement date does not occur until all essential actions necessary to grant the option are completed, including the final determination of both the number of shares to be granted to each employee or director and the exercise price, and the option grant is approved by those with requisite authority. This is reinforced by the September 19, 2006 letter issued by the SEC’s Chief Accountant which focuses on the need for the number of shares and exercise price of an award to an individual to be finalized to have a measurement date. This letter clarifies the SEC staff’s view that if it is possible that those terms could change, a measurement date has not occurred, even if the award’s terms are not actually changed.

Based on the available evidence, the review found that the number of shares an individual employee was entitled to receive and/or the exercise price was not determined with finality at the stated grant date on 53 tested grant dates, and we should have used a later date as the measurement date. The principal reasons for the stated grant date not qualifying as the measurement date under APB 25 include:

·       certain listings of grantees, below officer level, were incomplete and added to or modified by stock option administration personnel after the grant was approved by the Compensation Committee;

9

·       for certain grants where Compensation Committee approval was not considered perfunctory, the date a UWC document was sent to Compensation Committee members for approval was used as the stated grant date for some discretionary officer and director grants rather than the date the UWC was signed by all Compensation Committee members and therefore became effective;

·       the Stock Option Review Team was unable to locate contemporaneous documentation of some director and officer, broadbase, new hire, and other merit grants.

During the review the Company also discovered a stock option grant to a former officer that was modified in 1998 in connection with his termination of employment. This change was never included in the Company’s stock option grant records and the additional compensation expense resulting from the change in the option’s terms (approximately $1.2 million) was not recorded previously. This discovery is consistent with the Stock Option Review Team’s finding that in certain instances there was a lack of formal documentation in the stock option granting process and/or expected documentation is missing from the stock option administration files. In addition, the Stock Option Review Team found that, in many instances, there was a lack of self-authenticating evidence to corroborate that cash exercises were contemporaneous. As a result, the findings on the issue of backdating of cash exercises were inconclusive.

We are restating our consolidated financial statements to recognize additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense arising from using corrected measurement dates for certain stock option grants made during the years 2000 through 2005 and to reflect the modification of the 1998 grant described above. Consistent with our historical accounting policy this additional stock-based compensation expense is being recognized on an accelerated basis by treating each vesting tranche as a separate stock option grant (graded vesting).

Our accounting for stock-based compensation changed to a fair value based method in 2006 when, as required by accounting standards, we ceased accounting for stock-based compensation under the intrinsic value method pursuant to APB 25 and began accounting for stock-based compensation under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 123(R) Share-Based Payments (“SFAS 123(R)”). Under this method all stock option grants have a fair value determined using an option pricing model, and such fair value is used to recognize non-cash stock-based compensation expense. We are restating our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters of 2006, included in Exhibit 99.1, to recognize changes in non-cash stock-based compensation expense that arose from a re-determination of the fair value of stock options granted in 2005 and prior where the Governance Committee’s review resulted in a corrected measurement date. By January 1, 2006, of the 17.9 million options granted in 2000 - 2005 where corrections were made to the measurement dates in the Stock Option Review, 4.4 million options with corrected measurement dates granted in 2000 and 2001 had fully vested. Therefore, the fair values of the outstanding and unvested portion of the remaining 13.5 million stock options granted in 2002 - 2005 with incorrect measurement dates were recalculated. We are also recording additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense in the first two quarters of 2006 arising from correcting the measurement date for stock option grants to three individuals in this period. We recognize stock compensation expense on a straight-line basis under SFAS 123(R).

Those stock option grants with corrected measurement dates have also been restated using the fair value based measurement principles of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 123 Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“SFAS 123”) to present, in Note 2, “Restatement of Financial Statements” of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8 of this Annual Report, the pro forma effect on stock-based compensation expense, net income (loss), and earnings (loss) per share amounts in 2004 and 2005 of using the fair value based method to determine stock-based compensation expense rather than using APB 25’s intrinsic value method. Such disclosure is required in financial statements for periods prior to the adoption of SFAS 123(R).

10

In addition to restating the consolidated financial statements in response to the Governance Committee’s findings, we are recording additional non-cash adjustments to account for the modification in 1998 of a stock option grant to a former officer in connection with his termination of employment and to record in the first two quarters of 2006 corrections relating to accounting for performance related stock options and restricted stock grants, all of which were previously identified and considered immaterial.

Correcting the measurement date for previously granted stock options in some cases results in additional taxable income to employees on which additional payroll taxes are due from the employees as well as us. We have provided for all additional payroll taxes plus related penalties and interest arising from the restatement of stock-based compensation, including amounts otherwise payable by stock option recipients, and our restated financial statements include an accrual in all affected years of approximately $1.5 million for all estimated payroll tax related expenses.

The corrections for the stock option restatement are to increase (reduce) previously reported non-cash compensation expense, payroll taxes, income taxes and net income by the following amounts (in thousands of dollars):

The Governance Committee’s review found 17.9 million stock options of the 28.8 million options granted on our Common Stock during 2000 through 2005 had incorrect measurement dates. Using the corrected measurement dates, 7.6 million stock options had exercise prices that exceeded the closing price of our Common Stock and therefore had no intrinsic value to be accounted for under APB 25, and 10.3 million stock options had intrinsic value because their exercise prices were below the closing price of our Common Stock. These 10.3 million stock options resulted in an increase in additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $24.3 million, and an additional $1.5 million of payroll tax related expenses during 2000 - 2005 partially offset by $0.5 million of income tax benefit as shown in the above table. Of the 10.3 million stock options resulting in additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense, 2.0 million options were granted to officers and directors and resulted in $6.1 million of additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense.

Upon completing its review, the Governance Committee concluded it found no evidence of intent to manipulate the Company’s operating results or financial statements. A key finding of the Governance Committee was that there were deficiencies with the process by which stock options were granted during the period from our initial public offering in 2000 through at least 2005, which resulted in accounting errors. The Governance Committee concluded that certain members of management bear varying degrees

11

of responsibility for the deficiencies in the process by which options were granted. The Governance Committee’s review also concluded that none of the current or former employees or directors of the Company engaged in intentional wrongdoing.

In determining the above restatement amounts, management used all reasonably available relevant information to form conclusions it believes are reasonable as to the most likely option granting actions that occurred, the dates when such actions occurred, and the determination of grant dates for financial accounting purposes based on when the requirements of the accounting standards were met. In light of significant judgment used in establishing revised measurement dates, alternative approaches to those used by the Stock Option Review Team and management could have resulted in different compensation charges than those recorded in the restatement. The Stock Option Review Team and management considered various alternatives throughout the course of the review and restatement, and management believes the adjustments to measurement dates used in our review of stock option grant accounting and restatement of our financial statements are reasonable and appropriate in our circumstances.

Summary of Restatement Amounts

The following table presents the decrease in net earnings from the restatement for each restated year:

The effect these corrections on diluted earnings (loss) per share for 2002 to 2005 are as follows:

12

The cumulative effect on stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2003 from the above corrections is as follows (in thousands):

SEC Filings to Report Restatements

This Annual Report includes restatements of the following previously filed financial statements and related information: (1) our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005; (2) unaudited Quarterly Financial Data for the first two quarters in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and for all quarters in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005; (3) Segment Data and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for these periods; and (4) Selected Consolidated Financial Data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002. All financial information in this Annual Report also gives effect to prior restatements of our financial statements reported in our Annual Reports for 2003 and 2005.

Concurrently with the delayed filing of this Annual Report with the SEC, we are also filing our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 which has not been filed previously. We expect to file our currently delinquent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2007 and June 30, 2007 shortly. These Form 10-Q quarterly reports will include complete restated financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2005; the three month period ended March 31, 2006, and the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2006, respectively. Additionally, Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual Report contains restated condensed consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations as of and for the three month and year to date periods ended June 30, 2006, March 31, 2006, September 30, 2005, June 30, 2005 and March 31, 2005. Exhibit 99.1 also contains restated condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and the six months ended June 30, 2006, which give effect to the corrections for the aforementioned 2006 error in the classification of certain time deposits, the restated condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three month period ended December 31, 2005, and the restated condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2004. This follows guidance issued by the SEC concerning presenting information about the effects of restating previously issued financial statements for the effects of correcting errors in prior stock option accounting. Pursuant to this guidance we do not intend to amend any of our previously filed Annual Reports on Form 10-K or Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods affected by the restatements and such reports should not be relied upon.

13

PART I

ITEM 1—BUSINESS

OVERVIEW

We design, manufacture and sell telecommunications infrastructure, handsets and customer premise equipment and provide services associated with their installation, operation, and maintenance. Our products are sold primarily to telecommunications service providers or operators. We sell an extensive range of products that are designed to enable voice, data and video services for our operator customers and their subscribers around the world. While historically the vast majority of our sales have been to service providers in China, we have expanded our focus to build a significant presence in many global markets and currently sell our products in several established and emerging growth markets, which include North America, Japan, India, Central and Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast and North Asia.

UTStarcom was incorporated in Delaware in 1991. Our headquarters are based in Alameda, California, with research and design operations in the United States, Canada, China, India and Korea. Our primary mailing address is 1275 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, California, 94502. We can be reached by telephone at (510) 864-8800 and our website address is www.utstar.com. All of our SEC filings can be found under the Investor Relations section of our website or at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and are available free of charge.

OUR OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to be a leading global provider of Internet Protocol (“IP”) -based communications products and services. We seek to differentiate ourselves by developing innovative, first-to-market products that are designed to integrate multiple functionalities and deliver multiple revenue-generating services on a single technology platform, reduce network complexity, and enable a migration to a new generation of network technologies. Our products and software are designed to make carrier deployments, maintenance and upgrades both economical and efficient, allowing operators to earn a high return on their investment.

OUR STRATEGY

Because our products are IP-based, our customers can more easily integrate our products with other industry standard hardware and software. Additionally, we believe we can introduce new features and enhancements that can be cost effectively added to our customers’ existing networks. IP-based devices can be changed or upgraded in modules, saving our customers the expense of replacing their entire system installation. Our strategy is built upon the following key concepts:

·       identify key technology shifts and trends before our competitors;

·       develop differentiated products, which are designed to offer new and innovative revenue-generating features and enhanced functionality for our customers;

·       reduce overall operational and deployment costs of our customers’ networks, enabling them to meet the demands of a greater number of consumers by expanding their addressable markets; and

·       develop tailored products and services to suit customers’ current needs and to anticipate future needs.

14

KEY STRENGTHS

Our key strengths in the implementation of our strategy include the following factors:

A History of Technology Innovation

Since our inception, we have focused on the development of new innovative communications technologies and products that are designed to differentiate us from our peers and create new market opportunities for our carrier customers. For example, we helped create a new market for wireless telephony in China based upon the development of our Personal Access Service and IP-based Personal Access Service (collectively “PAS”) products offering a low-power, low-cost alternative to traditional mobile telephony. We believe PAS became successful with traditional wireline carriers because it enabled them to build upon their existing fixed-line networks to offer their consumers wireless mobile services. This service, while limited in range to each specific city or region in which it was offered, afforded a low-cost alternative to more expensive traditional cellular services. The rapid rate of adoption for PAS positioned us as one of the leading wireless infrastructure and handset providers in China and to date over 52 million subscribers are using services supported by our technology.

A Significant Customer Base and Leverage in China

Over the course of several years, we have built an extensive administrative, research and development, manufacturing, and sales and support infrastructure in China. We believe this infrastructure allows us to focus our engineering, product development and sales and marketing efforts to quickly identify and address our customers’ needs. In addition, our low-cost research and development and manufacturing capabilities in China allow us to be competitive on a cost and pricing basis for our products. Finally, by virtue of its large population and low teledensity, or the number of telephones per person in a region, and our significant customer deployments, the China market provides a highly conducive platform for us to deploy our most advanced technology in substantial volume. We believe that our infrastructure, cost efficiencies, and research and development advances in China provide a significant platform and strategic advantage for our global success.

A Commitment to Carrier Value

We believe we have been able to develop strong relationships with our customers by delivering complete product lines that are designed to enable carriers to capitalize on economies of scale and to easily customize and extend their service offerings. To ensure our products deliver the most value, the UTStarcom product architecture is designed to allow carriers to offer a full range of services over multiple access networks, whether wireless or wireline. Our wireless products support a broad range of frequencies for cost-effective deployment worldwide and our broadband products support both copper- and fiber-based access. To help ensure we offer high value solutions at a low cost, we leverage our design, development, and manufacturing facilities in China.

A Focused Global Market Diversification Initiative

In 2006, we continued to focus on the diversification of our global customer base and market penetration. Our diversification strategy involves a combination of internal efforts and strategic acquisitions. In order to better address new markets outside of China we introduced a number of new products including our Continuity™ solutions for the Fixed Mobile Convergence market; the F3000 portable WiFi handset; and Evolution Voice Data Only rev A capability for MovingMedia 2000.

Our acquisition of selected assets of the wireless handset division of Audiovox Corporation in November of 2004 enhanced our ability to gain access to some of the largest and most stable operators worldwide, particularly in the United States. As a result of this acquisition, the United States has become our largest market, representing 55% of net sales in 2006.

15

In addition to the large telecommunications service providers in well-established markets, we also target carriers in emerging markets, such as Philippines Long Distance Telephone Company in the Philippines, Vonage Holdings Corporation in the United States, Reliance Infocomm Ltd. in India and Brazil Telecom in Brazil, which have all focused their network deployments on IP-based voice, data and video services.

We believe emerging markets present significant opportunities for growth. We believe that many developing regions see a correlation between increased teledensity and improved economic growth, recognizing the need to invest in a telecommunications infrastructure in order to compete globally and overcome economic disparities. Our strategy is to develop products and design services to meet the needs and level of affordability of these emerging-market service providers and their customers. In addition, we recognize that to be successful in emerging markets, it is often important to commit to establishing a local presence in areas such as research and development, manufacturing, sales and support. We continue to explore major growth potential in global markets outside of China and believe that many of these markets are ideal candidates for our products and services.

MARKETS AND CUSTOMERS

Our products and services are being deployed and implemented in regions throughout the world in markets including China, Japan, India, Central and Latin America, Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East. Historically, China has been our largest market, representing 32%, 30%, and 79% of our net sales in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. With the acquisition of selected assets from Audiovox Corporation in November 2004, sales in the United States have grown to 55% of net sales in 2006 compared to 46% and 13% in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Additional markets and customer information is included in the discussion of business segments below.

Global Customers

Our customers, typically telecommunications service providers, enable delivery of wireless and broadband access services including data, voice, and/or video to their subscribers. They include, but are not limited to, local, regional, national and international telecommunications carriers, including broadband, cable, Internet, wireline and wireless providers. Telecommunications service providers typically require extensive proposal review, product certification, test and evaluation, network design, and, in most cases, are associated with long sales cycles. Our customers’ networking requirements are influenced by numerous variables, including their size, the number and types of subscribers that they serve, the relative teledensity of the geography served, their subscriber demand for wireless and wireline communications, and access services in the served geography.

Global Sales and Service

Our worldwide sales organization consists of managers, sales representatives, network consultants and technical support personnel. We have field sales offices in various locations including China, Japan, India, Central and Latin America, Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East. We operate six retail facilities for end-user devices under the name Quintex® and license the trade name Quintex® to six outlets in selected markets in the United States. We continue to increase our penetration of these markets in several ways:

·       through direct sales offices located in key market regions;

·       by licensing our technology to local manufacturers;

·       by developing local sales agency and distributor relationships within specific market regions; and

·       by establishing sales relationships with original equipment manufacturers.

16

We continue to aggressively build regional in-country sales offices with local direct sales staff in order to provide support for our expanding global operations.

In addition to our product offerings, we provide a broad range of service offerings, including technical support services. Our service offerings complement our products with a range of consulting, technical, project, quality and maintenance support-level services including 24-hour support through technical assistance centers. Technical support services are designed to help ensure that our products operate efficiently, remain highly available, and benefit from the most up-to-date system software. These services enable customers to protect their network investments and minimize downtime for systems running mission-critical applications.

Competition

We compete in the telecommunications equipment market, providing infrastructure products, consumer products and services for transporting data, voice and video traffic across traditional and IP-based networks.

As we expand into new markets, we will face competition from both existing and new competitors, including existing companies with strong technological, marketing and sales positions in those markets.

We believe our competitive strengths are derived from three main principles: our early entry and commitment to the development of all IP-based communications technologies; our experience in high-volume, low-cost manufacturing and large-scale technology deployments in China; and our commitment to developing comprehensive, complete product offerings for our carrier customers that allow them to capitalize on economies of scale and differentiate their service offerings.

By contrast, our competitive disadvantages include our relatively smaller size in terms of revenues and working capital, and number of employees as compared to many of our competitors, our lack of history and experience in selling to many of the largest carriers in well-established markets and our lack of consumer brand recognition in markets outside of China.

TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS

Our technology focus centers on an IP-based softswitch core network architecture that creates a single platform for delivering multiple services to the end user of the telecommunications network. A softswitch is a software-based system for handling call management functionality that has historically been handled by a large hardware switch device in a traditional telephone network. Our IP-based softswitch is a technological approach to telephony networking where all of the capability for the delivery of telephone services resides in easily adaptable IP-based software. A softswitch is designed to reduce the cost of long distance and local exchange switching and to create new differentiated voice, data and video services. In contrast, legacy networks are based on the delivery of a single service, such as voice or data. If a service provider operating a traditional network wanted to offer multiple services, it would have to build, run and maintain a separate network for each service, including separate billing, network management and support functionalities, adding significant costs to the carrier’s operating model. A multi-service, IP-based core network is designed so that all services can be converged onto one platform with one billing, network management and support function for all services. In addition, because it is largely software-based, an IP network is by design more cost-effective to run and maintain than traditional infrastructure technologies. All of our products are interoperable and can be integrated into a single IP-based network. We intend to continue to support our IP-based wireless and broadband services and enhance their functionality for deployment in all global markets. We also intend to continue our research and development efforts on future IP-based access services.

17

Our IP-based softswitch architecture (“mSwitch”) is a diverse assembly of software and hardware-based networking elements designed to replace traditional central office telephone switches. Our mSwitch enables the delivery of a common set of features and services over a variety of access networks, whether wireless or wireline. Our products are designed to support a variety of services, including broadband and narrowband access, call control of telephone and data communications and delivery of next generation features not offered by the traditional fixed line switching infrastructure, including IP-based television (“IPTV”).

mSwitch Platform

Our mSwitch® is a flexible IP-based platform designed to provide voice communications over an IP network. The mSwitch® product family supports three primary solutions:

·       IP-based Personal Access System (“iPAS”) Wireless Local Service;

·       Next Generation Network (“NGN”) Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”); and

·       Fixed Mobile Convergence.

mSwitch® enables service providers to migrate from existing circuit platforms to a next generation IP-based packet switch architecture, or to launch new applications in a greenfield environment. Our mSwitch® portfolio is a carrier-class next generation switching product family that enables service providers to:

·       Deploy a converged core switching network that supports both wireline and wireless endpoints;

·       Enable application delivery across diverse access points;

·       Maintain consistent end user experience regardless of method of access to the applications;

·       Protect investment in their core infrastructure;

·       Deploy a scalable, modular system; and

·       Enjoy the benefits of an Operation Support System /Network Management System suite designed to integrate seamlessly with the service provider’s existing network.

Business Segments

In organizing our extensive product portfolio, we have created four individual operating units: Network Solutions, Personal Communication Division (“PCD”), Handsets and Global Services & Support International (“Services”).

·       Network Solutions: Our Network Solutions operating unit provides is products and services through two reporting segments; Broadband Infrastructure and Wireless Infrastructure. Our Wireless Infrastructure segment designs, builds and sells software and hardware products that enable end users to send and receive voice and data communication in either a fixed or mobile environment. Our Broadband Infrastructure segment designs, builds and sells software and hardware products that enable end users to access high-speed, cost effective wireline data, voice and media communication.

·       Personal Communications Division: Our Personal Communications Division markets, sells and supports handsets other than PAS handsets for markets other than China. Most of our handset sales in 2005 and 2004 were designed and built by other manufacturers, however, in 2005 we began shipping handsets designed and manufactured by us and for the 2006 fiscal year handsets manufactured by us made up approximately 36% of the total unit sales.

18

·       Handsets: Our Handset segment designs, builds and sells consumer devices that allow customers to access wireless services. All handset revenues within China are included in this segment.

·       Services: Our Services segment provides service and support for Wireless Infrastructure and Broadband Infrastructure customers in the areas of planning, deployment, operations and ongoing maintenance.

Our products within each of these categories, excluding services, include multiple hardware and software subsystems that can be offered in various combinations to suit individual carrier needs. Our system products are based on widely adopted global communications standards and are designed to allow service providers to quickly and cost-efficiently integrate our systems into their existing networks and deploy our systems in new broadband, IP and wireless network rollouts. Our products are also designed for quick and cost-effective transition to future network technologies, enabling our customers to make the best use of their existing infrastructure. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Net Sales,” for a discussion of our net sales by business segment.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS

Wireless Infrastructure

The products in our Wireless Infrastructure segment are based on a variety of leading worldwide mobile interface standards, including: Personal Handyphone System (“PHS”) and CDMA2000. Our Wireless Infrastructure business accounted for approximately 17%, 15% and 49% of revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. All of our wireless products are designed to offer a full suite of integrated, customizable, voice and value-added services, including text messaging services, web browsing, e-mail, voice mail, and Internet access.

Personal Access System

Our Personal Access System family of wireless core infrastructure equipment, based on the PHS standards developed by The Association of Radio Industries and Telecommunication Technology Committee in Japan, is designed to help our customers create new revenue opportunities with high quality wireless voice and data services. Approximately 79% of our Wireless Infrastructure revenue is derived from our PAS product.

With the UTStarcom iPAS wireless access network, operators can migrate their current wireline network to an IP-based PHS wireless network that provides wireless voice and data services within a city or community. With this new system, service providers can offer new wireless services, such as citywide mobility, same-number wireless extension, email, mobile Internet access, text messaging and location-based services.

The iPAS wireless access network offers several advantages:

·       Common platform for both wireline and wireless—offers a complete set of wireline and wireless services: Plain Old Telephone Service, Integrated Services Digital Network, citywide mobility, text messaging, email, location-based services, mobile Internet access.

·       Flexible deployments—integrates iPAS into the existing public network or deploy it as an independent network over a unified IP-based core network with advanced softswitch architecture. As a result, service providers can cost-effectively deploy services to meet subscriber demands.

·       High-performance softswitch platform—scales an iPAS network to support from 10,000 to more than five million subscribers with a softswitch server cluster and multi protocol gateways. With its softswitch architecture, customers can migrate seamlessly to Third-Generation Cell-Phone Technology services over a unified IP-based core network.

19

·       Centralized Web-based operations support system—simplifies network operations by concentrating all supporting functions, such as subscriber management, service provisioning, network management, billing processing, and customer care, into one centralized network operation center. With the Web-based interface, maintenance personnel or subscribers can access the service remotely over the Internet.

·       Wide selection of subscriber devices—allows customers to choose the easiest access: a PHS handset or personal station for citywide mobility, a fixed subscriber unit for fixed wireless access, a Personal Handyphone System Internet Access Forum Standard data suite device for high-speed Internet access, or any combination of these.

CDMA 2000 Wireless Voice and Data Products

CDMA stands for Code Division Multiple Access and is one of the main technologies currently used in digital wireless communications networks. CDMA 2000 is popularly referred to as the third-generation (“3G”) technology for CDMA and has greater voice capacity, data capacity and data speed than CDMA. Additionally, CDMA 2000 technology enables a range of new features including broadband Internet access, music downloads, push-to-talk communications, streaming video and remote corporate access.

In the fall of 2004, we introduced MovingMedia 2000, the first IP-based infrastructure product for CDMA 2000 designed to offer cost effective CDMA coverage in urban, rural and campus environments. The MovingMedia 2000 product line provides mobile operators with end-to-end IP-based infrastructure enabling voice and data services to end-users. Based on Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP2”) standards specifications, we believe our MovingMedia 2000 is an ideal solution for both incumbent and greenfield CDMA operators. MovingMedia 2000 allows CDMA operators to transition to an all IP-based network, resulting in significant backhaul cost savings and the ability to offer new value-add services.

Fixed Mobile Convergence

Our Continuity™ Fixed Mobile Convergence product provides a way for users to inter-connect to either a wireline or cellular network regardless of which network they are currently on. With our Continuity™ solution, users can access their services seamlessly regardless of their location, device, or network access method.

Continuity™ has been designed for all types of carriers but in particular, for wireline carriers that want to provide mobility services by utilizing their lower cost wireline assets. Continuity™ allows wireline operators to enter the mobile service market using Wireless Fidelity (“WiFi”) as a complementary alternative to a traditional cellular network. Continuity™ is also intended for mobile operators to provide their users with the same value-added features as wireline providers and to further improve their cellular coverage by using lower cost WiFi technology.

Markets and Customers

In 2006, our largest market for Wireless Infrastructure products was China, which equaled approximately 80% of revenues for the segment. We believe that China continues to be one of the largest and most important wireless markets in the world with GDP growth of more than 9% over the past several years and a relatively low fixed and mobile teledensity rate of just 28% and 35%, respectively. China is currently undergoing an evolution of wireless technology, as their regulatory authority, the Ministry of Information Industry, is preparing to issue new 3G operating licenses. As such, wireless infrastructure spending is expected to shift from traditional PAS and other second generation technologies to new 3G technology over the next several years. This caused a decline in spending for our PAS products which led to an overall decline in Wireless Infrastructure product revenues by 2% and 66% in 2006 and 2005,

20

respectively. In 2006, sales in the Jiangsu Province and in the Zhejiang Province accounted for approximately 15% and 10%, respectively, of sales for the Wireless Infrastructure segment.

Outside of China, key markets we are targeting for Wireless Infrastructure include India, Japan, Latin America, Europe and the United States. Combined sales to these regions were approximately 20% of total wireless infrastructure sales in 2006, but are expected to increase over time as we put more focus in these regions. In 2006, we continued to expand our presence in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, with both orders from new customers and additional sales and service operations.

Southeastern Asia is another region with a large population base and relatively low teledensity rate. We have established an office for sales and services operations to support various countries in this region including, but not limited to, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. At the close of 2006, our customers had over 1.2 million PAS subscribers in Vietnam and Taiwan utilizing our network infrastructure. Key customers in the region include FITEL and Chunghwa Telecom Co. Ltd. in Taiwan, and Vietnam Post and Telecommunications Corporation in Vietnam.

Competition

The Wireless Infrastructure market is marked by intense competition worldwide from numerous global and regional competitors, including some of the world’s largest companies. Pricing, payment terms and brand recognition are key considerations for our customers. Specific competitors in this segment include: Alcatel-Lucent, LM Ericsson Telephone Company, Huawei Technology Co., Ltd., InterDigital Communications Corp, Motorola, Inc., Nokia Corporation, Nortel Networks Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Siemens AG and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, Inc.

Broadband Infrastructure

Our Broadband Infrastructure products are designed to satisfy customer demand for high speed and cost effective wireline-based data, voice and multimedia services. Revenues from this segment accounted for approximately 9%, 18% and 9% of total sales in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Our wireline technology enables high-speed voice, video and data transmissions over broadband IP-based networks. Our Broadband Infrastructure segment includes digital subscriber line products, multi-service access node products, fiber optics products and IPTV.

Digital Subscriber Line Products

Digital subscriber line (“DSL”) technology allows high-speed data and content transfer while providing simultaneous telephone communications over the same fixed copper line. Our IP-based DSL Access Multiplexers (“IP-DSLAMs”) incorporate the latest DSL technologies combined with a range of form factors to enable high-speed access and deliver services to residential and commercial subscribers using broadband networks.

Our AN-2000 product is intended for operators with an existing copper telephone network seeking to expand into offering broadband data to their customers. An all-IP network allows our customers to more easily add features such as video streaming and IP multicast in addition to traditional broadband services. To date, we have deployed more than seven million IP-DSLAM lines globally.

Our DSL products include customer premise equipment (“CPE”) such as various DSL modems, set-top boxes and voice over the internet devices that allow residential and business customers to access voice, data and video services. Our products are designed to be rich in functionality, simple to set up, easy to install and easy to manage. The diversity and flexibility of our CPE offerings allows them to work with both our own infrastructure equipment as well as with other vendors’ infrastructure equipment.

21

Multi-Service Access Node

A Multi-Service Access Node (“MSAN”) is a single device which delivers a mix of broadband, traditional voice and data services, and media gateway functionality via copper or fiber. The iAN8K Multimedia Network Edge product line embodies our commitment to providing end-to-end IP connectivity. The iAN8K product family is our next generation access platform that integrates the feature sets of the iAN-8000 MSAN platform with the Broadband Data Access functionality provided by the AN-2000 B820 IP-DSLAM product line which allows service providers to converge seamlessly from legacy Time Division Multiplexing based networks to IP-based Next Generation Networks. The iAN-8000 MSAN integrates the standalone functionalities of a traditional Digital Loop Carrier, a next-generation VoIP Media Gateway and an IP-DSLAM in a single convenient, multi-service access platform.

Optical Products

Our optical products include transport products based upon internationally defined optical transmission standards and access products. Our products convert and translate data, video, voice, or other traffic into an optical signal which is transmitted over glass fiber. The product platform includes a multi-service management system which simultaneously processes multiple speeds ranging from 155 Megabits per second for traditional voice service to 10 Gigabits per second for data intensive services.

Gigabit Ethernet Passive Optical Network (“GEPON”)

In 2004, we introduced our GEPON product. A passive optical network is a system configuration that brings optical fiber all the way to the end user using unpowered optical splitters that enable a single optical fiber to serve multiple premises. Our GEPON platform is designed to provide high subscriber density and low cost of entry, making it a compelling alternative to traditional telephone or broadband solutions.

Our GEPON family includes both the telecommunications provider’s central office and CPE which handle speeds of up to one Gigabit per second of bandwidth to residential and business customers. By integrating more functionality into the product, we have eliminated the need for carriers to deploy additional switching and routing equipment.

Multi-Service Transport Product (“MSTP”)

We introduced our NetRing™ MSTP optical product line in December 2003. While our GEPON product is designed to provide services to individual customers, our NetRing™ products are designed for the high bandwidth needs of a service area. Our NetRing™ 600 products provide voice and data services for multi-tenant buildings, office buildings, and enterprise campus applications. Our mid-range NetRing™ 2500 products offer voice and data transport when more bandwidth and greater capacity is required. Our high-end NetRing™ 10000 products provide service for regional transport applications, when maximum bandwidth and capacity is required. In each application, the optical fiber is looped through the service area and connected back upon itself, providing full redundancy in the event that the fiber is severed. NetRing™ provides a broad range of functions for carriers to manage voice, data and video traffic with network management functions previously available only on multiple independent platforms.

Video content is increasingly being viewed by telecommunications providers as a new source of revenue. Our IPTV system, RollingStream™ (formerly “mVision”), includes both central office and customer premises equipment for delivering television and multimedia over carrier networks based on IP technology. Our RollingStream™ products and services enable a service provider to deliver broadcast television and on-demand video services to residential and commercial premises over a switched network architecture. It is a carrier-class product that is designed to scale to support millions of users and hundreds

22

of thousands of content hours. We believe RollingStream™ is the first solution designed to enable carriers to deploy very-large-scale streaming video content over a switched network.

The RollingStream™ product family includes a storage and streaming device (“MediaSwitch”); a device for combining different video signals onto a unified distribution system (“Content Engine”); a device residing at the user’s home or place of business; and a network management system that enables system wide operation. The current version of the RollingStream™ products has been designed to function over standard copper telephone lines. Future versions may operate over cable or optical transmission lines.

RollingStream™ is designed to allow carriers to offer new, revenue-generating television and multi-media services. The system is also designed to help providers attract customers of cable and satellite operators by offering a more comprehensive and interactive suite of services. We continue to see industry and customer enthusiasm with key customer deployments announced at Softbank in Japan; China Telecom and China Netcom in China; MTNL in India; and over 40 trial networks deployed globally.

Markets and Customers

Our Broadband Infrastructure segment also targets several large markets and customers worldwide. In 2006, our largest broadband infrastructure customer was Softbank Corp. and affiliates in Japan (“SBB”), representing approximately 54% of total broadband sales. SBB, which is a related party to UTStarcom, is a parent company to several of our key service provider customers in Japan, including Yahoo! BB and Japan Telecom. According to the Japan Ministry of Public Management, Yahoo! BB is the leading provider of broadband service in Japan with over 5 million IP-based DSL lines as of December 31, 2006. Yahoo! BB continues to expand and deploy our AN-2000 and iAN-8000 equipment in support of their Voice over Broadband and varying speed DSL services. Additionally, Yahoo! BB and UTStarcom officially launched the UTStarcom RollingStream™ IPTV products in July of 2005.

In addition to the Japanese market, we have targeted other key markets such as China, India, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central America and Latin America for the deployment of our Broadband Infrastructure products. In 2006, those markets contributed approximately 46% to total Broadband Infrastructure revenues. We believe these markets provide a significant amount of opportunity going forward given their relatively low broadband penetration rates and strong consumer demand for new broadband services.

For example, according to the Department of Telecommunications of India as of November 2006, India had a population of 1.1 billion and a low fixed line teledensity of approximately 16.3%. We currently offer our AN-2000, iAN8K, IPTV and NetRing™ products and services in India. With over one million access lines deployed today, we anticipate that we will continue to implement and deploy our products and conduct trials with several operators, including Reliance Infocomm Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

We also saw significant growth in 2006 in Central America and Latin America. Our target markets in Central and Latin America include, but are not limited to, countries like Brazil, Mexico, Panama, Haiti, Honduras and Guatemala. We have shipped our AN-2000 to service providers and continue to perform extensive testing and certification for telecommunications carriers for other key products such as RollingStream™ within these regions. In 2006, key customers in Central and Latin America included Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. in Mexico, Brazil Telecom in Brazil and Telefonica del Sur in Chile.

Competition

The Broadband Infrastructure market is marked by intense competition worldwide from numerous global and regional competitors, including some of the world’s largest companies. The principal methods of competition include pricing, payment terms and pre-existing relationships. Specific competitors in this segment include Alcatel-Lucent, Datang Telecom Technology Co. Ltd, LM Ericsson Telephone Company,

23

Huawei Technology Co., Ltd., Motorola, Inc., Siemens AG, Tellabs, Inc., and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, Inc.

HANDSETS

We design and sell a variety of handsets to support our business in China, primarily our sales of PAS products. Our Handsets business accounted for approximately 16%, 16% and 29% of revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The products range from basic, low-cost units to high-functionality, higher-cost models. Today we feature handsets with cameras, video recorders and players, high-resolution color displays, multiple ring tones, text messaging service and high speed Internet access and email capability.

PAS Handsets

We currently offer a wide variety of PAS handset models from high-end, data-capable and feature-rich models to low-cost value models. According to a December 2006 report by the industry research firm GfK Ltd., we have a 48% market share and are the market leader for PAS handsets in China, which is the largest handset market in the world according to its Ministry of Information Industry. We shipped more than 7.8 million PAS handsets in 2006.

CDMA, WiFi and Multi-Mode Handsets

In 2004, we announced our entry into the CDMA and WiFi handset markets in China. We offer carriers a wide selection of price ranges and handset features by providing a broad range of models supporting each of these technologies.

Markets and Customers

In 2006, our primary market for the Handsets segment was in China with approximately 98% of revenue in 2006 attributed to the China market. In 2006, sales in the Jiangsu Province, the Zhejiang Province and in the Guangdong Province accounted for approximately 20%, 15% and 13%, respectively, of sales for the Handsets segment.

Competition

The Handset business segment faces significant competition from numerous global competitors. The principal methods of competition include pricing and brand recognition. Specific competitors in this segment include: Alcatel-Lucent; China PTIC Information Industry Corporation; Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, Inc.; Amoi Electronics Company, Ltd.; Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd; Kyocera Corporation; Nippon Electric Corporation and Sanyo Electric Company, Ltd.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION

We acquired the Personal Communications Division (“PCD”) from Audiovox Corporation in November 2004. Revenues from this segment represented approximately 55%, 48% and 11% of our total sales in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Our PCD segment markets wireless handsets and accessories through international wireless carriers and their agents, independent distributors and retailers. We sell an array of digital handsets, hand-held computing devices and accessories in a variety of technologies, principally utilizing the CDMA radio air interface. We generally market our wireless products under the UTStarcom brand name or co-brand our products with our carrier customers. In addition to handsets, we sell a complete line of accessories that includes batteries, hands-free kits, battery eliminators, cases and data cables. In 2007, we intend to continue to broaden our digital product offerings by supplying handsets

24

with enhanced features such as two and three megapixel resolution for video and camera products, music on demand, MP3 music players and improved internet capabilities.

Product Development, Warranty and Customer Service

Although the PCD segment does not have its own manufacturing facilities, it works closely with both customers and suppliers in feature design, development and testing of products. In particular, PCD:

·       with its wireless customers, determines future market feature requirements;

·       works with its suppliers to develop products containing those features;

·       participates in the design of the features and aesthetics of its wireless products;

·       tests products in its own facilities to ensure compliance with PCD standards;

·       supervises testing of the products in its carrier markets to ensure compliance with carrier specifications.

We believe customer service is an important tool for enhancing our brand name and relationship with carriers. In order to provide full service to our customers, we provide a warranty on our handset products for periods ranging from twelve to fifteen months. To support our warranties, we work with approximately 2,800 independent warranty centers throughout North and South America and have experienced technicians in our warranty repair stations at our PCD headquarters facility. We have experienced customer service representatives who interact directly with both end-users and our customers. These representatives are trained to respond to questions on handset operation and warranty and repair issues.

Suppliers

Our PCD segment purchases its wireless products from several manufacturers located in Pacific rim countries, including Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan. In selecting suppliers, we consider quality, price, service, market conditions and reputation. We generally purchase our products under short-term purchase orders and do not enter into long-term contracts. During 2006 and 2005, three vendors accounted for approximately 88% and 97% of purchases, respectively. In September 2006, we entered into a Strategic Alliance Agreement with one of these vendors whereby we were appointed exclusive distributor in certain territories. Additionally, we plan to extend our supplier base by introducing more models of our own design and expanding our relationships with other manufacturers.

Markets and Customers

We sell our wireless handsets and accessories to wireless carriers and the carrier’s respective agents, distributors and retailers. Our largest market for the PCD segment is North America, which represents approximately 94% of PCD net sales during 2006. Our five largest wireless customers in 2006 were Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint Spectrum, Virgin Mobile USA and Cricket Communications. Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint Spectrum accounted for approximately 25%, 20% and 18%, respectively, of net sales for the segment during 2006. In addition, we promote our products through trade and consumer advertising, participation at trade shows and direct personal contact by our sales representatives. We also assist wireless carriers with their marketing campaigns by scripting telemarketing presentations, funding co-operative advertising campaigns, developing and printing custom sales literature, logistic services, conducting in-house training programs for wireless carriers and their agents and providing assistance in market development.

25

We operate six retail facilities under the name Quintex. Quintex also serves as an agent (in activating cell phone numbers) for the following carriers in selected areas: Boost, Nextel, Sprint Spectrum, and T-Mobile. For fiscal 2006, revenues from Quintex were approximately 2% of total PCD revenues.

Competition

The market for wireless handsets and accessories is highly competitive and is characterized by intense price competition, significant price erosion over the life of a product whose life cycle has continued to shorten, demand for value-added services, rapid technological development and industry consolidation of both customers and manufacturers. Currently, our primary competitors for wireless handsets include LG, Motorola, Samsung, Kyocera, Nokia and Sanyo.

We also compete with numerous established and new manufacturers and distributors, some of whom sell the same or similar products directly to our customers. Historically, our competitors have also included some of our own suppliers and customers. Many of our competitors offer more extensive advertising and promotional programs than we do. We compete for sales to carriers, agents and distributors on the basis of our products, services and price. As our customers are requiring greater value-added logistic services, we believe that competition will continually be required to support an infrastructure capable of providing these services. Our ability to continue to compete successfully will largely depend on our ability to perform these value-added services at a reasonable cost.

Our products compete primarily on the basis of price, features and reliability. There have been, and will continue to be, several periods of extreme price competition in the wireless industry, particularly when one or more of our competitors has sought to sell off excess inventory by lowering prices significantly or carriers canceling or modifying sales programs. As a result of global competitive pressures, there have been significant consolidations in the domestic wireless industry, which has caused extreme price competition. These consolidations may result in greater competition for a smaller number of large customers and may favor one or more of our competitors.

SERVICES

In addition to our product offerings, we provide a broad range of service offerings, including technical support services. Our service offerings complement our products with a range of consulting, technical, project, quality and maintenance support-level services including 24-hour support through technical assistance centers. Technical support services are designed to help ensure that our products operate efficiently, remain highly reliable, and benefit from the most up-to-date system software. These services enable customers to protect their network investments and minimize downtime for systems running mission-critical applications. Our Services segment accounted for approximately 3%, 3%, and 2% of revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

OPERATIONS

Employees

As of December 31, 2006, we employed a total of approximately 6,000 full-time employees. We also from time to time employ part-time employees and hire contractors. Of the total number of full-time employees at December 31, 2006, approximately 2,600 were in research and development, approximately 800 were in manufacturing, approximately 1,400 were in marketing, sales and support, and approximately 1,200 were in administration. We had approximately 4,600 employees located in China, approximately 700 employees located in the United States, and approximately 700 employees in other countries. Our employees are not represented by any collective bargaining agreement, and we have never experienced a work stoppage. We believe that we have good employee relations.

26

Sales, Marketing and Customer Support

We pursue a direct sales and marketing strategy in China, targeting sales to telecommunication operators and equipment distributors with closely associated customers. We maintain sales and customer support sites in all major cities in China. Our customer service operation in Hangzhou, China, serves as both a technical resource and liaison to our product development organization. In China, customer service technicians are distributed in the regional sales and customer support sites to provide a local presence.

Our sales efforts in markets outside of China combine direct sales, original equipment manufacturers, distributors, resellers, agents and licensees. We maintain 43 sales and customer support offices in 25 countries covering the U.S., Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India, and the Asia-Pacific regions.

Manufacturing, Assembly and Testing

We manufacture or engage in the final assembly and testing of our mSwitch, PAS systems, handsets and AN-2000 products at our manufacturing facility in the Chinese province of Zhejiang. The manufacturing operations consist of circuit board assembly, final system assembly, software installation and testing. We assemble circuit boards primarily using surface mount technology. Assembled boards are individually tested prior to final assembly and tested again at the system level prior to system shipment. We use internally developed functional and parametric tests for quality management and process control and have developed an internal system to track quality statistics at a serial number level.

Our manufacturing facility is ISO 9001-2000 certified. ISO 9001-2000 certification requires that the certified entity establish, maintain and follow an auditable quality process including documentation requirements, development, training, testing and continuous improvement which is periodically audited by an independent external auditor.

We contract with third parties in China to perform high volume assembly and manufacturing of our handsets and some high volume single boards for AN-2000, PAS and mSwitch systems. We conduct final assembly, testing and packaging at our own facilities and generally use third parties for high volume assembly of circuit boards.

We have also contracted with various suppliers to provide PAS wireless base station components for distribution under the UTStarcom label. In China, we undertake final assembly and test our wireless infrastructure products at our own facilities and have started to manufacture some of these products ourselves.

Research and Development

We believe it is essential to continue to develop and introduce new and enhanced products if we are to maintain our competitive position. While we use competitive analyses and technology trends as factors in our product development plans, the primary input for new products and product enhancements comes from soliciting and analyzing information about service providers’ needs. Our relationships with China’s Ministry of Information Industry and Telecommunications Administration and individual telecommunications bureaus and our full-service post-sale customer support in China provide our research and development organization with insight into trends and developments in the marketplace. The insights provided from these relationships allow us to develop market-driven products such as PAS, mSwitch and IP-DSLAM. We maintain a strong relationship between our research centers in the U.S. and China. We rotate engineers between the U.S. and China to further integrate our research and development operations. We have been able to cost-effectively hire highly skilled technical employees from a large pool of qualified candidates in China. We also have a development center in India to take advantage of the talent pool available there, and to support our operations in India. Our research and development centers are ISO 9001-2000 certified.

27

In the past we have made, and expect to continue to make, significant investments in research and development. Our research and development expenditures totaled $182.9 million in 2006, $246.8 million in 2005, and $219.1 million in 2004.

Intellectual Property

Our ability to compete is dependent in part on our proprietary technology. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, as well as confidentiality agreements and licensing arrangements, to establish and protect our proprietary rights. We hold U.S. and foreign patents for our existing products expiring between 2014 and 2023, and have patents pending in both the U.S. and in foreign countries. In addition, we have, from time to time, chosen to abandon previously filed applications. Patents may not be issued and any patents issued may not cover the scope of the claims sought in the applications. Additionally, issued patents may be found to be invalid or unenforceable in the courts of those countries where we hold or have filed for patents. Our U.S. patents do not afford any intellectual property protection in China or other international jurisdictions. Additionally, patents that we hold in countries other than the United States do not afford any intellectual property protection in the United States. Please refer to the discussion of risks associated with our intellectual property in “Item 1A-Risk Factors—Factors Affecting Future Operating Results.”

Seasonality

Our revenues and earnings have not demonstrated consistent seasonal characteristics. While we experience some seasonality typical of the telecommunications industry, such as seasonally weak first quarters, that is often offset by other mitigating factors such as customer concentration and timing of revenue recognition.

ITEM 1A—RISK FACTORS

FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE OPERATING RESULTS

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMPANY

The restatement of our consolidated financial statements following the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s and management’s review of our past stock option granting practices and the Audit Committee’s and management’s review of certain sales in China has resulted in expanded litigation and regulatory proceedings and may result in future litigation which could harm our financial results

Our review of our historic option granting practices and certain sales in China has required us to incur substantial expenses for legal, accounting, tax and other professional services, has diverted our management’s attention from our business, and could in the future harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors (“Audit Committee”) engaged independent counsel to conduct an investigation of sales in China. The independent counsel engaged forensic accountants. The China sales investigation, which commenced in February 2007 and was completed in September 2007, covered each of the seven years in the period ended December 31, 2006. As a result of the review, management concluded and recommended to the Audit Committee that our previously issued financial statements should be restated to defer the system sales contract revenue and the related cost of net sales for certain sales arrangements in one region of China found to contain post-contract support obligations and recognize such amounts in our consolidated statements of operations over the estimated period of post-contract support. The Audit Committee concurred with management’s recommendation.

28

In November 2006 we announced that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors (“Governance Committee”), comprised of independent directors, was conducting a voluntary review, with the assistance of independent legal counsel and forensic accounting experts (the “Option Grant Review Team”), of our historic option granting practices, the timing of option grants and related accounting matters. The review considered all option grant awards made in the period from February 29, 2000, shortly before the initial public offering of our Common Stock, through August 2006 for compliance with the various stock-based compensation accounting standards applicable as well as the rules of our stock option plans. Upon completion of the review, management concluded the adjustments to correct errors in stock option accounting in our previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 2000 through 2005, and the quarterly periods of 2005, as well as in the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2006 that are reflected in our consolidated financial statements included in Exhibit 99.1 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be made.

In determining the restatement adjustments in connection with the review of our historical option granting practices, management used all reasonably available relevant information to form conclusions it believes are reasonable as to the most likely option granting actions that occurred, the dates when such actions occurred, and the determination of grant dates for financial accounting purposes based on when the requirements of the accounting standards were met. The Option Grant Review Team and management considered various alternatives throughout the course of the review and restatement; management believes the adjustments to measurement dates used in our restatement of our financial statements are reasonable and appropriate in our circumstances.

Our restatement of previously issued financial statements to correct revenue recognition for certain sales in China and for the effects of past stock options granting practices has exposed us to greater risks associated with litigation and regulatory proceedings. We have voluntarily provided information about the conduct of our independent investigation and review, the findings of the reviews, and our conclusions to the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and are cooperating, and will continue to cooperate fully with the SEC. In addition, as described in Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings,” of this Form 10-K, several derivative complaints have been filed against certain of our current and former officers and directors pertaining to allegations relating to stock option grants. However, our judgments may be challenged in legal proceedings or regulatory reviews, and we could be subject to adverse findings that could require us to again restate our financial statements, to pay damages or penalties, or have other remedies imposed upon us that could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We may also be exposed to legal proceedings in connection with the results of our investigation of certain sales in China. We cannot guarantee that new lawsuits related to the matters resulting in the restatements will not be filed, and we cannot predict the outcome of any current or potential future litigation or regulatory proceeding against the Company or our current and former directors or officers.

The matters relating to the Audit Committee’s investigation of revenue recognition in China, the Governance Committee’s review of our past stock option granting practice, and the restatement of our consolidated financial statements may otherwise adversely impact our business.

As a result of our delayed filing of our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended September 30, 2006, March 31, 2007 and June 30, 2007, as well as this Form 10-K, we will be ineligible to register our securities on Form S-3 for sale by us or resale by others until we have been current in our SEC filings for 12 calendar months. We may use Form S-1 to raise capital, but doing so could increase transaction costs and the time required to complete such transactions.

Employees who were awarded options at a discount from fair market value and were totally or partially unvested as of December 31, 2004, may be subject to a penalty tax under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”) and corresponding states taxes upon exercise of these stock options. We are considering certain actions, which we believe would be in the best interests of our stockholders and

29

employees that might substantially reduce or eliminate the federal and state penalty taxes. However, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in developing effective measures to address employees’ adverse tax consequences, and any such measures may cause us to incur additional cash or noncash compensation expense. Furthermore, such measures, or the failure of such measures, may require the Company to incur substantial expenses for legal, accounting, tax and other professional services and may divert management’s attention from our business, which could in the future harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our future product sales are unpredictable and, as a result, our operating results are likely to fluctuate from quarter to quarter.

Our quarterly and annual operating results have fluctuated in the past and are likely to fluctuate in the future due to a variety of factors, some of which are outside of our control. Factors that may affect our future operating results include:

·       the timing and size of the orders for our products;

·       consumer acceptance of new products we may introduce to market;

·       changes in the growth rate of customer purchases of communications services;

·       the lengthy and unpredictable sales cycles associated with sales of our products;

·       revenue recognition, which is based primarily on customer acceptance of delivered products, is unpredictable;

·       cancellation, deferment or delay in implementation of large contracts;

·       quality issues resulting from the design or manufacture of the products, or from the software used in the product;

·       cash collection cycles in China and other emerging markets;

·       reliance on product, software and component suppliers who may constitute a sole source of supply or may have going concern issues;

·       the decline in business activity we typically experience during the Chinese Lunar New Year, which leads to decreased sales and collections during our first fiscal quarter;

·       issues that might arise from the integration of acquired entities or the inability to achieve expected results from such acquisitions; and

·       shifts in our product mix or market focus.

As a result of these and other factors, period-to-period comparisons of our operating results are not necessarily meaningful or indicative of future performance. In addition, the factors noted above may make it difficult for us to forecast and provide in a timely manner public guidance (including updates to prior guidance) related to our projected financial performance. Furthermore, it is possible that in some future quarters our operating results will fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. If this occurs, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Competition in our markets may lead to reduced prices, revenues and market share.

We have experienced intense competition in the past years, and we believe that we will continue to face intense competition from both domestic and international companies in our target markets, many of which may operate under lower cost structures or may be given preferential treatment by applicable governmental regulators and policies and have much larger sales forces than we do. Additionally, other

30

companies not presently offering competing products may also enter our target markets. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, product development, sales, marketing and other resources than we do. As a result, our competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies and changes in service provider requirements. Our competitors may also be able to devote greater resources than we can to the development, promotion and sale of new products. These competitors may be able to offer significant financing arrangements to service providers, which may give them a competitive advantage in selling systems to service providers with limited financial resources. In many of the developing markets in which we operate or intend to operate, relationships with local governmental telecommunications agencies are important to establish and maintain. In many such markets, our competitors may have or be able to establish better relationships with local governmental telecommunications agencies than we have, which could result in their ability to influence governmental policy formation and interpretation to their advantage. Additionally, our competitors might have better relationships with their third party suppliers and obtain component parts at a reduced rate, allowing them to offer their end products at reduced prices. Moreover, the telecommunications and data transmission industries have experienced significant consolidation, and we expect this trend to continue. If we have fewer significant customers, we may be more reliant on such large customers and our bargaining position and profit margins may suffer. Increased competition is likely to result in price reductions, reduced gross profit as a percentage of net sales and loss of market share, any one of which could materially harm our business, cash flows and financial condition, including potential impairment in value of our tangible and intangible assets and goodwill if extended losses were incurred.

We have incurred net losses in the past and will need to renew our lines of credit in China, refinance our convertible subordinated notes, and transfer cash from our subsidiaries in China to have sufficient cash resources and liquidity. Our ability to accomplish these actions is not assured, and our ability to raise funds for other purposes is uncertain.

At December 31, 2006, we had cash and short-term investments of $671.2 million to meet our liquidity requirements of which $483.7 million was held by our subsidiaries in China. China imposes currency exchange controls on transfers of funds outside of China; such controls limit transfers of approximately $200 million of our net assets outside of China without first obtaining the consent of the Chinese government. While we believed the China subsidiaries could freely transfer at least $200 million as of December 31, 2006, the amount of cash available for transfer from the China subsidiaries is limited both by the liquidity needs of the subsidiaries in China and by the Chinese government requirements that the China subsidiaries retain adequate capital levels in China to protect creditors and to have funds available for mandated employee benefits. Additionally, available credit facilities in China at December 31, 2006 totaled $698.3 million, of which $357.5 million was available for working capital purposes and $340.8 million was available for use in support of letters of credit and corporate guarantees. These credit facilities expire principally in November and December 2007, and we had borrowed $102.5 million at December 31, 2006 under the working capital portion of the available credit lines, and such borrowings increased to $140.1 million at September 30, 2007. We also have outstanding long-term debt outside of China in the form of our convertible subordinated notes with a principal balance of $274.6 million that mature in March 2008 (the “Notes”).

During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 our China subsidiaries have made transfers of funds out of China to the Company totaling $150 million. Although we believe the Company now has sufficient amount of cash resources to finance the Company’s anticipated working capital and capital expenditure requirements for the next 12 months, we do not have enough cash outside of China to also repay the convertible notes maturing in March 2008, and we expect our recent financial performance and financial position will cause the lenders to reduce the total available credit facilities when we negotiate renewals of the lines of credit in China in late 2007. Management’s liquidity plans include a partial or complete refinancing of the convertible notes, renewal of the lines of credit in China, transfers of additional

31

cash from its subsidiaries in China to the extent necessary, and, if needed, liquidation of certain investments and/or seeking new financing arrangements. In addition, it may be necessary for us to make significant changes to our business plan to maintain adequate liquidity for at least the next 12 months in the event of various matters, such as:

·       changes in financial market conditions or our business condition that could limit our access to existing credit facilities or make planned re-financings more costly or even unfeasible;

·       changes in China’s currency exchange control regulations that could limit our ability to access cash in China to meet liquidity requirements outside of China; and

·       inability to achieve planned operating results that could increase liquidity requirements beyond those considered in our financial plans.

We may desire to raise additional funds for purposes not presently included in our financial plans such as to develop new or enhanced products, respond to competitive pressures, take advantage of acquisition opportunities or raise capital for strategic purposes. There is no assurance that additional financing for these or other purposes would be available on acceptable terms or at all. If we raise additional funds through the issuance of equity securities, our stockholders will experience dilution of their ownership interest, and the newly issued securities may have rights superior to those of common stock. If we raise additional funds by issuing debt, our ability to meet our debt service obligations will be dependent upon our future performance, which will be subject to financial, business and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control, we may be subject to limitations on our operations, and our leverage may increase. The degree to which we are leveraged could materially and adversely affect our ability to obtain financing for working capital, acquisitions or other purposes and could make us more vulnerable to industry downturns and competitive pressures.

Our ability to meet our obligations under the terms of our outstanding convertible notes and to continue operations may be compromised if we are unable to transfer funds from our China operations as needed.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 our China subsidiaries have made transfers of funds out of China to the Company totaling $150 million. Although we believe the Company now has sufficient amount of cash resources to finance the Company’s anticipated working capital and capital expenditure requirements for the next 12 months, we do not have enough cash outside of China to also repay the convertible notes aggregating $275 million maturing on March 1, 2008. Because we are limited by the Chinese government’s imposition of currency controls on transfer of funds outside of China, it may be time-consuming, difficult and /or expensive for us to transfer funds from China to repay the Notes. As a result, if an Event of Default on the Notes were to occur, we may not have sufficient cash resources to repay the Notes and to continue operations without seeking new financing arrangements. We cannot be certain that additional financing for these purposes would be available on acceptable terms or at all, and if such financing is not available, our business could be seriously harmed. See the risk factor entitled “We face a variety of risks related to our convertible subordinated notes” for a further description of our obligations under the Notes, our recent consent solicitation of the noteholders and our compliance with certain covenants under the Indenture.

32

Sales in China have historically accounted for a material portion of our total sales, and our business, financial condition and results of operations are to a significant degree subject to economic, political and social events, and the performance of our senior management team in China.

Approximately $785.5 million, or 32%, $870.6 million, or 30%, and $2,028.2 million, or 79%, of our net sales for fiscal years 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, occurred in China. While we have expanded into other markets, we have made substantial investments in China and, therefore, our business, financial condition and results of operations are to a significant degree subject to economic, political, legal and social developments and other events in China. In addition, we have had significant changes within our senior management team in China recently, and our current senior management team as a whole does not have the same degree of experience in China as our senior management team had in the past. (See the risk factor entitled “Our success is dependent on continuing to hire and retain qualified personnel, including for senior management positions, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining these personnel and in managing key employee turnover, our business will suffer”). If our current senior management in China cannot maintain and /or establish key relationships with customers, governmental entities and others in China, our business in China may decline significantly. If our business in China declines, our financial condition and results of operations may be significantly harmed.

The average selling prices of our products may decrease, which may reduce our revenues and our gross profit. As a result, we must introduce new products and reduce our costs in order to maintain profitability.

The average selling prices for communications access and switching systems and handsets have historically declined as a result of a number of factors, including:

·       increased competition;

·       aggressive price reductions by competitors;

·       rapid technological change; and

·       constant change in customer buying behavior and market trends.

The average selling prices of our products may continue to decrease in the future in response to product introductions by us or our competitors or other factors, including price pressures from customers. Certain of our products, including wireless handsets, have historically had low gross profit margins, and any further deterioration of our profit margins on such products could result in losses with respect to such products. Therefore, we must continue to develop, source and introduce new products and enhancements to existing products that incorporate features that can be sold at higher average selling prices. Failure to do so or the failure of consumers or our direct customers to accept such new products could cause our revenues and gross profit to decline.

Our cost reduction efforts initiated in 2005 and our subsequent efforts in the second half of 2007 and early 2008 may not allow us to keep pace with competitive pricing pressures or lead to improved gross profit, as a percentage of net sales. In order to be competitive, we must continually reduce the cost of manufacturing our products through design and engineering changes. We may not be successful in these efforts or in delivering our products to market in a timely manner. In addition, any redesign may not result in sufficient cost reductions to allow us to reduce the prices of our products to remain competitive or to improve or maintain our gross profit, as a percentage of net sales, which would cause our financial results to suffer.

33

Our market is subject to rapid technological change, and to compete effectively, we must continually introduce new products and product enhancements that achieve market acceptance.

The market for communications equipment is characterized by rapid technological developments, frequent new product introductions, changes in consumer preferences and evolving industry and regulatory standards. Our success will depend in large part on our ability to enhance our technologies and develop and introduce new products and product enhancements that anticipate changing service provider requirements, technological developments and evolving consumer preferences. We may need to make substantial capital expenditures and incur significant research and development costs to develop and introduce new products and enhancements. If we fail to develop and introduce new products or enhancements to existing products that effectively respond to technological change on a timely basis, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Certain of our products, including wireless handsets, have a short product life. Moreover, from time to time, our competitors or we may announce new products or product enhancements, technologies or services that have the potential to replace or shorten the life cycles of our products and that may cause customers to defer purchasing our existing products, resulting in charges for inventory obsolescence reserves. Future technological advances in the communications industry may diminish or inhibit market acceptance of our existing or future products or render our products obsolete. Even if we are able to develop and introduce new products, they may not gain market acceptance. Market acceptance of our products will depend on various factors, including:

·       our ability to obtain necessary approvals from regulatory organizations within the countries in which we operate and for any new technologies that we introduce;

·       the length of time it takes service providers to evaluate our products, causing the timing of purchases to be unpredictable;

·       the compatibility of our products with legacy technologies and standards existing in previously deployed network equipment;

·       our ability to attract customers who may have pre-existing relationships with our competitors;

·       product pricing relative to performance;

·       the level of customer service available to support new products; and

·       the timing of new product introductions meeting demand patterns.

If our products fail to obtain market acceptance in a timely manner, our business and results of operations could suffer.

We depend on some sole source and key suppliers for handsets, base stations, components and materials used in our products. If we cannot secure adequate supplies of high quality products at competitive prices or in a timely manner from these suppliers or sources, or if the suppliers successfully market their products directly to our customers, our competitive position, reputation and business could be harmed.

We have contracts with a limited group of suppliers to purchase some components and materials used in our products. If any supplier is unwilling or unable to provide us with high-quality components and materials in the quantities required and at the costs specified by us, we may not be able to find alternative sources on favorable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. Further, a supplier could market its products directly to our customers. The possibility of a supplier marketing its own products would create direct competition and may affect our ability to obtain adequate supplies. Our inability to obtain or to develop alternative sources if and as required could result in delays or reductions in manufacturing or product shipments. From time to time, there could be shortages of certain products or components. Moreover, our suppliers may supply us with inferior quality products. If an inferior product supplied by a third party is

34

embedded in our end product and causes a problem, it might be difficult to identify the source of the problem as being due to the component parts. If any of these events occur, our competitive position, reputation and business could suffer.

Our ability to source a sufficient quantity of high-quality, cost-effective components used in our products may also be limited by import restrictions and duties in the foreign countries in which we manufacture our products. We require a significant number of imported components to manufacture our products, and imported electronic components and other imported goods used in the operation of our business may be limited by a variety of permit requirements, approval procedures, patent infringement claims, import duties and licensing requirements. As an example, a recent court case between a third party and one of our suppliers involved a patent dispute potentially restricting the importation of handsets into the U.S. While this case has been resolved in the supplier’s favor at the trial court level, our supply of products could be affected by similar cases in the future. Moreover, import duties on such components increase the cost of our products and may make them less competitive.

Product defects or performance quality issues could cause us to lose customers and revenue or to incur unexpected expenses.

Many of our products are highly complex and may have quality deficiencies resulting from the design or manufacture of such product, or from the software or components used in the product. For example, during 2005 we recorded warranty charges of $70.6 million, including special warranty charges of $11.7 million for certain asynchronous digital subscriber line (“ADSL”) products, $4.0 million for NetRing™ equipment and $14.9 million for GEPON equipment sold to SBBC, an affiliate of SOFTBANK CORP and SOFTBANK America Inc., during 2003 and 2004. Often these issues are identified prior to the shipment of the products and may cause delays in market acceptance of our products, delays in shipping products to customers, or the cancellation of orders. In other cases, we may identify the quality issues after the shipment of products. In such cases, we may incur unexpected expenses and diversion of resources to replace defective products or correct problems. Such pre-shipment and post-shipment quality issues could result in delays in the recognition of revenue, loss of revenue or future orders, and damage to our reputation and customer relationships. In addition, we may be required to pay damages for failed performance under certain customer contracts, and may receive claims from customers related to the performance of our products. Such pre-shipment and post-shipment quality issues could result in delays in the recognition of revenue, loss of revenue or future orders, and damage to our reputation and customer relationships. In addition, we may be required to pay damages for failed performance under certain customer contracts and may receive claims from customers related to the performance of our products.

Our global diversification strategy and growth has strained our resources, adversely affected our reported gross margins, and if we are unable to manage this growth, our future operating results will be further negatively affected.

Over the last four years we have experienced a rapid expansion of our international operations and anticipate that we must continue to transform our operations to address market demands and potential market opportunities globally.

Competition in international markets for new service provider customers and for new infrastructure deployments is particularly intense and increasingly focused on price. To meet competitive offerings we may accept contracts with low profitability or even enter into contracts with anticipated losses if we believe it is necessary to establish a relationship with a customer or a presence in a market that we consider important to our international expansion strategy. We believe these decisions will facilitate the development of our international business, but we can provide no assurance that they will. Accepting a contract with an anticipated loss requires us to a recognize a provision for the entire loss in the period in which it becomes evident rather than in later periods in which contract performance occurs. Accepting

35

contracts with low gross margins adversely affects our reported results when the revenues from such contracts are recognized; in some cases revenue recognition must be deferred until all revenue recognition criteria have been met, and this would result in recognizing the adverse effects of low gross margin contracts in periods subsequent to when contract performance occurred.

Our transformation to a global focus will place a significant strain on our management, operational, financial and other resources. To manage this transformation effectively, we will need to take various actions, including:

·       enhancing management information systems, including forecasting procedures;

·       further developing our operating, administrative, financial and accounting systems and controls;

·       managing our working capital and sources of financing;

·       maintaining close coordination among our engineering, accounting, finance, marketing, sales and operations organizations;

·       retaining, training and managing our employee base;

·       enhancing human resource operations and improving employee hiring and training programs;

·       reorganizing our business structure to more effectively allocate and utilize our internal resources;

·       improving and sustaining our supply chain capability; and

·       managing both our direct and indirect sales channels in a cost-efficient and competitive manner.

If we fail to implement or improve systems or controls or to manage any future growth and transformation effectively, our business could suffer.

Any failure by us to execute planned cost reductions successfully could result in total costs and expenses that are greater than expected.

From time to time we have undertaken restructuring plans to bring operational expenses to appropriate levels for each of our businesses, while simultaneously implementing extensive new company-wide expense-control programs. For example, in 2005, we announced workforce restructurings. These programs resulted in the termination of approximately 1,595 employees worldwide through December 31, 2005. We anticipate making further workforce reductions and taking additional rebalancing actions in the future. In October 2007, our Board of Directors approved a restructuring plan which includes a worldwide reduction in force of approximately 11% of the Company’s headcount, or approximately 700 employees. We expect cost savings from planned restructuring activities to be used to offset market forces or to be reinvested in our businesses to strengthen our competitiveness, but we cannot be certain that we will be successful in these efforts. Significant risks associated with these actions and other workforce management issues that may impair our ability to achieve anticipated cost reductions or may otherwise harm our business include delays in implementation of anticipated workforce reductions in highly regulated locations outside of the United States, particularly in Europe and Asia, redundancies among restructuring programs, decreases in employee morale and the failure to meet operational targets due to the loss of employees, particularly sales employees.

Our success is dependent on continuing to hire and retain qualified personnel, including for senior management positions, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining these personnel and in managing key employee turnover, our business will suffer.

The success of our business depends in significant part upon the continued contributions of key technical and senior management personnel, many of whom would be difficult to replace. In particular,

36

our success depends in large part on the knowledge, expertise and services of Hong Liang Lu, our Chief Executive Officer, Peter Blackmore, our President and Chief Operating Officer, Francis P. Barton, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Philip Christopher, President and Chief Executive Officer of our Personal Communications Division. The loss of any key employee, the failure of any key employee to perform satisfactorily in his or her current position or our failure to attract and retain other key technical and senior management employees could have a significant negative impact on our operations. We have had significant changes within our senior management team recently, and our current senior management team as a whole does not have the same degree of experience in China as our senior management had in the past. If our current senior management cannot maintain and/or establish key relationships with customers, governmental entities and others in China, our business in China may decline significantly and our financial condition and results of operations may be significantly harmed.

Notwithstanding our workforce restructurings, to effectively manage our operations, we will need to recruit, train, assimilate, motivate and retain qualified employees both locally and internationally. Competition for qualified employees is intense, and the process of recruiting personnel in all fields, including technology, research and development, sales and marketing, administration and management with the combination of skills and attributes required to execute our business strategy can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive. As we grow globally, we must implement hiring and training processes that are capable of quickly deploying qualified local residents to knowledgeably support our products and services. Alternatively, if there is an insufficient number of qualified local residents available, we might incur substantial costs importing expatriates to service new global markets. For example, we have historically experienced difficulty finding qualified accounting personnel knowledgeable in both U.S. and Chinese accounting standards who are Chinese residents. If we fail to attract, hire, assimilate or retain qualified personnel, our business would be harmed. Competitors and others have in the past, and may in the future, attempt to recruit our employees. In addition, companies in the telecommunications industry whose employees accept positions with competitors frequently claim that the competitors have engaged in unfair hiring practices. We may be the subject of these types of claims in the future as we seek to hire qualified personnel. Some of these claims may result in material litigation and disruption to our operations. We could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves against these claims, regardless of their merit.

Any acquisitions and divestitures that we undertake could be difficult to integrate, disrupt our business, dilute our stockholders and harm our operating results.

We have acquired and divested certain businesses, products and technologies. Anticipated benefits of these acquisitions and divestitures may not be realized. We have in the past and will continue to evaluate acquisition prospects that would complement our existing product offerings, augment our market coverage, enhance our technological capabilities, or that may otherwise offer growth opportunities. Acquisitions may result in dilutive issuances of equity securities, use of our cash resources, the incurrence of debt and the amortization of expenses related to intangible assets. In addition, acquisitions involve numerous risks, including difficulties in the assimilation of operations, technologies, products and personnel of the acquired company, diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns, risks of entering markets in which we have no direct or limited prior experience, the potential loss of key employees of the acquired company, unanticipated costs and, in the case of the acquisition of financially troubled businesses, challenges as to the validity of such acquisitions from third party creditors of such businesses. For example, in the fourth quarter 2004, we encountered difficulties in integrating Hyundai Syscomm, Inc. (“HSI”) legacy operations into our operations and determined to abandon a substantial amount of HSI’s legacy operations. As a result, in the fourth quarter 2004, we wrote off the entire goodwill and intangibles associated with HSI.

37

We may be unable to adequately protect the loss or misappropriation of our intellectual property, which could substantially harm our business.

We rely on a combination of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secret laws and contractual obligations to protect our technology. We have applied for patents in the United States and internationally. Additional patents may not be issued from our pending patent applications, and our issued patents may not be upheld. In addition, we have, from time to time, chosen to abandon previously filed patent and trademark applications. Moreover, we may face difficulties in registering our existing trademarks in new jurisdictions in which we operate, and we may be forced to abandon or change product or service trademarks because of the unavailability of our existing trademarks or because of oppositions filed or legal challenges to our trademark filings. We cannot guarantee that the intellectual property protection measures that we have taken will be sufficient to prevent misappropriation of our technology or trademarks or that our competitors will not independently develop technologies that are substantially equivalent or superior to ours. In addition, the legal systems of many foreign countries do not protect or honor intellectual property rights to the same extent as the legal system of the United States. For example, in China, the legal system in general, and the intellectual property regime in particular, are still in the development stage. It may be very difficult, time-consuming and costly for us to attempt to enforce our intellectual property rights in these jurisdictions.

We may be subject to claims that we infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which could substantially harm our business.

The industry in which we compete is moving towards aggressive assertion, licensing, and litigation of patents and other intellectual property rights. From time to time, we have become aware of the possibility or have been notified that we may be infringing certain patents or other intellectual property rights of others. Regardless of their merit, responding to such claims could be time consuming, divert management’s attention and resources and cause us to incur significant expenses. In addition, although some of our supplier contracts provide for indemnification from the supplier with respect to losses or expenses incurred in connection with any infringement claim, certain contracts with our key suppliers do not provide for such protection. Moreover, certain of our sales contracts provide that we must indemnify our customers against claims by third parties for intellectual property rights infringement related to our products. There are no limitations on the maximum potential future payments under these guarantees. Therefore, we may incur substantial costs related to any infringement claim, which may substantially harm our results of operations and financial condition.

We have been and may in the future become subject to litigation to defend against claimed infringements of the rights of others or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Future litigation may also be necessary to enforce and protect our patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights. Any intellectual property litigation or threatened intellectual property litigation could be costly, and adverse determinations or settlements could result in the loss of our proprietary rights, subject us to significant liabilities, require us to seek licenses from or pay royalties to third parties which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all, and/or prevent us from manufacturing or selling our products, which could cause disruptions to our operations.

In the event that there is a successful claim of infringement against us and we fail to develop non-infringing technology or license the proprietary rights on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely impacted.

38

Our multinational operations subject us to various economic, political, regulatory and legal risks.

We market and sell our products globally, with a significant portion of our sales made in China. The expansion of our existing multinational operations and entry into new markets will require significant management attention and financial resources. Multinational operations are subject to a variety of risks, such as:

·       the burden of complying with a variety of foreign laws and regulations;

·       the burden of complying with United States laws and regulations for foreign operations, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

·       difficulty complying with continually evolving and changing global product and communications standards and regulations for both our end products and their component technology;

·       market acceptance of our new products, including longer product acceptance periods in new markets into which we enter;

·       reliance on local original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), third party distributors and agents to effectively market and sell our products;

·       unusual contract terms required by customers in developing markets;

·       changes in local governmental control or influence over our customers;

·       changes to import and export regulations, including quotas, tariffs, licensing restrictions and other trade barriers;

·       the burden of compliance with complex and varying taxation requirements of multiple jurisdictions;

·       evolving and unpredictable nature of the economic, regulatory, competitive and political environments;

·       reduced protection for intellectual property rights in some countries;

·       unproven business operation models developed or operated in specific countries or regions;

·       longer accounts receivable collection periods; and

·       difficulties and costs of staffing, monitoring and managing multinational operations, including but not limited to internal controls and compliance.

We do business in markets that are not fully developed, which subjects us to various economic, political, regulatory and legal risks unique to developing economies.

Less developed markets present additional risks, such as the following:

·       customers that may be unable to pay for our products in a timely manner or at all;

·       new and unproven markets for our products and the telecommunications services that our products enable;

·       lack of a large, highly trained workforce;

·       difficulty in controlling local operations from our headquarters;

·       variable ethical standards and an increased potential for fraud;

·       unstable political and economic environments; and

·       lack of a secure environment for our personnel, facilities and equipment.

39

In particular, these factors create the potential for physical loss of inventory and misappropriation of operating assets. We have in the past experienced cases of vandalism and armed theft of our equipment that had been or was being installed in the field. If disruptions for any of these reasons become too severe in any particular market, it may become necessary for us to terminate contracts and withdraw from that market and suffer the associated costs and lost revenue.

Our wireless handset products are subject to a wide range of environmental, health and safety laws, and may expose us to potential health and environmental liability claims.

Our handset products are subject to a wide range of environmental, health and safety laws, including laws relating to the use, disposal and clean up of, and human exposure to hazardous substances. In the United States, these laws often require parties to fund remedial action regardless of fault. Factors such as the discovery of additional contaminants, the extent of remediation and compliance expenses, and the imposition of additional clean up obligations could cause us to incur substantial costs relating to remediation activities. Compliance with existing or future environmental, health and safety laws could also cause us to incur substantial costs relating to such compliance, including the expense of modifying product designs and manufacturing processes. In addition, restrictions on the use of certain materials in our facilities or products in the future could have a negative impact on our operations.

Additionally, there have been claims made alleging a link between the use of wireless handsets and the development or aggravation of certain cancers, including brain cancer. The scientific community is divided on whether there is a risk from wireless handset use, and if so, the magnitude of the risk. Even if there is no link established between wireless handset use and cancer, the negative publicity and possible litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business. In the past, several plaintiffs’ groups have brought class actions against wireless handset manufacturers and distributors, alleging that wireless handsets have caused cancer. To date, we have not been named in any of these actions and none of these actions has been successful. In the future we could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves against similar claims, regardless of their merit. Also, claims may be successful in the future and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Furthermore, there have been claims made alleging a link between the use of Bluetooth enabled mobile phone handsets and noise-induced hearing loss. To date, we have not been named in any of these actions. In the future we could incur substantial costs in defending ourselves against similar claims, regardless of their merit. Also, claims may be successful in the future and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are subject to a wide range of environmental, health and safety laws and efforts to comply with such laws may be costly and may adversely impact our financial performance.

Our operations and the products we manufacture and/or sell are subject to a wide range of global environmental, health and safety laws. Compliance with existing or future environmental, health and safety laws could subject us to future costs, liabilities, impact our production capabilities, constrict our ability to sell, expand or acquire facilities and generally impact our financial performance. Some of these laws relate to the use, disposal, clean up of, and exposure to hazardous substances. In the United States, laws often require parties to fund remedial studies or action regardless of fault. Over the last several years, the European Union (the “EU”) countries have enacted environmental laws regulating electronic products. For example, beginning July 1, 2006, our products have been subject to laws that mandate the recycling of waste in electronic products sold in the EU and that limit or prohibit the use of certain substances in electronic products. Other countries outside of Europe are expected to adopt similar laws. We may incur additional expenses to comply with these laws.

40

Currency rate fluctuations and exchange controls may adversely affect our cash flow and operating results.

Because a significant percentage of our sales are made in foreign countries and denominated in local currency, we are exposed to market risk for changes in foreign exchange rates on our foreign currency denominated accounts and notes receivable balances. Historically, the majority of our sales have been made in China and denominated in Renminbi. Prior to July 2005, the impact of currency fluctuations of Renminbi were insignificant as it was fixed to the U.S. dollar. However, in July 2005, China uncoupled the Renminbi from the U.S. dollar and let it float in a narrow band against a basket of foreign currencies. The move revalued the Renminbi by 2.1% against the U.S. dollar; however, it is uncertain what further adjustments may be made in the future. The Renminbi-U.S. dollar exchange rate could float, and the Renminbi could appreciate relative to the U.S. dollar. For example, the Renminbi-U.S. dollar exchange rate was 8.28 to the U.S. dollar prior to the float of the Renminbi in July 2005 and 7.80 Renminbi to the U.S. dollar at December 31, 2006. Any significant revaluation of the Renminbi may materially and adversely affect our cash flows, revenues, operating results and financial position.

Outside of China, our primary foreign currency exposures have related to non-dollar denominated sales and purchases in Japan, Europe and Canada. Additionally, we have exposures to emerging market currencies, which can have extreme currency volatility. We have experienced material adverse impacts on our results of operations from fluctuations in currency exchange rates and may continue to do so in the future.

We may, from time to time, enter into foreign exchange forward contracts to minimize the short-term impact of foreign currency fluctuations on certain foreign currency receivables and payables. Our attempts to hedge against these risks may not be successful, resulting in an adverse impact on our results of operations. Moreover, some of the foreign countries in which we do business might impose currency restrictions that may limit the ability of our subsidiaries and joint ventures in such countries to obtain and remit foreign currency necessary for the purchase of imported components and may limit our ability to obtain and remit foreign currency in exchange for foreign earnings. For example, China employs currency controls restricting Renminbi conversion, limiting our ability to engage in currency hedging activities in China. Various foreign exchange controls may also make it difficult for us to repatriate earnings, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct business globally.

Business interruptions could adversely affect our business.

Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire, earthquake, power loss, telecommunications failure, external interference with our information technology systems, incidents of terrorism and other events beyond our control. For example, our Hangzhou manufacturing facility’s ability to produce sufficient products is dependent upon a continuous power supply. However, the Hangzhou facility has in the past been subject to power shortages, which has affected our ability to produce and ship sufficient products. Also, our operations in Alameda, California are located in an area prone to earthquakes. We do not have a detailed disaster recovery plan, and the occurrence of any events like these that disrupt our business could harm our business and operating results.

We may suffer losses with respect to equipment held at customer sites, which could harm our business.

We face the risk of loss relating to our equipment held at customer sites. In some cases, our equipment held at customer sites is under contract, pending final acceptance by the customer. We generally do not hold title or risk of loss on such equipment, as title and risk of loss are typically transferred to the customer upon delivery of our equipment. However, we do not recognize revenue and accounts receivable with respect to the sale of such equipment until we obtain acceptance from the customer. If we do not obtain final acceptance, we may not be able to collect the contract price and recover this equipment or its associated costs. In other cases, particularly in China, where governmental approval is

41

required to finalize certain contracts, inventory not under contract may be held at customer sites. We hold title and risk of loss on this inventory until the contracts are finalized and, as such, are subject to any losses incurred resulting from any damage to or loss of this inventory.

If our contract negotiations fail or if the government of China otherwise delays approving contracts, we may not recover or receive payment for this inventory. Moreover, our insurance may not cover all losses incurred if our inventory at customer sites not under contract is damaged prior to contract finalization. If we incur a loss relating to inventory for any of the above reasons, our financial condition, cash flows, and operating results could be harmed.

Restrictions on the use of handsets while driving could affect our future growth.

Several foreign governments and U.S. state and local governments have adopted or are considering adopting legislation that would restrict or prohibit the use of wireless handsets while driving. Widespread legislation that restricts or prohibits the use of wireless handsets while driving could negatively affect our future growth.

We have been named as a defendant in securities litigation and other lawsuits, as well as lawsuits in the ordinary course of business.

Currently, we are a defendant in securities litigation class action lawsuits, as well as other lawsuits. Additionally, from time to time we are plaintiffs or defendants in other lawsuits including lawsuits in the ordinary course of our business. The pursuit or defense of these lawsuits may divert our management’s attention, and we may incur significant expenses in pursuing or defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay judgments or settlements that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

We face risks related to pending governmental inquiries.

In September 2005, we received notice of a formal inquiry by the staff of the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into certain aspects of our financial disclosures during prior reporting periods and certain other issues. In addition, in December 2005, the U.S. Embassy in Mongolia informed us that it had forwarded to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) allegations that an agent of our Mongolia joint venture had offered payments to a Mongolian government official in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). We, through our Audit Committee, authorized an independent investigation into possible violations of the FCPA, and we have been in contact with the DOJ and 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 and the SEC has subpoenaed the Company for documents. The Company has executed tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations for the FCPA issues under investigation by the SEC and the DOJ and the immigration issues under investigation by the DOJ. At this time, we cannot predict when any inquiry will be completed or what the outcome of any inquiry will be. These inquiries could harm relationships with existing customers and our ability to obtain new customers and partners. If the SEC or the DOJ makes a determination that we have violated federal laws, we may face sanctions including, but not limited to, fines, disgorgement and an injunction. Additionally, such a determination by the SEC or the DOJ could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flow, and ultimately our stock price.

We have also been in communication with the SEC regarding our voluntary review of our historical option grant awards grant practices and our review of certain historical sales contracts in China. Although

42

we have now completed both of those voluntary reviews, it is possible that the SEC may question the findings of our reviews or initiate its own review into related matters.

It is possible that the findings and outcome of any of these inquiries may affect other lawsuits that are pending. These inquiries could divert management attention and resources, which could harm our business.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) requires that we establish and maintain an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting and include a report of management on our internal control over financial reporting. Our annual report on Form 10-K must contain an assessment by management of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and must include disclosure of any material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting that we have identified. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm must attest to and report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. See “Item 9A—Controls and Procedures—Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.”  As of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, we are still in the process of implementing remedial measures related to the material weaknesses identified in 2004 through 2006. If our efforts to remediate the weaknesses we identified are not successful, our business and operating results could be harmed and the reliability of our financial statements could be impaired, which could adversely affect our stock price. The requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are ongoing and also apply to future years. We expect that our internal control over financial reporting will continue to evolve as we continue in our efforts to transform our business. Although we are committed to continue to improve our internal control processes and we will continue to diligently and vigorously review our internal control over financial reporting in order to ensure compliance with the Section 404 requirements, any control system, regardless of how well designed, operated and evaluated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that its objectives will be met. In addition, successful remediation of the noted control deficiencies is dependent on the Company’s ability to hire and retain qualified personnel. Therefore, we cannot be certain that in the future additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies will not exist or otherwise be discovered.

RISKS RELATED TO CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN CHINA

China’s governmental and regulatory reforms may impact our ability to do business in China.

Since 1978, the Chinese government has been in a state of evolution and reform. The reforms have resulted in and are expected to continue to result in significant economic and social development in China. Many of the reforms are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to change or readjustment due to a variety of political, economic and social factors. Multiple government bodies are involved in regulating and administering affairs in the telecommunications and information technology industries, among which the Ministry of Information Industry (“MII”), the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (“SASAC”) and the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (“SARFT”) play the leading roles. These government agencies have broad discretion and authority over all aspects of the telecommunications and information technology industry in China, including but not limited to, setting the telecommunications tariff structure, granting carrier licenses and frequencies, approving equipment and products, granting product licenses, approving of the form and content of transmitted data, specifying technological standards as well as appointing carrier executives, all of which may impact our ability to do business in China.

43

Any of the following changes in China’s political and economic conditions and governmental policies could have a substantial impact on our business:

·       the promulgation of new laws and regulations and the interpretation of those laws and regulations;

·       inconsistent enforcement and application of the telecommunications industry’s rules and regulations by the Chinese government between foreign and domestic companies;

·       the restructuring of telecommunications carriers in China, including policy making governing 3G network infrastructure and licensing;

·       restrictions on IPTV license grants, which could limit the potential market for our products;

·       the introduction of measures to control inflation or stimulate growth;

·       the introduction of new guidelines for tariffs and service rates, which affect our ability to competitively price our products and services;

·       changes in the rate or method of taxation;

·       the imposition of laws, rules or regulations affecting the direct or indirect nationalization of assets controlled by non-governmental persons or entities;

·       the imposition of additional restrictions on currency conversion and remittances abroad; or

·       any actions that limit our ability to develop, manufacture, import or sell our products in China, or to finance and operate our business in China.

In addition to modifying the existing telecommunications regulatory framework, the Chinese government is currently preparing a draft of a standard, national telecommunications law (“Telecommunications Law”) to provide a uniform regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry. Currently a draft of the law has been finished and delivered to the National People’s Congress for discussion. We do not yet know the final nature or scope of the regulations that would be created if the Telecommunications Law is passed. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether it will have a positive or negative effect on us or on some or all aspects of our business.

Under China’s current regulatory structure, the communications products that we offer in China must meet government and industry standards. In addition, a network access license for the equipment must be obtained. Without a license, telecommunications equipment is not allowed to be connected to public telecommunications networks or sold in China. Moreover, we must ensure that the quality of the telecommunications equipment for which we have obtained a network access license is stable and reliable, and will not negatively affect the quality or performance of other installed licensed products.

China’s changing economic environment may impact our ability to do business in China.

Since 1978, the Chinese government has been reforming the economic system in China to increase the emphasis placed on decentralization and the utilization of market forces in the development of China’s economy. These reforms have resulted in significant economic growth. However, any economic reform policies or measures in China may from time to time be modified or revised by the Chinese government. While we may be able to benefit from the effects of some of these policies, these policies and other measures taken by the Chinese government to regulate the economy could also have a significant negative impact on economic conditions in China, which would result in a negative impact on our business.

44

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and relaxation of trade restrictions have led to increased foreign investment in China’s telecommunications industry and may lead to increased competition in our markets which may have an adverse impact on our business.

China’s economic environment has been changing as a result of China’s entry, in December of 2001, into the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). Foreign investment in the telecommunications sector is regulated by the “Provisions on Administration of Foreign Invested Telecommunications Enterprises” promulgated by the State Council in December 2001 and effective as of January 1, 2002. The provisions brought foreign equity limits into conformity with China’s WTO commitments, allowing foreign investors to own equity generally up to 49% for basic telecom services enterprises and up to 50% for value-added telecom services enterprises. Furthermore, China is gradually introducing a market oriented pricing mechanism for telecommunication services. On July 13, 2005, China’s Ministry of Information Industry (“MII”) and National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) approved the launch of plan-based pricing for fixed-line telephone service by China’s two fixed-line operators, China Telecom and China Netcom. In August 2005, MII and NDRC endorsed a “Circular on the Changes in Administration of Telecom Service Pricing,” which became effective on October 1, 2005 and further relaxed the pricing administration on certain telecom services.  As China gradually relaxes such legal provisions, international telecommunication service vendors may seize this opportunity to adjust their China strategy, increasing their investment in China and converting some of their joint-ventures into fully-owned enterprises.

As the existing international vendors increase their investment in China, and more vendors enter the China market, the competition in the telecommunication equipment market may increase, and as a result, our business may suffer. If China’s entry into the WTO results in increased competition or has a negative impact on China’s economy, our business could suffer. In addition, although China is increasingly according foreign companies and foreign investment enterprises established in China the same rights and privileges as Chinese domestic companies as a result of its admission into the WTO, special laws, administrative rules and regulations governing foreign companies and foreign investment enterprises in China may still place foreign companies at a disadvantage in relation to Chinese domestic companies and may adversely affect our competitive position.

Uncertainties with respect to the Chinese legal system may adversely affect us.

We conduct our business in China primarily through our wholly owned subsidiaries incorporated in China. Our subsidiaries are generally subject to laws and regulations applicable to foreign investment in China. Accordingly, our business might be affected by China’s developing legal system. Since 1978, many new laws and regulations covering general economic matters have been promulgated in China, and government policies and internal rules promulgated by governmental agencies may not be published in time, or at all. As a result, we may operate our business in violation of new rules and policies without having any knowledge of their existence. In addition, there are uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of laws, rules and policies in China. Governmental authorities have broad discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of the laws, regulations and rules. The Chinese legal system is based on written statutes, and prior court decisions have limited precedential value. Because many laws and regulations are relatively new and the Chinese legal system is still evolving, the interpretations of many laws, regulations and rules are not always uniform. Moreover, the relative inexperience of China’s judiciary in many cases creates additional uncertainty as to the outcome of any litigation, and the interpretation of statutes and regulations may be subject to government policies reflecting domestic political changes. Finally, enforcement of existing laws or contracts based on existing law may be uncertain and sporadic, and it may be difficult to obtain swift and equitable enforcement, or to obtain enforcement of a judgment by a court of another jurisdiction. Any litigation in China may be protracted and result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management’s attention.

45

If tax benefits available to our subsidiaries located in China are reduced or repealed, our business could suffer.

On March 16, 2007, China’s top legislature, the National People’s Congress, passed the China Corporate Income Tax Law (“CIT Law”). CIT Law will be effective on January 1, 2008. Under the CIT Law, China’s dual tax system for domestic enterprises and foreign investment enterprises (“FIEs”) would be effectively replaced by a unified system. The new law establishes a tax rate of 25% for most enterprises and a reduced tax rate of 15% for certain qualified high technology enterprises.

Prior to this change in tax law, certain subsidiaries and joint ventures located in China enjoyed tax benefits in China which are generally available to FIEs.  The tax holidays/incentives for FIEs were applicable or potentially applicable to UTStarcom ChongQing Telecom Co. Ltd. (“CUTS”), UTStarcom Telecom Co., Ltd. (“HUTS”), Hangzhou UTStarcom Telecom Co., Ltd. (“HSTC”) and UTStarcom China Co., Ltd. (“UTSC”), our active subsidiaries in China, because these entities may qualify as accredited technologically advanced enterprises.

CIT Law targets certain industries for the reduced 15% tax rate for certain qualified high technology enterprises.   For FIEs established before the promulgation of the new law who currently enjoy lower tax rates, any increase in their tax rates would be gradually phased in over five years. Significant regulations regarding the interpretation and implementation of the new tax law are still pending. There is potential risk that our subsidiaries may not qualify for the reduced 15% tax rate. Therefore, the new law may have an adverse impact on our future tax expense in China.

Moreover, the Chinese central government may review and audit tax benefits granted by local or provincial authorities and could determine to disallow such benefits. Certain of our subsidiaries and joint ventures located in China enjoy tax benefits in China that are generally available to foreign investment enterprises. If these tax benefits are reduced, disallowed or repealed due to changes in tax laws or determination by the Chinese government, our business could suffer.

Our ability to continue successful deployment of PAS system and sales of PAS handsets are limited by certain factors, including the following:

Maturing PAS market and increased competition in handsets and tariffs.

The market for PAS exceeded 96 million users as of the end of fiscal year 2006 and is available in most of the provinces throughout China. We believe the PAS market has matured. For example, during fiscal year 2005, net sales of the PAS/iPAS system and the wireless infrastructure market declined significantly as compared to fiscal year 2004. This decline continued through fiscal year 2006, and the first quarter of 2007. If additional handset competitors enter the market, or if competitors decide to further reduce pricing, our sales of PAS handsets may be adversely impacted.

Furthermore, competition from mobile operators, such as China Mobile and China Unicom, has increased in cities where PAS is deployed. Mobile operators offering special promotional pricing or incentives to customers, such as free incoming calls or free mobile-to-mobile calls, have harmed the ability of our customers, China Telecom and China Netcom, to compete effectively. The continued use of such incentive programs by mobile operators may adversely impact China Telecom and China Netcom’s ability to increase PAS subscriptions. Due to our relationships with China Telecom and China Netcom, reduced subscription growth at these carriers may have a material adverse effect on our pricing and harm our business or results of operations.

Our PAS system and handsets sales may experience a sharp decline if China Telecom or China Netcom obtain licenses allowing them to deliver mobile services.

China’s media sources have widely reported that the MII may grant 3G mobile licenses to China Telecom or China Netcom, or to both in 2007. If China Telecom or China Netcom obtains 3G mobile

46

licenses, they may re-allocate capital expenditures to construct 3G networks, and as a consequence, may significantly reduce capital expenditures relating to PAS networks that utilize our existing products. In addition, it is possible that current PAS frequency bands utilized by PAS networks may be reallocated for use by 3G networks, resulting in the restriction of or shutting down of PAS networks. If this were to occur, we could lose current and potential future customers of our products, and our financial condition and results of operations could be significantly harmed.

We only have trial licenses for the PAS system and handsets in China.

We only have trial licenses for our PAS systems and handsets. We have applied for, but have not yet received, a final official network access license for our PAS systems and handsets. Based upon communication with the MII, we understand that our PAS systems and handsets are considered to still be in the trial period and sales of our PAS systems and handsets may continue to be made by us during this trial period, but that licenses will ultimately be required. If we fail to obtain the required licenses, we could be prohibited from making further sales of the unlicensed products, including our PAS systems and handsets, in China, which would substantially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. The regulations implementing these requirements are not very detailed, have not been applied by a court and may be interpreted and enforced by regulatory authorities in a number of different ways. Our external legal counsel in China has advised us that China’s governmental authorities may interpret or apply the regulations with respect to which licenses are required and the ability to sell a product while a product is in the trial period in a manner that is inconsistent with the information received by our legal counsel in China, and either of these conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increasing centralization of purchasing decision-making by carriers may lead to customer concentration and affect the results of our business.

Most Chinese carriers have three levels of operations: the central headquarters level, the provincial level and the local city/county level. Both central and provincial levels are independent legal persons and have their own corporate mandate. The purchasing decision-making process may take various forms for different projects and may also differ significantly from carrier to carrier. In the case of PAS systems, we negotiate and enter into all China Netcom contracts with the provincial operators. However, the central headquarters of China Telecom has chosen to exert its influence in the purchasing decision-making process by negotiating contractual terms, such as purchase price, payment terms, and acceptance clauses at the central level. The provincial operator then further negotiates the contract based on the guidelines provided by the headquarters. We enter into final contracts with the provincial operator. However, if this trend of centralized decision-making expands to unified purchasing, resulting in the negotiation and execution of contracts at the central headquarter level, there may be a concentration of customers which could have a significant impact on our business. If China Netcom follows China Telecom and exerts the headquarters’ influence in price negotiation, it may give downward pressure to the margin of our PAS system products to China Netcom.

Television over the internet is a new business in China and laws regulating the business have not been fully developed and may be unpredictable. Unfavorable regulation of the industry may adversely affect our IPTV operations in China and negatively impact our business.

Broadcasting television over the internet has only recently begun in China. The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT), the central government’s regulatory body, issued a measure in July 2004 to regulate the broadcasting of audio-visual programs through the information network, which includes our Internet Protocol television (IPTV) business. SARFT categorized the information network into the mobile telecommunication network, fixed communications network, microwave communication

47

network, cable television network, satellite or other metropolitan area network, wide area network, local area network and other information networks categories. The receiving terminal equipment includes computers, television sets, mobile phones and other electronic products. While regulating the IPTV business, SARFT is encouraging development in China of the digital television business, a business that may be competitive with IPTV in the target market. The digital television and IPTV target complementary markets and it is not clear the extent of support SARFT will provide for IPTV in setting regulations. For example, the Guangzhou Administration of Radio, Film, and Television, the municipal regulatory body in the city of Guangzhou, issued a notice to stop all IPTV business in Guangzhou on December 25, 2005. The Zhejiang Administration of Radio, Film, and Television, the local regulatory body in the province of Zhejiang, issued a similar notice on January 10, 2006. In both instances, SARFT had not formally endorsed the launch of commercial IPTV services in those localities. Because the IPTV industry relates to both television and telecom sectors, it may be subject to regulation by different governmental authorities, including the Ministry of Information Industry (MII). At the end of 2005, an official of MII declared that MII and SARFT would jointly administer the IPTV industry in the coming years. However, due to a lack of uniform regulation on the development of the IPTV industry, we cannot predict that our IPTV business will operate smoothly in China. Our business may suffer if the law or policy in China does not encourage the IPTV industry.

We currently do not have a license to engage in the IPTV operator service business in China and development of our IPTV business depends upon the cooperation of IPTV license holder(s) and network operators. If we are unable to work cooperatively with license holder(s) and network operators, our business may suffer.

Under the measures issued by SARFT in July 2004, entities intending to engage in the IPTV operator service business should obtain a license from SARFT and foreign investment enterprises are prohibited from engaging in the IPTV operator service business. In practice, SARFT only grants such licenses to state-owned companies. Since we are the technical service and equipment provider in this field, our business development will depend on the cooperation of license holders and network operators. Our business may suffer if we fail to cooperate with license holders or network operators, or if the license holder(s) we’re cooperating with lose their licenses.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR STOCK PERFORMANCE AND CONVERTIBLE DEBT SECURITIES

Our stock price is highly volatile.

The trading price of our common stock has fluctuated significantly since our initial public offering in March of 2000. Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in the future in response to many events or factors, including those discussed in the preceding risk factors relating to our operations, as well as:

·       actual or anticipated fluctuations in operating results, actual or anticipated gross profit as a percentage of net sales, levels of inventory, our actual or anticipated rate of growth and our actual or anticipated earnings per share;

·       changes in expectations as to future financial performance or changes in financial estimates or buy/sell recommendations of securities analysts;

·       changes in governmental regulations or policies in China;

·       our, or a competitor’s, announcement of new products, services or technological innovations;

·       the operating and stock price performance of other comparable companies; and

·       news and commentary emanating from the media, securities analysts or government bodies in China relating to us and to the industry in general.

48

General market conditions and domestic or international macroeconomic factors unrelated to our performance may also affect our stock price. For these reasons, investors should not rely on recent trends to predict future stock prices or financial results. In addition, following periods of volatility in a company’s securities, securities class action litigation against a company is sometimes instituted. We have experienced substantial costs and the diversion of management’s time and resources on this type of litigation and may do so in the future.

In addition, public announcements by China Telecom, China Netcom, China Mobile, and China Unicom each of which exert significant influence over many of our major customers in China, may contribute to volatility in the price of our stock. The price of our stock may react to such announcements.

SOFTBANK CORP. with its related entities, including SOFTBANK America Inc., has significant influence over our management and affairs, which it could exercise against the best interests of our stockholders.

SOFTBANK CORP. and its related entities, including SOFTBANK America Inc. (collectively, “SOFTBANK”), beneficially owned approximately 12% of our outstanding stock as of December 31, 2006. As a result, SOFTBANK has the ability to influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. Matters that could require stockholder approval include:

·       election and removal of directors;

·       our merger or consolidation with or into another entity; and

·       sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

This concentration of ownership may delay or prevent a change of control or discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us, which could decrease the market price of our common stock.

Delaware law and our charter documents contain provisions that could discourage or prevent a potential takeover, even if the transaction would benefit our stockholders.

Other companies may seek to acquire or merge with us. Our acquisition or merger could result in benefits to our stockholders, including an increase in the value of our common stock. Some provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that a stockholder may consider favorable. These provisions include:

·       authorizing the board of directors to issue additional preferred stock;

·       prohibiting cumulative voting in the election of directors;

·       limiting the persons who may call special meetings of stockholders;

·       prohibiting stockholder action by written consent;

·       creating a classified board of directors pursuant to which our directors are elected for staggered three year terms; and

·       establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to the board of directors and for proposing matters that can be acted on by stockholders at stockholder meetings.

49

We face a variety of risks related to our convertible subordinated notes.

We face a variety of risks with respect to our convertible subordinated notes due in 2008 (“Notes”), including the following:

·       we have significantly increased our leverage as a result of the sale of the Notes which could have an adverse impact on our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital;

·       we may be limited in our ability to purchase the Notes in the event of a change in control, either for cash or stock, which could result in our defaulting on the Notes at the time of the change in control, and purchases for stock would be subject to market risk; and

·       hedging transactions related to the Notes and our common stock and other transactions, as well as changes in interest rates and our creditworthiness, may affect the value of our common stock.

In addition, we are subject to various covenants pursuant to the terms of the indenture governing the Notes (the “Indenture”). Should we fail to comply with certain covenants in the Indenture, including covenants requiring us to file certain reports required to be filed pursuant to the Exchange Act (the “SEC Reports”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and to provide the trustee for the notes (the “Trustee”) with copies of such reports and certain certificates regarding our compliance with our obligations under the Indenture, the Trustee or the holders of 25% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes outstanding (the “25% Holders”) could accelerate the maturity of the Notes and the Notes could become immediately due and payable. In the past, there have been delays in filing such reports: For example, as of November 9, 2006 and continuing through the date hereof there has been a delay in the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “2006 Q3 Form 10-Q”), our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “2006 Form 10-K”), our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “2007 Q1 Form 10-Q”), and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “2007 Q2 Form 10-Q,” and together with the 2006 Q3 Form 10-Q, the 2006 Form 10-K, and the 2007 Q1 Form 10-Q, the “Delayed Reports”). We received a notice from the Trustee on May 31, 2007, asserting that our failure to file the 2006 Q3 Form 10-Q, the 2006 Form 10-K and the 2007 Q-1 Form 10-Q had resulted in a default under the Indenture, and that if we failed to file such reports within 60 days, an event of default would arise under the Indenture.

In July 2007, we sought and obtained the requisite consents from holders of the Notes to certain amendments to the Indenture, which provide that (i) any failure by us to file SEC Reports with the SEC and provide copies of such reports and certain certificates to the Trustee prior to 5:30 p.m. New York City time on October 15, 2007 (the “Expiration Date”) will not cause a default under the Indenture, (ii) any such failure continuing after the Expiration Date would cause a default under the Indenture, which would be deemed to have occurred as of the Expiration Date, and (iii) we will pay additional interest on the Notes of (a) 6.75% annually from January 9, 2007 to and including July 25, 2007, and (b) 10.0% annually from and including July 26, 2007 to the date the Notes are paid, prepaid, converted, redeemed or otherwise cease to be outstanding (in each case, in addition to interest of 7¤8% annually, as provided by the Indenture, without regard to any amendments). Thus, if we fail to file the SEC Reports and deliver copies of such reports and certain certificates to the Trustee on or prior to October 15, 2007, the Trustee or the 25% Holders may give notice to us asserting that such failure caused a default under the Indenture, which, if not cured within 60 days after the date the notice is effective, would cause an event of default under the Indenture. If an event of default were to occur, the Trustee or the 25% Holders would have the right to accelerate the maturity of the Notes and declare all unpaid principal and accrued interest on the Notes then outstanding to be immediately due and payable, as described above. No assurance can be given that we would be able to obtain the requisite consents of the Holders to a further amendment to the Indenture, providing for a waiver of compliance with covenants in the Indenture relating to the filing of SEC Reports, on acceptable terms or at all. If an event of default under the Indenture were to occur, and the maturity of

50

the Notes were accelerated, and all unpaid principal and accrued interest is declared immediately due and payable, our business would be seriously harmed. If we have not filed the SEC Reports, our ability to raise additional capital may be limited, and specifically, we would not be able to refinance indebtedness under the Notes from the proceeds of an issuance of new convertible notes. In addition, if we are able to raise capital to refinance indebtedness under the Notes by issuing new convertible notes, the terms of such notes may be significantly less favorable than the terms of the Notes, and may cause greater dilution to holders of our common stock.

Our failure to timely file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission could result in the delisting of our common stock from the NASDAQ Stock Market.

As a result of our failure to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (“Q3 2006 Form 10-Q”), this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (“Q1 2007 Form 10-Q”) and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (“Q2 2007 Form 10-Q”), we have not been in full compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), which requires us to make, on a timely basis, all filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although we have now filed our Q3 2006 10-Q and this Form 10-K, we have not yet filed our Q1 2007 Form 10-Q and Q2 2007 Form 10-Q and thus continue not to be in full compliance with this rule. We are required to comply with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) as a condition for our common stock to continue to be listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

In connection with our failure to timely file our periodic reports, we received four NASDAQ Staff Determination letters, dated November 15, 2006, March 7, 2007, May 16, 2007 and August 13, 2007, respectively, stating that, as a result of each of these non-timely filings, we were not in compliance with the requirements of Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14) and, therefore, that our stock was subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. We appealed the November 15, 2006 determination to the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panels (the “Panel”) and were granted a conditional extension to our request for continued listing until April 16, 2007. On April 17, 2007 the Panel extended the deadline for filing our Q3 2006 Form 10-Q to May 14, 2007. The Panel also extended the deadline for filing our 2006 Form 10-K until July 16, 2007. On May 2, 2007, we asked the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council (“Listing Council”) to review the April 17, 2007 decision of the Panel. On May 14, 2007, the Listing Council called the Panel’s decision for review and requested that we provide an update on our efforts to file our delinquent filings. We have continued and continue to comply with that request. In addition, the Listing Council stayed the Panel’s decision that required us to file our Q3 2006 Form 10-Q by May 14, 2007, and to file our 2006 Form 10-K by July 16, 2007. On August 23, 2007, the Listing Council granted the Company an extension until October 22, 2007 to file our delinquent periodic reports and restatements.

If we are unable to maintain compliance with the conditions for continued listing required by NASDAQ, then our shares of common stock may be subject to delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market. If our shares of common stock are delisted from the NASDAQ Stock Market, they may not be eligible to trade on any national securities exchange or the over-the counter market. If our common stock is no longer traded through a market system, the liquidity of our common stock may be greatly reduced, which could negatively affect its price. In addition, we may be unable to obtain future equity financing, or use our common stock as consideration for mergers or other business combinations. A delisting from the NASDAQ Stock Market may also have other negative implications, including the potential loss of confidence by suppliers, customers and employees, the loss of institutional investor interest, and fewer business development opportunities.

ITEM 1B—UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

51

ITEM 2—PROPERTIES

Our headquarters are located on a leased site in Alameda, California. Additionally, we operate facilities in the United States, China and globally consisting of office, research and development, warehousing and manufacturing sites primarily used jointly by our reporting segments.

The headquarters for our China operations is located in Hangzhou. In 2001, we purchased the rights to use 49 acres of land located in Zhejiang Science and Technology Industry Garden of Hangzhou Hi-tech Industry Development Zone and have built a 2.7 million square foot facility on this site. The facility was occupied in October 2004 and is used for manufacturing operations, research and development and administrative offices. At the end of 2006, approximately two-thirds of the facility was being utilized.

We lease approximately 1.5 million square feet of property, of which 0.8 million square feet are properties in China and 0.5 million square feet are properties in North America. We maintain 43 sales and customer support offices in 25 countries covering the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, India, and the Asia-Pacific region. We lease sales offices in 24 locations in China.

We believe our facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our current needs.

ITEM 3—LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Securities Class Action Litigation

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class actions alleging federal securities violations were filed against us and various officers and directors of our 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 our 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, we 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. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on May 25, 2007. On July 13, 2007, we and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint.

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 us and some of our current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning our historical equity award grants. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between July 24, 2002 and September 4, 2007.

Due to the preliminary status of these lawsuits and uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of these complaints on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

52

Governmental Investigations

In September 2005, we received notice of a formal inquiry by the staff of the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into certain aspects of our financial disclosures during prior reporting periods and certain other issues. In addition, in December 2005, the U.S. Embassy in Mongolia informed us that it had forwarded to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) allegations that an agent of our Mongolia joint venture had offered payments to a Mongolian government official in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). We, through our Audit Committee, authorized an independent investigation into possible violations of the FCPA, and we have been in contact with the DOJ and 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 we voluntarily produce documents related to the investigation and the SEC has subpoenaed us for documents. We have executed tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations for the FCPA issues under investigation by the SEC and DOJ and the immigration issues under investigation by the DOJ. At this time, we cannot predict when any inquiry will be completed or what the outcome of any inquiry will be.

Shareholder 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 our 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 us as a nominal defendant and seeks unspecified monetary damages against the individual defendants and various forms of injunctive relief. On February 2, 2007, we and the individual defendants filed demurrers against the complaint. On April 11, 2007, the Court sustained the individual defendants’ demurrer, overruled our demurrer, ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and ordered us to answer the original complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and we have 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.

Due to the preliminary status of this complaint and uncertainties related to litigation, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint on our 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 us, some of our directors and officers and various underwriters for our 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 Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 for pretrial purposes. In April 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the matter against us, captioned In re UTStarcom, Initial Public Offering 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 our common stock between March 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000. Our 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 brought by defendants including us. The order dismissed all claims against us except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,

53

which alleges that the registration statement filed in accordance with the IPO was misleading. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including us, was submitted to the court for approval. The terms of the settlement, if approved, would have dismissed and released all claims against the participating defendants (including us). In August 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In December 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Court’s October 2004 order certifying a class in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Our case is not one of the test cases. Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based on a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and amended complaints in the six test cases. It is unclear whether there will be any revised or future settlement. If the litigation proceeds, we believe that we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the action vigorously. The total amount of the loss associated with the above litigation is not determinable at this time. Therefore, we are unable to currently estimate the loss, if any, associated with the litigation.

Passave Litigation

In November 2005, we filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against Passave, Inc. (“Passave”) for breaches of contract and warranties in connection with a semiconductor device sold by Passave, Ltd. (Passave’s wholly-­owned subsidiary) to us. Our Complaint alleges that the Passave device, known as the PAS5001M3 chip, has exhibited certain operational malfunctions within some of our Fiber-to-the-Home product line, and has thereby caused damage to us. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, dated August 7, 2007, and have since dismissed all claims with prejudice.

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Patent Infringement Litigations

We brought suit against Starent Networks Corporation (“Starent”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint was filed on March 22, 2004, and later amended. In this action, we asserted that Starent infringed our patent U. S. Reg. No. 6,628,671 through the manufacture, use, offer, for sale, and sale of Starent’s ST-16 Intelligent Mobile Gateway. We sought damages and injunctive relief. Starent filed its answer to the Amended Complaint and counterclaims, denying our allegations and seeking a declaration that the patent-in-suit is not infringed, is invalid, and is unenforceable. A motion for a preliminary injunction against the making, using or selling of infringing products and methods was brought, but the Court denied it on June 17, 2005. After a claims construction hearing and order, on September 20, 2005, Starent filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and we filed a motion for summary judgment that Starent is estopped from asserting invalidity and unenforceability. On December 6, 2005, the Court granted Starent’s motion for summary judgment. On February 2, 2006, the Court entered judgment in favor of Starent and dismissed the case. On March 2, 2006 we filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit. On April 6, 2007, after reviewing the parties’ briefs and hearing oral argument on April 2, 2007, the Federal Circuit, without a written opinion, affirmed the District Court’s judgment and dismissal of the case. Although the Federal Circuit ruled against the Company, this decision will not have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of its operations.

On February 16, 2005, we filed a second suit against Starent for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the Complaint, we assert 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. We seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Starent subsequently filed its answer and counterclaims, denying our allegations and seeking a declaration that the patent-in-suit is not infringed, is invalid, and is

54

unenforceable. On June 16, 2005, we filed a motion to strike Starent’s affirmative defense and dismiss Starent’s counterclaim alleging inequitable conduct. On July 19, 2005, the parties stipulated that Starent would file an amended answer and counterclaim by July 27, 2005 and that we would withdraw our motion to strike. On August 10, 2005, we responded to Starent’s amended counterclaim filed on July 27, 2005. In early December 2006, we 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 copending. The litigation is still in a preliminary stage and its outcome cannot be predicted, although we believe the litigation has merit. Nonetheless, we believe that any adverse judgment on Starent’s counterclaims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

On May 8, 2007, we filed a third suit against Starent and sixteen individual defendants (who were all former employees of 3Com’s CommWorks division which we acquired certain assets of 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. In its Complaint, we assert that Starent infringes UTStarcom patents U. S. Reg. Nos. 7,173,905; 6,978,128; 6,963,582; 6,975,900; and 6,684,256 through the manufacture, use, offer, for sale, and sale of Starent’s ST16 Intelligent Mobile Gateway and ST40 multimedia code platform, that the individual Defendants and Starent have misappropriated valuable Company trade secrets by improperly taking and using our confidential and proprietary information for the benefit of Starent, that the individual defendants and Starent have interfered with our business relations and prospective economic advantage by using the misappropriated information to obtain and enhance sales of Starent’s products, and that several of Starent’s patent applications and one issued patent are based on information obtained by the former employees while at the Company (CommWorks) and on that basis belong to UTStarcom. We seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. After the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss the misappropriation of trade secrets claims, on August 30, 2007, Starent answered our complaint, denying our allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including non-infringement of the subject patents and alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. We have filed a motion to dismiss most of the counterclaims and the court has ordered appointment of a special master to handle discovery, which is just beginning. We believe that any adverse judgment on Starent’s counterclaims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Telemetrix, Inc. Arbitration

On October 19, 2006, Telemetrix, Inc. (“Telemetrix”) filed a formal Request for Arbitration against us to the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) in Geneva, Switzerland. The Request for Arbitration sought unspecified damages arising from a contract between Telemetrix and Telos Technology, Inc., dated October 22, 2003. We assumed Telos’ rights and obligations under this contract pursuant to our purchase of Telos’ assets on May 19, 2004. Telemetrix alleged nine causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, interference with contractual relations, and interference with prospective economic advantage. In December 2006, we filed a formal response to the Request for Arbitration, denying all material factual allegations asserted by Telemetrix. An arbitrator was selected by the parties, and, on August 2, 2007, the arbitrator granted a pleading motion in favor of us due to Telemetrix’s failure to allege sufficient facts in support of a majority of its causes of action. On August 17, 2007, Telemetrix filed an Amended Statement of Claim, alleging six causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective economic advantage. The previous hearing date of December 11-13 has been vacated. No hearing date has been rescheduled. Discovery has begun.

55

Telos Technology, Inc. Litigation

On November 22, 2005, plaintiffs Telos Technology, Inc., Telos Technology (Canada), Inc., Telos Technology (Bermuda) Ltd., and Telos Engineering Limited (collectively, the “Telos Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The Complaint alleges five causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, all of which arise from the Asset Purchase Agreement between the parties dated April 21, 2004. The Telos Plaintiffs assert that the Company breached the express and implied terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and made representations to the Telos Plaintiffs during negotiations that it never intended to fulfill. The Telos Plaintiffs sought at least $19 million in damages, unspecified punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The parties executed a settlement agreement in the amount of $4.5 million on August 20, 2007 and the case was dismissed on September 26, 2007 with prejudice.

Other Litigation

We are 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, we believe that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

ITEM 4—SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None.

56

PART II

ITEM 5—MARKET FOR UTSTARCOM, INC.’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock has been traded on The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol UTSI since our initial public offering on March 2, 2000. The preceding table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices per share of our common stock as reported on NASDAQ for the periods indicated. As of September 30, 2007, we had approximately 180 stockholders of record.

To date, we have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain any available funds to finance the growth and operation of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Certain present or future agreements may limit or prevent the payment of dividends on our common stock. For example, our convertible debt requires that we have to provide notice of our intent to pay certain dividends. Additionally, our cash held in foreign countries may be subject to certain control limitations or repatriation requirements, limiting our ability to use this cash to pay dividends.

COMPANY’S STOCK PERFORMANCE

Set forth below is a line graph comparing the annual percentage change in the cumulative return to the stockholders of our common stock with the cumulative return of the NASDAQ composite (U.S. and foreign) index and the S&P Wireless Telecommunication Services index for the period commencing on December 31, 2001 and ending on December 31, 2006. The information contained in the performance graph shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

57

The graph assumes that $100 was invested on December 31, 2001 in our common stock and in each index (based on the sales closing price of $28.50 per share on December 31, 2001), and that all dividends were reinvested. No cash dividends have been declared or paid on our common stock. Stockholder returns over the indicated period should not be considered indicative of future stockholder returns. We operate on a 52-week fiscal year that ended on Sunday, December 31, 2006. Under the assumptions stated above, over the period from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006 the total return on an investment in our common stock would have been—69.3% as compared to 27.52% for the NASDAQ composite (U.S. and foreign) index and 11.80% for the S&P Wireless Telecommunication Services index shown below.

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among UTStarcom, Inc., The NASDAQ Composite Index
And The S & P Wireless Telecommunication Services Index

58

The following table summarizes our stock repurchase activity for the three months ended December 31, 2006:

ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

(1)          During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company acquired 4,468 shares of common stock that employees presented to the Company to satisfy withholding taxes in connection with the vesting of restricted stock awards.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The following table sets forth information, as of December 31, 2006, with respect to compensation plans under which the Company’s equity securities are authorized to be issued:

(1)          See Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of our equity compensation plans.

(2)          Includes shares of common stock to be issued upon exercise of options granted under our 2006 Stock Plan, our 1997 Stock Plan and our 2001 Director Option Plan.

(3)          Includes 1,914,934 shares of common stock available for issuance under our 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 11,237,895 shares of common stock available for issuance under our 2006 Plan.

(4)          Includes shares of common stock to be issued upon exercise of options granted under our 2003 Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan. Upon implementation of the 2006 Stock Plan the remaining securities available for future issuance under the 2003 Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan were rolled into the 2006 Stock Plan. Does not include 6,051 shares and 5,522 shares of common stock subject to outstanding options with a weighted-average exercise price of $2.54 that were assumed in our acquisitions of Advanced Communication Devices Corporation, and RollingStreams Systems, Ltd., respectively.

(5)          Does not include 212 shares and 743 shares remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans related to our acquisitions of Advanced Communication Devices Corporation, and RollingStreams Systems Ltd., respectively.

59

ITEM 6—SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected financial data for the years ending December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, and as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, which are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As discussed in the Explanatory Note at the beginning of this Report and in Note 2, “Restatement of Financial Statements” of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8 of this Annual Report, the selected consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002 have been restated to correct our past accounting for stock options and revenue recognition for certain sales contracts in China.