PART
I
ITEM
1. BUSINESS
Cautionary
Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
Certain
statements in this Form 10-K constitute forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements include
all statements that do not relate solely to the historical or current facts, and
can be identified by the use of forward looking words such as "may", "believe",
"will", "expect", "expected", "project", "anticipate", "anticipated”,
“estimates", "plans", "strategy", "target", "prospects" or
"continue". These forward looking statements are based on the current
plans and expectations of our management and are subject to a number of
uncertainties and risks that could significantly affect our current plans and
expectations, as well as future results of operations and financial condition
and may cause our actual results, performances or achievements to be materially
different from any future results, performances or achievements expressed or
implied by such forward-looking statements. This Form 10-K contains important
information as to risk factors under Item 1A. In making these
forward-looking statements, we claim the protection of the safe-harbor for
forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Reform Act of
1995. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such
forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such
expectations will prove to have been correct. We do not assume any
obligation to update these forward-looking statements to reflect actual results,
changes in assumptions, or changes in other factors affecting such
forward-looking statements.
Available
Information
Applied
Energetics, Inc. makes available free of charge on its website at
www.appliedenergetics.com
its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports
on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practical
after electronically filing or furnishing such material to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
This
report may be read or copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street,
NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549 or at www.sec.gov. Information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
General
Applied
Energetics, Inc. (“company”, “Applied Energetics”, “we”, “our” or “us”) is a
developer and manufacturer of high energy systems for military and commercial
applications. We advance the state-of-the-art in high performance lasers,
high-voltage electronics, advanced optics and atmospheric and plasma
interactions. We deliver innovative and high quality systems to meet
urgent military missions, including countering improvised explosive devices
(“Counter-IEDs” or “CIED”). We develop and manufacture specialized
high-voltage and laser products for government and commercial customers for a
range of applications. As a technology leader in these fields, we work with our
customers to advance the performance of our systems to meet their
needs.
Applied
Energetics, Inc is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware. Our executive office is located at 3590 East
Columbia Street, Tucson, Arizona, 85714 and our telephone number is (520)
628-7415.
LGE
TM
and LIPC
®
Technologies
Applied
Energetics is the developer of Laser Guided Energy (“LGE
TM
”) and
Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC®) technologies. These
revolutionary technologies can precisely deliver high voltage electrical charges
by using a laser to create a conductive path in the atmosphere. We
are developing applications that can deliver tailored weapon and countermeasure
effects to targets with laser accuracy, and with manageable effects to reduce
the potential for inadvertent injury and minimize collateral damage. This
technology has been in development since our inception in 2002, and we have
protected what we believe to be the enabling intellectual property through U.S.
Patent filings. LGE development has been funded through multiple
Department of Defense (“DoD”) contracts in support of U.S. Navy, Army, Air
Force, and the Office of Secretary of Defense programs, as well as through
internally funded research initiatives.
Counter-IED
Technologies
Working
with the United States Marine Corps, we have developed and delivered a system
that demonstrates significant capability in countering IEDs; a major threat to
military operations throughout the world. Technical and field results of such
CIED technologies are highly sensitive or classified, but we are satisfied that
our technology has performed well in addressing this critical mission. We have
integrated our CIED technologies into military vehicles. We anticipate
additional product variations may be utilized on other military platforms in the
future as military customers identify new mission areas for implementation of
our technologies. We continue to work actively with our customers to field these
innovative CIED technologies.
High-Voltage
Technologies
Since the
company’s inception, we have acquired and developed unique high-voltage
capabilities (“HV”). Operating within the company is a group focused on
providing high-voltage solutions for semiconductor, aerospace, chemical
processing, and other military and commercial activities. Opportunities
currently in process or under development include advanced electron-beam
technologies, nested high-voltage generators and other unique power solutions
for use in a wide range of commercial and military applications.
Laser
Technologies
The
company designs and builds solid state lasers for military and commercial
applications. The company has the expertise to build uniquely
capable, rugged ultra-short pulse lasers and is in the process of developing
laser systems for military customers.
Patents
and Proprietary Information
Since our
inception, we have pursued the development of a range of core intellectual
property objectives using internal investment, and have aggressively pursued
patents on such technology. The objective of this approach has been to establish
a sole source role for us in customer-funded technology and product development
contracts, as well as to protect the value of the intellectual property that we
create. Our patent applications, in tandem with our significant
proprietary knowledge, may be used as justification for sole source contracts in
accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations, and thereby may improve our
competitive position. Presently, nine U.S. Patents have been issued and thirty
U.S. patent applications are pending. We have received U.S. Government initiated
“national security related” secrecy orders for fourteen of the thirty pending
patent applications. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office imposes secrecy orders
when disclosure of an invention by publication of a patent would be detrimental
to the United States’ national security. These patents are treated as under
review unless and until they are declassified, at which time patents may be
issued, with enforcement based on the original filing date. We have thus far
received notice that eight of these patent applications under secrecy order have
been found patentable by the U.S. Patent Office. These patents and patent
applications relate to our core LIPC technology, CIED offerings, and other
technologies related to LGE, laser and high voltage applications.
Customer
Dependency
Revenue
is derived from contracts with Government agencies or contractors to the
Government representing approximately 97% and 87%, of total revenue for 2009 and
2008, respectively. The loss of any of these customers would have a material
adverse effect on Applied Energetics. All contracts are subject to renegotiation
of profits or termination at the election of the Government. When we refer to
“Government” we mean the U.S. Government and its agencies. In the
third quarter of 2009, we initiated a new strategic plan. The
objective of this effort was to identify the areas in which our core strengths
can be developed to increase our business across new applications in the
military, government and commercial sectors. The goals for the
strategic plan include increasing revenues, achieving positive cash flow,
profitability, development of new products and markets, diversifying our
customer base and controlling costs to improve margins.
Competition
Currently,
substantially all of our activity and revenue is generated through contracts
with agencies of the Government focused on military and national security
applications. We have developed, demonstrated, and advanced innovative
directed-energy technologies. We believe that we are the only company in the
United States that is providing the Government access to these unique
technologies. However, we face competition from other domestic companies within
the defense industry and other companies with differing technologies that seek
to provide similar benefits or address similar missions as our technologies.
Additionally, foreign countries and companies may be developing technologies
that may compete with our technologies.
Research
and Development
We fund
our research and development primarily through internal investment and we
diligently attempt to retain the sole ownership of all of the key intellectual
property. We believe control of the core intellectual property we
have developed is necessarily critical to our advancement of the LIPC, CIED and
HV technologies. We occasionally outsource research tasks to experienced
individuals or companies for activities that require equipment or modeling
capabilities that we do not have internally available, preserving our
intellectual property.
Our
short-term research and development goals are to develop efficient and compact
laser sources, novel high-voltage electrical sources, efficient optical systems
and to turn the technologies we have developed for new government and commercial
applications and markets into products.
Our
research and development expense for 2009 and 2008 was $1,182,652, and
$1,372,396, respectively.
Backlog
of Orders
At
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, we had a backlog (i.e. work load
remaining on signed contracts) of approximately $3.4 million, and $4.6 million,
respectively, to be completed within the twelve months following those
dates. As of February 28, 2010, our backlog was $11.6
million.
Employees
As of
December 31, 2009, we had 49 full time employees. During the second
quarter, the company initiated a process whereby each product line was evaluated
for appropriate levels of staffing given current and anticipated contract
activities, timing of deliverables and general expected economic
conditions. Following this evaluation, on May 7, 2009, the company
reduced its staffing by 20 individuals. This included the shut down
of operations at our St. Louis facility and the associated reduction in the
entire staff located there.
ITEM
1A. RISK FACTORS
Future
results of operations of Applied Energetics involve a number of known and
unknown risks and uncertainties. Factors that could affect future operating
results and cash flows and cause actual results to vary materially from
historical results include, but are not limited to those risks set forth
below:
Risk
Related to Our Business
Our
growth is subject to a number of economic risks.
As widely
reported, financial markets have recently experienced disruption, including,
among other things, volatility in securities prices, diminished liquidity and
credit availability, ratings downgrades of certain investments and declining
valuations of others. The recent economic downturn has resulted in
restricted credit, depressed sales in the retail sector and declines in real
estate values. Governments have taken unprecedented actions intended
to address these unfavorable market conditions. While currently these
conditions have not impaired our ability to access credit markets and finance
our operations, there can be no assurance that there will not be a continued
deterioration in financial markets and confidence in major economies such that
our ability to access credit markets and finance our operations might be
impaired. There can also be no assurance that government actions made
in response to these issues will restore consumer confidence or increase the
availability of credit. Our total revenues declined in 2009 compared
to 2008 and the continued deterioration of the economy could have further
adverse effects on the ability of existing and potential customers and suppliers
to obtain financing for significant purchases and operations. These factors
could result in a decrease in, or cancellation of orders for our products and
services. Our business can also be adversely affected by decreases in
the general level of economic activity, such as decreases in defense spending,
financial strength of customers and government procurement. We are
unable to predict the duration and severity of the current disruption in
financial markets and the adverse economic conditions that might occur and the
effect such events might have on our business.
Our
historical lack of earnings and continued future losses could adversely affect
our financial health and prevent us from continuing to develop and market our
products.
We have
incurred net losses applicable to our common stockholders since our formation in
June 2002. Our ability to achieve profitable operations is dependent
upon, among other things, our ability to obtain sufficient government and
commercial contracts, to complete the development of products based on our
technologies and to control costs. We cannot assure you that we will be able to
significantly increase our revenue or achieve and maintain
profitability.
Our lack
of earnings history and continued future losses could have important
consequences, such as:
|
·
|
increasing
our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry
conditions;
|
|
·
|
limiting
our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business
and our industry;
|
|
·
|
restricting
us from introducing new products or exploiting business opportunities; or
delaying or terminating research
projects;
|
|
·
|
requiring
us to sell debt or equity securities or to sell some of our core assets,
possibly on unfavorable
terms;
|
|
·
|
limiting
our ability to obtain additional financing;
and
|
|
·
|
placing
us at a possible competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors, who
may have greater financial
resources.
|
If
we are unable to generate funds or obtain new funds on acceptable terms, we may
not be able to continue to develop and/or market our present and potential
products.
Our
liquidity needs have typically arisen from the funding of our operating losses,
our research and development program and the launch of our new products, working
capital requirements, and strategic initiatives. In the past, we have met these
cash requirements through proceeds from certain placements of our
securities.
The
development of products requires the commitment of substantial resources to
conduct the time consuming research and development and regulatory activities
necessary to bring any potential product to market and to establish production,
marketing and sales capabilities. Our ability to fund our products, research and
development, working capital and capital expenditures will depend on our future
operating performance, which will be affected by factors discussed elsewhere in
this filing and in the other reports we file with the SEC, including, without
limitation, economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory, political,
market and other factors, many of which are beyond our
control.
Additionally,
current economic conditions may inhibit our ability to obtain future funding
from Government sources or from public capital sources consistent with our prior
history.
We
are limited in our ability to disclose significant details of our operations
that may have a significant impact on our results and future operations due to
restrictions imposed by our Government customers.
We
produce military products and conduct research that is protected and deemed
sensitive to the nation’s security. Therefore, we are limited, under specific
classification guides issued to the company by our government customers, in
publicly discussing or disclosing certain details of our technologies,
applications, contract terms and the product’s future, if any. Such absence of
explanation, detail and discussion may prohibit us from providing details that
an investor may find meaningful, cause many individuals and investors to
question our level of disclosure and discourage potential investors from
investing in our securities.
The
timing and magnitude of Government funding and orders for our CIED systems or
products cannot be predicted.
We expect
that we will be dependent upon sales of our CIED system products for a
substantial portion of our revenue over the near future. We are hopeful that we
will continue to receive funding to advance our technologies, however, the
Government’s course of action will not be fully known until orders for product
are actually issued to us. Because Government agencies have been the dominant
revenue source historically and many of these agencies continue to be identified
as the intended customers for our various future products, it is uncertain
whether we will enter into new or continue with existing development or
production contracts and, if we do, what the timing or magnitude of such orders
will be.
We
may not be able to meet the volume or production demands for our CIED system
products, if we receive production orders.
We intend
to outsource certain manufacturing processes if our customers order a
significant number of our CIED products. We are uncertain that we will be able
to find sufficient outsource facilities to meet the customer’s demands for our
CIED products on a timely basis or at all. We are also pursuing
teaming agreements and other formal arrangements with major defense contractors
who have the facilities, resources and experience to support a sudden increase
in demand for our CIED products. We cannot be certain that these
agreements will be finalized in time to allow us to respond to a large order, or
if we will be able to finalize those agreements at all. Failure to
meet volume and production demands for any order we receive could result in the
customer(s) seeking other sources for producing this product, and could limit
the size of an order placed with us, or cause the customer(s) to choose not to
place any orders with us.
The
receipt of future Government funding is uncertain and may be reduced or
eliminated at any time, particularly if our LIPC technology does not meet
certain milestones.
We rely
on Government funding for LIPC and LGE development through funding provided in
the federal Government budget and contracts with various Government agencies.
Due to federal budgetary constraints we cannot provide assurance that any
continued Government funding will be made available, or that we will be able to
enter into any agreements with Government customers for the further development
of LIPC and LGE. We expect that additional funding for LIPC and LGE will be
subject to our technology meeting certain Government established milestones. We
have in the past missed some Government established milestones and schedule
deadlines, and may do so again in the future. If our LIPC and LGE technology
does not meet Government established milestones, due to our performance or
outside environmental or physics constraints, additional Government funding may
be reduced or eliminated. If additional Government funding for LIPC
and LGE is reduced or is not forthcoming, in the absence of additional funding,
our future LIPC and LGE technology development efforts could be terminated and
our revenues would be adversely affected.
Our
future success will depend on our ability to develop new technologies and
applications that address the needs of our markets.
Both our
defense and commercial markets are characterized by rapidly changing
technologies and evolving industry standards. Accordingly, our future
performance depends on a number of factors, including our ability
to:
|
·
|
identify
emerging technological trends in our target
markets;
|
|
·
|
develop
and maintain competitive products;
|
|
·
|
enhance
our products by improving performance and adding innovative features that
differentiate our products from those of our
competitors;
|
|
·
|
develop
and manufacture and bring products to market quickly at cost-effective
prices; and
|
|
·
|
meet
scheduled timetables and enter into suitable arrangements for the
development, certification and delivery of new products
and
|
|
·
|
enter
into suitable arrangements for volume production of mature
products.
|
We
believe that, in order to remain competitive in the future, we will need to
continue to develop new products, which will require the investment of
significant financial and engineering resources. The need to make these
expenditures could divert our attention and resources from other projects, and
we cannot be sure that these expenditures will ultimately lead to the timely
development of new technology, products, and systems using our technology or
products. Due to the design complexity of our products, we may in the future
experience delays in completing development and introduction of new products.
Any delays could result in increased costs of development, deflect resources
from other projects or incur loss of contracts.
In
addition, there can be no assurance that the market for our products will
develop or continue to expand as we currently anticipate. The failure of our
technology to gain market acceptance could significantly reduce our revenue and
harm our business. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that our competitors will not
develop competing or differing technologies which gain market acceptance in
advance of our products. The possibility that our competitors might develop new
technology or products might cause our existing technology and products to
become obsolete or create significant price competition. If we fail in our new
product development efforts or our products fail to achieve market acceptance
more rapidly than our competitors, our revenue will decline and our business,
financial condition and results of operations will be negatively
affected.
Changes
in government spending could significantly impact our sales and
profitability.
Approximately
97% and 87%, of our net revenue for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, were from the U.S. Government and Government
contractors. U.S. defense spending historically has been
cyclical. Though it is not clear that future defense spending will be
equally cyclical, defense budgets rise when perceived threats to national
security increase the level of concern over the country’s safety. At
other times, spending on the military can decrease. While Department
of Defense funding has grown rapidly over the past few years, there is no
assurance this trend will continue. Competing demands for federal
funds can put pressure on all areas of spending, which could impact the defense
budget.
A
decrease in U.S. government defense spending or changes in spending allocation
could result in one or more of our programs being reduced, delayed or
terminated. Reductions in our existing programs, unless offset by
other programs and opportunities, could adversely affect our ability to sustain
and grow future sales and become profitable.
We
depend on the Government for substantially all of our revenue, and a reduction
in the quality of this relationship and/or a shift in Government funding could
have severe consequences on our prospects and financial condition.
Any
significant disruption or deterioration of our relationship with the Government
or important agencies thereof could significantly reduce our revenue. Our
Government programs must compete with programs managed by other defense
contractors for a limited number of programs and for uncertain levels of
funding. The development of our business will depend upon the continued
willingness of the U.S. Government agencies to fund existing and new defense
programs and, in particular, to continue to purchase our products and services.
Although defense spending in the United States has increased in recent years,
further increases may not continue and any proposed budget or supplemental
budget request may not be approved. In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense
may not continue to focus its spending on technologies or missions relevant to
our technologies and products.
Our
competitors continuously engage in efforts to expand their business
relationships with the Government which may be to our disadvantage and are
likely to continue these efforts in the future. The Government may choose to use
other defense contractors for its limited number of defense programs. In
addition, the funding of defense programs also competes with non-defense
spending of the Government. Budget decisions made by the Government are outside
of our control and have long-term consequences for the size and structure of
Applied Energetics. A shift in Government defense spending to other programs in
which we are not involved or a reduction in Government defense spending
generally could have severe consequences for our results of
operations.
Our
Government customers may terminate or modify our existing contracts, which would
adversely affect our revenue.
There are
inherent risks in contracting with the Government, including risks peculiar to
the defense industry, which could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations. Laws and regulations
permit the Government to:
|
·
|
terminate
contracts for its convenience;
|
|
·
|
reduce
or modify contracts if its requirements or budgetary constraints
change;
|
|
·
|
cancel
multi-year contracts and related orders if funds for contract performance
for any subsequent year become
unavailable;
|
|
·
|
shift
its spending practices; and
|
|
·
|
adjust
contract costs and fees on the basis of audits done by its
agencies.
|
If the
Government terminates our contracts for convenience, we may only recover our
costs incurred or committed for settlement expenses and profit on work completed
before the termination. Additionally, most of our backlog could be adversely
affected by any modification or termination of contracts with the Government or
contracts the prime contractors have with the Government. The Government
regularly reviews our costs and performance on its contracts, as well as our
accounting and general business practices. The Government may reduce the
reimbursement for our fees and contract-related costs as a result of an audit.
We can give no assurance that one or more of our Government contracts will not
be terminated under these circumstances. Also, we can give no assurance that we
would be able to procure new Government contracts to offset the revenue lost as
a result of any termination of our contracts. As our revenue is dependent on our
procurement, performance and payment under our contracts, the loss of one or
more critical contracts could have a negative impact on our financial
condition.
Our
business is subject to various restrictive laws and regulations because we are a
contractor and subcontractor to the Government.
As a
contractor and subcontractor to the Government, we are subject to various laws
and regulations that are more restrictive than those applicable to
non-Government contractors. We are required to obtain and maintain material
Governmental authorizations and approvals to run our business as it is currently
conducted. New or more stringent laws or Government regulations concerning
Government contracts, if adopted and enacted, could have a material adverse
effect on our business.
Generally,
Government contracts are subject to oversight audits by Government
representatives. Responding to Governmental audits, inquiries or investigations
may involve significant expense and divert management attention from regular
operations. Our Government business is also subject to specific procurement
regulations and a variety of socio-economic and other requirements. These
requirements, although customary in Government contracts, increase our
performance and compliance costs. These costs might increase in the future,
reducing our margins, which could have a negative effect on our financial
condition. Failure to comply with these regulations and requirements could lead
to suspension or debarment, for cause, from Government contracting or
subcontracting for a period of time. Among the causes for debarment are
violations of various statutes, including those related to:
|
·
|
Government
security regulations;
|
|
·
|
protection
of the environment;
|
|
·
|
accuracy
of records and the recording of costs;
and
|
Any of
these factors, which are largely beyond our control, could also negatively
impact our financial condition. We also may experience problems associated with
advanced designs required by the Government, which may result in unforeseen
technological difficulties and cost overruns. Failure to overcome these
technological difficulties and the occurrence of cost overruns would have a
negative impact on our results.
These
Government contracts may be subject to protest or challenge by unsuccessful
bidders or to termination, reduction or modification in the event of changes in
Government requirements, reductions in federal spending or other
factors.
Competition
within our markets may reduce our procurement of future contracts and our
revenue.
The
defense and commercial industries in which we operate are highly competitive.
Our future competitors may range from highly resourceful small concerns, which
engineer and produce specialized items, to large, diversified firms and defense
contractors. Many of our potential competitors have more extensive or more
specialized engineering, manufacturing and marketing capabilities and greater
financial resources than we. Consequently, these competitors may be better
suited to take advantage of economies of scale and devote greater resources to
develop new technologies. There can be no assurance that we can continue to
compete effectively with these firms. In addition, some of our
suppliers and customers could develop the capability to manufacture products
similar to products that we are developing. This would result in
competing directly which could significantly reduce our revenue and seriously
harm our business.
There can
be no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully against our current
or future competitors or that the competitive pressures we face will not result
in reduced revenue and market share or seriously harm our business.
We
derive a substantial portion of our revenue from a limited number of contracts.
Therefore, our revenue will be adversely affected if we fail to receive new
contracts and renewals or follow-on contracts.
Our
Government contracts are important because our contracts are typically for fixed
terms which vary from shorter than one year to multi-year, particularly for
contracts with options. The typical term of our contracts with the U.S.
Government is between one and two years. The loss of revenue from our possible
failure to obtain new contracts and renewals or follow-on contracts may be
significant because our Government contracts account for a substantial portion
of our revenue.
Our
products may fail to perform satisfactorily in tests or field operations and
even if our products perform satisfactorily, there may be unanticipated delays
in obtaining contracts.
Our
Government customers typically test our products at various stages of
development and through Operational Assessments. Our success will ultimately
depend upon our products meeting performance criteria established by our
customers. Failure of a product to perform satisfactorily in a field test or
during operations could result in delay of product development, delay in
production contracts, cost overruns or even termination of the contract, any of
which could materially affect the development and manufacturing of such product
and our prospects, revenue and financial condition.
We depend on component availability,
subcontractor performance and our key suppliers to manufacture and deliver our
products and services
.
Our
manufacturing operations are highly dependent upon the delivery of materials by
outside suppliers in a timely manner. In addition, we depend in part upon
subcontractors to assemble major components and subsystems used in our products
in a timely and satisfactory manner. If these subcontractors are not willing to
contract with us on competitive terms or devote adequate resources to fulfill
their obligations to us, or we do not properly manage these relationships, our
existing customer relationships may suffer. In addition, by undertaking these
activities, we run the risks that:
|
·
|
the
reputation and competitiveness of our products and services may
deteriorate as a result of the reduction of our control over quality and
delivery schedules and the consequent risk that we will experience supply
interruptions and be subject to escalating costs;
and
|
|
·
|
our
competitiveness may be harmed by the failure of our subcontractors to
develop, implement or maintain manufacturing methods appropriate for our
products and customers.
|
Moreover,
because most of our contracts are with Governmental agencies, we may be limited
in the third parties we can engage as component manufacturers due to security
clearance requirements.
We are
dependent for some purposes or product on sole-source suppliers. If any of these
sole-source suppliers fails to meet our needs, we may not have readily available
alternatives. Our inability to fill our supply needs could jeopardize our
ability to satisfactorily and timely complete our obligations under Government
and other contracts. This might result in reduced revenue, termination of one or
more of these contracts and damage to our reputation and relationships with our
customers. We cannot be sure that materials, components, and subsystems will be
available in the quantities we require, if at all.
Because
the manufacturing process of our products is highly complex, errors, changes or
uncertainties could disrupt production.
The
manufacture of our products involves highly complex and precise processes,
requiring production in a highly controlled environment. Inadvertent
or slight changes or uncertainties in our manufacturing processes, errors or use
of defective or contaminated materials could impact our ability to achieve and
affect product reliability, or disrupt and/or delay production.
Our
business could be adversely affected by a negative audit by the U.S.
Government.
Government
agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA") routinely audit and
investigate Government contractors. These agencies review a contractor's
performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable
laws, regulations and standards. The DCAA also reviews the adequacy of, and a
contractor's compliance with, its internal control systems and policies,
including the contractor's purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and
management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a
specific contract will not be reimbursed, while such costs already reimbursed
must be refunded. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be
subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including
termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines
and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the Government. In
addition, our reputation would suffer serious harm if allegations of impropriety
were made against us.
Our
backlog is subject to reduction and cancellation.
Backlog
represents products or services that our customers have committed by contract to
purchase from us. Our total funded backlog as of December 31, 2009
and February 28, 2010 was approximately $3.4 million and $11.6 million,
respectively. Backlog is subject to fluctuations and is not necessarily
indicative of future revenue. Moreover, cancellations of purchase orders or
reductions of product quantities in existing contracts could substantially and
materially reduce backlog and, consequently, future revenue. Our failure to
replace cancelled or reduced backlog could result in lower future
revenue.
We
depend on the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel, and failure to
attract and retain such personnel could seriously harm our
business.
Due to
the specialized nature of our businesses, our future performance is highly
dependent upon the continued services of our key engineering and scientific
personnel. Our prospects depend upon our ability to attract and retain qualified
engineering, scientific and manufacturing personnel for our operations.
Competition for personnel is intense, and we may not be successful in attracting
or retaining qualified personnel. Our failure to compete for these personnel
could seriously harm our business, results of operations and financial
condition. Additionally, since the majority of our business involves
technologies that are classified due to national security reasons, we must hire
U.S. Citizens who have the ability to obtain a security clearance. This further
reduces our potential labor pool.
Because
many of our contracts and projects are classified for national security reasons,
we may not be able to provide important information to the public.
To date,
a majority of our revenue has been derived from contracts which are classified
by the Government for national security reasons. Therefore, we are
prohibited from filing these contracts as exhibits to our SEC reports,
registration statements and filings or provide more than the summary information
that we provide in our reports, registration statements and other filings with
the SEC and in our press releases. The specific aspects of our technologies are
highly sensitive to ongoing military operations and are largely classified under
specific Department of Defense guidelines and, consequently, cannot be disclosed
publicly. Accordingly, investors may not have important information concerning
our businesses and operations with which to make an informed investment
decision.
The
U.S. Government's royalty-free right to use technology developed by us limits
our intellectual property rights.
We seek
to protect the competitive benefits we derive from our patents, proprietary
information and other intellectual property. However, we do not have the right
to prohibit the U.S. Government from using certain technologies developed or
acquired by us or to prohibit third party companies, including our competitors,
from using those technologies in providing products and services to the U.S.
Government. The U.S. Government has the right to royalty-free use of
technologies that we have developed under Government contracts. We are free to
commercially exploit those Government-funded technologies and may assert our
intellectual property rights to seek to block other non-Government users
thereof, but we cannot assure you we could successfully do so.
We are
subject to Government regulation which may require us to obtain additional
licenses and could limit our ability to sell our products outside the United
States.
We
may be unable to adequately protect our intellectual property rights, which
could affect our ability to compete.
Protecting
our intellectual property rights is critical to our ability to compete and
succeed as a company. We hold a number of United States patents and patent
applications, as well as trademark, and registrations which are necessary and
contribute significantly to the preservation of our competitive position in the
market. There can be no assurance that any of these patents or future patent
applications and other intellectual property will not be challenged, invalidated
or circumvented by third parties. In some instances, we have augmented our
technology base by licensing the proprietary intellectual property of others. In
the future, we may not be able to obtain necessary licenses on commercially
reasonable terms. We enter into confidentiality and invention assignment
agreements with our employees, and enter into nondisclosure agreements with our
suppliers and appropriate customers so as to limit access to and disclosure of
our proprietary information. These measures may not suffice to deter
misappropriation or independent third party development of similar technologies.
Moreover, the protection provided to our intellectual property by the laws and
courts of foreign nations may not be as advantageous to us as the remedies
available under United States law.
We
may face claims of infringement of proprietary rights.
There is
a risk that a third party may claim our products infringe on their proprietary
rights. Whether or not our products infringe on proprietary rights of third
parties, infringement or invalidity claims may be asserted or prosecuted against
us and we could incur significant expense in defending them. If any
claims or actions are asserted against us, we may be required to modify our
products or obtain licenses on commercially reasonable terms, which we may be
unable to do in a timely manner or at all. Our failure to do so could adversely
affect our business.
Our
operations expose us to the risk of material environmental
liabilities.
We are
also subject to increasingly stringent laws and regulations that impose strict
requirements for the proper management, treatment, storage and disposal of
hazardous substances and wastes, restrict air and water emissions from our
testing and manufacturing operations, and require maintenance of a safe
workplace. These laws and regulations can impose substantial fines and criminal
sanctions for violations, and require the installation of costly pollution
control equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions and/or
decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous substance releases. We incur,
and expect to continue to incur, capital and operating costs to comply with
these laws and regulations. In addition, new laws and regulations, stricter
enforcement of existing laws and regulations, the discovery of previously
unknown contamination or the imposition of new clean-up requirements could
require us to incur costs in the future that would have a negative effect on our
financial condition or results of operations.
The
unpredictability of our results may harm the trading price of our securities, or
contribute to volatility.
Our
operating results may vary significantly over time for a variety of reasons,
many of which are outside of our control, and any of which may harm our
business. The value of our securities may fluctuate as a result of
considerations that are difficult to forecast, such as:
|
·
|
the
size and timing of contract receipt and funding; changes in Government
policies and Government budgetary
policies;
|
|
·
|
termination
or expiration of a key Government
contract;
|
|
·
|
our
ability and the ability of our key suppliers to respond to changes in
customer orders;
|
|
·
|
timing
of our new product introductions and the new product introductions of our
competitors;
|
|
·
|
adoption
of new technologies and industry
standards;
|
|
·
|
competitive
factors, including pricing, availability and demand for competing
products, and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange
rates;
|
|
·
|
conditions
in the capital markets and the availability of project
financing;
|
|
·
|
the
ability to hire and retain key scientists and executives and/or
appropriately trained and experienced
staff;
|
|
·
|
regulatory
developments;
|
|
·
|
general
economic conditions;
|
|
·
|
changes
in the mix of our products;
|
|
·
|
cost
and availability of components and subsystems;
and
|
Our
stock is subject to the risk of being de-listed from the NASDAQ Stock
Market.
On
September 17, 2009, we received notice that we were not in compliance with
Marketplace Rule 5450(a)(2), which requires a minimum $1.00 closing bid price
for common stock. The company’s common stock closing bid had dropped
below, and remained below this required threshold. On March 3, 2010,
our common stock was transferred to the NASDAQ Capital Market as a result of our
failure to meet the $1.00 minimum bid requirement. As of the date of
this report, our common stock bid price remains below $1.00. If the
closing bid price of our common stock does not meet or exceed $1.00 per share
for at least 10 consecutive business days, we may be de-listed from the NASDAQ
stock market in the future. Any such delisting could adversely affect the
liquidity or market pricing of our stock.
A
large number of shares of our common stock could be sold in the market in the
near future, which could depress our stock price.
As of
March 12, 2010, we had outstanding approximately 89 million shares of common
stock. A substantial portion of our shares are currently freely trading without
restriction under the Securities Act of 1933, having been held by their holders
for over one year and are eligible for sale under Rule 144(k) of the Securities
Act. Our outstanding Series A Preferred Stock is convertible into an
aggregate of 282,444 shares of common stock. There are also currently
outstanding restricted stock, restricted stock units, options and warrants to
purchase approximately 6.0 million shares of our common stock. To the extent any
of our options or warrants are exercised or the shares of Series A Preferred
Stock are converted, the percentage ownership of holders of our common stock
will be diluted and our stock price could be further adversely affected. The
shares of common stock underlying the Series A Preferred Stock and outstanding
restricted stock, restricted stock units, options and warrants have been
registered for resale by the holders thereof or are eligible for sale under Rule
144. As the underlying shares are sold, the market price could drop
significantly if the holders of these restricted shares sell them or if the
market perceives that the holders intend to sell these shares.
There
are many factors outside of our control which could adversely affect the price
of our stock or the ability to sell our shares.
There are
many financial, political, regulatory and market factors and other third-party
actions that influence the trading and pricing of our securities. Many of these
are outside our control. Such factors, actions or activities could negatively
impact your ability to trade your shares, the price of your shares, or could
further negatively impact our ability to utilize public equity markets according
to the needs and optimal timing of offerings, acquisitions, infusions or
liquidity.
Provisions
of our corporate charter documents could delay or prevent change of
control.
Our
Certificate of Incorporation authorizes our Board of Directors to issue up to
1,000,000 shares of "blank check" preferred stock without stockholder approval,
in one or more series and to fix the dividend rights, terms, conversion rights,
voting rights, redemption rights and terms, liquidation preferences, and any
other rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions applicable to each new
series of preferred stock. In addition, our Certificate of Incorporation divides
our board of directors into three classes, serving staggered three-year terms.
At least two annual meetings, instead of one, will be required to effect a
change in a majority of our board of directors. The designation of preferred
stock in the future, the classification of our Board of Directors, its three
classes and the rights agreement could make it difficult for third parties to
gain control of our company, prevent or substantially delay a change in control,
discourage bids for our common stock at a premium, or otherwise adversely affect
the market price of our common stock.
We
use estimates in accounting for many of our programs and changes in our
estimates could adversely affect our future financial results.
Contract
accounting requires judgments relating to assessing risks, including risks
associated with customer directed delays and reductions in scheduled deliveries,
unfavorable resolutions of claims and contractual matters, judgments associated
with estimating contract revenues and costs, and assumptions for schedule and
technical issues. The estimation of total revenues and cost at completion is
complicated and subject to many variables. Because of the significance of the
judgments and estimation processes, it is likely that materially different
amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying
circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances
or estimates may adversely affect our future results of operations and financial
condition, including requiring us to take write downs or charges in certain
periods, and could result in fluctuations in our operating results.
Our
investment in cash and cash equivalents are subject to risks, including risks
relating to the banks in which these assets are held.
At
December 31, 2009, we had $44,000 of cash and $225,000 in a certificate of
deposit held primarily in two large banks which are FDIC insured to FDIC limits.
In addition, we had $9.6 million invested in money market funds that primarily
invest in government and US treasury based securities.
If
we fail to maintain compliance with applicable NASDAQ Rules and our stock is
delisted from the NASDAQ StockMarket, it may become subject to Penny Stock
Regulations and there will be less interest for our stock in the
market.
If our
stock is not listed on NASDAQ and fails to maintain a price of $5.00 or more per
share, our stock would become subject to the Securities and Exchange
Commission's "Penny Stock" rules. These rules require a broker to deliver, prior
to any transaction involving a Penny Stock, a disclosure schedule explaining the
Penny Stock Market and its risks. Additionally, broker/dealers who recommend
Penny Stocks to persons other than established customers and accredited
investors must make a special written suitability determination and receive the
purchaser's written agreement to a transaction prior to the sale. If
our common stock becomes subject to these rules, broker-dealers may find it
difficult to effectuate customer transactions and trading activity in our
securities may be adversely affected. As a result, the market price of our
securities may be depressed and security holders may find it more difficult to
sell their securities.
ITEM 1B
.
UNRESOLVED STAFF
COMMENTS
None.
ITEM
2. PROPERTIES
Our
principal office, manufacturing, storage, and primary research and development
facility is located in Tucson, Arizona. We purchased this approximately 25,000
square foot facility in February, 2008.
In
November of 2009, we entered into a lease agreement for 20,000 square feet of
office and light manufacturing space in Tucson, Arizona for a period of two
years at a monthly rent of approximately $9,000. Concurrently we
vacated two other leased facilities. We also vacated a leased
facility in Tucson in January of 2010. This has allowed us to
consolidate operations for efficiency and reduce associated utility, rent and
insurance costs.
In
December of 2006, we entered into a lease agreement for an additional 12,000
square foot facility in Tucson, Arizona, and we exercised our option to extend
this lease to January 2010 with monthly rent of approximately $7,000,
accelerating to approximately $7,400 in the final year of the lease. We have
vacated this property and our last lease payment was in January,
2010.
Our
aggregate rent expense, including common area maintenance costs, was
approximately $390,000 and $457,000 for 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
We
believe our facilities are adequate for our current planned
operations.
See
Note
10 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements of our 2009 Financial Statements, which is
incorporated herein by reference for information with respect to our lease
commitments at December 31, 2009.
ITEM
3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Except as
described in Notes 10 and 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements,
which is incorporated herein by reference, as of December 31, 2009, we were not
a party to any pending legal proceedings other than claims that arise in the
conduct of our business.
ITEM
4. RESERVED
PART
III
ITEM
10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The following is information with respect to our executive officers and directors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Director,
Term
expiring in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James
M. Feigley
|
|
60
|
|
Chairman
of the Board
|
|
2012
|
Joseph
C. Hayden
|
|
51
|
|
Chief
Operating Officer and principal executive officer
|
|
|
Humberto
A. Astorga
|
|
37
|
|
Controller,
principal financial officer and principal accounting
officer
|
|
|
David
C. Hurley
|
|
69
|
|
Independent
Director
|
|
2010
|
George
P. Farley
|
|
71
|
|
Independent
Director
|
|
2012
|
James
K. Harlan
|
|
58
|
|
Independent
Director
|
|
2010
|
John
F. Levy
|
|
54
|
|
Independent
Director
|
|
2011
|
Mark
J. Lister
|
|
52
|
|
Independent
Director
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James M.
Feigley:
James M. Feigley has served as a member of our Board
of Directors since June 2008, and as Chairman since April of 2009. Mr. Feigley
serves as a member of our Nominating and Governance Committee and our Strategic
Planning Committee. Mr. Feigley has served as President of Rock River
Consulting, Inc., a defense consulting firm he founded in May 2003 after
retiring from the U.S. Marine Corps. General Feigley served as
Commander of the Marine Corps Systems Command from 1998 through 2002, where he
was the executive authority on research, development, procurement, fielding and
life cycle support for all Marine Corps ground combat, combat support and combat
service support equipment, ordinance and systems. General Feigley served as
Direct Reporting Program Manager to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Research, Development and Acquisition Program from 1993 through 1998, during
which time he was in charge of business planning, cost estimating, technical
risk analyses and management, systems engineering and numerous other
responsibilities. He served as Project Manager for the Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps and Naval Sea Systems Command from 1986 through 1993, where he managed all
technology base projects for ‘Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle’ and wrote all
technical, financial, cost, management, risk, planning and performance
documentation. General Feigley served as a member of the United States Marine
Corps from 1972 through 2002. He received a BS from the University of Wisconsin
- Oshkosh in 1972 and graduated from the Army Logistics Management Center in
1982, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in 1986 and the Defense Systems
Management College in 1986. He currently serves as an Associate Member of the
Naval Research Advisory Committee. Mr. Feigley retired from the Marine Corps as
a Brigadier General in 2002 and received many decorations and honors during his
military career.
Joseph C.
Hayden:
Joseph C. Hayden has been the Chief Operating Officer
and Principal Executive Officer since April 2009. Prior to that, he
was the Executive Vice President - Programs for Applied Energetics since
December 2004, and was the Executive Vice President of Business Operations from
November 2002 to 2004. He is a founder of the company. Mr. Hayden has almost 30
years experience in organizational leadership, business development, managing
and executing large engineering projects and high technology research and
development. Prior to the founding of Applied Energetics, Mr. Hayden worked at
Raytheon, Inc. and also at two other start-up companies. A graduate
of the U.S. Naval Academy, Mr. Hayden was a U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer
and Nuclear Engineer before leaving the service to work in
industry.
Humberto A.
Astorga:
Humberto A. Astorga has been our principal financial
officer and principal accounting officer since September, 2009. Since
March 2006, Mr. Astorga has been Controller of Applied
Energetics. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Astorga was Controller
of Lasertel, Inc., a semi-conductor laser manufacturer he joined in June
2002. From 2001 through June 2002, Mr. Astorga was senior financial
analyst of NCS Pearson, Inc., a provider of educational assessments, products,
services and solutions. Prior to joining NCS Pearson, Mr. Astorga was
the SAP Business Analyst for Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., a global supplier of
wires, cables and wiring systems. From 1997 until he joined Leoni
Wiring in 2000, Mr. Astorga was a senior financial analyst for the Chamberlain
Group, Inc., a consumer electronics manufacturing company.
David C.
Hurley:
David C. Hurley has been a member of our Board of
Directors since March, 2004 and served as the independent Chairman of our Board
from March, 2006 until December, 2007. Mr. Hurley was appointed Vice Chairman of
PrivatAir of Geneva, Switzerland on February 1, 2003, relinquishing the role of
Chief Executive Officer, a position he held following the acquisition of Flight
Services Group ("FSG") by PrivatAir in 2000. Mr. Hurley founded FSG in
1984. PrivatAir has major business aviation operations in over
fifteen bases in the U.S. and aircraft service operations at Toulouse and,
Paris, France; Dusseldorf, Munich and Hamburg, Germany; Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, and Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. Hurley has over 40 years
experience in operations, marketing and sales in the aerospace and
telecommunications industries. Before founding FSG, he served as the Executive
Vice President for Canadair Challenger (a Division of General
Dynamics). Prior to that position, he served as Regional Manager of
the Cessna Aircraft Company Commercial Jet Marketing Division. He
began his career in 1968 as Director of Marketing, Government and Military
Products Division, for RF Communications, a division of the Harris Intertype
Corporation. Mr. Hurley serves as the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the
Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C.; and
serves on the Boards of Aviation Partners Boeing, CAMP Systems, ExelTech
Aerospace, Inc., Hexcel Corp., Genesee & Wyoming, Inc., The Corporate Angel
Network, White Plains, N.Y., and Aerosat, Inc. He is an alumnus of Hartwick
College and served three years in the Special Services Branch of the US Army,
receiving an honorable discharge.
George P.
Farley:
George P. Farley, a certified public accountant, has
been a member of our Board of Directors since March 2004. Mr. Farley is Chairman
of our Audit Committee and also serves as a member of our Compensation
Committee. Mr. Farley has been providing financial consulting services since
1999. Through 2007, Mr. Farley served as a Director and a member of
the Audit Committee of iCad, Inc. He has also served as a Director and member of
the Audit Committee of Preserver Insurance Company, Inc. and Acorn Holdings Corp
and as a Director for Olympia Leather Company, Inc. From November 1997 to August
1999, Mr. Farley was a Chief Financial Officer of Talk.com, Inc., which provides
telecommunication services. Mr. Farley was also a director of Talk.com, Inc. Mr.
Farley joined BDO Seidman, LLP in 1962 and was a partner at BDO Seidman, LLP
from 1972 to 1995, where he served as the managing partner of BDO’s Philadelphia
Office, National Director of Mergers and Acquisition and established BDO’s
valuation practice.
James K.
Harlan:
James K. Harlan has been a member of our Board of
Directors since March 2004. Mr. Harlan is the Chairman of our Compensation
Committee and serves as a member of our Audit Committee. Mr. Harlan is the
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of HNG Storage, LP, a
natural gas storage development and operations business that he helped found in
1992. From 1991 to 1997, Mr. Harlan served as Group Development Manager for the
Pacific Resources Group which was engaged with various manufacturing and
distribution businesses and joint ventures in Asia, Australia, and North
America. He also served as operations research and planning analyst for the
White House Office of Energy Policy and Planning from 1977 to 1978, the
Department of Energy from 1978 to 1981, and U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation
from 1981 to 1984. He has a PhD in Public Policy with an operations research
dissertation from Harvard University and a BS in Chemical Engineering from
Washington University in St. Louis. Mr. Harlan was a member of the Board of
Directors of iCAD and was a member of the Audit and Governance Committees until
July 2008.
John F. Levy:
John
F. Levy has served as a member of our Board of Directors since June,
2009. Since May 2005, Mr. Levy has served as the Chief Executive
Officer of Board Advisory Services, a consulting firm that advises public
companies in the areas of corporate governance, corporate compliance, financial
reporting and financial strategies. Mr. Levy served as the Interim
Chief Financial Officer from November 2005 to March 2006 of Universal Food &
Beverage Company, which filed a voluntary petition under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Act on August 31,
2007. From November 1997 to May 2005, Mr. Levy served as Chief
Financial Officer of MediaBay, Inc., a NASDAQ listed company and provider of
spoken word audio content. While at MediaBay, he also served for a
period as its Vice Chairman. Mr. Levy is a director and Chairman of
the Audit Committee of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., a developer,
marketer, distributor and publisher of interactive entertainment software games,
a director and non-executive Chairman of the Board of Applied Minerals, Inc.
(formerly Atlas Mining Company), an exploration stage natural resource and
mining company, a director, Lead Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of
Gilman Ciocia, Inc., a financial planning and tax preparation firm, and is a
director of PNG Ventures, Inc., a producer and distributor of vehicle-quality
liquid natural gas serving airports, public transit, refuse, seaports, regional
trucking, taxis and government fleets markets. On September 10, 2009
PNG Ventures filed a voluntary petition under the provisions of Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Levy has authored
Focus on Corporate Ethics: Legal and
Ethical Responsibilities of Board Members
, a course on the ethical and
legal responsibilities of board members initially presented to various state
accounting societies. Mr. Levy is a certified public accountant with
nine years of experience with the national public accounting firms of Ernst
& Young, Laventhol & Horwath and Grant Thornton LLP. Mr. Levy
has a B.S. degree in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania and received his M.B.A. from St. Joseph's University in
Philadelphia.
Mark J.
Lister:
Mark J. Lister has served as a member of our Board of
Directors since June, 2009. Since November, 2006, Mr. Lister has been
President of StratTechs, Inc., a consulting firm he founded which specializes in
brokering technology within the Defense, Intelligence and Homeland Security
Government markets. Mr. Lister currently serves on the Secretary of
the Navy Advisory Panel and recently completed service as Chairman of the Naval
Research Advisory Committee. From January 1992 to June 2006, Mr.
Lister was employed by the Sarnoff Corporation where he most recently served as
Senior Vice President of Government Operations. While at Sarnoff,
from 2001 to 2006, Mr. Lister served as Managing Director of the Rosettex
Technology and Ventures Group, a joint venture of Sarnoff Corporation and SRI
International for which he was a founder, and from 1996 to 2001, Mr. Lister
served as Executive Director of the National Information Display
Laboratory. From 1987 to 1992, he served as Director, Advanced
Development and Applications in the Research and Development Group of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force for Space. Mr.
Lister’s government career began at the Naval Research Laboratory where he
served as a researcher in the Space Applications Branch from 1977 to
1987. Mr. Lister has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Drexel
University, a B.S. in Mathematics from St. Vincent College and a MEA from George
Washington University.
Director
Qualifications, Experience and Skills
All of
our directors bring to our Board a wealth of executive leadership experience
derived from their service as senior executives and, in many cases, founders of
industry or knowledge specific consulting firms or operational
businesses. They also offer extensive public company board
experience. Each of our board members has demonstrated strong
business acumen and an ability to exercise sound judgment and has a reputation
for integrity, honesty and adherence to ethical standards. When
considering whether directors and nominees have the experience, qualifications,
attributes and skills, taken as a whole, to enable the Board of Directors to
satisfy its oversight responsibilities effectively in light of the company’s
business and structure, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and
the Board of Directors focused primarily on the information discussed in each of
the Directors’ individual biographies set forth above and the specific
individual qualifications, experience and skills as described
below:
|
·
|
General
Feigley’s service in the United States Marine Corps and ownership and
operation of a defense consulting firm provides us with invaluable insight
into our government customers’ needs and requirements, as well as contacts
to key personnel within these
companies.
|
|
·
|
Mr.
Farley’s extensive knowledge of accounting, the capital markets, financial
reporting and financial strategies from his extensive public accounting
experience, and prior services as a chief financial officer of a public
company and as audit committee member of several public
companies. Mr. Farley specialized in “Transactional Accounting”
managing the accounting and auditing function for numerous public
financings, mergers, acquisitions, reorganizations and business
dispositions. In 1993, Mr. Farley was part of the team that
created a new financing vehicle, the Specified Purpose Acquisition Company
“SPAC”.
|
|
·
|
David
Hurley’s extensive knowledge of our markets and customers and the capital
markets through his service on the boards of directors of several public
and private companies which operate in the defense and aerospace
industries. Mr. Hurley also provides extensive knowledge of
corporate governance matters and holds a Professional Director
Certification from the Corporate Directors Group, a national education and
public company director credentialing
organization.
|
|
·
|
Mr.
Harlan’s service in senior executive positions in manufacturing and
operations provide our Board with a wealth of knowledge for these aspects
of our business. Mr. Harlan has significant experience with
management and commercial issues associated with technology based
businesses that comprise an important aspect of our business
position. Mr. Harlan also has prior experience in serving on
the compensation committee of other public
companies.
|
|
·
|
Mr.
Levy’s extensive knowledge of accounting, the capital markets, corporate
governance, corporate compliance, financial reporting and financial
strategies from his public accounting firm experience and service as chief
financial officer and audit committee member of several public companies,
as well as through the services he provides to public companies through
Board Advisory Services, a consulting firm he
founded.
|
|
·
|
Mr.
Lister’s broad perspective regarding our customers, markets and bringing
defense industry applications to market gained through the services
provided by his consulting firm to customers in the Defense, Intelligence
and Homeland Security Government markets, as well as from his current and
previous positions with the Navy Advisory Panel and Navel Research
Advisory Committee and senior assignment with the U.S. Air Force Office of
Space Systems.
|
Section
16(A) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section
16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires certain officers and
directors of Applied Energetics, and any persons who own more than ten percent
of the common stock outstanding to file forms reporting their initial beneficial
ownership of shares and subsequent changes in that ownership with the SEC and
the NASDAQ Stock Market. Officers and directors of Applied Energetics, and
greater than ten percent beneficial owners are also required to furnish us with
copies of all such Section 16(a) forms they file. None of our
officers or directors failed to file any Section 16(a) forms, nor were any such
persons late in making any such filings.
Code
of Ethics
Applied
Energetics has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all
of Applied Energetics’ employees and directors, including its principal
executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer.
Applied Energetics’ Code of Business Conduct and Ethics covers all areas of
professional conduct including, but not limited to, conflicts of interest,
disclosure obligations, insider trading, confidential information, as well as
compliance with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to Applied
Energetics’ business.
Upon
request made to us in writing at the following address, our Code of Ethics and
Business Conduct will be provided without charge:
Applied
Energetics, Inc.
Attention:
Compliance Officer
3590 East
Columbia Street
Tucson,
AZ 85714
Committees
of the Board of Directors
Audit Committee
The Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors is comprised of Messrs. Farley, Harlan and
Levy. The Audit Committee makes recommendations concerning the engagement of
independent public accountants, reviews the scope and results of the audit
engagement with the independent public accountants, approves professional
services provided by the independent public accountants, reviews the
independence of the independent public accountants, considers the range of audit
and non-audit fees and reviews the adequacy of our internal accounting controls.
Our Board of Directors has determined that each committee member meets the
independence and financial literacy requirements under current NASDAQ rules. In
addition, our Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Farley is an “audit
committee financial expert” as defined under Item 407 of Regulation S-K of the
SEC. Refer to Item 10 above for Mr. Farley's qualifications.
Compensation
Committee
The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors is comprised of Messrs. Harlan,
Farley and Lister. The committee is responsible for establishing and maintaining
executive compensation practices designed to encourage company profitability and
enhance long-term shareholder value.
Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee
The
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is comprised of Messrs. Hurley and
Feigley. The Committee is responsible for establishing and maintaining corporate
governance practices designed to aid the long-term success of Applied Energetics
and effectively enhance and protect shareholder value.
Strategic
Planning Committee
The
Strategic Planning Committee is comprised of Messrs. Lister (Chairman), Feigley
and Levy. The Committee is responsible for providing oversight to
establish strategic direction for the Company, develop with Company management
and recommend to the Board a short- and long-term strategic plan for the
Company, periodically review and update the plan, investigate and review merger,
acquisition, joint venture and other business combination and strategic
opportunities and to provide oversight for monitoring and executing
strategies.
ITEM
11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Summary
Compensation Table
The
following table discloses, for the periods presented, the compensation for the
persons who served as our Principal Executive Officer and our Principal
Financial Officer for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 (the “Named
Executives”).
SUMMARY
COMPENSATION TABLE
Name and Principal
Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary (1)
|
|
|
Bonus (2)
|
|
|
Stock
Awards (3)
|
|
|
Option
Awards (4)
|
|
|
All Other
Compensation
(5)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Joseph
C. Hayden
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
209,615
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
4,479
|
|
|
$
|
214,094
|
|
Chief
Operating Officer,
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
4,813
|
|
|
$
|
229,813
|
|
principal
executive officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humberto
A Astorga
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
120,769
|
|
|
$
|
22,750
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
61,547
|
|
|
$
|
1,650
|
|
|
$
|
206,716
|
|
Director
of Finance,
principal
financial officer,
Controller
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
112,500
|
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
3,488
|
|
|
$
|
123,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana
A. Marshall
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
122,753
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
174,662
|
|
|
$
|
37,039
|
|
|
$
|
501,484
|
|
|
$
|
855,938
|
|
Former
Chairman, Chief
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
350,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
71,949
|
|
|
$
|
421,949
|
|
Executive
Officer, President
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
Assistant Secretary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth
M. Wallace
|
|
2009
|
|
$
|
173,095
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
90,618
|
|
|
$
|
70,847
|
|
|
$
|
155,587
|
|
|
$
|
490,147
|
|
Former
Chief Financial
|
|
2008
|
|
$
|
225,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
7,064
|
|
|
$
|
232,064
|
|
Officer,
principal accounting officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
Secretary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Mr.
Hayden’s 2009 salary reflects the voluntary decrease of his base salary to
$200,000 effective 5/11/09. Mr. Astorga’s 2009 salary reflects
the increase of his base salary to $ 137,500 effective September 1, 2009
as a result of his acceptance of the promotion to Principal Financial
officer from Controller of the company. Messrs. Marshall and
Wallace’s 2009 salaries reflect only the base
salary.
|
(2)
|
Mr.
Astorga’s cash bonus of $22,750 in 2009 was determined by the compensation
committee.
|
(3)
|
The
amounts included in the “Stock Awards” column represent the aggregate
grant date fair value in 2009 and 2008 related to restricted stock awards,
computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For a discussion of
valuation assumptions, see Note 7 to our 2009 Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
(4)
|
The
amounts included in the “Option Awards” column represent the aggregate
grant date fair value in 2009 and 2008 related to stock option awards,
computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For a discussion of
valuation assumptions, see Note 7 to our 2009 Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
(5)
|
The
2009 amounts shown in the “All Other Compensation” column are attributable
to Messrs. Marshall and Wallace as severance. Also included in
this amount is the company match expense for 401(k). The 2008
amounts shown in the “All Other Compensation” column are attributable to
Mr. Marshall receiving $39,411 for temporary living, travel and automobile
expenses, and $25,105 “gross up” for the payment of taxes for such
expenses. Also included in this amount is the company match
expense for 401(k). All named executives received the employer
match benefit where we match 50% of the employees’ 401(K) contribution up
to 3% of their eligible compensation to their 401(K) plans, a benefit that
is available to all employees. Additionally, “All Other Compensation”
includes
the
dollar value of life insurance premiums paid by us for all named executive
officers. The amounts shown in the “All Other Compensation” column for Mr.
Marshall include payments for commuting costs, temporary housing
assistance and relocation assistance, Mr. Marshall also received
reimbursements of automotive
expenses.
|
(6)
|
Mr.
Marshall served in such capacities until March 31,
2009.
|
(7)
|
Mr.
Wallace served in such capacities until September 1,
2009.
|
|
|
Employment
Agreements for Named Executive Officers
We
currently have no employment agreements for named executive
officers. Previously, we were obligated under employment agreements
with Messrs. Marshall and Wallace, but each executive separated from the company
during 2009.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The
following table discloses unexercised options held by the Named Executives at
December 31, 2009:
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
Name
|
|
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable (#)
|
|
|
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable (#)
|
|
|
Option
Exercise
Price
|
|
Option
Expiration
Date
|
|
Number of
shares of stock
that have not
vested
|
|
|
Market Value
of Shares of
stock that
have
not
vested
|
|
Joseph C. Hayden
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,500
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
4,725
|
|
Humberto A.
|
|
|
58,000
|
(2)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
03/09/2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astorga
|
|
|
83,333
|
(3)
|
|
|
166,667
|
(3)
|
|
$
|
0.40
|
|
07/16/2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
8,667
|
(4)
|
|
$
|
3,033
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
4,563
|
(5)
|
|
$
|
1,597
|
|
(1)
|
Restricted
stock grant vested 13,500 shares on each of December 1, 2008 and
2009. An additional 13,500 shares will vest on December 1,
2010. These restricted stock awards are from the 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan.
|
(2)
|
Mr.
Astorga exchanged options to purchase 116,000 shares of common stock in
March, 2009 for options to purchase 58,000 of common stock exercisable at
$0.50 per share. These options are from the 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan.
|
(3)
|
Options
vested on July 16, 2009. Additional options to purchase shares
vest annually on the third day following the filing of form 10-Q in each
of 2010 and 2011. These options are from the 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan.
|
(4)
|
Restricted
stock grant vested 8,667 shares on January 10, 2008 and 8,666 shares on
January 10, 2009. An additional 8,667 shares will vest on
January 10, 2010. These restricted stock units are from the
2004 Stock Incentive Plan.
|
(5)
|
Restricted
stock grant vested 4,564 shares on December 1, 2008, and 4,563 shares on
December 1, 2009. Additionally, 4,563 shares vest on December
1, 2010. These restricted stock awards are from the 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan.
|
(6)
|
The
market value of shares or units of stock that have not vested as reported
in the table above is determined by multiplying the closing market price
of our common stock on the last trading day of 2009 of $0.35 by the number
of shares stock that have not
vested.
|
Payments
upon Termination or Change-In-Control
On March
31, 2009, we entered into a separation agreement with Dana Marshall, pursuant to
which his employment was terminated. Pursuant to the agreement, we
made total cash payments of approximately $485,000 to Mr.
Marshall. These payments consisted of a $135,000 lump sum payment and
twelve monthly payments of $29,167. In addition, we accelerated the
vesting of 137,500 unvested shares of restricted stock and unvested options to
purchase 800,000 shares of common stock. As such, all of Mr.
Marshall’s equity awards were modified pursuant to ASC 718 “Compensation – Stock
Compensation”, and all appropriate charges have been expensed. The
options expired in July 2009, pursuant to their terms.
On
September 1, 2009, we entered into a separation agreement with Kenneth Wallace,
pursuant to which his employment was terminated. Pursuant to the
agreement, we made total cash payments of approximately $149,000 to Mr.
Wallace. These payments consisted of a $29,000 lump sum payment, four
monthly payments of $28,125 and a lump sum payment of $7,682 as reimbursement
for health insurance premiums.
Director
Compensation
The
following table discloses our director compensation for the year ended December
31, 2009:
Name
|
|
Fees
Earned or
Paid
in Cash (1)
|
|
|
Option
Awards
|
|
|
Total
|
|
David
C. Hurley
|
|
$
|
53,750
|
(2)
|
|
$
|
19,593
|
|
|
$
|
73,343
|
|
George
P. Farley
|
|
$
|
75,000
|
(3)
|
|
$
|
23,171
|
|
|
$
|
98,171
|
|
James
K. Harlan
|
|
$
|
56,875
|
(4)
|
|
$
|
23,191
|
|
|
$
|
80,066
|
|
James
M. Feigley
|
|
$
|
68,750
|
(5)
|
|
$
|
90,655
|
|
|
$
|
159,405
|
|
John
F. Levy
|
|
$
|
29,167
|
(6)
|
|
$
|
12,352
|
|
|
$
|
41,519
|
|
Mark
J. Lister
|
|
$
|
29,167
|
(7)
|
|
$
|
12,352
|
|
|
$
|
41,519
|
|
(1)
|
The
amounts included in the “Option Awards” column represent aggregate grant
date fair value in 2009 related to share awards to directors, computed in
accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For a discussion of valuation
assumptions, see Note 7 to our 2009 Consolidated Financial Statements. All
options granted to directors in 2009 vested immediately and became
immediately exercisable upon grant.
|
(2)
|
Mr.
Hurley was granted options to purchase 55,000 shares of common stock in
April, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, $11,708 of which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718. In addition, as part of our March, 2009 option exchange
which was available to all employee and director holding options under our
stock incentive plans (the “option exchange”), Mr. Hurley exchanged
options to purchase 285,000 shares of common stock in March, 2009 for
options to purchase 142,500 of common stock exercisable at $0.50 per
share. The grant date fair value for the exchange, which was
recognized in 2009 for financial statement reporting purposes in
accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, was
$7,885.
|
(3)
|
Mr.
Farley was granted options to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock in
April, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, of $15,965 which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718.
|
(4)
|
Mr.
Harlan was granted options to purchase 80,000 shares of common stock in
April, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, of $17,029 which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718. In addition, Mr. Harlan participated in the option
exchange and exchanged options to purchase 222,500 shares of common stock
in March, 2009 for options to purchase 111,250 of common stock exercisable
at $0.50 per share. The grant date fair value for the exchange,
which was recognized in 2009 for financial statement reporting purposes in
accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, was
$6,162.
|
(5)
|
Mr.
Feigley was granted options to purchase 425,000 shares of common stock in
April, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, of $90,467 which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718. In addition, Mr. Feigley participated in the option
exchange and exchanged options to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock
in March, 2009 for options to purchase 5,000 of common stock exercisable
at $0.50 per share. The grant date fair value for the exchange,
which was recognized in 2009 for financial statement reporting purposes in
accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, was
$188.
|
(6)
|
Mr.
Levy was granted options to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock in
June, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, of $12,352 which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718.
|
(7)
|
Mr.
Lister was granted options to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock in
June, 2009 with a grant date fair value, computed in accordance with FASB
ASC Topic 718, of $12,352 which was recognized in 2009 for financial
statement reporting purposes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic
718. In addition, Mr. Lister was awarded an additional payment
of $25,000 as director fees in January, 2010 for his services in light of
the time and effort spent in leading the corporation’s strategic planning
initiatives.
|
In
January of 2009, the board amended the Independent Directors Compensation
Program to delay the timing of automatic stock grants and option awards from
January 15
th
of each
year until the third business day following the company’s release of its audited
financial statements for the prior year.
Additionally,
under the program as amended, on the third day following the filing of its form
10-K each year (or on the first business day thereafter if such date is not a
business day), each independent director received options to purchase 10,000
shares of the Registrant’s common stock. The exercise price of such options
shall be the closing sale price of our common stock on the date of
grant.
Under the
program, if at anytime an independent director serves in more than one position
of Chairman of the Board, lead independent director and Chairman of the Audit
Committee or Compensation Committee, that director shall receive the higher
level compensation paid for any such position the director then
holds.
In April
of 2009, the board agreed to reduce its compensation under its Independent
Directors Compensation Program. The Chairman of the Board and Chair
of the Audit Committee each received $75,000 annually, and were granted options
to purchase 75,000 shares of the Corporation’s common stock. The
Chair of the Compensation Committee and the Chair of the Nominating and
Governance Committee each received $55,000 annually, and were granted options to
purchase 55,000 shares of the Corporation’s common stock. The
remaining independent directors received $50,000 annually, and, upon their
appointment in June, were granted 50,000 shares of the Corporation’s common
stock.
In
January 2010, the Board of Directors terminated the Independent Directors
Compensation Program. In addition, in January of 2010, the Board set
the annual cash compensation for independent directors as
follows: the Chairman of the Board, and/or Lead Independent Director,
if independent, shall receive $125,000 per year; the Chairman of the Audit
Committee shall receive $75,000 per year; the Chairman of the Compensation
Committee shall receive $55,000 per year, the Chairman of the Nominating
Committee shall receive $55,000 per year and each other independent director
shall receive $50,000 per year. In addition, the Chairman of the
Strategic Planning Committee was awarded an additional payment of $50,000
annually for his services in leading the corporation’s strategic planning
initiatives.
ITEM
12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS:
The
following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of our
Common Stock, based on information provided by the persons named below in
publicly available filings, as of March 12, 2010:
|
·
|
each
of our directors and executive
officers;
|
|
·
|
all
directors and executive officers of ours as a group;
and
|
|
·
|
each
person who is known by us to beneficially own more than five percent of
the outstanding shares of our Common
Stock.
|
Unless
otherwise indicated, the address of each beneficial owner is care of Applied
Energetics, 3590 East Columbia Street, Tucson, Arizona 85714. Unless
otherwise indicated, the company believes that all persons named in the
following table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares
of common stock that they beneficially own.
For
purposes of this table, a person is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the
securities if that person has the right to acquire such securities within 60
days of March 12, 2010 upon the exercise of options or warrants. In
determining the percentage ownership of the persons in the table below, we
assumed in each case that the person exercised all options and warrants which
are currently held by that person and which are exercisable within such 60 day
period, but that options and warrants held by all other persons were not
exercised, and based the percentage ownership on 89,065,252 shares outstanding
on March 12, 2010.
Name
of Beneficial Owner
|
|
Number
of Shares Beneficially
Owned
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
of Shares
Beneficially
Owned (1)
|
|
Superius
Securities Group Inc. Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
|
8,535,997
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
State
of Wisconsin Investment Board
|
|
|
8,388,570
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
Artis
Capital Management, L.P.
|
|
|
6,657,129
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
Joseph
C. Hayden
|
|
|
5,994,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
Stephen
W. McCahon
|
|
|
5,528,868
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
James
M. Feigley
|
|
|
439,947
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
David
C. Hurley
|
|
|
231,284
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
James
K. Harlan
|
|
|
214,365
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Humberto
A. Astorga
|
|
|
175,849
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
John
F. Levy
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mark
J. Lister
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
George
P. Farley
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All
directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)
|
|
|
7,155,913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
%
|
* Less
than 1%
|
(1)
|
Computed
based upon the total number of shares of common stock, restricted shares
of common stock and shares of common stock underlying options held by that
person that are exercisable within 60 days of March 12,
2010.
|
|
(2)
|
Based
on information contained in a report on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
October 29, 2009. The address of Superius Securities Group Inc.
Profit Sharing Plan is 94 Grand Ave., Englewood,
NJ 07631.
|
|
(3)
|
Based
on information contained in a report on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 16, 2010. The address of the State of Wisconsin
Investment Board is P. O. Box 7842, Madison, WI
53707.
|
|
(4)
|
Based
on information contained in a report on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on
February 16, 2010: The address of Artis Capital Management, LLC
(“Artis”) is One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower, Suite 1700, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Artis is a registered investment adviser
and is the investment adviser of investment funds that hold the company’s
stock for the benefit of the investors in those funds. Artis
Inc. is the general partner of Artis. Stuart L. Peterson is the president
of Artis Inc. and the controlling owner of Artis and Artis
Inc. Each of Artis, Artis Inc., and Mr. Peterson disclaims
beneficial ownership of the Stock, except to the extent of its or his
pecuniary interest therein.
|
|
(5)
|
Based
on information provided by Dr. McCahon on March 12,
2010.
|
|
(6)
|
Represents
9,947 shares of common stock and 430,000 options exercisable within 60
days of March 12, 2010.
|
|
(7)
|
Represents
33,748 shares of common stock and 197,500 options exercisable within 60
days of March 12, 2010.
|
|
(8)
|
Represents
23,115 shares of common stock and 191,250 options exercisable within 60
days of March 12, 2010.
|
|
(9)
|
Represents
34,516 shares of common stock and 141,333 options exercisable within 60
days of March 12, 2010.
|
|
(10)
|
Represents
50,000 options exercisable within 60 days of March 12,
2010.
|
|
(11)
|
Represents
50,000 options exercisable within 60 days of March 12,
2010.
|
|
(12)
|
Mr.
Farley denies beneficial ownership of the common shares and common shares
issuable upon exercise of options he transferred to various
LLCs.
|
Securities
Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The
following table details information regarding our existing equity compensation
plans as of December 31, 2009:
Equity Compensation Plan Information
|
|
Plan category
|
|
Number of
securities to be
issued upon
exercise of
outstanding
options
|
|
|
Weighted-
average
exercise
price
of
outstanding
options
|
|
|
Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity
compensation
plans
(excluding
securities
reflected in
column (a))
|
|
Equity
compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
4,493,632
|
|
|
$
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
8,807,153
|
|
Equity
compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
14,250
|
|
|
$
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4,507,882
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
8,807,153
|
|
In April,
2009, under the Independent Directors Compensation Program, the members of the
Board of Directors received options to purchase 635,000 shares of common
stock. In June, 2009, the new members of the board received options
to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock.
The
following is a description of currently open stock option and equity
plans.
The 2004
Stock Incentive Plan (“2004 Plan”), which provides for the grant of any or all
of the following types of awards: (1) stock options, which may be either
incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options, (2) restricted stock,
(3) deferred stock and (4) other stock-based awards. A total of
3,000,000 shares of common stock were originally reserved for distribution
pursuant to the 2004 Plan. On June 28, 2005, the stockholders approved an
amendment to the 2004 Plan to (i) increase the number of shares of the company's
common stock, $.001 par value, authorized for issuance under the 2004 Plan by
2,000,000 shares from 3,000,000 shares to 5,000,000 shares, and (ii) set the
maximum number of shares of common stock which may be issued upon the exercise
of incentive stock options at 3,000,000 shares. As of December 31,
2009, options to purchase 4,063,944 shares were outstanding under this plan.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2009, there were 112,507 unvested restricted
stock units outstanding under this plan.
The 2007
Stock Incentive Plan (“2007 Plan”), which provides for the grant of any or all
of the following types of awards: (1) stock options, which may be either
incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options, (2) restricted stock,
(3) deferred stock, (4) stock appreciation rights, and (5) other
stock-based awards. A total of 10,000,000 shares of common
stock have been reserved for distribution pursuant to the 2007 Plan provided,
however, that the maximum number of shares available for award or grant during
the first five years of the 2007 Plan shall be an aggregate of 5,000,000 shares;
and provided further that the maximum number of shares available for award or
grant during any consecutive twelve month period shall be 1,000,000 shares
during the first two years of the 2007 Plan and 2,000,000 shares during the
third through fifth years of the 2007 Plan. As of December 31, 2009,
options to purchase 429,688 shares were outstanding under this
plan. As of December 31, 2009, 111,635 restricted stock grants have
been awarded from this plan.
We have,
from time to time, also granted non-plan options and other equity-based awards
to certain officers, directors, employees and consultants. No
inducement grants as defined were made during 2009.
ITEM
13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
Transactions
with Related Parties
On March
31, 2009, we entered into a consulting agreement with Dr. Stephen McCahon, a
principal stockholder, providing for his full-time consulting services for an
initial term of one year for a fee of $18,750 per month. The term of
the agreement automatically extends on a monthly basis unless terminated upon
thirty days notice. During 2009, he was paid approximately $167,000,
and was owed approximately $18,850 in fees and expenses at December 31,
2009.
Review,
Approval or Ratification of Transactions with Related Persons
Pursuant
to our Code of Business Conduct, all officers and directors of the company who
have, or whose immediate family members have, any direct or indirect financial
or other participation in any business that supplies goods or services to
Applied Energetics, are required to notify our Compliance Officer, who will
review the proposed transaction and notify the Audit Committee of our Board of
Directors for review and action as it sees fit, including, if necessary,
approval by our Board of Directors.
Director
Independence
The Board
has determined that Messrs. Hurley, Farley, Harlan, Feigley, Levy and Lister
meet the director independence requirements applicable to NASDAQ listed
companies.
ITEM
14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES:
The
following is a summary of the fees billed to the company by BDO Seidman, LLP for
professional services rendered for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Audit
Fees
|
|
$
|
239,000
|
|
|
$
|
385,000
|
|
Tax
Fees
|
|
$
|
12,000
|
|
|
$
|
11,000
|
|
Fees for
audit services include fees associated with the annual audit of the company and
its subsidiaries, the review of our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and in 2008,
the internal control evaluation under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. Tax fees include tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning related to
federal and state tax matters.
Pre-Approval
Policies and Procedures
Consistent
with the SEC requirements regarding auditor independence, our Audit Committee
has adopted a policy to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services
provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. Under the policy,
the Audit Committee must approve non-audit services prior to the commencement of
the specified service. Our independent registered public accounting firm, BDO
Seidman, LLP, have verified, and will verify annually, to our Audit Committee
that they have not performed, and will not perform any prohibited non-audit
service.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
1 -
|
ORGANIZATION
OF BUSINESS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING
POLICIES
|
Basis
of Presentation
The
consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Applied Energetics,
Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Ionatron Technologies, Inc. and North
Star Power Engineering, Inc. (“North Star”) (collectively,
"company," "Applied Energetics," "we," "our" or "us"). All
intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. Certain
reclassifications have been made to prior period financial statement amounts to
conform to the current presentation.
Nature
of Business
Applied
Energetics is involved in the development and manufacture of applied energy
systems for military and commercial applications. Through our efforts in
developing our core technology, Laser Guided Energy (LGE), we have gained
expertise and proprietary knowledge in high performance lasers, high-voltage
electronics, advanced dynamic optics and atmospheric and plasma energy
interactions. We apply these technologies to deliver innovative
solutions to urgent military requirements, including neutralizing improvised
explosive devices (“IEDs”) and other high priority missions of U.S. and allied
military forces. Additionally, we develop and manufacture
high-voltage and laser products for government and commercial customers for a
range of applications. Applied Energetics was founded on the premise that an
entrepreneurial approach to technology development would accelerate the
advancement of Laser Guided Energy (LGE) to solve critical needs in the Directed
Energy Weapon arena. We have developed counter-IED technology as a
result of the work done on LGE.
Use
of Estimates
The
preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with United
States generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make
estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the
financial statements and accompanying notes. Management bases its assumptions on
historical experiences and on various other assumptions that it believes to be
reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for
making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are
not readily apparent from other sources. In addition, Management considers the
basis and methodology used in developing and selecting these estimates, the
trends in and amounts of these estimates, specific matters affecting the amount
of and changes in these estimates, and any other relevant matters related to
these estimates, including significant issues concerning accounting principles
and financial statement presentation. Such estimates and assumptions could
change in the future as more information becomes known which could impact the
amounts reported and disclosed herein. Significant estimates include revenue
recognition under the percentage of completion method of contract accounting,
the valuation of inventory, carrying amounts of long-lived assets, valuation
assumptions for share-based payments and measurements of income tax assets and
liabilities.
Revenue
Recognition
A
majority of revenue under long-term government contracts is recorded under the
percentage of completion method. Revenue, billable monthly under cost plus fixed
fee contracts, is recorded as costs are incurred and includes estimated earned
fees in the proportion that costs incurred to date bear to total estimated
costs. Costs include direct labor, direct materials, subcontractor costs and
manufacturing and administrative overhead allowable under the contract. General
and administrative expenses allowable under the terms of contracts are allocated
per contract, depending on its direct labor and material proportion to total
direct labor and material of all contracts. As contracts can extend over one or
more accounting periods, revisions in earnings estimated during the course of
work are reflected during the accounting period in which the facts become known.
When the current contract estimate indicates a loss, a provision is made for the
total anticipated loss in the current period. We do not generally provide an
allowance for returns from our government customers because our customer
agreements do not provide for a right of return.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Following
is a summary of our Reserves for Loss on Projects:
Reserve
For Loss on Projects
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Balance
at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
98,239
|
|
|
$
|
1,366,210
|
|
Addition
to loss on projects provision
|
|
|
22,000
|
|
|
|
193,192
|
|
Write
offs
|
|
|
(98,239
|
)
|
|
|
(1,461,163
|
)
|
Balance
at end of year
|
|
$
|
22,000
|
|
|
$
|
98,239
|
|
The asset
caption “accounts receivable” includes costs and estimated earnings in excess of
billings on uncompleted contracts, which represents revenue recognized in excess
of amounts billed. Such revenue is billable under the terms of
contracts at the end of the year, but was not invoiced until the following year
and is generally expected to be collected within one year.
Revenue
for other products and services is recognized when such products and services
are delivered or performed and, in connection with certain sales to Government
agencies, when the products and services are accepted, which is normally
negotiated as part of the initial contract. Revenue from commercial,
non-Governmental, customers is based on fixed price contracts where the sale is
recognized upon acceptance of the product or performance of the service and when
payment is probable. Contract costs are deferred in the same manner as inventory
costs and are charged to operations as the related revenue from contracts is
recognized. When a current contract estimate indicates a loss, a provision is
made for the total anticipated loss in the period in which such facts become
evident.
Settlement
Expenses
Litigation
settlement expenses for 2009 were approximately $1.3 million. This
includes the fair value of the 2,283,887 shares issued in settlement of the
class action lawsuit filed by George Wood and Raymond Deedon, and the derivative
action filed by John T. Johnasen on September 29, 2009, and the legal fees not
covered by insurance proceeds.
Net
Loss Attributable to Common Stockholders
Basic
loss per common share is computed by dividing net loss attributable to common
stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period before giving effect to stock options, stock warrants, restricted stock
units and convertible securities outstanding, which are considered to be
dilutive common stock equivalents. Diluted net loss per common share
is calculated based on the weighted average number of common and potentially
dilutive shares outstanding during the period after giving effect to dilutive
common stock equivalents. Contingently issuable shares are included
in the computation of basic loss per share when issuance of the shares is no
longer contingent. The number of options, warrants, restricted stock
units and our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, which were not included in
the computation of earnings per share because the effect was antidilutive, was
5,927,772 and 6,882,647 for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Fair
Value of Current Assets and Liabilities
The
carrying amount of the certificate of deposit, accounts receivable, accounts
payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value due to the short maturity of
these instruments
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash
equivalents are investments in money market funds or securities with an initial
maturity of three months or less. These money market funds are
invested in government and US treasury based securities.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Certificate
of Deposit
We have a
single certificate of deposit with an initial maturity of one
year. The certificate is covered by Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation limits, and is not considered to be at risk. The
investment will be held to maturity and is recorded at cost, which approximates
fair value.
Accounts
Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Our
accounts receivable balance includes contract receivables related to completed
and in-progress contracts, retainers and costs and estimated earnings in excess
of billings on uncompleted contracts.
We do not
generally provide an allowance for receivables from the Government. We have
non-Government customers for which we provide for potentially uncollectible
accounts receivable by use of the allowance method. The allowance is provided
based upon a review of the individual accounts outstanding, and the company’s
prior history of uncollectible accounts receivable. As of December 31, 2009 and
2008, we believe all receivable balances to be fully collectible and
accordingly, have no allowance for doubtful accounts at such dates.
Inventory
Inventories
include material, direct labor and related manufacturing overhead and are stated
at the lower-of-cost (determined on a weighted average basis) or market for raw
materials and work-in-process inventory. When actual contract cost
and the estimate to complete exceed the estimated contract revenues, a loss
provision is recorded. Due to the nature of our inventory, we analyze
inventory on an item-by-item basis compared to future usage and sales for
obsolescence quarterly.
Property
and Equipment
Property
and equipment are recorded at cost. Depreciation and amortization are calculated
using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets
from three to forty years. Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the life
of the related lease (including expected extensions) or asset, whichever is
shorter. Amortization of assets acquired under capital leases is
included in depreciation and amortization expense. Significant
improvements extending the useful life of property are
capitalized. When property is retired or otherwise disposed of, the
cost of the property and the related accumulated depreciation are removed from
the accounts, and any resulting gains or losses are reflected in the
consolidated statements of operations. Repair and maintenance costs are expensed
as incurred.
Computer
Software Development Costs
In
general, direct development costs associated with internal-use computer software
are capitalized as fixed assets and include external direct costs of material
and services and payroll costs for employees devoting time to the software
projects, where applicable. Costs incurred during the preliminary
project stage, as well as for maintenance and training, are expensed as
incurred. Depreciation expense relative to capitalized computer
software development costs was $64,789 and $52,099, for 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Long-Lived
Assets
We review
long-lived assets, including intangible assets subject to amortization, for
possible impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that
the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable.
We assess
the recoverability of such long-lived assets by determining whether the
amortization of the balances over their remaining lives can be recovered through
undiscounted future operating cash flows. The amount of impairment,
if any, is measured based on projected discounted future operating cash
flows. The assessment of the recoverability of long-lived assets will
be impacted if estimated future operating cash flows are not
achieved. We conducted an impairment test for property and equipment
as of December 31, 2009 and concluded that the carrying value of these assets is
recoverable through expected future operating cash flows.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Income
Taxes
Deferred
tax assets and liabilities are recognized currently for the future tax
consequences attributable to the temporary differences between the financial
statement carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and their respective tax
basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted
tax rates in effect for the year in which those temporary differences are
expected to be recovered or settled. A valuation allowance is
recorded to reduce the carrying amounts of deferred tax assets if it is more
likely than not that such assets will not be realized.
We
consider all available evidence, both positive and negative, to determine
whether, based on the weight of that evidence, a valuation allowance is needed
for some portion or all of a net deferred tax asset. Judgment is used
in considering the relative impact of negative and positive
evidence. In arriving at these judgments, the weight given to the
potential effect of negative and positive evidence is commensurate with the
extent to which it can be objectively verified. We record a valuation allowance
to reduce our deferred tax assets and review the amount of such allowance
annually. When we determine certain deferred tax assets are more
likely than not to be utilized, we will reduce our valuation allowance
accordingly.
Share-Based
Payments
Employee
stock-based compensation cost is measured at grant date, based on the fair value
of the award, and is recognized as an expense over the requisite service
period. The fair value of each option grant is estimated at the date
of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. We make the following
assumptions relative to this model: (i) the annual dividend yield is zero as we
do not pay dividends, (ii) the weighted-average expected life is based on share
option exercises, pre and post vesting terminations and share option term
expiration, (iii) the risk free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury
security rate for the expected life, and (iv) the volatility is based on the
level of fluctuations in our historical share price for a period equal to the
weighted-average expected life. We estimate forfeitures when recognizing
compensation expense and adjust this estimate over the requisite service period
should actual forfeitures differ from such estimates. Changes in estimated
forfeitures are recognized through a cumulative adjustment, which is recognized
in the period of change and which impacts the amount of unamortized compensation
expense to be recognized in future periods.
Significant
Concentrations and Risks
We
maintain cash balances at a major bank and, at times, balances exceed FDIC
limits. Substantially all of our accounts receivable are with agents
or departments of the U. S. Federal Government which, although concentrated in
one group of common entities, does not expose us to significant credit
risk.
Billings
in Excess of Costs and Estimated Earnings on Uncompleted Contracts
Billings
in excess of costs and estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts consists of
amounts for which contract billings have been presented but the goods and
services required under the contracts have not yet been provided and the
associated revenue has not been recognized.
Research
and Development Costs
Research
and development costs include experimentation, design, and enhancement of
proprietary technologies and products and are expensed as incurred.
NOTE
2 – NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
The FASB
has issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2009-04, “
Accounting for Redeemable Equity
Instruments”
. ASU 2009-04 updates Topic 480-10-S99 to reflect
the SEC staff’s view regarding the application of Accounting Series Release No.
268, Presentation in Financial Statements of “Redeemable Preferred
Stocks”. The adoption of the standard is not expected to have a
significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The FASB
has issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2009-13, “
Multiple Deliverable Revenue
Arrangements
”. ASU 2009-13 replaces EITF 00-21, and clarifies
the criteria for separating revenue between multiple
deliverables. This statement is effective for new revenue
arrangements or materially modified arrangements in periods subsequent to
adoption. Adoption is required for fiscal years beginning on or after
June 15, 2010, but early adoption is allowed. We anticipate adopting
ASU 2009-13 as of January 1, 2010 for new commercial revenue arrangements that
fall within the scope of this Update. The adoption of the standard is
not expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
The FASB
has issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2009-14,
“Certain Revenue Arrangements that
Include Software Elements”
. ASU 2009-14 changes the accounting
model for revenue arrangements that included both tangible products and software
elements. Under this guidance, tangible products containing software
components and non-software components that function together to deliver the
tangible product’s essential functionality are excluded from the software
revenue guidance in Subtopic 985-605,
Software-Revenue
recognition
. ASU 2009-14 is effective prospectively for
revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years
beginning on or after June 15, 2010, which for us would be our fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of the
standard is not expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated
financial statements.
The FASB
has issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2010-06,
“Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value
Measurements.”
This ASU requires some new disclosures and
clarifies some existing disclosure requirements about fair value measurement as
set forth in Codification Subtopic 820-10. The FASB’s objective is to
improve these disclosures and, thus increase the transparency in financial
reporting. ASU 2010-06 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods
beginning after December 15, 2009, which for us would be our fiscal quarter
beginning January 1, 2010. The adoption of the standard is not expected to have
a significant impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
NOTE
3 - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
Our
accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 included contract
receivables related to completed and in progress contracts, and costs and
estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts. Costs and estimated earnings on
uncompleted contracts represent amounts that are billable under the terms of
contracts at the end of the year, were invoiced in the following year and are
generally expected to be collected within a year.
Accounts
receivable consist of the following as of December 31, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts
receivable
|
|
$
|
1,031,960
|
|
|
$
|
1,677,929
|
|
Cost
and estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts
|
|
|
42,984
|
|
|
|
1,049,924
|
|
Accounts
receivable, net
|
|
$
|
1,074,944
|
|
|
$
|
2,727,853
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short
term receivable (contract retention)
|
|
$
|
47,817
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Long
term receivable (contract retention)
|
|
|
205,313
|
|
|
|
253,130
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,328,074
|
|
|
$
|
2,980,983
|
|
Contract
and short term receivables at December 31, 2009 are expected to be collected
within a year. There are no claims or unapproved change orders included in
contract receivables at December 31, 2009 and 2008. The retained balances at
December 31, 2009 and 2008 represent mandatory contract reserves for which
customers have been billed.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Costs and
Estimated Earnings on Uncompleted Contracts
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs
incurred on uncompleted contracts
|
|
$
|
18,890,642
|
|
|
$
|
20,118,499
|
|
Estimated
earnings
|
|
|
1,479,680
|
|
|
|
1,564,814
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
billable costs and estimated earnings
|
|
$
|
20,370,322
|
|
|
$
|
21,683,313
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billings
to date
|
|
|
20,370,054
|
|
|
|
20,633,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
$
|
1,049,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included
in accompanying balance sheet
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unbilled
costs and estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts included in accounts
receivable
|
|
$
|
42,984
|
|
|
$
|
1,049,924
|
|
Billings
in excess of costs and estimated earnings on uncompleted
contracts
|
|
|
(42,716
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
|
$
|
1,049,924
|
|
NOTE
4 – INVENTORIES
Our
inventories consist of the following at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
December
31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Raw
materials
|
|
$
|
103,451
|
|
|
$
|
124,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Work-in-process
|
|
|
704,028
|
|
|
|
32,340
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision
for loss on project
|
|
|
(22,000
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
inventory
|
|
$
|
785,479
|
|
|
$
|
157,189
|
|
Inventories
include material, direct labor and related manufacturing administrative overhead
and are stated at the lower-of-cost (determined on a weighted average basis) or
market for raw materials and work-in-process inventory. When actual
contract cost and the estimate to complete exceed the estimated contract
revenues, a loss provision is recorded. Due to the nature of our
inventory, we analyze inventory on an item-by-item basis compared to future
usage and sales for obsolescence quarterly. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
management does not believe an obsolescence reserve is necessary based on this
analysis. Included in work-in-process inventory is an allocation of
general and administrative cost of approximately $52,000 as of December 31,
2009. There was no allocation of general and administrative cost included in
work-in-process inventory as of December 31, 2008.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
5 – PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
Property
and Equipment consist of the following as of December 31, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land
and buildings
|
|
$
|
2,072,215
|
|
|
$
|
2,072,215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
2,677,926
|
|
|
|
3,214,640
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furniture
and building improvements
|
|
|
858,379
|
|
|
|
1,107,245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software
|
|
|
800,566
|
|
|
|
787,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
6,409,086
|
|
|
|
7,181,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less
accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(3,563,479
|
)
|
|
|
(3,657,790
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
property and equipment
|
|
$
|
2,845,607
|
|
|
$
|
3,523,641
|
|
Included
in 2008 property and equipment are assets under capitalized lease agreements
with an aggregate cost of $34,302, and related accumulated amortization of
$33,050 as of December 31, 2008. Amortization expense for these
assets was $1,252 and $6,552 for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. These capital leases were paid in full in
2009.
NOTE
6 – INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Intangible
assets consist of the following as of December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
As of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Gross Carrying
Amount
|
|
|
Accumulated
Amortization
|
|
|
Net Carrying
Amount
|
|
Intangible
assets subject to amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patent
|
|
$
|
34,000
|
|
|
$
|
34,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Technological
know-how
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Intangible
assets net
|
|
$
|
246,000
|
|
|
$
|
246,000
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Gross Carrying
Amount
|
|
|
Accumulated
Amortization
|
|
|
Net Carrying
Amount
|
|
Intangible
assets subject to amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patent
|
|
$
|
34,000
|
|
|
$
|
28,900
|
|
|
$
|
5,100
|
|
Technological
know-how
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
180,200
|
|
|
|
31,800
|
|
Intangible
assets net
|
|
$
|
246,000
|
|
|
$
|
209,100
|
|
|
$
|
36,900
|
|
Amortization
expense related to amortizable intangibles was approximately $37,000 and $49,000
for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
7 – STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Preferred
Stock
As of
December 31, 2008 and 2009, there were 135,572 shares of Series A Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”)
outstanding.
Our
Series A Preferred Stock has a liquidation preference of $25.00 per
Share. The Series A Preferred Stock bears dividends at the rate of
6.5% of the liquidation preference per share per annum, which accrues from the
date of issuance, and is payable quarterly, when declared. Dividends
may be paid in: (i) cash, (ii) shares of our common stock (valued for such
purpose at 95% of the weighted average of the last sales prices of our common
stock for each of the trading days in the ten trading day period ending on the
third trading day prior to the applicable dividend payment date), provided that
the issuance and/or resale of all such shares of our common stock are then
covered by an effective registration statement or (iii) any combination of the
foregoing. If the Company fails to make a dividend payment within
five business days following a dividend payment date, the dividend rate shall
immediately and automatically increase by 1% from 6.5% of the liquidation
preference per offered share of Series A preferred stock to 7.5% of such
liquidation preference for as long as such failure continues and immediately
return to 6.5% of the liquidation preference per share of Series A preferred
stock per annum at such time as such failure no longer continues.
Each
share of Series A Preferred Stock is convertible at any time at the option of
the holder into a number of shares of common stock equal to the liquidation
preference (plus any accrued and unpaid dividends for periods prior to the
dividend payment date immediately preceding the date of conversion by the
holder) divided by the conversion price (initially $12.00 per share, subject to
adjustment in the event of a stock dividend or split, reorganization,
recapitalization or similar event.) If the closing sale price of the
common stock is greater than 140% of the conversion price on 20 out of 30
trading days, the company may redeem the Series A Preferred Stock in whole or in
part at any time through October 31, 2010, upon at least 30 days' notice, at a
redemption price, payable in cash, equal to 100% of the liquidation preference
of the shares to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid dividends thereon to, but
excluding, the redemption date, subject to certain conditions. In
addition, beginning November 1, 2010, the company may redeem the Series A
Preferred Stock in whole or in part, upon at least 30 days' notice, at a
redemption price, payable in cash, equal to 100% of the liquidation preference
of the Series A Preferred Stock to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid
dividends thereon to, but excluding, the redemption date, under certain
conditions.
Dividends
on our Preferred Stock are payable quarterly on the first day of February, May,
August and November, in cash or shares of Common Stock, at our
discretion. We declared and paid dividends on our 6.5% Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock in May, August and November, 2008 and February,
2009. Portions of these dividends were paid in the form of common
stock with the remaining paid in cash. Dividends on Preferred Stock
are accrued when the amount of the dividend is declared. In order to
reduce the amount of dividends payable, 5,151,000 shares of common stock were
issued in exchange for 515,100 shares of preferred stock. Such
exchange was determined to be an induced conversion and, as such, required $3.3
million to be reported as a special dividend in 2008.
For the
payment of dividends in 2009, we issued 294,464 shares of common stock with a
market value of approximately $113,000, and paid cash dividends of approximately
$129,000. For the payment of dividends in 2008, we issued 527,904
shares of common stock with a market value of approximately $550,000, and paid
cash dividends of approximately $278,000, and not including cash dividends of
approximately $55,000 paid February 1, 2009.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Share-Based
Payments
Applied
Energetics adopted an Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (“2007
Plan”) and a 2004 Stock Incentive Plan as amended (“2004 Plan”) both of which
provides for the grant of any or all of the following types of awards: (1) stock
options, (2) restricted stock, (3) deferred stock, (4) stock appreciation
rights, and (5) other stock-based awards, including restricted stock units, for
periods up to 10 years. Stock options granted under the plans are generally for
a fixed number of shares to employees and directors with an exercise price equal
to the fair market value of the shares at the date of grant. Options granted to
employees will generally vest over two to four years. All options granted have a
contractual life of 5 years from the grant date. Restricted stock granted under
the plans to employees generally vest immediately and/or over a period of up to
four years. Some restricted stock granted under the plans vest only upon meeting
certain departmental or company-wide performance goals. Both restricted stock
and options granted to non-employee directors generally vest immediately on the
date of grant. We have, from time to time, also granted non-plan options to
certain officers, directors and employees. Total stock-based compensation
expense for grants to officers, directors, employees and consultants was
approximately $1.8 million and $3.7 million for the years ended December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively, which was charged to general and administrative
expense.
At
December 31, 2009 and 2008, there were outstanding options to purchase 4.5
million and 4.8 million, respectively, of common stock. We also had outstanding
warrants to purchase 1.0 million and 1.1 million shares of common stock for the
same respective dates. Additionally, as of December 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively, there were 224,142 and 984,177 unvested restricted stock
units and grants outstanding.
On June
28, 2005, our stockholders approved an amendment to the company's 2004 Plan to
(i) increase the number of shares of the company's common stock, $.001 par
value, authorized for issuance under the 2004 Plan by 2,000,000 shares from
3,000,000 shares to 5,000,000 shares, and (ii) set the maximum number of shares
of Common Stock which may be issued upon the exercise of incentive stock options
at 3,000,000 shares. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, options to purchase
4,063,944 and 3,684,223 shares, respectively, were outstanding under this plan.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, there were 112,507
and 298,166 unvested restricted stock units outstanding under this
plan.
On
September 10, 2007, the stockholders of Applied Energetics approved the adoption
of the company’s 2007 Plan. A total of 10,000,000 shares of common
stock have been reserved for distribution pursuant to the 2007 Plan; provided,
however, that the maximum number of shares available for award or grant during
the first five years of the 2007 Plan shall be an aggregate of 5,000,000 shares;
and provided further that the maximum number of shares available for award or
grant during any consecutive twelve month period shall be 1,000,000 shares
during the first two years of the 2007 Plan and 2,000,000 shares during the
third through fifth years of the 2007 Plan. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
options to purchase 429,688 and 25,000 shares, respectively, were outstanding
under this plan. There was no unvested restricted stock outstanding
as of December 31, 2009. There were 636,011 shares of unvested
restricted stock outstanding as of December 31, 2008 under this
plan. Grants from the 2007 Plan can be either service based, where
the grant vests with the passage of time, or performance based, where the grant
vests based on the attainment of a pre-defined company or departmental
goal.
There are
8,807,153 aggregate shares available for issuance from the Stock Incentive
Plans, of which 2,867,153 are available for grant as of December 31,
2009.
The fair
value of Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units was estimated using the
closing price of our Common Stock on the date of award and fully recognized upon
vesting.
The fair
value of option awards was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing
model with the following assumptions and weighted average fair
values:
|
|
For the year ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Weighted
average grant date fair value of grants
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
|
$
|
1.36
|
|
Expected
volatility
|
|
|
93.56
|
%
|
|
|
67.25
|
%
|
Expected
dividends
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Expected
term (years)
|
|
|
2.5
- 3.0
|
|
|
|
2.5
- 3.0
|
|
Risk
free rate
|
|
|
1.15%
- 1.44
|
%
|
|
|
2.24
|
%
|
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The
following table summarizes the activity of our stock options for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2009:
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Weighted Average
Exercise Price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
5,112,036
|
|
|
$
|
6.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.65
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
Forfeited
or expired
|
|
|
(354,188
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.83
|
|
Outstanding
at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
4,832,848
|
|
|
$
|
6.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
6,084,957
|
|
|
$
|
0.45
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(83,333
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
Forfeited
or expired
|
|
|
(6,326,590
|
)
|
|
$
|
4.91
|
|
Outstanding
at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
4,507,882
|
|
|
$
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable
at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
2,957,213
|
|
|
$
|
0.51
|
|
As of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, the aggregate intrinsic value (amount by which
Applied Energetics’ closing stock price on the last trading day of the year
exceeds the exercise price of the option) of options outstanding as well as
options exercisable was $0 as no options were in-the-money. The
intrinsic value of options exercised was $0.48. As of December 31,
2009 and 2008, the weighted average remaining contractual life of options
outstanding and options exercisable was 3.54 and 2.19 years, respectively. At
December 31, 2009, there was approximately $255,000 of unrecognized compensation
costs related to unvested stock options, net of estimated forfeitures. The cost
is expected to be recognized on a weighted-average basis over a period of
approximately 1.64 years.
On
February 5, 2009, we commenced an exchange offer pursuant to which we offered
our employees and members of the Board of Directors the opportunity to exchange
options to purchase shares of our common stock outstanding under our 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan for new options. In exchange for the cancellation of
the outstanding options, we offered to issue new options equal to fifty percent
(50%) of the number of shares subject to the cancelled options. The
new options, which were granted under the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan as
non-qualified options, vested immediately upon the date of the grant and are
exercisable at $0.50 per share for a three (3) year period from the date of
grant. We accepted for exchange and cancelled eligible options to
purchase an aggregate of 3,502,536 shares of our common stock on March 6,
2009. Subject to the terms and conditions of the offer, on March 9,
2009, we granted new options to purchase 1,751,269 shares of our common stock in
exchange for the eligible options validly tendered and accepted for exchange and
cancelled. The exchange and cancellation was accounted for as a
modification of the terms of the cancelled awards. The new options
vested immediately, therefore all remaining unrecognized compensation cost of
the original option issuances (for unvested options) plus incremental cost of
the exchange and cancellation was recognized during the first quarter of 2009,
which was approximately $402,000.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The
following table summarizes the activity of our restricted stock units and
restricted stock grants for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Weighted Average Grant
Date
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested
at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,357,950
|
|
|
$
|
3.27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
280,434
|
|
|
$
|
1.86
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(601,531
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.94
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(52,676
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.40
|
|
Unvested
at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
984,177
|
|
|
$
|
3.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
136,500
|
|
|
$
|
0.33
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(586,708
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.78
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(309,827
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.57
|
|
Unvested
at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
224,142
|
|
|
$
|
3.06
|
|
As of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, there was approximately $335,000 and $2.1 million,
respectively, of unrecognized stock-based compensation related to unvested
restricted stock awards, net of estimated forfeitures, which we expect to
recognize over a weighted-average period of 0.84 years. Of the 224,142
restricted stock units and restricted stock grants unvested at December 31,
2009, 211,612 will vest based solely on the continued employment of the grantee,
and 12,530 will vest on the achievement of certain named departmental
objectives.
Compensation
expense recorded for shares and options delivered to non-employees for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was approximately $22,150 and $80,725,
respectively, which was charged to operating expenses with offsetting entries to
additional paid-in capital or pre-paid assets.
Warrants
In
October 2005, we issued 101,667 warrants as compensation for agency services
provided in the issuance of our Preferred Stock financing. The warrants are
exercisable for a period of five (5) years at an exercise price of $12.00 per
warrant share. In August 2006, as a part of our sale of 4,616,327 shares of our
common stock we issued 923,272 warrants to purchase our common stock. The
warrants are exercisable for a period of five (5) years at an exercise price of
$9.15 per warrant share.
Warrant
activity is summarized as follows:
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Weighted Average
Exercise Price
|
|
Weighted Average
Remaining
Contractual Term
(years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
and Exercisable at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,141,605
|
|
|
$
|
8.86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants
Exercised
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
and Exercisable at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
1,141,605
|
|
|
$
|
8.86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants
Exercised
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants
Expired
|
|
|
(116,666
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
and Exercisable at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,024,939
|
|
|
$
|
9.43
|
|
1.53
|
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
8 – SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS
The
majority of our customers are either the Government or contractors to the
Government and represent 97% and 87% of revenue for 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Government sourced customers represent approximately
90% and 78% of our account receivable as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
NOTE
9 – RETIREMENT PLAN
We
established a 401(k) plan for the benefit of our employees. Employees are
eligible to contribute to their 401(k) accounts through payroll
deductions. We implemented an employer match benefit effective
January 1, 2007, where we match 50% of the employees’ 401(k) contribution up to
3% of their eligible compensation. The employer match expense was
approximately $106,000 and $156,000 in 2009 and 2008,
respectively. The assets of the plan are held by a third party
trustee. Plan participants may direct the investment of their funds
among one or more of the investment choices available to
participants.
NOTE
10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Operating
Leases
In
Tucson, Arizona, we lease office, manufacturing and storage space under three
non-cancellable operating lease agreements. On February 6, 2008, we
entered into an agreement to purchase our principal office, manufacturing,
storage, and primary research and development facility from Columbia Tucson, LLC
(“CT”), which we previously leased from CT. The purchase price of the Property
was approximately $2.2 million, which approximated fair value. The
fair value of the real estate purchased was reasonably and objectively
determined, the real estate had been held by CT for a period of more than five
years and was of the type that could be expected to appreciate in
value. CT has no continuing involvement or ownership in the real
estate after the sale. Joseph Hayden and Steven McCahon, executive officers,
Robert Howard and Thomas Dearmin, principal stockholders and former executive
officers and directors, another former executive officer and certain family
members of Mr. Howard own all of the membership interests of
CT. During 2008, we paid rent of approximately $39,000 to CT for the
use of this property. Upon completion of the purchase transaction, the lease
obligations as described were terminated.
In
February 2006, we consolidated our executive and administrative offices into one
location, which is proximate to our Tucson research and development facility.
Effective December 2006, we entered into a lease agreement for this property and
we exercised our option to extend this lease to January 2010 with monthly rents
of approximately $7,000 accelerating to approximately $7,400 in the final year
of the lease.
In June,
2007, we commenced a 3-year non-cancelable, renewable operating lease in Earth
City, MO, at a monthly rent of approximately $6,000. We are also responsible for
certain property related costs, including insurance, utilities and property
taxes. This facility is idle, and the expected remaining rent has
been included in the 2009 rent expense figure. We have vacated this
property and our last lease payment is due in May of 2010.
In
November, 2009, we commenced a 2-year non-cancelable, renewable operating lease
in Tucson, Arizona, at a monthly rent of approximately $9,000. We are
also responsible for certain property related costs, including insurance,
utilities and property taxes.
Rent
expense was approximately $390,000 and $457,000 for 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Future
annual minimum lease payments at December 31, 2009 under these operating lease
agreements are as follows:
Years ending December 31,
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
115,891
|
|
2011
|
|
|
99,462
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
215,353
|
|
Guarantees
We agree
to indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences
arising as a result of the officers or directors serving in such
capacity. The maximum amount of future payments that we could be
required to make under these indemnification agreements is
unlimited. However, we maintain a director's and officer’s liability
insurance policy that limits our exposure and enables us to recover a portion of
any future amounts paid. As a result, we believe the estimated fair
value of these indemnification agreements is minimal because of our insurance
coverage and we have not recognized any liabilities for these agreements as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Litigation
We may
from time to time be involved in legal proceedings arising from the normal
course of business. Please see Note 14.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
11 – INCOME TAXES
The
reconciliation of the difference between income taxes at the statutory rate and
the income tax provision for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 is as
follows:
|
|
December 31
,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Computed
tax at statutory rate
|
|
$
|
(3,207,449
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,964,672
|
)
|
State
taxes
|
|
|
(359,844
|
)
|
|
|
(555,919
|
)
|
Change
in valuation allowance
|
|
|
2,178,113
|
|
|
|
3,283,073
|
|
SFAS
123(R) restricted stock shortfalls
|
|
|
477,482
|
|
|
|
229,115
|
|
Other
|
|
|
911,698
|
|
|
|
8,403
|
|
Provision
(benefit) for taxes
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Deferred
tax assets (liabilities) consist of the following:
|
|
December 31
,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Deferred
Tax Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accruals
and reserves
|
|
$
|
84,246
|
|
|
$
|
267,790
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
394,587
|
|
|
|
359,533
|
|
Tax
credit carryforwards
|
|
|
847,895
|
|
|
|
847,895
|
|
Net
operating loss
|
|
|
17,000,187
|
|
|
|
13,660,498
|
|
Goodwill
amortization
|
|
|
396,836
|
|
|
|
437,135
|
|
SFAS
123(R) stock compensation NQSO
|
|
|
3,036,875
|
|
|
|
4,009,662
|
|
Valuation
allowance
|
|
|
(21,760,626
|
)
|
|
|
(19,582,513
|
)
|
Total
deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
We
believe that sufficient uncertainty exists regarding the future realization of
our deferred tax assets and thus a full valuation allowance is
required. The valuation allowance for the year ended December 31,
2009 increased by approximately $3.2 million due to changes in deferred tax
assets.
As of
December 31, 2009, we have cumulative federal and Arizona net operating loss
carryforwards of approximately $76 million and $45 million, respectively, which
can be used to offset future income subject to taxes. Federal net
operating loss carryforwards begin to expire in 2020. Arizona net
operating loss carryforwards begin to expire in 2010. Included in
federal net operating loss carryforwards is approximately $27.1 million from
USHG related to pre-merger losses. In addition, approximately $7 million of the
federal net operating loss carryforwards are related to stock based compensation
that will be credited to additional paid in capital when realized. We
also have pre-merger federal capital loss carryforwards of approximately
$520,000.
As of
December 31, 2009, we had cumulative unused research and development tax credits
of approximately $435,000 and $413,000 which can be used to reduce future
federal and Arizona income taxes, respectively. As of December 31,
2009, we have cumulative unused federal minimum tax credit carryforwards from
USHG of approximately $244,000. The federal minimum tax credit
carryforwards are not subject to expiration under current federal tax
law.
Utilization
of our USHG pre-merger net operating loss carryforwards and tax credits is
subject to substantial annual limitations due to the ownership change
limitations provided by the Internal Revenue Code and similar state
provisions. Such an annual limitation could result in the expiration
of the net operating loss carryforwards and tax credit carryforwards before
utilization.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
We had
unrecognized tax benefits attributable to losses and minimum tax credit
carryforwards that were incurred by USHG prior to the merger in March 2004 as
follows:
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
9,635,824
|
|
Additions
related to prior year tax positions
|
|
|
-
|
|
Additions
related to current year tax positions
|
|
|
-
|
|
Reductions
related to prior year tax positions and settlements
|
|
|
-
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
|
|
9,635,824
|
|
Additions
related to prior year tax positions
|
|
|
-
|
|
Additions
related to current year tax positions
|
|
|
-
|
|
Reductions
related to prior year tax positions and settlements
|
|
|
-
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
9,635,824
|
|
These
benefits are not recognized as a result of uncertainty regarding the utilization
of the loss carryforwards and minimum tax credits. If in the future
we utilize the attributes and resolve the uncertainty in our favor, the full
amount will favorably impact our effective income tax rate.
The
company considers the U.S. and Arizona to be major tax
jurisdictions. As of December 31, 2009, for federal tax purposes the
tax years 1999 through 2009 and for Arizona the tax years 2005 through 2009
remain open to examination. The company currently does not expect any
material changes to unrecognized tax positions within the next twelve
months.
We
recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income
tax expense. As of December 31, 2009, we had no accrued interest or
penalties related to our unrecognized tax benefits.
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 12 – SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW
INFORMATION
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
Cash
paid during the year for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
1,131
|
|
|
$
|
2,099
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Cash
investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion
of Series A Preferred Stock
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
5,232,935
|
|
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE
13 – QUARTERLY OPERATING RESULTS (UNAUDITED)
Quarterly
operating results for 2009 and 2008 were as follows:
|
|
1st
|
|
|
2nd
|
|
|
3rd
|
|
|
4th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
2,587,398
|
|
|
$
|
1,730,141
|
|
|
$
|
1,877,865
|
|
|
$
|
1,264,404
|
|
Gross
profit
|
|
|
185,952
|
|
|
|
98,825
|
|
|
|
100,025
|
|
|
|
67,083
|
|
Operating
loss
|
|
|
(3,005,455
|
)
|
|
|
(3,240,224
|
)
|
|
|
(1,591,732
|
)
|
|
|
(1,658,315
|
)
|
Net
loss attributable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(3,029,523
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,278,493
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,660,285
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,710,168
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
average number of shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outstanding,
basic and diluted
|
|
|
86,444,383
|
|
|
|
86,137,728
|
|
|
|
86,179,071
|
|
|
|
88,968,812
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
1,961,090
|
|
|
$
|
5,677,998
|
|
|
$
|
4,014,302
|
|
|
$
|
4,960,821
|
|
Gross
profit (loss)
|
|
|
220,982
|
|
|
|
488,544
|
|
|
|
224,340
|
|
|
|
(194,473
|
)
|
Operating
loss
|
|
|
(3,545,004
|
)
|
|
|
(984,859
|
)
|
|
|
(1,844,398
|
)
|
|
|
(2,980,747
|
)
|
Net
loss attributable to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
(3,591,570
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,101,538
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,998,502
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,244,846
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
average number of shares
outstanding, basic and
diluted
|
|
|
80,404,613
|
|
|
|
80,594,626
|
|
|
|
80,628,098
|
|
|
|
81,528,544
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
and diluted net loss per share
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
During
the first half of 2009, certain LGE contracts were completed which led to
reduced revenues in the second half of 2009. Additionally, two new
LGE contracts were announced in the second half of the year. The
additional decrease in revenues of $613,000 from the third quarter to the fourth
quarter of 2009 was due to delays in our contract negotiation for our CIED
product line. A new contract modification for $10.4 million was
signed in January, 2010. Throughout 2009, the company was focused on
cost reduction initiatives that included building consolidations, reduced
operating expenses, and headcount reductions; which improved our labor and
operational efficiencies to minimize our cash usage and reduce our operating
loss.
During
the second quarter of 2008, the company secured a CIED contract with the U. S.
Marines of approximately $9.0 million, which led to increased revenues for the
second and third quarter from this product line. During the third and
fourth quarters of 2008, the ARDEC contract received from the U. S. Army of
approximately $4.5 million began to ramp up as the CIED revenue leveled
off. During the fourth quarter of 2008, our HV product line completed
various contracts amounting to $1.8 million in revenues, which relieved
inventory. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2008, the company
wrote off obsolete CIED equipment amounting to a charge of approximately
$561,000, which further relieved inventories.
NOTE
14 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
We were
awarded a $10.4 million contract from the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract funds
will support field operational support for deployed systems, training of U.S.
Marines, procurement of additional systems, development of improvements to allow
installation of the system on additional Marine Corps and U.S. Army vehicles,
and an engineering package to facilitate future transition of the system to Low
Rate Initial Production (LRIP).
APPLIED
ENERGETICS, INC.
NOTES
TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
On
February 1, 2010, Applied Energetics, Inc. received notice that NewOak Capital
Markets, LLC (“NewOak”), formerly known as J. Giordano Securities, LLC, the
placement agent for the company’s October, 2005 private placement of preferred
stock, had commenced an arbitration proceeding against the company with
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). NewOak alleges
that the company made material misrepresentations between May 2005 and May 10,
2006 concerning the status of its products.
The
company previously settled class action and derivative lawsuits relating to the
alleged misrepresentations. NewOak, however, opted out of the class
action and alleges that the alleged misrepresentations constituted breaches of
its agreement with the company and that the company breached warranties it made
to NewOak in connection with the 2005 private placement. NewOak seeks
indemnification and recovery for alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
quantum meruit, fraudulent misrepresentation, tortuous interference with
prospective economic relations and violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an award of monetary
damages in excess of $10 million, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees and
costs.
The
company intends to defend itself vigorously in any arbitration or legal
proceedings and believes it has substantial defenses to the claims.