CADIZ INC - Annual Report: 2007 (Form 10-K)
united
states
Securities
and Exchange Commission
Washington,
D. C. 20549
FORM
10-K
FOR
ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d)
OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
(Mark
One)
[√] Annual
Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
OR
[ ]
Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
for the transition period from . . . . . to . . . . .
COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-12114
Cadiz
Inc.
(Exact
name of registrant specified in its charter)
DELAWARE
|
77-0313235
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(I.R.S.
Employer
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
Identification
No.)
|
550
S. Hope Street, Suite 2850
|
|
Los
Angeles, CA
|
90071
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
(213)
271-1600
(Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code)
Securities
Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each
ClassName of
Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common
Stock, par value $0.01 per share
|
The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
|
(Title
of Class)
|
(Exchange)
|
Securities
Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate
by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in
rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933.
Yes
__ No _√_
Indicate
by a check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to
Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
Yes
__ No
_√_
Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes
_√_ No
___
Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K (§220.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not
be contained to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment of this Form 10-K. □
Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company (as
defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
Large
accelerated filer ___ Accelerated filer _√_ Non-accelerated
filer ___ Smaller Reporting Company
___
Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange
Act Rule 12b-2).
Yes___ No
_√_
As of
March 3, 2008, the Registrant had 11,958,210 shares of common stock outstanding.
The aggregate market value of the common stock held by nonaffiliates as of June
30, 2007 was approximately $234,078,821 based on 10,417,393 shares of common
stock outstanding held by nonaffiliates and the closing price on that
date. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and
director and by each entity that owns more than 5% of the outstanding common
stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates.
This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive
determination for other purposes.
Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Portions
of the Registrant's definitive Proxy Statement to be filed for its 2008 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this
Report. The Registrant is not incorporating by reference any other
documents within this Annual Report on Form 10-K except those footnoted in Part
IV under the heading “Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and
Reports on Form 8-K”.
ii
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Part I
|
||
Item
1.
|
1
|
|
Item
1A.
|
8
|
|
Item
1B.
|
10
|
|
Item
2.
|
11
|
|
Item
3.
|
12
|
|
Item
4.
|
13
|
|
Part II
|
||
Item
5.
|
14
|
|
Item
6.
|
16
|
|
Item
7.
|
17
|
|
Item
7A.
|
30
|
|
Item
8.
|
30
|
|
Item
9.
|
30
|
|
Item
9A.
|
30
|
|
Item
9B.
|
31
|
|
Part III
|
||
Item
10.
|
32
|
|
Item
11.
|
32
|
|
Item
12.
|
32
|
|
Item
13.
|
32
|
|
Item
14.
|
32
|
|
Part IV
|
||
Item
15.
|
33
|
iii
PART
I
ITEM 1. Business
This Form 10-K presents forward-looking
statements with regard to financial projections, proposed transactions such as
those concerning the further development of our land and water assets,
information or expectations about our business strategies, results of
operations, products or markets, or otherwise makes statements about future
events. Such forward-looking statements can be identified by the use
of words such as “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “projects”,
“forecasts”, “expects”, “plans” and “proposes”. Although we believe
that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are based on
reasonable assumptions, there are a number of risks and uncertainties that could
cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking
statements. These include, among others, the cautionary statements
under the caption “Risk Factors”, as well as other cautionary language contained
in this Form 10-K. These cautionary statements identify important
factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
described in the forward-looking statements. When considering
forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K, you should keep in mind the
cautionary statements described above.
Overview
Our
primary assets consist of 45,000 acres of land in three areas of eastern San
Bernardino County, California. Virtually all of this land is
underlain by high-quality groundwater resources with demonstrated potential for
recreational, residential and water resource development. The
properties are located in proximity to the Colorado River and the Colorado River
Aqueduct, the major source of imported water for Southern
California. The aquifer systems underlying the properties are
suitable for a variety of water storage and supply programs.
The value
of these assets derives from a combination of projected population increases and
limited water supplies throughout Southern California. In addition,
most of the major population centers in Southern California are not located
where significant precipitation occurs, requiring the importation of water from
other parts of the state. We therefore believe that a competitive
advantage exists for companies that can provide high-quality, reliable, and
affordable water to major population centers.
Our
objective is to realize the highest and best use for these assets. In
1993 we secured permits for up to 9,600 acres of agricultural development in the
Cadiz Valley and the withdrawal of more than 1 million acre-feet of groundwater
from the aquifer system underlying the property. We believe that the
location, geology and hydrology of this property is uniquely suited for
development of a groundwater storage and dry-year supply program to augment the
water supplies available to Southern California. To this end, in 1997
we entered into the first of a series of agreements with the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”) to jointly design, permit and
build such a project (the “Cadiz Project” or “Project”).
Between
1997 and 2002, Metropolitan and the Company received substantially all of the
state and federal approvals required for the permits necessary to construct and
operate the project, including a Record of Decision (“ROD”) from the U.S. Department
of the Interior, which endorsed the Cadiz Project and offered a right-of-way for
construction of project facilities. The ROD also approved a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
1
Upon
completion of the federal environmental review and permitting process, Cadiz
expected Metropolitan to certify the completed Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”). As California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lead
agency for the Project, Metropolitan had planned to hold a CEQA hearing, certify
the FEIR and accept the right-of-way offered to the Project by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. In October 2002, prior to the CEQA
hearing, Metropolitan’s staff brought the right-of-way matter before the
Metropolitan Board of Directors. By a very narrow margin, the
Metropolitan Board voted not to accept the right-of-way grant and not to proceed
with the Project. The Metropolitan Board took this action before it
had certified the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA. As a result, the
CEQA process for the Project was not completed by Metropolitan.
It is our
position that the actions by Metropolitan breached various contractual and
fiduciary obligations to the Company and interfered with the economic advantage
it would have obtained from the Cadiz Project. In April 2003, the
Company filed a claim against Metropolitan seeking compensatory
damages. When settlement negotiations failed to produce a resolution,
the Company filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan in Los Angeles Superior Court
on November 17, 2005. The claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach
of express contract, promissory estoppel, breach of implied contract and
specific performance were allowed by the Court in its October 2006 rulings on
Metropolitan’s motion for demurrer. On October 19, 2007, the Court
issued a ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication that upheld the
Company’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed the other four
contractual and related claims. The case is currently scheduled for
trial in April 2008.
Regardless
of the Metropolitan Board’s actions in October 2002, the need for new water
storage and dry-year supplies has not abated. The population of
California continues to grow rapidly, while water supplies are being challenged
by drought, lack of infrastructure and environmental
protections. Indeed, California is facing the very real possibility
that current and future supplies of water will not be able to meet
demand. In 2007, a federal judge limited deliveries out of
California’s State Water Project, reducing Southern California’s water supplies
by nearly 30%. Moreover, in 2007, cities throughout Southern
California endured one of the driest years in decades, while the Colorado River
continued to provide below average deliveries to the
State. These conditions have greatly challenged California’s water
supplies and led policy leaders to seek improvements to the State’s water
infrastructure, including the pursuit of public financing for new groundwater
storage and supply projects.
The
advantages of underground water storage projects are many. These
include minimal surface environmental impacts, low capital investment, minimal
evaporative water loss and protection from airborne
contaminants. Because the need for groundwater storage and dry-year
supplies continues to grow in California, we continue to pursue the
implementation of the Cadiz Project.
To that
end, we have filed permit applications with the County of San Bernardino in an
effort to complete the environmental review of the Cadiz Project according to
CEQA and to acquire any permits required under California law to construct and
operate the Project. Upon completion of the CEQA process, we plan to
pursue an update to the FEIS and obtain renewed permits from the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Additionally,
we will continue discussions with several other public agencies regarding their
interest in participating in the Cadiz Project.
2
In
addition to agriculture and water development, the rapid growth of nearby desert
communities in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona indicates that the
Company’s land holdings may in time be suitable for other types of
development. To this end, we have conducted a detailed analysis of
our land assets to assess the opportunities for these
properties. Based on this analysis, we believe that our properties
have significant long-term potential for residential and commercial
development. We are continuing to explore alternative land uses to
maximize the value of our properties.
However,
we cannot predict with certainty which of these various opportunities will
ultimately be utilized.
(a) General Development of
Business
We are a
Delaware corporation formed in 1992 to act as the surviving corporation in a
Delaware reincorporation merger between us and our predecessor, Pacific
Agricultural Holdings, Inc., a California corporation formed in
1983.
As part
of our historical business strategy, we have conducted our land acquisition,
water development activities, agricultural operations, search for international
water and agricultural opportunities and real estate development initiatives to
maximize the long-term value of our properties and future
prospects. See “Narrative Description of Business”
below.
Our
initial focus was on the acquisition of land and the assembly of contiguous land
holdings through property exchanges to prove the quantity and quality of water
resources in the region. We subsequently established agricultural
operations on our properties in the Cadiz Valley and sought to develop the water
resources underlying that site.
The focus
of our water development activities has been the Cadiz Project. The
Metropolitan Board’s decision in late 2002 delayed implementation of the Cadiz
Project. When we were unable to make further progress with
Metropolitan, we began to take steps to complete the environmental review
process and implement the Project independently. To that end, in 2006
we commenced work with San Bernardino County to complete the CEQA environmental
review for the Project. We filed applications with the County in
early 2007 for permits necessary to construct and operate the Cadiz Project and
to initiate the CEQA review. The County is now completing a schedule
for review of the Project’s existing and updated environmental
documents.
At the
same time we have pursued a claim against Metropolitan, seeking compensatory
damages for what we believe is a breach of various contractual and fiduciary
obligations to us, and interference with the economic advantage we would have
obtained from the Cadiz Project.
In 2006,
we refinanced our long term debt with a new $36.4 million zero coupon senior
secured convertible term loan that matures on June 29, 2011 and received $1.1
million when certain holders of warrants issued in 2004 exercised their right to
purchase 70,000 common shares at $15.00 per share. In 2007, we
exercised our right to terminate the remaining warrants on March 2, 2007,
subject to a 30 day notice period. In response, the remaining warrant
holders exercised their right to purchase 335,440 shares of our common stock
during the notice period, and we received an additional $5.0 million from the
sale of these shares. Following this exercise, no warrants remain
outstanding. These transactions are described in more detail in Item
7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation.”
3
The
Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan of our Sun World International Inc. subsidiary
became effective in 2005, and the Company has no further liabilities related to
the business or operations of Sun World.
(b) Financial Information about
Industry Segments
The
primary business of the Company is to acquire and develop land and water
resources. Our agricultural operations are confined to limited
farming activities at the Cadiz Valley property. As a result, the
Company’s financial results are reported in a single segment. See
Consolidated Financial Statements. See also Item 7, “Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations”.
(c) Narrative Description of
Business
Our
business strategy is the development of our land holdings for their highest and
best uses. At present, our development activities are focused on
water resource development.
Water Resource
Development
Our
portfolio of water resources are located in proximity to the Colorado River and
the Colorado River Aqueduct, the principal source of imported water for Southern
California, and provide us with the opportunity to participate in a variety of
water storage and supply programs, exchanges and conservation programs with
public agencies and other partners.
The Cadiz Valley Groundwater
Storage and Dry-Year Supply Project
The
Company owns approximately 35,000 acres of land and related high-quality
groundwater resources in the Cadiz and Fenner valleys of eastern San Bernardino
County. The aquifer system underlying this property is naturally
recharged by precipitation (both rain and snow) within a watershed of
approximately 1,300 square miles. See Item 2, “Properties – The
Cadiz/Fenner Property”.
In 1997
we commenced discussions with Metropolitan in order to develop a joint venture
groundwater storage and dry-year supply program on this land (the “Cadiz
Project”). The Cadiz Project would provide Southern California with a
valuable increase in water supply during periods of drought or other
emergencies. Additionally, exchange agreements could be used to
transfer water from the Cadiz Project to California communities in the Central
and Northern portions of the Sate.
During
wet years, surplus water from the Colorado River would be stored in the aquifer
system that underlies the Cadiz property. When needed, the stored
water and indigenous groundwater could be returned to the Colorado River
Aqueduct for distribution to water agencies throughout six Southern California
counties. The Colorado River Aqueduct provides water to public water
agencies and utilities serving approximately 18 million people.
4
Indigenous
groundwater would also be available from the Cadiz Project during dry
years. The use of indigenous groundwater would be strictly monitored
in accordance with provisions of the Groundwater Monitoring & Management
Plan (“Management Plan”) endorsed by the U.S.
Department of the Interior in its 2002 ROD. This Management Plan was
created during the Cadiz Project’s extensive environmental review process to
ensure long-term protection of the aquifer system and related environmental
resources in and surrounding the area in which the Cadiz Project is
located. The Company remains committed to the Management Plan, which
is an important component of our current permit applications with the County of
San Bernardino.
Cadiz
Project facilities would include, among other things:
·
|
Spreading
basins, which are shallow ponds that percolate water from the ground
surface down to the water table;
|
·
|
High
yield wells designed to efficiently extract stored Colorado River water
and indigenous groundwater from beneath the Cadiz Project
area;
|
·
|
A
35-mile conveyance pipeline to connect the spreading basins and well field
to the Colorado River Aqueduct near the Iron Mountain pumping plant;
and
|
·
|
A
pumping plant to pump water through the conveyance pipeline from the
Colorado River Aqueduct near the Iron Mountain pumping plant to the Cadiz
Project spreading basins.
|
In
October 2001, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Final
Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) were issued by Metropolitan and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey
and the National Park Service. On August 29, 2002, the U.S.
Department of Interior approved the FEIS for the Cadiz Project and issued its
Record of Decision (“ROD”), the final step in the federal environmental review
process for the Cadiz Project. The ROD amended the California Desert
Conservation Area Plan for an exception to the utility corridor element and
offered to Metropolitan a right-of-way grant for the pipeline from the Colorado
River Aqueduct to the Cadiz Project.
With all
federal approvals in place, on October 8, 2002, Metropolitan’s Board considered
acceptance of the terms and conditions of the right-of-way grant pursuant to the
published ROD. By a very narrow margin, the Board voted not to adopt
Metropolitan staff’s recommendation to approve the terms and conditions of the
right-of-way grant issued by the Department of the Interior. Instead,
the Board voted for an alternative motion to reject the terms and conditions of
the right-of-way grant and to not proceed with the Cadiz
Project. Subsequent to the Metropolitan Board’s action, negotiations
toward a final agreement for the Cadiz Project on the basis of the previously
approved definitive economic terms ceased.
When
Metropolitan’s Board declined to proceed with the Cadiz Project, the FEIR was
complete and awaiting certification at a hearing scheduled for late October
2002. It is our position that Metropolitan’s actions on October 8,
2002, breached various contractual and fiduciary obligations of Metropolitan to
us, and interfered with the economic advantage we would have obtained from the
Cadiz Project. Therefore, in April 2003 we filed a claim against
Metropolitan seeking compensatory damages. When settlement
negotiations failed to produce a resolution, we filed a lawsuit against
Metropolitan in Los Angeles Superior Court on November 17, 2005. On
October 19, 2007, the Court issued a ruling on Motions for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication that upheld our claim for breach of fiduciary duty and
dismissed the other four contractual and related claims. The case is
currently scheduled for trial in April 2008. See Item 3 - “Legal
Proceedings”.
5
Meanwhile,
the need for new water storage and dry-year supplies has not
abated. The population of California continues to grow rapidly, while
water supplies are being challenged by drought, lack of infrastructure and
environmental protections. Indeed, California is facing the very real
possibility that current and future supplies of water will not be able to meet
demand. In 2007, a federal judge limited deliveries out of
California’s State Water Project, reducing Southern California’s water supplies
by nearly 30%. Moreover, in 2007, cities throughout Southern
California endured one of the driest years in decades, while the Colorado River
continued to provide below average deliveries to the
State. These conditions have greatly challenged California’s water
supplies and led policy leaders to seek improvements to the State’s water
infrastructure, including the pursuit of public financing for new groundwater
storage and supply projects.
Had the Cadiz Project already been built, it could have delivered much needed
dry-year supplies to Southern California in 2007. Therefore, we are
committed to the implementation of the Cadiz Project.
To that
end, we commenced work with the County of San Bernardino to complete the CEQA
environmental review for the Project. In 2007, we filed applications
with the County for the permits necessary to construct and operate the Cadiz
Project and to initiate the CEQA review. As CEQA lead agency, the
County is now completing a schedule for review of the Project’s existing and
updated environmental documents.
Once the
CEQA review is complete, we plan to pursue and update of the FEIS and obtain
renewed permits from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior. Additionally, we will continue discussions with several
other public agencies regarding their interest in participating in the Cadiz
Project.
Other Eastern Mojave
Properties
Our
second largest landholding is approximately 9,000 acres in the Piute Valley of
eastern San Bernardino County. This landholding is located
approximately 15 miles from the resort community of Laughlin, Nevada, and about
12 miles from the Colorado River town of Needles,
California. Extensive hydrological studies, including the drilling
and testing of a full-scale production well, have demonstrated that this
landholding is underlain by high-quality groundwater. The aquifer
system underlying this property is naturally recharged by precipitation (both
rain and snow) within a watershed of approximately 975 square
miles. Discussions with potential partners have commenced with the
objective of developing our Piute Valley assets.
Additionally,
we own additional acreage located near Danby Dry Lake, approximately 30 miles
southeast of our landholdings in the Cadiz and Fenner valleys. Our
Danby Lake property is located approximately 10 miles north of the Colorado
River Aqueduct. Initial hydrological studies indicate that it has
excellent potential for a groundwater storage and supply project.
6
Agricultural
Operations
The
Company has developed approximately 1,600 acres of its Cadiz Valley landholding
for agriculture. We are currently farming 960 acres of grape
vineyards and lemon groves on the property. Additional land was
dedicated to row crop production in prior years. We contract all of
our farming activities to third parties, either leasing an entire crop to a
grower or subcontracting cultivation labor, harvesting and marketing to
suppliers. In 2007, we leased approximately 700 acres of organic
table grape vineyards to a grower for $12,000 and farmed 260 acres of Lisbon and
Eureka lemons. 2007 revenues from our agricultural operations were
$413,000. We did not reach an agreement to renew the vineyard lease
in 2008 and will be farming a raisin crop on the property.
Seasonality
Our water
resource development activities are not seasonal in nature.
With the
2003 bankruptcy and 2005 sale of the assets of our agricultural subsidiary, Sun
World International, Inc. (“Sun World”), our farming operations are limited to
the cultivation of lemons and grapes/raisins on the Cadiz Valley
properties. These operations are subject to the general seasonal
trends that are characteristic of the agricultural industry.
Competition
We face
competition for the acquisition, development and sale of our properties from a
number of competitors. We may also face competition in the
development of water resources associated with our properties. Since
California has scarce water resources and an increasing demand for available
water, we believe that location, price and reliability of delivery are the
principal competitive factors affecting transfers of water in
California.
Employees
As of
December 31, 2007, we employed 9 full-time employees (i.e. those individuals
working more than 1,000 hours per year). We believe that our employee
relations are good.
Regulation
Our
operations are subject to varying degrees of federal, state and local laws and
regulations. As we proceed with the development of our properties,
including the Cadiz Project, we will be required to satisfy various regulatory
authorities that we are in compliance with the laws, regulations and policies
enforced by such authorities. Groundwater development, and the export
of surplus groundwater for sale to entities such as public water agencies, is
subject to regulation by specific existing statutes, in addition to general
environmental statutes applicable to all development
projects. Additionally, we must obtain a variety of approvals and
permits from state and federal governments with respect to issues that may
include environmental issues, issues related to special status species, issues
related to the public trust, and others. Because of the discretionary
nature of these approvals and concerns which may be raised by various
governmental officials, public interest groups and other interested parties
during both the development and approval process, our ability to develop
properties and realize income from our projects, including the Cadiz Project,
could be delayed, reduced or eliminated.
7
Access
To Our Information
We
are subject to the information and reporting requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act and file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements
and other information with the SEC. You can request copies of these
documents, for a copying fee, by writing to the SEC. We furnish our
stockholders with annual reports containing financial statements audited by our
independent auditors.
We also
make available on our website www.cadizinc.com copies of our annual, quarterly
and special reports, proxy and information statements and other
information.
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors
Our business is subject to a number of
risks, including those described below.
Our
Development Activities Have Not Generated Significant Revenues
At
present, our development activities are focused on water resource and real
estate development at our San Bernardino County properties. We have
not received significant revenues from our development activities to date and we
do not know when, if ever, we will receive operating revenues from these
activities. As a result, we continue to incur a net loss from
operations.
We
May Never Generate Significant Revenues Or Become Profitable Unless We Are Able
To Successfully Implement Programs To Develop Our Land Assets And Related Water
Resources
We do not
know the terms, if any, upon which we may be able to proceed with our water and
real estate development programs. Regardless of the form of our water
development programs, the circumstances under which transfers or storage of
water can be made and the profitability of any transfers or storage are subject
to significant uncertainties, including the risk of variable water supplies and
changing water allocation priorities. Both water and real estate
development programs are subject to the risk of adverse changes in public
policies and changes to or interpretations of U.S. federal, state and local
laws, regulations and policies. Additional risks include our ability
to obtain all necessary regulatory approvals and permits, possible litigation by
environmental or other groups, unforeseen technical difficulties, general market
conditions for real estate and water supplies, and the time needed to generate
significant operating revenues from such programs after operations
commence.
The
Development of our Properties is Heavily Regulated and Requires Governmental
Approvals And Permits That Could Be Denied
In
developing our land assets and related water resources, we are subject to local,
state, and federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations concerning
zoning, resource protection, environmental impacts, infrastructure design,
subdivision of land, construction and similar matters. Our
development activities are subject to the risk of adverse interpretations or
changes to these laws and policies. Further, our development
activities require governmental approvals and permits that, if denied or granted
subject to unfavorable conditions or restrictions, would adversely impact our
ability to successfully implement our development programs. The
opposition of government officials may adversely affect our ability to obtain
needed government approvals and permits upon satisfactory terms in a timely
manner. In this regard, 2008 fiscal year federal government
appropriations did not include funding to allow for Cadiz Project permit work at
the U.S. Department of the Interior.
8
Moreover,
the statutes, regulations and ordinances governing the approval processes
provide third parties the opportunity to challenge proposed plans and
approvals. In California third parties have the ability to file
litigation challenging the approval of a project, which they usually do by
alleging inadequate disclosure and mitigation of the environmental impacts of
the project. Opposition from environmental groups could cause delays
and increase the costs of our development efforts or preclude such development
entirely. While we have worked with representatives of various
environmental interests and agencies to minimize and mitigate the impacts of our
planned projects, certain groups may remain opposed to our development
plans.
Our
Failure To Make Timely Payments Of Principal And Interest On Our Indebtedness
May Result In A Foreclosure On Our Assets
As of
December 31, 2007, we had indebtedness outstanding to our senior secured lenders
of approximately $39.3 million. Our assets have been put up as
collateral for this debt. If we cannot generate sufficient cash flow
to make principal and interest on this indebtedness when due, or if we otherwise
fail to comply with the terms of agreements governing our indebtedness, we may
default on our obligations. If we default on our obligations, our
lenders may sell off the assets that we have put up as
collateral. This, in turn, would result in a cessation or sale of our
operations.
The
Conversion Of Our Outstanding Senior Indebtedness Into Common Stock Would Dilute
The Percentage Of Our Common Stock Held By Current Stockholders
Our senior indebtedness is convertible
into common stock at the election of our lenders. As of December 31,
2007, our senior indebtedness was convertible into 1,825,731 shares of our
common stock, an amount equal to approximately 15.3% of the number of shares of
our common stock outstanding as of that date. An election by our
lenders to convert all or a portion of our senior secured indebtedness into
common stock will dilute the percentage of our common stock held by current
stockholders.
We
May Not Be Able To Obtain the Financing We Need To Implement Our Asset
Development Programs
We will
require additional capital to finance our operations until such time as our
asset development programs produce revenues. We cannot assure you that our
current lenders, or any other lenders, will give us additional credit should we
seek it. If we are unable to obtain additional credit, we may engage
in further equity financings. Our ability to obtain equity financing
will depend, among other things, on the status of our asset development programs
and general conditions in the capital markets at the time funding is
sought. Any further equity financings would result in the dilution of
ownership interests of our current stockholders.
9
The
Issuance Of Equity Securities Under Management Equity Incentive Plans Will
Impact Earnings
Our
compensation programs for management emphasize long-term incentives, primarily
through the issuance of equity securities and options to purchase equity
securities. It is expected that plans involving the issuance of
shares, options, or both will be submitted from time to time to our stockholders
for approval. In the event that any such plans are approved and
implemented, the issuance of shares and options under such plans may result in
the dilution of the ownership interest of other stockholders and will, under
currently applicable accounting rules, result in a charge to earnings based on
the value of our common stock at the time of issue and the fair value of options
at the time of their award. The expense would be recorded over the
vesting period of each stock and option grant.
We
Are Restricted By Contract from Paying Dividends and We Do Not Intend To Pay
Dividends In The Foreseeable Future
Any return on investment on our
common stock will depend primarily upon appreciation in the price of our common
stock. To date, we have never paid a cash dividend on our common
stock. The loan documents governing our credit facilities with our
senior secured lenders prohibit the payment of dividends while such facilities
are outstanding. As we have a history of operating losses, we have
been unable to pay dividends to date. Even if we post a profit in
future years, we currently intend to retain all future earnings for the
operation of our business. As a result, we do not anticipate that we
will declare any dividends in the foreseeable future.
ITEM 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
Not applicable at this
time.
10
ITEM 2. Properties
Following
is a description of our significant properties.
The
Cadiz/Fenner Valley Property
Since
1982, we have acquired approximately 34,500 acres of largely contiguous land in
the Cadiz and Fenner Valleys of eastern San Bernardino County,
California. This area is located approximately 30 miles north of the
Colorado River Aqueduct. In 1984, we conducted investigations of the
feasibility of agricultural development of this land. These
investigations confirmed the availability of high-quality groundwater in
quantities appropriate for agricultural development.
Additional
independent geotechnical and engineering studies conducted since 1985 have
confirmed that the Cadiz/Fenner property overlies an aquifer system that is
ideally suited for underground water storage and temporary withdrawals of native
groundwater, as contemplated in the Cadiz Project. See Item 1,
“Business – Narrative Description of Business – Water Resource
Development”.
In
November 1993, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors unanimously
approved a General Plan Amendment establishing an agricultural land use
designation for 9,600 acres in the Cadiz Valley, of which approximately 1,600
acres have been developed for agriculture. This action also allows
for the withdrawal of more than 1,000,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the
aquifer system underlying our property. Approximately 960 acres are
currently farmed as grape vineyards and citrus orchards.
Other
Eastern Mojave Properties
We also
own approximately 10,800 additional acres in the eastern Mojave Desert,
including the Piute and Danby Lake properties.
Our
second largest property consists of approximately 9,000 acres in the Piute
Valley of eastern San Bernardino County. This landholding is located
approximately 15 miles from the resort community of Laughlin, Nevada, and about
12 miles from the Colorado River town of Needles,
California. Extensive hydrological studies, including the drilling
and testing of a full-scale production well, have demonstrated that this
landholding is underlain by high-quality groundwater. The aquifer
system underlying this property is naturally recharged by precipitation (both
rain and snow) within a watershed of approximately 975 square
miles. Discussions with potential partners have commenced with the
objective of developing our Piute Valley assets.
Additionally,
we own additional acreage located near Danby Dry Lake, approximately 30 miles
southeast of our landholdings in the Cadiz and Fenner valleys. Our
Danby Lake property is located approximately 10 miles north of the Colorado
River Aqueduct. Initial hydrological studies indicate that it has
excellent potential for a groundwater storage and supply project.
Farm Property
Approximately
1,600 acres of our Cadiz Valley landholdings have been developed for
agricultural use. We are currently farming approximately 960 acres of
grape vineyards and lemon groves on the property. Additional land was
dedicated to row crop production in prior years. We contract all of
our farming activities to third parties, either leasing an entire crop to a
grower or subcontracting cultivation labor, harvesting and marketing to
suppliers. In 2007, we leased approximately 700 acres of organic
table grape vineyards to a grower, and farmed 260 acres of Lisbon and Eureka
lemons. We did not renew the vineyard lease for the 2008 crop
year.
11
Executive
Offices
We lease
approximately 7,169 square feet of office space in Los Angeles, California for
our executive offices. The lease terminates on October 28,
2012. Current base rent under the lease is approximately $13,143 per
month.
Cadiz
Real Estate
In
December 2003, we transferred substantially all of our assets (with the
exception of our office sublease, certain office furniture and equipment and any
Sun World related assets) to Cadiz Real Estate LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Cadiz Real Estate”). We hold 100% of the equity interests
of Cadiz Real Estate, and therefore we continue to hold 100% beneficial
ownership of the properties that we transferred to Cadiz Real
Estate. Cadiz Real Estate was created at the behest of our then
existing senior secured lender, ING Capital LLC (“ING”). The Board of
Managers of Cadiz Real Estate currently consists of two managers appointed by
us. Our senior secured lender, Peloton, has the right to appoint one
independent manager.
Cadiz
Real Estate is a co-obligor under our senior secured convertible term loan, for
which assets of Cadiz Real Estate have been pledged as security.
Because
the transfer of our properties to Cadiz Real Estate has no effect on our
ultimate beneficial ownership of these properties, we refer throughout this
Report to properties owned of record either by Cadiz Real Estate or by us as
“our” properties.
Debt
Secured by Properties
Our
assets (including properties held of record by Cadiz Real Estate) have been
pledged as collateral for $39.3 million of debt outstanding on December 31,
2007. Information regarding interest rates and principal maturities
is provided in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings
Claim
Against Metropolitan
On April
7, 2003, we filed an administrative claim against The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”), asserting the breach by
Metropolitan of various obligations specified in our 1998 Principles of
Agreement with Metropolitan and other related contracts. We believe
that by failing to complete the environmental review process for the Cadiz
Project, failing to accept the right-of-way grant offered by the U.S. Department
of the Interior and for taking other actions inconsistent with their
obligations, Metropolitan violated the contracts between the parties, breached
its fiduciary duties to us and interfered with our prospective economic
advantages. The filing was made with the Executive Secretary of
Metropolitan.
12
When
settlement negotiations failed to produce a resolution, we filed a lawsuit
against Metropolitan in Los Angeles Superior Court on November 17, 2005 seeking
recovery of damages. Metropolitan counsel responded with a demurrer,
seeking to have certain claims disallowed. In an October 2006 ruling,
the Court allowed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of express
contract, promissory estoppel, breach of implied contract and specific
performance. On October 19, 2007, the Court issued a ruling on
Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication that upheld our claim for breach of
fiduciary duty and dismissed the other four contractual and related
claims. The case is currently scheduled for trial in April
2008. See Item 1, “Business – Narrative Description of Business –
Water Resource Development”
Other
Proceedings
There are
no other material pending legal proceedings to which we are a party or of which
any of our property is the subject.
ITEM 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security
Holders
No
matters were submitted to a vote of our stockholders during the fourth quarter
of 2007.
13
PART
II
ITEM 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity and
Related Stockholder Matters
The
Company's common stock is currently traded on The NASDAQ Global Market
("NASDAQ") under the symbol "CDZI." The following table reflects
actual sales transactions for the dates that the Company was trading on NASDAQ,
as reported by Bloomberg LP.
|
High | Low | ||||||
Quarter Ended | Sales Price | Sales Price | ||||||
2006:
|
||||||||
March
31
|
$
|
21.00
|
$
|
16.00
|
||||
June
30
|
$
|
18.01
|
$
|
15.75
|
||||
September
30
|
$
|
21.37
|
$
|
17.00
|
||||
December
31
|
$
|
22.95
|
$
|
18.30
|
||||
2007:
|
||||||||
March
31
|
$
|
26.98
|
$
|
22.01
|
||||
June
30
|
$
|
26.13
|
$
|
20.95
|
||||
September
30
|
$
|
23.00
|
$
|
16.22
|
||||
December
31
|
$
|
21.00
|
$
|
17.02
|
On March
3, 2008, the high, low and last sales prices for the shares, as reported by
Bloomberg, were $15.00, $13.40, and $13.98, respectively.
We also
had an authorized class of 100,000 shares of Series F preferred
stock. All 1,000 shares of Series F Preferred Stock issued and
outstanding were converted into 17,289 shares of our common stock in June 2007,
and we subsequently filed a Certification of Elimination of Series F Convertible
Preferred Stock with the State of Delaware. As a result, no Series F
Preferred Stock was issued or outstanding on December 31, 2007.
As of
March 3, 2008, the number of stockholders of record of our common stock was
179.
To date,
we have not paid a cash dividend on our common stock and we do not anticipate
paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our senior
secured convertible term loan has covenants that prohibit the payment of
dividends.
All
securities sold by us during the three years ended December 31, 2007 which were
not registered under the Securities Act have previously been reported in our
Annual, Quarterly, and Current Reports on Forms 10K, 10-Q and 8K,
respectively.
14
STOCK
PRICE PERFORMANCE
|
The stock price performance graph below
compares the cumulative total return of Cadiz common stock against the
cumulative total return of the Standard & Poor’s Small Cap 600 NASDAQ U.S.
index and the Russell 2000® index
for the past five fiscal years. The graph indicates a measurement point of
December 31, 2002 and assumes a $100 investment on such date in Cadiz common
stock, the Standard & Poor’s Small Cap 600 and the Russell 2000® indices.
With respect to the payment of dividends, Cadiz has not paid any dividends on
its common stock, but the Standard & Poor’s Small Cap 600 and the Russell
2000® indices
assume that all dividends were reinvested. The stock price performance graph
shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement
incorporating by reference this annual report on Form 10-K into any filing under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that Cadiz
specifically incorporates this graph by reference, and shall not otherwise be
deemed filed under such acts.
15
ITEM 6. Selected Financial Data
The
following selected financial data insofar as it relates to the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 has been derived from our audited
financial statements. The information that follows should be read in
conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto
for the period ended December 31, 2007 included in Part IV of this Form
10-K. See also Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations".
($ in
thousands, except for per share data)
Year
Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
2004
|
2003
|
||||||||||||||||
Statement
of Operations Data:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total
revenues
|
$
|
426
|
$
|
614
|
$
|
1,197
|
$
|
47
|
$
|
3,162
|
||||||||||
Net
loss
|
(13,633
|
)
|
(13,825
|
)
|
(23,025
|
)
|
(16,037
|
)
|
(11,536
|
)
|
||||||||||
Less:
Preferred stock dividends
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
918
|
|||||||||||||||
Imputed
dividend on preferred stock
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,600
|
|||||||||||||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock
|
$
|
(13,633
|
)
|
$
|
(13,825
|
)
|
$
|
(23,025
|
)
|
$
|
(16,037
|
)
|
$
|
(14,054
|
)
|
|||||
Per
share:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss (basic and diluted)
|
$
|
(1.15
|
)
|
$
|
(1.21
|
)
|
$
|
(2.14
|
)
|
$
|
(2.32
|
)
|
$
|
(6.39
|
)
|
|||||
Weighted-average
common shares outstanding
|
11,845
|
11,381
|
10,756
|
6,911
|
2,200
|
|||||||||||||||
December
31,
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | ||||||||||||||||
Balance
Sheet Data:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
49,572
|
$
|
50,326
|
$
|
46,046
|
$
|
51,071
|
$
|
49,526
|
||||||||||
Long-term
debt
|
$
|
29,652
|
$
|
25,881
|
$
|
25,883
|
$
|
25,000
|
$
|
30,253
|
||||||||||
Preferred
stock, common stock and additional paid-in capital
|
$
|
254,102
|
$
|
245,322
|
$
|
226,852
|
$
|
209,718
|
$
|
185,040
|
||||||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
$
|
(235,343
|
)
|
$
|
(221,710
|
)
|
$
|
(207,885
|
)
|
$
|
(184,860
|
)
|
$
|
(168,823
|
)
|
|||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
$
|
18,759
|
$
|
23,612
|
$
|
18,967
|
$
|
24,858
|
$
|
16,217
|
On
January 30, 2003, Sun World filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code. Since that date, the financial statements of Sun
World are no longer consolidated with those of Cadiz due to the Company’s loss
of control over the operations of Sun World.
On
October 20, 2003, the Company and holders of Series D and Series E Preferred
Stock entered into an agreement to exchange all outstanding shares of Series D
and Series E Preferred Stock, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, for an
aggregate of 400,000 shares of common stock. Holders of the remaining
100,000 shares of Series F Preferred Stock, which was convertible into our
common stock, were only entitled to dividends if common stock dividends are
paid. At the holder’s election, 99,000 shares of Series F Preferred
Stock were converted into our common stock in 2004, and the remaining 1,000
shares were converted in 2007. On December 31, 2007, there were no
shares of preferred stock issued or outstanding.
16
Common
shares issued and outstanding have increased from 6,471,000 in 2003 to
11,904,000 in 2007. The increase is primarily due to the issuance of
2,000,000 shares to investors in private placements, the issuance of 2,134,000
shares to investors upon the conversion of preferred stock and warrant
exercises, and the issuance of 1,298,000 shares to employees, vendors and
lenders.
ITEM 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
In
connection with the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the following discussion contains trend analysis
and other forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can
be identified by the use of words such as "intends", "anticipates", "believes",
"estimates", "projects", "forecasts", "expects", "plans" and
"proposes". Although we believe that the expectations reflected in
these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, there are
a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from these forward-looking statements. These include,
among others, our ability to maximize value from our land and water resources
and our ability to obtain new financings as needed to meet our ongoing working
capital needs. See additional discussion under the heading "Risk
Factors” above.
Overview
Our
operations (and, accordingly, our working capital requirements) relate primarily
to our water and real estate development activities.
Our
primary assets consist of 45,000 acres of land in three areas of eastern San
Bernardino County, California. Virtually all of this land is
underlain by high-quality groundwater resources with demonstrated potential for
recreational, residential and water resource development. The
properties are located in proximity to the Colorado River and the Colorado River
Aqueduct, the major source of imported water for Southern
California. The aquifer systems underlying the properties are
suitable for a variety of water storage and supply programs.
The value
of these assets derives from a combination of projected population increases and
limited water supplies throughout Southern California. In addition,
most of the major population centers in Southern California are not located
where significant precipitation occurs, requiring the importation of water from
other parts of the state. We therefore believe that a competitive
advantage exists for companies that can provide high-quality, reliable, and
affordable water to major population centers.
Our
objective is to realize the highest and best use for these assets. In
1993 we acquired permits for up to 9,600 acres of agricultural development in
the Cadiz Valley and the withdrawal of more than 1 million acre-feet of
groundwater from the aquifer system underlying the property. We
believe that the location, geology and hydrology of this property is uniquely
suited for development of a groundwater storage and dry-year supply program to
augment the water supplies available to Southern California. To this
end, in 1997 we entered into the first of a series of agreements with the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”) to jointly
design, permit and build such a project (the “Cadiz Project” or
“Project”).
17
Between
1997 and 2002, Metropolitan and the Company received substantially all of the
state and federal approvals required for the permits necessary to construct and
operate the project, including a Record of Decision
(“ROD”) from
the U.S. Department of the Interior, which endorsed the Cadiz Project and
offered a right-of-way for construction of project facilities. The
ROD also approved a Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
Upon
completion of the federal environmental review and permitting process, Cadiz
expected Metropolitan to certify the completed Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”). As California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lead
agency for the Project, Metropolitan had planned to hold a CEQA hearing, certify
the FEIR and accept the right-of-way offered to the Project by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. In October 2002, prior to the CEQA
hearing, Metropolitan’s staff brought the right-of-way matter before the
Metropolitan Board of Directors. By a very narrow margin, the
Metropolitan Board voted not to accept the right-of-way grant and not to proceed
with the Project. The Metropolitan Board took this action before it
had certified the FEIR, which was a necessary action to authorize implementation
of the Cadiz Project in accordance with CEQA. As a result, the CEQA
process for the Project was not completed by Metropolitan.
It is our
position that the actions by Metropolitan breached various contractual and
fiduciary obligations to the Company and interfered with the economic advantage
it would have obtained from the Cadiz Project. In April 2003, the
Company filed a claim against Metropolitan seeking compensatory
damages. When settlement negotiations failed to produce a resolution,
the Company filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan in Los Angeles Superior Court
on November 17, 2005. The claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach
of express contract, promissory estoppel, breach of implied contract and
specific performance were allowed by the Court in its October 2006 rulings on
Metropolitan’s motion for demurrer. On October 19, 2007, the Court
issued a ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication that upheld the
Company’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed the other four
contractual and related claims. The case is currently scheduled for
trial in April 2008.
Regardless
of the Metropolitan Board’s actions in October 2002, the need for new water
storage and dry-year supplies has not abated. The population of
California continues to grow rapidly, while water supplies are being challenged
by drought, lack of infrastructure and environmental
protections. Indeed, California is facing the very real possibility
that current and future supplies of water will not be able to meet
demand. In 2007, a federal judge limited deliveries out of
California’s State Water Project, reducing Southern California’s water supplies
by nearly 30%. Moreover, in 2007, cities throughout Southern
California endured one of the driest years in decades, while the Colorado River
continued to provide below average deliveries to the
State. These conditions have greatly challenged California’s water
supplies and led policy leaders to seek improvements to the State’s water
infrastructure, including the pursuit of public financing for new groundwater
storage and supply projects.
18
The
advantages of underground water storage projects are many. These
include minimal surface environmental impacts, low capital investment, minimal
evaporative water loss and protection from airborne
contaminants. Because the need for groundwater storage and dry-year
supplies continues to grow in California, we continue to pursue the
implementation of the Cadiz Project.
To that
end, we have filed permit applications with the County of San Bernardino in an
effort to complete the environmental review of the Cadiz Project according to
CEQA and to acquire any permits required under California law to construct and
operate the Project. Upon completion of the CEQA process, we plan to
pursue an update to the FEIS and obtain renewed permits from the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Additionally,
we will continue discussions with several other public agencies regarding their
interest in participating in the Cadiz Project. See Item 1(c) -
“Water Resource Development”, above.
In
addition to agriculture and water development, the rapid growth of nearby desert
communities in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona indicates that the
Company’s land holdings may in time be suitable for other types of
development. To this end, we have conducted a detailed analysis of
our land assets to assess the opportunities for these
properties. Based on this analysis, we believe that our properties
have significant long-term potential for residential and commercial
development. We are continuing to explore alternative land uses to
maximize the value of our properties.
In 2006,
we refinanced our long-term debt with the proceeds of a new $36.4 million zero
coupon senior secured convertible term loan that matures on June 29,
2011. Interest accrues on the principal balance of the loan at 5
percent per annum for the first 3 years and 6 percent thereafter. No
interest and principal payments are due prior to the final maturity
date. Each of the two loan tranches is convertible into the Company’s
$0.01 par value common stock at a fixed conversion price per share, subject to
downward adjustment in the event a change in control. The conversion
prices of the $10 million Tranche A loan and $26.4 million Tranche B loan are
$18.15 and $23.10 per share, respectively. See “Liquidity and Capital
Resources” below.
In 2003
and 2004, we raised approximately $35 million of equity through private
placements, including a $24 million private placement completed on November 30,
2004. The November 30, 2004 private placement included the issuance
of warrants to purchase 405,440 shares of our common stock at an exercise price
of $15.00 per share. During 2006, holders of 70,000 of the warrants
exercised their warrants, resulting in the issuance by us of 70,000 shares of
common stock. On January 31, 2007, we exercised a cancellation option
and notified holders that the warrants would expire on March 2, 2007 unless
exercised by the warrant holder prior to that date. All of the
remaining warrant holders exercised their warrants following receipt of this
notice, resulting in the issuance by us of 335,440 shares of common stock and
receipt by us of $5,031,600 of net cash proceeds. Under the terms of
our current loan agreement, we have retained all proceeds associated with the
exercise of these warrants. As of March 2, 2007, no warrants remain
outstanding.
19
We remain
committed to our land and water assets and we continue to explore all
opportunities for development of these assets. We cannot predict with
certainty which of these various opportunities will ultimately be
utilized.
Results
of Operations
(a) Year Ended December 31, 2007
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2006
We have
not received significant revenues from our water resource and real estate
development activity to date. As a result, we continue to incur a net
loss from operations. We had revenues of $0.4 million for the year
ended December 31, 2007 and $0.6 million for the year ended December 31,
2006. The lower revenues were due to a smaller lemon
harvest. Our net loss totaled $13.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2007, compared with a net loss of $13.8 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. The lower loss in 2007 period resulted primarily
from a $2.9 million expense incurred in 2006 related to a change in the fair
value of certain derivatives embedded in our long-term debt. This
reduction was partially offset by $2.3 million higher general and administrative
expenses relating to the Company’s lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and stock based compensation in
2007.
Our
primary expenses are our ongoing overhead costs (i.e. general and administrative
expense) and our interest expense. We will continue to incur non-cash
expenses in connection with our management and director equity incentive
compensation plans.
Revenues. Revenue
totaled $0.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $0.6
million during the year ended December 31, 2006. 2007 revenues
included $0.4 million of revenues related to citrus crop sales, which were down
$0.2 million from the prior year. Lemon crop yields were adversely
affected by a severe freeze during the winter of 2007. When possible,
we prefer to lease our vineyards and citrus groves to third parties so that we
can focus our resources on our water and real estate development
programs.
Cost
of Sales. Cost of Sales totaled $0.6 million during the year
ended December 31, 2007, compared with $0.7 million during the year ended
December 31, 2006. The lower cost of sales in 2007 reflected lower
lemon harvesting and processing costs, due to a smaller lemon
crop. There was no cost of sales relating to raisin farming
activities in 2007. In 2007, Cadiz leased the raisin crop to Sun View
Vineyards of California. The raisin crop lease has not been renewed
for the 2008 crop year. Cadiz is evaluating different strategies for
the management of its agricultural assets, and the Company will be cultivating a
raisin crop in the vineyard in 2008.
General
and Administrative Expenses. General
and administrative expenses during the year ended December 31, 2007 totaled
$10.0 million compared with $7.7 million for the year ended December 31,
2006. Non-cash compensation costs related to stock and option awards
are included in General and Administrative Expenses.
Compensation
costs from stock and option awards for the year ended December 31, 2007 totaled
$3.6 million compared with $2.3 million for the year ended December 31,
2006. The expenses primarily relate to stock and options issued under
the Cadiz 2007 and 2003 Management Equity Incentive Plans and the Outside
Director Compensation Plan. 7,661 options and 954,559 shares were
granted under the Plans in 2007, compared with 12,339 options and 14,701 shares
in 2006. Shares and options issued under the Plans vest over varying
periods from the date of issue to December 2011.
20
Other
General and Administrative Expenses, exclusive of stock based compensation
costs, totaled $6.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2007, compared with
$5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. Higher 2007
expenses were primarily due to additional legal and consulting fees related to
water development efforts, including the Company’s lawsuit against the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Depreciation
and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization totaled $0.3
million for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $0.2 million for
2006. The higher expense related to 2007 capital
expenditures.
Interest
Expense, net. Net interest
expense totaled $3.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2007, compared
to $2.4 million during 2006. Higher interest expense was primarily
due to the amortization of the debt discount related to the new senior secured
convertible term loan arranged in June 2006. 2007 interest income
increased to $605 thousand from $376 thousand in the prior year due to higher
short-term interest rates. The following table summarizes the components of net
interest expense for the two periods (in thousands):
Year
Ended
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007 | 2006 | |||||||
Interest
on outstanding debt
|
$
|
1,929
|
$
|
1,987
|
||||
Amortization
of debt discount
|
1,852
|
783
|
||||||
Amortization
of deferred loan costs
|
62
|
40
|
||||||
Interest
income
|
(605
|
)
|
(376
|
)
|
||||
$
|
3,238
|
$
|
2,434
|
Loss
on Extinguishment of Debt and Debt Refinancing. Deferred loan
costs, which are primarily legal fees, are amortized over the life of each loan
agreement. In June, 2006 we refinanced our term loan with ING Capital
LLC (“ING”) with a new senior secured convertible term loan with Peloton
Partners LLP (“Peloton”), as administrative agent for the loan, and with an
affiliate of Peloton and another investor, as lenders. As a result,
$408 thousand of legal fees were capitalized and will be amortized over the 5
year life of the loan agreement. At the same time, $868 thousand of
deferred financing costs and prepaid interest associated with the prior loan
agreement with ING were fully expensed. No comparable expense was
incurred in fiscal 2007.
Change
in Fair Value of Derivative Liability. The Company prepaid its
existing indebtedness with ING in June, 2006 with the proceeds of a new senior
secured convertible term loan. The new loan contained certain
“embedded derivatives” which were bifurcated from the host debt instrument and
were recorded at fair values on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet under
GAAP. These embedded derivatives were subject to periodic revaluation
based on changes in the fair market value of our common stock. On
September 29, 2006, certain terms and conditions of the credit agreement and
embedded derivatives were amended. The fair value of the equity
conversion options were recalculated, and a $2.9 million expense was recognized
due to an increase in fair value. The primary reason for the increase
in fair value was the increase in the trading price of our common stock from
June 30, 2006 to September 29, 2006. Following the September 29, 2006
amendment, bifurcation of the embedded equity conversion option was no longer
required, and the fair value of the embedded derivatives was transferred from
the liability accounts to stockholder’s equity. No further fair value
adjustments were required after September 30, 2006. As a result,
there was no comparable expense in the year ending December 31,
2007.
21
Other
Income (expense). Cadiz incurred other expense of $2 thousand
related to losses on the disposition of assets in the year ended December 31,
2007, compared with $373 thousand of income during the year ended December 31,
2006. The 2006 income primarily related to payments received from a
stockholder. In March, 2006, one of our stockholders determined that
it had, at a time when it was the beneficial holder of more than 10% of our
outstanding equity securities, inadvertently engaged in trades which resulted in
automatic short swing profit liability to the Company pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After becoming aware of the
situation, the stockholder promptly made payments totaling $350 thousand to the
Company to settle the entire short swing profit liability owed as a consequence
of these trades.
(b) Year Ended December 31, 2006
Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2005
We had
revenues of $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 and $1.2 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005. The lower revenues were due to
a below average lemon harvest. Our net loss totaled $13.8 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006, compared with a net loss of $23.0 million for
the year ended December 31, 2005. The lower loss in 2006 period
resulted primarily from $14.4 million lower non-cash compensation expenses from
stock and option awards under our Management Equity Incentive Plan, partially
offset by $1.4 million higher other general and administrative expenses relating
to the Cadiz Project and the Company’s lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. Other expenses were higher,
primarily due to $0.5 million of additional interest expense and a $2.9 million
expense related to a change in the value of certain bifurcated derivative
instruments imbedded in our senior secured convertible term loan.
Revenues. Revenue
totaled $0.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to $1.2
million during the year ended December 31, 2005. 2006 revenues
included $0.6 million of revenues related to citrus crop sales, which were down
$0.6 million from the prior year. The lemon grove was pruned
extensively in early 2006, which limited the growth of fruit during the early
spring. The crop was also affected by unusually hot summer weather
and a winter freeze. Crop rental revenues also declined to $12
thousand in 2006 from $35 thousand in 2005.
22
Cost
of Sales. Cost of Sales totaled $0.7 million during the year
ended December 31, 2006, compared with $1.0 million during the year ended
December 31, 2005. The lower cost of sales in 2006 reflected lower
lemon harvesting and processing costs, due to a smaller lemon
crop. This was partially offset by additional irrigation and
cultivation expenses associated with the juice grape crop. Cadiz
leased the juice grape crop to Sun View Vineyards of California in
2005.
General
and Administrative Expenses. General
and administrative expenses during the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled $7.7
million compared with $20.7 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. Non-cash compensation costs related to stock and option awards
are included in General and Administrative Expenses.
Compensation
costs from stock and option awards for the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled
$2.3 million compared with $16.7 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. The expenses primarily relate to stock and options issued under
the Cadiz 2003 Management Equity Incentive Plan and the Outside Director
Compensation Plan. 12,339 options and 14,701 shares were granted
under the Management Equity Incentive Plan and the Outside Directors
Compensation Plan, respectively, in 2006, compared with 1,094,712 shares and
365,000 options granted under the Management Equity Incentive Plan in
2005. Shares and options issued under the Plans vest over varying
periods from the date of issue to December 2008. $877 thousand of the
2006 expense is a result of the adoption and application of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payments” effective
January 1, 2006.
Other
General and Administrative Expenses, exclusive of stock based compensation
costs, totaled $5.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2006, compared with
$4.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. Higher 2006
expenses were primarily due to additional legal and consulting fees related to
water development efforts, including the Company’s lawsuit against the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and accounting expenses
related to Sarbanes Oxley compliance.
Depreciation
and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization totaled $0.2
million for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to $0.2 million for
2005.
Interest
Expense, net. Net interest
expense totaled $2.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2006, compared
to $1.9 million during 2005. Higher interest expense was primarily
due to the amortization of the debt discount related to certain derivatives
imbedded in the new senior secured convertible term loan. 2006
interest income increased to $376 thousand from $159 thousand in the prior year
due to higher cash balances and higher short-term interest rates. The following
table summarizes the components of net interest expense for the two periods (in
thousands):
Year
Ended
December
31,
|
||||||||
2006 | 2005 | |||||||
Interest
on outstanding debt
|
$
|
1,987
|
$
|
2,062
|
||||
Amortization
of debt discount
|
783
|
-
|
||||||
Amortization
of deferred loan costs
|
40
|
28
|
||||||
Interest
income
|
(376
|
)
|
(159
|
)
|
||||
$
|
2,434
|
$
|
1,931
|
Loss
on Extinguishment of Debt and Debt Refinancing. Deferred loan
costs, which are primarily legal fees, are amortized over the life of each loan
agreement. In June, 2006 we entered into a new loan agreement with
Peloton Partners LLP (“Peloton”), as administrative agent for the loan, and with
an affiliate of Peloton and another investor, as lenders. As a
result, $408 thousand of legal fees were capitalized and will be amortized over
the 5 year life of the loan agreement. At the same time, $868
thousand of deferred loan costs and prepaid interest associated with the prior
loan agreement with ING Capital LLC (“ING”) were fully expensed.
23
Change
in Fair Value of Derivative Liability. The Company prepaid its
existing indebtedness with ING in June, 2006 with the proceeds of a new senior
secured convertible term loan. The new loan contained certain
“embedded derivatives” which were bifurcated from the host debt instrument and
were recorded at fair values on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet under
GAAP. These embedded derivatives were subject to periodic revaluation
based on changes in the fair market value of our common stock. On
September 29, 2006, certain terms and conditions of the credit agreement and
embedded derivatives were amended. The fair value of the equity
conversion options were recalculated, and a $2.9 million expense was recognized
due to an increase in fair value. The primary reason for the increase
in fair value was the increase in the trading price of our common stock from
June 30, 2006 to September 29, 2006. Following the September 29, 2006
amendment, bifurcation of the embedded equity conversion option is no longer
required. As a result, the fair value of the embedded derivatives has
been transferred from the liability accounts to stockholder’s equity, and no
further fair value adjustments were required after September 30,
2006. There was no comparable expense in the prior year ending
December 31, 2005.
Other
Income. Other Income during the year ended December 31, 2006
totaled $373 thousand, primarily related to payments from a
stockholder. In March, 2006, one of our stockholders determined that
it had, at a time when it was the beneficial holder of more than 10% of our
outstanding equity securities, inadvertently engaged in trades which resulted in
automatic short swing profit liability to the Company pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After becoming aware of the
situation, the stockholder promptly made payments totaling $350 thousand to the
Company to settle the entire short swing profit liability owed as a consequence
of these trades.
Liquidity and Capital
Resources
(a) Current Financing
Arrangements
As we
have not received significant revenues from our water resource and real estate
activity to date, we have been required to obtain financing to bridge the gap
between the time water resource and real estate development expenses are
incurred and the time that revenue will commence. Historically, we
have addressed these needs primarily through secured debt financing
arrangements, private equity placements and the exercise of outstanding stock
options and warrants.
We have
worked with our secured lenders to structure our debt in a way which allows us
to continue our development of the Cadiz Project and minimize the dilution of
the ownership interests of common stockholders. We entered into a
series of agreements with ING Capital LLC, and we refinanced the ING loan with a
new $36.4 million five year zero coupon senior secured convertible term loan
with Peloton Partners LLP (through an affiliate) and another lender (the
“Peloton Loan”) in June 2006. The Peloton loan provided
for:
24
·
|
the
repayment in full of our senior secured term loan with
ING;
|
·
|
a
final maturity date of June 29,
2011;
|
·
|
a
zero coupon structure, which requires no cash interest payments prior to
the final maturity date; and
|
·
|
a
5% interest rate for the first 3 years, with a 6% interest rate
thereafter.
|
At each
lender’s option, principal plus accrued interest on each of the two loan
tranches is convertible into the Company’s $0.01 par value common stock at a
fixed conversion price per share. The conversion prices are subject
to downward adjustment in the event of a change in control.
On or
after June 29, 2007, principal and interest accrued on each of the two loan
tranches can be prepaid on 30 days notice either if the Company’s stock price
exceeds the tranche’s conversion price by 40% for 20 consecutive trading days in
a 30 trading day period or if the Company completes the Cadiz Water Program
entitlement process, acquires a right-of-way for the project pipeline and
arranges sufficient financing to repay the loan and build the Cadiz
Project. The conversion prices of the two loan tranches are $18.15
and $23.10, respectively, so the $10 million Tranche A prepayment option would
become available at a share price above $25.41 per share and the $26.4 million
Tranche B prepayment option would become available at a share price above $32.34
per share.
The debt
covenants associated with the loan were negotiated by the parties with a view
towards our operating and financial condition as it existed at the time the
agreements were executed. At December 31, 2007, the Company was in
compliance with its debt covenants.
The
Peloton Loan provided us with $9.3 million of additional working capital and
deferred all interest payments until the June 29, 2011 final maturity
date. Furthermore, the Peloton Loan, unlike the prior ING facility,
permits us to retain any proceeds received from the issuance of common stock
including common stock issued pursuant to the exercise of stock options
and warrants.
A private
placement completed by the Company in November 30, 2004 included the issuance of
warrants to purchase 405,440 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of
$15.00 per share. During 2006, holders of 70,000 of the warrants
exercised their warrants, resulting in the issuance by us of 70,000 shares of
common stock with net proceeds of $1,050,000. On January 31, 2007, we
exercised our right to terminate the remaining warrants upon 30 days notice, and
holders of all the remaining 335,440 warrants exercised their
warrants. As a result, we issued 335,440 shares of our common stock
and received net proceeds of $5,031,600 during February
2007. Following these exercises, no warrants remain
outstanding.
As we
continue to actively pursue our business strategy, additional financing in
connection with our water programs will be required. See “Outlook”,
below. The covenants in the credit facility do not prohibit our use
of additional equity financing and allow us to retain 100% of the proceeds of
any equity financing. We do not expect the loan covenants to
materially limit our ability to finance our water development
activities.
We issued
100,000 shares of Series F preferred stock to ING as part of our agreements in
December 2003 (the “ING Preferred Stock”). Effective November 30,
2004, 99,000 shares of Series F Preferred Stock were converted to 1,711,665
shares of our common stock leaving 1,000 shares of Series F Preferred Stock
issued and outstanding. In June 2007, the remaining 1,000 preferred
shares were converted into 17,289 shares of our common stock, and we
subsequently filed a Certification of Elimination of Series F Convertible
Preferred Stock with the State of Delaware.
25
At
December 31, 2007, we had no outstanding credit facilities other than the
Peloton Loan, and we had no preferred stock issued or outstanding.
Cash Used for Operating
Activities. Cash used for operating activities totaled $5.3
million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31,
2006. The cash was primarily used to fund general and administrative
expenses related to the Company’s water development efforts, including legal
costs associated with the Company’s lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California.
Cash Provided By (Used for) Investing
Activities. Cash used for investing activities in the year
ended December 31, 2007 was $1.4 million, compared with no cash used for
investing activities during the same period in 2006. 2007 capital
expenditures were $1.1 million higher than the prior year, primarily for
machinery and equipment at the Cadiz Ranch and for furniture and fixtures at the
Company’s corporate offices. Other assets increased $250 thousand,
primarily due to a lease security deposit.
Cash Provided by Financing
Activities. Cash provided by financing activities totaled $5.2
million for the year ended December 31, 2007, compared with $10.4 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006. The 2007 result reflects $5.0
million of proceeds from the issuance of 335,440 shares of $0.01 par value
common stock at $15.00 per share when certain holders chose to exercise their
warrants. The higher 2006 result reflects $9.3 million of net
proceeds from the placement of a new $36.4 million senior secured convertible
term loan and $1.1 million of proceeds from the issuance of 70,000 shares of
$0.01 par value common stock at $15.00 per share when certain warrant holders
chose to exercise their warrants.
(b) Outlook
Short Term Outlook. The proceeds
remaining from our $36.4 million senior secured convertible term loan and the
sale of common shares, pursuant to the exercise of certain warrants in 2006 and
2007, provide us with sufficient funds to meet our expected working capital
needs for the next 12 months. The Company expects to continue its
historical practice of structuring its financing arrangements to match the
anticipated needs of its development activities. See "Long Term
Outlook", below. No assurances can be given, however, as to the
availability or terms of any new financing.
Long Term Outlook. In the longer term, we will
need to raise additional capital to finance working capital needs, capital
expenditures and any payments due under our senior secured convertible term loan
at maturity. See “Current Financing Arrangements”
above. Payments will be due under the term loan only to the extent
that lenders elect not to exercise equity conversion rights prior to the loan’s
final maturity date. Our future working capital needs will depend
upon the specific measures we pursue in the entitlement and development of our
real estate and water resources. Future capital expenditures will
depend primarily on the progress of the Cadiz Project. We will
evaluate the amount of cash needed, and the manner in which such cash will be
raised, on an ongoing basis. We may meet any future cash requirements
through a variety of means, including equity or debt placements, or through the
sale or other disposition of assets. Equity placements would be
undertaken only to the extent necessary, so as to minimize the dilutive effect
of any such placements upon our existing stockholders.
26
(c) Critical Accounting
Policies
As
discussed in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Cadiz, the
preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates
and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements and related footnotes. In preparing these
financial statements, management has made its best estimates and judgments of
certain amounts included in the financial statements based on all relevant
information available at the time and giving due consideration to
materiality. We do not believe there is a great likelihood that
materially different amounts would be reported related to the accounting
policies described below. However, application of these policies
involves the exercise of judgment and use of assumptions as to future
uncertainties and, as a result, actual results could differ from these
estimates. Management has concluded that the following critical
accounting policies described below affect the most significant judgments and
estimates used in the preparation of the consolidated financial
statements.
(1) Intangible
and Other Long-Lived Assets. Property, plant and equipment,
intangible and certain other long-lived assets are depreciated or amortized over
their useful lives. Useful lives are based on management’s estimates
of the period over which the assets will generate revenue. Long-lived
assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be
recoverable. The Company reevaluates the carrying value of its water
program annually during the first quarter of each year and has confirmed that
the carrying value of the water program is not impaired as of December 31,
2007.
(2)
Goodwill. As a result of a merger in May 1988 between two companies,
which eventually became known as Cadiz Inc., goodwill in the amount of
$7,006,000 was recorded. Approximately $3,193,000 of this amount was
amortized until the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, (“SFAS
No. 142”) “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” on January 1,
2002. Goodwill is tested for impairment annually in the first
quarter, or if events occur which require an impairment analysis be
performed. The Company has confirmed that the carrying value of the
goodwill is not impaired as of December 31, 2007.
(3) Deferred
Tax Assets and Valuation Allowances. To date we have not
generated significant revenue from our water development programs, and we have
had a history of net operating losses. As such, we have generated
significant deferred tax assets, including large net operating loss carry
forwards for federal and state income taxes for which we have recorded a full
valuation allowance. Management is currently working on water and
real estate development projects, including the Cadiz Project, that are designed
to generate future taxable income, although there can be no guarantee that this
will occur. If taxable income is generated in future years, some
portion or all of the valuation allowance will be reversed, and an increase in
net income would consequently be reported.
27
(d) New Accounting
Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the FASB released Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 157 (“SFAS No. 157”), “Fair Value Measurements". This statement
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 clarifies the exchange
price notion in the fair value definition to mean the price that would be
received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price),
not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to assume the
liability (an entry price). This statement also clarifies that market
participant assumptions should include assumptions about risk, should include
assumptions about the effect of a restriction on the sale or use of an
asset and should reflect its nonperformance risk (the risk that the obligation
will not be fulfilled). Nonperformance risk should include the
reporting entity’s credit risk. SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 except for
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not recognized or
disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis, for which the effective date is
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. The Company will
adopt SFAS No. 157 on January 1, 2008, as required, and management is still
evaluating the impact on the Company’s consolidated financial
statements.
In
February 2007, the FASB released Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
159 (“SFAS No. 159), “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Liabilities
Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115”. SFAS No. 159 permits entities
to choose to measure certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value and
is effective for the first fiscal year beginning after November 15,
2007. The Company will adopt SFAS No. 159 on January 1, 2008, as
required, and management is still evaluating the impact on the Company’s
consolidated financial statements.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations”
("SFAS 141(R)"), which establishes principles and requirements for how
the acquirer shall recognize and measure in its financial statements the
identifiable assets acquired, liabilities assumed, any noncontrolling interest
in the acquiree and goodwill acquired in a business combination. This statement
is effective for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or
after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after
December 15, 2008. The Company is currently assessing the
potential impact that the adoption of SFAS 141(R) will have on its financial
position and results of operations.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements — an Amendment of ARB No. 51”
("SFAS 160"), which establishes and expands accounting and reporting
standards for minority interests, which will be recharacterized as
noncontrolling interests, in a subsidiary and the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. SFAS 160 is effective for business combinations for which the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. This statement is effective
for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. The Company
is currently assessing the potential impact that the adoption of SFAS 160 will
have on its financial position and results of operations.
(e) Off Balance Sheet
Arrangements
Cadiz does not have any off balance
sheet arrangements at this time.
28
(f) Certain Known Contractual
Obligations
Payments
Due by Period
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Contractual
Obligations
|
Total
|
Less
than 1 year
|
1-3
years
|
3-5
years
|
After
5 years
|
|||||||||||||||
Long
term debt obligations
|
$
|
39,266
|
$
|
9
|
$
|
13
|
$
|
39,244
|
$
|
-
|
||||||||||
Interest
payable
|
8,504
|
1
|
1
|
8,502
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
Operating
leases
|
843
|
179
|
346
|
318
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
$
|
48,613
|
$
|
189
|
$
|
360
|
$
|
48,064
|
$
|
-
|
Long-term debt included in the table
above primarily reflects the Peloton Loan, which is described above in Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation; Liquidity and Capital Resources. Operating leases include
the lease of the Company’s executive offices, as described in Item 2,
Properties.
29
ITEM 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
about Market Risk
We are
exposed to market risk from changes in interest rates on long-term debt
obligations that affect the fair value of these obligations. Our
policy is to manage interest rate exposure by year of scheduled maturities and
to evaluate expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes (in
thousands of dollars). A 1% change in interest rate on the Company
long term debt obligation would have resulted in interest expense fluctuating by
approximately $383 thousand and $316 thousand during the years ended December
31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Circumstances could arise which may
cause interest rates and the timing and amount of actual cash flows to differ
materially from the schedule below:
Long-Term
Debt
|
|||||||||||||||||
Fixed
Rate
|
Average
|
Variable
Rate
|
Average
|
||||||||||||||
Expected
Maturity
|
Maturities
|
Interest
Rate
|
Maturities
|
Interest
Rate
|
|||||||||||||
2008
|
$ | 9 |
3.9%
|
- | - | ||||||||||||
2009
|
$ | 9 |
3.9%
|
- | - | ||||||||||||
2010
|
$ | 4 |
3.9%
|
- | - | ||||||||||||
2011
|
$ | 39,244 |
5.6%
|
$ | - | $ | - |
Cadiz
long-term debt included in the table above reflects the debt restructuring which
occurred in June 2006, as described above in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations; Liquidity and Capital
Resources; Cadiz Obligations.
ITEM 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data
The
information required by this item is submitted in response to Part IV below. See
the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements.
ITEM 9.
Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial
Disclosure
Not
applicable.
ITEM 9A. Controls And Procedures
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
We have
established disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information related to the Company, including its consolidated entities, is
accumulated and communicated to senior management, including the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer (the “Principal Executive Officer”) and Chief Financial
Officer (the “Principal Financial Officer”) and to our Board of
Directors. Based on their evaluation as of December 31, 2007, our
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer have concluded that
the Company's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) are effective to ensure
that the information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that
it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in
Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms, and such information is
accumulated and communicated to management, including the principal executive
and principal financial officers as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosures.
30
Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule
13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting based on the criteria in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Based on our evaluation under that framework, our
management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was
effective as of December 31, 2007. The effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007 has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as
stated in their report which is included herein.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In
connection with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Rule 13a-15 under
the Exchange Act, there was no change identified in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the last fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 9B. Other Information
Not
applicable.
31
PART
III
ITEM 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance
The information called for by this item
is incorporated herein by reference to the definitive proxy statement involving
the election of directors which we intend to file with the SEC pursuant to
Regulation 14A under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 not later than 120
days after December 31, 2007.
ITEM 11. Executive Compensation
The information called for by this item
is incorporated herein by reference to the definitive proxy statement involving
the election of directors which we intend to file with the SEC pursuant to
Regulation 14A under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 not later than 120
days after December 31, 2007.
ITEM 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
The information called for by this item
is incorporated herein by reference to the definitive proxy statement involving
the election of directors which we intend to file with the SEC pursuant to
Regulation 14A under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 not later than 120
days after December 31, 2007.
ITEM 13. Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions, and Director Independence
The information called for by this item
is incorporated herein by reference to the definitive proxy statement involving
the election of directors which we intend to file with the SEC pursuant to
Regulation 14A under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 not later than 120
days after December 31, 2007.
ITEM 14. Principal Accountant Fees and
Services
The
information called for by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the
definitive proxy statement involving the election of directors which we intend
to file with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 not later than 120 days after December 31,
2007.
32
PART
IV
ITEM 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement
Schedules
|
1.
|
Financial
Statement. See Index to Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
|
2.
|
Financial
Statement Schedule. See Index to Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
|
3.
|
Exhibits.
|
The following exhibits are filed or
incorporated by reference as part of this Form 10-K.
|
3.1
|
Cadiz
Certificate of Incorporation, as amended(1)
|
|
3.2
|
Amendment
to Cadiz Certificate of Incorporation dated November 8, 1996(2)
|
|
3.3
|
Amendment
to Cadiz Certificate of Incorporation dated September 1, 1998(3)
|
|
3.4
|
Amendment
to Cadiz Certificate of Incorporation dated December 15, 2003(4)
|
|
3.5
|
Certificate
of Elimination of Series D Preferred Stock, Series E-1 Preferred Stock and
Series E-2 Preferred Stock of Cadiz Inc. dated December 15, 2003(4)
|
|
3.6
|
Certificate
of Elimination of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of Cadiz
Inc., dated March 25, 2004(4)
|
|
3.7
|
Amended
and Restated Certificate of Designations of Series F Preferred Stock of
Cadiz Inc.(5)
|
|
3.8
|
Cadiz
Bylaws, as amended
(6)
|
|
3.9
|
Second
Amended and Restated Certificate of Designations of Series F Preferred
Stock of Cadiz Inc. dated June 30, 2006, as corrected by Certificate of
Correction dated March 14, 2007(15)
|
|
3.10
|
Certificate
of Elimination of Series F Preferred Stock of Cadiz Inc. (as filed August
3, 2007)(17)
|
|
10.1
|
Agreement
Regarding Employment Between Cadiz Inc. and Keith Brackpool dated July 5,
2003(7)
|
|
10.2
|
Limited
Liability Company Agreement of Cadiz Real Estate LLC dated December 11,
2003(4)
|
33
|
10.3
|
Amendment
No. 1, dated October 29, 2004, to Limited Liability Company Agreement of
Cadiz Real Estate LLC.(8)
|
|
10.4
|
The
Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year Supply Program Definitive Economic
Terms and Responsibilities between Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California and Cadiz dated March 6, 2001(9)
|
|
10.5
|
Consulting
Agreement dated August 1, 2002 by and between Richard Stoddard and Cadiz
Inc., and Extension of Consulting Agreement dated January 1, 2004 by and
between Richard Stoddard and Cadiz Inc.(8)
|
|
10.6
|
Employment
Agreement dated September 12, 2005 between O'Donnell Iselin II and Cadiz
Inc.(10)
|
|
10.7
|
Settlement
Agreement dated as of August 11, 2005 by and between Cadiz Inc., on the
one hand, and Sun World International, Inc., Sun Desert, Inc., Coachella
Growers and Sun World/Rayo, on the other hand(11)
|
|
10.8
|
$36,375,000
Credit Agreement among Cadiz Inc. and Cadiz Real Estate LLC, as
Borrowers, the Several Lenders from time to time parties thereto, and
Peloton Partners LLP, as Administrative Agent, dated as of June 26,
2006(12)
|
|
10.9
|
Amendment
No. 1 dated September 29, 2006 to the $36,375,000 Credit Agreement among
Cadiz Inc. and Cadiz Real Estate LLC, as Borrowers, the Several Lenders
from time to time parties thereto and Peloton Partners LLP, as
Administrative Agent, dated as of June 26, 2006 (13)
|
|
10.10
|
Outside
Director Compensation Plan(14)
|
|
10.11
|
Resolutions
adopted by the Cadiz Inc. Board of Directors on March 13, 2007, increasing
the annual salary paid to Keith Brackpool and the monthly consulting fees
paid to Richard E. Stoddard(15)
|
|
10.12
|
2007
Management Equity Incentive Plan(16)
|
|
10.13
|
Amendment
No. 2 dated October 1, 2007 to Reorganization Plan and Agreement for
Purchase and Sale of Assets dated as of February 18, 1998 among Cadiz Inc.
and Mark A. Liggett in his capacity as successor in interest to
Exploration Research Associates, Incorporated., a California corporation
(“ERA”)
and in his individual capacity as former sole shareholder of ERA and as
the successor in interest to ERA.
|
|
10.14
|
Amendment
dated October 1, 2007 to Employment Agreement between O'Donnell Iselin II
and Cadiz Inc.
|
|
10.15
|
Consulting
Agreement dated January 1, 2008 by and between Timothy J. Shaheen and
Cadiz Inc.
|
34
|
21.1
|
Subsidiaries
of the Registrant
|
|
23.1
|
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm
|
|
31.1
|
Certification
of Keith Brackpool, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cadiz Inc.
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002
|
|
31.2
|
Certification
of O'Donnell Iselin II, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Cadiz
Inc. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002
|
|
32.1
|
Certification
of Keith Brackpool, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cadiz Inc.
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32.2
|
Certification
of O'Donnell Iselin II, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Cadiz
Inc. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002
|
________________________________________________________________________
35
|
(1)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Registration Statement of Form S-1
(Registration No. 33-75642) declared effective May 16, 1994 filed on
February 23, 1994
|
|
(2)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1996 filed on November 14,
1996
|
|
(3)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1998 filed on November 13,
1998
|
|
(4)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 filed on November 2,
2004.
|
|
(5)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 30,
2004 filed on December 2, 2004.
|
|
(6)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1999 filed on August 13,
1999
|
|
(7)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003 filed on November 2,
2004
|
|
(8)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004 filed on March 31,
2005
|
|
(9)
|
Previously
filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2001 filed on March 28,
2002
|
|
(10)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 3,
2005 filed on October 3, 2005
|
|
(11)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005 filed on November 14, 2005
|
(12)
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to our registration statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-126117) filed on July 28, 2006 | |
(13)
|
Previously filed as an Exhibit to
our current report on Form 8-K dated October 4, 2006 and filed October 4,
2006
|
|
(14)
|
Previously
filed as appendix B to our definitive proxy dated October 10, 2006 and
filed October 10, 2006
|
|
(15)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 filed on March 16, 2007
|
|
(16)
|
Previously
filed as appendix A to our definitive proxy dated April 27, 2007 and filed
April 27, 2007
|
|
(17)
|
Previously
filed as an Exhibit to our Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2007 filed on August 6,
2007
|
36
CADIZ INC. CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page
|
|
38
|
|
40
|
|
41
|
|
42
|
|
43
|
|
44
|
|
67
|
|
(Schedules
other than those listed above have been omitted since they are either not
required, inapplicable, or the required information is included on the financial
statements or notes thereto.)
37
Report
of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors
and Stockholders of Cadiz Inc.:
In our
opinion, the consolidated financial statements
listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of Cadiz Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and
2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2007 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement
schedule listed in the accompanying index presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial
statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible
for these financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under
Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial
statements, on the financial statement schedule, and on the Company's internal
control over financial reporting based on our integrated audits. We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective
internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining,
on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting
included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial
reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
As
discussed in Note 2 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements, the
Company changed the manner in which it accounts for share-based compensation in
2006.
38
A
company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that
(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail,
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of
the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and
expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of management and directors of the company; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection
of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that
could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation
of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Los
Angeles, California
March 14,
2008
39
CADIZ
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS
Year
Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
(In
thousands, except per share data)
|
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||||||
Total
revenues
|
$
|
426
|
$
|
614
|
$
|
1,197
|
||||||
Costs
and expenses:
|
||||||||||||
Cost
of sales (exclusive of depreciation shown below)
|
566
|
721
|
994
|
|||||||||
General
and administrative
|
9,988
|
7,710
|
20,732
|
|||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
261
|
154
|
229
|
|||||||||
Total
costs and expenses
|
10,815
|
8,585
|
21,955
|
|||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(10,389
|
)
|
(7,971
|
)
|
(20,758
|
)
|
||||||
Interest
expense, net
|
(3,238
|
)
|
(2,434
|
)
|
(1,931
|
)
|
||||||
Loss
on extinguishment of debt and debt refinancing
|
-
|
(868
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Change
in fair value of derivative liability
|
-
|
(2,919
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Other
income (expense)
|
(2
|
)
|
373
|
-
|
||||||||
Other
income (expense), net
|
(3,240
|
)
|
(5,848
|
)
|
(1,931
|
)
|
||||||
Net
loss before income taxes
|
(13,629
|
)
|
(13,819
|
)
|
(22,689
|
)
|
||||||
Income
tax expense
|
4
|
6
|
336
|
|||||||||
Net
loss
|
(13,633
|
)
|
(13,825
|
)
|
(23,025
|
)
|
||||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock
|
$
|
(13,633
|
)
|
$
|
(13,825
|
)
|
$
|
(23,025
|
)
|
|||
Basic
and diluted net loss per share
|
$
|
(1.15
|
)
|
$
|
(1.21
|
)
|
$
|
(2.14
|
)
|
|||
Weighted-average
shares outstanding
|
11,845
|
11,381
|
10,756
|
|||||||||
See
accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
40
CADIZ
INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December
31,
|
||||||||
($
in thousands)
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||
Current
assets:
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
8,921
|
$
|
10,397
|
||||
Accounts
Receivable
|
20
|
301
|
||||||
Prepaid
expenses and other
|
216
|
243
|
||||||
Total
current assets
|
9,157
|
10,941
|
||||||
Property,
plant, equipment and water programs, net
|
36,032
|
35,190
|
||||||
Goodwill
|
3,813
|
3,813
|
||||||
Other
assets
|
570
|
382
|
||||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
49,572
|
$
|
50,326
|
||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
||||||||
Current
liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
408
|
$
|
444
|
||||
Accrued
liabilities
|
744
|
380
|
||||||
Current
portion of long term debt
|
9
|
9
|
||||||
Total
current liabilities
|
1,161
|
833
|
||||||
Long-term
debt
|
29,652
|
25,881
|
||||||
Total
liabilities
|
30,813
|
26,714
|
||||||
Contingencies
(Note 12)
|
||||||||
Stockholders'
equity:
|
||||||||
Series
F convertible preferred stock – $.01 par value:
|
-
|
|||||||
1,000
shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2006
|
||||||||
and
none at and December 31, 2007
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Common
stock - $0.01 par value; 70,000,000 shares
|
||||||||
authorized; shares issued and outstanding: 11,903,661 at | ||||||||
December
31, 2007 and 11,536,597 at December 31, 2006
|
119
|
116
|
||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
253,983
|
245,206
|
||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(235,343
|
)
|
(221,710
|
)
|
||||
Total
stockholders' equity
|
18,759
|
23,612
|
||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$
|
49,572
|
$
|
50,326
|
See
accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
41
CADIZ
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS
Year
Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
($ in
thousands)
|
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$
|
(13,633
|
)
|
$
|
(13,825
|
)
|
$
|
(23,025
|
)
|
|||
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash
|
||||||||||||
used
for operating activities:
|
||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
261
|
154
|
229
|
|||||||||
Amortization
of deferred loan costs
|
62
|
40
|
28
|
|||||||||
Amortization
of debt discount
|
1,852
|
783
|
-
|
|||||||||
Loss
on extinguishment of debt and debt refinancing
|
-
|
868
|
-
|
|||||||||
Interest
added to loan principal
|
1,928
|
1,463
|
851
|
|||||||||
Net
(gain)/loss on disposal of assets
|
2
|
(21
|
)
|
42
|
||||||||
Change
in value of derivative liability
|
-
|
2,919
|
-
|
|||||||||
Compensation
charge for stock awards and share options
|
3,609
|
2,260
|
16,687
|
|||||||||
Changes
in operating assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||||
Decrease
(increase) in accounts receivable
|
281
|
(131
|
)
|
(170
|
)
|
|||||||
Decrease
(increase) in prepaid borrowing expense
|
-
|
523
|
-
|
|||||||||
Decrease
(increase) in prepaid expenses and other
|
27
|
(209
|
)
|
1,236
|
||||||||
(Decrease)
increase in accounts payable
|
(36
|
)
|
75
|
(101
|
)
|
|||||||
(Decrease)
increase in accrued liabilities
|
364
|
(175
|
)
|
522
|
||||||||
Net
cash used for operating activities
|
(5,283
|
)
|
(5,276
|
)
|
(3,701
|
)
|
||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Investment in marketable securities | (8,819 | ) | - | - | ||||||||
Additions
to property, plant and equipment
|
(1,105
|
)
|
(22
|
)
|
(68
|
)
|
||||||
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities | 8,819 | - | - | |||||||||
Proceeds
from asset disposition
|
-
|
22
|
-
|
|||||||||
(Increase)
in other assets
|
(250
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Net
cash provided by (used for) investing activities
|
(1,355
|
)
|
-
|
(68
|
)
|
|||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Proceeds
from exercise of stock options
|
139
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||
Net
proceeds from issuance of common stock
|
5,032
|
1,050
|
-
|
|||||||||
Proceeds
from issuance of long-term debt
|
-
|
36,375
|
44
|
|||||||||
Deferred
loan costs
|
-
|
(408
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Principal
payments on long-term debt
|
(9
|
)
|
(26,646
|
)
|
(4
|
)
|
||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
5,162
|
10,371
|
40
|
|||||||||
Net
increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
(1,476
|
)
|
5,095
|
(3,729
|
)
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, beginning of period
|
10,397
|
5,302
|
9,031
|
|||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, end of period
|
$
|
8,921
|
$
|
10,397
|
$
|
5,302
|
||||||
Non-cash
financing and investing activities:
|
||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock for services accrued in prior year
|
-
|
-
|
447
|
See
accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statement.
42
CADIZ
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
For
the Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
($ in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preferred
Stock
|
Common
Stock
|
Paid-in
|
Accumulated
|
Stockholders’
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Deficit
|
Equity
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
as of December 31, 2004
|
1,000
|
-
|
10,324,339
|
103
|
209,615
|
(184,860
|
)
|
24,858
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of common stock for services
|
-
|
-
|
37,200
|
1
|
446
|
-
|
447
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of management incentive shares and options
|
-
|
-
|
968,933
|
10
|
16,677
|
-
|
16,687
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Fractional
shares retired
|
-
|
-
|
(9
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(23,025
|
)
|
(23,025
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
as of December 31, 2005
|
1,000
|
$
|
-
|
11,330,463
|
$
|
114
|
$
|
226,738
|
$
|
(207,885
|
)
|
$
|
18,967
|
|||||||||||||||
Convertible
term loan conversion option
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
15,160
|
-
|
15,160
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
compensation expense and issuance of management incentive and outside
director shares
|
-
|
-
|
136,195
|
1
|
2,259
|
-
|
2,260
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Common
stock issued due to warrant exercise
|
-
|
-
|
70,000
|
1
|
1,049
|
-
|
1,050
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Fractional
shares retired
|
-
|
-
|
(61
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Net
Loss
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(13,825
|
)
|
(13,825
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
as of December 31, 2006
|
1,000
|
$
|
-
|
11,536,597
|
$
|
116
|
$
|
245,206
|
$
|
(221,710
|
)
|
$
|
23,612
|
|||||||||||||||
Issuance
of shares pursuant to warrant exercise
|
-
|
-
|
335,440
|
3
|
5,029
|
-
|
5,032
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of shares pursuant to stock awards and option exercise
|
-
|
-
|
14,285
|
-
|
139
|
-
|
139
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Issuance
of shares upon conversion of Series F Preferred Stock
|
(1,000
|
)
|
-
|
17,289
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Stock
compensation expense
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3,609
|
-
|
3,609
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Net
Loss
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
(13,633
|
)
|
(13,633
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
as of December 31, 2007
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
11,903,611
|
$
|
119
|
$
|
253,983
|
$
|
(235,343
|
)
|
$
|
18,759
|
See
accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements
43
CADIZ INC.
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATES FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 – DESCRIPTION OF
BUSINESS
The
Company’s primary asset consists of 45,000 acres of land in three areas of
eastern San Bernardino County, California. Virtually all of this land
is underlain by high-quality groundwater resources. The properties
are located in proximity to the Colorado River and the Colorado River Aqueduct,
the major source of imported water for Southern California. The
aquifer systems underlying the properties are suitable for a variety of water
storage and supply programs.
The value
of these assets derives from a combination of projected population increases and
limited water supplies throughout Southern California. In addition,
most of the major population centers in Southern California are not located
where significant precipitation occurs, requiring the importation of water from
other parts of the state. The Company therefore believes that a
competitive advantage exists for companies that can provide high-quality,
reliable, and affordable water to major population centers.
The
Company’s objective is to realize the highest and best use for these
assets. In 1993 Cadiz acquired permits for up to 9,600 acres of
agricultural development in the Cadiz Valley and the withdrawal of more than 1
million acre-feet of groundwater from the aquifer system underlying the
property. The Company believes that the location, geology and
hydrology of this property is uniquely suited for development of a groundwater
storage and dry-year supply program to augment the water supplies available to
Southern California. To this end, in 1997 Cadiz entered into the
first of a series of agreements with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (“Metropolitan”) to jointly design, permit and build such a project
(the “Cadiz Project” or “Project”).
Between
1997 and 2002, Metropolitan and the Company received substantially all of the
state and federal approvals required for the permits necessary to construct and
operate the project, including a Record of Decision (“ROD”) from the U.S. Department
of the Interior, which endorsed the Cadiz Project and offered a right-of-way for
construction of project facilities. The ROD also approved a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
Upon
completion of the federal environmental review and permitting process, Cadiz
expected Metropolitan to certify the completed Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”). As California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) lead
agency for the Project, Metropolitan had planned to hold a CEQA hearing, certify
the FEIR and accept the right-of-way offered to the Project by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. In October 2002, prior to the CEQA
hearing, Metropolitan’s staff brought the right-of-way matter before the
Metropolitan Board of Directors. By a very narrow margin, the
Metropolitan Board voted not to accept the right-of-way grant and not to proceed
with the Project. The Metropolitan Board took this action before it
had certified the FEIR, which was a necessary action to authorize implementation
of the Cadiz Project in accordance with CEQA. As a result, the CEQA
process for the Project was not completed by Metropolitan.
It is the
Company’s position that the actions by Metropolitan breached various contractual
and fiduciary obligations to the Company and interfered with the economic
advantage it would have obtained from the Cadiz Project. In April
2003, Cadiz filed a claim against Metropolitan seeking compensatory
damages. When settlement negotiations failed to produce a resolution,
the Company filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan in Los Angeles Superior Court
on November 17, 2005. The claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach
of express contract, promissory estoppel, breach of implied contract and
specific performance were allowed by the Court in its October 2006 rulings on
Metropolitan’s motion for demurrer. On October 19, 2007, the Court
issued a ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication that upheld the
Company’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed the other four
contractual and related claims. The case is currently scheduled for
trial in April 2008.
44
Regardless
of the Metropolitan Board’s actions in October 2002, the need for new water
storage and dry-year supplies has not abated. The population of
California continues to grow, while water supplies are being challenged by
drought, lack of infrastructure and environmental
protections. Indeed, California is facing the very real possibility
that current and future supplies of water will not be able to meet
demand. In 2007, a federal judge limited deliveries out of
California’s State Water Project, reducing Southern California’s water supplies
by nearly 30%. Moreover, in 2007, cities throughout Southern
California endured one of the driest years in decades, while the Colorado River
continued to provide below average deliveries to the
State. These conditions have greatly challenged California’s water
supplies and led policy leaders to seek improvements to the State’s water
infrastructure, including the pursuit of public financing for new groundwater
storage and supply projects.
The
advantages of underground water storage projects are many. These
include minimal surface environmental impacts, low capital investment, minimal
evaporative water loss and protection from airborne
contaminants. Because the need for groundwater storage and dry-year
supplies continues to grow in California, the Company continues to pursue the
implementation of the Cadiz Project.
To that
end, Cadiz has filed permit applications with the County of San Bernardino in an
effort to complete the environmental review of the Cadiz Project according to
CEQA and to acquire any permits required under California law to construct and
operate the Project. Upon completion of the CEQA process, the Company
plans to pursue an update to the FEIS and obtain renewed permits from the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Additionally,
the Company will continue discussions with several other public agencies
regarding their interest in participating in the Cadiz Project.
In
addition to agriculture and water development, the rapid growth of nearby desert
communities in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona indicates that the
Company’s land holdings may in time be suitable for other types of
development. To this end, Cadiz has conducted a detailed analysis of
the Company’s land assets to assess the opportunities for these
properties. Based on this analysis, the Company believes that its
properties have significant long-term potential for residential and commercial
development. The Company is continuing to explore alternative land
uses to maximize the value of its properties.
The
Company remains committed to its land and water assets and will continue to
explore all opportunities for development of these assets. The
Company cannot predict with certainty which of these various opportunities will
ultimately be utilized.
45
NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis
of Presentation
The
financial statements of the Company have been prepared using accounting
principles applicable to a going concern, which assumes realization of assets
and settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business. The
Company incurred losses of $13.6 million, $13.8 million and $23.0 million for
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The
Company had working capital of $8.0 million at December 31, 2007 and used cash
in operations of $5.3 million for the year ended December 31,
2007. Currently, the Company’s sole focus is the development of its
land and water assets.
In June
2006, the Company raised $36.4 million through the private placement of a five
year zero coupon convertible term loan with Peloton Partners LLP (“Peloton”), as
administrative agent, and an affiliate of Peloton and another investor, as
lenders. The proceeds of the new term loan were partially used to
repay the Company’s prior term loan facility with ING Capital LLC
(“ING”). In September 2006, an additional $1.1 million was raised
when certain holders of warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock at
$15.00 per share chose to exercise the warrants and purchase 70,000 shares of
common stock. A further $5.0 million was raised in February 2007,
when all remaining warrant holders chose to exercise their rights to purchase
335,440 shares of the Company’s common stock for $15.00 per share after
receiving a termination notice from the Company.
The
Company’s current resources do not provide the capital necessary to fund a water
or real estate development project should the Company be required to do
so. There is no assurance that additional financing (public or
private) will be available on acceptable terms or at all. If the
Company issues additional equity or equity linked securities to raise funds, the
ownership percentage of the Company’s existing stockholders would be
reduced. New investors may demand rights, preferences or privileges
senior to those of existing holders of common stock. If the Company
cannot raise needed funds, it might be forced to make further substantial
reductions in its operating expenses, which could adversely affect its ability
to implement its current business plan and ultimately its viability as a
company.
The
Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan of the Company’s Sun World International Inc.
subsidiary became effective in 2005, and the Company has no further liabilities
related to the business or operations of Sun World. Subsequent to the
effective date of the Chapter 11 reorganization plan of Sun World, the Company’s
primary activities are limited to the development of its water resources and
related assets. From the effective date of the reorganization plan
through December 31, 2007, the Company has incurred losses of approximately
$32.7 million and used cash in operations of $12.0 million.
Principles of
Consolidation
In
December 2003, the Company transferred substantially all of its assets (with the
exception of an office sublease, certain office furniture and equipment and any
Sun World related assets) to Cadiz Real Estate LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Cadiz Real Estate”). The Company holds 100% of the equity
interests of Cadiz Real Estate, and therefore continues to hold 100% beneficial
ownership of the properties that it transferred to Cadiz Real
Estate. Because the transfer of the Company’s properties to Cadiz
Real Estate has no effect on its ultimate beneficial ownership of these
properties, the properties owned of record either by Cadiz Real Estate or by the
Company are treated as belonging to the Company.
46
Use
of Estimates in Preparation of Financial Statements
The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and
the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting
period. In preparing these financial statements, management has made
estimates with regard to revenue recognition, goodwill and other long-lived
assets, and deferred tax assets. Actual results could differ from
those estimates.
Revenue
Recognition
The
Company recognizes crop sale revenue upon shipment and transfer of title to
customers.
Stock-Based
Compensation
General
and administrative expenses include $3.6 million, $2.3 million and $16.7 million
of stock based compensation expenses in the fiscal years ending December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Prior to
the January 2006 adoption of SFAS 123R, the Company accounted for grants of
options to employees to purchase its common stock using the intrinsic value
method in accordance with APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees,” and FIN No. 44, “Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock
Compensation”. As permitted by SFAS 123 and as amended by SFAS No.
148, the Company chose to continue to account for such option grants under APB
Opinion No. 25 and provide the expanded disclosures specified in SFAS 123, as
amended by SFAS No. 148.
Had
compensation cost for the Company’s option grants been determined based on their
fair value at the grant date for awards consistent with the provisions of SFAS
123R, the Company’s net loss per share for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2005 would have been the adjusted pro forma amounts indicated below
(dollars in thousands):
Year
Ended
|
|||||
December
31,
|
|||||
2005
|
|||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock:
|
As
reported
|
$
|
(23,025
|
)
|
|
Additional
expense
|
|||||
under
SFAS 123
|
$
|
(3,096
|
)
|
||
Pro
forma
|
$
|
(26,121
|
)
|
||
Net
loss per common share:
|
As
reported
|
$
|
(2.14
|
)
|
|
Additional
expense
|
|||||
under
SFAS 123
|
$
|
(0.29
|
)
|
||
Pro
forma
|
$
|
(2.43
|
)
|
47
For
purposes of computing the pro forma disclosures required by SFAS 123, the fair
value of each option granted to employees and directors is estimated using the
Black-Scholes option pricing model.
In
December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R (revised 2004),
“Share-Based Payment”, which requires all share-based payments to
employees, including grants of employee stock options, be recognized in the
financial statements based on their grant date fair values. SFAS No. 123R
replaces SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-based Compensation,” (“SFAS 123”)
and supercedes APB Opinion No. 25. The Company adopted the new
requirements using the modified prospective transition method during the first
quarter of 2006, and as a result, will not retroactively adjust results from
prior periods. Under this transition method, compensation expense
associated with stock options recognized in fiscal 2006 included: 1) expenses
related to the remaining unvested portion of all stock option awards granted
prior to January 1, 2006, based on the grant date fair value estimated in
accordance with the original provisions of SFAS No. 123; and 2) expenses related
to all stock option awards granted or modified subsequent to January 1, 2006,
based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions
of SFAS No. 123R.
The
Company applies the Black-Scholes valuation model in determining the fair value
of share-based payments to employees, which is then amortized on a straight-line
basis over the requisite service period. 365,000 options were granted
under the Company’s 2003 Management Equity Incentive Plan in 2005, and 12,339
options were granted in 2006. An additional 7,661 options were
granted under the Company’s 2007 Management Equity Incentive Plan in
2007. The Options have a 10 year term with vesting periods ranging
from the issuance date to three years. The 2006 and 2007 options had
strike prices equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on
the respective grant dates.
As a
result of the adoption of SFAS 123R, the Company recorded expense in the amount
of $877,000 in 2006 related to the fair value of options. $831,000 of
this amount was related to options granted in 2005. SFAS 123R also
requires the Company to estimate forfeitures in calculating the expense related
to stock-based compensation as opposed to only recognizing these forfeitures and
the corresponding reduction in expense as they occur. The remaining
vesting periods are relatively short, and the potential impact of forfeitures is
not material. The Company is in a tax loss carryforward position and
is not expected to realize a benefit from any additional compensation expense
recognized under SFAS 123R. See Note 7 – Income
Taxes.
Net
Loss Per Common Share
Basic
Earnings Per Share (EPS) is computed by dividing the net loss, after deduction
for preferred dividends either accrued or imputed, if any, by the
weighted-average common shares outstanding. Options, deferred stock
units, warrants, participating and redeemable preferred stock and the zero
coupon term loan convertible into or exercisable for certain shares of the
Company’s common stock were not considered in the computation of diluted EPS
because their inclusion would have been antidilutive. Had these
instruments been included, the fully diluted weighted average shares outstanding
would have increased by approximately 2,208,000 shares, 1,583,000 shares and
725,000 shares for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
48
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
The
Company considers all short-term deposits with an original maturity of three
months or less to be cash equivalents. The Company invests its excess
cash in deposits with major international banks, government agency notes and
short-term commercial paper and, therefore, bears minimal risk. Such
investments are stated at cost, which approximates fair value, and are
considered cash equivalents for purposes of reporting cash flows.
Property,
Plant, Equipment and Water Programs
Property,
plant, equipment and water programs are stated at cost. Permanent
land development costs, such as acquisition costs, clearing, initial leveling
and other costs required to bring land into a suitable condition for general
agricultural use, have been capitalized and not depreciated, since these costs
were determined to have an indefinite useful life.
Depreciation
is provided using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of
the assets, generally ten to forty-five years for land improvements and
buildings and five to fifteen years for machinery and
equipment. Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the shorter of
the initial term of the relevant lease agreement or the estimated useful life of
the asset.
Water
rights and water storage and supply programs are stated at
cost. Certain costs directly attributable to the development of such
programs have been capitalized by the Company. These costs, which are
expected to be recovered through future revenues, consist of direct labor,
drilling costs, consulting fees for various engineering, hydrological,
environmental and feasibility studies, and other professional and legal
fees.
Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets
The
Company evaluates its long-lived assets, including intangibles, for potential
impairment when circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may
not be recoverable. This evaluation is based upon estimated future
cash flows. In the event that the undiscounted cash flows are less than the net
book value of the assets, the carrying value of the assets will be written down
to their estimated fair value. As a result of the actions taken by
Metropolitan in the fourth quarter of 2002 as described in Note 1, the Company
evaluated the carrying value of its water program and determined that the asset
was not impaired and that the costs were estimated to be recovered through
implementation of the Cadiz Project with other government organizations, water
agencies and private water users. Beginning in 2004, the Company has
reviewed the valuation of the water program annually and has concluded that the
carrying amount of the program was not impaired. The Company’s
analysis could be impacted by changes in plans related to the Cadiz
Project.
49
Goodwill
and Other Assets
As a
result of a merger in May 1988 between two companies which eventually became
known as Cadiz Inc., goodwill in the amount of $7,006,000 was
recorded. Approximately $3,193,000 of this amount was amortized prior
to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, (“SFAS
No. 142”) “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” on January 1,
2002. Goodwill is tested for impairment annually in the first quarter
of each year, or if events occur which require an impairment analysis be
performed. As a result of the actions taken by Metropolitan in the
fourth quarter of 2002 as described in Note 1, the Company performed an
impairment test of its goodwill and determined that its goodwill was not
impaired. Beginning in 2004, the Company has performed an annual
impairment test of goodwill in the first quarter of each year and has determined
that the goodwill was not impaired.
Deferred
loan costs represent costs incurred to obtain debt financing. Such
costs are amortized over the life of the related loan. At December
31, 2007, the capitalized loan fees relate to the zero coupon secured
convertible term loan with Peloton Partners LLP, as described in Note
6.
Income
Taxes
Income
taxes are provided for using an asset and liability approach which requires the
recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax
consequences of temporary differences between the financial statement and tax
bases of assets and liabilities at the applicable enacted tax
rates. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than
not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be
realized.
Effective
January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FIN 48 “Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes.” The adoption of FIN 48 did not have a significant
impact on the financial statements of the Company. In connection with
the adoption of FIN 48, the Company elected to classify income tax penalties and
interest as general and administrative and interest expenses,
respectively. See Note 7 – Income Taxes.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
Financial
assets with carrying values approximating fair value include cash and cash
equivalents and accounts receivable. Financial liabilities with
carrying values approximating fair value include accounts payable and accrued
liabilities due to their short-term nature. The carrying value of the
Company's debt, before discount, approximates fair value, based on interest
rates available to the Company for debt with similar
terms.
Supplemental
Cash Flow Information
Cash
interest payments due on the ING loan during 2006 and 2005 were credited against
a $2.4 million prepaid interest account that had been established for this
purpose. No cash payments are due on the new Peloton Loan prior to
the June 29, 2011 final maturity date.
50
Cash
payments for income taxes were $7,300 and $128,200 in the years ended December
31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. No cash was paid for income taxes
during the year ended December 31, 2005.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the FASB released Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 157 (“SFAS No. 157”), “Fair Value Measurements". This statement
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands
disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 clarifies the exchange
price notion in the fair value definition to mean the price that would be
received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an
exit price), not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or
received to assume the liability (an entry price). This statement
also clarifies that market participant assumptions should include assumptions
about risk, should include assumptions about the effect of a restriction on the
sale or use of an asset and should reflect its nonperformance risk (the risk
that the obligation will not be fulfilled). Nonperformance risk
should include the reporting entity’s credit risk. SFAS No. 157 is effective for
financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007
except for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not
recognized or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis, for which the
effective date is fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. The
Company will adopt SFAS No. 157 on January 1, 2008, as required, and management
is still evaluating the impact on the Company’s consolidated financial
statements.
In
February 2007, the FASB released Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
159 (“SFAS No. 159), “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Liabilities
Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115”. SFAS No. 159 permits entities
to choose to measure certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value and
is effective for the first fiscal year beginning after November 15,
2007. The Company will adopt SFAS No. 159 on January 1, 2008, as
required, and management is still evaluating the impact on the Company’s
consolidated financial statements.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business Combinations”
("SFAS 141(R)"), which establishes principles and requirements for how
the acquirer shall recognize and measure in its financial statements the
identifiable assets acquired, liabilities assumed, any noncontrolling interest
in the acquiree and goodwill acquired in a business combination. This statement
is effective for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or
after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after
December 15, 2008. The Company is currently assessing the
potential impact that the adoption of SFAS 141(R) will have on its financial
position and results of operations.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements — an Amendment of ARB No. 51”
("SFAS 160"), which establishes and expands accounting and reporting
standards for minority interests, which will be recharacterized as
noncontrolling interests, in a subsidiary and the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. SFAS 160 is effective for business combinations for which the
acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. This statement is effective
for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. The Company
is currently assessing the potential impact that the adoption of SFAS 160 will
have on its financial position and results of operations.
51
NOTE 3 – PROPERTY, PLANT,
EQUIPMENT AND WATER PROGRAMS
Property,
plant, equipment and water programs consist of the following (dollars in
thousands):
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Land
and land improvements
|
$
|
21,998
|
$
|
21,986
|
||||
Water
programs
|
14,274
|
14,274
|
||||||
Buildings
|
1,161
|
1,191
|
||||||
Leasehold
Improvements
|
570
|
-
|
||||||
Furniture
& Fixtures
|
334
|
45
|
||||||
Machinery
and equipment
|
807
|
681
|
||||||
Construction
in progress
|
27
|
-
|
||||||
39,171
|
38,177
|
|||||||
Less
accumulated depreciation
|
(3,139
|
)
|
(2,987
|
)
|
||||
$
|
36,032
|
$
|
35,190
|
Depreciation
expense during the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was $261,000,
$154,000 and $229,000 respectively.
NOTE 4 – OTHER ASSETS
Other assets consist of the following
(dollars in thousands):
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Deferred
loan costs, net
|
$
|
320
|
$
|
382
|
||||
Office
lease security deposit
|
250
|
-
|
||||||
$
|
570
|
$
|
382
|
Deferred
loan costs consist of legal and other fees incurred to obtain debt
financing. Amortization of deferred loan costs was $62,000, $40,000
and $28,000 in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, and is included in interest
expense in the statement of operations.
52
NOTE 5 – ACCRUED
LIABILITIES
Accrued
liabilities consist of the following (dollars in thousands):
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Payroll,
bonus, and benefits
|
24
|
10
|
||||||
Consulting
and Legal expenses
|
102
|
72
|
||||||
Income
& other taxes
|
221
|
238
|
||||||
Deferred
rent
|
224
|
-
|
||||||
Other
accrued expenses
|
173
|
60
|
||||||
$
|
744
|
$
|
380
|
NOTE 6 – LONG-TERM
DEBT
At
December 31, 2007 and 2006, the carrying amount of the Company’s outstanding
debt is summarized as follows (dollars in thousands):
December 31, | ||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Zero
coupon secured convertible term loan due June 29,
2011. Interest accruing at 5% per annum until June 29, 2009 and
at 6% thereafter
|
$
|
39,244
|
$
|
37,316
|
||||
Other
loans
|
22
|
31
|
||||||
Debt
Discount
|
(9,605
|
)
|
(11,457
|
)
|
||||
29,661
|
25,890
|
|||||||
Less
current portion
|
9
|
9
|
||||||
$
|
29,652
|
$
|
25,881
|
Pursuant to the Company’s loan
agreements, annual maturities of long-term debt outstanding on December 31, 2007
are as follows:
Year
|
$
|
000’s
|
||
2008
|
9
|
|||
2009
|
9
|
|||
2010
|
4
|
|||
2011
|
39,244
|
|||
2012
|
-
|
|||
$
|
39,266
|
53
In June
2006, the Company entered into a $36.4 million five year zero coupon convertible
term loan with Peloton Partners LLP, as administrative agent for the loan, and
with an affiliate of Peloton and another investor, as lenders (the “Peloton
Loan”). Certain terms of the loan were subsequently amended pursuant
to Amendment #1 to the Credit Agreement, which was effective September
2006. Under the terms of the loan, interest accrues at a 5% annual
rate for the first 3 years and 6% thereafter, calculated on the basis of a 360
day year and actual days elapsed. The entire amount of accrued
interest is due at the final maturity of the loan in June,
2011. Substantially all the assets of the Company have been pledged
as collateral for the term loan, which contains representations, warranties and
covenants that are typical for agreements of this type, including restrictions
that would limit the Company’s ability to incur additional indebtedness, incur
liens, pay dividends or make restricted payments, dispose of assets, make
investments and merge or consolidate with another person. However,
there are no financial maintenance covenants and no restrictions on the
Company’s ability to issue additional common stock to fund future working
capital needs.
At the
lender’s option, principal plus accrued interest is convertible into the
Company’s $0.01 par value common stock. The loan is divided into two
tranches: the $10 million Tranche A is convertible at $18.15 per share, and the
$26.4 million Tranche B is convertible at $23.10 per share. A maximum
of 2,221,909 shares are issuable pursuant to these conversion rights, with this
maximum number applicable if the loan is converted on the final maturity
date. The Company has more than sufficient authorized common shares
available for this purpose.
In the
event of a change in control, the conversion prices are adjusted downward by a
discount that declines over time such that, under a change in control scenario,
both the Tranche A and Tranche B conversion prices are initially $16.50 per
share and increase in a linear manner over time to the full $18.15 Tranche A
conversion price and $23.10 Tranche B conversion price on the final maturity
date. In no event does the maximum number of shares issuable to
lenders pursuant to these revised conversion formulas exceed the 2,221,909
shares that would be issued to lenders pursuant to a conversion in full on the
final maturity date in the absence of a change in control.
Each of
the loan tranches can be prepaid if the price of the Company’s stock on the
NASDAQ Global Market exceeds the conversion price of the tranche by 40% or if
the Company obtains a certified environmental impact report for the Cadiz
groundwater storage and dry year supply program, a pipeline right-of-way and
permits for pipeline construction and financing commitments sufficient to
construct the project. The Company has filed a registration statement
on Form S-3 covering the resale of all the securities issuable upon conversion
of the loan.
The
Company has analyzed all of the above provisions of the convertible loan and
related agreements for embedded derivatives under FASB Statement No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities and related
Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) interpretations and SEC rules. The
Company concluded that certain provisions of the convertible loan agreement,
which were in effect prior to the first amendment date, may be deemed to be
derivatives for purposes of the application of FASB Statement No. 133 and EITF
00-19: Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and
Potentially Settled in, a Company’s Own Stock. Therefore, in
accordance with FASB Statement No. 133, these embedded instruments were
bifurcated from the host debt instrument and classified as a liability in the
Company’s financial statements. The Company prepared valuations for
each of the deemed derivatives using a Black-Scholes option pricing model and
recorded a liability of approximately $12.2 million on the June 30, 2006 loan
funding date, with an offsetting discount to the convertible term
loan.
54
On June
30, 2006, the derivative liability was classified and recorded as part of long
term debt in the balance sheet. The debt discount will be amortized
to interest expense over the life of the loan using the effective interest
amortization method. The principal valuation assumptions are as
follows:
Loan
balance available for conversion:
|
$36.4
million
|
Expected
term:
|
5
years
|
Cadiz
common share price:
|
$17.01
|
Volatility:
|
46%
|
Risk-free
Interest Rate:
|
5.18%
|
Change
in control probability:
|
10%
|
On
September 29, 2006 the terms of the loan were amended, and it was determined
that bifurcation of the embedded equity conversion option is no longer
required. The derivative liability was adjusted to fair value on the
amendment date, and the $2,919,000 increase in fair value was recorded as an
“Other Expense” item in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The
$15.2 million fair value of the derivative liability was then transferred to the
Additional Paid-in Capital component of Stockholder’s Equity.
The
Company incurred $408,000 of outside legal expenses related to the negotiation
and documentation of the loan, which will be amortized over the life of the loan
using the interest amortization method
The
proceeds of the Peloton Loan were applied to repay in full the Company’s term
loan facility with ING on June 29, 2006. As a result, ING retained
the $762,000 remaining balance of the prepaid interest credit account described
below, and the write-off of this asset was reflected in the “Other Expense”
caption of the Statement of Operations. The write-off of $106,000 of
unamortized debt issuance costs related to the ING loan was also reflected under
“Other Expense”.
At
December 31, 2007 the Company was in compliance with its debt covenants under
the Peloton Loan.
55
NOTE 7 – INCOME
TAXES
Deferred
taxes are recorded based upon differences between the financial statement and
tax bases of assets and liabilities and available
carryforwards. Temporary differences and carryforwards which gave
rise to a significant portion of deferred tax assets and liabilities as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006 are as follows (in thousands):
December
31,
|
||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
|||||||
Deferred
tax assets:
|
||||||||
Net
operating losses
|
$
|
32,345
|
$
|
25,501
|
||||
Fixed
asset basis difference
|
7,484
|
7,645
|
||||||
Contributions
carryover
|
3
|
6
|
||||||
Accrued
liabilities and other
|
2,348
|
1,049
|
||||||
Total
deferred tax assets
|
42,180
|
34,201
|
||||||
Valuation
allowance for deferred tax assets
|
(42,180
|
)
|
(34,201
|
)
|
||||
Net
deferred tax asset
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
The
valuation allowance increased $7,979,000 and $2,587,000 in 2007 and 2006,
respectively, due to an increase in the net operating loss category of deferred
tax assets. The change in deferred tax assets resulted from current
year net operating losses, expiration of prior year loss carryovers and new
annual limitation amounts.
As of
December 31, 2007, the Company had net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards of
approximately $87.6 million for federal income tax purposes and $29.1 million
for California income tax purposes. Such carryforwards expire in
varying amounts through the year 2027. Use of the carryforward
amounts is subject to an annual limitation as a result of ownership
changes.
On August
26, 2005, a Settlement Agreement between Cadiz, on the one hand, and Sun World
and three of Sun World’s subsidiaries, on the other hand, was approved by the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, concurrently with the Court’s confirmation of the amended
Plan. The Settlement Agreement provides that following the September
6, 2005 effective date of Sun World’s plan of reorganization, Cadiz will retain
the right to utilize the Sun World net operating loss carryovers
(NOLs). Sun World Federal NOLs are estimated to be approximately $58
million. If, in any year from calendar year 2005 through calendar
year 2011, the utilization of such NOLs results in a reduction of Cadiz’ tax
liability for such year, then Cadiz will pay to the Sun World bankruptcy estate
25% of the amount of such reduction, and shall retain the remaining 75% for its
own benefit. There is no requirement that Cadiz utilize these NOLs
during this reimbursement period, or provide any reimbursement to the Sun World
bankruptcy estate for any NOLs used by Cadiz after this reimbursement period
expires.
56
As of the
January 1, 2007, adoption of FIN 48, the Company possessed unrecognized tax
benefits totaling approximately $3.3 million. A schedule of changes
for the 12 months ended December 31, 2007 is shown below:
Amounts
|
||||
(in
millions)
|
||||
Balance,
January 1, 2007
|
$
|
3.3
|
||
Additions
or reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
-
|
|||
Additions
or reductions for tax positions of current year
|
-
|
|||
Changes
related to current year settlements
|
-
|
|||
Changes
due to expirations of the statute of limitations
|
-
|
|||
Balance,
December 31, 2007
|
$
|
3.3
|
None of
these tax benefits, if recognized, would affect the Company's effective tax rate
because the Company has recorded a full valuation allowance against these
assets. Additionally, as of that date the Company had accrued a total
of $200,000 for state taxes, interest and penalties related to income tax
positions in prior returns. In connection with the adoption of FIN
48, the Company elected to classify income tax penalties and interest as general
and administrative and interest expenses, respectively. For the
twelve months ended December 31, 2007, general and administrative expenses
included approximately $40,000 of income tax penalties.
The
Company does not expect that the unrecognized tax benefits will significantly
increase or decrease in the next 12 months.
The
Company's tax years 2004 through 2007 remain subject to examination by the
Internal Revenue Service, and tax years 2003 through 2007 remain subject to
examination by California tax jurisdictions. In addition, the
Company's loss carryforward amounts are generally subject to examination and
adjustment for a period of three years for federal tax purposes and four years
for California purposes, beginning when such carryovers are utilized to reduce
taxes in a future tax year.
A
reconciliation of the income tax benefit to the statutory federal income tax
rate is as follows (dollars in thousands):
57
Year
Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
2007
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||
Expected
federal income tax benefit at 34%
|
$
|
(4,638
|
)
|
$
|
(4,700
|
)
|
$
|
(7,714
|
)
|
|||
Loss
with no tax benefit provided
|
3,983
|
3,426
|
1,672
|
|||||||||
State
income tax
|
4
|
6
|
336
|
|||||||||
Stock
Options
|
-
|
(21
|
)
|
4,020
|
||||||||
Losses
utilized against unconsolidated subsidiary taxable income
|
-
|
-
|
2,012
|
|||||||||
Non-deductible
expenses and other
|
655
|
1,295
|
10
|
|||||||||
Income tax
expense
|
$
|
4
|
$
|
6
|
$
|
336
|
Because
it is more likely than not that the Company will not realize its net deferred
tax assets, it has recorded a full valuation allowance against these
assets. Accordingly, no deferred tax asset has been recorded in the
accompanying balance sheet.
NOTE 8 – EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
PLANS
The
Company has a 401(k) Plan for its salaried employees. The Company
matches 100% of the first three percent of annual base salary and 50% of the
next two percent of annual base salary contributed by an employee to the
plan. The Company contributed $38,000, $20,000, and $22,000 to the
plans for fiscal years 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
NOTE 9 – PREFERRED AND
COMMON STOCK
Series
F Convertible Preferred Stock
On
December 15, 2003, the Company issued 100,000 shares of Series F Convertible
Preferred Stock in conjunction with the extension of the Company’s senior term
loan maturity date. The 100,000 preferred shares were initially
convertible into 1,728,955 shares of common stock of the Company. The
estimated value of the Series F Preferred Stock was recorded as a debt discount
and was amortized over the initial term of the senior term loans through March
31, 2005.
On
November 30, 2004, the senior term loans were amended. 99,000 shares
of the Series F Preferred Stock were converted into 1,711,665 shares of common
stock of the Company, and the remaining debt discount of $1.4 million was
written off. In June 2007, ING elected to covert the remaining 1,000
preferred shares into 17,289 shares of the Company’s common stock, and the
Company subsequently filed a Certification of Elimination of Series F
Convertible Preferred Stock with the State of Delaware. As a result,
no Series F Preferred Stock was issued or outstanding on December 31,
2007.
58
Common
Stock and Warrants
On
November 30, 2004, the Company completed a private placement of 400,000 Units at
the price of $60.00 per Unit. Each Unit consisted of five (5) shares
of the Company’s common stock and one (1) common stock purchase
warrant. Each Warrant entitled the holder to purchase, commencing 180
days from the date of issuance, one (1) share of common stock at an exercise
price of $15.00 per share. Each Warrant had a term of three (3)
years. In September 2006, certain warrant holders exercised their
right to purchase 70,000 common shares. In 2007, the Company
exercised its right to terminate the remaining warrants on March 2, 2007,
subject to a 30 day notice period. In response, the remaining warrant
holders exercised their right to purchase 335,440 shares of the Company’s common
stock during the notice period. Following this exercise, no warrants
remain outstanding.
On
October 1, 2007, the Company agreed to the conditional issuance of up to 300,000
shares to the former sole shareholder and successor in interest to Exploration
Research Associates, Inc. (“ERA”), who is now an employee of the
Company. The shares will be issued if and when certain significant
milestones in the development of the Company’s properties are
achieved. The Company acquired the assets of ERA in 1998, and the
original acquisition agreement provided for the conditional issuance of up to
600,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to ERA. 100,000 shares
were issued to ERA in 2003, and the remaining balance was reduced to 20,000 by
the 1:25 reverse split of the Company’s common stock in 2003. The
October 1, 2007 agreement settled certain claims by ERA against the Company and
restored the value of contingent consideration provided to ERA in the original
acquisition agreement. It further provides new milestones that are
better aligned with the Company’s current business plans.
As
discussed in Note 6, principal and accrued interest on the Peloton Loan is
convertible into common shares of the Company at the Lender’s
option. The terms of the loan include optional prepayment provisions
that could result in an early conversion of the loan under certain
circumstances, and a preferred conversion formula is provided upon a change in
control of the Company.
NOTE 10 – STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS AND WARRANTS
The
Company has issued options pursuant to its 2003 and 2007 Management Equity
Incentive Plans. The Company also has granted stock awards pursuant
to its 2003 Management Equity Incentive Plan, 2007 Management Equity Incentive
Plan and Outside Director Compensation Plan, as described below.
2003 Management Equity Incentive
Plan
In
December 2003, concurrently with the completion of the Company’s then current
financing arrangements with ING, the Company’s board of directors authorized the
adoption of a Management Equity Incentive Plan (the “Incentive
Plan”). Under the Incentive Plan, a total of 1,472,051 shares of
common stock and common stock options were granted to key
personnel. The Board formed allocation committees to direct the
initial allocation of 717,373 of these shares and a subsequent allocation of
377,339 shares of common stock and 377,339 options to purchase common
stock. All the stock and options were granted prior to December 31,
2006, and all vesting conditions were satisfied prior to December 31,
2007.
59
Outside
Director Compensation Plan
The Cadiz
Inc. Outside Director Compensation Plan was approved by Cadiz shareholders in
November 2006. Under the plan, each outside director receives $30,000
of cash compensation and receives a deferred stock award consisting of shares of
the Company’s common stock with a value equal to $20,000 on June 30th of each
year. The award accrues on a quarterly basis, with $7,500 of cash
compensation and $5,000 of stock earned for each fiscal quarter in which a
director serves. The deferred stock award vests automatically on the
January 31st which
first follows the award date.
2007
Management Equity Incentive Plan
The 2007
Management Equity Incentive Plan was approved by stockholders at the June 15,
2007 Annual Meeting. The plan provides for the grant and issuance of
up to 1,050,000 shares and options to the Company’s employees and
consultants. The plan became effective when the Company filed a
registration statement on Form S-8 on July 25, 2007, and grants of 950,000
shares of common stock and options to purchase 7,661 shares of common stock
became effective on that date. As discussed below, all grants are
subject to vesting conditions, and certain grants are subject to additional
market conditions.
Stock
Options Issued under the 2003 and 2007 Management Equity Incentive
Plans
The 2003
Management Equity Incentive Plan provides for the granting of 377,339 options
for the purchase of one share of common stock. Options issued under
the Management Equity Incentive Plan were granted during 2005 and
2006. The options have a ten year term with vesting periods ranging
from issuance date to three years. Certain of these options had
strike prices that were below the fair market value of the Company’s common
stock on the date of grant. All options have been issued to officers,
employees and consultants of the Company. 365,000 options were
granted under the plan during 2005, and the remaining 12,339 options were
granted in 2006.
The
Company granted options to purchase 7,661 common shares at a price of $20.00 per
share under the 2007 Management Equity Incentive Plan on July 25,
2007. The options have strike prices that were slightly above the
fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date that the grant
became effective. The options have a ten year term with vesting
periods ranging from issuance date to two years.
The fair
value of each option was estimated on the date of grant using the Black Scholes
option pricing model based on the following weighted average
assumptions:
Risk
free interest rate
|
4.21%
|
Expected
life
|
9.5
years
|
Expected
volatility
|
46%
|
Expected
dividend yield
|
0.0%
|
Weighted
average vesting period
|
0.8
years
|
60
The risk
free interest rate was assumed to be equal to the yield of a U.S. Treasury bond
of comparable maturity, as published in the Federal Reserve Statistical Release
for the relevant date. The expected life estimate is based on an
analysis of the employees receiving option grants and the expected behavior of
each employee. The expected volatility was derived from an analysis
of the historical volatility of the trading price per share of the Company’s
common stock on the NASDAQ Global Market. The Company does not
anticipate that it will pay dividends to common shareholders in the future, and
the weighted average vesting period is based on the option vesting schedule,
assuming no options are forfeit prior to the initial vesting date.
The
Company recognized stock option related compensation costs of $180,000 and
$877,000 in fiscal 2007 and 2006, respectively, relating to these
options. $848,000 of stock option related compensation costs were
recognized in fiscal 2005 under APB-25. On December 31, 2007, the
unamortized compensation expense related to these options amounted to $35,000
and is expected to be recognized in 2008. Options to purchase 10,000
shares were exercised in February 2007. No stock options were
exercised during fiscal 2006.
A summary
of option activity under the plans as of December 31, 2007 and changes during
the current fiscal year is presented below:
Weighted-
|
Average
|
Aggregate
|
||||||||||||||
Average
|
Remaining
|
Intrinsic
|
||||||||||||||
Exercise
|
Contractual
|
Value
|
||||||||||||||
Options
|
Shares
|
Price
|
Term
|
($000’s)
|
||||||||||||
Outstanding
January 1, 2007
|
377,339
|
$
|
12.95
|
7.4
|
3,966
|
|||||||||||
Granted
|
7,661
|
$
|
20.00
|
9.0
|
73
|
|||||||||||
Exercised
|
(10,000
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(69
|
)
|
||||||||||
Forfeited
or expired
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
375,000
|
$
|
13.06
|
7.5
|
$
|
3,970
|
||||||||||
Exercisable
at December 31, 2007
|
368,334
|
$
|
12.94
|
7.4
|
$
|
3,904
|
61
The
weighted-average grant-date fair value of options granted during the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 were $9.43, $10.08 and $10.80 per share,
respectively. The following table summarizes stock option activity
for the periods noted.
Weighted-
|
||||||||
Average
|
||||||||
Amount
|
Exercise
Price
|
|||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2004
|
14,680
|
$
|
231.22
|
|||||
Granted
|
365,000
|
$
|
12.71
|
|||||
Expired or
canceled
|
(14,680
|
)
|
$
|
231.22
|
||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2005
|
365,000
|
$
|
12.71
|
|||||
Granted
|
12,339
|
$
|
20.00
|
|||||
Expired or
canceled
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
|||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2006
|
377,339
|
$
|
12.95
|
|||||
Granted
|
7,661
|
$
|
20.00
|
|||||
Expired or
canceled
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
|||||
Exercised
|
(10,000
|
)
|
13.95
|
|||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2007
|
375,000
|
(a)
|
$
|
13.06
|
||||
Options
exercisable at December 31, 2007
|
368,334
|
$
|
12.94
|
|||||
Weighted-average
years of remaining contractual life of options outstanding at December 31,
2007
|
7.5
|
(a)
|
Exercise
prices vary from $12.00 to $20.00, and expiration dates vary from May 2015
to December 2016.
|
Stock
Awards to Directors, Officer, Consultants and Employees
The
Company has also granted stock awards pursuant to its 2003 and 2007 Management
Equity Incentive Plans and its Outside Director Compensation Plan.
The 2003
Management Equity Incentive Plan provided for the granting of 1,094,712 shares
of common stock in May 2005, the 2007 Management Equity Incentive Plan provides
for the granting of up to 1,050,000 shares of stock and stock options, and the
Outside Director Compensation Plan provides for the granting of up to 50,000
shares. Compensation cost for stock granted to employees and
directors is measured at the quoted market price of the Company's stock on the
date of grant.
All of
the shares issuable under the 2003 Management Equity Incentive Plan were awarded
in May 2005. At that time, 717,373 initial allocation shares and
377,339 subsequent allocation shares were awarded. 604,029 shares
were issued on the award date, 364,904 shares were issued in December 2005, and
the remaining 125,779 shares were issued in December 2006. On
December 31, 2006, no additional shares were issuable under the 2003 Management
Equity Incentive Plan.
62
A grant
of 950,000 shares under the 2007 Management Equity Incentive Plan became
effective on July 25, 2007. The grant consists of three separate
awards. Two of the awards are subject to market
conditions.
-
|
A
150,000 share award that vests in three equal installments on January 1,
2008, January 1, 2009 and January 1,
2010.
|
-
|
A
400,000 share award that is available if the trading price of the
Company’s stock is at least $28 per share for 10 trading days within any
period of 30 consecutive trading days on or before March 12,
2009. This award would vest in four equal installments on
January 1, 2008, January 1, 2009, January 1, 2010 and January 1,
2011.
|
-
|
A
400,000 share award that is available if the trading price of the
Company’s stock is at least $35 per share for 10 trading days within any
period of 30 consecutive trading days on or before March 12,
2009. This award would also vest in four equal installments on
January 1, 2008, January 1, 2009, January 1, 2010 and January 1,
2011.
|
The
initial Outside Director Compensation Plan award was made on November 14, 2006
and included 10,416 shares for service rendered during the 12 month service
period ended June 30, 2004 and 2005 and 4,285 shares for services rendered
during the 12 month service period ended June 30, 2006. 10,416 shares
were issued immediately upon shareholder approval in November 2006, and the
remaining 4,285 shares vested and were issued in January 2007. A
4,599 share award for service during the plan year ended June 30, 2007 became
effective on that date, and this award will vest on January 31,
2008.
The
compensation cost of stock grants without market conditions is measured at the
quoted market price of the Company’s stock at the date of grant. The
fair value of the two 2007 Management Equity Incentive Plan awards with market
conditions was calculated using a lattice model using the following weighted
average assumptions:
Risk free interest rate |
4.74%
|
Current stock price |
$19.74
|
Expected volatility |
38.0%
|
Expected dividend yield |
0.0%
|
Weighted average vesting period |
2.0
years
|
The risk
free interest rate was assumed to be equal to the yield of a U.S. Treasury bond
of comparable maturity, as published in the Federal Reserve Statistical Release
for the relevant date. The current stock price is the closing price
of the Company’s common stock quoted on the NASDAQ Global Market on the grant
date. The expected volatility was derived from an analysis of the
historical volatility of the trading price per share of the Company’s common
stock on the NASDAQ Global Market. The Company does not anticipate
that it will pay dividends in the future.
63
The
lattice model calculates a derived service period, which is equal to the median
period between the grant date and the date that the relevant market conditions
are satisfied. The derived service periods for the grants with $28
and $35 per share market conditions are 0.72 years and 1.01 years,
respectively. The weighted average vesting period is based on the
later of the derived service period and the scheduled vesting dates for each
grant.
The
accompanying consolidated statements include approximately $3,429,000 and
$1,383,000 of stock based compensation expense related to these stock awards in
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. In
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 $15,839,000 was recognized under
APB-15. On December 31, 2007, the unamortized compensation expense
relating to these stock awards was $6,219,000.
A summary
of stock awards activity under the plans during the fiscal year ended December
31, 2007 and 2006 is presented below:
Weighted-
|
||||||||
Average
|
||||||||
Grant-date
|
||||||||
Shares
|
Fair
Value
|
|||||||
($000’s)
|
||||||||
Nonvested
at December 31, 2005
|
125,779
|
$
|
1,950
|
|||||
Granted
|
14,701
|
282
|
||||||
Forfeited or
canceled
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Vested
|
(136,195
|
)
|
(2,150
|
)
|
||||
Nonvested
at December 31, 2006
|
4,285
|
$
|
82
|
|||||
Granted
|
954,599
|
9,620
|
||||||
Forfeited or
canceled
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Vested
|
(4,285
|
)
|
(82
|
)
|
||||
Nonvested
at December 31, 2007
|
954,599
|
$
|
9,620
|
Stock
Purchase Warrants Issued to Non-Employees
The
Company accounts for equity securities issued to non-employees in accordance
with the provisions of SFAS 123 and Emerging Issues Task Force
96-18. On November 30, 2004 the Company completed a private placement
of 400,000 units, each Unit consisting of five (5) shares of the Company’s
common stock and one (1) common stock purchase warrant. Each of the
400,000 warrants entitle the holder to purchase one (1) share of common stock at
an exercise price of $15.00 per share. An additional 5,440 warrants
were issued to an individual who assisted the company in identifying
participants in the November 30, 2004 private placement and elected to receive a
commission for the services in stock rather than cash. Each Warrant
had a term of three (3) years and was callable at the Company’s
option.
64
During
2006, certain warrant holders exercised their rights to purchase 70,000 shares,
and the Company received $1,050,000 from the sale of that common
stock. In 2007, the Company exercised a right to terminate the
remaining warrants on March 2, 2007, subject to a 30 day notice
period. In response, the remaining warrant holders exercised their
rights to purchase 335,440 shares of the Company’s common stock during the
notice period, and the Company received $5.0 million from the sale of these
shares. Following this exercise, no Warrants remain
outstanding.
NOTE 11 – SEGMENT
INFORMATION
With Sun
World’s 2003 filing of voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
bankruptcy code as further described in Note 1, the primary business of the
Company is to acquire and develop land and water resources. As a
result, the Company’s financial results are reported in a single
segment.
NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND
CONTINGENCIES
The
Company leases equipment and office facilities under operating leases that
expire through 2012. Aggregate rental expense under all operating
leases was $140 thousand, $116 thousand and $110 thousand in the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. At December 31, 2007,
the future minimum rental commitments under existing non-cancelable operating
leases are as follows:
Year
|
$
|
000’s
|
||
2008
|
179
|
|||
2009
|
174
|
|||
2010
|
172
|
|||
2011
|
179
|
|||
2012
|
139
|
|||
$
|
843
|
In the
normal course of its agricultural operations, the Company handles, stores,
transports and dispenses products identified as hazardous
materials. Regulatory agencies periodically conduct inspections and,
currently, there are no pending claims with respect to hazardous
materials.
The
Company is involved in other legal and administrative proceedings and
claims. In the opinion of management, the ultimate outcome of each
proceeding or all such proceedings combined will not have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial statements.
65
NOTE 13 – QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
(In
thousands except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||
Quarter
Ended
|
||||||||||||||||
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
September
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||||||||
2007
|
2007
|
2007
|
2007
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$
|
352
|
$
|
5
|
$
|
6
|
$
|
63
|
||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(1,808
|
)
|
(1,390
|
)
|
(3,399
|
)
|
(3,792
|
)
|
||||||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock
|
(2,576
|
)
|
(2,158
|
)
|
(4,218
|
)
|
(4,681
|
)
|
||||||||
Basic
and diluted
net
loss per common share
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
$
|
(0.35
|
)
|
$
|
(0.40
|
)
|
||||
(In
thousands except per share data)
|
||||||||||||||||
Quarter
Ended
|
||||||||||||||||
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
September
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||||||||
2006
|
2006
|
2006
|
2006
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$
|
252
|
$
|
157
|
$
|
37
|
$
|
168
|
||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(2,095
|
)
|
(1,786
|
)
|
(2,086
|
)
|
(2,004
|
)
|
||||||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock
|
(2,226
|
)
|
(3,150
|
)
|
(5,684
|
)
|
(2,765
|
)
|
||||||||
Basic
and diluted
net
loss per common share
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
$
|
(0.28
|
)
|
$
|
(0.50
|
)
|
$
|
(0.24
|
)
|
||||
Quarter
Ended
|
||||||||||||||||
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
September
30,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||||||||
2005
|
2005
|
2005
|
2005
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
|
$
|
15
|
$
|
15
|
$
|
15
|
$
|
1,152
|
||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(1,006
|
)
|
(12,178
|
)
|
(3,411
|
)
|
(4,163
|
)
|
||||||||
Net
loss applicable to common stock
|
(1,569
|
)
|
(12,625
|
)
|
(3,863
|
)
|
(4,968
|
)
|
||||||||
Basic
and diluted
net
loss per common share
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
$
|
(1.18
|
)
|
$
|
(0.35
|
)
|
$
|
(0.46
|
)
|
66
CADIZ
INC.
SCHEDULE I - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING
ACCOUNTS
For
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 ($ in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at
|
Additions
Charged to
|
Balance
|
||||||||||||||||||
Year
ended
|
Beginning
|
Costs
and
|
Other
|
at
End
|
||||||||||||||||
December 31, 2007
|
of
Period
|
Expenses
|
Accounts
|
Deductions
|
of
Period
|
|||||||||||||||
Tax valuation
allowance
|
$
|
34,201
|
$
|
7,979
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
42,180
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Year
ended
|
||||||||||||||||||||
December 31, 2006
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Tax valuation
allowance
|
$
|
31,614
|
$
|
2,587
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
34,201
|
||||||||||
Year
ended
|
||||||||||||||||||||
December 31, 2005
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Tax valuation
allowance
|
$
|
44,383
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
12,769
|
$
|
31,614
|
||||||||||
67
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned, thereto duly authorized.
CADIZ
INC.
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Keith
Brackpool
|
Keith
Brackpool,
|
|
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
Date:
|
March 14,
2008
|
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
Name and Position
|
Date
|
/s/
Keith Brackpool
|
March 14,
2008
|
Keith
Brackpool, Chairman and
|
|
Chief
Executive Officer
|
|
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
/s/
O'Donnell Iselin II
|
March 14,
2008
|
O'Donnell
Iselin II, Chief Financial Officer
|
|
(Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
/s/
Stephen J. Duffy
|
March 14,
2008
|
Stephen
J. Duffy, Director
|
|
/s/
Geoffrey Grant
|
March 14,
2008
|
Geoffrey
Grant, Director
|
|
/s/
Winston H. Hickox
|
March 14,
2008
|
Winston
H. Hickox, Director
|
|
/s/
Murray H. Hutchison
|
March 14,
2008
|
Murray
H. Hutchison, Director
|
|
/s/
Raymond J. Pacini
|
March 14,
2008
|
Raymond
J. Pacini, Director
|
|
/s/
Timothy J. Shaheen
|
March 14,
2008
|
Timothy
J. Shaheen, Director
|
68