DSS, INC. - Quarter Report: 2008 June (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
QUARTERLY
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the quarterly period ended June
30, 2008
1-32146
Commission
file number
DOCUMENT
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
New
York
|
|
16-1229730
|
(State
of incorporation)
|
|
(IRS
Employer Identification Number)
|
28
Main Street East, Suite 1525
Rochester, NY 14614
(Address
of principal executive office)
(585)
325-3610
(Registrant's
telephone number)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant:
(1)
filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports)
And
(2)
has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x
No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.
See
definition of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one):
Large
accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated
filer x
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
Smaller
reporting company o
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act)
Yes o
No x
Applicable
only to corporate issuers
As
of
August 7, 2008 (the most recent practicable date), there were 14,225,198
shares
of the issuer's Common Stock, $0.02 par value per share,
outstanding.
FORM
10-Q
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
PART
I
|
|
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
|
|
Item
1
|
|
Financial
Statements
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
|
|
3
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
|
4
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
5
|
|
|
Notes
to Interim Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
6
|
Item
2
|
|
Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
|
15
|
Item
3
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
|
19
|
||
Item
4
|
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART
II
|
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
|
|
Item
1
|
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
|
20
|
Item
1a
|
Risk
Factors
|
21
|
||
Item
2
|
|
Unregistered Sales
of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
|
|
27
|
Item
3
|
|
Defaults
upon Senior Securities
|
|
27
|
Item
4
|
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
|
27
|
Item
5
|
|
Other
Information
|
|
27
|
Item
6
|
|
Exhibits
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIGNATURES
|
28
|
2
DOCUMENT
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated
Balance Sheets
As
of
PART
I
ITEM
1 -
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June
30,
2008
|
December
31,
2007
|
||||||
(unaudited)
|
(audited)
|
||||||
ASSETS
|
|||||||
Current
assets:
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
960,898
|
$
|
742,468
|
|||
Restricted
cash
|
173,784
|
-
|
|||||
Accounts
receivable, net of allowance of $82,000
|
966,742
|
617,320
|
|||||
Inventory
|
243,945
|
259,442
|
|||||
Loans
to employees
|
117,022
|
120,732
|
|||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
250,794
|
487,715
|
|||||
Total
current assets
|
2,713,185
|
2,227,677
|
|||||
Restricted
cash
|
-
|
177,345
|
|||||
Fixed
assets, net
|
1,391,273
|
1,494,540
|
|||||
Other
assets
|
272,255
|
147,958
|
|||||
Goodwill
|
1,396,734
|
1,396,734
|
|||||
Other
intangible assets, net
|
5,548,007
|
6,149,530
|
|||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
11,321,454
|
$
|
11,593,784
|
|||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|||||||
Current
liabilities:
|
|||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
1,821,875
|
$
|
1,795,085
|
|||
Accrued
expenses & other current liabilities
|
1,190,390
|
818,606
|
|||||
Short
term credit facilities
|
500,000
|
-
|
|||||
Deferred
revenue & customer deposits
|
195,911
|
732,355
|
|||||
Current
portion of capital lease obligations
|
84,315
|
79,948
|
|||||
Total
current liabilities
|
3,792,491
|
3,425,994
|
|||||
Revolving
notes from related parties
|
1,858,000
|
300,000
|
|||||
Long-term
capital lease obligations
|
234,387
|
294,821
|
|||||
Long-term
deferred revenue
|
7,448
|
15,938
|
|||||
Deferred
tax liability
|
198,659
|
200,000
|
|||||
Commitments
and contingencies (see Note 10)
|
|||||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
|||||||
Common
stock, $.02 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized,
14,225,198 shares issued and outstanding (13,654,364 in 2007),
(325,000 subscribed in 2008)
|
284,504
|
273,087
|
|||||
Additional paid-in capital
|
33,979,169
|
31,298,571
|
|||||
Subscriptions
receivable
|
(1,300,000
|
)
|
-
|
||||
Accumulated deficit
|
(27,733,204
|
)
|
(24,214,627
|
)
|
|||
Total
stockholders' equity
|
5,230,469
|
7,357,031
|
|||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
$
|
11,321,454
|
$
|
11,593,784
|
See
accompanying notes
3
DOCUMENT
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated
Statements of Operations
(unaudited)
Three
Months Ended June 30,
|
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
||||||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
2008
|
2007
|
||||||||||
Revenue
|
|||||||||||||
Security
printing and products
|
$
|
1,155,032
|
$
|
826,734
|
$
|
2,087,253
|
$
|
1,818,382
|
|||||
Royalties
|
891,934
|
294,157
|
1,220,475
|
592,953
|
|||||||||
Digital
solutions
|
8,220
|
11,969
|
16,440
|
174,771
|
|||||||||
Legal
products
|
159,299
|
161,663
|
332,432
|
337,345
|
|||||||||
Total
Revenue
|
2,214,485
|
1,294,523
|
3,656,600
|
2,923,451
|
|||||||||
Costs
of revenue
|
|||||||||||||
Security
printing and products
|
796,069
|
547,575
|
1,391,702
|
1,055,538
|
|||||||||
Digital
solutions
|
3,507
|
3,507
|
7,014
|
37,014
|
|||||||||
Legal
products
|
74,320
|
90,593
|
171,416
|
193,767
|
|||||||||
Total
costs of revenue
|
873,896
|
641,675
|
1,570,132
|
1,286,319
|
|||||||||
Gross
profit
|
1,340,589
|
652,848
|
2,086,468
|
1,637,132
|
|||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
|||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
1,962,230
|
1,811,586
|
4,038,346
|
3,608,732
|
|||||||||
Research
and development
|
134,451
|
108,889
|
249,230
|
203,297
|
|||||||||
Impairment
of patent defense costs
|
-
|
-
|
291,581
|
-
|
|||||||||
Amortization
of intangibles
|
537,429
|
433,090
|
1,064,170
|
778,729
|
|||||||||
Operating
expenses
|
2,634,110
|
2,353,565
|
5,643,327
|
4,590,758
|
|||||||||
Operating
loss
|
(1,293,521
|
)
|
(1,700,717
|
)
|
(3,556,859
|
)
|
(2,953,626
|
)
|
|||||
Other
income (expense):
|
|||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
5
|
34,179
|
85
|
74,987
|
|||||||||
Loss
on foreign currency transactions
|
(12,557
|
)
|
(945
|
)
|
(24,186
|
)
|
(4,291
|
)
|
|||||
Interest
expense
|
(33,041
|
)
|
(1,296
|
)
|
(53,890
|
)
|
(2,449
|
)
|
|||||
Other
Income
|
125,795
|
-
|
125,795
|
-
|
|||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations before income taxes
|
(1,213,319
|
)
|
(1,668,779
|
)
|
(3,509,055
|
)
|
(2,885,379
|
)
|
|||||
Income
tax expense
|
4,784
|
4,738
|
9,522
|
9,476
|
|||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
(1,218,103
|
)
|
(1,673,517
|
)
|
(3,518,577
|
)
|
(2,894,855
|
)
|
|||||
Income
from discontinued operations (Note 8)
|
-
|
(26,821
|
)
|
-
|
(15,426
|
)
|
|||||||
Net
loss
|
$
|
(1,218,103
|
)
|
$
|
(1,700,338
|
)
|
$
|
(3,518,577
|
)
|
$
|
(2,910,281
|
)
|
|
Net
loss per share -basic and diluted:
|
|||||||||||||
Continuing
operations
|
$
|
(0.09
|
)
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
$
|
(0.26
|
)
|
$
|
(0.21
|
)
|
|
Discontinued
operations
|
(0.00
|
)
|
0.00
|
(0.00
|
)
|
0.00
|
|||||||
Net
Loss
|
(0.09
|
)
|
(0.12
|
)
|
(0.26
|
)
|
(0.21
|
)
|
|||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding, basic and
diluted
|
13,690,545
|
13,625,408
|
13,672,555
|
13,605,327
|
See
accompanying notes
4
DOCUMENT
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows
For
the Six Months Ended June 30,
(unaudited)
2008
|
2007
|
||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
|||||||
Net
loss
|
$
|
(3,518,577
|
)
|
$
|
(2,910,281
|
)
|
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net cash used by operating
activities:
|
|||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
1,222,084
|
870,247
|
|||||
Stock
based compensation
|
1,056,018
|
633,040
|
|||||
Impairment
of patent defense costs
|
291,581
|
-
|
|||||
Decrease
in restricted cash
|
3,561
|
-
|
|||||
(Increase)
decrease in assets:
|
|||||||
Accounts
receivable
|
(349,422
|
)
|
(75,175
|
)
|
|||
Inventory
|
15,497
|
(61,743
|
)
|
||||
Prepaid
expenses and other assets
|
(164,027
|
)
|
(238,656
|
)
|
|||
Increase
(decrease) in liabilities:
|
|||||||
Accounts
payable
|
164,342
|
360,023
|
|||||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
186,802
|
(49,754
|
)
|
||||
Deferred
revenue
|
(544,934
|
)
|
(164,299
|
)
|
|||
Net
cash used by operating activities
|
(1,637,075
|
)
|
(1,636,598
|
)
|
|||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
|||||||
Purchase
of fixed assets
|
(189,802
|
)
|
(70,705
|
)
|
|||
Purchase
of other intangible assets
|
(756,626
|
)
|
(661,709
|
)
|
|||
Net
cash used by investing activities
|
(946,428
|
)
|
(732,414
|
)
|
|||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
|||||||
Borrowing
on revolving note- related parties
|
1,558,000
|
-
|
|||||
Borrowing
on short-term credit facility
|
500,000
|
-
|
|||||
Repayments
of capital lease obligations
|
(56,067
|
)
|
(18,115
|
)
|
|||
Payment
of stock issuance costs
|
-
|
(519,619
|
)
|
||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
800,000
|
355,225
|
|||||
Net
cash provided (used) by financing activities
|
2,801,933
|
(182,509
|
)
|
||||
Net
increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
218,430
|
(2,551,521
|
)
|
||||
Cash
and cash equivalents beginning of period
|
742,468
|
5,802,615
|
|||||
Cash
and cash equivalents end of period
|
$
|
960,898
|
$
|
3,251,094
|
See
accompanying notes.
5
NOTES
TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June
30, 2008
(Unaudited)
1. |
Basis
of Presentation and Significant Accounting
Policies
|
The
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for
interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article
10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these statements do not include all of the
information and footnotes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management,
the
accompanying balance sheets and related interim statements of operations and
cash flows include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring items
necessary for their fair presentation in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. All significant intercompany transactions have been
eliminated.
Interim
results are not necessarily indicative of results expected for a full year.
For
further information regarding Document Security Systems, Inc (the “Company”)
accounting policies, refer to the audited consolidated financial statements
and
footnotes thereto included in the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007.
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 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. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates
and assumptions.
Other
Intangible Assets
-
Other
intangible assets consists of costs associated with the application, acquisition
and defense of our patents, contractual rights to patents and trade secrets
associated with our technologies, a non-exclusive licensing agreement, and
customer lists obtained as a result of acquisitions. Our patents and trade
secrets are for document anti-counterfeiting and anti-scanning technologies
and
processes that form the basis of our document security business. External legal
costs incurred to defend the Company’s patents are capitalized to the extent of
an evident increase in the value of the patents and an expected successful
outcome. Legal costs are expensed at the point when it is determined that the
outcome is expected to be unsuccessful. The Company capitalizes the cost of
an
appeal until it is determined that the appeal will be unsuccessful. The
Company’s capitalized patent defense costs are analyzed for impairment based on
the expected eventual outcome of the legal action and recoverability of proceeds
or added economic value of the patent in excess of the costs. Legal actions
related to the same patent defense case are unified into one asset group for
the
purposes on the impairment analysis. The Company amortizes its other intangible
assets over their estimated useful lives. Patents are amortized over the
remaining legal life, up to 20 years. Intangible asset amortization expense
is
classified as an operating expense.
On
March
19, 2008, the Company received notification that its appeal of the invalidation
of its European Patent 455750B1 in the UK was not successful. As result of
the
adverse court decision, the Company recognized an impairment loss of
approximately $292,000 associated with the U.K appeal as of March 31, 2008.
The
impairment loss includes a judgment for reimbursement of estimated counterpart
legal fees. The Company may owe additional counter party legal fees associated
with the decision, which the Company will expense as soon as the amount, if
any,
is estimatable.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No.157,
Fair Value Measurements.
SFAS
No. 157, as amended, defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring
fair value in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements.
With respect to financial assets and liabilities, SFAS No. 157 is effective
for
financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15,
2007. However, in February 2008, the FASB determined that an entity need
not apply this standard to nonfinancial assets and liabilities that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a
nonrecurring basis until 2009. Accordingly, the Company’s adoption of this
standard on January 1, 2008, is limited to financial assets and
liabilities and did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial
condition or results of operations. The Company’s still in the process of
evaluating the impact of this standard with respect to its effect on
nonfinancial assets and liabilities and has not yet determined the impact that
it will have on the consolidated financial statements upon full adoption.
6
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities,
which
permits entities to choose to measure certain financial assets and liabilities
at fair value. SFAS No. 159 is effective for years beginning after
November 15, 2007. The Company has not adopted the fair value option
method permitted by SFAS No. 159.
In
December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 (revised 2007), “Business
Combinations”
(“SFAS
141R”), which replaces SFAS 141. SFAS 141R establishes principles and
requirements for how an acquirer in a business combination recognizes and
measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the
liabilities assumed, and any controlling interest; recognizes and measures
the
goodwill acquired in the business combination or a gain from a bargain purchase;
and determines what information to disclose to enable users of the financial
statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the business
combination. SFAS 141R is to be applied prospectively to business combinations
for which the acquisition date is on or after an entity’s fiscal year that
begins after December 15, 2008. We are currently evaluating the potential
impact of the adoption of SFAS 141R on our consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, Noncontrolling
Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements-on Amendment of ARB No.
51.
SFAS
No. 160 establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling
interest in a subsidiary. SFAS No. 160 is effective for financial statements
issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim
statements within those fiscal years. Among other things, SFAS No. 160 requires
noncontrolling interest to be included as a component of shareholders’ equity.
The Company does not currently have any noncontrolling interests.
On
December 21, 2007, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 110,
“Share-Based Payment”. SAB No. 110 addresses the use of a “simplified”
method in developing an estimate of expected term of “plain vanilla” share
options in accordance SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment”. SAB
No. 110 allows the use of the “simplified” method of estimating expected
term where a company may not have sufficient historical exercise data. SAB
No. 110 is effective January 1, 2008 and the Company plans to
continue to use the simplified method to estimate the expected term of its
plain
vanilla employee options.
On
December 12, 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ratified
the
Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) opinion related to EITF Issue 07-1,
“Accounting for Collaborative Arrangements.” The Task Force reached a consensus
that a collaborative arrangement is a contractual arrangement that involves
two
or more parties, all of which are both (a) involved as active participants
in a
joint operating activity that is not conducted primarily through a separate
legal entity and (b) exposed to significant risks and rewards that depend on
the
commercial success of the joint operating activity. This Issue also addresses
(i) the income statement classification by participants in a collaborative
arrangement for transactions with third parties and transactions between the
participants and (ii) financial statement disclosures. The consensus on EITF
Issue 07-1 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008,
and
for interim periods within those fiscal years. Entities should apply the
consensus retrospectively to all periods presented for only those collaborative
arrangements existing as of the effective date, unless it is impractical to
do
so. The Company will adopt this new accounting pronouncement effective January
1, 2009, and does not anticipate any material impact on its financial condition
or results of operations.
In
April 2008, the FASB issued FSP FAS 142-3, “Determination of Useful Life of
Intangible Assets” (“FSP FAS 142-3”). FSP FAS 142-3 amends the factors that
should be considered in developing the renewal or extension assumptions used
to
determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under FAS 142,
“Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.” FSP FAS 142-3 also requires expanded
disclosure related to the determination of intangible asset useful lives. FSP
FAS 142-3 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008.
The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact the adoption of FAS
FSP
142-3 will have on its financial statements.
In
May 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (“FSP”) APB 14-1, “Accounting
for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion
(Including Partial Cash Settlement)” (“FSP APB 14-1”), which clarifies the
accounting for convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon
conversion, including partial cash settlement. FSP APB 14-1 specifies that
an
issuer of such instruments should separately account for the liability and
equity components of the instruments in a manner that reflect the issuer’s
non-convertible debt borrowing rate when interest costs are recognized in
subsequent periods. FSP APB 14-1 is effective for fiscal years beginning
after
December 15, 2008, and retrospective application is required for all
periods presented. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact
of
the adoption of FSP APB 14-1 on its financial statements.
7
In
May
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles. The purpose of this statement is to improve financial
reporting by providing a consistent framework for determining applicable
accounting principles to be used in the preparation of financial statements
presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. SFAS No. 162 will become effective 60 days after
the
SEC’s approval. The Company believes that the adoption of this standard on its
effective date will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements
In
June
2008, the FASB issued FSP EITF 03-6-1 to address whether instruments granted
in
share-based payment transactions are participating securities prior to their
vesting and therefore need to be included in the earnings per share calculation
under the two-class method described in SFAS No. 128, “Earnings per Share.” This
FSP requires companies to treat unvested share-based payment awards that have
non-forfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents as participating
securities and thus, include them in calculation of basic earnings per share.
FSP EITF 03-6-1 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2008.
The Company does not anticipate a material impact on its financial statements
or
its computation of basic earnings per share upon adoption.
During
the quarter ended June 30 2008, the Company adopted FSP 00-19-2, Accounting
for Registration Payment Arrangements. This FSP specifies that the contingent
obligation to make future payments or otherwise transfer consideration under
a
registration payment arrangement, whether issued as a separate agreement or
included as a provision of a financial instrument or other agreement, should
be
separately recognized and measured in accordance with FASB Statement No. 5,
Accounting for Contingencies. The Company has
determined it to be remote, that
it
will be required to remit payments to the investors for failing to obtain an
effective registration statement on
or
before the required time frame.
2. |
Restricted
Cash
|
In
July
2007, the Company established a restricted cash balance of 87,500 pounds, or
approximately $177,000, as collateral for a deed of guarantee that was required
by the English Court of Appeals in order for the Company to pursue an appeal
in
that court. On March 19, 2008, the Company was notified that its appeal was
denied and that the Company owed the European Central Bank, the successful
party
in the appeal, the 87,500 pounds. On May 14, 2008, the Company was ordered
to
pay the 87,500 pounds to the European Central Bank as an interim payment of
the
appeal costs pending final assessment by the Court which is expected in the
fourth quarter of 2008. The Company was not able to apply the funds in its
restricted account to this payment. The Company will use the restricted funds
to
pay additional fees due upon final assessment of the costs by the Court, if
any.
Accordingly, the Company classified the restricted cash as current as of June
30, 2008. (See Note 10 Commitments
and Contingencies)
3. |
Inventory
|
Inventory
consisted of the following:
June
30,
2008
|
December
31,
2007
|
||||||
(unaudited)
|
(audited)
|
||||||
Finished
Goods
|
$
|
132,359
|
$
|
161,978
|
|||
Raw
Materials
|
111,586
|
97,464
|
|||||
$
|
243,945
|
$
|
259,442
|
4. |
Other
Intangible Assets
|
Other
intangible assets are comprised of the following:
June
30, 2008
|
December
31, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Useful
Life
|
Gross
Carrying
Amount
|
Accumulated
Amortizaton
|
Net
Carrying
Amount
|
Gross
Carrying
Amount
|
Accumulated
Amortizaton
|
Net
Carrying
Amount
|
||||||||||||||||
Royalty
rights
|
5
years
|
$
|
90,000
|
$
|
81,000
|
$
|
9,000
|
$
|
90,000
|
$
|
72,000
|
$
|
18,000
|
|||||||||
Other
intangibles
|
5
years
|
1,187,595
|
450,598
|
736,997
|
1,187,595
|
335,304
|
852,291
|
|||||||||||||||
Patent
and contractual Rights
|
Varied
(1
|
)
|
8,663,070
|
3,861,060
|
4,802,010
|
8,205,340
|
2,926,101
|
5,279,239
|
||||||||||||||
$
|
9,940,665
|
$
|
4,392,658
|
$
|
5,548,007
|
$
|
9,482,935
|
$
|
3,333,405
|
$
|
6,149,530
|
(1)-
patent rights are amortized over their expected useful life which is generally
the legal life of the patent. As of June 30, 2008 the weighted average
remaining
useful life of these assets in service was 3.3 years.
8
5. |
Revolving
Notes and Credit
Facility
|
On
January 4, 2008, the Company entered into a Credit Facility Agreement with
Fagenson and Co., Inc., as agent, a related party to Robert B. Fagenson, the
Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors. Under the Fagenson Credit
Agreement, the Company can borrow up to a maximum of $3,000,000 from time to
time up to and until January 4, 2010. The advances are generally limited to
$400,000 unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by both parties per fiscal
quarter, with the exception of $600,000 that can be advanced at any time for
patent litigation related bills. Any amount borrowed by the Company pursuant
to
the Fagenson Credit Agreement will have an annual interest rate of 2% above
LIBOR and will be secured by the Common Stock of Plastic Printing Professionals,
Inc., (“P3”) the Company's wholly owned subsidiary. Interest is payable
quarterly in arrears and the principal is payable in full at the end of the
term
under the Fagenson Credit Agreement. In addition, on January 4, 2008, the
Company also entered into a Credit Facility Agreement with Patrick White, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors. Under
the White Credit Agreement, the Company can borrow up to $600,000 from time
to
time up to and until January 4, 2010. Any amount borrowed by the Company
pursuant to the White Credit Agreement will have an annual interest rate of
2%
above LIBOR and will be secured by the accounts receivable of the Company,
excluding the accounts receivable of P3. Interest is payable quarterly in
arrears and the principal is payable in full at the End of the Term under the
White Credit Agreement. Mr. White can accept common stock as repayment of the
loan upon a default. Under the terms of the agreement the Company is required
to
comply with various covenants. During the year ended December 31, 2007, Patrick
White advanced the Company $300,000 while the terms of the credit facility
were
being finalized.
On
May 7,
2008 the Company entered into a $500,000 unsecured credit facility with Taiko
III Corp to fund the Company’s ongoing patent infringement and related lawsuits
against the European Central Bank. Interest shall accrue on the unpaid principal
amount at a 6% annual rate. The outstanding principal amount may be prepaid
by
the Company, in whole but not in part and including the full interest through
the maturity of the loan, at its option so long as the Company provides Taiko
III with prior written notice of such prepayment. The term of the line of credit
is 364 days. In addition, the loan can be repaid by the Company, at the
discretion of Taiko III if the Company had defaulted under the credit facility,
by using the Company’s common stock at a discount to the market value at the
time of the repayment at 33% to market at the time of payment at no less than
$2.00 per share and no more than $5.00 per share. (See Note 10 for
registration rights)
As
of
June 30, 2008, the Company had outstanding $450,000 under the White Credit
Agreement, $1,408,000 under the Fagenson Credit Agreement, and $500,000 under
the Taiko III Agreement. Interest expense of approximately $30,000 was accrued
under the related party agreements during the six-month period ending June
30, 2008.
6.
Shareholders’ Equity
Stock
Issued for Patent Defense Costs - On
November 14, 2006, the Company entered into an stock payment agreement with
McDermott Will & Emery LLP (“MWE”), its lead counsel on its European Central
Bank (“ECB Litigation”) patent infringement and related cases. The agreement
with MWE allows the Company to use its common stock to eliminate the Company’s
cash requirements for MWE’s legal fees related to the ECB validity litigation,
not to exceed $1.2 million in stock. During the six months ended June 30, 2007,
60,866 restricted common shares were issued to MWE to pay for approximately
$746,000 of legal fees incurred through June 30, 2007.
9
Stock
Issued in Private Placement -
On
June
25, 2008 the Company entered into two Share Purchase Agreements pursuant to
which the Company agreed to sell a total of 500,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $2,000,000. Pursuant to the
terms of the first Agreement, the Company sold 150,000 shares of Common Stock
to
the Purchaser for $600,000 payable on June 25, 2008. Pursuant to the terms
of
the second Agreement, the Company sold 350,000 shares of Common Stock for
$1,400,000, with $100,000 payable on June 25, 2008 and the remaining $1,300,000
payable in six-month installments over a two-year period. Pursuant to the terms
of the first Agreement, the Purchaser may not sell the 150,000 shares of Common
Stock purchased thereunder earlier than June 25, 2009. Pursuant to the terms
of
the second Agreement, the Purchaser may not sell the 350,000 shares of Common
Stock purchased thereunder until the earlier of (i) one year after the Purchase
Price being paid in full to the Company, or (ii) the one-year anniversary of
a
Payment Failure Termination Event (as defined in the second Agreement).
(See Note 10 Commitments)
On
January 22, 2007, the Company sold 6 units at a price of $50,000 per unit for
gross proceeds of $300,000 consisting of 35,280 unregistered shares of the
Company’s common stock and five-year warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of
17,640 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $11.75 per
share. The fair market value of these warrants was determined using the Black
Scholes option pricing model at $107,000.
Restricted
Stock - As
of
June 30, 2008, there are 78,925 restricted shares granted to employees and
consultants that vest through June 2009. In addition, there are 195,000
restricted shares that will vest only upon the occurrence of certain events
over
the next 4 years, which include, among other things a change of control of
the
Company or other merger or acquisition of the Company, the achievement of
certain financial goals, including among other things a successful result of
the
Company’s patent infringement lawsuit against the European Central Bank. These
195,000 shares, if vested, would result in the recording of stock based
compensation expense of approximately $2,438,000 over the period beginning
when
any of the contingent vesting events is deemed to be probable over the expected
requisite service period. As of June 30, 2008, vesting is not considered
probable and no compensation expense has been recognized related to the
performance grants. On May 10, 2008, the Company accelerated the vesting of
33,333 restricted shares and retired 250,000 of unvested restricted stock as
the
result of a separation agreement with the Company’s former President. The 33,333
shares of restricted stock, formerly set to vest pro-ratably through June 2009,
were accelerated to vest pro-ratably on a monthly basis over a ten-month vesting
period ending in March 2009. As a result of the acceleration of the 33,333
shares of restricted stock, the Company recognized approximately $194,000 of
stock based compensation during the second quarter of 2008. (See Note 10
Commitments)
Stock
Options
- During
the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company issued options to purchase
37,000 of its common shares at an exercise price of $6.31 per share to
non-employee directors pursuant to the 2004 Non-Employee Officer Director Stock
Option Plan that vest at the end of one of year of service on the Company’s
Board of Directors. The Company also issued options to purchase 50,000 of its
common shares at an exercise price of $5.68 per share to employees pursuant
to
the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan that will vest over three years. The
aggregate fair value of these options amounted to approximately $220,000
determined by utilizing the Black Scholes option pricing model. The Company
records stock-based payment expense related to these options based on the grant
date fair value in accordance with FASB 123R.
Stock
Warrants
- During
the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company received $100,000 in proceeds
from the exercise of warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock.
During the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company received approximately
$55,000 in proceeds from the exercise of warrants to purchase 12,125 shares
of
our common stock.
Stock-Based
Compensation
- Stock-based
compensation includes expense charges for all stock-based awards to employees,
directors and consultants. Such awards include option grants, warrant grants,
and restricted stock awards. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the
Company recognized approximately $1,056,000 ($633,000- 2007) in stock-based
compensation, of which $1,026,000 was classified as selling, general and
administrative expense, and $30,000 was classified as research and development
costs. Approximately $194,000 of the expense was the result of the acceleration
of vesting of restricted shares to the Company’s former President as the result
of his separation from the Company in May 2008.
As
of
June 30, 2008, there was approximately $1.1 million of total unrecognized
compensation costs related to non-vested options and restricted stock granted
under the Company’s stock option plans which the Company expects to vest over a
period of not to exceed five years.
7. |
Other
Income
|
On
May
31, 2008, the Company was awarded a judgment of approximately $126,000 pursuant
to a positive judgement for the Company in its counterclaim the matter “Frank
LaLoggia v. Document Security Systems, Inc”, which the Company won in June 2006.
The Company expects to collect the full amount of the judgment.
10
8. |
Discontinued
Operations
|
On
September 25, 2007, the Company sold certain assets and the operations of its
retail copying and quickprinting operations to an unrelated third party for
$80,000 and the assumption of ongoing operating leases. The sale included fixed
assets with a net book value of approximately $37,000. The Company recognized
a
gain on the sale of approximately $43,000. In accordance with SFAS 144, the
disposal of assets constitutes a component of the entity and has been accounted
for as discontinued operations. The operating results relating to these assets
are segregated and reported as discontinued operations in the accompanying
2007
consolidated statement of operations. The results of operations directly
attributed to the division’s operations that have been reclassified from
continuing operations are as follows:
Three
Months Ended
June
30, 2007
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30, 2007
|
||||||
Revenues
|
$
|
98,786
|
219,491
|
||||
Cost
of sales
|
54,229
|
101,804
|
|||||
Operating
expenses
|
71,378
|
133,113
|
|||||
Income
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(26,821
|
)
|
(15,426
|
)
|
9. |
Earnings
Per Share
|
Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net income by the
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted
earnings per share is computed by including the number of additional shares
that
would have been outstanding if dilutive potential shares had been issued. In
periods of losses, diluted loss per share is computed on the same basis as
basic
loss per share as the inclusion of any other potential shares outstanding would
be anti-dilutive. If
the
Company had generated earnings during the six month period ended June 31, 2008,
478,829 (693,671- 2007) common equivalent shares would have been added to the
weighted average shares outstanding to compute the diluted weighted average
shares outstanding.
10. |
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Legal
Matters
On
August
1, 2005, we commenced a suit against the European Central Bank (“ECB”) alleging
patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages. We brought
the
suit in European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. We alleged that all
Euro
banknotes in circulation infringe our European Patent 0 455 750B1 (the
“Patent”), which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature
into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by
digital scanning and copying devices.
The
Court of First Instance ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have
jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim, and also ruled that
we
will be required to pay attorneys and court fees of the ECB. The ECB formally
requested DSS to pay attorneys and court fees in the amount of Euro 93,752
($144,000), which, unless the amount is agreed will be subject to an assessment
procedure that will not likely be concluded until approximately the end of
2008,
which the Company will accrue as soon as the assessed amount, if any, is
estimatable.
On
March
24, 2006, we received notice that the ECB has filed a separate claim in the
United Kingdom and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the
Patent. Proceedings were commenced before the national courts seeking revocation
and declarations of invalidity of
the
Patent in each of the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and
Austria. On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, and
Patents Court in London, England (the English Court”) ruled that the Patent was
deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision was
upheld on appeal. The English Court rejected the ECB’s allegations of invalidity
based on lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and insufficiency, but held
that the patent was invalid for added subject matter. The English Court’s
decision does not affect the validity of the Patent in other European countries.
On March 30, 2007, the English Court awarded the ECB 30%
of
their costs (including legal fees) of the initial trial,
of
which the Company paid 90,000 British pounds ($182,000) on April 19, 2007.
We
expect that an additional 90,000 pounds ($182,000) will become payable by the
Company for the costs of the initial trial, which is included in accrued
expenses as of June 30, 2008. In July 2007, the Company posted a bond of 87,500
British pounds ($177,000), as collateral for the appeal costs, which is recorded
as restricted cash at June 30, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the Company paid 87,500
British pounds ($177,000 based on the applicable exchange rate on that date)
towards the ECB’s
costs of the English appeal in
addition to the bond posted. The
Company may also owe additional legal fees associated with the Court of Appeal
decisions, which, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, will be subject to
an
assessment procedure that will not likely be concluded earlier than the first
quarter of 2009. The
Company
will record the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is
estimatable.
11
On
March
27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled that
the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s
decision. As
a
result of this ruling, the Company expects to be awarded reimbursements for
its
costs associated with the German validity case, which is Euro
44,692 ($67,000) which the Company will record when the amount, if any, is
received.
The
ECB
has filed an appeal against that decision, which is not expected to be decided
before 2010. On January 9, 2008, the French Court held that the Patent was
invalid in France for the same reasons given by the English Court. The Company
is required to pay de minimus attorneys’ fees of the ECB as a result of the
French decision. The Company filed an appeal against the French decision on
May
7, 2008. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court, having considered the English,
German and French decisions, ruled that the Patent is valid in the Netherlands.
The ECB filed an appeal against the Dutch decision on March 27, 2008. A trial
was also held in Madrid, Spain on June 3 and 5, 2008 and oral and written
closing submissions were made on July 19, 2008. A judgment is expected in the
second half of 2008.
The
Patent has thus been confirmed to be valid and enforceable in two jurisdictions
(Germany and the Netherlands) that use the Euro as its national currency.
Additional trials on the validity of the Patent are expected in other European
jurisdictions in 2008 and 2009.
On
January 31, 2003, we commenced an action, unrelated to the above ECB litigation,
entitled New Sky Communications, Inc., As Successor-In-Interest To Thomas M.
Wicker, Thomas M.Wicker Enterprises, Inc. and Document Security Consultants
V.
Adler Technologies, Inc. N/K/A Adlertech International, Inc. and Andrew
McTaggert (United States District Court, Western District Of New York Case
No.03-Cv-6044t(F)) regarding certain intellectual property in which we have
an
interest. We commenced this action alleging various causes of action against
Adler Technologies, Inc. and Andrew McTaggert for breach of contract, breach
of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, various business torts, including
unfair competition and declaratory relief. Adler distributes and supplies
anti-counterfeit document products and Mr. McTaggert is a principal of Adler.
Adler had entered into several purported agreements with Thomas M. Wicker
Enterprises and Document Security Consultants, both of which we acquired in
2002. These alleged agreements, generally, would have authorized Adler to
manufacture in Canada our “Checkmate®” patented system for verifying the
authenticity of currency and documents. Other purported agreements were signed
between these parties and Thomas Wicker regarding other technology claimed
to
have been owned by Wicker and assigned to us. Among other things, we contend
that certain of the purported agreements are not binding and/or enforceable.
To
the extent any of them are binding and enforceable, we claim that Adler has
breached these purported agreements, failed to make an appropriate accounting
and payments under them, and may have exceeded the scope of its license. Adler
has denied the material allegations of the complaint and has counterclaimed
against us, claiming Adler owns or co-owns or has a license to use certain
technologies of ours. In May 2005, we filed our first amended and supplemental
complaint adding Blanks/USA and Raymond Maxon as additional defendants. In
February 2007, we filed our second amended and supplemental complaint adding
Judith Wu (McTaggert’s wife) and Arcis Digital Security, Inc. (a company in
which Ms. Wu is involved) as additional defendants. Maxon has asserted a
counterclaim against us contending that our purported acquisition of a certain
patent from Thomas Wicker in 2002 gave rise to an alleged right on the part
of
Maxon to receive a portion of Thomas Wicker’s proceeds from such acquisition. We
have denied the material allegations of all of the counterclaims. If Adler
or
Maxon is successful, it may materially affect us, our financial condition,
and
our ability to market and sell certain of our technology and related products.
This case is in discovery phase, and it is too soon to determine how the various
issues raised by the lawsuit will be determined.
In
addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated.
Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management,
none of these legal proceedings to which we are a party will have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial
condition.
12
Commitments
In
May
2008, the Company entered into a Separation Agreement with its former President
that, among other things, accelerated the vesting of 33,333 shares of restricted
common stock of the Company that were previously awarded to the former President
pursuant to the Company’s 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan so that such shares
vested in equal monthly installments during the immediately following ten
months. The Separation Agreement further provided that if the former
President does not realize at least $212,000 in gross proceeds from the
sale of such 33,333 shares of restricted stock upon their vesting, then the
Company would pay the former President any shortfall of the $212,000
in cash or additional shares of common stock of the Company at the election
of
the Company. As of June 30, 2008, 3,334 of such 33,333 shares had vested
generating gross proceeds of approximately $17,000.
In
May
2008, the Company entered into a Credit Facility Note with Taiko III Corp.
in
which it was entitled to borrow up to $500,000 (see note 5 above). Pursuant
to
the terms of the Credit Facility Note, if the Company defaults on repayment
of
the $500,000 then Taiko III Corp. may require the Company to repay any
outstanding indebtedness under such Credit Facility Note by issuing to Taiko
III
Corp. common stock of the Company. If the Company makes such repayment with
its
common stock, Taiko III Corp. may demand registration of such 500,000 shares
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-3 with such registration
statement to take effect no later than 150 days after notice of such
registration is provided by Taiko III Corp. If
the
Company fails to register the shares, liquidated damages of 1% per month of
the
amount converted, up to 10%, would be payable by the Company until such shares
were registered.
In
June
2008, the Company entered into two Stock Purchase Agreements in which it sold
500,000 shares of its common stock to Walton Invesco Inc. for an aggregate
purchase price of $2.0 million (see Note 6). Pursuant to the terms of such
Stock
Purchase Agreements, Walton Invesco Inc. may demand registration of such 500,000
shares with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-3 with such
registration statement to take effect no later than (i) 120 days after payment
in full for such shares under the applicable agreement or, (ii) with respect
to
350,000 shares, 270 days after a Payment Failure Termination Event (as defined
in the applicable Stock Purchase Agreement).
Pursuant
to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the
economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business
arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly
owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S.
patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement
proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, including
the lawsuit against the European Central Bank described in Part II Item 1 -
Legal Proceedings, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the
settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties to
patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than
the
Wicker Family. As of June 30, 2008, there have been no settlement amounts
related to these agreements.
In
May
2005, the Company made an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the
Company’s patent infringement litigation in the Court of First Instance with the
European Central Bank which capped its fees for all matters associated with
that
infringement litigation at $500,000 plus expenses, and a $150,000 contingent
payment upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company’s behalf in that
litigation. The Company will record the $150,000 in the period in which the
Company has determined that a successful ruling or settlement is probable.
11. |
Supplemental
Cash Flow Information
|
During
the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company issued 60,866 shares of Common
Stock valued at approximately $746,000 in conjunction with the payment of legal
expenses which were capitalized as other intangible assets. In addition, the
Company extended the term of previously issued warrants to a warrant holder
in
exchange for a license valued at approximately $521,000.
13
12. |
Segment
Information
|
The Company's businesses are organized, managed and internally reported as
three
operating segments. Two of these operating segments, Document Security Systems
and Plastic Printing Professionals, are engaged in various aspects of developing
and applying printing technologies and procedures to produce, or allow others
to
produce, documents with a wide range of features, including the Company’s
patented technologies and trade secrets. For the purposes of providing segment
information, these two operating segments have been aggregated into one
reportable segment in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board
(“FASB”) Statement No. 131- “Disclosures
about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information”.
A
summary of the Company’s two segments is as follows:
Document
Security and Production
|
License,
manufacture and sale of document security technologies, including
digital
security print solutions and secure printed products at Document
Security
Systems and Plastic Printing Professionals divisions. In September
2007,
the Company sold substantially all of the assets of its retail printing
and copying division, a former component of the Document Security
and
Production segment, to an unrelated third party as this operation
was not
critical to the Company’s core operations. The results of the retail and
copying division are reported as discontinued operations and are
not a
component of these segment results (See Note 8).
|
|
Legal
Supplies
|
Sale
of specialty legal supplies, primarily to lawyers and law firms located
throughout the United States via the website
Legalstore.com.
|
Approximate information concerning the operations by reportable segment for
the
three and six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 is as follows. The Company
relies on intersegment cooperation and management does not represent that these
segments, if operated independently, would report the results contained herein:
Legal
Supplies
|
Document
Security
&
Production
|
Corporate
|
Total
|
||||||||||
3
months ended June 30, 2008:
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
from external customers
|
$
|
159,000
|
$
|
2,055,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
2,214,000
|
|||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
4,000
|
611,000
|
1,000
|
616,000
|
|||||||||
Segment
profit (loss) from continuing operations
|
27,000
|
(536,000
|
)
|
(709,000
|
)
|
(1,218,000
|
)
|
||||||
3
months ended June 30, 2007:
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
from external customers
|
$
|
162,000
|
$
|
1,133,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
1,295,000
|
|||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
3,000
|
459,000
|
17,000
|
479,000
|
|||||||||
Segment
profit (loss) from continuing operations
|
3,000
|
(945,000
|
)
|
(732,000
|
)
|
(1,674,000
|
)
|
Legal
Supplies
|
Document
Security
&
Production
|
Corporate
|
Total
|
||||||||||
6
months ended June 30, 2008:
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
from external customers
|
$
|
332,000
|
$
|
3,325,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
3,657,000
|
|||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
8,000
|
1,212,000
|
2,000
|
1,222,000
|
|||||||||
Segment
profit (loss) from continuing operations
|
35,000
|
(2,246,000
|
)
|
(1,308,000
|
)
|
(3,519,000
|
)
|
||||||
6
months ended June 30, 2007:
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
from external customers
|
$
|
337,000
|
$
|
2,586,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
2,923,000
|
|||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
6,000
|
835,000
|
29,000
|
870,000
|
|||||||||
Segment
profit (loss) from continuing operations
|
2,000
|
(1,419,000
|
)
|
(1,478,000
|
)
|
(2,895,000
|
)
|
14
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
Certain
statements contained herein constitute “forward-looking statements” within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “1995
Reform Act”). Document Security Systems, Inc. desires to avail itself of certain
“safe harbor” provisions of the 1995 Reform Act and is therefore including this
special note to enable us to do so. Except for the historical information
contained herein, this report contains forward-looking statements (identified
by
the words "estimate," "project," "anticipate," "plan," "expect," "intend,"
"believe," "hope," "strategy" and similar expressions), which are based on
our
current expectations and speak only as of the date made. These forward-looking
statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties and factors, including,
without limitation, those contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2007 and those described herein that could cause actual results to differ
materially from the results anticipated in the forward-looking
statements.
Overview
Document
Security Systems, Inc. (referred to in this report as “Document Security,” “we,”
“us,” “our” or “Company”) markets and sells products designed to protect
valuable information from unauthorized scanning, copying, and digital imaging.
We develop sophisticated security technologies that are applied during the
normal printing process and by virtually all printing methods including
traditional offset, gravure, flexo, digital or via the Internet on paper,
plastic, or packaging. We believe we are a leader of customized document
protection solutions for companies and governments worldwide. We hold eight
patents that protect our technology and have over a dozen patents in process
or
pending. Our technologies and products are used by federal, state and local
governments, law enforcement agencies and are also applied by a broad variety
of
industries,, including financial institutions, high technology and consumer
goods, entertainment and gaming, healthcare/pharmaceutical, defense and genuine
parts industries. Our
customers use our technologies where there is a need for enhanced security
for
protecting and verification of critical financial instruments and vital records,
or where there are concerns of counterfeiting, fraud, identity theft, brand
protection and liability.
Our
core
business is counterfeit prevention, brand protection and validation of authentic
print media, including government-issued documents, currency, private corporate
record and, securities. We believe we are a world leader in the research and
development of optical deterrent technologies and have commercialized these
technologies with a broad suite of products that offer our customers a wide
array of document security solutions to satisfy their specific
anti-counterfeiting requirements. Our technology can be used in securing
sensitive and critical documents such as currency, automobile titles, spare
parts forms for the aerospace industry, gift certificates, permits, checks,
licenses, receipts, prescription and medical forms, engineering schematics,
ID
cards, labels, original music, coupons, homeland security manuals, consumer
product and pharmaceutical packaging, tickets, and school transcripts. In
addition, we have developed a digital product to implement our technologies
in
Internet-based environments utilizing standard desktop printers. We believe
that
our digital technology greatly expands the reach and potential market for our
technologies and solutions.
Technologies
We
have
developed or acquired over 30 technologies that provide to our customers a
wide
spectrum of solutions. Our primary anti-counterfeiting products and technologies
are marketed under the AuthentiGuard trade names.
Products
and Services
Document
Security Solutions and Production:
Our
technology portfolio allows us to create unique custom secure paper, plastic,
packaging and Internet-based solutions. We market to end-users that require
anti-counterfeiting and authentication features in a wide range of printed
materials like documents, vital records, driver’s licenses, birth certificates,
receipts, manuals, identification materials, entertainment tickets, coupons,
parts tracking forms, as well as product packaging including pharmaceutical
and
a wide range of consumer goods.
Additionally,
our custom security solutions include our digital technology that provides
custom hosted or server-based digital solutions for our customers. Depending
on
our customer’s specific requirements, we host a secure server that accepts user
inputs and delivers custom, variable secure documents for output at the user
location, or offer a bundled server solution that allows for the production
of
custom, variable secure documents within the user’s network environment.
15
Security
Paper:
Our
primary product for the retail end-user market is AuthentiGuard Security Paper.
AuthentiGuard Security Paper uses our Pantograph 4000 technology, and is a
paper
that reveals hidden warning words, logos or images using The Authenticator
- our
proprietary viewing lens - or when the paper is faxed, copied, scanned or
re-imaged. The hidden warning words appear on the duplicate or the computer
digital file and essentially prevents important documents from being
counterfeited. We market and sell our Security Paper primarily through two
major
paper distributors: Boise Cascade and PaperlinX Limited.
Technology
Licensing: We
license our anti-counterfeiting technology and trade secrets through licensing
arrangements with security printers. We seek licensees that have a broad
customer base that can benefit from our technologies or have unique and
strategic capabilities that expand the capabilities that we can offer our
potential customers. Revenue from licensing can take several forms. Licenses
can
be for a single technology or for a package of technologies.
Legal
Products:
We also
own and operate Legalstore.com, an Internet company which sells legal supplies
and documents, including security paper and products for the users of legal
documents and supplies in the legal, medical and educational fields. While
not a
component of our core business strategy, we continuously seek to maximize the
revenue and profitability of this operation.
Results
of Operations for the Three and Six Months Ended June
30, 2008
The following discussion and analysis provides information that our management
believes is relevant to an assessment and understanding of our results of
operations and financial condition. The discussion should be read in conjunction
with the financial statements and footnotes in this quarterly report and in
our
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. On September
25, 2007, the Company sold its copying and quick-printing business to an
unrelated third party. In accordance with FASB 144, the Company accounts for
the
revenue and expenses of this operation, which was a component of its security
printing segment, as a discontinued operation. All amounts have been adjusted
to
reflect the Company’s results after the effect of discontinued
operations.
Revenue
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change
vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2007
|
%
change vs.
2007 |
||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Security
printing & products
|
$
|
1,155,000
|
$
|
827,000
|
40
|
%
|
$
|
2,087,000
|
$
|
1,818,000
|
15
|
%
|
|||||||
Royalties
|
892,000
|
294,000
|
203
|
%
|
1,221,000
|
593,000
|
106
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Digital
solutions
|
8,000
|
12,000
|
-33
|
%
|
16,000
|
175,000
|
-91
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Legal
products
|
159,000
|
162,000
|
-2
|
%
|
332,000
|
337,000
|
-1
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Total
Revenue
|
2,214,000
|
1,295,000
|
71
|
%
|
3,656,000
|
2,923,000
|
25
|
%
|
Document
Security and Production
For
the
three months ended June 30, 2008, revenue increased 71% from the same period
in
2007. The increase in revenue was primarily the result of two factors. First,
the Company experienced a 40% increase in sales of its security printing and
products with sales increases experienced for both its plastic and paper based
products. The demand for the Company’s security technology and the strength in
our core secure printing business is reflected in the wide range of products
we
delivered during the quarter, including shipments of Medicaid-ready prescription
paper under its continued relationship with Boise Cascade, two separate foreign
country orders for drivers licenses, and a large secure coupon paper order.
Second, the Company recognized approximately $542,000 of previously deferred
royalty revenue as the result of a new agreement with the Ergonomic Group in
April 2008. Under a previous agreement with the Ergonomic Group, the Company
received $1,000,000 in non-refundable license and royalty fees, of which
$500,000 was recognized as royalty revenue pro-ratably over a two year license
period and the remaining $500,000 was considered a prepaid royalty, to be
recognized as revenue when sales of products using the licensed technology
were
made. This agreement was cancelled and a new agreement with the Ergonomic Group
that covers the Company’s newest digital technologies was established. As a
result, the non refundable license and royalty payment no longer met the
criteria for deferral. Absent the impact of recognizing the $542,000 in deferred
royalties, revenue during the second quarter of 2008 grew 29% from the second
quarter of 2007.
For
the
first six months of 2008, revenue increased 25% compared to the first six months
of 2007 primarily as a the result of the significant impact of royalty revenue
recognized in the second quarter of 2008 as discussed above, along with a 15%
growth in the company’s sales of its security printing and products. These
growth areas were partially offset by a significant decline in digital solutions
sales during the first half of 2008 as compared to the first half of 2007 due
to
the absence of any digital solutions implementations during 2008.
Cost
of Sales and Gross Profit
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
||||||||||||||
Costs
of revenue
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Security
printing & products
|
$
|
796,000
|
$
|
548,000
|
45
|
%
|
$
|
1,392,000
|
$
|
1,055,000
|
32
|
%
|
|||||||
Digital
solutions
|
4,000
|
3,000
|
33
|
%
|
7,000
|
37,000
|
-81
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Legal
products
|
74,000
|
91,000
|
-19
|
%
|
171,000
|
194,000
|
-12
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Total
cost of revenue
|
874,000
|
642,000
|
36
|
%
|
1,570,000
|
1,286,000
|
22
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Gross
profit
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Security
printing & products
|
359,000
|
279,000
|
29
|
%
|
695,000
|
763,000
|
-9
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Royalties
|
892,000
|
294,000
|
203
|
%
|
1,221,000
|
593,000
|
106
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Digital
solutions
|
4,000
|
9,000
|
-56
|
%
|
9,000
|
138,000
|
-93
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Legal
products
|
85,000
|
71,000
|
20
|
%
|
161,000
|
143,000
|
13
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Total
gross profit
|
1,340,000
|
653,000
|
105
|
%
|
2,086,000
|
1,637,000
|
27
|
%
|
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2007
|
%
change vs.
2007
|
||||||||||||||
Gross
profit percentage:
|
61
|
%
|
50
|
%
|
22
|
%
|
57
|
%
|
56
|
%
|
2
|
%
|
Gross
Profit
Gross
profit increased 106% to $1,340,000 in the second quarter of 2008 as compared
to
the $653,000 of gross profit realized in the second quarter of 2007, primarily
as a result of significant increase in royalty related income, primarily the
result of the aforementioned recognition of $542,000 of deferred revenue. This
increase was slightly offset by higher costs of sales for security printing
and
products due to higher depreciation and rent costs associated with the Company’s
upgrade to certain of its production equipment and the move of its plastic
printing division to a larger facility. For the six months ended June 30, 2008,
the Company’s gross profit increased in line with revenue as the Company’s gross
profit percentage was generally consistent with the first half of 2007.
In
the six-month 2007 period, the Company had a large digital solution sale with
a
gross margin of 78%. In the six-month 2008 period, the
Company did not have a comparable digital sale, however, the Company did have
the large deferred revenue item. The impact of these large items resulted in
the
comparability of gross profit percentage between the two periods. Otherwise,
gross margins of the Company’s security printing and products group declined,
which reflected the impact of higher costs of sales due to the Company’s move of
its plastic printing division to a larger facility.
Operating
Expenses
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
||||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative
|
|||||||||||||||||||
General
and administrative compensation
|
$
|
508,000
|
$
|
534,000
|
-5
|
%
|
$
|
1,084,000
|
$
|
947,000
|
14
|
%
|
|||||||
Stock
based payments
|
619,000
|
297,000
|
108
|
%
|
1,026,000
|
633,000
|
62
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Professional
Fees
|
207,000
|
364,000
|
-43
|
%
|
574,000
|
684,000
|
-16
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Sales
and marketing
|
299,000
|
391,000
|
-24
|
%
|
687,000
|
910,000
|
-25
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
42,000
|
20,000
|
110
|
%
|
84,000
|
40,000
|
110
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Other
|
288,000
|
205,000
|
40
|
%
|
583,000
|
395,000
|
48
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Research
and development
|
134,000
|
109,000
|
23
|
%
|
249,000
|
203,000
|
23
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Impairment
of patent defense costs
|
-
|
-
|
292,000
|
-
|
|||||||||||||||
Amortization
of intangibles
|
537,000
|
433,000
|
24
|
%
|
1,064,000
|
779,000
|
37
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Total
Operating Expenses
|
2,634,000
|
2,353,000
|
12
|
%
|
5,643,000
|
4,591,000
|
23
|
%
|
16
Selling,
General and Administrative
General
and administrative compensation
costs
decreased 5% in the second quarter of 2008 as compared to the second quarter
of
2007 which was the primarily the result of the Company’s separation with its
former President in May 2008. This reduction was partially offset by an increase
in the cash compensation of the non-employee members of the Company’s board of
directors.
Stock-Based
Compensation.
Stock-based compensation includes expense charges for all stock-based awards
to
employees, directors and consultants. Such awards include option grants, warrant
grants, and restricted stock awards. Stock-based compensation increases in
the
three and six month periods ended June 2008 reflect equity-based payments made
to third-party consultants and approximately $194,000 of expense as the result
of the acceleration of vesting of restricted shares and $18,000 due to the
modification of options to the Company’s former President as the result of his
separation from the Company in May 2008.
Professional
fees -
The
decrease in professional fees during the second quarter and first six months
of
2008 primarily reflect a decrease in non-patent related legal fees, including
the impact of the Company hiring its former legal counsel in May 2007, a
reduction in accounting fees, and reductions in stock transfer and investor
relations fees. These cost savings were partially offset by increases in the
use
of consultants for sales and business development efforts during the first
three
months of 2008. In March 2008, the Company initiated a cost-cutting program
that
is expected to significantly reduce the amount spent on outside consultants,
which is partially reflected in the second quarter of 2008.
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2007
|
%
change vs.
2007
|
||||||||||||||
Professional
Fees Detail
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Accounting
and auditing
|
$
|
30,000
|
$
|
52,000
|
-42
|
%
|
$
|
172,000
|
$
|
165,000
|
4
|
%
|
|||||||
Consulting
|
113,000
|
106,000
|
7
|
%
|
262,000
|
197,000
|
33
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Legal
Fees
|
18,000
|
80,000
|
-78
|
%
|
51,000
|
135,000
|
-62
|
%
|
|||||||||||
Relations
|
46,000
|
126,000
|
-63
|
%
|
89,000
|
187,000
|
-52
|
%
|
|||||||||||
$
|
207,000
|
$
|
364,000
|
-43
|
%
|
$
|
574,000
|
$
|
684,000
|
-16
|
%
|
Sales
and marketing
expenses, including sales and marketing personnel costs, decreased in the second
quarter and first half of 2008 as the Company reduced sales and marketing
headcount by four, reduced public relations and marketing costs and
significantly reduced the amount spent on travel and entertainment. The Company
reduced these costs as it realigned its sales process in order to maximize
the
results of its sales and marketing efforts with the goal of focusing of near
term revenue opportunities.
Other
expenses
are
primarily rent and utilities, office supplies, IT support, bad debt expense
and
insurance costs. Increases in the second quarter an first half of 2008 reflect
costs increases associated with an increase in rent costs and one time costs
associated with the move of the Company’s plastic printing division to a larger
facility, higher utility costs, and an increase in insurance costs.
Impairment
of Patent Defense Costs
On
March
19, 2008, the Company received notification that its appeal of the invalidation
of its European Patent 455750B1 in the UK was not successful. As result of
the
adverse court decision, the Company recognized an impairment loss of $292,000
associated with the U.K appeal as of March 31, 2008. The impairment loss
includes a judgment for reimbursement of estimated counterpart legal fees.
The
Company may be obligated to pay additional counter party legal fees associated
with the decision, which the Company will expense as soon as the amount, if
any,
is estimatable.
Other
Income
On
May
31, 2008, the Company was awarded a judgment of approximately $126,000 pursuant
to a counterclaim by the Company in the matter “Frank LaLoggia v. Document
Security Systems, Inc”, which the Company won in June 2006. The Company expects
to collect the full amount of the judgment.
Research
and Development
We
invest
in research and development to improve our existing technologies and develop
new
technologies that will enhance our position in the document security market.
Research and development costs consist primarily of compensation costs, and
costs for the use of third-party printers’ facilities to test our technologies
on equipment that we do not have access to internally. During the second quarter
of 2008, the Company incurred an increase in research and development costs
for
the development costs for software associated with its digital delivery of
its
security print technologies.
17
Amortization
of Intangibles
Amortization
of intangibles expense increased 24% in the second quarter of 2008 as compared
to the second quarter of 2007 which was primarily the result of an increase
of
$0.8 million in the Company’s capitalized patent defense costs from June 2007 to
June 2008. We amortize the costs associated with patent rights that we acquired
in 2005 and legal costs associated with the registration and defense of our
patents, including the costs associated with our lawsuit against the ECB for
patent infringement and the related ECB countersuits for patent validity. A
significant portion of these assets were acquired by the issuance of
equity-based instruments. Our net amortizable patent asset base at June 30,
2008
was approximately $4.8 million and will generate approximately $1.9 million
in
annual amortization expense during the next 3 years. In addition, the Company
has approximately $746,000 of net other intangible assets as of June 30, 2008
that consist of a royalty right, a non-exclusive marketing right, as well as
acquired intangibles including customer lists and a trade name. These assets
will generate approximately $250,000 of annual amortization expense during
the
next 3 years. In addition, the Company has approximately $1,397,000 in
goodwill derived from acquisitions. Goodwill is not amortized, but could become
a component of expense if an impairment is determined. The Company reviews
these
assets for impairment annually or if a triggering event occurs. If an
impairment, such as unfavorable ruling in the Company’s patent validity or
infringement lawsuits or an assessment of non-commerciability of certain of
its
patents, then the Company would write-off a portion of these assets, which
could
be a significant expense in the period incurred.
Net
Loss and Loss Per Share
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2008 |
Three
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
Six
Months
Ended June
30, 2008
|
Six
Months
Ended
June 30, 2007 |
%
change vs.
2007
|
||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$
|
(1,218,000
|
)
|
$
|
(1,700,000
|
)
|
-28
|
%
|
$
|
(3,519,000
|
) | $ |
(2,910,000
|
)
|
21
|
%
|
|||
Net
loss per share, basic and diluted
|
$
|
(0.09
|
)
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
-29
|
%
|
$
|
(0.26)
$
|
(0.21
|
)
|
20
|
%
|
|||||
Weighted
average common shares outstanding, basic and diluted
|
13,690,545
|
13,625,408
|
0
|
%
|
13,672,555
|
13,605,327
|
0
|
%
|
During
the second quarter of 2008, the Company experienced a net loss of $1.2 million,
a 28% decrease from the net loss of the second quarter of 2007. The reduction
in
net loss during the quarter was primarily the result of the Company’s
recognition of deferred revenue of approximately $542,000 during the quarter.
The increase in revenue was partially offset by increases in stock based
compensation costs, amortization of intangibles, and other expenses. As
described above, these cost increases were partially offset by decreases in
the
Company’s other major expense classifications of selling, general and
administrative compensation, professional fees and sales and marketing costs.
Of
the net loss of $1.2 million in second quarter of 2008, approximately $1.2
million was due to the expense items of stock based compensation and
amortization of intangibles.
18
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
The
Company’s cash flows and other key indicators of liquidity are summarized as
follows:
As
Of And For The Six Months Ended:
|
||||||||||
June
30, 2008
|
June
30, 2007
|
%
change vs. 2007
|
||||||||
Cash
flows from:
|
||||||||||
Operating
activities
|
$
|
(1,637,000
|
)
|
$
|
(1,637,000
|
)
|
0
|
%
|
||
Investing
activities
|
(946,000
|
)
|
(732,000
|
)
|
-29
|
%
|
||||
Financing
activities
|
2,802,000
|
(183,000
|
)
|
1631
|
%
|
|||||
Working
capital
|
(1,079,000
|
)
|
1,836,000
|
-159
|
%
|
|||||
Current
ratio
|
0.72
|
x |
1.65
x
|
-25
|
%
|
|||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
961,000
|
$
|
3,251,000
|
-70
|
%
|
||||
Revolving
credit notes
|
$
|
2,358,000
|
$
|
-
|
||||||
Funds
Available from Open Credit Facilities
|
$
|
1,742,000
|
$
|
-
|
As
of
June 30, 2008, our cash and cash equivalents were $961,000, up from $742,000
at
December 31, 2007. The increase was primarily due to the receipt of cash from
issuance of shares in a private placement and exercise of warrants, along with
the receipt of funds from various credit facilities which offset the use of
cash
for operations and the use of cash to defend the Company’s patent rights offset
by the receipt of $2,058,000 from the Company’s three credit facilities. As of
June 30, 2008, the Company had $2.4 million outstanding under three credit
agreements, which are due and payable over the next two years.
Payment
Due by Period
|
||||||||||||||||
Total
|
Less
than 1 year
|
1-3
years
|
3-5
years
|
More
than 5 years
|
||||||||||||
Credit
Facilities
|
$
|
2,358,000
|
$
|
500,000
|
$
|
1,858,000
|
$
|
-
|
$
|
-
|
The
Company expects to continue to use cash for its operations and for the defense
of its patents through the remainder of 2008. In March 2008, the Company
initiated a cost reduction program in order to bring its cash expenditures
to a
level closer to its current revenue base. As a result of these cost cuts, the
Company has reduced its annual operating expense base by approximately $1.5
million. The Company expects to reach operating cash flow breakeven at
approximately $9.0 million in annual revenue, and believes that it can obtain
this revenue level with its current level of resources.
As
of
June 30, 2008, we have an aggregate of $1,742,000 remaining available under
two
revolving notes that terminate on January 4, 2010. In
addition, the Company has $1,300,000 in subscriptions receivable which it
expects to receive in six-month installments over the next two years. Based
on
these funding sources, the Company believes that it has sufficient available
funds
to meet
its cash needs for at least the next twelve months.
19
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Management
is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective disclosure controls
and procedures. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
participated with our management in evaluating the effectiveness of our
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)).
Based on this evaluation, and in light of the material weaknesses in our
internal control over financial reporting that are discussed in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 these officers
have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective.
To address the material weaknesses described in Annual Report on Form 10-K
for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, we performed additional analyses
and
other post-closing procedures to ensure our consolidated financial statements
were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the
United States of America (U.S. GAAP). Accordingly, management believes that
the
financial statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
present, in all material respects, our financial condition, result of operations
and cash flows for the periods presented.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During
the second quarter of 2008, the Company eliminated the use of an outside
consultant formerly used to enhance the segregation of duties for financial
reporting. Concurrently, the Company modified and expanded one of its existing
internal positions to accommodate some of the control objectives affected
by the
elimination of the outside consultant. However, during the second quarter,
some
of the control objectives of the new position were not met, as the new employee
did not have sufficient time to train for the role prior to the end of the
second quarter of 2008.
OTHER
INFORMATION
Information
concerning pending legal proceedings is incorporated herein by reference
to Note
10 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) in Part
I of
this Form 10-Q.
On
August
1, 2005, we commenced a suit against the European Central Bank (“ECB”) alleging
patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages. We brought
the
suit in European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. We alleged that all
Euro
banknotes in circulation infringe our European Patent 0 455 750B1 (the
“Patent”), which covers a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature
into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries
by
digital scanning and copying devices.
The
Court of First Instance ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have
jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim, and also ruled that
we
will be required to pay attorneys and court fees of the ECB. The ECB formally
requested DSS to pay attorneys and court fees in the amount of Euro 93,752
($144,000), which, unless the amount is agreed will be subject to an assessment
procedure that will not likely be concluded until approximately the end of
2008,
which the Company will accrue as soon as the assessed amount, if any, is
estimatable.
On
March
24, 2006, we received notice that the ECB has filed a separate claim in the
United Kingdom and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the
Patent. Proceedings were commenced before the national courts seeking revocation
and declarations of invalidity of
the
Patent in each of the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany
and
Austria. On March 26, 2007, the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division,
Patents Court in London, England (the “English Court”) ruled that the Patent was
deemed invalid in the United Kingdom, and on March 19, 2008 this decision
was
upheld on appeal. The English Court rejected the ECB’s allegations of invalidity
based on lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and insufficiency, but held
that the patent was invalid for added subject matter. The English Court’s
decision does not affect the validity of the Patent in other European countries.
On March 30, 2007, the English Court awarded the ECB 30%
of
their costs (including legal fees) of the initial trial,
of
which the Company paid 90,000 British pounds ($182,000) on April 19, 2007.
We
expect that an additional 90,000 pounds ($182,000) will become payable by
the
Company for the costs of the initial trial, which is included in accrued
expenses as of June 30, 2008. In July 2007, the Company posted a bond of
87,500
British pounds ($177,000), as collateral for the appeal costs which is recorded
as restricted cash at June 30, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the Company paid 87,500
British pounds ($177,000 based on the applicable exchange rate on that date)
towards the ECB’s
costs of the English appeal in addition to the bond posted. The
Company may also owe additional legal fees associated with the Court of Appeal
decisions, which, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, will be subject
to an
assessment procedure that will not likely be concluded earlier than the first
quarter of 2009. The
Company
will record the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is
estimatable.
20
On
March
27, 2007 the Bundespatentgericht of the Federal Republic of Germany ruled
that
the German part of the Patent was valid, having considered the English Court’s
decision. As
a
result of this ruling, the Company expects to be awarded reimbursements for
its
costs associated with the German validity case, which is Euro
44,692 692 ($67,000), which the Company will record when the amount, if any,
is
received.
The
ECB
has filed an appeal against that decision, which is not expected to be decided
before 2010. On January 9, 2008 the French Court held that the Patent was
invalid in France for the same reasons given by the English Court. The Company
is required to pay de minimus attorneys’ fees of the ECB as a result of the
French decision. The Company filed an appeal against the French decision
on May
7, 2008. On March 12, 2008 the Dutch Court, having considered the English,
German and French decisions, ruled that the Patent is valid in the Netherlands.
The ECB filed an appeal against the Dutch decision on March 27, 2008. A trial
was also held in Madrid, Spain on June 3 and 5, 2008 and oral and written
closing submissions were made on July 19, 2008. A judgment is expected in
the
second half of 2008.
The
Patent has thus been confirmed to be valid and enforceable in two jurisdictions
(Germany and the Netherlands) that use the Euro as its national currency.
Additional trials on the validity of the Patent are expected in other European
jurisdictions in 2008 and 2009.
On
January 31, 2003, we commenced an action, unrelated to the above ECB litigation,
entitled New Sky Communications, Inc., As Successor-In-Interest To Thomas
M.
Wicker, Thomas M.Wicker Enterprises, Inc. and Document Security Consultants
V.
Adler Technologies, Inc. N/K/A Adlertech International, Inc. and Andrew
McTaggert (United States District Court, Western District Of New York Case
No.03-Cv-6044t(F)) regarding certain intellectual property in which we have
an
interest. We commenced this action alleging various causes of action against
Adler Technologies, Inc. and Andrew McTaggert for breach of contract, breach
of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, various business torts, including
unfair competition and declaratory relief. Adler distributes and supplies
anti-counterfeit document products and Mr. McTaggert is a principal of Adler.
Adler had entered into several purported agreements with Thomas M. Wicker
Enterprises and Document Security Consultants, both of which we acquired
in
2002. These alleged agreements, generally, would have authorized Adler to
manufacture in Canada our “Checkmate®” patented system for verifying the
authenticity of currency and documents. Other purported agreements were signed
between these parties and Thomas Wicker regarding other technology claimed
to
have been owned by Wicker and assigned to us. Among other things, we contend
that certain of the purported agreements are not binding and/or enforceable.
To
the extent any of them are binding and enforceable, we claim that Adler has
breached these purported agreements, failed to make an appropriate accounting
and payments under them, and may have exceeded the scope of its license.
Adler
has denied the material allegations of the complaint and has counterclaimed
against us, claiming Adler owns or co-owns or has a license to use certain
technologies of ours. In May 2005, we filed our first amended and supplemental
complaint adding Blanks/USA and Raymond Maxon as additional defendants. In
February 2007, we filed our second amended and supplemental complaint adding
Judith Wu (McTaggert’s wife) and Arcis Digital Security, Inc. (a company in
which Ms. Wu is involved) as additional defendants. Maxon has asserted a
counterclaim against us contending that our purported acquisition of a certain
patent from Thomas Wicker in 2002 gave rise to an alleged right on the part
of
Maxon to receive a portion of Thomas Wicker’s proceeds from such acquisition. We
have denied the material allegations of all of the counterclaims. If Adler
or
Maxon is successful, it may materially affect us, our financial condition,
and
our ability to market and sell certain of our technology and related products.
This case is in discovery phase, and it is too soon to determine how the
various
issues raised by the lawsuit will be determined.
In
addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that
have
arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated.
Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management,
none of these legal proceedings to which we are a party will have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial
condition.
ITEM
1A - RISK FACTORS
An
investment in our securities is subject to numerous risks, including the
Risk
Factors described below. Our business, operating results or financial condition
could be materially adversely affected by any of the following risks. The
risks
described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks we are not
presently aware of or that we currently believe are immaterial may also
materially affect our business. The trading price of our Common Stock could
decline due to any of these risks. In assessing these risks, you should also
refer to the other information contained or incorporated by reference in
this
Form 10-Q, including our financial statements and related notes and information
contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
21
We
have a limited operating history with our business model, which limits the
information available to you to evaluate our
business.
Since
our
inception in 1984, we have accumulated deficits from historical operations
of
approximately $27,733,000 at June 30, 2008. In 2002, we changed our business
model and chose to strategically focus on becoming a developer and marketer
of
secure technologies for all forms of print media. We have continued to incur
losses since we began our new business model. Also, we have limited operating
and financial information relating to this new business to evaluate our
performance and future prospects. Due to the change in our business model,
we do
not view our historical financials as being a good indication of our future.
We
face the risks and difficulties of a company going into a new business including
the uncertainties of market acceptance, competition, cost increases and delays
in achieving business objectives. There can be no assurance that we will
succeed
in addressing any or all of these risks, and the failure to do so could have
a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating
results.
We
have secured credit facilities that have large principal payments due and
if we
are unable to repay them with cash we may be forced to repay, in whole on
in
part, with each credit facility’s applicable collateral, which would have a
material adverse effect on our financial position.
On
January 4, 2008, we entered into two credit facilities with and aggregate
borrowing capacity of $3.6 million that is repayable in full on January 4,
2010.
One of these credit facilities has a borrowing limit of $3.0 million and
is
secured by our stock in our Plastic Printing Professionals, Inc. subsidiary
(“P3”), and the other credit facility has a borrowing limit of $600,000 and is
secured by our accounts receivable, excluding the accounts receivable of
P3. On
May 7, 2008, we entered into a $500,000 unsecured credit facility with Taiko
III
Corp. to fund our ongoing patent infringement and related lawsuits against
the
European Central Bank (“ECB”) that is repayable in full on May 7, 2009. In
addition, the loan with Taiko III can be repaid by the Company, at the
discretion of Taiko III, if the Company defaults under the credit facility,
by
using the Company’s common stock at a discount to the market value at the time
of the repayment of 33% to market at the time of payment at no less than
$2.00
per share and no more than $5.00 per share. If we cannot generate sufficient
cash from operations or raise cash from other sources, including without
limitation, fund-raising through sales of equity, and if we cannot refinance
the
credit facilities, we may have to repay, in whole or in part, one or both
of the
credit facilities with each credit facility’s applicable collateral, which would
have a material adverse effect on our financial position.
Due
to our low cash balance and negative cash flow, we may have to further reduce
our costs by curtailing future operation.
We
have
incurred significant net losses in previous years. Our ability to fund our
capital requirements out of our available cash and cash generated from our
operations depends on a number of factors. Some of these factors include
our
ability to (i) increase paper and plastic card sales and (ii) increase sales
of
our digital products. If we cannot generate positive cash flow from operations,
we will have to continue to reduce our costs and raise working capital from
other sources. These measures could include selling or consolidating certain
operations or assets, and delaying, canceling or scaling back product
development and marketing programs. These measures could materially and
adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.
Our
ability to effect a financing transaction to fund our operations could adversely
affect the value of your stock.
If
we
seek additional financing through raising additional capital through public
or
private equity offerings or debt financing, such additional capital financing
may not be available to us on favorable terms and our stockholders will likely
experience substantial dilution. Material shortage of capital will require
us to
take steps such as reducing our level of operations, disposing of selected
assets, effecting financings on less than favorable terms or seeking protection
under federal bankruptcy laws.
Our
limited cash resources may not be sufficient to fund continuing losses from
operations and the expenses of the current patent validity and patent
infringement litigations.
The
cost
to defend and prosecute current and future patent litigation may be significant.
We cannot assure you that the ultimate cost of current known or future unknown
litigation and claims will not exceed our current expectations and/or our
ability to pay such costs and it is possible that such litigation costs could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
operating results. In addition, litigation is time consuming and could divert
management attention and resources away from our business, which could adversely
affect our business, financial condition and operating results.
22
If
we lose our current litigation, we may lose certain of our technology rights,
which may affect our business plan.
We
are
subject to litigation and alleged litigation, including without limitation
our
litigation with the European Central Bank, in which parties allege, among
other
things, that certain of our patents are invalid. For more information regarding
this litigation, see Part II Item 1- Legal Proceedings. If the ECB or other
parties are successful in invalidating any or all of our patents, it may
materially affect us, our financial condition, and our ability to market
and
sell certain of our products based on any patent that is invalidated.
If
we lose our current validity or infringement litigation we may be liable
for
significant legal costs of our counterparts.
We
have
been able to mitigate the cash outlays that we have been required to make
for
legal costs of our current invalidity cases against the European Central
Bank
by, among other things, negotiating legal fee caps and using shares of our
common stock for payments. However, if we receive adverse rulings in any
of our
infringement or related invalidity cases against the European Central Bank,
we
will likely be responsible for a large portion of the legal costs that were
expended by the European Central Bank in such case, which would likely be
significant, with our current estimates of between $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.
The
payment of these amounts could have a
material adverse impact on our operations, cash available and
liquidity.
Our
patent litigation strategy against the European Central Bank and elsewhere
in
Europe may include us entering into a joint venture or other contractual
relationship with a third party that could result in us exchanging a significant
percentage of the potential revenues derived from such litigation for the
future
funding of such litigation.
We
have
expended significant time and monetary resources in its patent litigation
against the European Central Bank (See Part II Item I - Legal Proceedings).
We
have entered into negotiations with third parties to provide some or all
of the
future funding of such litigation, and related litigations, in exchange for
sharing with such third parties a material portion of any revenue generated
from
such litigations. If such an arrangement is entered into by the Company,
we
cannot be assured that the amount of litigation proceeds shared with such
third
party will not far exceed the amount of funding provided by such third party.
In
addition, in order to induce such third party to enter into the above-described
arrangement, we may cede decision making with respect to such litigations
to
such third party. We cannot be assured that the interests of our shareholders
will be aligned fully with the interests of such third party, which may result
in a material adverse effect on the amount of proceeds that we could or would
realize, which would have a material adverse effect on the value of our common
stock.
If
we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property, our competitive
advantage may disappear.
Our
success will be determined in part by our ability to obtain United States
and
foreign patent protection for our technology and to preserve our trade secrets.
Because of the substantial length of time and expense associated with developing
new document security technology, we place considerable importance on patent
and
trade secret protection. We intend to continue to rely primarily on a
combination of patent protection, trade secrets, technical measures, copyright
protection and nondisclosure agreements with our employees and customers
to
establish and protect the ideas, concepts and documentation of software and
trade secrets developed by us. Our ability to compete and the ability of
our
business to grow could suffer if these intellectual property rights are not
adequately protected. There can be no assurance that our patent applications
will result in patents being issued or that current or additional patents
will
afford protection against competitors. We rely on a combination of patents,
copyrights, trademarks and trade secret protection and contractual rights
to
establish and protect our intellectual property. Failure of our patents,
copyrights, trademarks and trade secret protection, non-disclosure agreements
and other measures to provide protection of our technology and our intellectual
property rights could enable our competitors to more effectively compete
with us
and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of
operations. In addition, our trade secrets and proprietary know-how may
otherwise become known or be independently discovered by others. No guarantee
can be given that others will not independently develop substantially equivalent
proprietary information or techniques, or otherwise gain access to our
proprietary technology.
In
addition, we may be required to litigate in the future to enforce our
intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets, to determine
the
validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against
claims of infringement or invalidity. Any such litigation could result in
substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, and
there
can be no assurances of the success of any such litigation.
23
We
may face intellectual property infringement or other claims against us, our
customers or our intellectual property that could be costly to defend and
result
in our loss of significant rights.
Although
we have received or applied for U.S., European and International Patents
with
respect to certain technologies of ours, there can be no assurance that these
patents will afford us any meaningful protection. Although we believe that
our
use of the technology and products we developed and other trade secrets used
in
our operations do not infringe upon the rights of others, our use of the
technology and trade secrets we developed may infringe upon the patents or
intellectual property rights of others. In the event of infringement, we
could,
under certain circumstances, be required to obtain a license or modify aspects
of the technology and trade secrets we developed or refrain from using same.
We
may not have the necessary financial resources to defend an infringement
claim
made against us or be able to successfully terminate any infringement in
a
timely manner, upon acceptable terms and conditions or at all. Failure to
do any
of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial
condition. Moreover, if the patents, technology or trade secrets we developed
or
use in our business are deemed to infringe upon the rights of others, we
could,
under certain circumstances, become liable for damages, which could have
a
material adverse effect on us and our financial condition. As we continue
to
market our products, we could encounter patent barriers that are not known
today. A patent search will not disclose applications that are currently
pending
in the United States Patent Office, and there may be one or more such pending
applications that would take precedence over any or all of our
applications.
Furthermore,
third parties may assert that our intellectual property rights are invalid,
which could result in significant expenditures by us to refute such assertions.
If we become involved in litigation, we could lose our proprietary rights, be
subject to damages and incur substantial unexpected operating expenses.
Intellectual property litigation is expensive and time-consuming, even if
the
claims are subsequently proven unfounded, and could divert management’s
attention from our business. If there is a successful claim of infringement,
we
may not be able to develop non-infringing technology or enter into royalty
or
license agreements on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unsuccessful
in
defending claims that our intellectual property rights are invalid, we may
not
be able to enter into royalty or license agreements on acceptable terms,
if at
all. This could prohibit us from providing our products and services to
customers, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our financial
condition.
If
our products and services do not achieve market acceptance, we may not achieve
our revenue and net income goals in the time prescribed or at
all.
We
are at
the early stage of introducing our document security technology and products
to
the market. If we are unable to operate our business as contemplated by our
business model or if the assumptions underlying our business model prove
to be
unfounded, we could fail to achieve our revenue and net income goals within
the
time we have projected, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect
on
our business. As a result, the value of your investment could be significantly
reduced or completely lost.
We
cannot
assure you that a sufficient number of companies will purchase our products
or
services or other document security products. In addition, we cannot predict
the
rate of market’s acceptance of our document security solutions. Failure to
maintain a significant customer base may have a material adverse effect on
our
business.
Certain
of our recently developed products are not yet commercially accepted and
there
can be no assurance that those products will be accepted, which would adversely
affect our financial results.
Over
the
past one to two years, we have spent significant funds and time to create
new
products by applying our technologies onto media other than paper, including
plastic and cardboard packaging, and delivered our technologies digitally.
We
have had limited success in selling our products that are on cardboard packaging
and those that are delivered digitally. If we are not able to successfully
sell
these new products, our financial results will be adversely affected.
The
results of our research and development efforts are uncertain and there can
be
no assurance of the commercial success of our
products.
We
believe that we will need to continue to incur research and development
expenditures to remain competitive. The products we currently are developing
or
may develop in the future may not be technologically successful. In addition,
the length of our product development cycle may be greater than we originally
expect and we may experience delays in future product development. If our
resulting products are not technologically successful, they may not achieve
market acceptance or compete effectively with our competitors’
products.
Changes
in document security technology and standards could render our applications
and
services obsolete.
The
market for document security products, applications, and services is fast
moving
and evolving. Identification and authentication technology is constantly
changing as we and our competitors introduce new products, applications,
and
services, and retire old ones as customer requirements quickly develop and
change. In addition, the standards for document security are continuing to
evolve. If any segments of our market adopt technologies or standards that
are
inconsistent with our applications and technology, sales to those market
segments could decline, which could have a material adverse effect on us
and our
financial condition.
24
The
market in which we operate is highly competitive, and we may not be able
to
compete effectively, especially against established industry competitors
with
greater market presence and financial resources.
Our
market is highly competitive and characterized by rapid technological change
and
product innovations. Our competitors may have advantages over us because
of
their longer operating histories, more established products, greater name
recognition, larger customer bases, and greater financial, technical and
marketing resources. As a result, they may be able to adapt more quickly
to new
or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements, and devote
greater resources to the promotion and sale of their products. Competition
may
also force us to decrease the price of our products and services. We cannot
assure you that we will be successful in developing and introducing new
technology on a timely basis, new products with enhanced features, or that
these
products, if introduced, will enable us to establish selling prices and gross
margins at profitable levels.
Our
growth strategy depends, in part, on our acquiring complementary businesses
and
assets and expanding our existing operations to include manufacturing
capabilities, which we may be unable to do.
Our
growth strategy is based, in part, on our ability to acquire businesses and
assets that are complimentary to our existing operations and expanding our
operations to include manufacturing capabilities. We may also seek to acquire
other businesses. The success of this acquisition strategy will depend, in
part,
on our ability to accomplish the following:
·
|
identify
suitable businesses or assets to buy;
|
·
|
complete
the purchase of those businesses on terms acceptable to us;
|
·
|
complete
the acquisition in the time frame we expect;
and
|
·
|
improve
the results of operations of the businesses that we buy and successfully
integrate their operations into our
own.
|
Although
we were able to successfully acquire our Plastic Printing Professionals,
Inc.
subsidiary in February 2006, there can be no assurance that we will be
successful in pursuing any or all of these steps on future transactions.
Our
failure to implement our acquisition strategy could have an adverse effect
on
other aspects of our business strategy and our business in general. We may
not
be able to find appropriate acquisition candidates, acquire those candidates
that we find or integrate acquired businesses effectively or profitably.
Our
acquisition program and strategy may lead us to contemplate acquisitions
of
companies in bankruptcy, which entail additional risks and uncertainties.
Such
risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, that, before assets
may be
acquired, customers may leave in search of more stable providers and vendors
may
terminate key relationships. Also, assets are generally acquired on an “as is”
basis, with no recourse to the seller if the assets are not as valuable as
may
be represented. Finally, while bankrupt companies may be acquired for
comparatively little money, the cost of continuing the operations may
significantly exceed expectations.
We
have
in the past used, and may continue to use, our Common Stock as payment for
all
or a portion of the purchase price for acquisitions. If we issue significant
amounts of our Common Stock for such acquisitions, this could result in
substantial dilution of the equity interests of our stockholders.
If
we fail to retain our key personnel and attract and retain additional qualified
personnel, we might not be able to pursue our growth
strategy.
Our
future success depends upon the continued service of our executive officers
and
other key sales and research personnel who possess longstanding industry
relationships and technical knowledge of our products and operations. The
loss
of any of our key employees, in particular, Patrick White, our Chief Executive
Officer and David Wicker, our Vice-President of Operations, could negatively
impact our ability to pursue our growth strategy and conduct operations.
Although we believe that our relationship with these individuals is positive,
there can be no assurance that the services of these individuals will continue
to be available to us in the future. We have extended our employment agreements
with Patrick White to June 2009. Our employment agreement with David Wicker
expires in June 2009. There can be no assurance that these persons will continue
to agree to be employed by us after such dates.
25
Future
growth in our business could make it difficult to manage our
resources.
Our
anticipated business expansion could place a significant strain on our
management, administrative and financial resources. Significant growth in
our
business may require us to implement additional operating, product development
and financial controls, improve coordination among marketing, product
development and finance functions, increase capital expenditures and hire
additional personnel. There can be no assurance that we will be able to
successfully manage any substantial expansion of our business, including
attracting and retaining qualified personnel. Any failure to properly manage
our
future growth could negatively impact our business and operating
results.
We
cannot predict our future capital needs and we may not be able to secure
additional financing.
We
may
need to raise additional funds in the future to fund more aggressive expansion
of our business, complete the development, testing and marketing of our
products, or make strategic acquisitions or investments. We may require
additional equity or debt financings, collaborative arrangements with corporate
partners or funds from other sources for these purposes. No assurance can
be
given that these funds will be available for us to finance our development
on
acceptable terms, if at all. Such additional financings may involve substantial
dilution of our stockholders or may require that we relinquish rights to
certain
of our technologies or products. In addition, we may experience operational
difficulties and delays due to working capital restrictions. If adequate
funds
are not available from operations or additional sources of financing, we
may
have to delay or scale back our growth plans. In June 2008, we sold 350,000
shares for an aggregate purchase price of $1.4 million, with $100,000 payable
at
closing and the remaining $1.3 million payable in six-month installments
over
two years. If the Purchaser of such 350,000 does not pay some or all of such
remaining $1.3 million purchase price, we will have limited, if any, recourse
against the purchaser other than recouping a pro-rata amount of the 350,000
shares. If we do not receive the remaining $1.3 million of the purchase price
on
schedule, our financial position and financing resources may be materially
adversely affected.
Risks
Related to Our Stock
Provisions
of our certificate of incorporation and agreements could delay or prevent
a
change in control of our company.
Certain
provisions of our certificate of incorporation may discourage, delay, or
prevent
a merger or acquisition that a stockholder may consider favorable. These
provisions include:
·
|
the
authority of the Board of Directors to issue preferred stock;
and
|
·
|
a
prohibition on cumulative voting in the election of directors.
|
We
have a large number of authorized but unissued shares of common stock, which
our
management may issue without further stockholder approval, thereby causing
dilution of your holdings of our common stock.
As
of
June 30, 2008, there are approximately 185 million shares of authorized but
unissued shares of our common stock. Our management will continue to have
broad
discretion to issue shares of our common stock in a range of transactions,
including capital-raising transactions, mergers, acquisitions, for anti-takeover
purposes, and in other transactions, without obtaining stockholder approval,
unless stockholder approval is required for a particular transaction under
the
rules of the American Stock Exchange, New York law, or other applicable laws.
We
currently have no specific plans to issue shares of our common stock for
any
purpose. However, if our management determines to issue shares of our common
stock from the large pool of such authorized but unissued shares for any
purpose
in the future without obtaining stockholder approval, your ownership position
would be diluted without your further ability to vote on that transaction.
The
exercise of our outstanding options and warrants and vesting of restricted
stock
awards may depress our stock price.
As
of
June 30, 2008, there were outstanding stock options and warrants to purchase
an
aggregate of 1,324,343 shares of our Common Stock at exercise prices ranging
from $2.00 to $12.65 per share and a weighted average exercise price of $10.26.
In addition, as of June 30, 2008, there were 270,591 restricted shares of
our
common stock that are subject to various vesting terms. To the extent that
these
securities vest, dilution to our stockholders will occur. Moreover, the terms
upon which we will be able to obtain additional equity capital may be adversely
affected, since the holders of these securities can be expected to exercise
or
convert them at a time when we would, in all likelihood, be able to obtain
any
needed capital on terms more favorable to us than the exercise and conversion
terms provided by those securities.
Sales
of
these shares in the public market, or the perception that future sales of
these
shares could occur, could have the effect of lowering the market price of
our
common stock below current levels and make it more difficult for us and our
stockholders to sell our equity securities in the future.
26
Sale
or
the availability for sale of shares of common stock by stockholders could
cause
the market price of our common stock to decline and could impair our ability
to
raise capital through an offering of additional equity securities.
We
do not intend to pay cash dividends.
We
do not
intend to declare or pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable
future. We anticipate that we will retain any earnings and other cash resources
for investment in our business. The payment of dividends on our common stock
is
subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our
operations, financial position, financial requirements, general business
conditions, restrictions imposed by financing arrangements, if any, legal
restrictions on the payment of dividends and other factors that our Board
of
Directors deems relevant.
On
June
25, 2008 the Company entered into two Share Purchase Agreements in which
the
Company agreed to sell a total of 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock
for an aggregate purchase price of $2,000,000. Pursuant to the terms of the
first Agreement, the Company sold 150,000 shares of Common Stock to the
Purchaser for $600,000 payable on June25, 2008. Pursuant to the terms of
the
second Agreement, the Company sold 350,000 shares of Common Stock for
$1,400,000, with $100,000 payable on June25, 2008and the remaining $1,300,000
payable in six-month installments over a two-year period. Pursuant to the
terms
of the first Agreement, the Purchaser may not sell the 150,000 shares of
Common
Stock purchased thereunder earlier than June 25, 2009. Pursuant to the terms
of
the second Agreement, the Purchaser may not sell the 350,000 shares of Common
Stock purchased thereunder until the earlier of (i) one year after the Purchase
Price being paid in full to the Company, or (ii) the one-year anniversary
of a
Payment Failure Termination Event (as defined in the second Agreement).
None
None
ITEM
5 - OTHER INFORMATION
None
The
Exhibits listed below designated by an * are incorporated by reference to
the
filings by Document Security Systems, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933
or
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as indicated. All other exhibits
are
filed herewith.
|
(a)
|
|
Exhibits
Item
3.1 Articles
of Organization of the Registrant, as amended (incorporated by
reference
to exhibit 3.1 to the Company's Registration Statements No. 2-98684-NY
on
Form S-18).*
Item
3.2 By-laws
of the Registrant, as amended (incorporation by reference to exhibit
3.2
to the Company's Registration Statement No. 2-98684-NY on Form
S-18).*
Item
10.1 Share
Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 25, 2008, between the Registrant
and
Walton Invesco Inc.
Item
10.2 Share
Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 25, 2008, between the Registrant
and
Walton Invesco Inc.
|
27
|
|
|
Item
10.3 Credit
Facility Note, dated May 7, 2008, between the Registrant and
Taiko III
Corp. (incorporation by reference to exhibit 10.1 to the Form
8-K, filed
May 12, 2008).*
Item
10.4 Confidential
Separation Agreement and General Release, dated May 10, 2008,
between
Peter Ettinger and the Registrant (incorporation by reference
to exhibit
10.1 to the Form 8-K, filed May 12, 2008).*
Item
10.5 Consulting
Agreement, dated May 12, 2008, between Peter Ettinger and the
Registrant
(incorporation by reference to exhibit 10.2 to the Form 8-K,
filed May 12,
2008).*
Item
31.1 Certifications
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes
Oxley
Act
Item
31.2 Certifications
of Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes
Oxley Act
Item
32.1 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley
Act
Item
32.2 Certification
of Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes
Oxley Act
|
In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused
this report on Form 10-Q to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
DOCUMENT
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
|
||
|
|
|
August 11, 2008 | By: | /s/ Patrick White |
Patrick White |
||
Chief Executive Officer |
August 11, 2008 | By: | /s/ Philip Jones |
Philip Jones |
||
Acting
Chief Financial Officer
(Vice
President of Finance)
|
28