Nano Magic Inc. - Quarter Report: 2007 September (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
DC 20549
FORM
10-Q
ý Quarterly
report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
For
the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2007
¨
Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act
of 1934
COMMISSION
FILE NO. 1-11602
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
TEXAS
|
76-0273345
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
|
|
|
3006
Longhorn Blvd., Suite 107
|
|
Austin,
Texas
|
78758
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
(512)
339-5020
|
(Registrant's
telephone number, including area
code)
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements
for
the past 90 days.
x
Yes
|
o
No
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated
filer” and “large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.
Large
Accelerated Filer ¨
Accelerated
Filer þ
Non-Accelerated
Filer ¨
Indicate
by check mark whether the
registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act).
o
Yes
|
x
No
|
As
of
October 30, 2007, the registrant had 107,173,549 shares of common stock,
par
value $.001 per share, issued and outstanding.
1
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC.
Page
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
||||
|
13
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|||
|
16
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
2
PART
I.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
ITEM
1.
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
|
(Unaudited)
September
30,
2007
|
December
31,
2006
|
||||||
Current
assets:
|
|
|
||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ |
5,651,932
|
$ |
2,085,338
|
||||
Accounts
receivable, trade – net of allowance for doubtful accounts
|
511,921
|
364,718
|
||||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
140,346
|
79,301
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total current assets
|
6,304,199
|
2,529,357
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Property
and equipment, net
|
174,621
|
154,545
|
||||||
Other
assets
|
109,540
|
9,540
|
||||||
Total assets
|
$ |
6,588,360
|
$ |
2,693,442
|
||||
|
||||||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Current
liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$ |
1,959,457
|
$ |
1,562,488
|
||||
Accrued
liabilities
|
88,762
|
87,237
|
||||||
Deferred
revenue
|
724,329
|
401,455
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total current liabilities
|
2,772,458
|
2,051,180
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Commitments
and contingencies
|
–
|
–
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total
Liabilities
|
2,772,458
|
2,051,180
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Stockholders'
(deficit):
|
||||||||
Preferred
stock, $1.00 par value, 2,000,000 shares authorized;
No
shares issued and outstanding
|
–
|
–
|
||||||
Common
stock, $.00l par value, 120,000,000 shares authorized,
107,173,549
and 104,257,607 shares issued and outstanding at
September
30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively
|
107,174
|
104,258
|
||||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
108,646,258
|
102,139,950
|
||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(104,937,530 | ) | (101,601,946 | ) | ||||
|
||||||||
Total stockholders equity
|
3,815,902
|
642,262
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
$ |
6,588,360
|
$ |
2,693,442
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
3
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED)
|
For the
Three Months
Ended
September 30,
|
For
the Nine Months
Ended
September 30,
|
||||||||||||||
|
2007
|
2006
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||||||||
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Government
contracts
|
$ |
664,541
|
$ |
109,182
|
$ |
1,741,115
|
$ |
180,296
|
||||||||
Contract
research
|
203,708
|
60,000
|
721,157
|
185,000
|
||||||||||||
Other
|
181,500
|
44,659
|
460,382
|
125,738
|
||||||||||||
Total
Revenues
|
1,049,749
|
213,841
|
2,922,654
|
491,034
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Research
and development
|
1,136,220
|
962,458
|
3,207,932
|
2,616,767
|
||||||||||||
Selling,
general and administrative expenses
|
704,222
|
1,184,579
|
3,144,294
|
4,092,463
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Operating
costs and expenses
|
1,840,442
|
2,147,037
|
6,352,226
|
6,709,230
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Gain
on sale of intellectual property and other assets
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
(1,100,000 | ) | |||||||||||
Loss
from operations
|
(790,693 | ) | (1,933,196 | ) | (3,429,572 | ) | (5,118,196 | ) | ||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Other
income (expense), net
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
Expense
|
(80 | ) | (222 | ) | (349 | ) | (518 | ) | ||||||||
Interest
Income
|
30,863
|
2,380
|
94,337
|
7,927
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations before taxes
|
(759,910 | ) | (1,931,038 | ) | (3,335,584 | ) | (5,110,787 | ) | ||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Provision
for taxes
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (759,910 | ) | $ | (1,931,038 | ) | $ | (3,335,584 | ) | $ | (5,110,787 | ) | ||||
Loss
per share
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and Diluted
|
$ | (0.01 | ) | $ | (0.02 | ) | $ | (0.03 | ) | $ | (0.05 | ) | ||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Basic
and Diluted
|
107,173,060
|
101,862,093
|
106,034,229
|
100,469,473
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
4
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOWS
(UNAUDITED)
|
For
the Nine Months Ended
September
30,
|
|||||||
|
2007
|
2006
|
||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
|
|
||||||
Net
loss
|
$ | (3,335,584 | ) | $ | (5,110,787 | ) | ||
Adjustments
to reconcile net loss to net
|
||||||||
cash
used in operating activities:
|
||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
31,394
|
32,030
|
||||||
Stock
based compensation expense
|
204,800
|
648,901
|
||||||
Issuance
of shares to ATI
|
–
|
400,000
|
||||||
Changes
in assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||
Accounts
receivable, trade
|
(147,203 | ) | (93,645 | ) | ||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
(161,045 | ) | (14,507 | ) | ||||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
398,494
|
1,551,906
|
||||||
Customer
deposits and deferred revenue
|
322,784
|
284,832
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Total
adjustments
|
649,224
|
2,809,517
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Net
cash used in operating activities
|
(2,686,360 | ) | (2,301,270 | ) | ||||
|
||||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||
Purchases
of fixed assets
|
(51,470 | ) | (65,082 | ) | ||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(51,470 | ) | (65,082 | ) | ||||
|
||||||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||
Repayment
of capital leases
|
–
|
(4,348 | ) | |||||
Proceeds
of stock issuance, net of costs
|
6,304,424
|
2,100,641
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
6,304,424
|
2,096,293
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Net
increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
3,566,594
|
(270,059 | ) | |||||
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, beginning of period
|
2,085,338
|
897,247
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents, end of period
|
$ |
5,651,932
|
$ |
627,188
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
5
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
1. Basis
of
Presentation
The
consolidated financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended
September 30, 2007 and 2006 have been prepared by us without audit pursuant
to
the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the
opinion of management, all adjustments necessary to present fairly our financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows as of September 30, 2007
and
2006, and for the periods then ended, have been made. Those adjustments consist
of normal and recurring adjustments. The consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2006, has been derived from the audited consolidated balance
sheet
as of that date.
Certain
information and note disclosures normally included in our annual financial
statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
have been condensed or omitted. These consolidated financial statements should
be read in conjunction with a reading of the financial statements and notes
thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The
results of operations for the three and nine month periods ended September
30,
2007, are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the
full
year.
2. Supplemental
Cash Flow Information
Cash
paid
for interest for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, was $349
and
$518, respectively. During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006,
the Company had non-cash transactions related to share based payments covered
by
FAS 123R. These transactions are described in greater detail in Note 4. During
the nine months ended September 30, 2006, we also had a non-cash transaction
related to the issuance of shares in connection with the acquisition of patent
as described in greater detail in Note 3.
3. Stockholders’
Equity
During
the nine months ended September 30, 2007, we issued 2,608,698 restricted
shares
of common stock and received net proceeds of $6,000,000 in an exempt offering
under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933. In connection with this
offering, we also issued warrants enabling the holders to purchase 1,304,353
shares of our common stock at a price of $2.50 per share through April 2008.
We
also issued 307,244 shares of common stock and received proceeds of $304,424
in
connection with the exercise of stock options during the nine months ended
September 30, 2007. In the nine months ended September 30, 2006, we
issued 1,250,000 restricted shares of common stock and received net proceeds
of
$2,074,000 in an exempt offering under Regulation D of the Securities Act
of
1933. During the same period, we also issued 54,383 shares of common stock
and
received proceeds of $26,641 in connection with the exercise of stock
options.
In
June
2006, we issued 200,000 shares of our common stock valued at $400,000 to
acquire
the remaining interest in a patent that had been assigned to us. This patent
was
part of the intellectual property that we sold during the nine months ended
September 30, 2006. This transaction is described in greater detail in Note
5.
4. Share-Based
Payments
Effective
January 1, 2006, the Company adopted FASB Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123R (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which requires that
the
compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized
in
financial statements based on the provisions of SFAS 123 issued in
1995.
The
Company recorded $204,800 in compensation expense in the nine months ended
September 30, 2007 related to options issued under its stock-based incentive
compensation plans. This includes expense related to both options issued
in the
current year and options issued in prior years for which the requisite service
period for those options includes the current year. The fair value of these
options was calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Information
related to the assumptions used in this model is set forth in the Company’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.
For
options issued in 2007, the same assumptions were used except that risk free
interest rates of 4.58% to 4.79% were used and annualized volatility rates
ranging from approximately 75% to 90% were used.
6
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
4. Share-Based
Payments (continued)
The
Company recorded $648,901 in compensation expense in the nine months ended
September 30, 2006 related to options issued under its stock-based incentive
compensation plans.
5. Gain
on Sale
of Intellectual Property and Other Assets
In
June
2006, our Electronic Billboard Technology, Inc. subsidiary sold all of its
intellectual property in two simultaneous transactions. We received a total
of
$1.5 million in cash, the right to future royalties, and an ownership interest
in a newly formed entity. One of the patents that we sold was a patent that
had
been assigned to us by Advanced Technology, Incubator, Inc. (“ATI”), a company
owned by Dr. Zvi Yaniv, our Chief Operating Officer. In order to acquire
the
remaining interest in the patent and settle all potential future obligations
to
ATI, we issued 200,000 shares of our common stock, valued at $400,000 to
ATI.
The gain of $1.1 million recorded in the financial statements resulted from
the
cash payment received of $1.5 million, less the $400,000 cost associated
with
the acquisition of the patent rights.
6. Contingencies
Litigation
In
addition to the two cases described below, the Company is a defendant in
minor
lawsuits described in greater detail in its 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.
The Company expects any potential eventual payment to have no material affect
on
the financial statements.
Canon
Litigation
In
April
2005, we filed suit against the Japanese camera and copier manufacturer Canon,
Inc., and its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Canon USA, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, seeking a declaratory
judgment that new SED color television products being developed
and manufactured by a Canon/Toshiba joint venture are not covered under a
non-exclusive 1999 patent license agreement that we granted to Canon.
We assert that the Canon/Toshiba joint-venture – SED, Inc. – is not a
licensed party under that agreement. The original complaint asserted
additional claims related to whether the Canon/Toshiba joint venture’s
television panels constituted excluded products under the 1999 license, as
well
as breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference
and
a Lanham Act violation by Canon. In Fall 2005, Canon moved to dismiss Canon
U.S.A. from the litigation, and moved to dismiss several of the counts
asserted. The court denied the motion, in part, by ruling that Canon
U.S.A. was an appropriate defendant and refusing to dismiss our claims for
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Our tortious
interference and Lanham Act claims were dismissed, without
prejudice.
After
initial discovery, in April 2006, we amended the complaint to drop one count
related to the definition of excluded products in the 1999 license, and add
two
counts for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent non-disclosure related to
events
and representations made during our negotiations on the license, and
leading up to and following the formation by Canon and Toshiba of their joint
venture effort, including Canon’s failure to disclose an ongoing relationship
with Toshiba and misrepresentations made to us about the joint venture’s
structure and operation. Canon moved to dismiss the fraud claims, and
the Court denied Canon’s motion in May 2006. Discovery was completed
in August 2006. Upon completion of discovery, Canon filed a motion for partial
summary judgment seeking to dismiss the claim that SED is not a licensed
party
under the agreement. Canon did not file a motion for summary judgment seeking
to
dismiss the other claims. In November 2006, the Court denied Canon’s partial
motion for summary judgment, describing SED, Inc. as a “corporate fiction
designed for the sole purpose of evading Canon’s contractual
obligations”.
7
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
6. Contingencies
(cont.)
In
January 2007, Canon filed another motion for partial summary judgment seeking
a
declaration that a reconstituted SED, Inc. which is purportedly owned 100%
by
Canon but which still involves numerous reciprocal agreements with Toshiba,
will
be considered a Canon subsidiary. At the same time, we filed a motion for
partial summary judgment, seeking the Court’s affirmation of our termination of
the license agreement due to Canon’s breach of contract in 2004. On February 22,
2007, the Court issued a ruling denying Canon’s motion and granting our motion
for partial summary judgment, ruling our termination of the contract effective
December 1, 2006, to be valid.
A
trial
on the case began on April 30, 2007 and a final judgment was entered in the
case
in May 2007. The final judgment reaffirmed Canon’s material breach of the patent
license, while awarding no additional damages. Following the verdict, Canon
filed a notice of intent to appeal, and we have done the same. Canon’s appellate
brief was filed in August 2007, and our appellate brief was filed in October
2007.
Keesmann
litigation
In
May
2006, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of
Illinois against Till Keesmann, a German citizen who in 2000 granted us an
exclusive and perpetual license to certain of his U.S. and European patents
in
carbon nanotube cathode technology. Shortly after we filed suit
against Canon in April 2005, Keesmann conveyed part of his interests in the
Exclusive License to investors associated with a German patent evaluation
firm,
IP Bewertungs AG (“IPB”). Thereafter, IPB approached us with
proposals to buy or auction our rights to Keesmann’s patents. On
March 20, 2006, we announced a letter of intent to form a joint venture with
a
leading Asian display manufacturer, Da Ling Co., Ltd., to develop display
products utilizing our intellectual property.
Two
days
later, Keesmann purported to terminate the exclusive license that he granted
to
us six years ago. Our May 2006 complaint seeks a declaratory judgment
that Keesmann had no right to terminate the exclusive license, and we also
filed
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to prevent Keesmann
from taking any actions inconsistent with his obligations under the exclusive
license. The Court granted a consent order that prevents Keesmann
from licensing the patents pending an injunction hearing and
decision. In June 2006, Keesmann filed an Answer and Counterclaim,
denying that the purported termination was null and void, and asserting a
counterclaim that asks the court to find that we breached the exclusive license
by not actively marketing the Keesmann patents, among other things.
We
amended our complaint in December 2006 to include additional defendants,
JK
Patentportfolio GmbH & Co., Jochen Kamlah, NPV Nano Patent GmbH & Co.,
and Arnold Amsinck. The amended complaint also contains additional claims
including breach of contract, conversion, aiding and abetting conversion,
conspiracy to commit conversion, misappropriation, aiding and abetting
misappropriation, conspiracy to commit conversion, Lanham Act violations,
tortious interference with a prospective economic relationship, aiding and
abetting tortious interference with a prospective economic relationship,
and
conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a prospective economic
relationship.
In
January 2007, the Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction, ruling
that there is a reasonable likelihood that we will prevail on the merits
of the
case. The preliminary injunction enjoins Keesmann, his agents, employees,
and
all those acting in concert with him from terminating the license agreement
for
the reasons asserted in the March 2006 default notice, or otherwise acting
in
violation of the license agreement. In connection with this injunction, the
Court set a surety bond, which is required by law, at $100,000. We posted
the
bond in February 2007. Days after the Court issued the injunction,
Keesmann again asserted a number of alleged defaults under the license. In
April
2007, we filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. The next status conference in the case is set for December
2007.
8
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
7. Business
Segments
Following
is information related to our business segments for the nine months ended
September 30, 2007 and 2006:
|
ANI
|
EBT
|
All
Other
|
Total
|
||||||||||||
2007
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
2,922,654
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
2,922,654
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Profit
(Loss)
|
(2,365,586 | ) | (1,298 | ) | (968,700 | ) | (3,335,584 | ) | ||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Expenditures
for
|
||||||||||||||||
long-lived
assets
|
51,470
|
-
|
-
|
51,470
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
2006
|
||||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
$ |
491,034
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
-
|
$ |
491,034
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Profit
(Loss)
|
(4,902,384 | ) |
933,720
|
(1,142,123 | ) | (5,110,787 | ) | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Expenditures
for
|
||||||||||||||||
long-lived
assets
|
65,082
|
-
|
-
|
65,082
|
8. Subsequent
Events
There
have been no subsequent events requiring disclosure through October 25,
2007.
9
ITEM
2: MANAGEMENT'S
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
The
following is management’s discussion and analysis of certain significant factors
that have affected our financial position and operating results during the
periods included in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements.
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
This
Form
10-Q contains certain forward-looking statements that we believe are within
the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which are intended to be covered by the
safe
harbors created by such acts. For this purpose, any statements that are not
statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements,
including the statements under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations" regarding our strategy, future
operations, future expectations or future estimates, financial position and
objectives of management. Those statements in this Form 10-Q containing the
words "believes," "anticipates," "plans," "expects" and similar expressions
constitute forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking
statements contain such identifying words. These forward-looking statements
are
based on our current expectations and are subject to a number of risks,
uncertainties and assumptions relating to our operations, results of operations,
competitive factors, shifts in market demand and other risks and
uncertainties.
Although
we believe that the assumptions underlying our forward-looking statements
are
reasonable, any of the assumptions could be inaccurate and actual results
may
differ from those indicated by the forward-looking statements included in
this
Form 10-Q. In light of the significant uncertainties inherent in the
forward-looking statements included in this Form 10-Q, you should not consider
the inclusion of such information as a representation by us or anyone else
that
we will achieve such results. Moreover, we assume no obligation to update
these
forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions
or
changes in other factors affecting such forward-looking statements.
Nine
months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006
OVERVIEW
We
are
primarily a nanotechnology company engaged in the development of proofs of
concepts of products and materials , and the performance of services based
principally on our intellectual property. During all periods presented, our
primary revenues were earned as a result of reimbursed research expenditures
at
our Applied Nanotech, Inc. (“ANI”) subsidiary. As more fully discussed in our
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, we expect
to
incur additional research and development expenses throughout 2007 in developing
our technology. We are focused on licensing our technology and obtaining
sufficient revenue to cover our ongoing research expenditures.
OUTLOOK
We
expect
our present cash balances, which are approximately $5.5 million as of the
date
of this filing, when combined with expected revenue sources, to enable us
to
operate for the foreseeable future. We have a plan to achieve
profitability in 2007, however that plan is now dependent a significant event,
such as settlement of existing litigation of signing of a license agreement
with
a significant up-front payment. At the present time, profitability for 2007
is
not considered probable. There can be no assurance that we will achieve
profitability, or even break-even, in the future. The mix of revenues received
could also cause the revenues required to reach break-even to increase. If
revenue producing projects require unanticipated expenses, or heavier than
anticipated use of outside services or materials, we may be unable to achieve
profitability at the expected level of revenues.
We
have
developed a plan to allow ourselves to maintain operations until we are able
to
sustain ourselves on our own revenue. Our plan is primarily dependent on
raising
funds through the licensing of our technology and reimbursed research contracts.
Our current cash, which is approximately $5.5 million as of the date of this
filing, when combined with expected revenues, is sufficient to allow us to
maintain operations for the foreseeable future. We expect additional revenue
producing projects or license agreements to be finalized during 2007. We
believe
that we have the ability to continue to raise funding, if necessary, to enable
us to continue operations until our plan can be completed.
10
ITEM
2: MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS (cont.)
This
plan
is based on current development plans, current operating plans, the current
regulatory environment, historical experience in the development of electronic
products and general economic conditions. Changes could occur which would
cause
certain assumptions on which this plan is based to be no longer valid. Although
we do not expect funding our operations to be a problem, if adequate funds
are
not available from operations, or additional sources of financing, we may
have
to eliminate, or reduce substantially, expenditures for research and
development, testing and production of our products, or obtain funds through
arrangements with other entities that may require us to relinquish rights
to
certain of our technologies or products. Such results would materially and
adversely affect us.
RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
In
March
2007, we signed an agreement with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. which gives Mitsui the
exclusive right to extend royalty bearing licenses on our behalf, to companies
headquartered in Japan. These licenses will allow the use of our carbon cold
cathode intellectual property for the manufacture of lighting devices such
as
backlights for LCDs. This agreement was extended in July 2007.
During
the quarter ended June 30, 2007, we signed an integrated sensor agreement
covering development, technology transfer fees upon completion of the
development process, and recurring license revenues once a product is
introduced. The development portion of this project started in the quarter
ended
September 30, 2007 and is expected to be completed by the end of
2007.
We
received two new Phase II SBIR contracts during the quarter ended September
30,
2007. The first contract in the amount of $749,947 was received in August
from
the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency (HSARPA) and was for
the
continued development of a “Dual Sensor Module for Human Detection.” The second
contract, received in September, in the amount of $996,973 was also from
HSARPA
and was for the continued development of a “Carbon Nanotube (CNT)-Based Gas
Ionizer to Replace Radioactive Sources.”
In
September 2007, as a result of our successful phase I project with a leading
chemical company based in Japan, we entered into a phase II project with
the
same company. The contract is for the development of conductive inks
and will result in a minimum of $635,000 in revenues over the next twelve
months.
RECENT
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
There
are
no recent accounting pronouncements that we have not implemented that are
expected to have a material impact on our financial statements.
FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY
Our
cash
position increased during the nine-month period. At September 30, 2007 we
had
cash and cash equivalents in the amount of $5,651,932 as compared with cash
and
cash equivalents of $2,085,338 at December 31, 2006. This increase in
cash is primarily the result of cash provided by financing activities, offset
by
cash used in operating activities.
We
had
cash flow from financing activities of approximately $6.3 million during
the
nine months ended September 30, 2007 (the “2007 Period”), as compared with cash
flow from financing activities of approximately $2.1 million during the nine
months ended September 30, 2006 (the “2006 Period”). The cash flow in both of
these periods resulted from the issuance of common stock. As described in
greater detail in the notes to the financial statements, we received net
proceeds of $2.1 million from the issuance of common stock related to private
placements during the 2006 Period and $6.0 million from private placements
during the 2007 Period. The remaining proceeds of approximately $300,000
from
stock issuance during the 2007 Period resulted from the exercise of stock
options.
Our
cash
used in operating activities increased from approximately $2.3 million in
the
2006 Period to approximately $2.7 million in the 2007 Period. This is primarily
the result of operating factors discussed below in the “Results of Operations”
section. A portion of these positive factors in 2007 were offset by the cash
provided by the increase in accounts payable during the 2006 Period. A
significant factor in the increased balance in accounts payable in both periods
is the payment arrangement that we have with our attorneys related to the
Keesman litigation. This is discussed in more detail below in the “Results of
Operations” section. We would expect our cash used in operating activities to
decrease in future quarters in 2007 as a result of increasing revenues, while
expenses remain relatively constant.
11
ITEM
2: MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS (cont.)
Cash
used
in investing activities in both periods was insignificant and we expect cash
used in investing activities to remain at relatively insignificant levels
for
the balance of 2007.
The
principal source of our liquidity has been funds received from exempt offerings
of common stock. Given our current cash balance, which is approximately $5.5
million, it is unlikely that we will need additional funds, however in the
event
that we do, we may seek to sell additional debt or equity securities. While
we
expect to be able to obtain any funds needed for operations, there can be
no
assurance that any of these financing alternatives can be arranged on
commercially acceptable terms. We believe that our success in reaching
profitability will be dependent on our patent portfolio and upon the viability
of products using our technology and their acceptance in the marketplace,
as
well as our ability to obtain additional debt or equity financings in the
future, if needed.
We
expect
to continue to incur substantial expenses for research and development
("R&D"), however we intend to seek funding, in the form of research
contracts, to offset as many of these expenses as possible. Further, we believe
that certain products that may be developed by potential licensees of our
technology may not be available for commercial sale or routine use for a
period
of one to two years. Others are expected to be available in 2008. While we
would
likely receive initial license payments, ongoing royalty streams related
to
those licenses will not be available until potential licensees have introduced
products using our technology. Therefore, it is possible that the
commercialization of our existing and proposed products may require additional
capital in excess of our current funding. We do, however, have a plan to
operate
profitably in 2008 based on the receipt of research funding and other revenues.
Achievement of at least break-even would enable us to continue our research
without seeking additional debt or equity financing in the future. Profitability
or break-even in 2007 is now dependent upon signing a license agreement with
a
significant up-front payment or the settlement of existing
litigation.
Because
the timing and receipt of revenues from the license or royalty agreements
will
be tied to the achievement of certain product development, testing and marketing
objectives, which cannot be predicted with certainty, there may be substantial
fluctuations in our results of operations. If revenues do not increase as
rapidly as anticipated, or if product development and testing require more
funding than anticipated, we may be required to curtail our operations or
seek
additional financing from other sources at some point in the future. The
combined effect of the foregoing may prevent us from achieving sustained
profitability for an extended period of time.
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Our
net
loss for the third quarter ended September 30, 2007 of $759,910 was reduced
from
the loss of $1,931,038 for the same period last year. Our net loss of $3,335,584
for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was also substantially lower
than
the loss of $5,110,787 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. This
decreased loss was the result of reasons set forth below. Absent a significant
positive event, we expect our loss in the fourth quarter of 2007 to be similar
to or less than that of the third quarter. In order to achieve break-even
or
profitability for the fourth quarter, we would need to sign a license agreement
with a significant up-front payment or receive proceeds from the settlement
of
existing litigation.
Our
revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 totaled $1,049,749 compared
to
$213,841 for the same quarter in 2006. For the nine-month period ended September
30, 2007, our revenues were $2,922,654 as compared with $491,034 for the
2006
Period, a substantial increase. The revenues in both periods were all from
ANI
and substantially all the result of reimbursed research expenditures. The
majority of revenues in the 2007 Period came from government contracts, whereas
the revenues in the 2006 Period came from a mixture of government, private,
and
other sources; however revenues increased substantially in all
categories.
We
have a
revenue backlog of approximately $3.4 million as of September 30, 2007, up
slightly from our backlog of $3.3 million as of September 30, 2006. We expect
our backlog to increase significantly by December 31, 2007. Our ability to
perform continued research, or fulfill our existing backlog, should not require
significant additional personnel; however, if our backlog increases as expected,
we will likely hire additional research personnel. We expect our revenue
to
continue to increase in future quarters as our backlog continues to
grow.
We
incurred research and development expenses of $3,207,932 in the 2007 Period,
which was higher than the amount of $2,616,767 incurred in the 2006 Period.
This
reflects a general increase in the level of our activity and the costs
associated with the new revenue producing projects. We expect research and
development expenditures to continue to gradually increase for the remainder
of
the year as additional new projects begin. Significant new revenue producing
research programs beyond those already identified could, however, cause research
and development expenditures to increase further.
12
ITEM
2: MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS (cont.)
Our
selling, general, and administrative expenses were $3,144,294 for the 2007
Period, compared with $4,092,463 for the 2006 Period – a decrease of
approximately $1.0 million. A significant portion of our selling, general,
and
administrative expenses in both periods related to litigation. We had litigation
related expenses of approximately $1.0 million in the 2007 Period and
approximately $1.55 million in the 2006 Period. The majority of the litigation
expense in the 2007 Period related to the Canon litigation and expenses
associated with the trial. The majority of the litigation expense in the
2006
Period related to the Keesmann litigation and activity associated with the
initial lawsuit and discovery. We expect litigation expenses to be low in
the
fourth quarter of 2007 as a result of the completion of the Canon trial and
a
relatively low level of expected activity in the Keesmann litigation. We
have a
modified fee arrangement with our attorneys related to the Keesmann litigation,
whereby the cumulative fees on the case are not payable until November 2007.
The
amount payable in November 2007 is slightly less than $1.4 million. We have
the
funds set aside for this payment and will continue to have a strong cash
position after the payment is made.
In
addition to this decrease in litigation expense, there were reductions in
other
areas. Our stock based compensation expense decreased from approximately
$350,000 in the 2006 Period to approximately $100,000 in the 2007 Period
as a
result of a combination of factors including fewer options granted, forfeiture
of partially vested options, changes in assumptions related to unvested options,
and options granted at lower stock prices, which results in a lower value
for
the options. In addition, our payroll and related expenses decreased from
approximately $1.0 million in the 2006 Period to approximately $900,000 in
the
2007 Period as a result of fewer administrative employees and other reduced
costs. We would expect our selling, general and administrative expenses in
the fourth quarter of 2007 to be equal to or lower than that of the
third quarter of 2007.
We
had a
gain of $1.1 million in the 2006 Period as a result of the sale of the
intellectual property of our Electronic Billboard Technology, Inc. subsidiary.
We received total cash proceeds of $1.5 million in the transaction, but that
was
partially offset by $400,000 of costs related to a portion of the intellectual
property sold. One of the patents sold by EBT was assigned to us by Advanced
Technology Incubator, Inc, a Company owned by our Chief Operating Officer,
Dr.
Zvi Yaniv. In order to acquire the remaining interest in the patent and settle
all potential future obligations to ATI, we issued 200,000 shares of our
common
stock, valued at $400,000 to ATI. We had no such gain in the 2007
Period.
Our
interest income is insignificant, but increased substantially during the
2007
Period. Our interest income results from the investment of excess funds in
short
term interest bearing instruments, primarily certificates of deposit, commercial
paper, and money market funds. The increase is a result of the increase in
funds
available for investment generated by the private placement that we completed
in
April 2007. We would expect our interest income to remain at current levels
for
the remainder of the year. Our interest expense was insignificant in both
periods and is expected to remain so for the balance of the year.
ITEM
3. QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES
ABOUT MARKET RISK
We
do not
use any derivative financial instruments for hedging, speculative, or trading
purposes. Our exposure to market risk is currently immaterial.
ITEM
4. CONTROLS AND
PROCEDURES
Under
the
supervision and with the participation of our management, including our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted
an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation 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 of the end of the period covered by this
report (the "Evaluation Date"). Based upon this evaluation, our principal
executive officer and principal financial officer concluded as of the Evaluation
Date that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective such that
the
material information required to the included in our Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") reports is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported
within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms relating to the
Company, including, our consolidated subsidiaries, and was made known to
them by
others within those entities, particularly during the period when this report
was being prepared.
In
addition, there were no significant changes in our internal controls or in
other
factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the
Evaluation Date. We have not identified any significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses in our internal controls, and therefore, there were no corrective
actions taken.
13
PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM
1. LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
Canon
Litigation
In
April
2005, we filed suit against the Japanese camera and copier manufacturer Canon,
Inc., and its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary Canon USA, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, seeking a declaratory
judgment that new SED color television products being developed
and manufactured by a Canon/Toshiba joint venture are not covered under a
non-exclusive 1999 patent license agreement that we granted to Canon.
We assert that the Canon/Toshiba joint-venture – SED, Inc. – is not a
licensed party under that agreement. The original complaint asserted
additional claims related to whether the Canon/Toshiba joint venture’s
television panels constituted excluded products under the 1999 license, as
well
as breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference
and
a Lanham Act violation by Canon. In Fall 2005, Canon moved to dismiss Canon
U.S.A. from the litigation, and moved to dismiss several of the counts
asserted. The court denied the motion, in part, by ruling that Canon
U.S.A. was an appropriate defendant and refusing to dismiss our claims for
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Our tortious
interference and Lanham Act claims were dismissed, without
prejudice.
After
initial discovery, in April 2006, we amended the complaint to drop one count
related to the definition of excluded products in the 1999 license, and add
two
counts for fraudulent inducement and fraudulent non-disclosure related to
events
and representations made during our negotiations on the license, and
leading up to and following the formation by Canon and Toshiba of their joint
venture effort, including Canon’s failure to disclose an ongoing relationship
with Toshiba and misrepresentations made to us about the joint venture’s
structure and operation. Canon moved to dismiss the fraud claims, and
the Court denied Canon’s motion in May 2006. The suit proceeded under
the amended complaint. Discovery was completed in August 2006. Upon completion
of discovery, Canon filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss
the
claim that SED is not a licensed party under the agreement. Canon did not
file a
motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss either of the fraud claims
or the
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In November 2006, the
Court
denied Canon’s partial motion for summary judgment, describing SED, Inc. as a
“corporate fiction designed for the sole purpose of evading Canon’s contractual
obligations”.
In
January 2007, Canon filed another motion for partial summary judgment seeking
a
declaration that a reconstituted SED, Inc. which is purportedly owned 100%
by
Canon but still involving numerous reciprocal agreements with Toshiba, will
be
considered a Canon subsidiary. At the same time, we filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, seeking the Court’s affirmation of our termination of the
license agreement due to Canon’s breach of contract in 2004. On February 22,
2007, the Court issued a ruling denying Canon’s motion and granting our motion
for partial summary judgment, ruling our termination of the contract effective
December 1, 2006, to be valid.
A
trial
on the case began on April 30, 2007 and a final judgment was entered in the
case
in May 2007. The final judgment reaffirmed Canon’s material breach of the patent
license, while awarding no additional damages. Following the verdict, Canon
filed a notice of intent to appeal, and we have done the same. Canon’s appellate
brief was filed in August 2007, and our initial appellate brief was filed
in
October 2007.
Keesmann
litigation
In
May
2006, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of
Illinois against Till Keesmann, a German citizen who in 2000 granted us an
exclusive and perpetual license to certain of his U.S. and European patents
in
carbon nanotube cathode technology. Shortly after we filed suit
against Canon in April 2005, Keesmann conveyed part of his interests in the
Exclusive License to investors associated with a German patent evaluation
firm,
IP Bewertungs AG (“IPB”). Thereafter, IPB approached us with
proposals to buy or auction our rights to Keesmann’s patents. On
March 20, 2006, we announced a letter of intent to form a joint venture with
a
leading Asian display manufacturer, Da Ling Co., Ltd., to develop display
products utilizing our intellectual property.
Two
days
later, Keesmann purported to terminate the exclusive license that he granted
to
us six years ago. Our May 2006 complaint seeks a declaratory judgment
that Keesmann had no right to terminate the exclusive license, and we also
filed
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to prevent Keesmann
from taking any actions inconsistent with his obligations under the exclusive
license. The Court granted a consent order that prevents Keesmann
from licensing the patents pending an injunction hearing and
decision. In June 2006, Keesmann filed an Answer and Counterclaim,
denying that the purported termination was null and void, and asserting a
counterclaim that asks the court to find that we breached the exclusive license
by not actively marketing the Keesmann patents, among other things.
14
We
amended our complaint in December 2006 to include additional defendants,
JK
Patentportfolio GmbH & Co., Jochen Kamlah, NPV Nano Patent GmbH & Co.,
and Arnold Amsinck. The amended complaint also contains additional claims
including breach of contract, conversion, aiding and abetting conversion,
conspiracy to commit conversion, misappropriation, aiding and abetting
misappropriation, conspiracy to commit conversion, Lanham Act violations,
tortious interference with a prospective economic relationship, aiding and
abetting tortious interference with a prospective economic relationship,
and
conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a prospective economic
relationship.
In
January 2007, the Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction, ruling
that there is a reasonable likelihood that we will prevail on the merits
of the
case. The preliminary injunction enjoins Keesmann, his agents, employees,
and
all those acting in concert with him from terminating the license agreement
for
the reasons asserted in the March 2006 default notice, or otherwise acting
in
violation of the license agreement. In connection with this injunction, the
Court set a surety bond, which is required by law, at $100,000. We posted
the
bond in February 2007. Days after the Court issued the injunction,
Keesmann again asserted a number of alleged defaults under the license. In
April
2007, we filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. The next status conference in the case is set for December
2007.
ITEM
4. SUBMISSION
OF
MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY-HOLDERS
On
September 11, 2007 the Company held
its 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The following items were presented
to a
vote of the holders (the “Shareholders”) of the Company’s issued and outstanding
Common Stock:
(1)
|
Election
of Directors.
|
(2)
|
To
approve a proposal to amend the Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation to eliminate the classification of the Board of
Directors.
|
(3)
|
To
approve a proposal to amend the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws to
eliminate the classification of the Board of
Directors.
|
(4)
|
To
approve a proposal to amend the Company’s Amended and Restated 2002 Equity
Compensation Plan to increase the number of shares authorized by
such plan
by 2,000,000 shares to 10,000,000,
shares.
|
(5)
|
To
ratify the appointment of Sprouse & Anderson, LLP as the Company’s
independent public accountants for the fiscal year ending December
31,
2007.
|
The
number of votes cast for each of
the above is summarized in the table below. All numbers in the table below
represent shares of Common Stock or the voting equivalent thereof:
Item Submitted to Shareholders |
For
|
Against
|
Abstain
|
Non-Votes
|
Total
|
(1)
Election of Directors
|
|||||
Election
of Bradford S. Lamb
|
91,232,770
|
589,630
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Howard Westerman
|
91,247,170
|
585,190
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Douglas P. Baker
|
91,239,780
|
592,580
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Dr. Robert Ronstadt
|
91,270,370
|
561,990
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Dr. Zvi Yaniv
|
91,248,645
|
583,715
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Dr. Tracy Bramlett
|
91,253,830
|
578,530
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Ronald J. Berman
|
91,161,055
|
671,305
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Patrick V. Stark
|
91,265,970
|
566,390
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
Election
of Thomas F. Bijou
|
91,237,205
|
595,155
|
0
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
(2)
Approval of Elimination of
|
|
|
|
||
Classified
Board of Directors
|
89,985,687
|
1,564,375
|
282,296
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
(3)
Approval of Elimination of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified
Board of Directors
|
90,009,127
|
1,557,174
|
266,058
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
(2)
Approval of Amended 2002
|
|
||||
Equity
Compensation Plan
|
29,136,581
|
4,649,743
|
771,556
|
57,274,480
|
91,832,360
|
(3)
Ratification of Sprouse & Anderson,
|
|
||||
LLP
as auditors
|
91,314,967
|
371,253
|
146,138
|
0
|
91,832,360
|
15
ITEM
6. EXHIBITS
Exhibits:
See Index to Exhibits on page 18 for a descriptive response to this
item.
16
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant
has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
thereunto duly authorized.
|
NANO-PROPRIETARY,
INC.
(Registrant)
|
|
|
Date: October
30, 2007
|
/s/
Thomas F. Bijou
Thomas
F. Bijou
Chief
Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
|
Date: October
30, 2007
|
/s/
Douglas P.
Baker
Douglas
P. Baker
Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal
Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting
Officer)
|
17
INDEX
TO
EXHIBITS
The
following documents are filed as part of this Report:
Exhibit
|
|
11
|
Computation
of (Loss) Per Common Share
|
|
|
31.1
|
Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certificate of Thomas F. Bijou
|
|
|
31.2
|
Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certificate of Douglas P. Baker
|
|
|
32.1
|
Section
1350 Certificate of Thomas F. Bijou
|
|
|
32.2
|
Section
1350 Certificate of Douglas P.
Baker
|
18