Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2016 July (Form 10-Q)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q     

(Mark One)

For the Quarterly Period Ended July 31, 2016

Or

For the Transition Period From                      to                     

Commission file number: 001-33417

OCEAN POWER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

1590 REED ROAD, PENNINGTON, NJ 08534

(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)

(609) 730-0400

(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. Yes ☑ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☑ No ☐

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 the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☑

As of August 31, 2016, the number of outstanding shares of common stock of the registrant was 3,161,942.

OCEAN POWER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
INDEX TO FORM 10-Q
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 2016

PowerBuoy^® is a registered trademark of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and the Ocean Power Technologies logo is a trademark of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. All other trademarks appearing in this report are the property of their respective holders.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

We have made statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements convey our current expectations or forecasts of future events. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, pending, threatened, and current litigation, liquidity, budgets, projected costs, plans and objectives of management for future operations. The words "may," "continue," "estimate," "intend," "plan," "will," "believe," "project," "expect," "anticipate", “goal” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking.

The forward-looking statements contained in or incorporated by reference are largely based on our expectations, which reflect estimates and assumptions made by our management. These estimates and assumptions reflect our best judgment based on currently known market conditions and other factors. Although we believe such estimates and assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently uncertain and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are beyond our control, including:

Any or all of our forward-looking statements in this report may turn out to be inaccurate. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. They may be affected by inaccurate assumptions we might make or unknown risks and uncertainties, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions described in Item 1A "Risk Factors" of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2016 and elsewhere in this report. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this report may not occur as contemplated and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. These factors are not intended to represent a complete list of the general or specific factors that may affect us. You should not unduly rely on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this filing. Unless required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect new information or future events or otherwise.

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

⁽¹⁾ Common Stock and share data at July 31, 2015, has been adjusted retroactively to reflect a 1-for-10 reverse stock split effective October 27, 2015.

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Some of the information contained in this management’s discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Form 10-Q, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, pending and threatened litigation and our liquidity includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should review the "Risk Factors" section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2016 for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis. References to a fiscal year in this Form 10-Q refer to the year ended April 30 of that year (e.g., fiscal 2016 refers to the year ended April 30, 2016).

Overview

Nearly 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, with over 40% of the world’s population living within approximately 150 miles of a coast. Thousands of information gathering and/or power systems are deployed in the oceans today to increase understanding of weather, climate change, biological processes, and marine mammal patterns and to support exploration and operations for industries such as oil and gas. Most of these systems are powered by battery, solar, wind, fuel cell, or fossil fuel generators that are expensive to operate while also limited in their electric power delivery. These incumbent systems often require significant tradeoffs in sensor accuracy, data processing and communications bandwidth and frequency in order to operate with available power. More persistent power systems requiring less maintenance, like our systems, may have the ability to save costs over current operating systems. Just as importantly, increases in available power may allow for better sensors and shorter data sampling and communication intervals up to real-time which could as a result improve scientific and economic returns.

Incorporated in 1984 and headquartered in Pennington, New Jersey, we believe we are the leader in ocean wave power. We are developing and seeking to commercialize our proprietary systems that generate electricity by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves. Our PowerBuoys use proprietary technologies that convert the mechanical energy created by the heaving motion of ocean waves into electricity. We currently have designed and continue to develop our PowerBuoy product line which is based on modular, ocean-going buoys, which we have been periodically ocean testing since 1997.

We have designed our autonomous PowerBuoy to generate power for use in remote locations, independent of an existing power grid. Our current PowerBuoy product, the PB3, incorporates a unique power take-off (“PTO”) and onboard system for energy storage and management, and is significantly smaller than our previous iteration utility-scale PowerBuoy. We are continuing to develop and test our PowerBuoys, which we believe could be utilized in a variety of applications.

Our PB3 PowerBuoy design leverages portions of earlier features that we do not believe require further validation prior to implementation in our current products. Currently, our product development and engineering efforts are focusing primarily on developing technologies that will increase the energy output and reliability of our product through design scalability to maintain quality and speed time to our targeted markets. Our marketing and development efforts are targeting applications that require reliable, persistent, and sustainable power sources operating independently of the utility grid, either by supplying electric power to payloads that are integrated directly in our PowerBuoy or located in its vicinity including on the seabed.

Based on our market research and available public data, management believes that there is the potential for us to pursue business opportunities in multiple markets that would have a direct need for our PowerBuoys including oil and gas, ocean observing, defense and security, communications, and offshore wind. Depending on power needs, sensor types and other considerations, we believe our PowerBuoy could have the ability to satisfy several application requirements within these markets. We believe that the PB3 generates sufficient persistent power to meet the application needs of many of the potential customers within our target markets. We are continuing our development efforts to increase the energy output of the PowerBuoy to generate more power required for other applications within these markets.

Since fiscal 2002, government agencies have accounted for a significant portion of our revenues. These revenues were largely for the support of our development efforts relating to our technology and development of our PowerBuoys. Our goal is that an increased portion of our revenues be from the sale or lease of our products and sales of services, as compared to revenue from grants to support our business operations. As we continue to develop and commercialize our products, we expect to have a net loss of cash from operating activities unless and until we achieve positive cash flow from the commercialization of our products and services. During fiscal 2015 and 2016, we continued work on projects with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”), and Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (“MES”), with whom we signed our first commercial leasing agreement in May 2016, and we continued our efforts to increase the reliability and power output of our PowerBuoys.

Product Development

The development of our technology has been funded by capital we raised and by development engineering contracts we received starting in fiscal 1995, including projects with the DOE, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Homeland Security and MES.

Through these historic projects, we also continued development of our PowerBuoy technology as well as our next generation PowerBuoy technology. We are continuing to focus on developing and commercializing our PowerBuoy products and services for use in autonomous power applications.

During fiscal 2016, we continued work under our contract with the DOE and continued to implement the strategic pivot in our business plan initiated in fiscal 2015, focusing on the autonomous applications markets. Our contract with the DOE was for development efforts that focused on further optimization of our modular PTO technology. In March 2015, we successfully completed a stage gate review during which the DOE reviewed advancements related to PTO design aspects such as reliability, cost take out, manufacturability and scalability and completed the final stage of the contract during fiscal 2016. We also deployed the PB40 PowerBuoy off the coast of New Jersey in late July 2015 and subsequently retrieved it approximately three weeks later. We were permitted to operate the PB40 at this location for a period of up to one year, but retrieved the PB40 sooner than expected to repair a component part. Although the PB40 produced power throughout its deployment period, it began reporting unexpected performance data. This performance data indicated likely failures of components associated with the float braking system which would be activated during severe storm periods in order to prevent damage to the float. As a result, we retrieved the PB40 to avoid potential physical damage to the buoy structure in the event of a severe storm. During the limited deployment period, we were able to obtain performance data, which we can use to further understand the PB40’s system performance and power generation in varying wave states to further validate some of our proprietary design and analysis tools. In addition, we were also able to use the deployment and retrieval of the PB40, 30 miles off of the coast of New Jersey, to validate our logistical processes associated with permitting, staging, towing and installation of the PB40 at its moored location. Because the PB40 is a legacy utility prototype device, we do not consider it to be a critical part of our current business plan focusing on the autonomous applications market. Based on our review to date, we currently believe that the failed components are unique to the PB40, and therefore, we do not believe that these component failures will materially impact the functionality of any of our other autonomous PowerBuoys. Costs associated with the retrieval of the PB40 buoy were reflected in our product development expenses. The PB40 was subsequently dismantled and disposed of. Upon completion of our allowed site usage period in the quarter ended July 31, 2016, estimated costs related to the retrieval of the moorings were recognized as product development expenses. We retained sections of the PB40 and intend to investigate, analyze and asses the component failures of the PB40.

We also deployed our PB3-A1 PowerBuoy off the coast of New Jersey in August 2015. The PB3-A1 contains an improved PTO system compared to the APB350 that was deployed in 2011 in connection with the U.S. Navy's LEAP Program and then redeployed in 2013 in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The PB3-A1 features an advanced PTO design with a focus on improved reliability, manufacturability, and efficiency, while also driving cost effectiveness. In its final configuration, the PB3 uses a modular ESS to provide continuous power to the payload even when the PowerBuoy is not generating new power due to calm sea states. In a calm sea state (i.e., no waves to generate power), we believe the ESS will have enough storage capacity to provide up to seven days of continuous power (or longer, depending on payload, continuous power rating and on-board modular ESS configuration) to the majority of ocean sensors when starting from a fully charged state. When the PB3 is deployed in the ocean, real-time or near real-time performance and weather data is collected and transmitted to the Company’s monitoring and analysis center at its corporate headquarters in Pennington, NJ. Subsequent to its initial August deployment, the PB3-A1 was retrieved for maintenance and repairs and redeployed in October 2015. In January 2016, we again retrieved the PB3 for additional maintenance and repair. Costs related to the retrieval are reflected in our product development costs. After repair and upgrades, we redeployed the PB3-A1 in June 2016.

In March 2016, we announced a rebranding of our PowerBuoy systems as part of our commercialization efforts and to closely align our PowerBuoy products with the perceived best practices of analogous industries based on power generation and on-board energy storage capabilities. Under our new naming conventions, our current PowerBuoy is referred to as the “PB3,” corresponding to “PowerBuoy with a peak power rating of three kilowatts.” This naming convention is based upon the ideal yet achievable ocean conditions that would result in a net AC peak power delivered by the PB3 PowerBuoy to a payload over a 20-minute period after converting the incoming wave energy into useful AC electricity. References on our website, and in our SEC filings and this Quarterly Report to the “APB350” refers to earlier prototype PowerBuoys containing earlier generation PTOs and other earlier technologies.

We also are continuing to develop solutions seeking to improve our products’ durability and reliability and to reduce their cost. For example, the original APB350 utilized a rack and pinion PTO and successfully powered U.S. Navy and U.S. Homeland Security equipment off the coast of New Jersey for nearly three months. The redesigned PB3 leverages our knowledge base from that design to incorporate new design features which we believe will improve its reliability and efficiency, including a redesigned PTO and a higher efficiency and higher voltage energy storage system. In July 2016, we deployed our first commercial PB3 PowerBuoy, approximately four miles off of the coast of New Jersey. The Company currently anticipates that this deployment will be the final validation of the PB3 prior to the anticipated March 2017 start of the six-month lease of the PB3 PowerBuoy under a previously announced customer agreement.

The PB3 has undergone a design iteration from our immediate prior design focusing on improving its reliability and survivability in the anticipated operating ocean environment, and will continue to undergo further enhancements through customary product life cycle management. The PB3-A1 was an initial prototype that has now undergone in-ocean and accelerated life testing, and we believe that the PB3 will achieve a maturity level for use by early adopters in fiscal 2017, but we are in the early stages of seeking to commercialize our product and we cannot assure you that we will be successful in our efforts to do so. We believe that the PB3 will generate and store sufficient power to address some application requirements in our target markets. Our product development and engineering efforts are focused, in part, on increasing the energy output and efficiency of our PowerBuoys and, if we are able to do so, we believe the PowerBuoy would be useful for additional applications where cost savings and additional power are required by our potential customers. We have only begun to explore opportunities in these target markets, and we have not yet developed any product offerings in these potential markets. We believe that by increasing the energy output of our PowerBuoys we may be able to address larger segments of our target markets. By improving our design and manufacturing, we also seek to reduce the cost of our PowerBuoys through further design iterations and manufacturing ramp-up. In so doing, we seek to improve customer value, displace more incumbent solutions, and become a viable power source for additional applications in our target market segments.

Commercial Activities

We are seeking to develop strategic alliances with other companies that have developed or are developing in-ocean applications requiring a persistent source of power to address identified needs of potential customers. As announced in October 2015, we signed a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with Gardline Environmental, Ltd. to jointly investigate innovative metocean monitoring and maritime security systems for prospective customers using both companies’ technologies. The MOU can be terminated by either party, and each party will bear its own respective costs associated with the MOU.

During the three months ended July 31, 2016, we deployed the PB3-A1 PowerBuoy and deployed the commercial PB3 PowerBuoy. The PB3-A1 included a payload from the National Data Buoy Center (“NBDC”), under a cooperative research and development agreement (“CRADA”) to conduct ocean demonstrations of its innovative Self-Contained Ocean Observing Payload (“SCOOP”) monitoring system. We integrated the SCOOP onto our PB3 PowerBuoy and, in June 2016, we deployed the system off of the coast of New Jersey. The SCOOP is powered by the PB3-A1, and is providing metocean data to us and to NDBC. We expect this deployment to continue for approximately three months before retrieval of the PB3-A1.

On May 31, 2016, we entered into a contract with MES totaling $975,587, a portion of which was performed in fiscal 2016 as agreed under a Letter of Intent signed in March 2016. The contract with MES included certain engineering and other services, and a six-month lease of our PB3 PowerBuoy, commencing in March 2017, and extending through August 2017.

During the three months ended July 31, 2016, we also entered into a memorandum of agreement (“MOA”) with the Wildlife Conservation Society (“WCS”) to explore the use of our PowerBuoys in conjunction with ocean life monitoring sensors to collect ocean mammal migration data. We also progressed discussions with our Technical Advisory Panel members and conducted business development meetings and other activities with potential customers and business partners. The WCS sensor is attached to the PB3-A1 and is being used to assess whether the PB3 could ultimately be used to provide power to WCS’ sensors, transmit data, and provide real-time data communication for acoustic monitoring of the movements of marine wildlife in certain waters. We also continued our accelerated life testing to validate the reliability, and durability of our PowerBuoys.

Capital Raise

In October 2015, we entered into an At the Market Offering Agreement (the “2015 Offering Agreement”) with Rodman & Renshaw, a unit of H. C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (“H. C. Wainwright”) under which we offered shares of our common stock, from time to time through or to the H. C. Wainwright, acting as sales agent and/or principal, (the “2015 ATM Offering”). Under the 2015 Offering Agreement, during the year ended April 30, 2016, we sold 144,571 shares of Common Stock with an aggregate market value of $293,343 under the Offering Agreement and paid the H. C. Wainwright a sales commission of approximately $4,400 related to those shares.

On June 2, 2016, we entered into a securities purchase agreement, which was amended on June 7, 2016 (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”) with certain institutional purchasers (the “June Purchasers”). Pursuant to the terms of the June Purchase Agreement, we sold an aggregate of 417,000 shares of Common Stock together with warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 145,952 shares of Common Stock. Each share of Common Stock was sold together with a warrant to purchase 0.35 of a share of Common Stock at a combined purchase price of $4.60. The net proceeds to the Company from the offering were approximately $1.7 million, after deducting placement agent fees and estimated offering expenses payable by the Company, but excluding the proceeds, if any, from the exercise of the warrants issued in the offering. The warrants have an exercise price of $6.08 per share, will be exercisable on the date that is six months and one day from the date of issuance (“Initial Exercise Date”), and will expire five years following the Initial Exercise Date. 

On July 22, 2016, we entered into the Second Amendment to the Purchase Agreement (the “Second Amended Purchase Agreement”) with certain purchasers (the “July Purchasers”). Pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended Purchase Agreement, we sold an aggregate of 595,000 shares of Common Stock together with warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 178,500 shares of Common Stock. Each share of Common Stock was sold together with a warrant to purchase 0.30 of a share of Common Stock at a combined purchase price of $6.75. The net proceeds to the Company from the offering were approximately $3.6 million, after deducting placement agent fees and estimated offering expenses payable by the Company, but excluding the proceeds, if any, from the exercise of the warrants issued in the offering. The Warrants will be exercisable immediately at an exercise price of $9.36 per share. The Warrants will expire on the fifth (5th) anniversary of the initial date of issuance.

The sale of additional equity or convertible securities could result in dilution to our stockholders. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of debt securities or preferred stock, these securities could have rights senior to those associated with our common stock and could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. We do not have any committed sources of debt or equity financing and we cannot assure you that financing will be available in amounts or on terms acceptable to us when needed, or at all. If we are unable to obtain required financing when needed, we may be required to reduce the scope of our operations, including our planned product development and marketing efforts, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. If we are unable to secure additional financing, we may be forced to cease our operations.

Backlog

As of July 31, 2016 our backlog was approximately $0.7 million and on April 30, 2016, our backlog was negligible.

Our backlog can include both funded amounts, which are unfilled firm orders for our products and services for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer (U.S. Congress, in the case of U.S. Government agencies), and unfunded amounts, which are unfilled firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated. If any of our contracts were to be terminated, our backlog would be reduced by the expected value of the remaining terms of such contract. Our backlog was fully funded at July 31, 2016.

The amount of contract backlog is not necessarily indicative of future revenue because modifications to, or terminations of present contracts and production delays can provide additional revenue or reduce anticipated revenue. A substantial portion of our revenue has been for the support of our product development efforts. These revenues are recognized using the percentage-of-completion method, and changes in estimates from time to time may have a significant effect on revenue and backlog. Our backlog is also typically subject to large variations from time to time due to the timing of new awards.

Business Strategy

As part of our strategic pivot in operations initiated in fiscal 2015, we are currently focused on developing and commercializing our PowerBuoy products and services for use in autonomous power applications. Generally, these applications are independent of the power grid and are located in remote offshore locations. We have incorporated our prior knowledge and best practices into our product design and validation processes, some of which were gained during the development of utility scale buoys. Based on market research and available public data, we believe considerable business opportunity could exist in markets which require autonomous offshore power.

Our business strategy is to commercialize our autonomous PowerBuoy products. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing the following business objectives:

Going Concern

Our financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. We have experienced substantial and recurring losses from operations, which losses have caused an accumulated deficit of $181.7 million at July 31, 2016. At July 31, 2016, we have approximately $9.0 million in cash on hand. We generated revenues of $0.2 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Based on the Company’s cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities balances as of July 31, 2016, the Company believes that it will be able to finance its capital requirements and operations into at least the quarter ending April 30, 2017. The report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our consolidated financial statements filed with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2016, contains an explanatory paragraph regarding our ability to continue as a going concern, based on, among other factors, that our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon our ability to raise additional external capital and increase revenues. These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in our efforts to generate revenues, become profitable, raise additional outside capital or to continue as a going concern. If we are not successful in our efforts to raise additional capital sufficient to support our operations, we would be forced to cease operations, in which event investors would lose their entire investment in our company.

Financial Operations Overview

The following describes certain line items in our statement of operations and some of the factors that affect our operating results.

Revenues

Generally, we recognize revenue using the percentage-of-completion method based on the ratio of costs incurred to total estimated costs at completion. In certain circumstances, revenue under contracts that have specified milestones or other performance criteria may be recognized only when our customer acknowledges that such criteria have been satisfied. In addition, recognition of revenue (and the related costs) may be deferred for fixed price contracts until contract completion if we are unable to reasonably estimate the total costs of the project prior to completion. Some revenue contracts may contain complex criteria or uncertainty surrounding the terms of performance and customer acceptance. These contracts are subject to interpretation, and management may make a judgment as to the amount of revenue earned and recorded. Because we have a small number of contracts, revisions to the percentage-of-completion determination, management interpretation or delays in meeting performance and contractual criteria or in completing projects may have a significant effect on our revenue for the periods involved. Upon anticipating a loss on a contract, we recognize the full amount of the anticipated loss in the current period.

Generally, our contracts are either cost plus or fixed price contracts. Under cost plus contracts, we bill the customer for actual expenses incurred plus an agreed-upon fee. Revenue is typically recorded using the percentage-of-completion method based on the maximum awarded contract amount. In certain cases, we may choose to incur costs in excess of the maximum awarded contract amounts resulting in a loss on the contract. Currently, we have two types of fixed price contracts, firm fixed price and cost-sharing. Under firm fixed price contracts, we receive an agreed-upon amount for providing product development and services that are specified in the contract. Revenue is typically recorded using the percentage-of-completion method based on the contract amount. Depending on whether actual costs are more or less than the agreed-upon amount, there is a profit or loss on the project. Under cost-sharing contracts, the fixed amount agreed upon with the customer is only intended to fund a portion of the costs on a specific project. We fund the remainder of the costs as part of our product development efforts. Revenue is typically recorded using the percentage-of-completion method based on the amount agreed upon with the customer. An amount corresponding to the revenue is recorded in cost of revenues resulting in gross profit on these contracts of zero. Our share of the costs is recorded as product development expense. Some of our revenue for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015 was from cost-sharing contracts.

The following table provides information regarding the breakdown of our revenues by customer for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015:

We currently focus our sales and marketing efforts on North America, Europe, Australia and Japan. The following table shows the percentage of our revenues by geographical location of our customers for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015:

Cost of revenues

Our cost of revenues consists primarily of incurred material, labor and manufacturing overhead expenses, such as engineering expense, equipment depreciation and maintenance and facility related expenses, and includes the cost of PowerBuoy parts and services supplied by third-party suppliers. Cost of revenues also includes PowerBuoy system delivery and deployment expenses and may include anticipated losses at completion on certain contracts.

Our revenue recorded for the three months ended July 31, 2015 included revenue generated from cost-sharing contracts, which result in zero gross profit.

Our ability to generate a gross profit will depend on the nature of future contracts, our success at generating revenues through sales or leases of our PowerBuoy systems, the nature of our contracts generating revenues to fund our product development efforts, and our ability to manage costs incurred on fixed price commercial contracts.

Product development costs

Our product development costs consist of salaries and other personnel-related costs and the costs of products, materials and outside services used in our product development and unfunded research activities. Our product development costs relate primarily to our efforts to increase the power output and reliability of our PowerBuoy system, and to development of new products, product applications and complementary technologies. We expense all of our product development costs as incurred. Over the next several years, it is our goal to fund the majority of our product development efforts with sources from commercial relationships, including cost-sharing agreements. If we are unable to obtain commercial relationships or cost-sharing arrangements, we may be forced to curtail our development expenses and scope to reduce our overall expenses. We recently narrowed our development focus to the PB3 to drive toward commercialization of that product and to reduce our overall expenses. In the future, we also may continue to develop the PB15 (formerly known as PB10) if we determine that future relationships warrant incurring the costs associated with such product development.

Selling, general and administrative costs

Our selling, general and administrative costs consist primarily of professional fees, salaries and other personnel-related costs for employees and consultants engaged in sales and marketing and support of our PowerBuoy systems and costs for executive, accounting and administrative personnel, professional fees and other general corporate expenses.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The fair value of our financial instruments reflects the amounts that would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price).

Our financial instruments not required to be adjusted to fair value on a recurring basis consist principally of cash and restricted cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued expenses. We believe the carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value due to their relatively short maturities.

Interest income (expense), net

Interest income consists of interest received on cash and cash equivalents, investments in commercial bank-issued certificates of deposit and US Treasury bills and notes and interest expense paid on certain obligations to third parties. Total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities were $9.4 million as of July 31, 2016, compared to $14.7 million as of July 31, 2015.

We anticipate that our interest income reported in fiscal 2017 will continue to be lower than the comparable periods of the prior fiscal year as a result of the decrease in invested cash.

Foreign exchange gain (loss)

We transact business in various countries and have exposure to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Foreign exchange gains and losses arise in the translation of foreign-denominated assets and liabilities, which may result in realized and unrealized gains or losses from exchange rate fluctuations. Since we conduct our business in US dollars and our functional currency is the US dollar, our main foreign exchange exposure, if any, results from changes in the exchange rate between the US dollar and the British pound sterling, the Euro and the Australian dollar. Due to the macroeconomic pressures in certain European countries, foreign exchange rates may become more volatile in the future.

We may invest our foreign cash reserves in certificates of deposit and we maintain cash accounts that are denominated in British pounds sterling, Euros and Australian dollars. These foreign-denominated certificates of deposit and cash accounts had a balance of $1.2 million as of July 31, 2016 and $1.4 million as of July 31, 2015, compared to our total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities balances of $9.4 million as of July 31, 2016 and $14.7 million as of July 31, 2015. These foreign currency balances are translated at each month end to our functional currency, the US dollar, and any resulting gain or loss is recognized in our results of operations.

In addition, a portion of our operations is conducted through our subsidiaries in countries other than the United States, specifically Ocean Power Technologies Ltd. in the United Kingdom, the functional currency of which is the British pound sterling, and Ocean Power Technologies (Australasia) Pty Ltd. in Australia, the functional currency of which is the Australian dollar. Both of these subsidiaries have foreign exchange exposure that results from changes in the exchange rate between their functional currency and other foreign currencies in which they conduct business.

We currently do not hedge our exchange rate exposure. However, we assess the anticipated foreign currency working capital requirements and capital asset acquisitions of our foreign operations and attempt to maintain a portion of our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities denominated in foreign currencies sufficient to satisfy these anticipated requirements. We also assess the need and cost to utilize financial instruments to hedge currency exposures on an ongoing basis and may hedge against exchange rate exposure in the future.

Results of Operations

Three Months Ended July 31, 2016 Compared to Three Months Ended July 31, 2015

The following table contains selected statement of operations information, which serves as the basis of the discussion of our results of operations for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015:

Revenues

Revenues increased by $0.1 million, or 92%, to $0.2 million in the three months ended July 31, 2016, as compared to $0.1 million in the three months ended July 31, 2015. The increase in revenue is related to our MES agreement, announced in June 2016, compared to the billable work under our prior contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Cost of revenues

Cost of revenues increased by approximately $22,000, or 20%, to approximately $127,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2016, as compared to $105,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2015. The increase in cost of revenue is related to our MES agreement, announced in June 2016, compared to the billable work under our prior contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Our revenue in the three month period ended July 31, 2015 includes revenue under cost-sharing contracts. Under cost-sharing contracts, we receive a fixed amount agreed upon with the customer that is only intended to fund a portion of the costs on a specific project. We fund the remainder of the costs primarily as part of our product development efforts. Revenue is typically recorded using the percentage-of-completion method applied to the contractual amount agreed upon with the customer. An equal amount corresponding to the revenue is recorded in cost of revenues resulting in gross profit on these contracts of zero. Our share of the costs is considered to be product development expense. Our ability to generate a gross profit will depend on the nature of future contracts, our success at increasing sales of our PowerBuoy systems and on our ability to manage costs incurred on our fixed price contracts.

Product development costs

Product development costs decreased by $0.9 million, or 34%, to $1.6 million in the three months ended July 31, 2016, as compared to $2.5 million in the three months ended July 31, 2015. For the three months ended July 31, 2016 product development costs reflect the redeployment of the PB3-A1, the deployment of the commercial design PB3 PowerBuoy and estimated costs related to the retrieval of the PB40 moorings. For the three months ended July 31, 2015 product development costs reflected costs related to deployment of the legacy PB40 utility scale Powerbuoy, as well as costs related to the redesigned commercial PB3.

Selling, general and administrative costs

Selling, general and administrative costs decreased by approximately $0.4 million, or 20%, to $1.5 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016 as compared to $1.9 million for the three months ended July 31, 2015. The decrease was related primarily to lower employee related costs, legal fees and third party consultant fees. These decreases were partially offset by increased stock compensation expense.

Change in fair value of warrant liability

Change in fair value of warrant liability for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, reflected a net fair market value unrealized loss of $0.8 million and $0 on our warrant derivatives, respectively.

Interest (expense) income, net

Interest (expense) income, net was approximately ($200) for the three months ended July 31, 2016, as compared to approximately $5,000 in the three months ended July 31, 2015. The decrease in interest income was related to lower interest earned on marketable securities for the three months ended July 31, 2016 compared to the three months ended July 31, 2015.

Foreign exchange gain

Foreign exchange gain was approximately $5,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2016, compared to $19,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2014. The difference was attributable primarily to the relative change in value of the British pound sterling, Euro and Australian dollar compared to the US dollar during the two periods.

Other income

During the three months ended July 31, 2016, we did not have any other income. During the three months ended July 31, 2015, we received a refund of $251,000 related to research and development expenditures in Australia.

Net Loss Outlook

We have incurred net losses since we began operations in 1994. To achieve profitability, we will need to increase revenue and gross profit, control our fixed costs and/or possibly reduce our expenses, including our unfunded product development expenditures.

We do not know whether or when we will become profitable because of the significant uncertainties with respect to our ability to successfully commercialize our PowerBuoys in our target markets. Even if we do achieve profitability at some point in the future, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Refer to “Liquidity Outlook” below for additional information.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Since our inception, the cash flows from customer revenues have not been sufficient to fund our operations and provide the capital resources for the planned growth of our business. For the two years ended April 30, 2016, our aggregate revenues were $4.8 million, our aggregate net losses were $26.3 million and our aggregate net cash used in operating activities was $28.1 million. Refer to “Liquidity Outlook” below for additional information.

Cash flows for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Net cash used in operating activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $2.9 million and $3.1 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The change was the result of a decrease in net loss of $0.3 million, an increase in cash provided by noncash operating items of $0.8 million and the net change in operating assets and liabilities of $0.9 million.

The decrease in net loss for the three months ended July 31, 2016 compared to the three months ended July 31, 2015 reflects a decrease in product development costs of $0.9 million relating primarily to the deployment of the PB40 off the coast of NJ and the anticipated deployment of the APB350 in the prior year, coupled with a decrease in SG&A costs of $0.4 million relating primarily to decreased legal fees and employee related costs. These decreases were offset by an increase of $0.8 million in the Change in fair value of warrant liability and a decrease in other income of $0.3 million.

The increase in noncash operating items reflects an increase in the change in fair value of the warrant assets of $0.8 million and an increase in equity compensation of $0.1 million.

The decrease in operating assets and liabilities reflects a net increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $0.5 million and an increase of $0.3 million in other current assets, during the three months ended July 31, 2016. In July 2016, the Company paid $0.5 million related to a litigation settlement.

Net cash provided by investing activities

Net cash provided by investing activities was approximately $4,000 and $0.1 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The change was primarily the result of a net decrease in maturities of marketable securities during the three months ended July 31, 2016.

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $5.2 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016 and net cash used in financing activities was $25,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2015. The net cash provided in 2016 was the result of the issuance of common stock and warrants through our public offerings and related issuance costs. The net cash used in 2015 was primarily for repayment of long-term debt.

Effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents

The effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents was a decrease of $13,000 and $48,000 in the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents results primarily from gains or losses on consolidation of foreign subsidiaries and foreign denominated cash and cash equivalents.

Liquidity Outlook

Our financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. We have experienced substantial and recurring losses from operations, which losses have caused an accumulated deficit of $181.7 million at July 31, 2016. At July 31, 2016, respectively, we had approximately $9.0 million in cash on hand. We generated revenues of $0.2 million for the three months ended July 31, 2016, and $0.1 million for the three months ended July 31, 2015. Based on the Company’s cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities balances as of July 31, 2016, the Company believes that it will be able to finance its capital requirements and operations into at least the quarter ending April 30, 2017.

These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Management recognizes that in order for us to meet our capital requirements, and continue to operate, additional financing will be necessary. We expect to raise additional funds through private or public equity investment in order to maintain and/or expand the range and scope of our business operations. However, we cannot assure you that any such additional funds will be available for us on acceptable terms, when needed, or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed or generate positive cash flow, it is unlikely that we will be able to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

We expect to devote substantial resources to continue our development efforts for our PowerBuoys and to expand our sales, marketing and manufacturing programs associated with the planned commercialization of the PowerBuoys. Our future capital requirements will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

We have incurred negative operating cash flows since our inception. As of July 31, 2016, our cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities balance was approximately $9.1 million. In addition, as of July 31, 2016 and 2015, our restricted cash balance was approximately $0.3 million and $0.5 million respectively.

The sale of additional equity or convertible securities could result in dilution to our stockholders. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of debt securities or preferred stock, these securities could have rights senior to those associated with our common stock and could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. We do not have any committed sources of debt or equity financing and we cannot assure you that financing will be available in amounts or on terms acceptable to us when needed, or at all. If we are unable to obtain required financing when needed, we may be required to reduce the scope of our operations, including our planned product development and marketing efforts, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. If we are unable to secure additional financing, we may be forced to cease our operations.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Since inception, we have not engaged in any off-balance sheet financing activities.

Not Applicable.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of July 31, 2016 pursuant to Rules 13a-15(b) or 15d-15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) are controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on such evaluation, management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of July 31, 2016 to ensure that non-financial statement and related disclosure information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

No change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) occurred during the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION

Shareholder Litigation and Demands: 

We and our former Chief Executive Officer, Charles Dunleavy, are defendants in consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG (filed June 13, 2014); Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815 (filed June 13, 2014); Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015 (filed June 23, 2014); and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (filed July 22, 2014). On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff.

On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of §10(b) and §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to our technology and a now terminated agreement between VWP and ARENA for the VWP Project. The third amended class action complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion on December 7, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on December 21, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Class Settlement (“Stipulation”) in which they agreed to a settlement of the consolidated securities class action lawsuits, subject to Court approval. The Stipulation provides, among other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of the Company of $3,000,000 in cash, of which the Company was to pay $500,000 and the Company’s insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares (valued at $596,000 on the date the Stipulation was signed by the parties) of its Common Stock to the class members. In connection with the settlement, the parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases. On June 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement. The Stipulation is subject to, among other requirements, final approval by the Court following notice to all class members. The Court has scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The amounts agreed in the Stipulation agreement, including the amount to be contributed by our insurance carrier, have been reflected in the financial statements as of July 31, 2016 and April 30, 2016. In July 2016, the Company paid the $500,000 portion of the settlement and the remaining balance of $2,500,000 was paid by the Company’s insurer in August 2016.

On July 10, 2014, we received a demand letter ("Demand Letter") from an attorney claiming to represent a shareholder demanding that the Company's Board of Directors establish an independent committee to investigate and remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and management relating to the VWP Project. We invited the attorney to participate in the Section 220 Demand process discussed below. On February 6, 2015, we produced documents to the attorney pursuant to a confidentiality agreement in connection with the Section 220 Demand process.

We also received a letter, dated August 19, 2014, (the "Section 220 Demand") from another attorney claiming to represent a shareholder demanding, pursuant to 8 Del. C. §220, to inspect certain books and records of the Company relating to the VWP Project and the termination of Charles Dunleavy as the Company's Chief Executive Officer. We have received two additional Section 220 Demands relating to the same subject matter from attorneys claiming to represent two different shareholders. We have responded in writing to the three Section 220 Demands and on February 6, 2015 produced documents to each of the attorneys pursuant to confidentiality agreements.

We and certain of our current and former directors and officers are defendants in a derivative lawsuit filed on March 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Labare v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01980-FLW-LHG. The derivative complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment relating to the now terminated agreement between VWP and ARENA referred to above. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On May 18, 2015, the plaintiff and all the defendants agreed to stay the derivative lawsuit pending action in the consolidated class action securities litigation discussed above (namely, a court order denying any motions to dismiss the commencement of discovery, a joint request to lift the stay, or further order of the court).

On July 10, 2015, a second derivative lawsuit, captioned Rywolt v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05469, was filed by another shareholder against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment relating to the now terminated agreement between VWP and ARENA. The Rywolt complaint also seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On September 2, 2015, the plaintiff and all the defendants agreed to stay the Rywolt derivative lawsuit pending action in the consolidated class action securities litigation discussed above (namely, a court order denying any motions to dismiss the commencement of discovery, a joint request to lift the stay, or further order of the court). In addition, on September 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Labare and Rywolt derivative lawsuits filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the two actions. On February 8, 2016, the Court entered an order (i) consolidating the Labare and Rywolt actions; (ii) appointing Labare and Rywolt as co-lead plaintiffs; (iii) appointing The Rosen Law Firm P.C. as lead counsel; and (iv) directing the co-lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 9, 2016. Defendants have not responded to the consolidated complaint because of the pending stay.

On April 21, 2016, a third derivative lawsuit, captioned LaCalamito v. Dunleavy, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02249, was filed by another shareholder against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the now terminated agreement between VWP and ARENA. The LaCalamito complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We have not been formally served and have not yet responded to the complaint.

On June 9, 2016, a fourth derivative lawsuit, captioned Pucillo v. Dunleavy, et al., was filed by another shareholder against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and abuse of control relating to the now terminated agreement between VWP and ARENA. The Pucillo complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 2, 2016, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order pursuant to which (i) defendants agreed to accept service of the complaint; (ii) the parties agreed to stay the Pucillo action pending the filing and resolution of a motion to consolidate the Pucillo action with the Labare and Rywolt actions; and (iii) the parties agreed that defendants shall not be required to respond to the complaint during the pendency of the stay. The Court approved the Stipulation on August 3, 2016.

We and certain of our current and former directors are defendants in a lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Chancery Division on January 25, 2016, captioned Stern v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. C-5-16. The complaint alleges that certain provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws providing that the Company’s directors may be removed only for cause and only by an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the votes which all the stockholders would be entitled to cast in any annual election of directors are invalid under Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Complaint asserts a breach of fiduciary claim against the director defendants and a declaratory judgment claim against all defendants seeking, among other things, to invalidate the current provisions and declare that the Company’s directors may be removed and replaced without cause and by a simple majority vote. The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as unspecified costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. By Unanimous Written Consent dated June 17, 2016, the Company’s Board of Directors amended the Company’s By-laws to delete the “only for cause” requirement, thereby allowing for removal of directors with or without cause by the Company’s stockholders. In addition, the Board proposed, subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders at the next annual general meeting of stockholders, a similar amendment to the director removal provision in the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation. On June 22, 2016, the parties to this lawsuit submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Proceedings that (1) stays the case pending the stockholder vote on the proposed amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation; (2) provides for dismissal of the action with prejudice if the stockholders approve the amendment, subject to plaintiff’s right to make a fee application to the court and defendants’ right to oppose any such application; and (3) provides for the stay to be lifted and the action to resume, without waiver of any parties’ rights, if the stockholders do not approve the amendment. The court approved the stipulation on June 30, 2016. On September 2, 2016, we filed a definitive proxy statement with the SEC which includes this proposal.

Employment Litigation: 

On June 10, 2014, the Company announced that it had terminated Charles Dunleavy as Chief Executive Officer and as an employee of the Company for cause, effective June 9, 2014, and that Mr. Dunleavy had also been removed from his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors. On June 17, 2014, Mr. Dunleavy wrote to the Company stating that he had retained counsel to represent him in connection with an alleged wrongful termination of his employment. On July 28, 2014, Mr. Dunleavy resigned from the Board and the boards of directors of the Company's subsidiaries. The Company and Mr. Dunleavy have agreed to suspend his alleged employment claims pending resolution of the shareholder litigation.

Except for the Stipulation agreement noted previously, we have not established any provision for losses relating to these claims and pending litigation. Due to the stages of these proceedings, and considering the inherent uncertainty of these claims and litigation, at this time we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate whether we have any possible loss exposure or the ultimate outcome of these claims.

(b) Regulatory Matters:

SEC Investigation

On February 4, 2015, we received a subpoena from the SEC requesting information related to the VWP Project. We have provided information to the SEC in response to that subpoena. As part of the same investigation, on July 12, 2016, the SEC issued a second subpoena requesting information related to the Company’s April 4, 2014 public offering. The Company has provided information to the SEC in response to that subpoena. The SEC investigation is ongoing and we continue to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. We are unable to predict what action, if any, might be taken by the SEC or its staff as a result of this investigation or what impact, if any, the cost of responding to the SEC’s investigation or its ultimate outcome might have on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have not established any provision for losses relating to this matter.

Spain IVA (sales tax)

In June 2012, we received notice that the Spanish tax authorities are inquiring into our 2010 IVA (value-added tax) filing for which the Company benefitted from the offset of approximately $250,000 of input tax. We believe that the inquiry will find that the tax credit was properly claimed and, therefore, no liability has been recorded. We have issued two letters of credit in the amount of €215,876 ($241,125) at the request of the Spanish tax authorities. This is a customary request during the inquiry period. In November 2014, March 2015 and September 2015, we received partial refunds of the amount under dispute and continue to expect that this matter will be resolved in our favor.

Spain Income Tax Audit

We are currently undergoing an income tax audit in Spain for the period from 2008 to 2014, when our Spanish branch was closed. The branch reported net operating losses for each of the years reported. We have not established any provision for losses related to this matter.

The discussion of our business and operations should be read together with the risk factors contained in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2016 and set forth below in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. These risk factors describe various risks and uncertainties to which we are or may become subject. These risks and uncertainties have the potential to affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, strategies or prospects in a material and adverse manner. There have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on July 15, 2016, except as discussed below.

Our auditors have raised substantial doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. Due to the significant product development costs associated with our business and operations, we have experienced substantial and recurring losses from operations, which losses have caused an accumulated deficit of $181.2 million at July 31, 2016. At July 31, 2016, the Company has approximately $9.0 million in cash on hand. The Company generated revenues of $0.2 million and $0.1 million in the three months ended July 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We generated revenues of only $0.7 million in fiscal 2016, and $4.1 million in fiscal 2015. Based on the Company’s cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities balances as of July 31, 2016 the Company believes that it will be able to finance its capital requirements and operations into at least the quarter ending April 30, 2017. We continue to experience operating losses and currently have only one primary revenue producing contract, which is an agreement with MES (the “MES Agreement”) to, among other things, lease and deploy our PB3 PowerBuoy off Kozushima Island, Japan and to provide certain engineering and other services. The total value of the lease and other services to be provided by us under the MES Agreement is $975,587. We currently expect the term of the lease to commence in March 2017, and the term of the MES Agreement to extend through August 2017. During the three months ended July 31, 2016, our net burn rate (cash used in operations less cash generated by operations) including product development spending was approximately $800,000 per month, excluding $500,000 cash paid in relation to the litigation settlement.

 Our business is capital intensive and, to date, we have been funding our business principally through sales of our securities, and we expect to continue to fund our business with sales of our securities and, to a limited extent, with our revenues until, if ever, we generate sufficient cash flow to internally fund our business. This is a largely a result of the high product development costs associated with our product development. These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. We anticipate that our operating expenses will be approximately $12 million in fiscal 2017 including product development spending of more than $5 million. However, we may choose to reduce our operating expenses through personnel reductions, and reductions in our research and development and other operating costs during fiscal year 2017, if we are not successful in our efforts to raise additional capital. We cannot assure you that we will be able to increase our revenues and cash flow to a level which would support our operations and provide sufficient funds to pay our obligations for the foreseeable future. Further, we cannot assure you that we will be able to secure additional financing or raise additional capital or, if we are successful in our efforts to raise additional capital, of the terms and conditions upon which any such financing would be extended. If we are unable to meet our obligations, we would be forced to cease operations, in which event investors would lose their entire investment in our company.

We have a history of operating losses and may not achieve or maintain profitability and positive cash flow. 

We have incurred net losses since we began operations in 1994, including net losses attributable to Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. of $3.8 million during the three months ended July 31, 2016 and $13.1 million in fiscal 2016. As of July 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $181.7 million. To date, our activities have consisted primarily of activities related to the development and testing of our technologies and our PowerBuoy. Thus, our losses to date have resulted primarily from costs incurred in our research and development programs and from our selling, general and administrative costs. As we continue to develop our proprietary technologies, we expect to continue to have a net use of cash from operating activities unless or until we achieve positive cash flow from the commercialization of our products and services. 

We do not know whether we will be able to successfully commercialize our PowerBuoys, or whether we can achieve profitability. There is significant uncertainty about our ability to successfully commercialize our PowerBuoys in our targeted markets. Even if we do achieve commercialization of our PowerBuoy and become profitable, we may not be able to achieve or, if achieved, sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

We may not be able to raise sufficient capital to continue to operate our business.

Historically, we have funded our business operations through sales of equity securities. We do not know whether we will be able to secure additional equity funding or, if secured, whether the terms will be favorable to us or our investors. Our ability to obtain additional funding will be subject to a number of factors, including market conditions, our operating performance, pending litigation and investor sentiment. These factors may make additional funding unavailable, or the timing, amount, terms and conditions of additional funding unattractive. If we issue additional equity securities to raise capital, our existing stockholders would experience dilution or may be subordinated to any rights, preferences or privileges granted to the new equity holders.

 We have filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) registering the sale of up to $15,000,000 of debt, equity and other securities (the “Shelf Registration Statement”), which was declared effective on April 26, 2016. In June 2016, we completed an offering off of the Shelf Registration Statement of an aggregate of 417,000 shares of common stock together with warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 145,952 shares of common stock. In July 2016, we completed a best efforts public offering off of the Shelf Registration Statement of 595,000 units, with each unit consisting of one share of common stock and 0.3 of a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock, for a total of 178,500 warrants.

 Future sales under our current Shelf Registration Statement or other sales of equity or convertible securities could be dilutive to our stockholders. We cannot assure you that we will be able to issue any such securities or, if issued, what the terms of those securities would be. In particular, any new securities issued could have rights senior to those associated with our common stock and could contain covenants that would restrict our operations. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects could be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue our operations.

We may issue debt and equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities, any of which may be senior to our common stock as to distributions and in liquidation, which could negatively affect the value of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by entering into debt or debt-like financing that is unsecured or secured by some or all of our assets, or by issuing additional debt or equity securities, which could include issuances of secured or unsecured commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior notes, subordinated notes, guarantees, preferred stock, hybrid securities, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for equity securities, any of which may rank senior to our common stock. In the event of our liquidation, our lenders and holders of our debt and preferred securities would receive distributions of our available assets before distributions to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to incur debt and issue securities in future offerings may be influenced by market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings or debt financings. Further, market conditions could require us to accept less favorable terms for the issuance of our securities in the future.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. 

In addition to patented technology, we rely upon trade secrets, including unpatented proprietary technology and processes, know-how and other proprietary information, particularly with respect to our PowerBuoy control and electricity generating systems. We generally seek to protect this information in part by proprietary information and inventions agreements with our employees, consultants and third parties. These agreements require these parties to assign to us all rights to any inventions made or conceived during their employment with us. Despite these efforts, there can be no assurance, however, that these agreements will provide meaningful protection or adequate remedies for us in the event of unauthorized use, transfer or disclosure of confidential information or inventions. Our trade secrets may also be obtained by third parties by other means, such as breaches of our physical or computer security systems. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Foreign laws may not afford us sufficient protections for our intellectual property, and we may not be able to obtain patent protection outside of the United States.

Intellectual property rights protection continues to present significant challenges to foreign businesses in many countries around the world. The body of law is often relatively undeveloped compared to the commercial law in the United States and only limited protection of intellectual property may be available in those jurisdictions. Although we have taken precautions to protect our intellectual property, any local design or manufacture of products that we undertake in a foreign jurisdiction could subject us to an increased risk that unauthorized parties will be able to copy or otherwise obtain or use our intellectual property, which could harm our business. We may also have limited legal recourse in the event we encounter patent or trademark infringement. If we are unable to manage our intellectual property rights, our business and operating results may be seriously harmed.

If we suffer any data breaches involving our designs, schematics, or other sensitive information, our business and financial results could be adversely affected.

We securely store our designs, schematics, and other sensitive information for our products as they are created. A breach, whether physical, electronic or otherwise, of the systems on which this sensitive data is stored could lead to damage or piracy of our products. If we are subject to data security breaches from external sources or from an insider threat, we may have a loss in sales or increased costs arising from the restoration or implementation of additional security measures, either of which could adversely affect our business and financial results. Other potential costs could include loss of brand value, incident response costs, loss of stock market value, regulatory inquiries, litigation, and management distraction. In addition, a security breach that involved classified information could subject us to civil or criminal penalties, loss of a government contract or loss of access to classified information. Similarly, a breach that involved loss of customer-provided data could subject us to loss of a customer, loss of a contract, litigation costs and legal damages, and reputational harm.

If sufficient demand for our PowerBuoys does not develop or takes longer to develop than we anticipate, our revenue generation will be limited, and it is unlikely that we will be able to achieve and, if achieved, then sustain profitability.

 Even if wave energy technology achieves broad commercial acceptance, our PowerBuoys may not prove to be a commercially viable technology for generating electricity from ocean waves. We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources since our inception in the development of our PowerBuoys, but have not yet achieved successful commercialization of our PowerBuoys. As we seek to begin to manufacture, market, sell and deploy our PowerBuoys in greater quantities, we may encounter unforeseen hurdles that would limit the commercial viability of our PowerBuoys, including unanticipated manufacturing, deployment, operating, maintenance and other costs. Our target customers and we may also encounter technical obstacles to deploying, operating and maintaining PowerBuoys.

 If demand for our PowerBuoys fails to develop sufficiently, it is unlikely that we will be able to grow our business or generate sufficient revenues to achieve and then sustain profitability. In addition, demand for PowerBuoys in our presently targeted markets, including coastal North America, Europe, Australia and Japan, may not develop or may develop to a lesser extent than we anticipate.

 If we are not successful in commercializing our PowerBuoy, or are significantly delayed in doing so, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our strategic pivot in our business may not be successful.

Our going forward business strategy is based on the fundamental assumption that our pivot away from the utility-scale PowerBuoys and associated market that was initiated during fiscal year 2015 will be successful. This pivot was fundamentally implemented on the premise that technical and financial risks to our business will be considerably reduced while also assuming that the autonomous offshore applications and markets will provide sufficient business growth opportunities. We have been working diligently over the past two years, to better understand and quantify the autonomous markets, forge commercial partnerships while also developing our autonomous products and validating their performance and estimate that we are now at the tail end of this business transformation. However, such markets may come short of the growth opportunities that we have come to understand and quantify and hence we will not be able to continue as a business.

Because we have only manufactured a limited number of PowerBuoys, have not produced PowerBuoys in any significant quantity or for commercial production and are reliant in part on the results of computer modeling and simulation for testing and development, our PowerBuoys may not have a sufficient operating history to confirm how they will perform over their estimated useful life.

 We began developing and testing wave energy technology over 15 years ago. However, to date, we have only manufactured a limited number of PowerBuoys for use in ocean testing and development. The longest continuous in-ocean deployment of our PowerBuoy was from December 2009 to January 2012 and was an earlier iteration of our PowerBuoy. We have conducted and plan to continue to conduct practical testing of our PowerBuoy. We also rely on computer modeling and simulation that attempt to predict performance under various ocean wave conditions and other parameters in a deployment environment. Use of accelerated life testing, as well as computer simulation models, has inherent risks and performance could be substantially different than predicted.

As a result of our limited operational testing, accelerated life testing and periodic in-ocean testing, we may later discover one or more significant defects requiring redesign and retrofit into existing systems, which may have a material adverse impact on our operations and revenues. Our technology may not yet have demonstrated that our engineering and test results can be duplicated in volume or in commercial production. If our PowerBuoy ultimately proves ineffective or unfeasible, we may not be able to engage in commercial production of our products or we may become liable to our customers for quantities we are obligated but are unable to produce. If our PowerBuoys perform below expectations, we could lose customers and face substantial repair and replacement expenses which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The following table details the Company’s share repurchases during the quarter:

(1) Represents shares delivered back to the Company by employees to pay taxes related to the vesting of restricted shares.

None.

Not Applicable.

None.