S-1 1 ds1.htm FORM S-1 REGESTRATION STATEMENT Form S-1 Regestration Statement
Table of Contents

As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2011

Registration No. 333-            

 

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

 

 

LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

Delaware   3646   23-2596710

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(Primary Standard Industrial

Classification Code Number)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

 

 

1227 South Patrick Drive, Building 2A

Satellite Beach, Florida 32937

(321) 779-5520

(Address and telephone number of principal executive offices)

 

 

Lighting Science Group Corporation

Attention: Gregory T. Kaiser, Chief Financial Officer

1227 South Patrick Drive, Building 2A

Satellite Beach, Florida 32937

(321) 779-5520

(Name, address and telephone number of agent for service)

 

 

Copies of all communications, including communications sent to agent for service, should be sent to:

 

Greg R. Samuel, Esq.

Haynes and Boone, LLP

2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75219

(214) 651-5000

Fax: (214) 200-0577

 

Marc D. Jaffe, Esq.

Rachel W. Sheridan, Esq.

Latham & Watkins LLP

885 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

(212) 906-1200

Fax: (212) 751-4864

 

 

Approximate date of proposed sale to public: As soon as practicable on or after the effective date of this registration statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 check the following box.    ¨

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.    ¨

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.    ¨

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.    ¨

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

 

Large accelerated filer   ¨     Accelerated filer   ¨
Non-accelerated filer   ¨   (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)   Smaller reporting company   x

 

 

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

 

 

Title of Each Class of

Securities to be Registered

  Proposed Maximum
Aggregate
Offering Price (1)
  Amount of
Registration Fee (1)(2)

Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share

  $150,000,000   $17,415.00
 
 

 

(1) Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee pursuant to Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Includes         shares that the underwriters have the option to purchase to cover overallotments, if any.

 

(2) Calculated pursuant to Rule 457(o) based on an estimate of the proposed maximum aggregate offering price.

The registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the registration statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said section 8(a), may determine.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is declared effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not permitted.

 

Subject to Completion, Dated                     , 2011

Shares

LOGO

Common Stock

 

 

Lighting Science Group Corporation is offering         shares of its common stock. We intend to apply to have our common stock listed on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol “LSGC.” We anticipate that the public offering price will be between $         and $         per share.

Our common stock is currently traded on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol “LSCG.OB.”

 

 

Investing in our common stock involves risks. See “Risk factors” beginning on page 9 of this prospectus.

 

     Per Share      Total  

Public offering price

   $                    $                

Underwriting discounts(1)

   $                    $                

Proceeds, before expenses, to Lighting Science Group Corporation.

   $                    $                

 

  (1) We expect to enter into an agreement with Moelis & Company LLC pursuant to which we would pay Moelis & Company LLC a fee of $200,000 for financial advisory services in connection with this offering, and which we have not included in the underwriting discounts and commissions.

We have granted the underwriters the right to purchase up to an additional         shares of our common stock to cover over-allotments.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The underwriters expect to deliver the shares to purchasers on                     , 2011.

 

 

Joint Book-Running Managers

 

Credit Suisse       J.P.Morgan

 

 

Co-Managers

 

Stifel Nicolaus Weisel   Moelis & Company   Piper Jaffray

                    , 2011


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Summary

     1   

The offering

     6   

Summary consolidated financial data

     7   

Risk factors

     9   

Forward-looking statements

     23   

Use of proceeds

     24   

Market price of our common stock

     25   

Dividend policy

     25   

Capitalization

     26   

Dilution

     28   

Selected historical consolidated financial data

     30   

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations

     32   

Our business

     53   

Management

     70   

Executive compensation

     77   

Principal stockholders

     93   

Certain relationships and related transactions

     95   

Description of capital stock

     101   

Shares eligible for future sale

     104   

Material U.S. federal income and estate tax considerations for non-U.S. holders

     106   

Underwriting

     109   

Legal matters

     117   

Experts

     117   

Where you can find more information

     117   

Index to financial statements

     F-1   

 

 

You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with information different from that contained in this prospectus. If you receive any information not authorized by us, then you should not rely on it.

We are offering to sell, and seeking offers to buy, shares of our common stock only in jurisdictions where offers and sales are permitted. The information contained in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date of this prospectus, regardless of the time of delivery of this prospectus or of any sale of our common stock.

 

i


Table of Contents

Summary

Overview

We design, develop, manufacture and market general illumination products that exclusively use LEDs as their light source. Our broad product portfolio includes LED-based retrofit lamps (replacement bulbs) that can be used in existing light fixtures and sockets, as well as purpose-built LED-based luminaires (light fixtures) for many common indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure lighting applications. Our proprietary technology, differentiated design approach and key relationships throughout the LED lighting supply chain position us well as general illumination continues its transition to the use of LEDs as a replacement for existing lighting technologies.

We are a technology integrator with intricate knowledge of each of the main component technologies used in our products. Our in-house design and development of power supplies, thermal management solutions and optical systems used in our products along with our detailed specification of the packaged LEDs we incorporate into our products, provides us with a distinctive ability to manage the interrelationships between these components and subsystems. This system-based approach, combined with our thorough understanding of the requirements of each lighting application our products are designed to address, enables us to provide a broader and more relevant range of products that we believe deliver industry-leading performance offering shorter payback periods relative to the products of our competitors. This performance advantage is measured by the combination of higher efficacy, as calculated by lumens of light delivered per watt of power consumed, or lm/W, light quality and reliability. As we continue to improve all of these product attributes, we believe we will help drive, and benefit from, the accelerating use of LEDs in general illumination as a replacement for existing lighting technologies.

As a pioneer in our industry, we have been producing and selling LED-based lighting products for nearly a decade. We assemble and manufacture our products both internally and through our contract manufacturer in Asia. Our internal manufacturing operations are currently based in our Monterrey, Mexico site, which commenced production in November 2010, and our Satellite Beach, Florida headquarters. Our revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2010 was $15.1 million, representing an increase of 96.6% over the same period in the prior year. In order to meet the recent and expected growth in demand for our products, we have increased our headcount, including contractors, to approximately 600 as of December 31, 2010 from 210 as of December 31, 2009.

Products and applications

Our extensive product portfolio includes three distinct product families (lamps; infrastructure luminaires; and commercial, architectural and residential luminaires), as well as custom lighting solutions. We tailor our product offerings to specific applications in our target markets which include: (i) government-owned and private infrastructure, (ii) schools and universities, (iii) retail and hospitality and (iv) residential and office.

The LED retrofit lamps we produce are economically compelling replacements for traditional reflector and globe incandescent and incandescent halogen lamps and are available in a range of form factors and performance specifications to meet particular lighting needs. Our retrofit lamps have been adopted by leading retailers and original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, of lighting products such as The Home Depot, Inc. and Osram Sylvania Inc. that sell our products on a co-branded or private label basis, as well as by large end-users to whom we sell directly and through distributors, such as Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., Hilton Hotels Corporation, Simon Property Group, Inc. and Starbucks Corporation. Notably, we are The Home Depot’s preferred provider and product development partner for LED retrofit lamps and luminaires, which are currently sold under its EcoSmart® line on a co-branded basis. With sales of more than one million units during the second half of 2010 alone, we believe we are one of the largest worldwide suppliers of LED retrofit lamps. We also produced the first LED retrofit lamp to be successfully qualified for ENERGY STAR® designation and, as of January 25, 2011, we designed and produced more than 75% of all ENERGY STAR-qualified LED retrofit lamps.

 

 

1


Table of Contents

The infrastructure luminaires we produce combine energy efficiency, long life, high lumen output and excellent light distribution, making them ideal for use in parking garages, street lighting, outdoor area lighting, warehouses and manufacturing areas. Our luminaires, which in many cases provide payback periods of less than two years, are sold for use in large-scale infrastructure projects including, among others, those in Salt Lake City, Mexico City and Washington, D.C. We also offer a range of LED luminaires for the commercial, architectural and residential markets, including our line for retail display applications and our soon to be released line of residential luminaires. We sell luminaires through OEMs, distributors, independent sales representatives and our direct sales force. In addition, we offer customized LED lighting solutions to create highly tailored lighting effects for architects, lighting designers and research projects.

Industry background

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, or the DOE, LEDs are the most promising technology for reducing the enormous amount of energy consumed by lighting, which it estimated to account for 25% of all U.S. electricity consumption in 2009. Currently available cool white LED lighting products boast an efficacy of as much as 92 lm/W and last as long as 50,000 hours while currently available warm white LED lighting products have an efficacy of as much as 66 lm/W. This compares to an efficacy of 13 lm/W and lifetime of 1,200 hours for a typical incandescent bulb and 55 lm/W and 10,000 hours for a typical compact fluorescent bulb. Importantly, as the relevant technology continues to improve, the efficiency advantage of LED lighting products will further increase. For example, a March 2010 study from the DOE projects that cool white LED luminaire efficacies will reach 121 lm/W in 2012 and 219 lm/W in 2020. A significant portion of this improvement will be due to efficiencies gained in the areas core to our expertise rather than at the packaged LED level where most of the attention is currently focused.

LEDs have a demonstrated history of rapid adoption in various applications when their total cost of ownership, including both purchase price and ongoing energy and maintenance costs, declines to a point that warrants their use. Reductions in total cost of ownership improve users’ return on investment in LED technology and shorten the payback period for LEDs relative to other lighting technologies. We expect that continuing improvements in LED product efficacy and light quality as well as reductions in their purchase price will further reduce the total cost of ownership for LED lighting products, accelerating their adoption for general illumination. The adoption of LED lighting in general illumination will also benefit from other attributes of LED lighting and evolving market factors. These include an increasing end-user focus on energy efficiency and environmental sustainability; greater demand for enhanced lighting functionality and design differentiation enabled by the smaller size, lower heat output, dimmability, directionality and digital controllability of LED lighting products; greater government and utility financial incentives for energy efficient technologies; government regulations effectively eliminating incandescent bulb sales after certain deadlines in the United States and the European Union; and government support for energy efficient lighting.

In light of these attributes and factors, the market for LED lighting is expected to grow rapidly. A March 2010 report by Strategies Unlimited estimated that the market for packaged LEDs used in general illumination was expected to be approximately $874.0 million in 2010, growing to over $4.3 billion by 2014, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 45%. For our retrofit lamps and luminaires, the cost of the packaged LEDs represent on average approximately 35% of their sales prices. Therefore, the market for LED lighting products will be necessarily larger.

 

 

2


Table of Contents

Our competitive strengths

We are a leading provider of LED retrofit lamps and luminaires for the general illumination market and believe the following competitive strengths have enabled us to achieve this position:

In-depth understanding of the lighting markets we serve. We have a deep understanding of how multiple components and subsystems function when integrated into LED lighting products under actual operating conditions, as well as knowledge of what attributes end-users truly value for each application our products address. This knowledge is derived from the experience of our management, sales and product development professionals, many of whom have spent the vast majority of their careers at traditional lighting companies and is solidified by our close collaboration with customers from product development through after-market support.

Extensive proprietary technology and know-how. We are a technology integrator with expertise in each of the key technologies used in our products, including power supplies and controls, thermal management solutions, optical systems and LED technology. This expertise is complemented by a portfolio of 121 issued and pending U.S. patents that have been developed over the course of nearly a decade of operations.

Comprehensive system-based approach. We are focused on the profound impact the interrelationships between key components and subsystems have on the performance and cost of our products. Accordingly, we design and develop power supplies, thermal management solutions and optical systems used in our products and specify key attributes of the packaged LEDs we incorporate into our products enabling us to finely tune them to improve their interoperability. We do not believe our competitors have the combination of capabilities and organizational structure to duplicate our design approach.

Broad product portfolio sustained by rapid speed to market. Our modular approach to product development enables us to design and develop optimized components and subsystems that we use in multiple products while maintaining the flexibility to modify key attributes of these subsystems for the specific needs of individual applications. As a result, we believe we are able to cost-effectively design and commercialize a broader range of retrofit lamps and luminaires at a faster rate than many of our competitors. In addition, our ability to rapidly design key components and subsystems around newly introduced packaged LEDs is a key contributor to our speed to market with performance leading products. Given the rapid pace of LED technology improvement and inherent short product cycles, speed to market is a critical competitive advantage.

Broad market reach through established channels. Our retrofit lamp business benefits from key retailer and lighting OEM relationships, including with The Home Depot, the largest worldwide seller of light bulbs, and with Osram Sylvania, among others, for the sale of our products on a co-branded or private label basis. In addition, our direct sales force has the knowledge of lighting applications required to sell our retrofit lamps and luminaires directly to large end-users and is not impeded by conflict from legacy lighting businesses. We also maintain an established network of independent sales agents and distributors that expand our geographic coverage and offer support for large projects in the infrastructure and commercial and industrial end markets.

Flexible approach to component sourcing. The flexibility of our product designs and our ability to facilitate rapid design adjustments limit our dependence on any single technology or vendor in our supply chain. This latitude in our component sourcing, particularly for packaged LEDs, enables us to mitigate supply risk through a multi-sourcing strategy and enhances our pricing leverage. It also helps insulate us from potential technology changes that represent significant risk to less adaptable competitors.

Experienced personnel with proven ability to drive our strategies. Our long-standing focus on research and commercialization of LED lighting has been a guiding force in building our roster of talent. As a result, our senior management team consists of long-tenured lighting industry professionals as well as LED technology

 

 

3


Table of Contents

veterans. Our research and development team includes approximately 50 research scientists and engineers with Ph.D.s or master’s degrees in a range of disciplines relevant to the development of LED lighting products. Similarly, our sales and marketing team has prior experience in our markets and channels at traditional lighting companies.

Our strategies

Our objective is to leverage our leadership position in LED lighting products to become the leader in the overall lighting industry as LED adoption accelerates through the following strategies:

Improve our products while lowering their cost to sustain our market position. We will continue to enhance our products by accumulating improvements across all of our component and subsystem technologies and by availing ourselves of further efficiencies by way of their interoperation. These improvements will include innovations relating to new materials, designs and methods, which we believe will provide revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, gains in product performance and manufacturing cost. In addition, we will continue to rapidly optimize our technologies for the most recently introduced and typically higher efficacy packaged LEDs to which we often have early access. We also intend to develop products that incorporate the intelligent control enabled by solid state lighting to offer further reductions in cost of ownership and novel functionality to our customers.

Drive improvements in our manufacturing and supply chain operations. We are increasing production at our recently opened site in Monterrey, Mexico, as well as at our contract manufacturing partner in Asia to ensure that we have adequate capacity to meet future demand as well as to capture efficiencies that we expect will allow us to materially improve our profitability as we transfer high-volume manufacturing to these lower cost sites from our Satellite Beach, Florida facility. In addition, we are increasingly sourcing critical components and subsystems from suppliers closer to our points of manufacture, working with our customers to develop more robust demand forecasts and implementing new information technology systems to reduce lead times, expediting costs for inbound supplies and other operational inefficiencies.

Expand our market coverage. We will continue to invest in our sales channels to drive further adoption of LED general illumination as well as to improve our share of the market. This investment includes adding experienced lighting professionals to our direct sales force and enlarging the sales team that manages our retail and OEM partners to both help us develop new relationships and increase business with existing ones. We also plan to expand the professional sales team that manages our growing roster of independent sales agents and distributors for the infrastructure and commercial and industrial markets in order to provide them with better sales support. We are also focused on expanding our efforts in Europe and Asia as we introduce new products designed specifically for the requirements of those regions. In addition, we plan to take a leadership role in the establishment of rebate programs applicable to LED lighting which, while not necessary for the adoption of our products, has the potential to meaningfully accelerate the shift to LED lighting.

Expand our product offering to target further conventional lighting applications. We follow a disciplined approach to the expansion of our business, prioritizing only those applications for which we believe there are currently clear and compelling reasons, from a return on investment and total cost of ownership perspective for a potential customer to adopt LED lighting. As the value proposition of LED lighting continues to improve, we will increase the range of applications that we target accordingly.

Extend our technology to non-traditional markets. We plan to continue to develop products for novel applications beyond traditional lighting that can benefit from the unique properties of LED lighting. We believe these potential non-traditional markets help drive our culture of innovation as well as our understanding of LED technology. They may also represent a material market opportunity in addition to their promising social benefits.

 

 

4


Table of Contents

Risks that we face

Our business is subject to numerous risks, which are highlighted in the section entitled “Risk factors.” These risks represent challenges to the successful implementation of our strategy and to the growth and future profitability of our business. These risks include:

 

   

We have a limited amount of revenues and a history of losses and may be unable to continue operations unless we can generate sufficient operating income. Further, we have yet to achieve positive cash flow, and our ability to generate positive cash flow is uncertain.

 

   

If we are unable to manage any future growth effectively, our profitability and liquidity could be adversely affected. Further, if we are unable to adequately increase our production capacity, delays could harm our revenues and reputation.

 

   

If our developed technology or technology under development does not achieve market acceptance, prospects for our growth and profitability would be limited. Further, if we fail to anticipate and adapt to rapid technological changes in the LED lighting industry, the products we sell could become obsolete.

 

   

We rely on our relationships with The Home Depot and Osram Sylvania and the loss of either of these relationships could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

 

   

Our financial results may vary significantly from period-to-period, which may lead to volatility in our stock price.

 

   

Our industry is highly competitive and if we are not able to compete effectively, our prospects for future success will be jeopardized.

 

   

Failure to achieve or maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our stock price.

 

   

We rely upon key members of our management team and other key personnel and a loss of key personnel could prevent or significantly delay the achievement of our goals.

 

   

Our international operations are subject to legal, political and economic risks.

Pegasus Capital

We are controlled by affiliates of Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., or Pegasus Capital, a U.S.-based private equity fund manager that provides capital and strategic solutions to middle market companies across a variety of industries. Established in 1995, Pegasus Capital currently manages approximately $2.0 billion in assets through several private equity funds and has made more than 80 investments since its inception. Historically, Pegasus Capital has invested in our capital stock through LSGC Holdings LLC, Pegasus Partners IV, L.P., or Pegasus IV, and LED Holdings, LLC.

Corporate information

We were incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1988. Unless expressly indicated or the context requires otherwise, the terms “Lighting Science Group,” “company,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this prospectus refer to Lighting Science Group Corporation, a Delaware corporation or, as applicable, its predecessor entities and, where appropriate, its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Our principal executive offices are located at 1227 South Patrick Drive, Building 2A, Satellite Beach, Florida 32937, and our telephone number is (321) 779-5520. Our website address is www.lsgc.com. This reference to our website is an inactive textual reference only and is not a hyperlink. The contents of our website are not part of this prospectus, and you should not consider the contents of our website in making an investment decision with respect to our common stock.

 

 

5


Table of Contents

The offering

Common stock offered by us

         shares.

 

Common stock to be outstanding after this offering

         shares.

 

Use of proceeds

We estimate that we will receive net proceeds of approximately $         million from this offering, based on an assumed public offering price of $         per share (the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus) and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to repay any existing indebtedness on our Wells Fargo Facility and for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures to expand our production capacity, investments in our research and development, expansion of our sales force and working capital needs in support of our planned business activities. See “Use of proceeds” for additional information.

 

Over allotment option

We have granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to              additional shares of our common stock at the public offering price.

 

Dividend policy

We do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends on our common stock. See “Dividend policy.”

 

Risk factors

You should carefully read and consider the information set forth under “Risk factors” beginning on page 9 of this prospectus and all other information set forth in this prospectus before investing in our common stock.

 

Proposed NASDAQ symbol

LSGC

The number of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering is based on 185,260,534 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2010 after giving effect to the “Subsequent Issuances” described under “Capitalization” and excludes:

 

   

12,756,217 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding options under our Amended and Restated Equity-Based Compensation Plan, or the Equity Plan, as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $1.28 per share;

 

   

176,668 shares of common stock issuable upon the vesting of shares of restricted stock previously awarded under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010;

 

   

15,067,115 (which gives effect to the 8,000,000 share increase on February 10, 2011) shares of common stock reserved and available for future issuance under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010; and

 

   

14,789,424 shares of common stock, on an as-converted basis, issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants to purchase common stock, as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $5.83 per share.

 

 

6


Table of Contents

Summary consolidated financial data

The following table presents our summary consolidated financial data as of the dates and for our business for the periods indicated. We derived the summary consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. Summary consolidated financial data for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2010 and as of September 30, 2010 are derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in any future period, and the results for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full year or for any other period. You should read this summary consolidated financial data in conjunction with “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes, all included elsewhere in this prospectus.

 

    For the Nine Months Ended
September 30,
    For the
Year Ended December 31,
 
    2010     2009     2009     2008  

Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:

       

Revenue

  $ 30,331,005      $ 21,969,701      $ 31,376,816      $ 20,758,593   

Cost of goods sold

    31,229,947        17,599,574        24,754,819        16,688,600   
                               

Gross margin

    (898,942     4,370,127        6,621,997        4,069,993   
                               

Operating expenses:

       

Sales and marketing

    6,873,194        4,670,459        7,248,311        5,847,833   

Operations

    3,784,510        8,329,604        10,370,098        10,526,976   

Research and development (1)

    6,719,808        2,444,158        4,395,320        3,259,187   

General and administrative

    10,877,051        17,035,266        20,705,525        23,224,561   

Restructuring expenses

    458,311        702,625        1,111,189        —     

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

    10,538,307        —          —          53,110,133   

Depreciation and amortization

    2,324,068        4,439,465        5,327,033        4,354,028   
                               

Total operating expenses

    41,575,249        37,621,577        49,157,476        100,322,718   
                               

Loss from operations

    (42,474,191     (33,251,450     (42,535,479     (96,252,725

Total other income (expense)

    (111,479,505     (4,070,427     (6,014,450     (918,238
                               

Loss before income tax expense (benefit)

    (153,953,696     (37,321,877     (48,549,929     (97,170,963

Income tax expense (benefit)

    382,645        (263,108     (413,002     (2,207,507
                               

Net loss

    (154,336,341     (37,058,769     (48,136,927     (94,963,456

Dividend requirements

       

6% return on Series B Preferred Stock

    784,142        738,586        1,217,642        —     

8% return on Series C Preferred Stock

    213,610        197,240        266,400        —     
                               

Net loss attributable to common stock

  $ (155,334,093   $ (37,994,595   $ (49,620,969   $ (94,963,456
                               

Net loss per weighted average common share:

       

Basic and diluted

  $ (5.11   $ (1.30   $ (1.69   $ (3.55

Pro forma basic and diluted (1)

   
(1.13

    —          —          —     

Pro forma basic and diluted as adjusted (2)

      —          —          —     

Weighted average number of shares used to compute net loss per weighted average common share

       

Basic and diluted

    30,393,884        29,207,158        29,352,585        26,781,431   

Pro forma basic and diluted (1)

    137,153,105         

Pro forma basic and diluted as adjusted (2)

      —          —          —     

Net loss

  $ (154,336,341   $ (37,058,769   $ (48,136,927   $ (94,963,456

Foreign currency translation gain (loss)

    (1,039,154     1,809,008        (849,695     (1,886,544
                               

Comprehensive loss

  $ (155,375,495   $ (35,249,761   $ (48,986,622   $ (96,850,000
                               

 

(1) During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This table reflects management’s modified presentation for all periods presented, including its current characterization of research and development expenses.

 

 

7


Table of Contents
     As of September 30, 2010  
     Actual     Pro
forma (1)
     Pro
forma as
adjusted (2)
 

Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:

       

Cash

     19,208,715        42,208,715      

Working capital(3)

     28,282,877        51,282,877      

Total assets

     59,956,590        82,956,590      

Total liabilities

     182,334,703        21,648,833      

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)

     (122,378,113     61,307,757      

 

(1) Gives pro forma effect to the Subsequent Issuances described under “Capitalization.”
(2) The pro forma as adjusted data gives effect to the Subsequent Issuances and our issuance and sale of         shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed public offering price of $         per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus and that the net proceeds will be approximately $         million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. If the underwriters’ over-allotment option is exercised in full, we estimate that we will receive additional net proceeds of $         million. Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed public offering price of $         per share, would increase (decrease) each of cash, working capital, total assets and total stockholders’ equity (deficit) by $         million, and deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us and assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. Each increase (decrease) of 1.0 million in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) each of cash, working capital, total assets and total stockholders’ equity (deficit) by $         million, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming the assumed public offering price of $         per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.
(3) Working capital is defined as our current assets minus current liabilities.

 

 

8


Table of Contents

Risk factors

This offering and an investment in our common stock involve a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the financial and other information contained in this prospectus, before you decide to purchase shares of our common stock. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.

Risks related to our business and industry

We have a limited amount of revenues and a history of losses and may be unable to continue operations unless we can generate sufficient operating income from the sale of our products.

We have sustained operating losses since our inception. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and the year ended December 31, 2009, we had revenues of $30.3 million and $31.4 million, respectively, and as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had accumulated deficits of $302.3 million and $148.0 million, respectively. As evidenced by these financial results, we may not be able to achieve or maintain profitability on a consistent basis. Continuing losses may exhaust our capital resources and force us to discontinue our operations.

We have yet to achieve positive cash flow, and our ability to generate positive cash flow is uncertain. If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital when needed, our business and future prospects will be adversely affected and we could be forced to suspend or discontinue operations.

Our operations have not generated positive cash flow for any reporting period since our inception, and we have funded our operations primarily through the issuance of common and preferred stock and short-term debt. Our limited operating history makes an evaluation of our future prospects difficult. The actual amount of funds that we will need to meet our operating needs will be determined by a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include the timing and volume of sales transactions, the success of our marketing strategy, market acceptance of our products, the success of our manufacturing and research and development efforts (including any unanticipated delays), the costs associated with obtaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights, regulatory changes, competition, technological developments in the market, evolving industry standards and the amount of working capital investments we are required to make.

Our ability to continue to operate until our cash flow from operations turns positive will depend on our ability to continue to raise funds through public or private sales of shares of our capital stock or through debt. We currently have an asset-based lending facility with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, which we refer to as the Wells Fargo Facility, which provides us with borrowing capacity of up to a maximum of $15.0 million calculated as up to 85% of our applicable and eligible inventory and accounts receivable plus qualified cash. The Wells Fargo Facility has an initial term that expires in November 2013. As of December 31, 2010, the balance outstanding on the Wells Fargo Facility was approximately $4.7 million and we had approximately $9.5 million of additional borrowing capacity. In addition, we have a working capital facility with IFN Finance B.V., or IFN Finance, and a revolving line of credit with ABN AMRO Bank N.V., or ABN AMRO, that provide up to $2.0 million and $265,000, respectively, to our Netherlands based operations. As of December 31, 2010, the outstanding balances on the IFN Finance and ABN AMRO facilities were $1.2 million and $226,000, respectively. Other than these facilities, we do not have any committed sources of outside capital at this time.

During the recent economic downturn, we experienced limited access to the capital and credit markets, and it remains uncertain whether we will be able to obtain outside capital when we need it or on terms that would be acceptable to us. In the past we have primarily relied on, and currently rely on, financing or guaranties from

 

9


Table of Contents

affiliates of Pegasus Capital. There are no assurances that such related parties will continue to provide financing on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. If we raise funds by selling additional shares of our common stock or securities convertible or exercisable into our common stock, the ownership interest of our existing stockholders will be diluted. If we are unable to obtain sufficient outside capital when needed, our business and future prospects will be adversely affected and we could be forced to suspend or discontinue operations.

If we are unable to manage any future growth effectively, our profitability and liquidity could be adversely affected.

Our growth is expected to place significant strain on our limited research and development, sales and marketing, operational and administrative resources. To manage any future growth, we must continue to improve our operational and financial systems and expand, train and manage our employee base. We also need to improve our supply chain management and quality control operations and hire and train new employees, including sales and customer service representatives and operations managers. If we are unable to manage our growth effectively, our profitability and liquidity could be adversely affected.

If the transition we are currently making to an Enterprise Resource Planning systems encounters delays or difficulties, as certain other companies have experienced, the resulting problems could negatively affect our business.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology, including an ongoing transition to Enterprise Resource Planning, or ERP, systems, to enable us to improve the effectiveness of our operations and to maintain financial accuracy and efficiency. A number of other companies have experienced delays and difficulties with the implementation of ERP systems that have had a negative effect on our business. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build, implement and sustain the proper technology infrastructure, or if our ERP transition encounters delays or difficulties, we could be subject to transaction errors, processing inefficiencies, loss of customers, business disruptions or loss of or unauthorized access to our intellectual property through security breaches.

If our developed technology or technology under development does not achieve market acceptance, prospects for our growth and profitability would be limited.

Our future success depends on market acceptance of our LED technology and the technology currently under development. Although adoption of LED lighting has grown in recent years, adoption of LED lighting products for general illumination has only recently begun, is still limited and faces significant challenges. Potential customers may be reluctant to adopt LED lighting products as an alternative to traditional lighting technology because of its higher initial cost or perceived risks relating to its novelty, reliability, usefulness, light quality and cost-effectiveness when compared to other established lighting sources available in the market. Changes in economic and market conditions may also affect the marketability of some traditional lighting technologies such as declining energy prices that favor existing lighting technologies that are less energy efficient. Moreover, if existing sources of light other than LED lighting products achieve or maintain greater market adoption, or if new sources of light are developed, our current products and technologies could become less competitive or obsolete. Even if LED lighting products continue to achieve performance improvements and cost reductions, limited customer awareness of the benefits of LED lighting products, lack of widely accepted standards governing LED lighting products and customer unwillingness to adopt LED lighting products in favor of entrenched solutions could significantly limit the demand for LED lighting products and adversely impact our results of operations.

 

10


Table of Contents

Lighting products, particularly emerging LED lighting products, are subject to rapid technological changes. If we fail to accurately anticipate and adapt to these changes, the products we sell will become obsolete, causing a decline in our sales and profitability.

LED lighting products are subject to rapid technological changes that often cause product obsolescence. Companies within the LED lighting industry are continuously developing new products with heightened performance and functionality. This puts pricing pressure on existing products and constantly threatens to make them, or causes them to be, obsolete. Our typical product’s life cycle is extremely short, generating lower average selling prices as the cycle matures. If we fail to accurately anticipate the introduction of new technologies, we may possess significant amounts of obsolete inventory that can only be sold at substantially lower prices and profit margins than we anticipated. In addition, if we fail to accurately anticipate the introduction of new technologies or are unable to develop the planned new technologies, we may be unable to compete effectively due to our failure to offer products most demanded by the marketplace. If any of these failures occur, our sales, profit margins and profitability will be adversely affected.

If we are unable to increase production capacity for our products in a cost effective and timely manner, we may incur delays in shipment and our revenues and reputation in the marketplace could be harmed.

An important part of our business plan is the expansion of production capacity for our products. In order to fulfill anticipated demand for our products, we invest in capacity in advance of actual customer orders, typically based on preliminary, non-binding indications of future demand. As customer demand for our products changes, we must be able to adjust our production capacity to meet demand while keeping costs down. We intend to expand our operations by increasing production at our recently opened manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico, which may subject us to additional risks as we first scale these operations. We also expect to rely more heavily on international contract manufacturing. Uncertainty is inherent within our facility and capacity expansion, and unforeseen circumstances could offset the anticipated benefits, disrupt our ability to provide products to our customers and impact product quality.

Our ability to successfully increase production capacity in a cost effective and timely manner will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

 

   

our ability to successfully scale our recently opened manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico;

 

   

our ability to transition production between manufacturing facilities;

 

   

the ability of contract manufacturers to allocate more of their existing capacity to us or their ability to add new capacity quickly;

 

   

the ability of any future contract manufacturers to successfully implement our manufacturing processes;

 

   

the availability of critical components and subsystems used in the manufacture of our products;

 

   

our ability to effectively establish adequate management information systems, financial controls and supply chain management and quality control procedures; and

 

   

equipment failures, power outages, environmental risks or variations in the manufacturing process.

If we are unable to increase production capacity for our products in a cost effective and timely manner while maintaining adequate quality, we may incur delays in shipment or be unable to meet increased demand for our products which could harm our revenues and operating margins and damage our reputation and our relationships with current and prospective customers. Conversely, due to the proportionately high fixed cost nature of our business (such as facility expansion costs), if demand does not increase at the rate forecasted, we may not be able to reduce manufacturing expenses or overhead costs at the same rate as demand decreases, which could also result in lower margins and adversely impact our business and results of operations.

 

11


Table of Contents

We rely on our relationships with The Home Depot and Osram Sylvania, and the loss of a material relationship with either of them would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, our future growth prospects and our ability to distribute our products.

We form business relationships and strategic alliances with retailers and other lighting companies to market our products under private or co-branded labels. In certain cases, such relationships are important to the introduction of new products and services, and we may not be able to successfully collaborate or achieve expected synergies with these retailers or lighting companies. We do not control these retailers or lighting companies and they may make decisions regarding their business undertakings with us that may be contrary to our interests, or may terminate their relationships with us altogether. In addition, if these retailers or lighting companies change their business strategies, we may fail to maintain these relationships.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2010, Osram Sylvania and The Home Depot accounted for 21% and 6% of our net sales, respectively. Our Master Supply Agreement with Osram Sylvania has an initial term that expires in April 2013 but may be terminated earlier by Osram Sylvania in certain instances, including upon a change of control or in the event of a default by us. Our contractual commitment with The Home Depot is also not long term in nature. Specifically, our Strategic Purchasing Agreement with The Home Depot has an initial term that expires in July 2013 but may be terminated by The Home Depot for any reason upon 180 days written notice to us. The Home Depot has required, and we expect will continue to require, increased service and order accommodations as well as incremental promotional investments. We may face increased expenses to meet these demands, which would reduce our margins. In addition, we generally have little or no influence on The Home Depot’s promotional or pricing policies, which may impact our sales volume to them. In addition, neither our Master Supply Agreement with Osram Sylvania nor our Strategic Purchasing Agreement with The Home Depot requires either party to purchase a minimum quantity of products from us, although we issued a Warrant to The Home Depot that included incentive-based vesting conditions through 2015 based on annual 20% increases in product purchases made under the Strategic Purchasing Agreement. Our sales are materially affected by fluctuations in the buying patterns of these customers and such fluctuations may result from general economic conditions or other factors. A loss of Osram Sylvania or The Home Depot as a customer or a significant decline in their purchases would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, our future growth prospectus and our ability to distribute our products.

We assemble and manufacture certain of our products and our sales, results of operations and reputation could be materially adversely affected if there is a disruption at our assembly and manufacturing facilities.

Our assembly and manufacturing operations for our products are based in Satellite Beach, Florida and Monterrey, Mexico. The operation of these facilities involves many risks, including equipment failures, natural disasters, industrial accidents, power outages and other business interruptions. We could incur significant costs to maintain compliance with, or due to liabilities under, environmental laws. Although we carry business interruption insurance and third-party liability insurance to cover claims in respect of personal injury or property or environmental damage arising from accidents on our properties or relating to our operations, our existing insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all risks associated with our business. As a result, we may be required to pay for financial and other losses, damages and liabilities, including those caused by natural disasters and other events beyond our control, out of our own funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, any interruption in our ability to assemble, manufacture or distribute our products could result in lost sales, limited revenue growth and damage to our reputation in the market, all of which would adversely affect our business.

Additionally, we rely on arrangements with independent shipping companies, such as United Parcel Service, Inc. and Federal Express Corp., for the delivery of certain components and subsystems from vendors and products to our customers in both the United States and abroad. The failure or inability of these shipping companies to deliver components, subsystems or products timely, or the unavailability of their shipping services, even temporarily, could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may also be adversely affected by an increase in freight surcharges due to rising fuel costs or added security.

 

12


Table of Contents

We utilize a contract manufacturer to manufacture certain of our products and any disruption in this relationship may cause us to fail to meet our customers’ demands and may damage our customer relationships.

Although we assemble and manufacture certain of our products, we currently depend on Citizen Electronics Co., Ltd., or Citizen Electronics, as a contract manufacturer to manufacture a portion of our products in Asia. This manufacturer provides the necessary facilities and labor to manufacture these products, which are primarily high volume products that we intend to distribute to customers in regions outside of North America. Our reliance on a contract manufacturer involves certain risks, including the following:

 

   

lack of direct control over production capacity and delivery schedules;

 

   

lack of direct control over quality assurance and manufacturing yield; and

 

   

risk of loss of inventory while in transit.

If our contract manufacturer were to terminate its arrangements with us or fail to provide the required capacity and quality on a timely basis, we would experience delays in the manufacture and shipment of our products until alternative manufacturing services could be contracted or offsetting internal manufacturing processes could be implemented. To qualify a new contract manufacturer, familiarize it with our products, quality standards and other requirements and commence volume production may be a costly and time-consuming process. If we are required or choose to change contract manufacturers for any reason, our revenue, gross margins and customer relationships could be adversely affected.

Our industry is highly competitive and if we are not able to compete effectively, including against larger lighting manufacturers with greater resources, our prospects for future success will be jeopardized.

Our industry is highly competitive. We face competition from both traditional lighting technologies provided by numerous vendors as well as from LED-based lighting products provided by a growing roster of industry participants. The LED lighting industry is characterized by rapid technological change, short product lifecycles and frequent new product introductions, and a competitive pricing environment. These characteristics increase the need for continual innovation and provide entry points for new competitors as well as opportunities for rapid share shifts.

Currently, we view our primary competition to be from large, established companies in the traditional general lighting industry. Certain of these companies also provide, or have undertaken initiatives to develop, LED lighting products as well as other energy efficient lighting products. Additionally, we face competition from a fragmented universe of smaller niche or low-cost offshore providers of LED lighting products. We also anticipate that larger LED chip manufacturers, including some of those that currently supply us, may seek to compete with us by introducing more complete retrofit lamps or luminaires. We also expect other large technology players with packaged LED chip technology that are currently focused on other end markets for LEDs, such as backlighting for LCD displays, to increasingly focus on the general illumination market as their existing markets saturate and LED use in general illumination grows. In addition, we may compete in the future with vendors of new technological solutions for energy efficient lighting.

Some of our current and future competitors are larger companies with greater resources to devote to research and development, manufacturing and marketing, as well as greater brand name recognition. Some of our more diversified competitors could also compete more aggressively with us by subsidizing losses in their LED lighting businesses with profits from other lines of business. Moreover, if one or more of our competitors or suppliers were to merge with one another, the change in the competitive landscape could adversely affect our customer, channel or supplier relationships, or our competitive position. Additionally, any loss of a key channel partner, whether to a competitor or otherwise, could severely and rapidly damage our competitive position. To the extent that competition in our markets intensifies, we may be required to reduce our prices in order to remain competitive. If we do not compete effectively, or if we reduce our prices without making commensurate reductions in our costs, our net sales and profitability, and our future prospects for success, may be harmed.

 

13


Table of Contents

If we do not properly anticipate the need for critical raw materials, components and subsystems, we may be unable to meet the demands of our customers and end-users, which could reduce our competitiveness, cause a decline in our market share and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

The lighting industry is subject to significant fluctuations in the availability of raw materials, components and subsystems. We depend on our suppliers for certain standard electronic components as well as custom components critical to the manufacture of our lighting devices. The principal raw materials and components used in the manufacture of our products are packaged LEDs and printed circuit boards, MOSFETS, magnetic and standard electrical components such as capacitors, resistors and diodes, wire, plastics for optical systems and aluminum for housings and heat sinks. We currently rely on a select number of suppliers for packaged LEDs used in the production of our products. From time to time, packaged LEDs and electronic components have been in short supply due to demand and production constraints. We depend on our vendors to supply in a timely manner critical components and subsystems in adequate quantities and consistent quality and at reasonable costs. Finding a suitable alternate supply of required components and subsystems that meet our strict specifications and obtaining them in needed quantities may be a time-consuming process, and we may not be able to find an adequate alternative source of supply at an acceptable cost. Any significant interruption in the supply of these raw materials, components and subsystems could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our financial results may vary significantly from period-to-period due to unpredictable sales cycles in certain of the markets into which we sell our products, and changes in the mix of products we sell during a period, which may lead to volatility in our stock price.

The size and timing of our revenue from sales to our customers is difficult to predict and is market dependent. Our sales efforts often require us to educate our customers about the use and benefits of our products, including their technical and performance characteristics. We spend substantial amounts of time and money on our sales efforts and there is no assurance that these investments will produce any sales within expected time frames or at all. Given the potentially large size of purchase orders for our products, particularly in the infrastructure market, the loss of or delay in the signing of a customer order could significantly reduce our revenue in any period. Our revenues in each period may also vary significantly as a result of purchases, or lack thereof, by The Home Depot, Osram Sylvania or other significant customers. Because most of our operating and capital expenses are incurred based on the estimated number of product purchases and their timing, they are difficult to adjust in the short term. As a result, if our revenue falls below our expectations or is delayed in any period, we may not be able to proportionately reduce our operating expenses or manufacturing costs for that period, and any reduction of manufacturing capacity could have long-term implications on our ability to accommodate future demand.

Our profitability from period-to-period may also vary significantly due to the mix of products that we sell in different periods. As we expand our business we expect to sell more retrofit lamps and luminaires into additional target markets. These products are likely to have different cost profiles and will be sold into markets governed by different business dynamics. Consequently, sales of individual products may not necessarily be consistent across periods, which could affect product mix and cause gross and operating profits to vary significantly. As a result of these factors, we believe that quarter-to-quarter comparisons of our operating results are not necessarily meaningful and that these comparisons cannot be relied upon as indicators of future performance.

Our products may contain defects that could reduce sales, result in costs associated with the recall of those items and result in claims against us.

The manufacture of our products involves highly complex processes. Despite testing by us and our customers, defects have been and could be found in our existing or future products. These defects may cause us to incur significant warranty, support and repair costs, and costs associated with recall may divert the attention of our engineering personnel from our product development efforts and harm our relationships with customers and our reputation in the marketplace. We generally provide a five year warranty on our products, and such warranty

 

14


Table of Contents

may require us to repair, replace or reimburse the purchaser for the purchase price of the product, at the customer’s discretion. Moreover, even if our products meet standard specifications, our customers may attempt to use our products in applications they were not designed for or in products that were not designed or manufactured properly, resulting in product failures and creating customer dissatisfaction. These problems could result in, among other things, a delay in the recognition or loss of revenues, loss of market share or failure to achieve market acceptance. Defects, integration issues or other performance problems in our products could also result in personal injury or financial or other damages to our customers for which they might seek legal recourse against us. We may be the target of product liability lawsuits and could suffer losses from a significant product liability judgment against us if the use of our products at issue is determined to have caused injury. A significant product recall or product liability case could also result in adverse publicity, damage to our reputation and a loss of customer confidence in our products and adversely affect our results of operations.

If we are unable to obtain and protect our intellectual property rights, our ability to commercialize our products could be substantially limited.

As of December 31, 2010, we had filed 140 U.S. patent applications covering various inventions related to the design and manufacture of LED lighting technology. From these applications, 85 U.S. patents had been issued, 36 were pending approval and 19 were no longer active. When we believe it is appropriate and cost effective, we make corresponding international, regional or national filings to pursue patent protection in other parts of the world. Our patent applications may not be granted. Because patents involve complex legal, technical and factual questions, the issuance, scope, validity and enforceability of patents cannot be predicted with certainty. Competitors may develop products similar to our products that do not conflict with our patent rights. Others may challenge our patents and, as a result, our patents could be narrowed or invalidated. In some cases, we may rely on confidentiality agreements or trade secret protections to protect our proprietary technology. Such agreements, however, may not be honored and particular elements of our proprietary technology may not qualify as protectable trade secrets under applicable law. In addition, others may independently develop similar or superior technology, and in the absence of applicable prior patents, we would have no recourse against them.

Our business may be impaired by claims that we, or our customers, infringe intellectual property rights of others.

Our industry is characterized by vigorous protection and pursuit of intellectual property rights. These traits have resulted in significant and often protracted and expensive litigation. In addition, we may inadvertently infringe on patents or rights owned by others and licenses might not be available to us on reasonable or acceptable terms or at all. Litigation to determine the validity of patents or claims by third parties of infringement of patents or other intellectual property rights could result in significant legal expense and divert the efforts of our technical personnel and management, even if the litigation results in a determination favorable to us. Third parties have and may in the future attempt to assert infringement claims against us, or our customers, with respect to our products. In the event of an adverse result in such litigation, we could be required to pay substantial damages; stop the manufacture, use and sale of products found to be infringing; incur asset impairment charges; discontinue the use of processes found to be infringing; expend significant resources to develop non-infringing products or processes; or obtain a license to use third party technology and whether or not the result is adverse to us, we may have to indemnify our customers if they were brought into the litigation.

Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our stock price.

We are subject to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports, and failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting could cause investors to lose confidence in our operating results, and could have a material adverse effect on our business and on the price of our common stock. Because of our status as a

 

15


Table of Contents

smaller reporting company registrant as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, the independent registered public accounting firm auditing our financial statements has not been required to attest to, and report on, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. After the consummation of this offering, we believe our filing status will change and that our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to, and report on, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011.

During the evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, we concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective in reaching a reasonable level of assurance of achieving management’s desired controls and procedures objectives in our internal control over financial reporting. We believe that many of the observed material weaknesses result from our transition from a small company with immature processes and inadequate staffing in our financial accounting and reporting functions to one that is growing rapidly and must now enhance our reporting and control standards to accommodate this growth.

Although we have not yet remediated all of the identified weaknesses, the following are among the key actions taken:

 

   

the hiring of a corporate controller with SEC reporting experience in September 2009 and a Chief Financial Officer with SEC reporting experience in August 2010;

 

   

the initiation of an ongoing process to develop policies and procedures over all critical financial reporting and accounting cycles;

 

   

the completion of the first phase of implementation of new ERP system including the financials and order-to-cash modules designed to automate and systemize certain internal controls over financial reporting;

 

   

the standardization of the U.S. chart of accounts of our general ledger across different locations; and

 

   

the implementation of a management system designed to automate and systemize internal control over inventory.

Additional measures will be necessary to complete the remediation of our internal controls. We plan to continue to assess our internal controls and procedures and intend to take further action as necessary or appropriate to address any other matters we identify. The process of designing and implementing effective internal controls and procedures is a continuous effort, however, that requires us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and economic and regulatory environments. Additionally, we or our independent registered public accounting firm may identify additional weaknesses. The steps we have taken, or may subsequently take, may not have been or be sufficient to fully remediate the material weakness identified or ensure that our internal controls are effective. Complying with these requirements may place a strain on our personnel, information technology systems and resources and divert management’s attention from other business concerns. We may need to hire, at a material expense to us, additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge as part of the remediation of our material weakness or otherwise. Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal controls could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our stock price.

Certification and compliance are important to adoption of our lighting products, and failure to obtain such certification or compliance would harm our business.

We are required to comply with certain legal requirements governing the materials used in our products. Although we are not aware of any efforts to amend existing legal requirements or implement new legal requirements in a manner with which we cannot comply, our revenue might be materially harmed if such changes were to occur. Moreover, although not legally required to do so, we strive to obtain certification for substantially

 

16


Table of Contents

all of our products. In the United States, we seek, and to date have obtained, certification for substantially all of our products from Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc., or UL®. We design our products to be UL/cUL and Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, compliant. We had also obtained ENERGY STAR qualification for 35 of our products as of January 25, 2011. Although we believe that our broad knowledge and experience with electrical codes and safety standards have facilitated certification approvals, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain any such certifications for our new products or that, if certification standards are amended, we will be able to maintain any such certifications for our existing products, especially since virtually all existing codes and standards were not created with LED lighting products in mind. The failure to obtain such certifications or compliance would harm our business.

The reduction or elimination of investments in, or incentives to adopt, LED lighting or the elimination of, or changes in, policies, incentives or rebates in certain states or countries that encourage the use of LEDs over some traditional lighting technologies could cause the growth in demand for our products to slow, which could materially and adversely affect our revenues, profits and margins.

We believe the near-term growth of the LED market will be accelerated by government policies in certain countries that either directly promote the use of LEDs or discourage the use of some traditional lighting technologies. Today, the upfront cost of LED lighting exceeds the upfront cost for some traditional lighting technologies that provide similar lumen output in many applications. However, some governments around the world have used policy initiatives to accelerate the development and adoption of LED lighting and other non-traditional lighting technologies that are seen as more environmentally friendly compared to some traditional lighting technologies. Reductions in (including as a result of any budgetary constraints), or the elimination of, government investment and favorable energy policies could result in decreased demand for our products and decrease our revenues, profits and margins. Further, if our products fail to qualify for any financial incentives or rebates provided by governmental agencies or utilities for which our competitors’ products qualify, such programs may diminish or eliminate our ability to compete by offering products at lower prices than our competitors.

We rely upon key members of our management team and other key personnel and a loss of key personnel could prevent or significantly delay the achievement of our goals.

Our success will depend to a large extent on the abilities and continued services of key members of our management team including Richard Weinberg, John Stanley, Frederic Maxik and Greg Kaiser, as well as other key personnel. The loss of these key members of our management team or other key personnel could prevent or significantly delay the implementation of our business plan, research and development and marketing efforts. In particular, Frederic Maxik is critical to our research and development efforts. If we continue to grow, we will need to add additional management and other personnel. Zachary Gibler, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, passed away on January 2, 2011, and this loss heightened the significance of our remaining executive team. Mr. Weinberg agreed to serve as Chief Executive Officer on an interim basis, and we are currently searching for a permanent Chief Executive Officer. Competition for experienced executives and employees in our industry can be intense. Our success will depend on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled personnel, including a permanent Chief Executive Officer, and our efforts to obtain or retain such personnel may not be successful.

Our international operations are subject to legal, political and economic risks.

Our financial condition, operating results and future growth could be significantly affected by risks associated with our international activities, including economic and labor conditions, political instability, laws (including U.S. taxes on foreign subsidiaries), changes in the value of the U.S. dollar versus foreign currencies, differing business cultures, foreign regulations that may conflict with domestic regulations, intellectual property protection and trade secret risks, differing contracting process including the ability to enforce agreements, increased dependence on foreign manufacturers, shippers and distributors and import and export restrictions and tariffs.

 

17


Table of Contents

Compliance with U.S. and foreign laws and regulations that apply to our international operations, including import and export requirements, anti-corruption laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, tax laws (including U.S. taxes on foreign subsidiaries), foreign exchange controls, anti-money laundering and cash repatriation restrictions, data privacy requirements, labor laws and anti-competition regulations, increases the costs of doing business in foreign jurisdictions, and any such costs, which may rise in the future as a result of changes in these laws and regulations or in their interpretation. We have not implemented formal policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with these laws and regulations. Any such violations could individually or in the aggregate materially adversely affect our reputation, financial condition or operating results.

Our debt obligations contain restrictions that impact our business and expose us to risks that could adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.

On November 22, 2010, we entered into the Wells Fargo Facility. The Wells Fargo Facility has a term of three years and provides us with borrowing capacity of up to a maximum of $15.0 million, calculated as up to 85% of our applicable and eligible inventory and accounts receivable plus qualified cash. As of December 31, 2010, the balance outstanding on the Wells Fargo Facility was approximately $4.7 million and we had approximately $9.5 million of additional borrowing capacity. Under the facility, we are required to pay certain fees to Wells Fargo, including an unused line fee ranging from 0.375% to 1.0% of the unused portion of the facility. Outstanding loans may be prepaid without penalty or premium, except that we are required to pay a termination fee ranging from $75,000 to $300,000 (depending on the date of termination) if the facility is terminated by us prior to the scheduled maturity date or by Wells Fargo during a default period.

Borrowings under the Loan Agreement are secured by substantially all of our assets other than equipment and real property.

All of our existing and future domestic subsidiaries are required to guaranty our obligations and pledge their assets to secure the repayment of our obligations under the Wells Fargo Facility. The Wells Fargo Facility contains customary covenants, which limit our and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

 

   

incur additional indebtedness or guarantee indebtedness of others;

 

   

create liens on our assets;

 

   

enter into mergers or consolidations;

 

   

dispose of assets;

 

   

prepay indebtedness or make changes to our governing documents and certain of our agreements;

 

   

pay dividends or make other distributions on our capital stock, redeem or repurchase our capital stock;

 

   

make investments, including acquisitions; and

 

   

enter into transactions with affiliates.

We are also required to maintain minimum excess borrowing availability of $4.0 million and would be required to comply with certain specified EBITDA requirements in the event that we have less than $6.0 million available for borrowing on the Wells Fargo Facility. The Wells Fargo Facility also contains customary events of default and affirmative covenants.

If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow or otherwise obtain the funds necessary to make required payments under the Wells Fargo Facility, or if we fail to comply with the requirements of our indebtedness, we could default under the Wells Fargo Facility. Any default that is not cured or waived could result in the acceleration of the obligations under the Wells Fargo Facility, an increase in the applicable interest rate under the Wells Fargo Facility and a requirement that our subsidiaries that have guaranteed the Wells Fargo Facility pay

 

18


Table of Contents

the obligations in full, and would permit our lender to exercise remedies with respect to all of the collateral securing the Wells Fargo Facility, including substantially all of our and our subsidiary guarantors’ assets. Any such default could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition. Additionally, the covenants in such agreement or future debt agreements may restrict the conduct of our business, which could adversely affect our business by, among other things, limiting our ability to take advantage of financings, mergers, acquisitions and other corporate opportunities that may be beneficial to the business.

Our inability to successfully integrate businesses we acquire could have adverse consequences on our business.

Acquisitions may result in greater administrative burdens and operating costs and, to the extent financed with debt, additional interest costs. We may not be able to manage or integrate any acquired companies or businesses successfully. The process of integrating acquired businesses may be disruptive to our business and may cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, our business as a result of the following factors, among others:

 

   

the loss of key employees or customers;

 

   

the possible inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies among the combined companies and the need to implement company-wide financial, accounting, information and other systems;

 

   

the failure to coordinate sales, distribution and marketing functions and geographically diverse organizations; and

 

   

the diversion of management’s attention from our day-to-day business as a result of the need to address any disruptions and difficulties.

These disruptions and difficulties, if they occur, may cause us to fail to realize the cost savings, revenue enhancements and other benefits that we may expect from such acquisitions and may cause material adverse short- and long-term effects on our operating results and financial condition.

Risks related to this offering and ownership of our common stock

Prior to this offering, our common stock has been thinly traded and an active trading market may not develop.

The trading volume of our common stock has historically been low, partially because we are not listed on an exchange and our common stock is only traded on the over-the-counter bulletin board, or the OTC Bulletin Board. In addition, our public float has been further limited due to the fact that approximately 88.8% of our outstanding common stock was beneficially owned by affiliates of Pegasus Capital as of February 8, 2011. A more active trading market for our common stock may not develop as a result of this offering or as a result of our proposed listing on the NASDAQ stock market, or if developed, may not continue, and a holder of any of our securities may find it difficult to dispose of, or to obtain accurate quotations as to the market value of, our common stock.

We intend to elect to be a “controlled company” under the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules, controlled by Pegasus Capital, whose interests in our business may be different from yours.

Affiliates of Pegasus Capital beneficially owned approximately 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011, and upon completion of this offering, Pegasus Capital will beneficially own approximately     % of our common stock, or     % of our common stock if the underwriters exercise their over-allotment option in full. As a result of this ownership, Pegasus Capital will have a controlling influence on our affairs and its voting power will constitute a quorum of our stockholders voting on any matter requiring the approval of our

 

19


Table of Contents

stockholders. Such matters include the nomination and election of directors, the issuance of additional shares of our capital stock or payment of dividends, the adoption of amendments to our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and approval of mergers or sales of substantially all of our assets. This concentration of ownership may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company or discouraging others from making tender offers for our shares, which could prevent stockholders from receiving a premium for their shares. In addition, Richard Weinberg, our Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer, is the Co-Managing Director of Pegasus Capital. Pegasus Capital may cause corporate actions to be taken even if the interests of Pegasus Capital conflict with the interests of our other stockholders.

Because of the equity ownership of Pegasus Capital, we intend to elect to be considered a “controlled company” for purposes of the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules. As such, we will be exempt from the NASDAQ corporate governance requirement that a majority of our board of directors meet the specified standards of independence and exempt from the requirement that we have a compensation and governance committee made up entirely of directors who meet such independence standards. The NASDAQ independence standards are intended to ensure that directors who meet the independence standard are free of any conflicting interest that could influence their actions as directors. It is possible that the interests of Pegasus Capital may in some circumstances conflict with our interests and the interests of our other stockholders, including you.

We expect that the price of our common stock will fluctuate substantially and you may not be able to sell your shares at or above the public offering price.

The public offering price for the shares of our common stock sold in this offering was determined by negotiation between the representatives of the underwriters and us. This price may not reflect the market price of our common stock following this offering. In addition, the market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and may fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:

 

   

changes in expectations as to our future financial performance;

 

   

announcements of technological innovations or new products by us or our competitors;

 

   

announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts, acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments;

 

   

changes in laws and government regulations;

 

   

developments concerning our proprietary rights;

 

   

public perception relating to the commercial value or reliability of any of our lighting products;

 

   

future sales of our common stock or issues of other equity securities convertible into or exercisable for the purchase of common stock;

 

   

our involvement in litigation;

 

   

the acquisition or divestiture by Pegasus Capital or its affiliates of part or all of its holdings; and

 

   

general stock market conditions.

In addition, in recent years, the U.S. securities markets have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. This volatility has had a significant impact on the market price of securities issued by many companies, including companies in our industry. The changes frequently appear to occur without regard to the operating performance of the affected companies. Therefore, the price of our common stock could fluctuate based upon factors that have little or nothing to do with our company, and these fluctuations could materially reduce our share price.

 

20


Table of Contents

Investors in this offering will experience immediate dilution in net tangible book value per share.

The public offering price per share will significantly exceed the net tangible book value per share of our common stock. As a result, investors in this offering will experience immediate dilution of $         in net tangible book value per share as of September 30, 2010 based on an public offering price of $        , which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. This dilution occurs in large part because our earlier investors paid substantially less than the public offering price when they purchased their shares. Investors in this offering may also experience additional dilution as a result of the exercise of outstanding stock options and warrants. Accordingly, in the event that we are liquidated, investors may not receive the full amount or any of their investment.

Our management will have broad discretion over the use of the proceeds we receive in this offering and might not apply the proceeds in ways that increase the value of your investment.

After the repayment of any existing indebtedness on our Wells Fargo Facility, our management will have broad discretion to use our net proceeds from this offering, and you will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of these proceeds. Our management might not apply our net proceeds of this offering in ways that increase the value of your investment. After repayment of the Wells Fargo Facility, we expect to use the net proceeds to us from this offering for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures to expand our production capacity, investments in our research and development activities, expansion of our sales force and working capital needs in support of our planned business activities. Our management might not be able to yield a significant return, if any, on any investment of these net proceeds. You will not have the opportunity to influence our decisions on how to use our net proceeds from this offering.

Securities analysts may not provide coverage of our common stock or may issue negative reports, which may have a negative impact on the market price of our common stock.

Securities analysts have not historically provided research coverage of our common stock and may elect not to do so after the completion of this offering. If securities analysts do not cover our common stock after the completion of this offering, the lack of research coverage may cause the market price of our common stock to decline. The trading market for our common stock may be affected in part by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about our business. If one or more of the analysts who elects to cover us downgrades our stock, our stock price would likely decline substantially. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline. In addition, rules mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and a global settlement reached in 2003 between the SEC, other regulatory agencies and a number of investment banks have led to a number of fundamental changes in how analysts are reviewed and compensated. In particular, many investment banking firms are required to contract with independent financial analysts for their stock research. It may be difficult for companies such as ours, with smaller market capitalizations, to attract independent financial analysts that will cover our common stock. This could have a negative effect on the market price of our stock.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We have a history of losses and currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation and expansion of our business. In addition, the terms of the Wells Fargo Facility restrict our ability to pay dividends and any future credit facilities and loan agreements may further restrict our ability to pay dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of potential gain for the foreseeable future.

 

21


Table of Contents

Anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, and Delaware law, contain provisions that could discourage a takeover.

Anti-takeover provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law may have the effect of deterring or delaying attempts by our stockholders to remove or replace management, engage in proxy contests and effect changes in control. The provisions of our charter documents include:

 

   

procedures for advance notification of stockholder nominations and proposals;

 

   

the inability of less than a majority of our stockholders to call a special meeting of the stockholders;

 

   

the ability of our board of directors to create new directorships and to fill any vacancies on the board of directors;

 

   

the ability of our board of directors to amend our bylaws without stockholder approval; and

 

   

the ability of our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock without stockholder approval upon the terms and conditions and with the rights, privileges and preferences as our board of directors may determine.

In addition, as a Delaware corporation, we are subject to Delaware law, including Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In general, Section 203 prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any business combination with any interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date that the stockholder became an interested stockholder unless certain specific requirements are met as set forth in Section 203. These provisions, alone or together, could have the effect of deterring or delaying changes in incumbent management, proxy contests or changes in control.

Future sales or the possibility of future sales of a substantial amount of our common stock may depress the price of shares of our common stock.

Future sales or the availability for sale of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through future sales of equity securities. Upon consummation of this offering, based on the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, there will be          shares of our common stock outstanding. All shares of our common stock sold in this offering will be freely transferable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act.

We may issue shares of our common stock or other securities from time to time pursuant to the exercise of outstanding stock options or warrants or as consideration for future acquisitions and investments. If any such acquisition or investment is significant, the number of shares of our common stock, or the number or aggregate principal amount, as the case may be, of other securities that we may issue may in turn be substantial. We may also grant registration rights covering those shares of our common stock or other securities in connection with any such acquisitions and investments.

We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of our common stock will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock (including shares of our common stock issued in connection with an acquisition or by Pegasus Capital or its affiliates), or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock.

 

22


Table of Contents

Forward-looking statements

This prospectus contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act that are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about us, our future performance, our liquidity, the LED and lighting industries, our beliefs and management’s assumptions. Words such as “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “seek,” “project,” “target,” “goal” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. All statements in this prospectus regarding our business strategy, future operations, financial position, cost savings, prospects, plans and objectives, as well as information concerning industry trends and expected actions of third parties, are forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions concerning future events that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual future events or results may differ materially from these statements. We believe that the factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially include the factors that we describe in “Risk factors.” These factors, risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

   

our ability to introduce new products with better performance and lower manufacturing costs,

 

   

market acceptance of our products,

 

   

evolving industry trends and standards,

 

   

improvements in our forward planning and supply chain management and our success in transitioning our manufacturing activities to Mexico and Asia,

 

   

our ability to increase production capacity to meet demand and manage any future growth,

 

   

the timing and volume of sales of our products,

 

   

the success of our marketing strategies,

 

   

our relationships with customers and suppliers, particularly The Home Depot and Osram Sylvania,

 

   

continued strength of our relationships with key suppliers including those of packaged LEDs,

 

   

our ability to develop new proprietary technology and the costs and timing of obtaining new patent rights,

 

   

our ability to enforce existing patents,

 

   

any litigation involving us,

 

   

regulatory changes affecting us,

 

   

competition in our industry,

 

   

our ability to achieve and maintain effective internal controls,

 

   

our ability to attract and retain key personnel, including a new CEO, and

 

   

the amount of working capital investments we are required to make.

These factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements included in this prospectus. These risks and uncertainties, as well as other risks of which we are not aware or which we currently do not believe to be material, may cause our actual future results to be materially different than those expressed in our forward-looking statements. We caution you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We do not undertake any obligation to make any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this prospectus or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law, including the securities laws of the United States and rules and regulations of the SEC.

 

23


Table of Contents

Use of proceeds

We estimate that the net proceeds to us from this offering will be approximately $          million, based on an assumed public offering price of $          per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. If the underwriters’ over-allotment option is exercised in full, we estimate that we will receive additional net proceeds of approximately $          million.

We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering to repay any existing indebtedness on our Wells Fargo Facility, including accrued and unpaid interest thereon. We expect to use the remaining net proceeds from this offering for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures to expand our production capacity, investments in our research and development activities, expansion of our sales force and working capital needs in support of our planned business activities. Upon repayment of the existing indebtedness on our Wells Fargo Facility, we will have significant discretion as to the use of any remaining net proceeds. Investors will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of the net proceeds of any sale of our common stock.

As of                     , 2011, the outstanding balance on our Wells Fargo Facility was $          million, consisting of $          million of principal and $          million in accrued and unpaid interest. The Wells Fargo Facility has a maturity date of November 22, 2013. Borrowings under the Wells Fargo Facility bear interest at one of the following two rates (at our election): (a) the sum of (1) the greater of: (x) the federal funds rate plus 0.50%, (y) the daily three month LIBOR rate plus 1.0% and (z) Wells Fargo’s prime rate; and (2) 0.75%, 1.25% or 1.75%, as applicable, depending on the amount available for borrowing under the facility and subject to any reserves established by Wells Fargo in accordance with the terms of the facility; or (b) the sum of (1) the daily three month LIBOR rate; plus 3.0%, 3.5% or 4.0%, as applicable, depending on the amount available for borrowing under the facility and subject to any reserves established by Wells Fargo in accordance with the terms of the facility. The annual interest rate was equal to     % as of                     , 2011.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed public offering price would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us by $          million, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. Each increase (decrease) of 1.0 million in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us by $          million, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming the assumed public offering price of $         per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.

 

24


Table of Contents

Market price of our common stock

Our common stock is currently quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “LSCG.OB.” We intend to apply to have our stock listed on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol “ LSGC.”

Our common stock last traded at $4.65 on February 8, 2011, and there were approximately 365 stockholders of record of our common stock on that date. We believe the number of beneficial owners is greater than the number of record holders because additional beneficial owners of our outstanding common stock hold shares of record in broker “street names” for the benefit of individual investors. As of February 8, 2011, there were 186,137,141 shares of our common stock outstanding.

The following table provides the high and low bid price information for our common stock for each quarterly period within the two most recent fiscal years as reported by: (i) the OTC Bulletin Board from January 2009 through May 18, 2009 and from August 31, 2010 through February 8, 2011 and (ii) the pink sheets from May 19, 2009 through August 30, 2010. The quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not represent actual transactions.

 

     HIGH      LOW  

2011

     

First Quarter (through February 8, 2011)

   $ 5.39       $ 3.20   

2010

     

First Quarter

   $ 1.05       $ 0.60   

Second Quarter

   $ 2.50       $ 0.81   

Third Quarter

   $ 2.30       $ 1.18   

Fourth Quarter

   $ 3.70       $ 1.75   

2009

     

First Quarter

   $ 0.91       $ 0.40   

Second Quarter

   $ 0.90       $ 0.15   

Third Quarter

   $ 1.00       $ 0.35   

Fourth Quarter

   $ 1.90       $ 0.76   

Dividend policy

We have not paid any dividends on our common stock since our inception and do not intend to pay any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. We currently anticipate that we will retain all of our available cash, if any, for use as working capital and for other general corporate purposes, including to service our debt and to fund the operation of our business. Payment of future dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on many factors, including general economic and business conditions, our strategic plans, our financial results and condition, legal requirements and other factors our board of directors deems relevant. Our Wells Fargo Facility also imposes restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

 

25


Table of Contents

Capitalization

The following table presents a summary of our cash and capitalization as of September 30, 2010:

 

   

on an actual basis;

 

   

on a pro forma basis giving effect to the: (i) sale of 3,125,000 shares of common stock on October 6, 2010 for $5.0 million pursuant to the Stock Purchase, Exchange and Recapitalization Agreement (the “Recapitalization Agreement”) dated as of September 30, 2010 among us, Pegasus IV, LSGC Holdings and LED Holdings; (ii) conversion of our outstanding shares of our Series D Non-Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”) into 44,072,123 shares of common stock on December 22, 2010; (iii) sale of 5,454,545 shares of our common stock on January 26, 2011 for $18.0 million pursuant to a private placement and (iv) issuance of 54,500,000 shares of our common stock to LSGC Holdings, as of February 4, 2011, in exchange for the Series D Warrant to purchase 60,758,777 shares of common stock and the warrant to purchase 942,857 shares of our common stock dated July 25, 2008 held by LSGC Holdings (collectively, the “Subsequent Issuances”); and

 

   

on a pro forma as adjusted basis giving effect to the Subsequent Issuances and our issuance and sale of          shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed public offering price of $          per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, and the application of the net proceeds to us from this offering as described in “Use of proceeds.”

You should read this table in conjunction with the sections entitled “Selected historical consolidated financial data,” “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes all included elsewhere in this prospectus.

 

(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)    As of September 30, 2010  
     Actual     Pro forma (1)     Pro forma
as adjusted  (2)
 

Cash

   $ 19,209      $ 42,209     

Total indebtedness (including short-term indebtedness)

     1,893        1,893     

Mandatorily redeemable Series D Preferred Stock: $0.001 par value, 79,000,000 shares authorized, 67,863,665 issued and outstanding shares, actual, and no outstanding shares, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted

     67,664        —       

Warrants included in Series D

     90,155        —       

Stockholders’ equity (deficit):

      

Common stock: $0.001 par value; 400,000,000 shares authorized, 78,108,866, 185,260,534 and          issued and outstanding shares, actual, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted

     78        185     

Additional paid-in capital

     183,568        367,147     

Accumulated deficit

     (302,339     (302,339  

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

     (3,685     (3,685  

Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)

     (122,378     61,308     
                        

Total capitalization

   $ 37,334      $ 63,201     
                        

 

(1) Includes the reclassification of the Series D Warrants that were coupled with the Series D Preferred Stock to comprise our Series D Units, which reclassification became effective on December 22, 2010 in conjunction with the conversion of all outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock into common stock. The accrued dividends on the previously outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock were also added to additional paid-in capital as a result of this recapitalization.

 

26


Table of Contents
(2) The pro forma as adjusted data gives effect to our issuance and sale of                  shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed offering price of $          per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and that the net proceeds will be approximately $          million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. If the underwriters’ over-allotment option is exercised in full, we estimate that we will receive additional net proceeds of $          million. Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed public offering price of $          per share, would increase (decrease) each of cash, additional paid-in capital, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and total capitalization by $          million, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. Each increase (decrease) of 1.0 million in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) each of cash, additional paid-in capital, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and total capitalization by $          million, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, assuming the assumed public offering price of $         per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus.

 

27


Table of Contents

Dilution

If you invest in our common stock, your ownership interest will be diluted to the extent of the difference between the public offering price per share of our common stock and the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value (deficit) per share of our common stock upon consummation of this offering. Our historical net tangible book value (deficit) as of September 30, 2010 was approximately $(129.3) million, or $(1.66) per share of common stock based on 78,108,866 shares issued and outstanding as of such date. Net tangible book value (deficit) per share represents the book value of our total tangible assets less the book value of our total liabilities divided by the number of shares of our common stock then issued and outstanding.

After giving effect to the Subsequent Issuances described under “Capitalization,” our pro forma net tangible book value as of September 30, 2010 would have been $54.4 million, or $0.26 per share of common stock based on 185,260,534 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2010.

After giving effect to the Subsequent Issuance and the sale of          shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed public offering price of $          per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of September 30, 2010 would have been $         million, or $          per share based on 78,108,866 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2010. This amount represents an immediate increase in net tangible book value to our existing stockholders of $          per share and an immediate dilution of $          per share to investors in this offering.

The following table illustrates this per share dilution:

 

Assumed public offering price per share

     $                

Net tangible book value (deficit) per share as of September 30, 2010

   $ (1.66  

Increase in net tangible book value per share as a result of the Subsequent Issuances

     1.95     

Increase in net tangible book value per share attributable to this offering

    

Pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share after this offering

    

Net tangible book value dilution per share to investors in this offering

    
          
     $     
          

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed public offering price of $          per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by approximately $          million, or approximately $          per share, and the pro forma dilution per share to investors in this offering by approximately $          per share, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us and assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same. Each increase (decrease) of 1.0 million in the number of shares offered by us would increase (decrease) our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by approximately $          million, or approximately $          per share, and the pro forma dilution per share to investors in this offering by approximately $          per share, at the assumed public offering price of $          per share, which is the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. The pro forma as adjusted information discussed above is illustrative only and will adjust based on the actual public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

If the underwriters’ over-allotment option to purchase          additional shares from us, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of September 30, 2010 would have been $          per share, representing an immediate increase in net tangible book value to our existing stockholders of $          per share and an immediate dilution of $          per share to investors in this offering.

 

28


Table of Contents

After giving effect to the Subsequent Issuances, the following table summarizes as of September 30, 2010 the average price per share paid by our existing stockholders and by investors in this offering at the assumed public offering price of $         per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

 

     Shares Purchased     Total Consideration     Average
Price Per Share
 
     Number      Percent     Amount      Percent     Amount  

Existing stockholders

     185,260,534                        $ 367,332,019                        $ 1.98   

Investors in this offering

            
                                    

Total

        100   $           100  
                                    

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed public offering price of $          per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) total consideration paid by investors in this offering by $          million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us and assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, remains the same.

If the underwriters’ over-allotment option to purchase          additional shares from us in this offering is exercised in full, the following will occur:

 

   

the number of shares of our common stock held by existing stockholders after the completion of this offering will be                     , or approximately     % of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering; and

 

   

the number of shares of our common stock held by investors in this offering after the completion of this offering will be                     , or approximately     % of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering.

The foregoing information as to the number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding immediately after this offering is based on 185,260,534 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2010 after giving effect to the Subsequent Issuances described under “Capitalization” and excludes:

 

   

12,756,217 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding options under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $1.28 per share;

 

   

176,668 shares of common stock issuable upon the vesting of shares of restricted stock previously awarded under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010;

 

   

15,067,115 (which gives effect to the 8,000,000 share increase on February 10, 2011) shares of common stock reserved and available for future issuance under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010; and

 

   

14,789,424 shares of common stock, on an as-converted basis, issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants to purchase common stock, as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $5.83 per share.

If all of our outstanding options and warrants to purchase common stock as of September 30, 2010 were exercised in full, pro forma net tangible book value as of September 30, 2010 before this offering would have been $0.26 per share and, after our issuance and sale of          shares of our common stock in this offering at an assumed public offering price of $          per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us, pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of September 30, 2010 before this offering would have been $          per share representing an immediate dilution of $         per share to investors in this offering.

 

29


Table of Contents

Selected historical consolidated financial data

The following table presents our selected historical consolidated financial data as of the dates and for the periods indicated. The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2008 and 2009 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2007 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2006 and 2007 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this prospectus. The consolidated statements of operations data for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 and 2010 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of September 30, 2010 are derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our unaudited consolidated financial data has been prepared on a consistent basis with our audited consolidated financial data and, in the opinion of our management, reflects all adjustments, consisting of normal and recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of our results for those periods. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in any future period, and the results for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the full year or for any other period.

On October 4, 2007, we entered into an Exchange and Contribution Agreement (the “Exchange Agreement”) with LED Holdings, a private holding company that was formed in June 2007 for the purpose of acquiring 100% of the assets of LED Effects, Inc. (“LED Effects”) on June 14, 2007. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreement, we: (i) acquired substantially all of the assets of LED Holdings and (ii) issued in exchange for these assets 2,000,000 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock and 15,928,734 shares of our common stock to LED Holdings (collectively, the “Acquisition”). As a result of the Acquisition and, specifically, LED Holdings’ acquisition of approximately a 70% participating interest and an 80% voting interest in the company, we became a majority-owned subsidiary of LED Holdings as of October 4, 2007.

We accounted for the Acquisition as a reverse merger. Accordingly, for accounting and financial reporting purposes, Lighting Science Group was treated as the acquired company, and LED Holdings was treated as the acquiring company. Therefore, the historical financial statements presented below for the period beginning on June 14, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2007 are those of LED Holdings. Because LED Holdings had no operations prior to its acquisition of the assets of LED Effects, the historical financial statements included below for periods prior to June 14, 2007 are those of LED Effects, which has been identified as the predecessor entity to LED Holdings. As a result, the historical financial statements presented below for the period beginning on June 14, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2007 include the operations of LED Holdings from June 14, 2007 through October 4, 2007 and the consolidated operations of LED Holdings and Lighting Science Group from October 4, 2007 through December 31, 2007.

You should read this selected historical consolidated financial data in conjunction with “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes, all included elsewhere in this prospectus.

 

30


Table of Contents
    For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
    Year Ended December 31,     Lighting
Science
Group Corp
from

June 14,
2007 through
December 31,
2007
    LED
Effects
Inc. from

January 1,
2007
through
June 13,

2007
    LED
Effects Inc.
for

the Year
Ended
December 31,
2006
 
    2010     2009     2009     2008        

Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:

             

Revenue

  $ 30,331,005      $ 21,969,701      $ 31,376,816      $ 20,758,593      $ 4,616,111      $ 3,675,132      $ 8,858,068   

Cost of goods sold

    31,229,947        17,599,574        24,754,819        16,688,600        3,526,750        2,606,445        6,061,922   
                                                       

Gross margin

    (898,942     4,370,127        6,621,997        4,069,993        1,089,361        1,068,687        2,796,146   
                                                       

Operating expenses:

             

Sales and marketing

    6,873,194        4,670,459        7,248,311        5,847,833        962,597        107,708        —     

Operations

    3,784,510        8,329,604        10,370,098        10,526,976        2,396,355        127,574        —     

Research and development (1)

    6,719,808        2,444,158        4,395,320        3,259,187        —          —          —     

General and administrative

    10,877,051        17,035,266        20,705,525        23,224,561        2,875,076        330,269        997,494   

Restructuring expenses

    458,311        702,625        1,111,189        —          —          —          —     

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

    10,538,307        —          —          53,110,133        —          —          —     

Depreciation and amortization

    2,324,068        4,439,465        5,327,033        4,354,028        669,861        6,691        25,969   
                                                       

Total operating expenses

    41,575,249        37,621,577        49,157,476        100,322,718        6,903,889        572,242        1,023,463   
                                                       

(Loss) Income from operations

    (42,474,191     (33,251,450     (42,535,479     (96,252,725     (5,814,528     496,445        1,772,683   

Total other income (expense)

    (111,479,505     (4,070,427     (6,014,450     (918,238     501,462        (34,406     (1,167
                                                       

(Loss) Income before income tax expense (benefit)

    (153,953,696     (37,321,877     (48,549,929     (97,170,963     (5,313,066     462,039        1,771,516   

6% convertible preferred stock and accretion (reversal accretion), of preferred stock redemption value

    —          —          —          —          (413,999     —          —     

Income tax expense (benefit)

    382,645        (263,108     (413,002     (2,207,507     —          172,244        666,665   
                                                       

(Loss) Income before minority interest in subsidiary

    (154,336,341     (37,058,769     (48,136,927     (94,963,456     (4,899,067     289,795        1,104,851   

Minority interest in subsidiary

            (3,902     (2,583     (84,523
                                                       

Net (loss) income

    (154,336,341     (37,058,769     (48,136,927     (94,963,456     (4,902,969     287,212        1,020,328   

Dividend requirements

             

6% return on Series B Preferred Stock

    784,142        738,586        1,217,642        —          —          —          —     

8% return on Series C Preferred Stock

    213,610        197,240        266,400        —          —          —          —     
                                                       

Net loss attributable to common stock

  $ (155,334,093   $ (37,994,595   $ (49,620,969   $ (94,903,456   $ (4,902,969   $ 287,212      $ 1,020,328   
                                                       

Basic and diluted net loss per weighted average common share

  $ (5.11   $ (1.30   $ (1.69   $ (3.55   $ (0.28    
                                           

Basic and diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding

    30,393,884        29,207,158        29,352,585        26,781,431        17,419,959       
                                           

Net (loss) income

  $ (154,336,341   $ (37,058,769   $ (48,136,927   $ (94,963,456   $ (4,902,969   $ 287,212      $ 1,020,328   

Foreign currency translation gain (loss)

    (1,039,154     1,809,008        (849,695     (1,886,544     10,281        (82,135     (8,977
                                                       

Comprehensive loss

  $ (155,375,495   $ (35,249,761   $ (48,986,622   $ (96,850,000   $ (4,892,688   $ 205,077      $ 1,011,351   
                                                       

 

     As of
September  30,
2010
    As of December 31,  
        2009     2008     2007      2006  

Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:

           

Cash

     19,208,715        267,048        254,538        11,399,429         1,828,776   

Working capital (deficiency)

     28,282,877        (54,703,745     (14,869,035     11,732,984         3,254,997   

Total assets

     59,956,590        38,468,814        49,553,267        73,586,251         3,953,678   

Total liabilities

     182,334,703        72,132,669        38,298,878        7,033,103         908,911   

6% convertible preferred stock

     —          585,549        459,532        364,895         —     

Total stockholders' equity (deficit)

     (122,378,113     (32,249,404     10,794,857        66,188,253         3,044,767   

 

(1) During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This table reflects management’s modified presentation for all periods presented, including its current characterization of research and development expenses.

 

31


Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis of

financial condition and results of operations

The following discussion and analysis summarizes the significant factors affecting the consolidated operating results, financial condition, liquidity and cash flows of our company as of and for the periods presented below. The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that are based on the beliefs of our management, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, our management. Actual results may differ materially from those discussed in or implied by forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and elsewhere in this prospectus, particularly in the section entitled “Risk factors.”

Overview

We design, develop, manufacture and market general illumination products that exclusively use LEDs as their light source. Our product portfolio includes LED-based retrofit lamps (replacement bulbs) that can be used in existing light fixtures and sockets, as well as purpose built LED-based luminaires (fixtures) for many common indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure lighting applications.

Our revenues are primarily derived from sales of our LED-based retrofit lamps and luminaires. Retrofit lamp sales have grown significantly over the past year and currently represent a majority of our revenues. Our financial results are dependent upon the mix and quantity of products sold, the operating costs associated with our supply chain and the level of selling, general and administrative, compensation and other operating expenses.

We experienced substantial sales growth as a result of our launch of multiple new product lines during 2010. As a result, our results reflect the impact of higher than normal costs resulting from our need to meet accelerated production schedules associated with increased demand. These increased costs primarily resulted from our need to expedite materials delivery by means of premium freight and to make spot purchases of long lead-time materials at higher than our normal contracted prices. In addition, we experienced labor inefficiencies and higher than expected wage rates, due to the rapid expansion of our labor force and delays in establishing contract manufacturing operations. We are working to address these supply chain issues and we are experiencing gradual improvement. We expect this improvement to continue as we gain efficiencies with volume and supply chain optimization and migrate more of our manufacturing to lower cost regions. The majority of our products are currently produced at our production facility in Satellite Beach, Florida, but we are in the process of increasing production at our manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico, which opened in November 2010, as well as through our international contract manufacturing activities.

LED lighting industry trends

There are a number of industry factors that affect our business and results of operations that include, among others:

 

   

Rate and extent of adoption of LED lighting products. Our potential for growth will be driven by the rate and extent of adoption of LED lighting within the general illumination market and our ability to affect this rate of adoption. Although LED lighting is relatively new and faces significant challenges before achieving widespread adoption, it has grown in recent years. Innovations and advancements in LED technology continue to expand the potential commercial applications of LEDs particularly in the general illumination market.

 

   

External legislation and subsidy programs concerning energy efficiency. Many countries in the European Union and the United States, among others, have already instituted, or have announced plans to institute, government regulations and programs designed to encourage or mandate increased energy efficiency. These steps include in certain cases banning the sale after specified dates of certain forms of incandescent lighting, which is advancing the adoption of more energy efficient lighting solutions

 

32


Table of Contents
 

such as LEDs. In addition, the growing demand for electricity may increasingly drive utilities and governmental agencies to provide financial incentives such as rebates for energy efficient lighting technologies in an effort to mitigate the need for investments in new electrical generation capacity.

 

   

Intellectual property. LED market participants rely on patented and non-patented proprietary information relating to product development, manufacturing capabilities and other core competencies of their business. Protection and licensing of intellectual property is critical. Therefore, LED lighting industry participants take steps such as additional patent applications, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements as well as other security measures. To enforce or protect intellectual property rights, market participants commonly commence or threaten litigation.

Financial operations overview

Revenue

We derive revenue from the sale of our products and custom design projects.

Product Revenue. Product revenue is derived from the sale of an extensive and growing range of LED-based retrofit lamps and luminaires. Product sales are recorded when the products are shipped and title passes to customers. When product sales are subject to certain customer acceptance terms, revenue from the sale is recognized once these terms have been met. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010, product revenue represented 88% of our total revenue. Our two largest customers, Osram Sylvania and The Home Depot, accounted for approximately 21% and 6% of our total revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and we expect revenues from each of these customers to increase as we continue to grow our retrofit lamp business.

Custom Design Project Revenue. Custom design project revenue is derived from contracts combining project management, system integration and advanced control systems and software to create desired lighting effects for architects, lighting designers and research projects. We recognize revenue on our long-term, fixed price custom design projects using the percentage of completion method measured by the ratio of costs incurred to date to the estimated total costs to be incurred for each contract. Contract costs include all direct material, direct labor and other indirect costs related to contract performance. Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts are made in the period in which such losses are determined. Changes in job performance, job conditions, estimated profitability and final contract settlements may result in revisions to costs and income and are recognized in the period in which the revisions are determined. For smaller or short-term custom design projects or projects for which estimated total costs cannot be determined, revenue is recognized using the completed contract method and revenue is recognized upon substantial completion and acceptance by the customer of each project. Amounts received as deposits against future completion of completed contract method projects are recorded as unearned revenue until such projects are completed and title passes to the customer. We expect that revenue from custom design projects will vary period-to-period depending on the timing of the progress made on each project and estimated costs to complete such project. We expect custom design project revenue to decrease as a percentage of our total revenue due primarily to the expected increase in product revenue.

Unearned Revenue. We record unearned revenue for product sales and custom design projects in several different circumstances. These circumstances include: (i) products delivered or services performed but other revenue recognition criteria not having been satisfied and (ii) payments received in advance of products being delivered or services being performed. Unearned revenue includes customer deposits and up-front fees associated with product deliveries and design services. Unearned revenue expected to be recognized as revenue more than one year subsequent to the balance sheet date is classified as long-term unearned revenue. Unearned revenue will vary depending on the timing product deliveries and performance of services. As a result, unearned revenue is likely to fluctuate from period-to-period.

 

33


Table of Contents

Cost of goods sold and gross profit

Cost of goods sold includes the cost of raw materials, including related freight, labor and outside processing fees that are required for the manufacture of our products, as well as manufacturing overhead costs, physical inventory variances, production scrap charges and warranty costs. Our materials costs, which historically have been our most significant cost, have recently decreased as a result of our multi-sourcing initiatives and increased volume. We expect this decrease to continue primarily due to ongoing product innovation resulting in simplified product design, and further impact from multi-sourcing and increased volume as we achieve better economies of scale. We incur costs associated with unabsorbed manufacturing expenses as production facilities increase toward optimal operating levels. We expect these unabsorbed manufacturing costs, which include certain personnel, rent, utilities and materials, to increase in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue in the near term. Over the long term, we would expect these costs to decrease, as a percentage of total revenue, as revenues increase.

Our gross profit as a percentage of revenue is affected by a number of factors, including sales volume, the mix of products and customers, average selling prices, foreign exchange rates, our actual manufacturing costs and costs associated with increasing production capacity until full production is achieved. As we continue to grow and build out our manufacturing capacity, and as new product designs come into production, our gross profit is expected to continue to fluctuate from period-to-period. We expect our cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenues to improve gradually throughout 2011 as a result of the following: (i) decreased freight and labor variances from greater supply chain stability of non-LED materials, (ii) the implementation of a manufacturing facility in Mexico to increase capacity and access lower labor costs, (iii) increased fixed price contract manufacturing in Asia and (iv) efficiencies from automation equipment.

Operating expenses

Operating expenses consist of sales and marketing, operations, research and development and general and administrative expenses. Personnel-related expenses comprise the most significant component of these expenses. We expect to hire a significant number of new employees in order to support our anticipated growth. In any particular period, the timing of additional hires could materially affect our operating expenses, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue.

Sales and Marketing Expenses. Sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of personnel-related expenses, travel and other out-of-pocket expenses for marketing programs, such as trade shows, industry conferences, marketing materials and corporate communications, customer service and facilities costs and other related overhead costs. Unbillable shipping and handling costs that are incurred to deliver products to our customers are also included in sales and marketing expenses. We intend to hire additional sales personnel, initiate additional marketing programs and build additional relationships with resellers, systems integrators and strategic partners on a global basis. Accordingly, we expect that our sales and marketing expenses will continue to increase in absolute dollars but decrease as a percentage of revenue in the long term.

Operations Expenses. Operations expenses consist primarily of expenses for personnel engaged in procurement, supply chain management and quality assurance as well as indirect production costs. We expect to hire additional personnel and enhance our infrastructure to support the anticipated growth of our business. Accordingly, we expect that our operations expenses will continue to increase in absolute dollars but decrease as a percentage of revenue in the long term.

Research and Development Expenses. Research and development expenses consist primarily of expenses for personnel engaged in the development of new products and the enhancement of existing products. These expenses also consist of lab materials, quality enhancement activities and facilities costs and other related overhead costs. We expense all of our research and development costs as they are incurred. In the near term, we expect research and development expenses to increase primarily due to personnel-related expenses associated with the hiring of additional employees, as well as contract-related expenses as we continue to invest in the development

 

34


Table of Contents

of our products. Research and development expense is reported net of any funding received under contracts with governmental agencies and commercial customers that are considered to be cost sharing arrangements with no contractually committed deliverable. We expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase in absolute dollars but decrease as a percentage of revenue in the long term.

General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel-related expenses related to our executive, finance, human resource and information technology functions, as well as fees for professional services and allocated facility overhead expenses. Professional services consist principally of external legal, accounting, tax, audit and other consulting services. Our general and administrative expenses relating to us being a public company, which include audit and legal fees, costs of compliance with securities, corporate governance and other regulations and investor relations expenses are expected to continue to be significant components of this expense. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs as we hire additional personnel, including a new Chief Executive Officer, and enhance our infrastructure to support the anticipated growth of our business.

Restructuring Expenses. We record restructuring expenses associated with management approved restructuring plans to reorganize one or more of our business functions or to remove duplicative headcount and infrastructure associated with one or more locations. These items primarily include employee separation costs and estimates related to the consolidation of facilities (net of sub-lease income), contractual obligations and the impairment of certain assets. The timing of associated cash payments is dependent upon the type of restructuring expense and can extend over a multi-year period. Restructuring expenses are recorded based upon planned employee termination dates, site closures and consolidation plans and are not anticipated to be recurring.

Impairment of Goodwill and Other Long-Lived Assets. Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price paid over the fair value of the assets acquired in connection with business acquisitions. Long-lived assets, including goodwill, are periodically reviewed for possible impairment and whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. To analyze recoverability, we project undiscounted future cash flows over the remaining life of the asset. If these projected cash flows are less than the carrying amount, an impairment loss is recognized based on the fair value of the asset less any costs of disposition. Our judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators are based on market and operational performance. Future events could cause us to conclude that impairment indicators exist and that assets are impaired. Evaluating the impairment also requires us to estimate future operating results and cash flows that require judgment by management. If different estimates are used, any amount and timing of asset impairments could be affected.

Restructuring and recapitalization

During 2010, we initiated a strategic plan focused on creating an organization capable of leading the industry. The initial phase of this plan was to consolidate and restructure our operations to better align our fixed operating expenses with our business needs while continuing to support investments in product development. In particular, we took significant steps to reduce our total operating expenses in 2010, which included: (i) our exit from LEDS Japan, our Japanese operations, as of July 1, 2010; (ii) the consolidation of our California-based operations into our headquarters in Satellite Beach, Florida; (iii) the restructuring of our European operations; (iv) opening an additional production facility in Monterrey, Mexico to increase North American capacity and access lower cost labor and (v) increasing capacity with our Asian contract manufacturer. We expect to continue these activities as we establish tighter fiscal controls and consolidate certain general and administrative functions in our remaining locations.

On September 30, 2010, we entered into a Stock Purchase, Exchange and Recapitalization Agreement (the “Recapitalization Agreement”) with Pegasus IV, LSGC Holdings and LED Holdings. Pursuant to the Recapitalization Agreement, LSGC Holdings purchased $25.0 million of our common stock and Pegasus IV and LED Holdings agreed to participate in a recapitalization of the company (the “Recapitalization”). Specifically,

 

35


Table of Contents

LSGC Holdings purchased 15,625,000 shares of common stock at a price per share of $1.60. In conjunction with the Recapitalization, we exchanged all of our outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock (the “Series B Preferred Stock”), Series C Preferred Stock (the “Series C Preferred Stock”), Series E Non-Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series E Preferred Stock”) and the warrant issued in conjunction with the Series E Preferred Stock (the “Series E Warrant”) for a total of 32,612,249 shares of our common stock. In addition, the holders of our outstanding shares of Series C Preferred Stock elected to exercise all of their related warrants (“Series C Warrants”) on a cashless basis for 1,937,420 shares of our common stock.

On December 22, 2010 and in conjunction with the Recapitalization Agreement, we amended our Certificate of Incorporation to provide for the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our Series D Non-Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”) into common stock. Based upon the date of issuance, each share of Series D Preferred Stock converted into approximately 0.65 to 0.66 shares of common stock. We issued a total of 44,072,123 shares of our common stock pursuant to this conversion. Additionally, on December 30, 2010, we entered into a Warrant Agreement (the “Warrant Agreement”) with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as warrant agent (the “Warrant Agent”), effective as of December 22. 2010. The Warrant Agreement governs the terms of the warrants (the “Series D Warrants”) previously composing part of the units (the “Units”), which were separated pursuant to the automatic conversion of our Series D Preferred Stock. Each Unit was composed of one share of Series D Preferred Stock and one Series D Warrant.

The Warrant Agreement provides each holder of a Series D Warrant with an exercise price reduction ranging from $0.08 to $0.10 (depending on the date of issuance) per share of common stock issuable upon exercise of such Series D Warrant. The Warrant Agreement also provides each Series D Warrant holder with a credit, registered with the Warrant Agent in the name of the holder, which ranges from approximately $4.85 to $4.88 (depending on the date of issuance) for each share of common stock issuable upon exercise of a Series D Warrant (the “Accrual Credit”). The Accrual Credit may only be used to fund the payment of the exercise price of all or a portion of such holder’s Series D Warrants and cannot be used until the earlier of: (i) the passage of eight years from the date of issuance of each Series D Warrant or (ii) a Liquidation Event (as defined in the Warrant Agreement) of the company. After application of the Accrual Credit, the remaining exercise price of each Series D Warrant, following a Liquidation Event or the eighth anniversary of its issuance, would be between $1.04 to $1.05 per share of common stock (depending on the date of issuance), except in the case of the Series D Warrants held by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”), whose remaining exercise price would be approximately $7.05 per share of common stock.

In the second quarter of 2009, we decided to consolidate our U.S. operations from four locations to two and moved both our Dallas-based headquarters and our New Jersey-based operations to Satellite Beach, Florida. In addition, we also reduced employee headcount in our California facility.

Recent events

On January 13, 2011, we issued a Warrant to The Home Depot pursuant to which The Home Depot may purchase up to 5.0 million shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $2.00 per share, subject to certain vesting conditions. The Warrant was issued in connection with our Strategic Purchasing Agreement with The Home Depot, which we entered into on July 23, 2010 and pursuant to which we supply The Home Depot with LED retrofit lamps and fixtures. The Warrant provides that 1.0 million shares of common stock will be eligible for vesting following each fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 through December 31, 2015, if The Home Depot’s gross product orders from us, in dollar terms, are at least 20% more than the gross product orders in the immediately preceding fiscal year. For the shares underlying the Warrant to be eligible for vesting following the fiscal years ending December 31, 2014 and 2015, The Home Depot would be required to extend the Strategic Purchasing Agreement for additional one-year periods beyond its initial term of three years. Each vested portion of the Warrant will expire on the third anniversary following the vesting of such portion. The $2.00 exercise price was established based upon the market price of our common stock during negotiations with The Home Depot in July 2010 when we entered into the Strategic Purchasing Agreement. Among other factors, because the

 

36


Table of Contents

exercise price of the Warrant was less than the fair market value of the underlying shares of common stock on the date of grant, the fair value of this Warrant is expected to result in a sales and marketing expense of approximately $2.0 million per year over the next five years. For a discussion of the factors used in estimating fair value, see Note 16, “Equity Based Compensation Plan” to our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 included elsewhere in this prospectus.

On January 26, 2011, we raised $18.0 million in a private placement pursuant to which we issued 5,454,545 shares of common stock to an affiliate of Pegasus Capital, Michael Kempner, Leon Wagner, certain other operating advisors of Pegasus Capital, and certain trusts affiliated with, and business associates of, Mr. Wagner. Mr. Kempner and Mr. Wagner serve on our board of directors.

On February 4, 2011, we agreed to issue 54,500,000 shares of our common stock to LSGC Holdings in exchange for: (i) Series D Warrant to purchase 60,758,777 shares of common stock held by LSGC Holdings and (ii) the warrant to purchase 942,857 shares of common stock, which was originally issued to Pegasus IV in connection with its guaranty of our former line of credit with the Bank of Montreal (“BMO”).

Basis of presentation and results of operations

We were incorporated in Delaware in 1988 and our business today is the result of the combination of the products, patents, intellectual property, assets and businesses of four LED lighting companies: (i) Lighting Science Group Corporation, an early entrant and leader in the application of LEDs for general illumination with white lighting, (ii) LED Effects, Inc. (“LED Effects”), an established LED company specializing in custom and architectural lighting products, (iii) Lighting Science Group, B.V. (“LSGBV”), formerly known as Lighting Partner B.V., a Netherlands based manufacturer and marketer of LED shop lighting and other specialty LED lighting devices and (iv) Lamina Lighting, Inc. (“Lamina”), a supplier of LED light engines and LED modules.

On October 4, 2007, we entered into an Exchange and Contribution Agreement (the “Exchange Agreement”) with LED Holdings, pursuant to which we: (i) acquired substantially all of the assets of LED Holdings and (ii) issued in exchange for these assets 2,000,000 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock and 15,928,734 shares of our common stock to LED Holdings (collectively, the “Acquisition”). As a result of the Acquisition and, specifically, LED Holdings’ acquisition of approximately a 70% participating interest and an 80% voting interest in the company, we became a majority-owned subsidiary of LED Holdings as of October 4, 2007.

We accounted for the Acquisition as a reverse merger. Accordingly, for accounting and financial reporting purposes, Lighting Science Group was treated as the acquired company, and LED Holdings was treated as the acquiring company.

 

37


Table of Contents

Three months ended September 30, 2010 compared to three months ended September 30, 2009

     Three Months Ended
September 30,
    Variance     Percentage of
Revenue
 
     2010     2009     $     %     2010     2009  

Revenue

   $ 15,137,902      $ 7,700,730        7,437,172        96.6     100.0     100.0

Cost of goods sold

     16,384,673        6,433,599        9,951,074        154.7     108.2     83.5

Sales and marketing

     2,050,868        1,192,157        858,711        72.0     13.5     15.5

Operations

     1,187,650        1,698,982        (511,332     (30.1 )%      7.8     22.1

Research and development (1)

     2,580,456        904,948        1,675,508        185.1     17.0     11.8

General and administrative

     3,849,941        3,651,798        198,143        5.4     25.4     47.4

Restructuring expenses

     458,311        —          458,311        *        3.0     0.0

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

     83,298        —          83,298        *        0.6     0.0

Depreciation and amortization

     596,934        1,565,998        (969,064     (61.9 )%      3.9     20.3

Interest expense, net

     (1,040,015     (1,604,093     564,078        35.2     (6.9 )%      (20.8 )% 

Decrease (increase) in fair value of Series D and Series E Warrants

     23,089,464        —          23,089,464        *        152.5     0.0

Dividends on preferred stock

     (1,968,695     (9,148     (1,959,547     *        (13.0 )%      (0.1 )% 

Accretion of preferred stock

     (47,753,920     (31,245     (47,722,675     *        (315.5 )%      (0.4 )% 

Other income (expense), net

     (53,490     193,627        (247,117     *        (0.4 )%      2.5

Income tax expense (benefit)

     (17,039     (90,398     73,359        *        (0.1 )%      (1.2 )% 
                        

Net loss

   $ (39,763,846 )    $ (9,107,213     (30,656,633     (336.6 )%      (262.7 )%      (118.3 )% 
                        

 

* Variance is not meaningful.
(1) During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This table reflects management’s modified presentation for all periods presented, including its current characterization of research and development expenses.

Revenues

Revenues increased $7.4 million, or 96.6%, to $15.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $7.7 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in revenues was a result of our introduction of several new products in our retrofit lamp and luminaire lines and the increased demand for both new and existing products by our customers.

Cost of goods sold

Cost of goods sold increased $10.0 million, or 154.7%, to $16.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $6.4 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in cost of goods sold was primarily due to the corresponding increase in sales.

Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenues increased for the three months ended September 30, 2010 to 108.2% (or a negative gross margin of 8.2%) as compared to 83.5% (or a gross margin of 16.5%) for the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in the cost of goods sold for the three months ended September 30, 2010, as compared to the corresponding period in 2009, was primarily the result of the following:

 

   

expedited materials delivery by means of premium freight;

 

   

spot purchases of long lead-time materials at higher than our normal contracted prices;

 

   

labor inefficiencies due to reduced throughput as a result of our newly developed supply chain and the rapid expansion and training of our labor force; and

 

   

premium labor costs as a result of delays in establishing certain contract manufacturing operations.

Many of the above costs were driven by our need to meet higher than expected demand. In addition, the gross margin was impacted by the mix of products sold in the current year quarter compared to the same period in 2009. During the three months ended September 30, 2010, we experienced cost overruns and delays on a large custom design project, which also negatively impacted our gross margin.

 

38


Table of Contents

Sales and marketing

Sales and marketing expenses increased $859,000, or 72.0%, to $2.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $1.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in the three month period ended September 30, 2010 was primarily due to an increase in personnel expenses resulting from the reorganization and expansion of our sales and marketing group both in the United States and in the Netherlands, as well as freight not billed to customers of $266,000, which was not recorded separately in the prior period, and an increase in commissions of $164,000 related to the increase in revenue.

Operations

Operations expenses decreased by $511,000, or 30.1%, to $1.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $1.7 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. Our operations expenses include our supply chain and procurement expenses as well as other indirect production costs. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in both facility and personnel costs related to the closing of our New Jersey facility, which was obtained in the Lamina acquisition, in the third quarter of 2009 and improvements in operational efficiencies.

Research and development

Research and development expenses increased by $1.7 million, or 185.1%, to $2.6 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $905,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily related to the engineering and development of multiple new product families during the current year as well as future products.

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses increased by $198,000, or 5.4%, to $3.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $3.7 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily due to an increase in professional and legal fees of $162,000 related to the Recapitalization Agreement as well as an increase in consulting fees of $119,000 associated with improving our internal controls and procedures framework. These increases were partially offset by reductions in personnel expenses related to the closing of our New Jersey facility in the third quarter of 2009.

Restructuring expenses

Restructuring expenses of $458,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2010, consisted of $1.1 million in expenses that included an increase in the allowance for obsolete inventory related to products to be phased out by our European operation as well as severance, termination benefits and rent costs related to the closing of our California office. These expenses were partially offset by the $601,000 gain on the exit of LEDS Japan, our Japanese operation in July 2010.

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

In anticipation of the closing of our facility in California in October 2010, we evaluated the property and equipment in this location and determined that leasehold improvements and furniture and fixtures would have little or no future value. As of September 30, 2010, we recorded an impairment charge of $83,000 for such items.

Depreciation and amortization

Depreciation and amortization expense decreased by $969,000, or 61.9%, to $597,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $1.6 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The decrease was

 

39


Table of Contents

due primarily to the change in estimated useful lives of certain intangible assets that occurred during 2009. As a result, the amortization expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010 was significantly decreased as compared to the corresponding period in 2009. In addition, the closing of the New Jersey facility in the third quarter of 2009 resulted in the disposal of certain leasehold improvements and production equipment, which reduced depreciation for the current year quarter.

Interest expense, net

Interest expense, net, decreased by $564,000, or 35.2%, to $1.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 from $1.6 million in the three months ended September 30, 2009. Interest expense for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, consisted primarily of $971,000 of prepaid financing fees related to the issuance of the Series D and Series E Preferred Units in the first half of 2010. These fees were being amortized over the life of the Series D and Series E Preferred Stock, but were fully expensed as of September 30, 2010 due to the conversion of the Series E Preferred Stock to common stock and the reduction in the expected life of the Series D Preferred Stock due to the expected amendment of the Series D Certificate. The interest expense for the three months ended September 30, 2009, consisted primarily of $237,000 of interest expense related to our BMO facility, $24,000 in guaranty fees for the BMO facility, $1.2 million of interest expense on notes payable to related parties and $8,000 of interest related to LSGBV’s notes payable.

Decrease (increase) in fair value of Series D Warrants and Series E Warrant

The Series D Warrants and Series E Warrant are accounted for as liabilities and changes in their fair values are determined using the Black Scholes Model. The fair value of the Series D Warrants decreased by $20.0 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, primarily due to a decrease in the price of our common stock during this period. The fair value of the Series E Warrant decreased by $3.1 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, primarily due to a decrease in the price of our common stock during this period.

Dividends on preferred stock

Dividends on preferred stock increased by $2.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 to $2.0 million from $9,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009. This increase was due to the dividend expense incurred on the outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock during the three months ended September 30, 2010. During the three months ended September 30, 2009, dividends were incurred on the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock. All outstanding shares of 6% Convertible Preferred Stock were redeemable on May 10, 2010. As of September 30, 2010, 186,528 shares of the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock were redeemed for $597,000. Upon presentment by the holders thereof, an additional 10,374 shares of 6% Convertible Preferred Stock will be redeemed for $33,000.

Accretion of preferred stock

Accretion of preferred stock increased by $47.7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010 to $47.8 million from $31,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009. This increase was due to $47.7 million of accretion expense incurred on the outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock during the three months ended September 30, 2010. Because of transactions contemplated by the Recapitalization Agreement, the expected life of the Series D Preferred Stock and the Series E Preferred Stock was reduced from eight years and the full accretion was accelerated to September 30, 2010. During the three months ended September 30, 2009, $31,000 of accretion expense was incurred on the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock.

Other income (expense), net

Other income (expense), net changed by $247,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2010 to net expense of $53,000 from net income of $194,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009. Other income (expense), net incurred in both the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 was mainly due to foreign exchange translation gains or losses at LSGBV.

 

40


Table of Contents

Income tax expense (benefit)

Income tax benefit was $17,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2010 compared to a benefit of $90,000 in the three months ended September 30, 2009. The benefit recognized during the three months ended September 30, 2010 was primarily due to the loss recorded by LSGBV. For the three months ended September 30, 2010, the effective tax rate of 0.1% differs from the federal statutory rate of 34% due to an anticipated loss for fiscal 2010. Pursuant to the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 740, tax benefits are not recognized on anticipated losses.

Because of our history of operating losses, management deemed it more-likely-than-not that we would not recognize a significant portion of our deferred tax assets and the tax benefits relating to our losses were fully reserved as of September 30, 2010.

Nine months ended September 30, 2010 compared to nine months ended September 30, 2009

 

     Nine Months Ended September 30,     Variance     Percentage of
Revenue
 
     2010     2009     $     %     2010     2009  

Revenue

   $ 30,331,005      $ 21,969,701        8,361,304        38.1     100.0     100.0

Cost of goods sold

     31,229,947        17,599,574        13,630,373        77.4     103.0     80.1

Sales and marketing

     6,873,194        4,670,459        2,202,735        47.2     22.7     21.3

Operations

     3,784,510        8,329,604        (4,545,094     (54.6 )%      12.5     37.9

Research and development (1)

     6,719,808        2,444,158        4,275,650        174.9     22.2     11.1

General and administrative

     10,877,051        17,035,266        (6,158,215     (36.1 )%      35.9     77.5

Restructuring expenses

     458,311        702,625        (244,314     (34.8 )%      1.5     3.2

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

     10,538,307        —          10,538,307        *        34.7     0.0

Depreciation and amortization

     2,324,068        4,439,465        (2,115,397     (47.6 )%      7.7     20.2

Interest expense, net

     (3,355,240     (3,943,941     588,701        (14.9 )%      (11.1 )%      (18.0 )% 

Decrease (increase) in fair value of Series D and Series E Warrants

     (56,007,778     —          (56,007,778     *        (184.7 )%      0.0

Dividends on preferred stock

     (3,534,795     (27,827     (3,506,968     *        (11.7 )%      (0.1 )% 

Accretion of preferred stock

     (48,535,463     (94,254     (48,441,209     *        (160.0 )%      (0.4 )% 

Other income (expense), net

     (46,229     (4,405     (41,824     *        (0.2 )%      0.0

Income tax expense (benefit)

     382,645        (263,108     645,753        *        1.3     (1.2 )% 
                        

Net loss

   $ (154,336,341   $ (37,058,769     (117,277,572     316.5     (508.8 )%      (168.7 )% 
                        

 

* Variance is not meaningful.
(1) During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This table reflects management’s modified presentation for all periods presented, including its current characterization of research and development expenses.

Revenues

Revenues increased $8.4 million, or 38.1%, to $30.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $22.0 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in revenues was primarily a result of our introduction of several new products in the second quarter of 2010 and the increased demand for both new and existing products by our customers. These increases were offset by reductions in sales of light engines and components, which were the focus of our New Jersey facility until it was closed in the third quarter of 2009. Although we continue to sell these products, the focus of our sales and marketing efforts have shifted to new products.

Cost of goods sold

Cost of goods sold increased $13.6 million, or 77.4%, to $31.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $17.6 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in cost of goods sold was primarily due to the corresponding increase in sales during the nine months ended September 30, 2010.

 

41


Table of Contents

Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenues increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 to 103.0% (or a negative gross margin of 3.0%) as compared to 80.1% (or a gross margin of 19.9%) for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in cost of goods sold for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 as compared to the corresponding period in 2009 was primarily the result of the following:

 

   

expedited materials delivery by means of premium freight;

 

   

spot purchases of long lead-time materials at higher than our normal contracted prices;

 

   

labor inefficiencies due to reduced throughput as a result of our newly developed supply chain and the rapid expansion and training of our labor force; and

 

   

premium labor costs as a result of delays in establishing certain contract manufacturing operations.

In addition, the gross margin was impacted by the mix of products sold in the current year compared to the same period in 2009. During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, we experienced cost overruns and delays on a large custom design project, which also negatively impacted our gross margin.

Sales and marketing

Sales and marketing expenses increased $2.2 million, or 47.2%, to $6.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $4.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in the nine month period ended September 30, 2010 was primarily due to an increase in personnel expenses resulting from the reorganization and expansion of our sales and marketing group both in the United States and in the Netherlands, as well as an increase in freight not billed to customers of $476,000, an increase in commissions of $442,000 related to the increase in revenue and an increase in sample costs of $194,000.

Operations

Operations expenses decreased by $4.5 million, or 54.6%, to $3.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $8.3 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in both facility and personnel costs of $2.5 million related to the closing of our New Jersey facility, in the third quarter of 2009 and improvements in operational efficiencies.

Research and development

Research and development expenses increased by $4.3 million, or 174.9%, to $6.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $2.4 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily due to costs related to the introduction and launch of multiple new product families during the current year.

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses decreased by $6.2 million, or 36.1%, to $10.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $17.0 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The decrease in general and administrative expenses was due primarily to a decrease in legal fees of $2.6 million resulting from the resolution of our litigation with Philips and its affiliates in August 2009, a $1.1 million reversal of non-vested restricted stock expense due to the forfeiture of awards upon the termination or resignation of certain employees and savings of $1.3 million due to the closing of both our Dallas and New Jersey facilities in the second and third quarters of 2009, respectively. These savings were partially offset by an increase in professional and legal fees of $162,000 related to the Recapitalization Agreement, as well as consulting fees of $370,000 associated with improving our internal controls and procedures framework and accounting and auditing fees of $85,000 related to the issuance of the Series D and Series E Preferred Units.

 

42


Table of Contents

Restructuring expenses

Restructuring expenses decreased by $244,000 or 34.8% to $458,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $703,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. Restructuring costs for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 consisted of $1.1 million in expenses that included an increase in the allowance for obsolete inventory related to products to be phased out by our European operation and severance and termination benefits and accrued rent costs related to the closing of our California office. These expenses were partially offset by the $601,000 gain on the exit of LEDS Japan, our Japanese operation in July 2010. Restructuring costs for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 consisted of severance and termination benefits related to headcount reductions due to the closing of the Dallas and New Jersey based facilities and the initial restructuring of our California operations.

Impairment of goodwill and other long-lived assets

Due to LSGBV’s ongoing negative cash flows and other factors, as of June 30, 2010, we performed an interim impairment analysis of LSGBV’s assets to determine whether any goodwill or intangible assets were impaired. This review includes an assessment of industry factors, contract retentions, cash flow projections and other factors we believe are relevant. The result of this valuation was that material impairments were identified in the LSGBV assets. These impairments resulted in a new cost basis for the goodwill and other intangible assets. The following table summarizes the total impairment charge recorded in the second quarter of 2010:

 

Goodwill arising from the acquisition of LSGBV

   $ 3,529,609   

Trademarks acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     191,500   

Customer relationships acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     1,967,400   

License agreements acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     4,766,500   
        

Total impairment charge

   $ 10,455,009   
        

Depreciation and amortization

Depreciation and amortization expense decreased by $2.1 million, or 47.6%, to $2.3 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $4.4 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The decrease was due to the change in estimated useful lives of certain intangible assets that occurred during 2009. As a result, the amortization expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 was significantly decreased as compared to the corresponding period in 2009. In addition, the closing of the New Jersey facility in the third quarter of 2009 resulted in the disposal of certain leasehold improvements and production equipment, which reduced depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2010.

Interest expense, net

Interest expense, net, decreased by $589,000, or 14.9%, to $3.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 from $3.9 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. This decrease was due primarily to the conversion of the principal and interest amounts underlying the notes payable to Pegasus IV and Philips into Series D Units in March 2010 and the payment in full of the outstanding principal balance on our BMO facility in April 2010 and again in June 2010, which resulted in smaller debt balances during the current nine months ended September 30, 2010 in comparison to the nine months ended September 30, 2009. Interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 consisted primarily of $337,000 of interest expense related to the BMO facility, $887,000 of guaranty fees for the BMO facility, $861,000 of interest expense on certain notes payable to related parties, $103,000 of interest related to LSGBV’s notes payable and $971,000 of prepaid fees related to the issuance of the Series D and Series E Preferred Units in the first half of 2010. These fees were being amortized over the life of the Series D and Series E Preferred Stock, but were fully expensed as of September 30, 2010 due to the conversion of the Series E Preferred Stock to common stock and the reduction in the expected life

 

43


Table of Contents

of the Series D Preferred Stock because of the transactions contemplated by the Recapitalization Agreement. Interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 consisted primarily of $769,000 of interest expense related to the BMO facility, $877,000 in guaranty fees for the BMO facility, $1.7 million of interest expense on notes payable to related parties and $216,000 of interest related to LSGBV’s notes payable.

Decrease (increase) in fair value of Series D Warrants and Series E Warrant

The Series D Warrants and Series E Warrant are accounted for as liabilities and changes in the fair values are determined using the Black Scholes Model. The fair value of the Series D Warrants increased by $73.2 million from March 3, 2010, the initial issuance date of the Series D Warrants, through September 30, 2010 primarily due to an increase in the price of our common stock. The fair value of the Series E Warrant decreased by $3.5 million from June 23, 2010, the issuance date of the Series E Warrant, through September 30, 2010, primarily due to a decrease in the price of our common stock during this period.

Dividends on preferred stock

Dividends on preferred stock increased by $3.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 to $3.5 million from $28,000 in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. This increase was due to $3.5 million of dividend expense incurred on the outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock during the nine months ended September 30, 2010. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, dividends were incurred on the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock. All outstanding shares of 6% Convertible Preferred Stock were redeemable on May 10, 2010. As of September 30, 2010, 186,528 shares of the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock were redeemed for $597,000. Upon presentment by the holders thereof, an additional 10,374 shares of 6% Convertible Preferred Stock will be redeemed for $33,000.

Accretion of preferred stock

Accretion of preferred stock increased by $48.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 to $48.5 million from $94,000 in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. This increase was due to $48.4 million of accretion expense incurred on the outstanding shares of Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock and during the nine months ended September 30, 2010. The preferred stock was being accreted over the life of the Series D and Series E Preferred Stock, but was fully expensed as of September 30, 2010 due to the conversion of the Series E Preferred Stock to common stock and the reduction in the expected life of the Series D Preferred Stock because of the transactions contemplated by the Recapitalization Agreement. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, $94,000 in accretion expense was incurred on the 6% Convertible Preferred Stock.

Other income (expense), net

Other income (expense), net changed by $42,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 to net expense of $46,000 from net expense of $4,000 in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 was primarily due to the cost of foreign exchange translations at LSGBV.

Income tax expense (benefit)

Income tax expense was $383,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, as compared to a benefit of $263,000 in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The expense recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2010 was mainly due to the establishment of an additional valuation allowance of $581,000 for deferred tax assets recorded by LSGBV. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the effective tax rate of 0.3% differs from the federal statutory rate of 34% due to an anticipated loss for fiscal 2010. Pursuant to the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 740, tax benefits are not recognized on anticipated losses.

 

 

44


Table of Contents

Because of our history of operating losses, management deemed it more-likely-than-not that we would not recognize a significant portion of these deferred tax assets and the tax benefits relating to our losses were fully reserved as of September 30, 2010.

Year ended December 31, 2009 compared to year ended December 31, 2008

During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This modification was made in order to improve financial reporting disclosure and to provide the users of our financial statements greater detail regarding its operating expenses. The following table reflects management’s modified presentation and characterization of its expenses for all periods presented.

 

     Year Ended
December 31,
    Variance     Percentage of
Revenue
 
     2009     2008     $     %     2009     2008  

Revenue

   $ 31,376,816      $ 20,758,593        10,618,223        51.2     100.0     100.0

Cost of goods sold

     24,754,819        16,688,600        8,066,219        48.3     78.9     80.4

Sales and marketing

     7,248,311        5,847,833        1,400,478        23.9     23.1     28.2

Operations

     10,370,098        10,526,976        (156,878     (1.5 )%      33.1     50.7

Research and development (1)

     4,395,320        3,259,187        1,136,133        34.9     14.0     15.7

General and administrative

     20,705,525        23,224,561        12,519,036        (10.8 )%      66.0     111.9

Restructuring expenses

     1,111,189        —          1,111,189        *        3.5     0.0

Impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets

     —          53,110,133        (53,110,133     *        0.0     255.8

Depreciation and amortization

     5,327,033        4,354,028        973,005        22.3     17.0     21.0

Interest income

     1,104        188,460        (187,356     (99.4 )%      0.0     0.9

Interest expense

     6,058,693        1,425,446        4,633,247        325.0     19.3     6.9

Other income, net

     43,139        318,748        (275,609     (86.5 )%      0.1     1.5

Income tax benefit

     (413,002     (2,207,507     1,794,505        (81.3 )%      (1.3 )%      (10.6 )% 

 

* Variance is not meaningful.
(1) During 2010, we modified the presentation of our operating expenses to separately convey research and development and restructuring expenses in our interim consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss. This table reflects management’s modified presentation for all periods presented, including its current characterization of research and development expenses.

Revenues

Revenues for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased $10.6 million, or 51.2%, to $31.4 million, as compared to $20.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Revenues consisted mainly of sales to OEMs in the general illumination, gaming and retail display sectors and the delivery of four major custom projects in Asia, Europe and North America. Revenues increased in 2009 primarily due to our acquisition of LSGBV (the operations of which are included for eight months in fiscal 2008 compared to twelve months in fiscal 2009) and the purchase of the net assets of Lamina (the operations of which are included for five months in fiscal 2008 compared to twelve months in fiscal 2009). Foreign exchange rates did not have a material effect on the increase in revenues for the current period.

Cost of goods sold

Cost of goods sold increased $8.1 million, or 48.3%, to $24.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 from $16.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. The increase was primarily due to an increase in revenues from large custom projects and the acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina.

The gross margin modestly increased in 2009 to 21.1% compared to 19.6% for 2008.

 

45


Table of Contents

Sales and marketing

Sales and marketing expenses increased $1.4 million, or 23.9%, to $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 from $5.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of revenues, sales and marketing expenses decreased to 23.1% for 2009 compared to 28.2% for 2008. The increase in sales and marketing expense was primarily due to: (i) the acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina and the effect of a full year of combined operations in 2009 compared to a partial year of combined operations in 2008, (ii) increases in samples and other marketing costs related to new products launched in the second half of 2008 compared to a full year of expenses for 2009 and (iii) an increase in commissions expense due mainly to the increase in revenues.

Operations

Operations expenses decreased by $157,000, or 1.5%, to $10.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $10.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of revenues, operations expenses decreased to 33.1% for 2009 compared to 50.7% for 2008. The decrease in operations expenses was primarily a result of: (i) increases in the number of employees in supply chain management, including employees assumed pursuant to our acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina, (ii) the acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina and the effect of a full year of combined operations in 2009 compared to a partial year of combined operations in 2008, (iii) increases in third party contract costs and external testing and certification costs related to our research and development activities and (iv) accruals of severance expenses related to facility closures and our consolidation efforts.

Research and development

Research and development expenses increased by $1.1 million, or 34.9%, to $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of revenues, research and development expenses decreased to 14.0% for 2009 compared to 15.7% for 2008. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily a result of: (i) increases in the number of employees assumed pursuant to our acquisition of Lamina and the effect of a full year of combined operations in 2009 compared to a partial year of combined operations in 2008 and (ii) increases in third party contract costs and external testing and certification costs related to our ongoing research and development activities.

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses decreased by $2.5 million, or 10.8%, to $20.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $23.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of revenues, general and administrative expenses decreased to 66.0% for 2009 compared to 111.9% for 2008. This decrease was mainly due to reduced legal expenses and the results of the consolidation activities undertaken by management during the second half of 2009. This decrease was partially offset by increases resulting from the acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina and the effect of a full year of combined operations in 2009 compared to a partial year of combined operations in 2008.

Restructuring expenses

Restructuring expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009 consisted of $1.1 million in expenses that included severance and termination benefits and accrued rent costs related to the closing of our Texas-based office and New Jersey-based facility and the initial restructuring of our California operations.

Impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets

As of September 30, 2009, we completed our annual assessment of the carrying value of goodwill and determined that no impairment had occurred and therefore no impairment expense was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

46


Table of Contents

During the fourth quarter of 2008, we completed our assessment of the carrying value of the goodwill and intangible assets that we previously recorded and determined that it was necessary to record an impairment charge of $53.1 million in 2008. A number of factors that occurred in 2008 gave rise to the impairment of the carrying value of the goodwill and intangible assets, including: (i) delays in the development and launch of several new products, (ii) delays in obtaining certifications for products, (iii) product failures, (iv) customer delays on custom projects, (v) the lack of the availability of financing for customers to complete significant projects and installations, (vi) the general slowdown in construction spending, and (vii) the reduction in the market price of our common stock and the multiple attributed to our common stock. As a result of these factors, we reviewed and amended our cash flow projections for our business and products. Generally, we reduced the sales forecasts that we had otherwise relied on for our internal planning and forecasting. This reduction in the future cash flows of the business along with a reduction in the total enterprise value of the company, based on the traded market price for our common stock, resulted in the significant impairment charge in 2008. The following table summarizes the total impairment charge recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008:

 

Goodwill arising from the acquisition of Lighting Science Group

   $ 42,605,552   

Technology and patents acquired on the acquisition of Lighting Science Group

     2,419,984   

Goodwill arising from the acquisition of LSGBV

     6,159,000   

Trademarks acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     796,741   

Technology and patents acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     322,856   

Customer relationships acquired from the acquisition of LSGBV

     806,000   
        

Total impairment charge

   $ 53,110,133   
        

Depreciation and amortization

Depreciation and amortization expense increased $973,000, or 22.3%, to $5.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. The increase was primarily due to: (i) an increase of $600,000 in the amortization expense for certain software assets during 2009 as compared with the corresponding period in 2008 due to a reduction in the estimated useful life of such software, (ii) an increase of $711,000 in the amortization expense for certain intangible assets during 2009 as compared with the corresponding period in 2008 due to a reduction in the estimated useful life of such assets and (iii) an increase in the amortization expense related to technology, tooling and molds and other production assets purchased in the second half of 2008. As a percentage of revenues, depreciation and amortization expenses decreased to 17.0% for 2009 compared to 21.0% for 2008.

Interest income

Interest income decreased $187,000 to $1,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $188,000 for the prior year period due to the decrease in cash balances during 2008. At December 31, 2008 and for all of 2009 there were limited funds available for interest bearing investments.

Interest expense

Interest expense increased $4.6 million, or 325.0%, to $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. As a percentage of revenues, interest expense increased to 19.3% for 2009 compared to 6.9% for 2008. The significant increase in interest expense recorded in 2009 compared with the corresponding period in 2008 was primarily due to: (i) interest expense on our BMO line of credit that we began to incur in August 2008, (ii) interest expense on LSGBV’s ABN AMRO ten-year term facility and line of credit, (iii) the amortization of the BMO guarantee fees payable to Pegasus IV, (iv) interest expense on promissory notes issued to Pegasus IV and certain executives in December 2008 and the first six months of 2009, (v) interest expense on the Original Pegasus Convertible Note issued to Pegasus IV in May 2009

 

47


Table of Contents

and the Pegasus Convertible Note issued to Pegasus IV in August 2009 and (vi) interest expense on the Philips Convertible Note issued to Philips in August 2009. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2008 consisted of interest incurred on the line of credit and term debt facility that were owed by LSGBV, interest expense on our BMO line of credit, which we started incurring in August 2008, and interest expense on promissory notes issued to Pegasus IV and certain executives in December 2008.

Other income, net

Other income, net decreased by $276,000, or 86.5%, to $43,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to $319,000 for the year ended December 31, 2008. During 2008, other income related mainly to the change in the fair value of the derivative instruments that had been recorded as liabilities and the accretion of the 6% Preferred Stock redemption value. During 2009, we recorded a loss on the change in fair value of the same derivative liabilities.

Income tax benefit

The income tax benefit decreased by $1.8 million or 81.2% to $413,000 compared to $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Due to our history of net losses, management deemed it more-likely-than-not that we would not recognize a significant portion of our deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2009. Accordingly, management recorded an additional valuation allowance of $16.0 million.

Liquidity and capital resources

We have experienced significant net losses as well as negative cash flows from operations since our inception. Our anticipated growth is expected to significantly increase our working capital needs during 2011, and meeting these needs will be an ongoing challenge. Our primary sources of liquidity have been sales of preferred stock to, and short-term loans from, affiliates of Pegasus Capital and, to a lesser extent, draws from our lines of credit with BMO, ABN AMRO and IFN Finance and other short-term loans.

We have historically been dependent on affiliates of Pegasus Capital for our liquidity needs because other sources of liquidity have been insufficient or unavailable to meet our anticipated working capital needs. Cash outflows primarily relate to procurement of inventory and payment of salaries, benefits and other operating costs. As of September 30, 2010, we had cash of $19.2 million. As of December 31, 2010, we had cash of approximately $14.0 million.

On October 4, 2010, we terminated our BMO revolving line of credit and the related guaranty agreement pursuant to the terms of the Recapitalization Agreement. On November 22, 2010, we entered into an asset-based lending facility with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. that provides us with borrowing capacity of up to a maximum of $15.0 million, calculated as up to 85% of our applicable and eligible inventory and accounts receivable plus qualified cash. As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately $4.7 million outstanding under this facility and additional borrowing capacity of approximately $9.5 million.

LSGBV has also negotiated short and long term debt facilities with ABN AMRO. On September 30, 2010, the total amount outstanding under the ABN AMRO facilities was $825,000 and the total amount outstanding under the IFN Finance facility was $933,000. The IFN Finance facility is an asset based facility with a maximum line of credit of €1.5 million and availability is based on 82% of LSGBV’s trade receivable invoices. Our long-term debt facility with ABN AMRO matured on December 15, 2010.

We may need to raise additional capital through the issuance of equity, equity-related or debt securities or through obtaining additional credit through financial institutions. We cannot be certain that these additional funds will be available on terms satisfactory to us or at all. In January 2011, we received approximately $18.0 million from a private placement led by our affiliates, including Pegasus Capital and two of our directors, and expect to

 

48


Table of Contents

receive $7.0 million in life insurance proceeds from a key-man life insurance policy issued on Zachary Gibler, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Upon receipt of the proceeds from such life insurance policy and this offering, we believe we will be able to fund our operations for the next 12 months.

The following table summarizes our cash flow activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 and does not give effect to any transactions or developments after September 30, 2010.

 

     Nine Months  Ended
September 30,
 
      2010     2009  

Cash flow activities:

    

Net cash used in operating activities

   $ (33,910,972   $ (25,209,739

Net cash used in investing activities

     (2,614,187     (746,125

Net cash provided by financing activities

     55,773,636        26,161,923   

Operating activities

Cash used in operating activities was $33.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 as compared to $25.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The primary increase in the use of cash in operations was due to an increase in accounts receivable of $5.7 million due to the increase in revenues, an increase in inventories of $6.0 million due to the build-up of parts and components to launch our next generation retrofit lamps and an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $632,000 due to deposits required on parts and components from certain suppliers, primarily in Asia, and the receivable as a result of the purchase of shares of our common stock pursuant to the Recapitalization Agreement that were funded after September 30, 2010.

These cash uses were partially offset by an increase in accounts payable of $4.9 million, an increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities of $3.5 million, and an increase in unearned revenue of $98,000. Accounts payable increases were primarily related to increased sales, inventory levels and longer payment periods.

Investing activities

Cash used in investing activities was $2.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 as compared to $746,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The cash used in investing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 was primarily for the purchase of additional production and testing equipment, as well as the continued implementation of a new ERP system.

Financing activities

Cash provided by financing activities was $55.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 compared to $26.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2009. The cash provided by financing activities for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 consisted primarily of $12.3 million in proceeds from additional draws on our lines of credit or other short term borrowings, $25.4 million in proceeds from the issuance of the Series D Units pursuant to the Rights Offering, $30.0 million in proceeds from the issuance of the Series E Units and $18.9 million for the issuance of common stock in the Recapitalization Agreement. This was partially offset by $30.3 million in payments on outstanding short- and long-term debt.

Critical accounting policies and estimates

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and consolidated results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, or GAAP. The preparation of our consolidated financial

 

49


Table of Contents

statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates based upon historical experience and various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Our actual results may differ from these estimates.

A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both material to the presentation of our financial statements and requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments that could have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Specifically, critical accounting estimates have the following attributes: (i) we are required to make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the estimate; and (ii) different estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions believed to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These estimates may change as new events occur, as additional information is obtained and as our operating environment changes. These changes have historically been minor and have been included in the financial statements as soon as they became known. We believe the following critical accounting policies reflect our more significant estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our financial statements:

Accounts receivable

We record accounts receivable at the invoiced amount when our products are shipped to customers or upon the completion of specific milestone billing requirements. The allowance for doubtful accounts is our best estimate of probable credit losses in our existing accounts receivable. We review our allowance for doubtful accounts on a quarterly basis. Past due balances over 90 days and customer specific information is reviewed for collectability. We write off accounts receivable when it becomes apparent, based upon age or customer circumstances that such amounts will not be collected. Recovery of bad debt amounts previously written off is recorded as a reduction of bad debt expense in the period the payment is collected. Generally, we do not require collateral for our accounts receivable.

Inventories

Inventories, which consist of raw materials and components, work-in-process and finished lighting products, are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is primarily determined using a weighted average method. Slow product adoption, rapid technological changes and new product introductions and enhancements could result in excess or obsolete inventory. We evaluate inventory levels and expected usage on a periodic basis, based upon business trends, to specifically identify obsolete, slow-moving or non-salable inventory. The change in the provision during the period is recorded as an operating expense in the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

Revenue recognition

Product sales are recorded when the products are shipped and title passes to customers. Where sales of product are subject to certain customer acceptance terms, revenue from the sale is recognized once these terms have been met. We recognize revenue on our custom design projects using the percentage of completion method. Revenue is recognized on our long-term custom projects upon substantial completion and acceptance by the customer of each project. Amounts received as deposits against future completion of projects are recorded as unearned revenue until such projects are completed and title passes to the customer.

 

50


Table of Contents

Product warranties

We provide a limited warranty covering defective materials and workmanship. We generally provide a five year warranty on our products, and such warranty may require us to repair, replace or reimburse the purchaser for the purchase price of the product, at the customer’s discretion. The estimated costs related to warranties are accrued at the time products are sold based on various factors, including our stated warranty policies and practices, the historical frequency of claims and the cost to replace or repair the products under warranty.

Income taxes

We employ the asset and liability method in accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities and net operating loss carryforwards, and are measured using enacted tax rates and laws that are expected to be in effect when the differences are reversed.

In June 2006, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2009-06 (ASU 2009-06). ASU 2009-06 clarifies the accounting for income taxes, by prescribing a minimum recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. ASU 2009-06 also provides guidance on derecognition, measurement, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. We adopted ASU 2009-06 as of June 14, 2007 and, thereafter, recognized the tax benefits from uncertain tax positions only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained on examination by the taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position. The tax benefits recognized in the financial statements from such positions are measured based on the largest benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. Our policy is to recognize interest and penalties related to income taxes in its income tax provision. We have not accrued or paid interest or penalties which were material to our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, we had no material unrecognized tax benefits.

We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount which, we estimate, is more likely than not to be realized. Our ability to realize our deferred tax assets is generally dependent on the generation of taxable income during the future periods in which the temporary differences are deductible and the net operating losses can be offset against taxable income. We increased our valuation allowance in 2009 and believe the increase is appropriate based on our pre-tax losses in the past several years and accounting guidelines that provide that cumulative losses in recent years provide significant evidence that a company should not recognize tax benefits that depend on the generation of taxable income from future operations. We have experienced pre-tax losses in 2009 and 2008 and have recognized additional valuation allowances on current year tax benefits. If we were to determine that we would be able to realize deferred tax assets in the future in excess of the net recorded amount, the resulting adjustment to deferred tax assets would increase net earnings in the period such a determination was made.

Impairment of long-lived assets

Long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment when events and circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable and are grouped with other assets to the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets and liabilities. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying value of the assets to their estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. If the carrying value of the assets exceeds their estimated future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized in the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds their fair value.

Goodwill

Goodwill acquired in a purchase business combination is not amortized, but instead we perform a goodwill impairment analysis, using the two-step method at the end of our third quarter, or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable.

 

51


Table of Contents

The recoverability of goodwill is measured at the reporting unit level. The fair value of each reporting unit is estimated using a discounted cash flow methodology. This analysis requires significant judgments, including estimation of future cash flows, which is dependent on internal forecasts, estimation of the long-term growth rate for the business, the useful life over which cash flows will occur and the determination of the weighted cost of capital. The internal forecasts, used in the 2009 testing, were based on the outlook for a recovering global economy, roll-out of our new LED product lines for which increasing demand is expected based on relevant third-party industry studies, an improvement in our gross and operating margins resulting from integration of our business acquisitions made during 2008 and successfully negotiating lower prices from our suppliers. Should the global demand for LED lighting solutions be slower to develop, or if we are unable to successfully execute our strategic initiatives with respect to our targeted markets, the actual operating results could be materially different than our forecasts. If the fair value of a reporting unit is less than the carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered impaired and the second step is performed. The second step of the impairment test performed, when required, compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment charge is recognized for the amount equal to that excess.

 

52


Table of Contents

Our business

Overview

We design, develop, manufacture and market general illumination products that exclusively use LEDs as their light source. Our broad product portfolio includes LED-based retrofit lamps (replacement bulbs) that can be used in existing light fixtures and sockets, as well as purpose built LED-based luminaires (light fixtures) for many common indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure lighting applications. Our proprietary technology, differentiated design approach and key relationships throughout the LED lighting supply chain position us well as general illumination continues its transition to the use of LEDs as a replacement for existing lighting technologies.

LED lighting products offer numerous benefits as compared to products that employ other lighting technologies such as greater energy efficiency, longer lifetime, improved durability, increased environmental friendliness, digital controllability, smaller size and lower heat output. As the performance of LED lighting products continues to improve and their costs decline, the corresponding reduction in the total cost of ownership associated with LED lighting will further drive adoption in an increasing range of lighting applications. A March 2010 report by Strategies Unlimited, for example, estimated that the market for packaged LEDs used in general illumination was expected to be approximately $874.0 million in 2010, growing to over $4.3 billion by 2014. For our retrofit lamps and luminaires, the cost of packaged LEDs represents on average 35% of their sales prices of our products. Therefore, the market for LED lighting products will be necessarily larger.

We are a technology integrator with intricate knowledge of each of the main component technologies used in our products. Our in-house design and development of power supplies, thermal management solutions and optical systems used in our products along with our detailed specification of the packaged LEDs we incorporate into our products, provides us with a distinctive ability to manage the interrelationships between these components and subsystems. This system-based approach, combined with our thorough understanding of the requirements of each lighting application our products are designed to address, enables us to provide a broader and more relevant range of products that we believe deliver industry-leading performance offering shorter payback periods relative to the products of our competitors. This performance advantage is measured by the combination of higher efficacy, light quality and reliability.

Our product offering has been adopted by leading retailers and OEMs of lighting products such as The Home Depot and Osram Sylvania, that sell our products on a co-branded or private label basis, as well as by large end-users to whom we sell directly and through distributors, such as Harrah’s, Hilton, Simon Property and Starbucks. Notably, we are The Home Depot’s preferred provider and product development partner for LED retrofit lamps and luminaires, which are currently sold under its EcoSmart line on a co-branded basis. In addition, we sell our luminaires for use in large-scale infrastructure projects including, among others, those in Salt Lake City, Mexico City and Washington, D.C. During the second half of 2010 alone, we sold over one million LED retrofit lamps, which we believe makes us one of the largest worldwide suppliers of LED retrofit lamps. We produced the first LED retrofit lamp to be successfully qualified for ENERGY STAR designation and, as of January 25, 2011, we designed and produced more than 75% of the 46 ENERGY STAR-qualified LED retrofit lamps. ENERGY STAR is an international standard established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, and the DOE, that requires LED lighting products to meet stringent efficiency, quality and lifetime criteria.

As a pioneer in our industry, we have been producing and selling LED-based lighting products for nearly a decade. We assemble and manufacture our products both internally and through our contract manufacturer in Asia. Our internal manufacturing operations are currently based in our Monterrey, Mexico site, which commenced production in November 2010 and our Satellite Beach, Florida headquarters. Our revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2010 was $15.1 million, representing an increase of 96.6% over the same period in the prior year. In order to meet the recent and expected growth in demand for our products, we have increased our headcount, including contractors, to approximately 600 as of December 31, 2010 from 210 as of December 31, 2009.

 

53


Table of Contents

Industry background

According to the Freedonia Group, an independent market research firm, the worldwide general lighting market, including sales of light fixtures and bulbs, was estimated to be in excess of $100 billion in 2009. This figure excludes the enormous cost of the energy required for lighting. The DOE estimates that lighting accounted for 25% of U.S. electricity consumption in 2009. Accordingly, adoption of energy efficient lighting is increasingly being acknowledged as a critical means to reduce energy consumption from an environmental perspective and to mitigate the need for investments in new electrical generation capacity.

LEDs, which are solid state semiconductor devices that emit light when electric current is passed through them, are the most promising technology for reducing energy consumption by lighting according to the DOE. Since the development of high brightness LEDs in the 1990s, LED technology has continued to advance rapidly. Currently available cool white LED lighting products boast an efficacy of as much as 92 lm/W and last as long as 50,000 hours while currently available warm white LED lighting products have an efficacy of as much as 66 lm/W which, as shown below, already compares very favorably to traditional lighting technologies today. While packaged LEDs have efficacies in excess of 200 lm/W, they experience lumen loss when integrated with other components and subsystems in a finished lighting product. As LED lighting technology continues to improve, its efficiency advantage will further increase. For example, a March 2010 study from the DOE projects that cool white LED luminaire efficacies will reach 121 lm/W in 2012 and 219 lm/W by 2020. A significant portion of this improvement will be due to efficiencies gained in the areas core to our expertise rather than at the packaged LED level where most of the attention is currently focused.

 

     Percentage of
Annual U.S.
Lighting Demand
  

Primary Traditional

Lighting

Technologies

   Representative
Efficacy
(lm/W) (1)
   Estimated
Lifetime
(Hours) (1)

Lighting Sector

   Lumen
hours (1)
   Watt
hours (2)
        

Commercial

(retail stores, hospitality, offices)

   59%    51%   

Incandescent

Fluorescent (in various forms)

Compact fluorescent, or CFLs

   14

60-84

55

   2,500

12,800-20,000

10,000

Industrial

(warehouses, manufacturing facilities)

   20%    14%   

Fluorescent (in various forms)

High intensity discharge, or HID (as listed under “Outdoor”)

   60-84

43-113

   12,800-20,000

18,000-24,000

Outdoor

(street lighting, parking garages, other large area lighting)

   11%    8%   

Mercury vapor

Metal halide

High pressure sodium

Low pressure sodium

   43

80

100

113

   24,000

20,000

20,000

18,000

Residential

(home applications)

   10%    27%   

Incandescent

Halogen

CFLs

   13

16

55

   1,200

3,000

10,000

(1) Per Navigant Consulting report entitled Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications 2010 to 2030 (February 2010) prepared for the DOE. Percentage of overall U.S. lighting market as measured in lumen hours of lighting demand as estimated for 2010.
(2) For 2001 as per DOE report entitled Solid-State Lighting Research and Development: Multi-Year Program Plan (March 2010).

In addition to greater efficacy and dramatically longer lifetime, LED lighting products also enjoy other important benefits relative to traditional sources of lighting, including:

 

   

superior control as a result of being based upon a solid state digital technology that can be dynamically and, in response to external factors, automatically adjusted, allowing greater design flexibility in color changing, dimming and light distribution as well as the opportunity for even greater energy efficiency and novel functionality;

 

   

an ability to generate light at full intensity almost instantly upon demand, in contrast to fluorescent and HID that can take several minutes to reach full intensity;

 

 

54


Table of Contents
   

smaller size as a result of being powered by LEDs that are usually less than one square millimeter in surface area, which enables new applications and differentiated end-product form factors;

 

   

greater directionality, or better ability to focus light where needed, which reduces light pollution and enables the use of fewer lumens of light for a given application, with an accompanying reduction in energy use;

 

   

an absence of hazardous materials such as mercury and lead that are used in other energy efficient lighting technologies, most notably fluorescents, including CFLs; and

 

   

lower heat radiation, which further mitigates energy costs through reduced need for cooling and expands the lighting applications in which LEDs can practically be used.

LEDs have a demonstrated history of rapid adoption in various applications when their total cost of ownership, including both purchase price and ongoing energy and maintenance costs, declines to a point that warrants their use. Reductions in total cost of ownership, which are primarily driven by increased product efficacy and lower purchase prices, improve users’ return on investment in LED technology and shorten the payback period for LEDs relative to other lighting technologies. The exact payback period required to drive LED lighting adoption varies by application and end-user and is influenced by the perceived value of other benefits of LED lighting for a given application as well as individual end-user willingness to invest in the higher upfront cost of LED lighting. We expect that as payback periods further shorten, LED adoption will accelerate across a growing range of applications.

We believe there is a tremendous market opportunity for providers of LED general illumination products as LEDs continue to penetrate the broader lighting industry. The following trends, in addition to improving product efficacy and declining purchase prices, will play key roles in this industry transition:

 

   

continuing improvements in LED technology that will further increase light quality;

 

   

increasing focus on energy efficiency among individuals as well as public and private entities;

 

   

greater demand for lighting solutions with design differentiation and enhanced functionality, including digital controls;

 

   

growing demand for electricity that may increasingly drive utilities and governmental agencies to provide greater financial incentives for energy efficient lighting technologies including LED lighting;

 

   

government regulations worldwide effectively eliminating incandescent bulb sales, including in the European Union by December 31, 2012 and in the United States by December 31, 2014; and

 

   

government programs aimed at promoting awareness and improving quality and user experience of energy efficient products, such as ENERGY STAR, which has established energy-efficiency accreditation and labeling guidelines for qualified products.

In light of these trends, the market for LED lighting is expected to grow rapidly and capture an increasing proportion of the worldwide market for general illumination. A March 2010 report by Strategies Unlimited estimated that the market for packaged LEDs used in general illumination was expected to be approximately $874.0 million in 2010, growing to over $4.3 billion by 2014, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 45%. A large part of the near-term opportunity will be derived from the replacement of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs with LED retrofit lamps. A DOE study estimated that in 2001 there were approximately seven billion incandescent and fluorescent lamps or bulbs in the United States alone. Given the resulting magnitude of this potential opportunity for LED retrofit lamps, Strategies Unlimited projects the market for packaged LEDs used in retrofit lamps to grow from $168.0 million in 2010 to $2.6 billion by 2014, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately 104%. Given that packaged LEDs are a small percentage of final product prices, the market for LED lighting products will be necessarily larger.

 

55


Table of Contents

Our competitive strengths

We are a leading provider of LED retrofit lamps and luminaires for the general illumination market and believe the following competitive strengths have enabled us to achieve this position:

In-depth understanding of the lighting markets we serve. Bringing leading lighting products to market requires a deep understanding of how multiple components and subsystems function when integrated into an LED lighting product under actual operating conditions. Equally important is the knowledge of what attributes end-users truly value for each application including potential tradeoffs between efficacy, lumen output, light color and quality, light distribution, control features (such as dimmability) and form factor. The ability to bring these knowledge sets together requires extensive experience in the lighting industry. As key members of our management, sales and product development teams have spent the vast majority of their careers at traditional lighting companies, we believe we have the expertise to develop market leading products that address the specific needs of each application we target. We also dedicate significant resources, from product development through installation and after-market support, collaborating with our customers to ensure we meet their unique needs.

Extensive proprietary technology and know-how. We are a technology integrator with expertise in each of the key technologies used in our products. This expertise is complemented by a portfolio of 121 issued and pending U.S. patents that have been developed over the course of nearly a decade of operations. Key areas of our focus include:

 

   

Power supplies and controls. We design, develop and manufacture most of the power supplies used in our products taking into consideration the exact specifications of the packaged LEDs and other components and subsystems being integrated as well as the intended application of the product. This enables us to optimize the performance of these other components and subsystems as well as improve characteristics of the power supply itself. It also allows us to introduce novel functionality though the integration of communications and control capabilities.

 

   

Thermal management solutions. We utilize proprietary design tools that employ highly accurate predictive modeling for the rapid design and development of efficient heat transfer solutions that are tailored to individual products and applications. This enables us to provide products that maintain their performance over time and are aesthetically pleasing.

 

   

Optical systems. We design and develop our own optical systems using advanced material science to improve product efficacy and optimize the intensity, direction, spectrum and spread of the light generated by our products for their intended applications.

 

   

LED technology. Our understanding of LED technology is critical for us to specify key attributes of the packaged LEDs we purchase from our suppliers. These specifications consider both the intended application of the product into which the LEDs are incorporated as well as the other components and subsystems with which they are integrated and by which they and the light they produce are impacted. For example, each packaged LED has a unique power input level that maximizes its efficacy, heat gradient that impacts its performance over time and light distribution and spectrum characteristics that must be shaped, altered and tuned by the phosphor and optical systems used.

Comprehensive system-based approach. We are focused on the profound impact the interrelationships between key components and subsystems used in our retrofit lamps and luminaires have on product performance. Accordingly, we retain significant in-house capabilities for critical components and subsystems that provide us with what we believe is an important ability to finely tune them to improve their interoperability. For example, our power supplies, thermal management solutions and optical systems are designed and developed in-house and the packaged LEDs we incorporate into our products are supplied to us according to our detailed specifications. Our approach is in marked contrast to lighting competitors that purchase generic components and subsystems or subassemblies with multiple components and subsystems integrated with each other, which are not optimized for further integration into a final product or to meet the needs of specific lighting applications. The high level of collaboration between our research and development resources resulting from their co-location and compressed

 

56


Table of Contents

management hierarchy also distinguishes us from those large competitors that, to the extent they have component capabilities, they often reside in discrete, often geographically dispersed, departments. In addition to helping us improve the performance of our products, our approach also helps reduce the number of parts used in our products which, in turn, lowers materials costs, simplifies the manufacturing process and reduces potential points of failure. For example, our 60 watt-equivalent A19 retrofit lamp incorporates 80 parts while the leading competitor’s product incorporates 151 parts.

Broad product portfolio sustained by rapid speed to market. We believe we are a leading provider of LED products for general illumination, not only in terms of overall product performance but also as measured by the breadth of our product portfolio and the speed of our new product introductions. Our products are developed using a modular approach that enables us to design and develop optimized components and subsystems that we use in multiple products while maintaining the flexibility to modify key attributes of these components and subsystems for the specific needs of individual applications. We believe this approach allows us to cost-effectively design and commercialize a broader range of retrofit lamps and luminaires at a faster rate than many of our competitors, as evidenced by our introduction of approximately 50 new products in 2010. This modular approach also results in an expedited approbation process with certifying agencies such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), further reducing time to market. In addition, our related ability to rapidly design key components and subsystems around newly introduced packaged LEDs is a key contributor to our speed to market with performance leading products. Given the rapid pace of LED technology improvement and the resulting onset of LED adoption across an increasing range of lighting applications and inherent short product cycles, speed to market is a critical competitive advantage.

Broad market reach through established channels. We have successfully implemented a multi-faceted channel strategy, which utilizes co-branded and private label programs, our direct sales force, distributors and independent sales agents to address distinct market opportunities. Our retrofit lamp business benefits from a range of key retailer and lighting OEM relationships, including with The Home Depot, the largest worldwide seller of light bulbs, for whom we serve as preferred provider and product development partner for LED retrofit lamps and luminaires on a co-branded basis, as well as our private label programs with Osram Sylvania and others, which provide us with access to a range of other large retailers and end-users. These relationships also provide us with the requisite scale to drive cost reductions across our product portfolio. Our direct sales force includes professionals with senior-level experience at diversified lighting companies including Acuity Brands, Inc., or Acuity Brands, Cooper Industries plc and Philips. This team is focused on sales of retrofit lamps and luminaires to key accounts for potential LED conversion in each of our target markets and has had success with accounts such as Harrah’s, Hilton, Simon Property and Starbucks. We believe we are different from: (i) other companies exclusively focused on LED lighting on the basis of the extensive general illumination sales expertise and existing relationships of our sales force and (ii) larger diversified lighting companies on the basis of our absence of conflict from legacy lighting businesses. We also avail ourselves of an extensive network of experienced independent sales agents and distributors that cost effectively expand our geographic coverage and offer high levels of support for large projects in the public infrastructure and commercial and industrial end markets.

Flexible approach to component sourcing. The flexibility of our product designs and our ability to facilitate rapid design adjustments limit our dependence on any single technology or vendor in our supply chain. This latitude in our component sourcing, particularly for packaged LEDs, enables us to mitigate supply risk through a multi-sourcing strategy despite the aggressive expansion of our operations, and provides us with pricing leverage that is further enhanced by our position as one of the largest purchasers of lighting-class packaged LEDs. It also helps insulate us from potential technology changes that represent significant risks to less adaptable competitors, such as vertically integrated LED lighting companies and competitors that are reliant on a narrower range of packaged LEDs or those who purchase partially integrated components or subsystems. Nevertheless, we have cultivated preferred supplier relationships pursuant to which the packaged LEDs we purchase can be accurately tailored to our specifications with relatively short lead times.

 

57


Table of Contents

Experienced personnel with proven ability to drive our strategies. Our long-standing focus on research and commercialization of LED lighting has been a guiding force in building our roster of talent. As a result, our senior management team consists of long-tenured lighting industry professionals as well as LED technology veterans and includes the innovators that formulated the key strategies that guide our current business approach and practices. Other key members of our team also have experience that is highly relevant to the unique dynamics of our industry as well as to our strategies. Our research and development team, for example, includes approximately 50 research scientists and engineers with Ph.D.s or Masters degrees in disciplines including power electronics, lighting, thermal and mechanical engineering, materials science and cellular and molecular biology. Together, they combine a thorough understanding of the sciences required to develop LED lighting products with significant lighting application experience. Our location on Florida’s “Space Coast” provides us with a deep pool of technical talent resulting from the nearby facilities of NASA, the U.S. Air Force, GE Aerospace, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and other high-tech businesses. Similarly, our sales and marketing force consists of approximately 40 lighting professionals, many of whom have prior experience in our markets and channels at traditional lighting companies.

Our strategies

Our objective is to leverage our leadership position in LED lighting products to become the leader in the overall lighting industry as LED adoption accelerates through the following strategies:

Improve our products while lowering their cost to sustain our market position. We expect each successive generation of our products to demonstrate enhanced performance and cost less than our existing products as measured by lumens per watt per purchase dollar. In addition to accelerating the adoption of LED lighting by improving returns on investment in LED lighting and driving down payback periods, this will help us sustain our current leadership position. We intend to accomplish this by accumulating improvements across all of our component and subsystem technologies and by availing ourselves of further efficiencies by way of their interoperation. These improvements will include innovations relating to new materials, designs and methods, which we believe will provide revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, gains in product performance and manufacturing cost. In addition, we will continue to rapidly optimize our technologies for the most recently introduced and typically higher efficacy packaged LEDs to which we often have early access. We also intend to employ our intellectual property portfolio along with our application-specific lighting expertise in the development of lighting concepts that incorporate the intelligent control enabled by solid state lighting technology to offer further reductions in cost of ownership and novel functionality to our customers.

Drive improvements in our manufacturing and supply chain operations. We are in the process of increasing production at our manufacturing site in Monterrey, Mexico, which opened in November 2010, as well as at our contract manufacturing partner in Asia. Our capacity migration and expansion plans are meant to ensure that we have adequate capacity to meet anticipated future demand for our products as well as to capture efficiencies that we expect will allow us to materially improve our profitability. Our most important cost reduction initiative is the transfer of high-volume manufacturing from our Satellite Beach, Florida facility to the lower cost sites in Mexico and Asia. We expect to manufacture an increasing percentage of our product volume in Asia and Mexico. We will continue to utilize our manufacturing operations in Satellite Beach to support our product development team’s efforts to launch new products until they reach full scale commercial volumes and to identify process improvements that drive cost reductions across the entire supply chain. In addition, we are increasingly sourcing critical components and subsystems from suppliers closer to our points of manufacture, working with our customers to develop more robust demand forecasts and implementing new information technology systems to reduce lead times, expediting costs for inbound supplies and other operational inefficiencies.

Expand our market coverage. We will continue to invest in our sales channels to market in order to drive further adoption of LED general illumination as well as to improve our share of the market. In pursuit of this strategy, we are enlarging our direct sales force by adding experienced lighting professionals to increase the depth

 

58


Table of Contents

of our activity with key accounts in each of our target markets as well as to expand the number of accounts and markets on which we are focused. In particular, we expect new hires to provide us with the capacity to more fully penetrate existing customers for whom our projects to date may represent a small portion of their overall opportunity. We also continue to enlarge the professional sales team that manages our growing roster of independent sales agents and distributors for the infrastructure and commercial and industrial markets in order to provide these partners with better sales support. Additionally, we are focused on expanding our efforts in Europe and Asia as we introduce new products designed specifically for the requirements of those regions. We also intend to protect and expand our market coverage by taking a leadership role in the establishment of rebate programs applicable to LED lighting. While we do not believe rebates are necessary for the eventual expected large scale shift to LED lighting, any external financial support has the potential to meaningfully accelerate this transition. Accordingly, we have recently hired dedicated professionals to proactively engage with the constituents relevant to the establishment of rebate policy in order to guide policy implementation and to have our products included in rebate plans.

Expand our product offering to target further conventional lighting applications. We will significantly increase the range of applications that we target as the value proposition of LED lighting continues to improve. We follow a disciplined approach to the expansion of our business given the significant cost of developing customized solutions for particular applications and the need for a sufficiently large market opportunity to justify such investment. Further, our reputation and long-term success are dependent on providing high quality products that are well-suited to address the application-specific needs of our customers. Accordingly, we prioritize those applications for which we believe there are clear and compelling reasons from a return on investment and total cost of ownership perspective for a potential customer to adopt LED lighting. For example, we have not yet marketed a linear fluorescent replacement product for office applications because the overall economics are not yet sufficiently compelling for LED replacement despite our belief that we can provide a solution with an incrementally lower total cost of ownership than existing LED products for this application. We review our product development roadmap on an ongoing basis in light of a number of constantly changing factors, including improvements in our technology and that of our packaged LED and other suppliers as well as reductions in our product costs.

Extend our technology to non-traditional markets. We plan to develop products for novel applications beyond traditional lighting that can benefit from the unique properties of LED lighting. We believe these potential non-traditional markets help drive our culture of innovation as well as our understanding of LED technology. Many of these applications center around the precise wavelength control afforded by LEDs in concert with the importance of light as an environmental factor and energy input into the metabolism of microbes, plants and animals. Although these applications are not expected to meaningfully contribute to our revenue in the near future, they nevertheless may represent material market opportunities in addition to their promising social benefits. We intend to collaborate with our existing research partners in pursuit of these opportunities, including NASA, Jefferson Medical College, Bayer AG, or The Bayer Group, the University of Florida and OakRidge National Laboratory.

Our products

We have developed an extensive product portfolio in three distinct product families (lamps; infrastructure luminaires; and commercial, architectural and residential luminaires), and also provide custom lighting solutions. We believe our products in each of our three families offer the best combination of lumen output, efficacy, cost per lumen and payback period. We intend to introduce a number of new products within each of our product families during 2011.

Lamps. We offer a broad range of LED retrofit lamps that are designed to fit into existing light fixtures and sockets. We believe these LED retrofit lamps are economically compelling replacements for traditional reflector and globe incandescent and incandescent halogen lamps. Our range of dimmable LED retrofit lamps exhibit consistent color and deliver excellent light distribution and brightness in commercial and residential lighting applications. Our line of retrofit lamps include DEFINITY branded retrofit lamps which we sell directly to our customers and through distributors under the Lighting Science branded name as well as co-branded and private label retrofit lamps.

 

59


Table of Contents

LOGO

 

Above is a sampling of our retrofit lamps. Many of these lamp types are available in multiple beam spread and color temperatures to address specific lighting needs.

Infrastructure luminaires. We offer LED luminaires that combine energy efficiency, long life and excellent light distribution, which makes them ideal for street lighting as well as for use in parking garages, outdoor areas, warehouses and manufacturing areas. Our infrastructure luminaire product range includes: (i) the PROLIFIC Series Roadway Luminaire; (ii) the Pyramid Low Bay, Flat Low Bay and BAYLUME luminaires for use in parking garages; and (iii) the ShoeBox and WallPack LED luminaires for use in area and pathway and security lighting, respectively.

LOGO

 

Above is a sampling of our infrastructure luminaire products.

Commercial, architectural and residential luminaires. We offer LED luminaires for the commercial, architectural and residential markets. Our SYMETRIE line of LED luminaires is designed for retail display applications and is available in various profiles and lengths and in color temperatures ranging from cool to warm. This line offers excellent color control to highlight the appearance of high value or perishable products without generating excessive heat and UV light that may damage these products as often happens with conventional lighting. We also offer LED-based spot, accent, recessed, pendant and track lighting, which offer uniform illumination and a more energy efficient alternative to incandescent halogen lighting to commercial customers. We are also in the process of launching a line of residential luminaires that will give consumers the opportunity to bring attractive and energy efficient LED lighting to their homes via purpose-built fixtures. Our architectural lighting products help architects, lighting designers and builders enhance building structures with light, color, movement and video in both interior and exterior applications. Many of these architectural lighting products are offered through our custom lighting solutions group.

 

60


Table of Contents

LOGO

 

Above is a sampling of our commercial, architectural and residential luminaire products.

Custom lighting solutions. In addition to our three product families, we also offer custom LED lighting solutions that combine project management, system integration and advanced control systems and software to create desired lighting effects for architects, lighting designers and research projects. Solutions developed as part of these projects provide new insights into uses of light and the basis for new lighting fixtures for mainstream applications, in addition to generating revenues and brand awareness. Our custom projects cover a wide range of specialized applications, from the New York City Times Square New Year’s Eve Ball to energy efficient lighting for the International Space Station.

Our target markets and customers

We target applications across several markets in which the return on investment, total cost of ownership and other benefits of LED lighting currently present clear and compelling reasons for its use. In many instances the products we offer to our customers have less than a two year payback depending on the cost of electricity, the efficiency and useful life of the replaced lamps or luminaires, and other factors including customer-specific characteristics such as daily duration of lighting use and ease or cost of incumbent lighting technology replacement. The exact payback period required to drive LED lighting adoption varies by application and end-user and is influenced by the perceived value of other benefits of LED lighting for a given application as well as individual end-user willingness to invest in the higher upfront cost of LED lighting. We expect that as payback periods further shorten, LED adoption will accelerate across a growing range of applications and we expect to broaden our target applications and roster of customers accordingly.

We primarily target our product families to the following major markets:

LOGO

 

61


Table of Contents

Government-owned and private infrastructure. Public and private infrastructure includes outdoor facilities and spaces that are managed by government and private entities. Primary applications in this market include lighting for streets and highways, parking lots, airports, ports, rail infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other large outdoor areas. Street and highway lighting represents the largest segment within the infrastructure market with the number of street and area lights in the United States alone estimated at over 100 million fixtures. Although LED lighting currently represents only a small part of this market, we expect it to increase significantly due to increasing customer awareness of the benefits of LED technology and the improving performance and declining cost of LED lighting products. Our customers within this market include American Airlines, Salt Lake City, Mexico City and Washington, D.C.

Schools and universities. Campuses for primary, secondary and higher education represent a significant market opportunity for our energy-efficient LED lighting products. Principal applications in this market include lighting for parking lots, large outdoor areas and streets as well as exterior lighting for buildings and indoor retrofit lamps. The significant electricity cost savings, low required maintenance and long life of our retrofit lamps and luminaires create a compelling economic equation for certain schools and colleges. A substantial movement currently exists across colleges and universities to reduce energy use and improve sustainability and switching to LED lighting is, we believe, one of the most practical, rapidly adoptable, highest-return and high profile actions campus administrators can take towards fulfilling this mandate. Our customers within this market include Dallas County Schools, Arizona State University—Tempe and Tufts University.

Retail and hospitality. The market for lighting in the retail and hospitality environment is both large and varied and includes products for malls, retail stores, hotels and resorts, cruise ships and restaurants. Our retrofit lamp and luminaire offerings for this market focus on task lighting, down lighting, bay lighting, cove lighting, accent lighting, track lighting and spot lighting as well as retail display lighting. Several major retailers have replaced their existing lighting with our LED retrofit lamps and luminaires, including Starbucks, Cartier and kiosks within shopping malls managed by Simon Property.

Residential and office. We offer a line of retrofit lamps and luminaires targeted to compete with traditional incandescent and incandescent halogen lamps and luminaires for commercial and residential lighting applications. Our retrofit lamps and luminaires are currently sold to leading OEMs that resell them under their own brands both directly to end-users and into retail channels such as home centers. We also sell our retrofit lamps and luminaires to The Home Depot, which offers them to end-users under the EcoSmart brand. In addition, our retrofit lamps and luminaires are sold under the Lighting Science brand name through distributors and directly to large customers.

Sales channels

We employ a multi-faceted channel strategy, which utilizes co-branded and private label programs, our direct sales force, distributors and independent sales agents to address distinct market opportunities. Our organization of 38 sales professionals is divided into account-focused and project-focused activities, each of which is supported by our rebates team.

 

62


Table of Contents

LOGO

Our account-focused activities are conducted by strategic account and national account teams. Strategic account management focuses on business alliances such as those with The Home Depot and branded lighting OEMs that help us access residential and commercial customers. For example, our products are carried in nearly 2,000 of The Home Depot’s stores located throughout the United States. In addition to initiating new relationships, our strategic account teams also actively manage these accounts by providing quality service, expertise and support in order to expand account revenue. As of January 19, 2011, we had six professionals focused on strategic account management, and we plan to increase this staff during 2011.

National account management focuses on potential high value customers. This team targets the largest national accounts within the markets for which our products’ value proposition is currently the most compelling, including retail, hospitality, schools and universities, large real estate management, and ESCO, or energy service company customers. As of January 19, 2011, we had six professionals focused on national account management, and we plan to increase this team during 2011.

Our project-focused activities involve supporting our network of independent sales agents and distributors that pursue lighting projects in the commercial, industrial and public infrastructure markets on a regional basis. Our project-focused sales team develops and manages our network of channel partners and works with these partners to submit competitive bids on projects and oversee the delivery and after-market support related to such projects. As of January 19, 2011, we had six professionals focused on these projects, and we plan to increase this staff during 2011.

Our sales activities are also supported by nine customer advocates who manage customer relationships, coordinate product delivery and also provide after-market services. We also maintain a network of contractors that we qualify for product installation and service within the United States. In addition, our sales and marketing team includes two professionals that are dedicated to managing and monitoring rebate policies with third party constituents.

We believe our products are globally competitive; however, our sales and marketing efforts to date have been primarily focused in North America. We are seeking to expand our international sales team to service Europe and Asia and intend to pursue a multi-tiered strategy to address these markets as we introduce new products designed specifically for them. Our international strategy includes selling through distributors under the Lighting Science brand name on a geographically exclusive basis, partnering with OEMs, employing a direct sales force in targeted regions and licensing our final assembly to local partners so they can fulfill regional

 

63


Table of Contents

demand in accordance with local content requirements. As of January 19, 2011, we employed seven sales professionals in Europe and two in Australia.

Our sales cycle varies by customer and lighting application and typically takes between one and three months for commercial customers and as long as a year or more for government infrastructure customers. Sales for large infrastructure and commercial projects usually consist of an initial presentation that may be followed by a pilot period, during which the proposed lighting solution is installed in a limited number of locations to verify its performance prior to purchase. Frequently throughout this process, our in-field technical support team collaborates with our account- and project-focused sales representatives and our product development staff to tailor our products on an iterative basis to the specifications and attributes required by our customers. Sales through our retail and OEM channels are more consistent than our project-based sales and are forecasted on a regular basis by our customers. We generally provide a five-year warranty on our products, which gives our customers the option to repair, replace or be reimbursed for the purchase price of the product, at the customer’s discretion.

Our technology

We have spent nearly a decade developing the technology and know-how that we believe is necessary to design the most reliable and lowest-cost LED lighting products capable of efficiently producing high quality light. This includes a deep understanding of the characteristics of each component and subsystem in a retrofit lamp or luminaire and the impact of their interaction in the context of the needs of individual lighting applications. Several of these key components and subsystems are illustrated below.

LOGO

The following areas of expertise are particularly important to our business:

Power supplies and controls. Power supplies and controls convert alternating electrical current from the electrical grid to the direct and modulated current needed to power an LED retrofit lamp or luminaire and control the amount of light output. This permits the retrofit lamp or luminaire to be used with existing electrical infrastructure and enables additional functionality such as dimmability. The electronic nature of these subsystems also enables them to react to external data from environmental sensors as well as networks to which they are connected, to the extent the retrofit lamp or luminaire is part of a larger system. We design, develop and manufacture most of our own power supplies taking into consideration the exact specifications of the packaged LED and other components and subsystems being used as well as the intended application of the product into which they are integrated. This enables us to optimize the performance of these other components and subsystems as well as improve characteristics of the power supply itself to enhance energy conversion efficiency and maximize useable power output to the LED as well as to reduce power supply material usage and form factor. Our activities in this regard range from the collaborative design of components used in our power

 

64


Table of Contents

supplies, such as MOSFETs, with our suppliers of these semiconductors to the development of innovative power supply topologies. We also conduct research and development to understand and mitigate the common failure points of power supplies, with the goal of enabling them to last as long as the LEDs in our products. Our expertise in power supply and controls also allows us to, among other things, integrate new and value added capabilities into our products such as advanced dimming, intelligent controls for added functionality and engineering for extreme environments.

Thermal management solutions. Thermal management solutions help to dissipate heat generated by LEDs and other electronic components in a retrofit lamp or luminaire and range from components such as aluminum heat sinks to more elaborate subsystems. If heat is not dissipated adequately, the performance of the LED can measurably deteriorate, effectively shortening product life and impairing product quality. We utilize proprietary design tools that employ highly accurate predictive modeling for the rapid design and development of efficient heat transfer solutions that are tailored to specific products and applications. In designing these solutions we also focus on their aesthetic impact in the context of the intended product application. Furthermore, we conduct research and development relating to the optimization of thermal management solutions through the use of advanced materials and methods to reduce their cost, mass and weight, as well as to improve their ease of manufacturing and assembly. This includes the potential use of thermally conductive polymers, self-renewing processes, plasmas and passive and active material combinations.

Optical systems. An optical system determines the intensity, direction, and spread of the light generated by LEDs and may be a plastic overlay, or optic, placed above an LED or a more elaborate subsystem. We design our own optical systems using advanced material science to achieve maximum efficacy for delivered light to the intended application. We also conduct our own research and development on optimizing optical systems to gain maximum performance from the phosphors being used to prevent color shifting throughout the life of the LED. Phosphors are typically used inside LED packages to alter the color of light emitted by the LED, often to down convert blue light into white light. In addition, we have expertise in introducing new materials and additives, innovative down conversion techniques, nanoprocesses, active optics and microelectromechanical systems, or MEMS, which we believe may be key technologies for improving LED lighting product performance including by removing the phosphor from the packaged LEDs and applying it to the optics itself or by eliminating the phosphor need altogether.

LED Technology. LEDs convert electrons into photons and emit monochromatic light. Our understanding of LED technology is critical for us to specify key attributes of the packaged chips we purchase from our suppliers. These specifications consider both the intended application of the product into which the chips are incorporated as well as the other components and subsystems with which they are to be integrated with the aim to create maximum light output, optimal light spectrum, and longer product life. For example, each packaged LED has a unique power input level that maximizes its efficacy, heat gradient that impacts its performance over time and light distribution and spectrum characteristics that must be shaped, altered and tuned by the phosphor and optical systems used.

Research and development

We believe that our ongoing success depends in part on our ability to improve our current products and to develop new products for both existing and new applications. Our research and development team focuses on increasing the efficiency of all of the components and subsystems that comprise our products including power supplies, thermal management solutions and optical systems as well as on designing these components and subsystems for improved aesthetics and reduced total product cost. This goes beyond the optimization of existing technologies and includes the dedication of significant resources toward the development of new materials and methods related to these components and subsystems. We also work closely with LED manufacturers and packagers to promote and drive advances in LED package structures including the application of phosphors which are required to produce white light.

We have assembled a team of approximately 50 research scientists and engineers with Ph.D.s or Masters degrees in disciplines including power electronics, lighting, thermal and mechanical engineering, materials

 

65


Table of Contents

science and cellular and molecular biology. These professionals combine a thorough understanding of the sciences required to develop LED lighting products with significant lighting application experience. Our research and engineering personnel are co-located in our Satellite Beach, Florida headquarters alongside our manufacturing team, both of which are responsible for new product launches and manufacturing process improvements. Our compressed management hierarchy enables a high level of collaboration between these product development teams as well as our sales and marketing organization.

Our research and development expenses were $6.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. This primarily related to (i) the expansion of our product portfolio, prototype components and tooling and (ii) research into new forms and advances in power conversion, optical materials and thermal substrates and systems.

Our research and development capabilities are enhanced through collaborations with leaders in a wide range of fields, including advanced material science, semiconductor performance, medical and biological research, space exploration and military applications. These technology partners include leading research organizations in the United States, such as NASA, Jefferson Medical College, the University of Florida and OakRidge National Laboratory as well as leading technology-oriented companies such as The Bayer Group and National Semiconductor Corporation.

In part due to these partnerships, we are conducting research and development at the frontiers of LED lighting technology, creating the foundation for a range of advanced applications. Key areas of activity include:

Intelligent Controls. Because LED lighting is based on solid-state electronics, adding sensing, adaptation and communication technologies to this platform is economically and technically practical. The additional hardware required for most sensing functionality, such as for motion, temperature, sound, vibration and ambient light levels can be integrated into our products with limited incremental cost. For example, we are developing integrated “smart” fixtures that can anticipate activity based on historical patterns and sense the presence of people in a room. This has applications for both security, activating a light when movement is detected, and lighting efficiency, as lights can be shut off when not needed. We continue to research areas where intuitive, unobtrusive control of light both enhances energy efficiency and provides novel functionality. Further, LED lighting is becoming a platform with networked functionality. Our design and integration of key components, including power supplies, and our deep understanding of the lighting applications we address positions us to lead the development of intelligent controls.

Biology. Light is a critical environmental factor and an important energy input into the metabolism of microbes, plants and animals. The unprecedented control over spectrum and intensity of light conferred by LED lighting therefore provides an untapped opportunity to impact biological processes. For example, LED light may be used to accelerate the growth and development of beneficial organisms, such as plants for food, or to kill undesirable organisms, such as harmful germs and bacteria on surfaces and in water. We are researching potential methods to apply LED light to the biological sciences, for the benefit of sanitation, agricultural productivity and human health and performance.

Manufacturing and supply chain

We manufacture and assemble our LED lighting products utilizing a global supply chain with a significant in-house infrastructure. Today, we have approximately 86,000 square feet of manufacturing facilities, including 20,000 square feet at our headquarters in Satellite Beach, Florida and 66,000 square feet at our new manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico. In addition, we have dedicated space at our contract manufacturing partner’s location in Asia.

While we design, develop and manufacture most of our power supplies in house, we use third party suppliers for certain labor or capital intensive components that we design and develop. This cost-effective

 

66


Table of Contents

approach outsources certain manufacturing steps that are not critical to overall product quality and do not require sharing any sensitive intellectual property with third parties. Accordingly, a large portion of our manufacturing activity involves final product assembly.

The vast majority of our manufacturing has traditionally been conducted at our Satellite Beach facility. We are in the process of transferring significant production to our manufacturing site in Monterrey, Mexico, which opened in November 2010, as well as to our contract manufacturing partner. Our capacity migration and expansion plans are meant to ensure that we have adequate capacity to meet anticipated future demand for our products as well as to capture efficiencies that we expect will allow us to materially improve our profitability. We will continue to utilize our manufacturing operations in our Satellite Beach, Florida facility to support our product team’s efforts to launch new products until they reach full scale commercial volumes and to identify process improvements that drive cost reductions across the entire supply chain.

The principal materials used in the manufacture of our products are packaged LEDs, printed circuit boards, MOSFETs, magnetics and standard electrical components such as capacitors, resistors and diodes used in our power supplies. We also source other materials that are manufactured to our precise specifications, such as aluminum heat sinks for our thermal management systems, plastic optics, as well as aluminum and plastic structural elements. We are not committed to, and do not favor, a single source for packaged LEDs and are therefore free to select LEDs based on availability, price and performance. We also favor suppliers on whom we can rely to timely provide us with packaged LEDs to our specifications. We presently use LEDs produced by Citizen Electronics, Nichia Corporation, Osram Opto Semiconductors GmbH, Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. and various other vendors. We believe we have good relationships with our LED suppliers and, in general, receive a high level of cooperation and support from them. In addition, we have entered into strategic relationships with certain key LED suppliers that currently give us access to next generation LED technology at an early stage and at competitive prices. We also obtain other components, materials and subsystems from multiple suppliers in North America and Asia. We continuously monitor and evaluate alternative suppliers based on numerous attributes including quality, performance, service and price. We are in the process of expanding our supplier base to increase their proximity to our North American manufacturing sites to reduce our reliance on Asian manufacturers. We believe this will help us reduce our lead times as well as our inbound freight costs, including the need for and impact of expediting supplies. In pursuit of these goals we are also implementing new information technology systems, such as a new ERP system, and working closely with our customers to develop more robust demand forecasts to improve overall supply chain management.

We deliver products to our customers through distributors and directly through strategically located warehouses in the United States and Europe. Our warehouses located in Palm Bay, Florida and Laredo, Texas, provide us with efficient product distribution for our North American customers. Our warehouses in Breukelen, The Netherlands facilitates delivery of our products to the European markets. We work with a logistics provider, United Parcel Service, to manage our trade and logistics activities in Asia and Australia. In addition, we have the ability to ship into these markets directly from our contract manufacturer in Asia. We adapt our distribution methods to meet individual customer or country requirements for international customers. We rely on air, sea and ground freight via third party freight services for transporting components and subsystems to our manufacturing sites and final products to most of our customers and distribution facilities.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive. We face competition from both traditional lighting technologies provided by numerous vendors as well as from LED-based lighting products provided by a growing roster of industry participants. The LED lighting industry is characterized by rapid technological change, short product lifecycles and frequent new product introductions, and a competitive pricing environment. These characteristics increase the need for continual innovation and provide entry points for new competitors as well as opportunities for rapid share shifts.

Relative to traditional lighting technologies, we primarily compete on the basis of the numerous benefits of LED lighting technology, such as greater energy efficiency, longer lifetime, improved durability, increased

 

67


Table of Contents

environmental friendliness, digital controllability, smaller size, directionality and lower heat output. As compared to other providers of LED lighting, we compete primarily on the basis of our product performance as measured by efficacy, light quality and reliability, as well as on product cost. In addition to the aforementioned factors which generally contribute to total cost of ownership and product quality, we also compete on the basis of our broad product portfolio and strong channel relationships. We believe our differentiated product design approach, proprietary technology and deep understanding of the lighting applications we address enable us to compete favorably on all of these factors.

Currently, we view our primary competition to be large, established companies in the traditional general lighting industry such as Acuity Brands, Cooper Industries, General Electric Company, Osram Sylvania, Panasonic Corporation, Philips and Zumtobel Lighting GmbH. Certain of these companies also provide, or have undertaken initiatives to develop, LED lighting products as well as other energy efficient lighting products. Additionally, we face competition from a fragmented universe of dedicated smaller niche as well as low-cost offshore providers of LED lighting products. We also anticipate that packaged LED suppliers, including some of those that currently supply us, may seek to compete with us by introducing retrofit lamps or luminaires of their own. For example, Cree, Inc., which is primarily a manufacturer of LEDs, also offers LED retrofit lamps and luminaires. Similarly, affiliates of both Osram Sylvania and Philips are among the larger packaged LED chip providers. We also expect other large technology players with LED technology that are currently focused on other end markets for LEDs, such as backlighting for LCD displays, to increasingly focus on the general illumination market as their existing markets saturate and LED use in general illumination grows. In addition, we may compete in the future with vendors of new technological solutions for energy efficient lighting.

Some of our current and future competitors are larger companies with greater resources to devote to research and development, manufacturing and marketing, as well as greater brand name recognition and channel access. Some of our more diversified customers could also compete more aggressively with us by subsidizing losses in their LED lighting businesses with profits from other lines of business. Moreover, if one or more of our competitors or suppliers were to merge with one another, the change in the competitive landscape could adversely affect our customer, channel or supplier relationships, and, as a result, our competitive position. Additionally, any loss of a key channel partner, whether to a competitor or otherwise, could severely and rapidly damage our competitive position.

Intellectual property

The creation and use of proprietary intellectual property is a key aspect of our strategy to differentiate ourselves in the marketplace. We seek to protect our proprietary technologies by obtaining patents and licenses, retaining trade secrets and defending, enforcing and utilizing our intellectual property rights, where appropriate. We believe this strategy allows us to preserve the advantages of our products and technologies, and helps us to improve the return on our investment in research and development.

As of December 31, 2010, we had filed 140 U.S. patent applications. From these applications, 85 U.S. patents had been issued and 36 were pending approval and 19 were no longer active. When we believe it is appropriate and cost effective, we make corresponding international, regional or national filings to pursue patent protection in other parts of the world. In some cases, we rely on confidentiality agreements and trade secret protections to protect our proprietary technology. In addition, we license and have cross-licensing arrangements with respect to third-party technologies that are incorporated into some elements of our design activities, products and manufacturing processes. Notably, we acquired license rights to a portfolio of patents and patent applications, as well as certain registered trademarks and service marks for discrete product offerings, from Philips in connection with a settlement that we reached with Philips in August 2009. Historically, licenses of the third-party technologies used by us have been available to us on acceptable terms.

The LED industry is characterized by the existence of a significant number of patents and other intellectual property, and by the vigorous pursuit, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. As is customary

 

68


Table of Contents

in the industry, many of our customer agreements require us to indemnify our customers for third-party intellectual property infringement claims. Claims of this sort could harm our relationships with our customers and might deter future customers from doing business with us. With respect to any intellectual property rights claims against us or our customers or distributors, we may be required to cease manufacture of the infringing product, pay damages, expend resources to develop non-infringing technology, seek a license or relinquish patents or other intellectual property rights. We believe our extensive intellectual property portfolio, along with our license arrangements, provide us with considerable advantage relative to new entrants to the industry and smaller LED providers in serving sophisticated customers.

Regulations, standards and conventions

Our products are generally required to meet the electrical codes of the jurisdictions in which they are sold. Meeting the typically more stringent codes established in the United States and the European Union usually allows our products to meet the codes in other geographic regions.

Many of our customers require our products to be listed by UL. UL is a United States independent, nationally recognized testing laboratory, third-party product safety testing and certification organization. UL develops standards and test procedures for products, materials, components, assemblies, tools and equipment, chiefly dealing with product safety. UL evaluates products, components, materials and systems for compliance to specific requirements, and permits acceptable products to carry a UL certification mark, as long as they remain compliant with the standards. UL offers several categories of certification. Products that are “UL Listed,” are identified by the distinctive UL mark. We have undertaken to have all of our products meet UL standards and be UL listed. There are alternatives to UL certifications but customers and end-users tend to favor UL listing. Because LED lighting products are relatively new in the market, UL’s specifications and standards for LED lighting products such as ours are not well established and the prior established specifications and standards for traditional lighting products are sometimes difficult to achieve for LED lighting devices.

Certain of our products must meet industry standards, such as those set by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or IES, and government regulations for their intended application. For example, street lights must meet certain structural standards and must also deliver a certain amount of light in certain positions relative to the installed luminaire. In the United States, our WallPack luminaires must meet standards and regulations established in the Americans with Disabilities Act. We specifically develop and engineer our products to meet the standards and regulations applicable to the lighting applications they address.

Many of our customers and end-users also expect our products to meet the applicable ENERGY STAR requirements. ENERGY STAR is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products. To qualify for ENERGY STAR certification, LED lighting products must pass a variety of tests to prove that the products have certain characteristics.

Legal Proceedings

We are from time to time subject to claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. These claims may include assertions that our products infringe existing patents and claims that the use of our products has caused personal injuries. We intend to defend vigorously any such litigation that may arise under all defenses that would be available to us. At this time, there are no proceedings of which management is aware that is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Employees

As of December 31, 2010, we had 152 employees in the United States and 91 employees outside the United States, primarily in Mexico and The Netherlands. We also utilized 357 contractors as of December 31, 2010, all of which were in the United States. We are not currently subject to any collective bargaining agreements, and we believe that our relationship with our employees is good.

 

69


Table of Contents

Management

Below is a list of the names and ages as of January 31, 2011 of our directors and executive officers and a brief account of the experience of each of them.

 

Name

   Age     

Position

Richard Weinberg

     51      

Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors

John Stanley

     43      

Chief Operating Officer

Gregory Kaiser

     39      

Chief Financial Officer

Frederic Maxik

     50      

Chief Technology Officer

Charles Darnell

     73      

Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors

Donald Harkleroad

     67      

Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors

Robert Bachman

     69      

Director

David Bell

     67      

Director

Michael Kempner

     53      

Director

T. Michael Moseley

     61      

Director

Leon Wagner

     57      

Director

Executive officers

Richard Weinberg was appointed to serve as Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors in January 2011 and has served as a director since October 2007. Mr. Weinberg joined Pegasus Capital as an operating partner in 2005 and became Co-Managing Director in 2010. Pegasus Capital is an affiliate of our largest stockholders that collectively beneficially owned 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011. Mr. Weinberg has over 27 years of business development and complex financial and legal restructuring experience. From 2000 to 2005, Mr. Weinberg served as CEO of G-I Holdings (f/k/a GAF Corporation), leading that entity’s bankruptcy restructuring efforts, and from 1993 to 2005, he served as General Counsel and a senior executive of GAF Materials Corporation and International Specialty Chemicals, Inc., building products and specialty chemicals companies, respectively.

We believe Mr. Weinberg is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings a significant amount of business experience to the board through previously serving as an executive officer and director of other companies. In addition, Mr. Weinberg has extensive business development and complex financial and legal restructuring experience.

John Stanley has served as our Chief Operating Officer since June 1, 2010. Mr. Stanley previously served as Senior Vice President of Global Supply Chain from April 2010 to June 2010. He has more than 10 years of production and logistics experience managing manufacturing operations in various industries including automotive, electronics, furniture and metals. Mr. Stanley received his bachelor’s degree in engineering from Clarkson University and his M.B.A. from the University of Michigan. From 2009 to 2010, Mr. Stanley served as Vice President of Operations for Shapes, LLC, one of North America’s largest aluminum extrusion operations. From 2008 to 2009, he was Senior Vice President of Operations for Rowe Fine Furniture, Inc., a Virginia-based custom furniture company. Prior to that, from 2006 to 2007, Mr. Stanley served as Vice President of Operations and Supply Chain for Acuity Brands, an electronics and lighting manufacturing company. From 1989 to 2006, Mr. Stanley held numerous plant and site manager positions with Delphi, a leading global supplier of automotive components.

Gregory Kaiser has served as our Chief Financial Officer since July 28, 2010. Prior to joining us, Mr. Kaiser held senior accounting positions with both publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Since 2009, Mr. Kaiser served as Co-founder and Chief Financial Officer for Mycontent.com, LLC, a start-up social networking website. Prior to joining Mycontent.com, from 2003 until 2009, Mr. Kaiser held numerous positions, including Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of an internal division, with HD Supply, Inc., a wholesale

 

70


Table of Contents

distributor serving professional customers in the infrastructure and energy, maintenance and improvement and specialty construction markets. Prior to joining HD Supply, Inc., Mr. Kaiser served as Assistant Corporate Controller for Hughes Supply, Inc., a former public company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. From 2001 until 2003, Mr. Kaiser served as Division Controller for Equitable Resources, Inc., a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. From 1996 – 2001, Mr. Kaiser served with the Internal Audit division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., and from 1994 – 1996, Mr. Kaiser served as an accountant for Deloitte & Touche LLP. Mr. Kaiser is a Certified Public Accountant and received a bachelor’s degree from West Virginia University in Business Administration/Accounting.

Fredric Maxik has served as our Chief Technology Officer since January 2010 and from June 2004 to October 2007. Prior to serving in this capacity, Mr. Maxik served as our Chief Scientific Officer from October 2007 to January 2010. He also served as a director from August 2004 to October 2007. After graduating from Bard College with a bachelor’s degree in physics and philosophy, Mr. Maxik began his career with Sansui Electric Co., Ltd., in 1983 in Tokyo, Japan where he became vice president of product development. In 1990, he was recruited to the position of vice president of product development for Onkyo Corporation in Osaka, Japan. In 1993, Mr. Maxik formed a product development consulting firm. In 2002, he formed an environmental products company, which developed the intellectual property that eventually became the principal asset of Lighting Science, Inc. that was acquired by us in June 2004. Mr. Maxik has 38 U.S. patents in the field of solid state lighting. Mr. Maxik is an operating advisor for Pegasus Capital, an affiliate of our largest stockholders that collectively beneficially owned 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011.

Directors

Charles Darnell was appointed to our board of directors in October 2010 and was appointed to serve as Vice Chairman of the board of directors on December 21, 2010. For 43 years, from March 1963 until retirement in August 2005, Mr. Darnell was with Lithonia Lighting, later named Acuity Brands, where he started as CIO before later becoming Vice Chairman. Since retiring from Acuity Brands, Mr. Darnell has consulted with several companies specializing in technology such as lighting, wireless networks and electronic medical and metering equipment. He and his family also own several small companies engaged in servicing the interior designer market, including International Arts Group, Lighting Effects, Wingz Marketing, Trimarc Installation, LLC and iDesign.

We believe Mr. Darnell is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he has considerable experience relating to lighting industry operations and thus, provides a critical business perspective to our board of directors.

Donald Harkleroad has served as a director for us since 2003 and was appointed to serve as Vice Chairman of the board of directors on December 21, 2010. He is President of The Bristol Company, an Atlanta-based private holding company with interests in the food service, technology services, real estate and merchant banking industries. From 2003 until 2001, Mr. Harkleroad served as a director for Easylink Services International Corp., a global provider of on-demand electronic messaging and transaction services. Until its sale in 2006, he was also a founding director of Summit Bank Corporation, a commercial bank with offices in Georgia, Texas and California.

We believe Mr. Harkleroad is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings significant operating, finance, legal and business knowledge through having participated in various management roles at a number of public and private companies and having practiced corporate and securities law for over 30 years. In addition, Mr. Harkleroad brings an ability to identify and implement strategic growth opportunities that help to provide guidance as the company identifies new ways to compete.

Robert Bachman has served as a director for us since 2003. He is the majority partner in USGT Investors, L.P., or USGT, an investment company based in Dallas, Texas. USGT primarily takes a minority investment

 

71


Table of Contents

position in companies that are controlled by large institutional investors. Mr. Bachman actively manages USGT’s investment portfolio, which currently includes Lighting Science Group, in addition to a shale oil exploration and production company with a large acreage position in Montana, a fusion energy company based in California and a Swiss company with interests in European steel companies. Previously, Mr. Bachman served as Vice President – Finance with a German-owned company that invested in commercial real estate in North America, and subsequently was Executive Vice President and General Manager of an oil and gas investment company affiliate of the German-owned company. He began his business career with Anheuser Busch in St. Louis, Missouri and has an M.B.A. from Columbia University. Mr. Bachman was also an officer in the U.S. Navy.

We believe Mr. Bachman is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings a broad base of financial and investment knowledge from a variety of industries to our board of directors.

David Bell was appointed a member of our board of directors in October 2007. Since March 16, 2006, he has served as Chairman Emeritus of The Interpublic Group of Companies, or Interpublic, a provider of advertising, specialized marketing and communication services. Previously, he served as Interpublic’s Co-Chairman from January 2005 until March 15, 2006, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from February 2003 to January 2005 and Vice Chairman from June 2001 to February 2003. From March 1999 to 2001, Mr. Bell served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of True North Communications, Inc., a provider of advertising and marketing services. From 1992 to March 1999, he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Bozell Worldwide. Mr. Bell serves on the Board of Directors of Warnaco Group Inc. and Primedia, Inc. and is currently Chairman of PRO-AD PAC (the advertising industry’s political action committee) and is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of The National Forest Foundation and Co-Chairman of the Advertising Council Advisory Group. Mr. Bell is also a member of the Advertising Hall of Fame and is an operating advisor of Pegasus Capital. Pegasus Capital is an affiliate of our largest stockholders that collectively beneficially owned 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011.

We believe Mr. Bell is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he is a recognized marketing expert and brings significant financial and business knowledge and executive leadership experience to the board of directors from his service as an executive officer and director of Interpublic and other publicly traded companies.

Michael Kempner was appointed a member of our board of directors in March 2010. He is the founder, president and chief executive officer of MWW Group, Inc. Mr. Kempner is an authority on investor relations, public affairs, business-to-business and consumer marketing and corporate social responsibility, and Mr. Kempner has successfully guided corporate communications programs for numerous companies. Mr. Kempner is also an operating advisor of Pegasus Capital, which is an affiliate of our largest stockholders that collectively beneficially owned 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011.

We believe Mr. Kempner is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings significant financial and business knowledge and executive leadership experience to the board through serving as an executive officer and director of MWW Group. In addition, Mr. Kempner has valuable marketing, public affairs and corporate communications experience.

T. Michael Moseley was appointed a member of our board of directors in March 2010. He is a retired United States Air Force four-star general. Mr. Moseley is a fighter pilot with more than 2,800 flight hours, many in the F-15 Eagle. Mr. Moseley’s final Air Force assignment was Chief of Staff of the Air Force. He retired from the Air Force in August 2008. Mr. Moseley is an operating advisor for Pegasus Capital, an affiliate of our largest stockholders that collectively beneficially owned 88.8% of our common stock as of February 8, 2011.

We believe Mr. Moseley is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings perspective to the board as a private investor as well as a significant amount of leadership experience through previously serving as Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

 

72


Table of Contents

Leon Wagner was appointed to serve on our board of directors on January 3, 2011. Mr. Wagner was a founding partner and chairman of GoldenTree Asset Management, an alternative asset management firm specializing in leveraged loans, high yield bonds, distressed assets and equities in hedge, long only and structured funds. At the time of his retirement, GoldenTree managed in excess of $12 billion in capital. Prior to founding GoldenTree, Mr. Wagner was the co-head of the high yield sales and trading department at CIBC World Markets. He joined CIBC in 1995 when it acquired The Argosy Group, LP. Mr. Wagner directed public and private placement marketing and structuring for high yield issuance at both institutions. Mr. Wagner is also a distinguished philanthropist and the 2003 recipient of the Gustave L. Levy Award, presented by the UJA-Federation of New York, in recognition of service to the community. Mr. Wagner received his M.B.A. from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and a B.A. from Lafayette College.

We believe Mr. Wagner is qualified to serve on our board of directors because he brings significant financial experience and knowledge to the board.

Family relationships

There are no family relationships between any of our executive officers or directors.

Board composition

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that our board of directors will consist of such number of directors as determined from time to time by resolution adopted by a majority of the total number of authorized directors whether or not any vacancies exist in previously authorized directorships. Our board of directors currently consists of nine seats. Subject to any rights applicable to any then outstanding preferred stock, any additional directorships resulting from an increase in the number of directors may only be filled by the directors then in office unless otherwise required by law or by a resolution passed by the board of directors. The term of office for each director will be until his or her successor is elected at our annual meeting or his or her death, resignation or removal, whichever is earliest to occur. Stockholders will elect directors each year at our annual meeting.

We have no formal policy regarding board diversity. Our board of directors believes that each director should have a basic understanding of the principal operational and financial objectives and plans and strategies of the company, the results of operations and financial condition of the company and the relative standing of the company in relation to our competitors. We take into consideration the overall composition and diversity of the board of directors and areas of expertise that director nominees may be able to offer, including business experience, knowledge, abilities and customer relationships. Generally, we will strive to assemble a board of directors that brings to us a variety of perspectives and skills derived from business and professional experience as it may deem are in our and our stockholders’ best interests. In doing so, we will also consider candidates with appropriate non-business backgrounds.

Director independence

Under The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules, a director will only qualify as an “independent director” if, in the opinion of our board of directors, that person does not have a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. Our board of directors has affirmatively determined that Messrs. Bachman, Darnell and Harkleroad are “independent directors,” as defined under Rule 5605(a)(2) of The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules.

Because LSGC Holdings holds more than 50% of the voting power for the election of our directors, we may elect to be a “controlled company” under The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules. As a controlled company, exemptions under The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules will free us from the obligation to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirements:

 

   

that a majority of our board of directors consists of “independent directors,” as defined under The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules; and

 

73


Table of Contents
   

that any compensation committee or nominating and corporate governance committee be composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities.

These exemptions do not modify the independence requirements for our Audit Committee, and we intend to comply with the requirements of Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act and The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules within the applicable time frame.

Board committees

Our board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee, a governance committee, an executive committee, a finance committee and a committee of independent directors. With the exception of the committee of independent directors, each of these committees operates under a charter that has been approved by our board of directors.

Audit committee

The audit committee is responsible for, among other matters: (1) appointing, compensating, retaining, evaluating, terminating and overseeing our independent registered public accounting firm; (2) discussing with our independent registered public accounting firm their independence from management; (3) reviewing with our independent registered public accounting firm the scope and results of their audit; (4) approving all audit and permissible non-audit services to be performed by our independent registered public accounting firm; (5) overseeing the financial reporting process and discussing with management and our independent registered public accounting firm the interim and annual financial statements that we file with the SEC; (6) reviewing and monitoring our accounting principles, accounting policies, financial and accounting controls and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; (7) establishing procedures for the confidential anonymous submission of concerns regarding questionable accounting, internal controls or auditing matters; and (8) reviewing and monitoring the guidelines and policies governing risk assessment and risk management.

Our audit committee consists of Messrs. Bachman, Darnell and Harkleroad, and Mr. Bachman is the chairman of the audit committee. Our board of directors has determined that each of the members of our audit committee is independent within the meaning of The NASDAQ Marketplace Rules and Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act. Our board of directors does not have an “audit committee financial expert,” within the meaning of that phrase under applicable regulations of the SEC, serving on the audit committee. The board of directors believes that each member is financially literate and experienced in business matters and is capable of (1) understanding generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, and financial statements, (2) assessing the general application of GAAP principles in connection with our accounting for estimates, accruals and reserves, (3) analyzing and evaluating our financial statements, (4) understanding our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting, and (5) understanding audit committee functions. All of these are attributes of an audit committee financial expert. However, the board of directors believes that no audit committee member has obtained these attributes through the experience specified in the SEC’s definition of “audit committee financial expert.” Further, as is the case with many emerging companies, it would be difficult for us to attract and retain board members who qualify as “audit committee financial experts,” and competition for such individuals is typically significant. The board of directors believes that its current audit committee is able to fulfill its role under SEC regulations despite not having a designated “audit committee financial expert.”

Compensation committee

Our compensation committee is responsible for, among other matters: (1) recommending to our board of directors for consideration, the compensation and benefits of our executive officers and key employees; (2) monitoring and reviewing our compensation and benefit plans to ensure that they meet corporate objectives; (3) administering our stock and other incentive compensation plans and programs and preparing

 

74


Table of Contents

recommendations and periodic reports to the board of directors concerning these matters; (4) preparing, if necessary, the compensation committee report that may be required by SEC rules to be included in our annual report; and (5) preparing recommendations and periodic reports to the board of directors concerning these matters.

Our compensation committee consists of Messrs. Bell, Harkleroad, Moseley and Weinberg, and Mr. Bell is the chairman of the compensation committee.

Governance committee

Our governance committee has responsibility for, among other things: (1) recommending persons to be selected by our board of directors as nominees for election as directors and to fill any vacancies on the board; (2) recommending persons to be selected by our board of directors as members and chairperson for each board committee; (3) analyzing and proposing for decision of the board of directors the governance structure of the company; (4) reviewing and making recommendations to the board of directors regarding compensation paid to the directors; and (5) monitoring our performance in meeting our obligations of fairness in internal and external matters and our principles of corporate governance.

Our governance committee consists of Messrs. Bachman, Harkleroad and Weinberg, and Mr. Harkleroad is the chairman of the governance committee.

Executive committee

Our executive committee reviews and, where appropriate, approves corporate action with respect to the conduct of our business between board of directors’ meetings. The executive committee has the authority of the full board of directors, except for specific powers that are required by law to be exercised by the full board of directors. Actions taken by the executive committee are reported to the board of directors at its next meeting.

Our executive committee consists of Messrs. Darnell, Harkleroad, Kempner and Weinberg, and Mr. Weinberg is the chairman of the executive committee.

Finance committee

The finance committee is responsible for the oversight of, among other matters, our: (1) capital structure plans and strategies and specific debt and equity financings, (2) short-term and long-term financing plans, (3) major commercial banking, investment banking, financial consulting, insurance and other financial relationships, (4) cash management plans, strategies and activities and (5) plans and strategies for managing exposure to economic risks.

Our finance committee consists of Messrs. Harkleroad, Wagner and Weinberg, and Mr. Wagner is the chairman of the finance committee.

Committee of independent directors

Our committee of independent directors was formed by resolution of the board of directors to: (1) consider, negotiate and approve or reject related-party transactions, without further board approval, between the company and (a) Pegasus Capital and its affiliates; (b) executive officers or directors of the company; or (c) any other person or entity that may be deemed an affiliate or related party; and (2) approve awards under the company’s Amended and Restated Equity-Based Compensation Plan (in addition to the authority of the compensation committee).

The committee of independent directors consists of Messrs. Bachman, Darnell and Harkleroad and does not have a chairman.

 

75


Table of Contents

Compensation committee interlocks and insider participation

During 2010, the members of our compensation committee were Messrs. Bell, Harkleroad and Weinberg and a former director, Carlos Gutierrez. Mr. Weinberg is an executive officer and partner of Pegasus Capital. In addition, Messrs. Bell and Gutierrez are Operating Advisors for Pegasus Capital. As described in further detail under “Certain relationships and related transactions,” during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, we paid or otherwise accrued approximately $4.4 million in fees and expenses to Pegasus Capital and its affiliates as consideration for: (i) Pegasus IV’s guaranty of our previous line of credit with the Bank of Montreal; (ii) Pegasus Capital’s provision of due diligence and negotiation services in conjunction with our acquisitions of LSGBV and Lamina and (iii) its provision of financial, strategic planning, monitoring and related services pursuant to a Support Services Agreement.

Board leadership structure and role in risk oversight

Mr. Weinberg, our Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer, has been with us since October 2007. The board of directors believes that Mr. Weinberg is best situated to serve as our Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer because he is the director most familiar with the company’s business and industry and is most capable of efficiently and effectively identifying strategic priorities and leading the discussion and execution of strategy. Independent directors and management have different perspectives and roles in strategy development. Our independent directors bring experience, oversight and expertise from outside the company and industry, while our Chief Executive Officer brings company-specific and industry experience and expertise. The board of directors believes that the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer promotes strategy development and execution and facilitates information flow between management and the board of directors, each of which is essential to effective governance.

Our board of directors is comprised of three independent members. The board of directors believes the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, together with the oversight of our independent directors, is in the best interest of stockholders because it provides the appropriate balance between strategy development and independent oversight of management.

Our audit committee is primarily responsible for overseeing the company’s risk management processes on behalf of the full board of directors. The audit committee receives reports from management concerning the company’s assessment of risks. In addition, the audit committee reports regularly to the full board of directors, which also considers the company’s risk profile. The audit committee and the full board of directors focus on the most significant risks facing the company and the company’s general risk management strategy. In addition, as part of its oversight of our company’s executive compensation program, the compensation committee considers the impact of such program, and the incentives created by the compensation awards that it administers, on our company’s risk profile. In addition, the compensation committee reviews all of our company’s compensation policies and procedures, including the incentives that they create and factors that may reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking, to determine whether they present a significant risk to our company. The compensation committee has determined that, for all employees, our company’s compensation programs do not encourage excessive risk and instead encourage behaviors that support sustainable value creation.

 

76


Table of Contents

Executive compensation

Compensation discussion and analysis

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the compensation arrangements we have with our named executive officers as set forth under the rules of the SEC. Consistent with the SEC rules, we are providing disclosure for the principal executive officer (our Chief Executive Officer or CEO) and principal financial officer (our Chief Financial Officer or CFO), regardless of compensation level, and the three most highly compensated executive officers in our last completed fiscal year, other than the CEO and CFO. All of these executive officers are referred to in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis as our “NEOs.”

For fiscal 2010, our NEOs were:

 

Name                                 

  

Title

Zachary Gibler (1)

  

Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Gregory Kaiser

  

Chief Financial Officer

Frederic Maxik

  

Chief Technology Officer

John Stanley

  

Chief Operating Officer

Khaled Haram (2)

  

Former President and Chief Operating Officer

Jonathan Cohen (3)

  

Former Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

Kathryn Reynolds (4)

  

Former Senior Vice President, Strategy and Finance (Principal Financial Officer)

 

(1) Mr. Gibler passed away on January 2, 2011.
(2) Mr. Haram would have been a NEO for fiscal year 2010 but for the fact that his employment terminated on June 30, 2010.
(3) Mr. Cohen served as Principal Financial Officer prior to September 10, 2010 when his employment was terminated.
(4) Ms. Reynolds served as Principal Financial Officer prior to January 29, 2010 when her employment was terminated.

Recent Events

Zachary Gibler passed away on January 2, 2011 and Richard Weinberg assumed the duties of Chairman of the Board and interim Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Weinberg has agreed to serve in this capacity for no additional compensation.

Overview and responsibility for compensation decisions

The compensation committee of our board of directors has responsibility for evaluating the performance and development of our executive officers in their respective positions, reviewing individual compensation as well as corporate compensation principles and programs, establishing corporate and individual performance objectives as they affect compensation, making determinations as to whether and to what extent such performance objectives have been achieved and ensuring that we have effective and appropriate compensation programs in place. Our CEO supports our compensation committee by driving our annual business plan process, providing information related to the ongoing progress under our annual business plan and other business and financial results, undertaking performance assessments of other executives and presenting other personnel-related data for the committee’s consideration. In addition, as the manager of our executive team, our CEO assesses each executive’s contribution to corporate goals as well as achievement of his or her individual goals and makes a recommendation to our compensation committee with respect to compensation for executive officers other than himself. Our compensation committee meets, including in executive sessions, to consider these recommendations, conducts a similar evaluation of the CEO’s contributions to corporate goals and achievement of individual goals and makes determinations related to the CEO’s and the other executive officers’ compensation.

Our overall compensation philosophy is to provide a competitive total compensation package that will:

 

   

fairly compensate our executive officers;

 

77


Table of Contents
   

attract and retain qualified executive officers who are able to contribute to the long-term success of our company;

 

   

incentivize future performance toward clearly defined corporate goals without encouraging excessive risk taking; and

 

   

align our executives’ long-term interests with those of our stockholders.

Our compensation committee believes that the quality, skills and dedication of our executive officers are critical factors affecting our long-term value. Our compensation arrangements with executive officers are, to a large degree, based upon the consolidated revenue and earnings achievements of our company along with personal performance objectives agreed upon at the beginning of the fiscal year with the respective executive. We believe in compensating progressively for the achievement of established objectives.

In setting compensation levels for individual officers, our compensation committee applies its judgment in determining the amount and mix of compensation elements for each named executive officer, and to date our compensation process has been a largely discretionary process based upon the collective experience and judgment of the compensation committee members acting as a group. Factors affecting the committee’s decisions in setting compensation generally include:

 

   

overall corporate performance;

 

   

the individual officer’s performance against corporate-level strategic goals established as part of our annual business plan and the officer’s effectiveness in managing toward achievement of those goals;

 

   

the nature and scope of the officer’s responsibilities; and

 

   

informal market surveys and the personal experience of members of our board of directors.

While our compensation committee is authorized to engage the services of outside consultants and advisors, neither the compensation committee nor our management has to date retained a compensation consultant to review or provide advice with respect to our policies and procedures with respect to executive compensation. To date, we have not formally benchmarked our executive compensation against peer companies, and we have not identified a group of peer companies against which we would compare our compensation practices. While our compensation committee considers the overall mix of compensation components in its review of compensation matters, it has not adopted formal or informal policies or guidelines for allocating compensation between long-term and current compensation or between cash and non-cash compensation. The compensation committee intends to continue to manage our executive officer compensation programs on a flexible basis that will allow it to respond to market and business developments as it views appropriate, but will continue to consider whether the use of consultants, formal benchmarking and/or fixed guidelines for allocating between compensation components would aid the committee in setting compensation levels or allocating between types of compensation.

We have historically reviewed company compensation annually as part of the business plan process undertaken by management and the board of directors in the early part of each year. During this process, the compensation committee reviews overall compensation, evaluates performance, determines corporate-level performance goals for that year’s business plan and, when appropriate, makes changes to one or more components of our executives’ compensation. We expect to continue this practice after this offering.

Historically, the exercise price of our stock options has been at least equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Prior to this offering, the fair market value of our common stock has been established by reference to the closing price of our common stock on the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink Sheets, as applicable, on the date of grant. If our common stock becomes listed on the NASDAQ stock market, the fair market value of our common stock will be the closing price of our stock on that exchange on the date of the grant.

 

78


Table of Contents

Compensation components

Compensation for our executive officers has been highly individualized, at times structured as a result of arm’s length negotiations when an officer is initially hired, and always taking into account our financial condition and available resources. The resulting mix of compensation components has primarily included:

 

Compensation Component

  

Description

  

Relation to Compensation Objectives

Base Salary

   Fixed cash compensation for services rendered during the fiscal year   

• Fairly compensate executives

 

• Attract and retain qualified executives

 

Annual Cash Incentive Bonus

   Annual cash payments for achieving predetermined financial and/or performance goals   

• Fairly compensate executives

 

• Attract and retain qualified executives

 

• Incentivize future performance toward clearly defined corporate goals without encouraging excessive risk taking

     

Long-Term Incentive Awards

   Grants of stock options and/or restricted stock awards designed to focus on long-term growth and increased company value   

• Attract and retain qualified executives

 

• Align executive and stockholder interests

 

• Incentivize future performance toward clearly defined corporate goals without encouraging excessive risk taking

 

Severance and Change of Control Benefits

   Continued payments of base salary for up to 24 months after involuntary termination   

• Fairly compensate executives

 

• Attract and retain qualified executives

     

Other Benefits

   Health and medical benefits, and the opportunity to participate in an employee stock purchase plan and a 401(k) retirement plan or comparable foreign plan   

• Align executive and stockholder interests

 

• Attract and retain qualified executives

Our compensation committee believes this mix is appropriate for our executive team because, among other things, it provides a fixed component (base salary) designed to offer the executive funds from which to manage personal and immediate cash flow needs and variable components (annual incentive bonuses, stock options and restricted stock awards) that incentivize our management team to work toward achievement of corporate goals and our long-term success, as well as offering protection (through termination-related benefits) against abrupt changes in the executive’s circumstances in the event of involuntary employment termination including in the context of a change of control of our company. Our compensation committee also believes, based on the collective experience of its members, that this mix is typical of companies in our industry and at our stage of development. It has no current plans to change the mix of components or vary the relative portions of fixed and variable compensation that comprise our overall compensation packages.

As a result of this mix of compensation components, executives earn their compensation over three time frames:

 

   

Current Year Performance: Salary and annual incentives that reflect actions and results over 12 months;

 

   

Long-Term Performance: A long-term incentive plan that reflects results over a period of years, helping to ensure that current results remain sustainable; and

 

   

Full Career Performance: Deferrals and retirement accumulations encourage executives to stay with the company until their working careers end.

 

79


Table of Contents

In May 2010, as part of the annual compensation review the compensation committee reviewed the compensation of our NEOs and determined that in light of our continued growth in both revenues and product development, it was in our company’s best interest to make certain changes to the compensation packages of our NEOs as set forth below.

Base Salaries. Base salary for our CEO and other executive officers is established based on the scope of their responsibilities, length of service with our company, individual performance during the prior year and competitive market compensation. Base salaries are reviewed annually and adjusted from time-to-time based on competitive conditions, individual performance, our overall financial results, changes in job duties and responsibilities and our company’s overall budget for base salary increases. The budget is designed to allow salary increases to retain and motivate successful performers while maintaining affordability within our company’s business plan.

In May 2010, as part of the annual compensation review, our CEO’s base salary was increased from $275,000 to $375,000 in consideration of our projected growth after the development of significant customer relationships during 2009 and the first half of 2010, and his appointment as Chairman of the board of directors. In addition, our Chief Technology Officer’s base salary was increased from $250,000 to $300,000 due to his tenure with the company and successful product development achievements.

Annual Cash Incentive Bonus. We also have an annual cash incentive bonus program to motivate our executive officers to attain specific short-term performance objectives that, in turn, further our long-term objectives. This program is managed as part of our annual business plan process and involves a high level of discretion on the part of our compensation committee. Typically, the board of directors approves a business plan for the year that incorporates corporate-level objectives. Achievement of those objectives becomes an important factor considered by the compensation committee when, after year-end, it makes a final determination of bonus amounts to be paid. Other factors that are considered by the compensation committee in determining amounts to pay include:

 

   

our company’s overall performance and business results;

 

   

general market conditions;

 

   

future business prospects;

 

   

funds available from which to pay bonuses;

 

   

individual performance;

 

   

competitive conditions; and

 

   

any other factors it finds relevant.

Each executive is measured against their contributions to the consolidated revenue and earnings achievement of our company as a whole along with their performance against individual objectives established at the beginning of the fiscal year with the participation of the respective executive as part of their total compensation plan. This discretionary approach to the variable component of our compensation program allows fluidity in how we manage short-term corporate strategy and executive incentives, while allowing us to achieve more consistency in our focus on longer-term corporate objectives. Our compensation committee and our board of directors believe that this flexibility is important in managing a growing company because it allows executive officers to respond to the often changing demands of the business without undue focus on any one specific short-term performance objective. Our compensation committee does not have plans at this time to change the way it manages our annual cash incentive bonus program or to take a more formal or objective approach to the way it sets bonus payment amounts.

Each executive officer has a target bonus amount, established at the time of hire and then reviewed and potentially adjusted annually over the course of the officer’s tenure with our company. For 2010, the target bonuses for executive officers ranged from 30% to 40% of base salary based on our compensation committee’s

 

80


Table of Contents

belief of respective competitive levels for each officer’s overall amount of fixed and variable compensation. For 2010, the corporate-level performance objectives specified in our business plan related to consolidated sales growth, earnings and certain strategic objectives. Our compensation committee set a consolidated earnings target sufficient to fund the bonus pool during 2010.

On February 10, 2011, the compensation committee approved an increase in the target bonuses for certain officers to 100% of base salary to provide competitive variable compensation levels in light of the company’s overall strategic growth and earnings objectives.

Because of our limited cash flows and our company’s historical losses, our executive officers have not been awarded cash bonuses during the past three years. Our compensation committee elected not to award our named executive officers performance based incentive bonuses for fiscal 2010 because of continued losses.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation. To date, our long-term incentive awards have primarily been in the form of options to purchase our common stock, which options are generally awarded under our Amended and Restated Equity-Based Compensation Plan, or the Equity Plan. Our stock options have an exercise price at least equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date, generally vest over four years, with 25% of the option shares vesting after the first, second, third and fourth years of service following the grant, and have a ten year term. Additional vesting acceleration benefits apply in certain circumstances discussed below.

Generally, a stock option award is made in the year that an executive officer commences employment. The size of this award is intended to offer the executive a meaningful opportunity for stock ownership relative to his or her position and reflects the compensation committee’s assessment of market conditions affecting the position as well as the individual’s potential for future responsibility within our company. Thereafter, additional option grants may be made in the discretion of our compensation committee, board of directors or committee of independent directors. To date, we have not granted additional options on an annual basis to executives or other employees, although we do evaluate individual performance annually. Instead, additional options have been granted to executives on a case-by-case basis reflecting the compensation committee’s determination that such grants are appropriate or necessary to reward exceptional performance (including upon promotion) or to retain individuals when market conditions change. The size of additional option grants are determined in the discretion of the compensation committee or our board of directors, and typically incorporate our CEO’s recommendations (except with respect to his own option grants).

In 2010, our board of directors approved additional option grants to our CEO based upon his length of service, promotion to Chairman of the board of directors and achievement in improving sales results and market acceptance of our products. In addition, our board of directors approved initial option grants to our Chief Financial Officer and our Chief Operating Officer in conjunction with their hiring. The amounts of these grants are presented below under “Executive compensation — 2010 grants of plan-based awards.”

Other than awards of restricted stock granted to our former Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Technology Officer in 2008 and our Senior Vice President, Strategy and Finance in 2009, we have not granted restricted stock awards to our NEOs.

On February 10, 2011, we amended the vesting provisions of the stock option agreements of certain officers (including each of the NEOs that are currently employed by us) to provide that 50% of the previously granted stock options will vest on the first and second anniversary of the applicable date of grant. These amendments also provided that these options will become fully vested upon the holder’s death, disability, termination without cause or termination for good reason. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” and “good reason” have the same definition of “cause” and “good reason” in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement below.

 

81


Table of Contents

LSGC Holdings, the beneficial owner of approximately 88.8% of our common stock, has created a non-voting class of profits interests (“Class B Units”) in LSGC Holdings in order to provide additional incentive compensation to certain members of our management team. Awards of Class B Units were made January 24, 2011. The Class B Units entitle the holders (including each of the NEOs that are currently employed by us) to participate in the distributions made by LSGC Holdings to its members, but only after the holders of Class A Units in LSGC Holdings have received distributions equal to the fair market value of the assets of LSGC Holdings on the grant date of the awards. The Class B Units, which were deemed to have a fair market value of $0.00 on the grant date, remain subject to vesting upon the passage of time.

Severance and Change in Control Benefits. We have entered into employment agreements with each of our named executive officers, which provide severance benefits in the event the executive officer’s employment is terminated by us without cause or the executive officer is terminated without cause in connection with a change in control, in consideration of a release of potential claims and other customary covenants. These benefits range from 12 weeks to, following a change-in-control, 24 months of their base salary. In addition, all stock options held by our NEOs provide for full acceleration of unvested stock options upon a change of control of our company. For more information regarding these severance and change in control benefits, see “Executive compensation – Estimated benefits and payments upon termination of employment or change of control.” Our board of directors and compensation committee have determined it appropriate to have these termination-related benefits in place to preserve morale and productivity, and encourage retention in the face of potentially disruptive circumstances that might cause an executive to be concerned that his or her employment is in jeopardy or that might involve an actual or rumored change in control of our company. We believe that our change of control benefits are generally in line with packages offered to executives in our industry.

Other Benefits. Certain NEOs are entitled to monthly car allowances pursuant to their employment agreements and/or were reimbursed for relocation and moving expenses. The value of such benefits are presented below under the “Summary compensation table” as “All Other Compensation.”

We also provide our executive officers with benefits that are generally available to our salaried employees. These benefits include health and medical benefits, flexible spending plans and the opportunity to participate in an employee stock purchase plan, and a 401(k) retirement plan or comparable foreign plan.

Tax matters

Our board of directors and compensation committee will consider the deductibility of compensation amounts paid to our executive officers including the potential future effects of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code on the compensation paid to our executive officers in making its decisions, although such deductibility has not historically been material to our financial position. Section 162(m) disallows a tax deduction for any publicly held corporation for individual compensation exceeding $1.0 million in any taxable year for our CEO and each of the other named executive officers (other than our Chief Financial Officer), unless compensation is “performance-based” as defined under Section 162(m). Our stock option grants are generally designed to qualify as performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m), and we expect compensation amounts related to options to be fully deductible. However, our compensation committee may, in its judgment, authorize compensation payments that are not deductible when it believes that such payments are appropriate to attract and retain executive talent.

 

82


Table of Contents

Summary compensation table

The following table summarizes the overall compensation earned by NEOs during each of the past three fiscal years ended December 31, 2010.

 

Name and Principal Position

  Year     Salary
($)
    Stock
Awards

($) (1)
    Option
Awards

($) (1)
    All Other
Compensation ($)
    Total ($)  

Zachary Gibler

    2010      $ 325,000        —        $ 384,900      $ 89,800 (3)    $ 799,700   

(Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) (2)

    2009      $ 248,542        —        $ 1,706,320      $ 8,400 (3)    $ 1,963,262   
    2008      $ 183,333      $ 172,938      $ 207,525        —        $ 563,796   

Gregory Kaiser

    2010      $ 85,606        —        $ 480,700        —        $ 566,306   

(Chief Financial Officer) (4)

           

Frederic Maxik

    2010      $ 275,000        —          —        $ 14,400 (5)    $ 289,400   

(Chief Technology Officer)

    2009      $ 250,000        —        $ 339,600      $ 5,900 (5)    $ 595,500   
    2008      $ 250,000      $ 484,225      $ 207,525        —        $ 941,750   

John Stanley

    2010      $ 144,697        —        $ 481,600      $ 14,000 (7)    $ 640,297   

(Chief Operating Officer) (6)

           

Khaled Haram

    2010      $ 119,689        —          —        $ 119,700 (9)    $ 239,389   

(President and Chief Operating Officer) (8)

    2009      $ 108,278        —        $ 339,600      $ 7,200 (9)    $ 455,078   

Jonathan Cohen

    2010      $ 122,811        —        $ 43,020      $ 41,250 (11)    $ 207,081   

(Chief Accounting Officer) (10)

    2009      $ 27,500        —        $ 27,920        —        $ 55,420   

Kathryn Reynolds

    2010      $ 30,572        —          —        $ 46,154 (11)    $ 76,726   

(Senior Vice President, Strategy and Finance) (12)

   
2009
  
  $ 155,416      $
24,343
  
  $ 78,395        —        $ 258,154   

 

(1) Represents the total grant date fair value, as determined under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718, Stock Compensation, of all awards granted to the NEO during fiscal 2010, 2009 and 2008, as applicable. Assumptions used to calculate these amounts are included in Note 16, “Equity Based Compensation,” to our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.
(2) Mr. Gibler began serving as our Chief Executive Officer on June 11, 2009 and passed away on January 2, 2011.
(3) Includes $14,400 of car allowance and $75,400 for reimbursement of relocation and moving expenses during 2010. Consists of car allowance during 2009.
(4) Mr. Kaiser began serving as our Chief Financial Officer on August 31, 2010.
(5) Consisted of car allowance.
(6) Mr. Stanley began serving as our Chief Operating Officer on June 1, 2010.
(7) Consisted of relocation expenses.
(8) Mr. Haram began serving as our Chief Operating Officer on July 13, 2009 and resigned on June 30, 2010.
(9) Includes $112,500 of separation pay and $7,200 of car allowance during 2010. Consisted of car allowance during 2009.
(10) Mr. Cohen began serving as our Chief Accounting Officer on November 1, 2009 and resigned on September 10, 2010.
(11) Consists of separation pay.
(12) Ms. Reynolds began serving as our Senior Vice President, Strategy and Finance on March 3, 2009 and resigned on January 29, 2010.

In May 2010, Mr. Gibler was awarded stock options to purchase 250,000 shares of common stock. These options have an exercise price of $2.48 per share and a ten-year term. In May 2010, we also granted Mr. Stanley options to purchase 700,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.11 per share in conjunction with

 

83


Table of Contents

his commencement of employment and promotion to Chief Operating Officer. Similarly, in August 2010, we granted Mr. Kaiser options to purchase 500,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $1.64 per share when he was appointed Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Gibler’s options were scheduled to vest and become exercisable in equal annual installments over a four-year period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant. After giving effect to the amendments that were approved on February 10, 2011, Mr. Stanley’s and Mr. Kaiser’s options vest and become exercisable in equal annual installments over a two-year period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant, and these options will be subject to acceleration in the event of a change in control, upon their death or becoming disabled, termination without cause, termination for good reason and may be accelerated upon retirement in the discretion of our board of directors. The exercise price of each award is equal to at least the fair market value of the company’s common stock on the date of grant.

2010 grants of plan-based awards

The following table sets forth each Equity Plan-based award granted to our NEOs during the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

          Option Award:  
    

Grant Date

   Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options
     Exercise Price
of Option
Awards (1)
     Grant Date Fair
Value of
Option Awards
(2)
 

Zachary Gibler

  

May 26, 2010

     250,000       $ 2.48       $ 384,900   

Gregory Kaiser

  

August 31, 2010

     500,000       $ 1.64       $ 480,700   

John Stanley

  

May 6, 2010

     700,000       $ 1.11       $ 481,600   

Jonathan Cohen

  

March 22, 2010

     100,000         $1.00         $43,020   

 

(1) The amounts in this column represent the exercise price of the option awards, as determined by our board of directors with the assistance of management, which is not less than the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant.
(2) Represents the total grant date fair value, as determined under Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 718, Stock Compensation, of all awards granted to the NEO during fiscal 2010, as applicable. Assumptions used to calculate these amounts are included in Note 16, “Equity Based Compensation,” to our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

84


Table of Contents

Outstanding equity awards at 2010 fiscal year-end

The following table provides certain information concerning unexercised options, stock that has not vested and Plan awards held by each of our NEOs that were outstanding as of December 31, 2010.

 

    Option Awards     Stock Awards  

Name

  Number  of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options

(#)
Exercisable
    Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options

(#)
Unexercisable
    Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options

(#)
    Option
Exercise
Price

($)
    Option
Expiration
Date
    Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested

(#)
    Market
Value of
Shares
or Units
of Stock
That
Have
Not
Vested

($)(1)
    Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That Have
Not
Vested

(#)
    Equity
Incentive
Plan Awards:
Market or
Payout Value
of Unearned
Shares, Units
or Other
Rights That
Have Not
Vested

($) (1)
 

Zachary Gibler

    50,000 (2)      25,000 (3)      —        $ 4.90        4/17/2013        —          —          41,667 (5)    $ 135,418   
    2,500,000 (6)      —          —        $ 1.00        8/21/2019           
    —          250,000 (4)      —        $ 2.48        5/26/2020           

Frederic Maxik

    50,000 (2)      25,000 (7)      —        $ 4.90        4/17/2013        —          —          116,667 (8)    $ 379,168   
    1,500,000 (6)      —          —        $ 1.00        8/21/2019           

Gregory Kaiser

    —          500,000 (9)      —        $ 1.64        8/31/2020        —          —          —          —     

John Stanley

    —          700,000 (10)      —        $ 1.11        5/6/2020        —          —          —          —     

Khaled Haram

    645,085 (11)      —          —        $ 1.00        10/30/2012        —          —          —          —     

Kathryn Reynolds

    6,667 (12)      —          —        $ 0.60        7/31/2012        —          —          —          —     
    100,000 (13)      —          —        $ 1.00        7/31/2012        —          —          —          —     
    100,000 (13)      —          —        $ 1.00        10/31/2012        —          —          —          —     

 

(1) Assumes a market value of $3.25 per share of common stock, as reported on the OTC Bulletin Board on December 31, 2010.
(2) These options were granted on April 17, 2008 and 25,000 options vested on each of April 17, 2009 and April 17, 2010.
(3) These options were granted on April 17, 2008 and were scheduled to vest on April 17, 2011. However, due to the death of Mr. Gibler on January 2, 2011, no further vesting of these options will occur.
(4) These options were granted on May 26, 2010. 62,500 of these options were scheduled to vest on each of May 26, 2011, May 26, 2012, May 26, 2013 and May 26, 2014. However, due to the death of Mr. Gibler on January 2, 2011, 37,842 of the shares automatically vested on January 2, 2011 in accordance with the terms of this grant. No further vesting of these options will occur.
(5) Mr. Gibler was awarded 62,500 shares of restricted stock on April 17, 2008. As long as Mr. Gibler remained employed by us, his remaining shares of restricted stock were scheduled to vest as follows: (i) 21,250 shares would vest on the date that our gross revenues from the sale of products or licensing of technology (“Recognized Revenue”) equaled $115.0 million, and (ii) 20,625 shares would vest on the date that our Recognized Revenue equaled $150.0 million. Any restricted shares that had not vested prior to May 7, 2011 would automatically vest. Due to the death of Mr. Gibler on January 2, 2011, no further vesting of this restricted stock grant will occur.
(6) These options were granted on August 21, 2009 and vesting was accelerated on December 30, 2010 due to the achievement of a “capitalization threshold event.”
(7) These options were granted on April 17, 2008 and are scheduled to vest on April 17, 2011.
(8) Mr. Maxik was awarded 175,000 shares of restricted stock on May 7, 2008. As long as Mr. Maxik remains employed by us, his remaining shares of restricted stock vest as follows: (i) 58,333 shares vest on the date that our Recognized Revenue equals $115.0 million, and (ii) 58,334 shares vest on the date that our Recognized Revenue equals $150.0 million. Any restricted shares that have not vested prior to May 7, 2011 will automatically vest.
(9) These options were granted on August 31, 2010. 250,000 of these options will vest on each of August 31, 2011 and August 31, 2012.
(10) These options were granted on May 6, 2010. 350,000 of these options will vest on each of May 6, 2011 and May 6, 2012.
(11) These options were granted on April 21, 2009 and vesting was accelerated on April 30, 2010 in accordance with the separation agreement entered into by Mr. Haram and the company.
(12) These options were granted on June 26, 2009 and vesting was accelerated on January 31, 2010 in accordance with the separation agreement entered into by Ms. Reynolds and the company.
(13) These options were granted on August 21, 2009 and vesting was accelerated on January 31, 2010 in accordance with the separation agreement entered into by Ms. Reynolds and the company.

 

85


Table of Contents

Option exercises

The following table sets forth stock options that were excercised by each of our NEOs during the fiscal year 2010.

 

     Option awards  
     Number of
shares
acquired on
exercise

(#)
     Value
realized on
exercise (1)
 

Khaled Haram

     104,915       $ 244,460   

Jonathan Cohen

     125,000       $ 259,124   

Kathryn Reynolds

     15,000       $ 41,100   

 

  (1) Computed based on the difference between the market value of the underlying shares of common stock at exercise and the exercise price of the option.

Employment agreements

We entered into employment agreements with all of our NEOs.

Employment agreement with Zachary Gibler

On October 4, 2007, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Gibler pursuant to which Mr. Gibler agreed to serve as our Chief Business Development Officer. On August 17, 2009, such agreement was superseded by a new agreement pursuant to which Mr. Gibler agreed to serve as our Chief Executive Officer, effective as of June 11, 2009. Pursuant to this employment agreement, Mr. Gibler was entitled to an annual base salary of $275,000, a monthly car allowance of $1,200 and benefits generally available to other employees. However, in May 2010, as part of the annual compensation review, Mr. Gibler’s base salary was increased from $275,000 to $375,000. Mr. Gibler was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 40% of his base salary based upon a combination of our performance and personal achievements. Pursuant to his employment agreement, we agreed to grant Mr. Gibler an award of restricted stock and/or options under the Equity Plan, which award would be made at a later date. Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement could be terminated at any time, without severance, by Mr. Gibler voluntarily or by us with “cause.” If Mr. Gibler’s employment were terminated by us without “cause” or by Mr. Gibler for “good reason,” then he would be entitled to severance pay equal to 12 months’ base salary.

For purposes of this agreement, “cause” was defined as: (a) a misrepresentation of the executive’s education, work experience and/or any other matter upon which the company relied in considering and offering employment; (b) willful breach of the executive’s obligations under the agreement, which breach the executive fails to cure, if curable, within 30 days after receipt of a written notice of such breach; (c) gross negligence in the performance or intentional non-performance of material duties to the company; (d) commission of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude; (e) commission of a material act of deceit, fraud, perjury or embezzlement that involves or directly or indirectly causes harm to the company; (f) repeatedly (i.e., on more than one occasion) being under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the performance of the executive’s duties to the company or, while under the influence of such drugs or alcohol, engaging in grossly inappropriate conduct during the performance of the executive’s duties to the company. “Good reason” was defined as any of the following occurrences (without the executive’s consent): (a) any material breach by the company of its obligations under the agreement that is not cured within a reasonable time, (b) a reduction in base salary that is greater than 10% or greater proportionally than an across-the-board reduction in the base salaries of all officers of the company, (c) a material reduction by the company in the kind or level of employee benefits to which the executive is entitled immediately prior to such reduction that is not generally applicable to all executive level employees; or (d) a material reduction by the company of the executive’s duties and responsibilities, including a material change in job title.

 

86


Table of Contents

Employment agreement with Frederic Maxik

On October 4, 2007, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Maxik pursuant to which Mr. Maxik agreed to serve as our Chief Scientific Officer. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Maxik was entitled to an annual base salary of $250,000. However, in May 2010, as part of the annual compensation review, Mr. Maxik’s base salary was increased from $250,000 to $300,000. We could also pay Mr. Maxik bonuses at such times and in such amounts as our board of directors determines, and Mr. Maxik was entitled to participate in the Equity Plan. Mr. Maxik’s employment agreement had a term commencing on October 4, 2007 and continued until October 4, 2012. It may be terminated at any time, without severance, by Mr. Maxik voluntarily or by us with “cause.” In the event that Mr. Maxik’s employment is terminated by us without “cause” or by Mr. Maxik with “good reason,” Mr. Maxik would have been entitled to severance pay equal to 12 months’ base salary. “Cause” and “Good Reason” had the same definitions as those terms in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement, except that “Cause” did not explicitly include a misrepresentation of education, work experience or other matter upon which the company relied in considering and offering employment.

On February 10, 2011, we entered into a new employment agreement with Mr. Maxik providing for severance in the form of base salary continuation for 12 months in the event that his employment is terminated by the company without cause or by the individual for good reason. Such salary continuation period shall be increased to 24 months in the case of termination by the company without cause or by the individual for good reason during the 24-month period following a change in control. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” and “good reason” have the same definition of “cause” and “good reason” in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement.

Employment agreement with John Stanley

On April 7, 2010, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Stanley pursuant to which Mr. Stanley agreed to serve as our Senior Vice President, Global Supply Chain. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Stanley was entitled to a base salary of $200,000 and benefits generally available to other employees. However, in January 2011, as part of the annual compensation review, Mr. Stanley’s base salary was increased from $200,000 to $250,000. Mr. Stanley was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 40% of his base salary based upon a combination of performance and personal achievements. In addition, pursuant to his employment agreement, we agreed to grant Mr. Stanley an option, to purchase 700,000 shares of common stock under the Equity Plan. Mr. Stanley’s employment is at will and may be terminated at any time. If Mr. Stanley’s employment is terminated for reasons other than for “cause” or a change in control, Mr. Stanley was entitled to six months of base salary. If Mr. Stanley’s employment is terminated due a change in control, Mr. Stanley was entitled to 12 months of base salary. For purposes of the agreement, “cause” had the same definition as “cause” in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement.

On February 10, 2011, we entered into a new employment agreement with Mr. Stanley providing for severance in the form of base salary continuation for 12 months in the event that his employment is terminated by the company without cause or by the individual for good reason. Such salary continuation period shall be increased to 24 months in the case of termination by the company without cause or by the individual for good reason during the 24-month period following a change in control. On February 10, 2011, the compensation committee also amended the vesting provisions of Mr. Stanley’s option agreements to provide that 50% of the options granted shall vest on the first and second anniversary of the applicable date of grant. The amendment also provided that the options shall become fully vested upon the optionholder’s death, disability, termination without cause or termination for good reason. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” and “good reason” have the same definition of “cause” and “good reason in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement.

Employment agreement with Gregory Kaiser

On July 14, 2010, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Kaiser pursuant to which Mr. Kaiser agreed to serve as our interim Chief Financial Officer. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Kaiser was entitled to a base salary of $200,000 and benefits generally available to other employees. Mr. Kaiser was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 40% of his base salary based upon a combination of performance and personal achievements. Mr. Kaiser was also entitled to a grant of stock options in an amount to be determined. Mr. Kaiser’s employment is at will and may be terminated at any time. If Mr. Kaiser was terminated

 

87


Table of Contents

for reasons other than for “cause” or a change in control during the first year of employment, Mr. Kaiser was entitled to 12 weeks of base pay. If he were to be terminated anytime thereafter for reasons other than for “cause” or a change in control, Mr. Kaiser was entitled to 24 weeks of base pay. If Mr. Kaiser’s employment was terminated due to a change in control during the first year of employment, Mr. Kaiser was entitled to a severance payment of 24 weeks of base pay. For purposes of the agreement, “cause” is defined as any act or omission which constitutes a felony or any crime involving dishonesty, theft or fraud; any act of dishonesty resulting or intended to result directly or indirectly in gain or personal enrichment to the executive at the expense of the company; or the failure to substantially perform the duties and responsibilities of the executive’s position.

On February 10, 2011, we entered into a new employment agreement with Mr. Kaiser providing for severance in the form of base salary continuation for 12 months in the event that his employment is terminated by the company without cause or by the individual for good reason. Such salary continuation period shall be increased to 24 months in the case of termination by the company without Cause or by the individual for good reason during the 24-month period following a change in control. On February 10, 2011, the compensation committee also amended the vesting provisions of Mr. Kaiser’s option agreements to provide that 50% of the options granted shall vest on the first and second anniversary of the applicable date of grant. The amendment also provided that the options shall become fully vested upon the optionholder’s death, disability, termination without cause or termination for good reason. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” and “good reason” have the same definition of “cause” and “good reason” in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement.

Employment agreement with Jon Cohen

On October 27, 2009, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Cohen pursuant to which Mr. Cohen agreed to serve as our Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Cohen was entitled to a base salary of $165,000 and benefits generally available to other employees. Mr. Cohen was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 30% of his base salary based upon a combination of professional and personal achievements. In addition, pursuant to his employment agreement, we agreed to grant Mr. Cohen 100,000 shares of common stock under the Equity Plan. Mr. Cohen’s employment was at will and could be terminated at any time. If Mr. Cohen’s employment was terminated for reasons other than for “cause”, Mr. Cohen was entitled to receive 4 weeks of base salary. For purposes of the agreement, “cause” has the same definition as “cause” in Mr. Maxik’s original employment agreement.

On June 4, 2010, we entered into an agreement with Mr. Cohen which superseded his employment agreement. Pursuant to the new agreement, Mr. Cohen agreed to continue to serve as our Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer while we looked to hire a new Chief Financial Officer. Under this agreement, if Mr. Cohen’s employment was terminated for reasons other than for “cause,” Mr. Cohen was entitled to three months of base salary. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” meant any act or omission which constitutes a felony or any crime involving dishonesty, theft or fraud; any act of dishonesty resulting or intended to result directly or indirectly in gain or personal enrichment to Mr. Cohen at the expense of the company; and/or the willful and continued failure to substantially perform the duties and responsibilities of his position. Mr. Cohen’s employment was terminated on July 30, 2010, which became effective on September 10, 2010. In accordance with his agreement, Mr. Cohen was entitled to three months base salary upon his termination.

Employment agreement with Khaled Haram

On July 10, 2009, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Haram pursuant to which Mr. Haram agreed to serve as our President and Chief Operating Officer. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Haram was entitled to a base salary of $225,000, a car allowance of $1,200 per month, and benefits generally available to other employees. In addition, we agreed to grant Mr. Haram a number of shares of restricted stock and stock options, which would be made at a later date. Mr. Haram was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 40% of his base salary based upon a combination of performance and personal achievements. Mr. Haram’s employment was at will and could be terminated at any time. If Mr. Haram’s employment was terminated for

 

88


Table of Contents

reasons other than for “cause” or a change in control, Mr. Haram was entitled to six months of base pay (provided that either (1) Mr. Haram did not return to work for Pegasus Capital or another portfolio company of Pegasus or (2) Mr. Haram was retained by Pegasus Capital or another portfolio company for less than six months). If Mr. Haram’s employment was terminated due to, and within three months of, a change in control, Mr. Haram was entitled to 12 months of base salary. For purposes of this agreement, “cause” has the same definition as “cause” in Mr. Gibler’s agreement.

On April 28, 2010, we entered into a separation agreement with Mr. Haram, pursuant to which Mr. Haram’s employment terminated on June 30, 2010 and his services transitioned to Mr. Cohen and Mr. Stanley. In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Haram was entitled to six months of base salary upon his termination. In addition, upon his termination, 750,000 of the stock options granted to Mr. Haram on August 21, 2009 became vested.

Employment agreement with Kathryn Reynolds

On February 28, 2009, we entered into an agreement with Ms. Reynolds pursuant to which Ms. Reynolds agreed to serve as Senior Vice President, Strategy and Finance. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Reynolds was entitled to a base salary of $200,000 and benefits generally available to other employees. In addition, we agreed to grant Ms. Reynolds a number of shares of restricted stock and stock options, which would be made at a later date. Ms. Reynolds was also eligible to participate in a bonus plan of up to 40% of her base salary based upon a combination of performance and personal achievements. Ms. Reynolds’s employment was at will and could be terminated at any time. If Ms. Reynolds’ employment were terminated for reasons other than for “cause” or a change in control, Ms. Reynolds was entitled to three months of base salary. If Ms. Reynolds’ employment were terminated due a change in control, Ms. Reynolds was entitled to six months of base salary. For purposes of the agreement, “cause” has the same definition as “cause” in Mr. Gibler’s employment agreement.

On January 21, 2010, we entered into a separation agreement with Ms. Reynolds, pursuant to which Ms. Reynolds’ employment terminated on January 31, 2010. In accordance with her employment agreement, Ms. Reynolds was entitled to three months of base salary upon her termination. In addition, upon her termination, 18,333 of the shares of restricted stock and 21,667 of the stock options granted to Ms. Reynolds pursuant to her employment agreement. In addition, 200,000 of the stock options granted to Ms. Reynolds on August 21, 2009 became vested.

 

89


Table of Contents

Estimated benefits and payments upon termination of employment or change of control

The following table describes the potential payments and benefits upon termination of our NEOs’ employment before or after a change in control of our company as described above, as if each officer’s employment terminated as of December 31, 2010, the last business day of fiscal 2010. See “Compensation discussion and analysis—Principal elements of executive compensation—Severance and change in control benefits” for a description of the severance and change in control arrangements for our named executive officers.

 

Name

  

Triggering Event

  

Type of Payment/Benefit

  

Amount

 
Zachary Gibler    Termination without cause or for good reason    Base Salary    $ 375,000   
  

 

Change in control

  

 

Vesting Acceleration of Option Awards

  

 

$

 

192,500

 

(1) 

         

 

Vesting Acceleration of Restricted Stock

  

 

$

 

135,418

 

  

 

Frederic Maxik

  

 

Termination without cause or for good reason