XML 23 R9.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES [Abstract]  
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
2.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Universal Display Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, UDC, Inc., Universal Display Corporation Hong Kong, Ltd., Universal Display Corporation Korea, Inc., and Universal Display Corporation Japan, Inc.   All intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated.

Management’s Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The estimates made are principally in the area of revenue recognition for license agreements, useful life of acquired technology, stock-based compensation and the valuation of stock warrant and retirement benefit plan liabilities. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash, Cash Equivalents and Short-term Investments

The Company considers all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The Company classifies its remaining short-term investments as available-for-sale. These securities are carried at fair market value, with unrealized gains and losses reported in shareholders’ equity. Gains or losses on securities sold are based on the specific identification method.

Short-term investments at December 31, 2011 and 2010 consist of the following:

   
Amortized
  
Unrealized
  
Aggregate Fair
 
Investment Classification
 
Cost
  
Gains
  
(Losses)
  
Market Value
 
              
December 31, 2011-
            
Certificates of deposit
 $5,797,322  $158  $(5,112) $5,792,368 
Corporate bonds
  223,260,232   42,461   (25,118)  223,277,575 
U.S. Government bonds
  5,223,675   432   (9)  5,224,098 
                  
   $234,281,229  $43,051  $(30,239) $234,294,041 
                  
December 31, 2010-
                
Certificates of deposit
 $7,167,818  $62  $(7,919) $7,159,961 
Corporate bonds
  30,423,518   19,964   (642)  30,442,840 
U.S. Government bonds
  15,189,511   3,040   (807)  15,191,744 
                  
   $52,780,847  $23,066  $(9,368) $52,794,545 

All short-term investments held at December 31, 2011 will mature within one year.
 
Trade Accounts Receivable

Trade accounts receivable are stated at the amount the Company expects to collect and do not bear interest. The Company considers the following factors when determining the collectability of specific customer accounts: customer credit-worthiness, past transaction history with the customer, current economic industry trends, and changes in customer payment terms.  The Company’s accounts receivable balance is a result of chemical sales, royalties, license fees and U.S. government contract revenues.  These receivables have historically been paid timely.  Due to the nature of the accounts receivable balance, the Company believes there is no significant risk of collection.  If the financial condition of the Company’s customers were to deteriorate, adversely affecting their ability to make payments, allowances for doubtful accounts would be required.  The Company recorded no bad debt expense in the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009.  

Inventory

Inventory, which consists of materials that have been classified as commercial, is valued at the lower of cost or market using the first-in, first-out method. Commercial materials are materials that have been validated by the Company for use in commercial OLED products.

Fair Value Measurements

The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried at fair value measured on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011:

      
Fair Value Measurements, Using
 
   
Total carrying value as of December 31, 2011
  
Quoted prices in active markets (Level 1)
  
Significant other observable inputs
(Level 2)
  
Significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3)
 
Cash equivalents
 $96,538,248  $96,538,248  $  $ 
Short-term investments
  234,294,041   234,294,041       

The following table provides the assets and liabilities carried at fair value measured on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2010:

      
Fair Value Measurements, Using
 
   
Total carrying value as of December 31, 2010
  
Quoted prices in active markets (Level 1)
  
Significant other observable inputs
(Level 2)
  
Significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3)
 
Cash equivalents
 $8,234,698  $8,234,698  $  $ 
Short-term investments
  52,794,545   52,794,545       
Stock warrant liability
  10,659,755         10,659,755 

Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets or inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly through market corroboration, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs based on management’s own assumptions used to measure assets and liabilities at fair value. A financial asset or liability’s classification is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The following table is a reconciliation of the changes in fair value of the Company’s stock warrant liability for the years ended December 31, which had been classified in Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy:

   
2011
  
2010
  
2009
 
           
Fair value of stock warrant liability, beginning of year
 $10,659,755  $3,720,165  $ 
Cumulative effect of reclassification of stock warrant liability under ASC 815, see “Stock Warrant Liability” below
        2,689,110 
Loss for period
  4,190,283   10,077,065   1,031,055 
Warrants exercised
  (14,850,038)  (3,137,475)   
              
Fair value of stock warrant liability, end of year
 $  $10,659,755  $3,720,165 
 
The fair value of the stock warrant liability was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following inputs at December 31:

   
2010
  
2009
 
        
Contractual life (years)
  0.6   0.1- 0.6 
Expected volatility
  55.6%  40.5-76.7%
Risk-free interest rate
  0.2%  0.1-0.8%
Annual dividend yield
      

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The carrying values of accounts receivable, other current assets, and accounts payable approximate fair value in the accompanying financial statements due to the short-term nature of those instruments. The Company’s other financial instruments, which include cash equivalents, short-term investments and stock warrant liability are carried at fair value as noted above.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are stated at cost and depreciated on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of 30 years for building, 15 years for building improvements, and three to seven years for office and lab equipment and furniture and fixtures. Repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred. Additions and betterments are capitalized.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Company management continually evaluates whether events or changes in circumstances might indicate that the remaining estimated useful life of long-lived assets may warrant revision, or that the remaining balance may not be recoverable. When factors indicate that long-lived assets should be evaluated for possible impairment, the Company uses an estimate of the related undiscounted cash flows in measuring whether the long-lived asset should be written down to fair value. Measurement of the amount of impairment would be based on generally accepted valuation methodologies, as deemed appropriate. As of December 31, 2011, Company management believed that no revision to the remaining useful lives or write-down of the Company’s long-lived assets was required. No such revisions were required for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 or 2009.

Stock Warrant Liability

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted certain revised provisions of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 815, Derivatives and Hedging. These provisions apply to freestanding financial instruments or embedded features that have the characteristics of a derivative and to freestanding financial instruments that are potentially settled in an entity’s own common stock and provide guidance related to the determination of whether these instruments should be classified as equity or debt.  If an instrument is classified as debt, it is valued at fair value, and this value is re-measured on an ongoing basis, with changes recorded on the statement of operations in each reporting period.  At January 1, 2009, the Company had warrants to purchase shares of common stock outstanding containing a “down-round” provision.  In accordance with the guidance in these revised provisions, the fair value of these warrants was required to be reported as a liability, with the changes of fair value recorded on the statement of operations.  As such, on January 1, 2009, the fair value of these warrants at that date of $2,689,110 was reclassified from equity to a liability.  As a result of the change, the original fair value of the warrants at the date of issuance of $6,557,928 was recorded as a reduction to additional paid-in capital.  In addition, accumulated deficit, as of January 1, 2009, decreased to reflect the cumulative effect of the adoption of these provisions.  The change in fair value of these warrants resulted in a non-cash loss on the Company’s consolidated statement of operations of $4,190,283, $10,777,065 and $1,031,055 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In 2011, all remaining outstanding stock warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock were exercised.

The fair value of the stock warrant liability was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model as noted above in “Fair Value Measurements”.

Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share

Basic net income (loss) per common share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period, excluding unvested restricted stock awards.  Diluted net income (loss) per common share reflects the potential dilution from the exercise or conversion of securities into common stock, the effect of unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units, and the impact of shares to be issued under the ESPP.
 
The following table is a reconciliation of net income (loss) and the shares used in calculating basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:

   
2011
  
2010
  
2009
 
Numerator:
         
Net income (loss)
 $3,155,153  $(19,917,410) $(20,505,320)
Denominator:
            
Weighted average common shares outstanding – Basic
  43,737,968   37,567,374   36,479,331 
Effect of dilutive shares:
            
           Common stock equivalents arising from stock options and ESPP
  956,803       
Restricted stock awards and units
  445,623       
              
Weighted average common shares outstanding – Diluted
  45,140,394   37,567,374   36,479,331 
Net income (loss) per common share:
            
Basic
 $0.07  $(0.53) $(0.56)
Diluted
 $0.07  $(0.53) $(0.56)

For the year ended December 31, 2011, the effect of 586,972 warrants prior to their exercise was excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the impact would have been antidilutive. For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the effects of the assumed exercise of the combined outstanding stock options and warrants and unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units of 3,165,048 and 4,299,598, respectively, and the impact of shares to be issued under the ESPP, which was minor, were excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS as the impact would have been antidilutive.

Revenue Recognition and Deferred Revenue

In 2011, the Company revised the presentation of its revenue categories to better reflect its primary sources of revenue. Revenue categories for 2010 and 2009 were conformed to reflect the current presentation.

Material sales relate to the Company’s sale of its OLED materials, for incorporation into its customers’ commercial OLED products or for their OLED development and evaluation activities. Material sales are recognized at the time of shipment or at time of delivery, and passage of title, depending upon the contractual agreement between the parties.

The Company has received non-refundable advance license and royalty payments under certain commercial, development and technology evaluation agreements. Certain of the payments under development and technology evaluation agreements are creditable against future amounts payable under commercial license agreements that the parties may subsequently enter into and, as such, are deferred until such commercial license agreements are executed or negotiations have ceased and Company management determines that there is no appreciable likelihood of executing a commercial license agreement with the other party. Revenue would then be recognized over the term of the agreement or the expected useful life of the relevant licensed technology, for perpetual licenses, if there is an effective commercial license agreement or amounts are not creditable against future commercial license fees, or at the time Company management determines that there is no appreciable likelihood of an executable commercial license agreement. Amounts deferred are classified as current and non-current based upon current contractual remaining terms; however, based upon on-going relationships with customers, as well as future agreement extensions, amounts classified as current as of December 31, 2011, may not be recognized as revenue over the next twelve months. As of December 31, 2011, $9,407,715 was recorded as deferred revenue, of which $3,366,667 is creditable against future commercial license agreements that have not yet been executed or deemed effective. For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, $2,100,000 and $1,500,000, respectively, of revenue was recognized relating to cash payments received that were creditable against license fees and/or royalties for which the Company determined there was no appreciable likelihood of executing a commercial license agreement with the customer. For the year ended December 31, 2011, no such revenue was recognized. For arrangements with extended payment terms where the fee is not fixed and determinable, the Company recognizes revenue when the payment is due and payable. Royalty revenue is recognized when earned and the amount is fixed and determinable.

Technology development and support revenue is revenue earned from government contracts, development and technology evaluation agreements and commercialization assistance fees, which includes reimbursements by government entities for all or a portion of the research and development costs the Company incurs in relation to its government contracts. Revenues are recognized proportionally as research and development costs are incurred, or as defined milestones are achieved.

Included in accounts receivable as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 are unbilled receivables of $869,982 and $1,095,329, respectively. All amounts are billed and collected within one year.
 
Cost of Material Sales

Cost of material sales represents costs associated with the sale of materials that have been classified as commercial.

Research and Development

Expenditures for research and development are charged to operations as incurred. Research and development expenses consist of the following:

   
Year Ended December 31,
 
   
2011
  
2010
  
2009
 
           
Development and operations in the Company’s facility
 $18,658,616  $14,959,399  $14,350,130 
Costs incurred under sponsored research agreements
  1,021,925   1,143,052   1,264,983 
PPG OLED Materials Agreement (Note 7)
  3,539,017   3,296,227   3,266,980 
Amortization of intangibles
  48,849   1,234,272   1,695,072 
Scientific Advisory Board compensation
  860,826   1,062,189   544,991 
              
   $24,129,233  $21,695,139  $21,122,156 

Patent Costs

Costs associated with patent applications, patent prosecution, patent defense and the maintenance of patents are charged to expense as incurred. Costs to successfully defend a challenge to a patent are capitalized to the extent of an evident increase in the value of the patent. Costs that relate to an unsuccessful outcome are charged to expense.

Statement of Cash Flow Information

The following non-cash activities occurred:

   
Year Ended December 31,
 
   
2011
  
2010
  
2009
 
           
Unrealized (loss) gain on available-for-sale securities
 $(886) $(11,819) $(100,980)
Common stock issued for royalties that was earned in a previous period
     81,273   81,954 
Common stock issued to Board of Directors and Scientific Advisory Board that was earned in a previous period
  299,943   314,181   309,802 
Common stock issued to employees that was accrued for in a previous period, net of shares withheld for taxes
  1,113,483   929,552   1,031,645 
Fair value of stock warrant liability reclassified to shareholders’ equity upon exercise
  14,850,038   3,137,475    

Income Taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets or liabilities at the end of each period are determined using the tax rate expected to be in effect when taxes are actually paid or recovered. The Company accounts for the sale of its state net operating losses on a cash basis; therefore, it does not record an income tax benefit until the cash is received. The Company classifies interest and penalties, if any, as a component of tax expense.

Share-Based Payment Awards

The Company recognizes in the statements of operations the grant-date fair value of stock options and other equity-based compensation, such as shares issued under employee stock purchase plans, restricted stock awards and units and stock appreciation rights (SARs), issued to employees and directors.

The grant-date fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The fair value of share-based awards is recognized as compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, net of estimated forfeitures.  The Company relies primarily upon historical experience to estimate expected forfeitures and recognizes compensation expense on a straight-line basis from the date of the grant.  The Company issues new shares upon the exercise or vesting of share-based payment awards.
 
Cash-settled SARs awarded in share-based payment transactions are classified as liability awards; accordingly, the Company records these awards as a component of accrued expenses on its consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of each SAR is estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model and is remeasured at each reporting period until the award is settled. Changes in the fair value of the liability award are recorded as expense or income in the statements of operations.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued guidance which affects the revenue recognition accounting policies for transactions that involve multiple deliverables. The new guidance requires companies to allocate revenue in arrangements involving multiple deliverables based on the estimated selling price of each deliverable, even though those deliverables are not sold separately either by the company itself or other vendors. This new guidance eliminates the requirement that all undelivered elements have objective and reliable evidence of fair value before a company can recognize the portion of the overall arrangement fee that is attributable to items that already have been delivered. In the absence of vendor-specific objective evidence and third-party evidence for one or more elements in a multiple-element arrangement, companies will estimate the selling prices of those elements. The overall arrangement fee is allocated to each element whether delivered or undelivered, based on their relative selling prices, regardless of whether those estimated selling prices are evidenced by vendor-specific objective evidence, third-party evidence of fair value or are based on the company’s judgment. The new guidance was effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The Company adopted this new guidance on a prospective basis beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

In January 2010, the FASB issued amended standards that require additional fair value disclosures. These amended standards require disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value, as well as disclosures about significant transfers, beginning in the first quarter of 2010.  Additionally, these amended standards require presentation of disaggregated activity within the reconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), beginning in the first quarter of 2011. The adoption of the additional disclosure requirements of this new guidance in the first quarter of 2011 did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, or disclosures.

In April 2010, the FASB issued guidance allowing the milestone method as an acceptable revenue recognition methodology when an arrangement includes substantive milestones. The guidance provides a definition of a substantive milestone and should be applied regardless of whether the arrangement includes single or multiple deliverables or units of accounting. The scope of this consensus is limited to the transactions involving milestones relating to research and development deliverables. The guidance includes enhanced disclosure requirements about each arrangement, individual milestones and related contingent consideration, information about substantive milestones and factors considered in the determination. The consensus was effective prospectively to milestones achieved in annual reporting periods, and interim periods within those years, beginning after June 15, 2010. The Company adopted this new guidance on a prospective basis beginning January 1, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

In May 2011, the FASB issued amended standards that revised the application of the valuation premise of highest and best use of an asset, the application of premiums and discounts for fair value determination, as well as the required disclosures for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measures and the highest and best use of nonfinancial assets. The update provides additional disclosures regarding Level 3 fair value measurements and clarifies certain other existing disclosure requirements. The new guidance is effective prospectively for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect this new guidance to have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

In June 2011, the FASB issued amended standards for the reporting of other comprehensive income.  The amendments require that all non-owner changes in shareholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements.  In either case, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income.  Regardless of which option is chosen, the entity is required to present on the face of the financial statements any adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income in the statements where the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income are presented. In December 2011, the FASB issued additional standards which defer specific requirements to present reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income. The new guidance is effective retrospectively for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. This new guidance will not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position, but it will change the Company’s presentation of comprehensive income (loss).