Note 1. Nature of Business and Significant Accounting Policies

Nature of business: STG Group, Inc. (formerly, Global Defense & National Security Systems, Inc. or GDEF) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the Company) was originally incorporated in Delaware on July 3, 2013 as a blank check company, with Global Defense & National Security Holdings LLC (”Global Defense LLC” or the “Sponsor”) as Sponsor, formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, exchangeable share transaction or other similar business combination. On November 23, 2015, the Company consummated its business combination with STG Group Holdings, Inc. (formerly, STG Group, Inc. or “STG Group”) pursuant to the stock purchase agreement, dated as of June 8, 2015, which provided for the purchase of all the capital stock of STG Group by the Company (the “Business Combination”). In connection with the closing of the Business Combination, the Company ceased to be a shell company in accordance with its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The Company also changed its name from Global Defense & National Security Systems, Inc. to STG Group, Inc.. The Company’s common stock now trades over-the-counter on the OTCQB exchange, under the symbol “STGG”.

The Company provides enterprise engineering, telecommunications, information management and security products and services to the federal government and commercial businesses. Segment information is not presented since all of the Company’s revenue is attributed to a single reportable segment.

Basis of presentation: The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial reporting and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. For additional information, including the Company’s significant accounting policies, refer to the consolidated financial statements and related footnotes in the Company’s consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair statement of financial results have been made. Such adjustments consist of only those of a normal recurring nature. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire fiscal year.

Revision of Prior Period Financial Statements

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company identified a typographical error in the long-term debt line reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the year ended December 31, 2016 contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for that year. The typographical error had no impact on the Consolidated Statements of Operations, Stockholders’ Equity or Cash Flows. The correct long-term debt was reflected in Note 7 to those financial statements. Management has determined that the correction is not material to the previously issued financial statements and footnotes. The Company has corrected the error in this Form 10-Q filing.

The following table summarizes the revision made to the Company’s long-term debt as of December 31, 2016 in its Consolidated Balance Sheets for the year ended December 31, 2016 (dollars in thousands):

	Previously Reported		Revised

Long-term debt, net of current portion and discount		72,522		67,694

Use of estimates: The preparation of financial statements 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 condensed consolidated financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Significant estimates embedded in the consolidated financial statements for the periods presented include revenue recognition on fixed-price contracts, the allowance for doubtful accounts, the valuation and useful lives of intangible assets, the length of certain customer relationships, useful lives of property, plant and equipment, valuation of assets held in a Rabbi Trust and related deferred compensation liability. Estimates and assumptions are also used when determining the allocation of the purchase price in a business combination to the fair value of assets and liabilities and determining related useful lives.

Going concern: The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared using the going concern basis of accounting, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business.

The Company was not in compliance with its financial covenants related to the consolidated EBITDA and the senior secured leverage ratio under the Credit Agreement among the Company, MC Admin Co LLC (the “Lender”) and the other lenders party thereto (the “Credit Agreement”) at September 30, 2016, December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017. At September 30, 2016, the non-compliance was cured by raising equity from stockholders’ (“Equity Cure”) as was allowed by the Credit Agreement. At December 31, 2016 the Company received a forbearance which expired on March 31, 2017. The Company then entered into a Limited Waiver (“the Waiver”) from MC Admin Co LLC and other lenders under the Credit Agreement as of March 31, 2017, pursuant to which the lenders waived the Company’s non-compliance with the covenants related to the consolidated EBITDA, and the senior secured leverage ratio as of December 31, 2016. Pursuant to the Waiver:

•

Loans under the Credit Agreement are subject to additional interest at a rate of 2% per annum until the earliest of (x) the date on which all loans are repaid and all commitments under the Credit Agreement are terminated, (y) the date the Company delivers the financial statements and certificates for the quarter ending March 31, 2017 showing that they are not in default under the Credit Agreement or (z) the date on which default interest is otherwise due under the Credit Agreement;

•

The Company must obtain lender consent prior to use of its revolving credit facility; and

•

The Company cannot effect a Cure Right with respect to the quarter ending March 31, 2017.

The Company was not in compliance with the covenants related to the consolidated EBITDA and the senior secured leverage ratio as of March 31, 2017. The Lender has not granted a waiver for the covenant violations as of March 31, 2017. Without a waiver or other relief under the Credit Agreement, one of the remedies the Lender has available to it, amongst others, is the ability to accelerate repayment of the debt, which the Company would not be able to immediately repay.

The Credit Agreement also provides that the minimum consolidated EBITDA requirement will be increased on June 30, 2017. If the business continues to perform at the current level through that period, the Company does not expect to satisfy that covenant or the senior secured leverage ratio at that time, and it is likely that the Company will be in non-compliance at June 30, 2017. The Company’s inability to meet the required covenant levels could have a material adverse impact to the Company, including the need for the Company to effect an additional Cure Right or obtain additional forbearance or an amendment, waiver, or other changes in the Credit Agreement. The Credit Agreement does not allow the Company to exercise the Cure Right in consecutive fiscal quarters, more than three fiscal quarters in the aggregate, in more than two of any four fiscal quarters or for the quarter ending March 31, 2017. The amount allowed under the Cure Right may not exceed the lesser of $2.5 million and 20% of consolidated EBITDA. The aggregate of Cure Rights may not exceed $5 million.

The Lender’s not having granted a waiver or other relief from the Lender and the potential acceleration of the debt by the Lender resulted in the reclassification of debt from a long-term liability to a current liability as of March 31, 2017.

Even if the Lender does grant forbearance or an amendment to or waiver under the Credit Agreement, any future covenant non-compliance could give rise to an event of default thereunder.

In addition, on May 18, 2017, the Company received a notice of default (the “Default Notice”) from MC Admin Co LLC (“MC Admin”) that states the Company was in default under the Credit Agreement for failing to deliver an annual budget to the lenders on January 15, 2017 as required by the Credit Agreement (the “Budget Delivery Default”). The Company believes this notice is incorrect, as the Company previously provided the required information to the lenders on February 7, 2017. The Default Notice stated that MC Admin was not taking action to enforce the lenders’ rights under the Credit Agreement at this time, although it also provided that, as a result of the default, the lenders had no obligations under the Credit Agreement to provide any additional loans or letters of credit. The Lender has not granted a waiver or other relief from the Budget Delivery Default.

The potential acceleration of the loan repayment due to the Lender not providing a waiver required the Company to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Management’s Plan to alleviate this condition is as follows:

Complete the PSS Holdings, Inc. (“PSS”) transaction including the raising of equity and refinancing of the current Credit Agreement;

Identify, qualify, and win new business to increase revenue and profits, or

Renegotiate the current Credit Agreement to obtain relief from the existing financial covenants and other terms.

The Company considered the likelihood of completing the PSS acquisition financing which contemplates the negotiation of a new financial agreement with both new and existing lenders and investors, including new financial covenants for the combined business. The Company also considered the likelihood of renegotiation of the financial covenants with existing lenders in the event the acquisition of PSS is not completed. Based upon an executed term sheet for financing of the planned acquisition of the PSS which contemplated new loans and financial covenants and discussions with the Lender regarding the need to renegotiate the existing financial covenants in the Credit Agreement in the event the acquisition is not completed, management determined that it was probable that the condition giving rise to the going concern evaluation had been sufficiently alleviated as of December 31, 2016. However, the Lender has not currently granted a waiver or other relief for the Budget Delivery Default or the financial covenant violations as of March 31, 2017. Consequently, management has changed our assessment regarding the potential acceleration of the loan repayment made as of December 31, 2016. As the Lender has not currently granted a waiver or other form of relief for the financial covenant violations as of March 31, 2017, and as disclosed above, sent us a default letter on May 18, 2017, there exists substantial doubt about our ability to complete the PSS acquisition, or to continue as a going concern, in the event the Lender exercises its rights to accelerate the repayment of the loan.

These condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets and liabilities that may result in the Company not being able to continue as a going concern.

Revenue recognition: Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, services have been rendered or goods delivered, the contract price is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. Revenue associated with work performed prior to the completion and signing of contract documents is recognized only when it can be reliably estimated and realization is probable. The Company bases its estimates on previous experiences with the customer, communications with the customer regarding funding status and its knowledge of available funding for the contract.

Revenue on cost-plus-fee contracts is recognized to the extent of costs incurred plus a proportionate amount of the fee earned. The Company considers fixed fees under cost-plus-fee contracts to be earned in proportion to the allowable costs incurred in performance of the contract. The Company considers performance-based fees, including award fees, under any contract type to be earned when it can demonstrate satisfaction of performance goals, based upon historical experience, or when the Company receives contractual notification from the customer that the fee has been earned. Revenue on time-and-materials contracts is recognized based on the hours incurred at the negotiated contract billing rates, plus the cost of any allowable material costs and out-of-pocket expenses. Revenue on fixed-price contracts is primarily recognized using the proportional performance method of contract accounting. Unless it is determined as part of the Company’s regular contract performance review that overall progress on a contract is not consistent with costs expended to date, the Company determines the percentage completed based on the percentage of costs incurred to date in relation to total estimated costs expected upon completion of the contract. Revenue on other fixed-price service contracts is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the contractual service period, unless the revenue is earned, or obligations fulfilled, in a different manner.

Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts are made in the period in which such losses are determined and are recorded as forward loss liabilities in the consolidated financial statements. Changes in job performance, job conditions and estimated profitability may result in revisions to costs and revenue and are recognized in the period in which the revisions are determined.

Multiple agencies of the federal government directly or indirectly provided the majority of the Company's contract revenue during the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, there were two customers that each provided revenue in excess of 10% of total revenue. These customers accounted for approximately 82% and 79% of the Company’s total revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Federal government contract costs, including indirect costs, are subject to audit and adjustment by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Contract revenue has been recorded in amounts that are expected to be realized upon final settlement.

Costs of revenue: Costs of revenue include all direct contract costs, as well as indirect overhead costs and selling, general and administrative expenses that are allowable and allocable to contracts under federal procurement standards. Costs of revenue also include costs and expenses that are unallowable under applicable procurement standards and are not allocable to contracts for billing purposes. Such costs and expenses do not directly generate revenue, but are necessary for business operations.

For both the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, there was one vendor that comprised approximately 15% and 12% of total direct expenses, respectively.

Investments held in Rabbi Trust: The Company has investments in mutual funds held in a Rabbi Trust that are classified as trading securities. Management determines the appropriate classification of the securities at the time they are acquired and evaluates the appropriateness of such classifications at each balance sheet date. The securities are classified as trading securities because they are held for resale in anticipation of short-term (generally 90 days or less) fluctuations in market prices. The trading securities are stated at fair value. Realized and unrealized gains and losses and other investment income are included in other income (expense) in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Contract receivables: Contract receivables are generated primarily from prime and subcontracting arrangements with federal governmental agencies. Billed contract receivables represent invoices that have been prepared based on contract terms and sent to the customer. Billed accounts receivable are considered past due if the invoice has been outstanding more than 30 days. The Company does not charge interest on accounts receivable; however, federal governmental agencies may pay interest on invoices outstanding more than 30 days. The Company records interest income from federal governmental agencies when received. All contract receivables are on an unsecured basis.

Unbilled amounts represent costs and anticipated profits awaiting milestones to bill, contract retainages, award fees and fee withholdings, as well as amounts currently billable.

In accordance with industry practice, contract receivables relating to long-term contracts are classified as current, even though portions of these amounts may not be realized within one year.

Management determines the allowance for doubtful accounts by regularly evaluating individual customer receivables and considering a customer’s financial condition, credit history and current economic conditions. Management has recorded an allowance for contract receivables that are considered to be uncollectible. Both billed and unbilled receivables are written off when deemed uncollectible. Recoveries of receivables previously written off are recorded when received.

Valuation of long-lived assets: The Company accounts for the valuation of long-lived assets, including amortizable intangible assets, under authoritative guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which requires that long-lived assets and certain intangible assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of the long-lived assets is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of the asset to future undiscounted net cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. If such assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the estimated fair value of the assets. No indicators of impairment were identified for both of the three-month periods ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.

Identifiable intangible assets: Intangible assets of the Company are comprised of customer relationships and a trade name acquired as a result of the Business Combination. The Company determined that the customer relationships and trade name represent finite-lived intangible assets with useful lives of eight to fifteen years, respectively. The assets are being amortized proportionately over the term of their useful lives based on the estimated economic benefit derived over the course of the asset life.

Goodwill: The Company records the excess of the purchase price of an acquired company over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired as goodwill. In accordance with authoritative guidance issued by the FASB, entities can elect to use a qualitative approach to test goodwill for impairment. Under this approach, the Company performs a qualitative assessment (Step zero) to determine whether it is more-likely-than-not that the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the carrying value. If the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the carrying value of the reporting unit, the Company is required to perform a goodwill impairment test using a two-step approach, which is performed at the reporting unit level. In the second step, the implied value of the goodwill is estimated at the fair value of the reporting unit, less the fair value of all other tangible and identifiable intangible assets of the reporting unit. If the carrying amount of the goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in the amount equal to that excess, not to exceed the carrying amount of the goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit is not less than the carrying value of the reporting unit, step two of the goodwill test is not required.

Application of the goodwill impairment test requires judgment, including the identification of reporting units, assignment of assets and liabilities to reporting units, assignment of goodwill to reporting units and determination of the fair value of each reporting unit. 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 rate of growth for the business, estimation of the useful life over which cash flows will occur and determination of the weighted-average cost of capital. This discounted cash flow analysis is corroborated by top-down analysis, including a market assessment of enterprise value.

The Company has elected to perform its annual analysis on December 31 each year at the reporting unit level, and as of the Closing Date of the Business Combination, the Company determined that there was one reporting unit. The Lender’s not having granted a waiver or other relief for the Budget Delivery Default or the financial covenant violations as of March 31, 2017 resulting in the current classification of the Company’s long-term debt is considered a triggering event requiring a step zero assessment. The Company’s assessment concluded that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit is less than the carrying value and therefore is not impaired. No triggering events occurred during the three months ended March 31, 2016 requiring an interim impairment test. If we are unable to achieve revenue growth and increased profitability, future impairment tests may result in a goodwill impairment charge, which could be material.

Income taxes: The Company accounts for income taxes under FASB ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes (ASC740). At the end of each interim period, the Company estimates an annualized effective tax rate expected for the full year based on the most recent forecast of pre-tax income, permanent book and tax differences, and global tax planning strategies. The Company uses this effective rate to provide for income taxes on a year-to-date basis, excluding the effect of significant, unusual, discrete or extraordinary items, and items that are reported net of their related tax effects. The Company records the tax effect of significant, unusual, discrete or extraordinary items, and items that are reported net of their tax effects in the period in which they occur.

In accordance with authoritative guidance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes issued by the FASB, management has evaluated the Company’s tax positions and has concluded that the Company has taken no uncertain tax positions that require adjustment to the quarterly condensed consolidated financial statements to comply with the provisions of this guidance.

Interest and penalties related to tax matters are recognized in expense. There was no accrued interest or penalties recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.

Fair value of financial instruments The carrying value of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, contract receivables, line-of-credit, accounts payable and other short-term liabilities are believed to approximate fair value as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, because of the relatively short duration of these instruments. The Company also assessed long-term debt and determined that such amounts approximated fair value primarily since its terms and interest approximate current market terms and was negotiated with an unrelated third party lender. The Company considers the inputs related to these estimates to be Level 2 fair value measurements.

Certain assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability between market participants in an orderly transaction on the measurement date. The market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability is known as the principal market. When no principal market exists, the most advantageous market is used. This is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received or minimizes the amount that would be paid. Fair value is based on assumptions market participants would make in pricing the asset or liability. Generally, fair value is based on observable quoted market prices or derived from observable market data when such market prices or data are available. When such prices or inputs are not available, the reporting entity should use valuation models.

The Company’s assets recorded at fair value on a recurring basis are categorized based on the priority of the inputs used to measure fair value. Fair value measurement standards require an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs (such as quoted prices in active markets) and minimize the use of unobservable inputs (such as appraisals or other valuation techniques) to determine fair value. The inputs used in measuring fair value are categorized into three levels, as follows:

Level 1

Inputs that are based upon quoted prices for identical instruments traded in active markets.

Level 2

Inputs that are based upon quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar investments in markets that are not active, or models based on valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the investment.

Level 3

Inputs that are generally unobservable and typically reflect management’s estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. The fair values are therefore determined using model-based techniques that include option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company has no financial assets or liabilities that are categorized as Level 3.

The Company has investments carried at fair value in mutual funds held in a Rabbi Trust, which is included in investments held in Rabbi Trust on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company does not measure non-financial assets and liabilities at fair value unless there is an event which requires this measurement.

Financial credit risk: The Company’s assets that are exposed to credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, investments held in Rabbi Trust and contract receivables. Cash and cash equivalents are deposited with high-credit, quality financial institutions whose balances may, at times, exceed federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such amounts and believes that it is not exposed to any significant credit risk on cash and cash equivalents. Investments held in Rabbi Trust are stated at fair value at each reporting period and are subject to market fluctuations. Contract receivables consist primarily of amounts due from various agencies of the federal government or prime contractors doing business with the federal government. Historically, the Company has not experienced significant losses related to contract receivables and, therefore, believes that the credit risk related to contract receivables is minimal.

Debt issuance costs: In April 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-03, Interest— Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. Therefore, financing costs incurred for fees paid to lenders and other parties in connection with debt issuances are recorded as a deduction against the related debt agreement and amortized by the effective interest method over the terms of the related financing arrangements. In connection with the term loan described further in Note 6, the Company recorded amortization of $0.3 million and $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, which is included in interest expense.

Stock based compensation: The Company measures compensation expense for stock based equity awards based on the fair value of the awards on the grant date. Compensation is recognized as expense in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations ratably over the required service period or, for performance based awards, when the achievement of the performance targets become probable.

Net loss per share: Basic net loss per share available to common shareholders of the Company is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Common shares issuable upon exercise of the stock options and future vesting of the restricted stock awards (see Note 11) have not been included in the computation because their inclusion would have had an antidilutive effect for all periods presented.

Recent accounting pronouncements: We consider the applicability and impact of all ASUs. ASUs not listed below were assessed and determined to be either not applicable or are expected to have minimal impact on our condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which establishes a comprehensive revenue recognition standard for virtually all industries under GAAP, including those that previously followed industry-specific guidance. Under the guidance, all entities should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods and services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Additionally, various updates have been issued during 2015 and 2016 to clarify the guidance in Topic 606. The guidance is effective for the Company in the first quarter of 2018. Early adoption is not permitted. Management has not yet assessed the potential impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). The standard impacts both lessors and lessees. The most significant change for lessees is that the requirement to recognize right-to-use assets and lease liabilities for all leases not considered short term. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and will be applied on a modified retrospective basis. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718), Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. ASU 2016-09 is intended to simplify several aspects of accounting for share-based payment awards, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. For example, the new guidance requires all excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies related to share-based payments to be recognized in income tax expense, and for those excess tax benefits to be recognized regardless of whether it reduces current taxes payable. The ASU also allows an entity-wide accounting policy election to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures as they occur. These amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. Therefore, the effective date was the first quarter of 2017. The adoption of this new standard did not have a material impact on the condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company made a policy election to account for forfeitures as they occur.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. ASU 2016-13 will replace the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. The amendments affect loans, debt securities, trade receivables, net investments in leases, off balance sheet credit exposures, reinsurance receivables, and any other financial assets not excluded from the scope that have the contractual right to receive cash. ASU 2016-13 will be effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020, and early adoption is permitted but not earlier than fiscal year 2019. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2016-13 to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments. The amendments in this update clarify the guidance regarding the classification of operating, investing, and financing activities for certain types of cash receipts and payments. The amendments in this update are effective for the annual periods, and the interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2017, and should be applied using a retrospective transition method to each period presented. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is evaluating the impact of adopting ASU 2016-15, if any, to its consolidated financial statements.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force), which provides guidance on the presentation of restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows. These amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which amends the guidance of FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 805, Business Combinations, adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions or disposals of assets or businesses. The definition of a business affects many areas of accounting including acquisitions, disposals, goodwill, and consolidation. This guidance is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted under certain circumstances. The Company intends to evaluate the impact of this guidance on the condensed consolidated financial statements and related disclosures in connection with the potential business combination as disclosed in Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. ASU 2017-04 provides guidance to simplify the subsequent measurement of goodwill by eliminating the Step 2 procedure from the goodwill impairment test. Under the updates in ASU 2017-04, an entity should perform its annual or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An entity should recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The amendments of this ASU are effective for annual or any interim goodwill impairment tests beginning after December 15, 2019. The Company has not yet evaluated the impact, if any, that the adoption of ASU 2017-04 will have on its consolidated financial statements.