XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.5.0.2
Note 10 - Fair Value Measurements
3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]  
Fair Value Disclosures [Text Block]
Note 10 – Fair Value Measurements

FASB ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820-10”) defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value under generally accepted accounting principles and expands disclosures about fair value measurements.

As defined in ASC 820-10, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price).  The Company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique.  These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally unobservable.  The Company classifies fair value balances based on the observation of those inputs. ASC 820-10 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value.  The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurement).

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy defined by ASC 820-10 are as follows:

·   Level 1 – Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.  Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as exchange-traded derivatives, marketable securities and listed equities.

 ·  Level 2 – Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reported date.  Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies.  These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures.  Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace.  Instruments in this category generally include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as commodity swaps, interest rate swaps, options and collars.

· Level 3 – Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources.  These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value.

The valuation techniques that may be used to measure fair value are as follows:

·   Market approach — Uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities.

·   Income approach — Uses valuation techniques to convert future amounts to a single present amount based on current market expectations about those future amounts, including present value techniques, option-pricing models and excess earnings method.

·   Cost approach — Based on the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset (replacement cost). 

The carrying value of the Company’s borrowings is a reasonable estimate of its fair value as borrowings under the Company’s credit facility reflect currently available terms and conditions for similar debt.

The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy the Company’s financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value as of June 30, 2016 and March 31, 2016.  As required by ASC 820-10, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment, and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.

June 30, 2016
 
Level I
   
Level II
   
Level III
   
Total
 
Total Assets
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
-
 
 
                               
Warrant liability
   
-
     
-
     
919,000
     
919,000
 
Total Liabilities
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
919,000
   
$
919,000
 

March 31, 2016
 
Level I
   
Level II
   
Level III
   
Total
 
Total Assets
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
-
 
 
                               
Warrant liability
   
-
     
-
     
1,136,203
     
1,136,203
 
Total Liabilities
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
1,136,203
   
$
1,136,203
 

The Company adopted the guidance of ASC 815 “Derivative and Hedging”, which requires that we mark the value of our warrant liability to market and recognize the change in valuation in our statement of operations each reporting period. Determining the warrant liability to be recorded requires us to develop estimates to be used in calculating the fair value of the warrant.  The fair value of the warrants prior to the quarter ended December 31, 2014 was calculated using the Black-Scholes valuation model.

The following table provides a summary of the changes in fair value of our Level 3 financial liabilities from March 31, 2016 through June 30, 2016, as well as the portion of gains or losses included in income attributable to unrealized gains or losses related to the liability held at June 30, 2016:

Level 3 Reconciliation
 
Beginning at beginning of period
   
(Gains) and losses for the period
(realized and unrealized)
   
Purchases, issuances, sales
and settlements, net
   
Transfers in or out of Level 3
   
Balance at the end of period
 
 
                             
Warrant liability
 
$
1,136,203
   
$
(217,203
)
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
919,000
 
Total Liabilities
 
$
1,136,203
   
$
(217,203
)
 
$
-
   
$
-
   
$
919,000
 

The common stock warrants were not issued with the intent of effectively hedging any future cash flow, fair value of any asset, liability or any net investment in a foreign corporation.  The warrants do not qualify for hedge accounting, and, as such, all changes in the fair value of these warrants are recognized as other income/expense in the statement of operations until such time as the warrants are exercised or expire.  Since these common stock warrants do not trade in an active securities market, the Company recognized a warrant liability and estimated the fair value of these warrants using the Black-Scholes options model using the following assumptions until the payment of the loan in November 2014.

With the payment of the loan in November 2014, the holder has the right, exercisable at any time, in writing (the “Warrant Put Notice”), to cause the Company, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, to purchase from the holder all, or any portion, of the warrant for the warrant put repurchase price (the “Repurchase Price”). The Repurchase Price is the greater of 1) Adjusted EBITDA (as defined below) per share as of the date of the Warrant Put Notice, less $0.01, multiplied by the number of warrants or 2) the product of the current market price per share as of the date of the Warrant Put Notice, less the purchase price of the warrant or warrants, multiplied by the number of warrants, if this amount is higher. “Adjusted EBITDA” means EBITDA, multiplied by 5, plus cash and cash equivalents less unpaid debt divided by the number of shares outstanding on a fully diluted basis.

During May 2016, BCA Mezzanine Fund LLP (“BCA”) informed the Company that BCA has elected to exercise its “put option”, thereby requiring the Company to purchase all the warrants held by BCA. Total warrants were to purchase a total of 236,920 shares of the Company’s common stock. The table below shows the warrants held by BCA for which the “put option” has been exercised.

Date of
Warrant
   
Expiration
Date
   
Number of
Warrants
   
Exercise
Price
 
 
09-10-2010
     
09-10-2019
     
136,920
   
$
6.70
 
 
07-26-2012
     
09-10-2019
     
20,000
   
$
3.35
 
 
11-20-2012
     
09-10-2019
     
20,000
   
$
3.56
 
 
02-14-2013
     
09-10-2019
     
20,000
   
$
3.58
 
 
07-12-2013
     
09-10-2019
     
20,000
   
$
3.33
 
08/12/2013
     
09-10-2019
     
20,000
   
$
3.69
 

The value of the warrants for the 236,920 shares of the Company’s common stock at the time of exercise was $720,000 and the Company is expected to pay this amount this calendar year using cash from operations. The warrant liability for these warrants was $720,000 at June 30, 2016 as compared to $938,203 at March 31, 2016.

Upon payment to BCA, the Company will have remaining warrants with an outside investor to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.35 per share or exercising the “put option” to the Company in the same fashion as BCA. The warrant liability of the 50,000 warrants was $199,000 at June 30, 2016 as compared to $198,000 at March 31, 2016.