Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

v3.7.0.1
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]  
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

 

Overview

 

InterCloud Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated on November 22, 1999 under the laws of the state of Delaware and is a provider of networking orchestration and automation for the Internet of things (IOT), software-defined networking (SDN) and network function virtualization (NFV) environments to the telecommunications service provider (carrier) and corporate enterprise markets. The Company’s managed services solutions offer enterprise and service-provider customers the opportunity to adopt an operational expense model by outsourcing cloud deployment and management to the Company rather than the capital expense model that has dominated in recent decades in IT infrastructure management. The Company’s professional services group offers a broad range of solutions to enterprise and service provider customers, including application development teams, analytics, project management, program management, unified communications, network management and field support services on a short and long-term basis. The Company’s applications and infrastructure division offers enterprise and service provider customers specialty contracting services, including engineering, design, installation and maintenance services, that support the build-out and operation of some of the most advanced small cell, Wi-Fi and distributed antenna system (DAS) networks.

 

Principles of Consolidation and Accounting for Investments in Affiliate Companies

 

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, which include Tropical Communications, Inc. (“Tropical”) (since August 2011), Rives-Monteiro Leasing, LLC (“RM Leasing”) (since December 2011), ADEX Corporation, ADEX Puerto Rico, LLC and Highwire (collectively, “ADEX” or “ADEX Entities”) (since September 2012 – Highwire was sold in January 2017 – refer to Note 3, Disposals of Subsidiaries, for further detail), TNS, Inc. (“TNS”) (since September 2012), AW Solutions, Inc. and AW Solutions Puerto Rico, LLC (collectively, the “AWS Entities”) (since April 2013 – the AWS Entities were sold in April 2017 – refer to Note 16, Subsequent Events, for further detail), Integration Partners – NY Corporation (“IPC”) (since January 2014), RentVM Inc. (“RentVM”) (since February 2014), and SDN Essentials, LLC (“SDNE”) (since January 2016). The results of operations of the Company’s former subsidiaries, VaultLogix, LLC (“VaultLogix”) (since October 2014), and PCS Holdings LLC (“Axim”) (since December 2014), have been included as discontinued operations on the accompanying financial statements. In February 2016, the Company consummated the sale of certain assets of VaultLogix, and in April 2016, the Company consummated the sale of all assets of Axim (refer to Note 15, Discontinued Operations for further information). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

The Company consolidates all entities in which it has a controlling voting interest and all variable interest entities (“VIE”) in which the Company is deemed to be the primary beneficiary.

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Rives-Montiero Engineering, LLC ("RM Engineering") (since December 2011), in which the Company owns an interest of 49%. The Company has the ability to exercise its call option to acquire the remaining 51% of RM Engineering for a nominal amount and thus makes all significant decisions related to RM Engineering even though it absorbs only 49% of the losses. Additionally, substantially all of the entity’s activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of the entity by the 51% holder of RM Engineering.

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Nottingham Enterprises LLC (“Nottingham”), in which the Company owned an interest of 40% (the Company returned its interest in Nottingham effective April 1, 2017. Refer to Note 16, Subsequent Events, for further detail). Management determined that Nottingham was a VIE because it met the following criteria: (i) the entity had insufficient equity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties and the 60% owner guaranteed its debt, (ii) the voting rights of the Company were not proportional to their obligations to absorb the expected losses of the legal entity, and (iii) substantially all of the legal entity’s activities either involved or were conducted on behalf of an investor that had disproportionately few voting rights. The Company had the ability to exercise its call option to acquire the remaining 60% of Nottingham for a nominal amount and made all significant decisions related to Nottingham.

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2016 included the Company’s 13.7% ownership interest in NGNWare, LLC (“NGNWare”). The Company wrote off the investment as of December 31, 2016. The Company did not hold a controlling financial interest in NGNWare but had the ability to exercise significant influence over the operating and financial policies of NGNWare. As such, the Company accounted for the investment in NGNWare under the equity method of accounting.

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of such statements. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Additionally, the results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 included in the Company’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 13, 2017.

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been presented on a comparative basis. During the year ending December 31, 2016, the Company disposed of two subsidiaries. The results of these subsidiaries are included within discontinued operations for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The Company retrospectively updated the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2016 to match the presentation on the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2017.

 

Business Combinations

 

The Company accounts for its business combinations under the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 805-10, Business Combinations ("ASC 805-10"), which requires that the purchase method of accounting be used for all business combinations. Assets acquired and liabilities assumed, including non-controlling interests, are recorded at the date of acquisition at their respective fair values. ASC 805-10 also specifies criteria that intangible assets acquired in a business combination must meet to be recognized and reported apart from goodwill. Goodwill represents the excess purchase price over the fair value of the tangible net assets and intangible assets acquired in a business combination. Acquisition-related expenses are recognized separately from the business combinations and are expensed as incurred. If the business combination provides for contingent consideration, the Company records the contingent consideration at fair value at the acquisition date and any changes in fair value after the acquisition date are accounted for as measurement-period adjustments if they pertain to additional information about facts and circumstances that existed at the acquisition date and that the Company obtained during the measurement period. Changes in fair value of contingent consideration resulting from events after the acquisition date, such as earn-outs, are recognized as follows: 1) if the contingent consideration is classified as equity, the contingent consideration is not re-measured and its subsequent settlement is accounted for within equity, or 2) if the contingent consideration is classified as a liability, the changes in fair value are recognized in earnings.

 

Segment Information

 

The Company operates in three operating segments – as an applications and infrastructure provider, as a professional services provider, and as a managed services provider. The applications and infrastructure segment provides engineering and professional consulting services and voice, data and optical solutions. The engineering, design, installation and maintenance services of the applications and infrastructure segment support the build-out and operation of enterprise, fiber optic, Ethernet and wireless networks. The professional services segment provides outsourced services to the wireless and wireline industry and information technology industry. The managed services segment provides hardware and software products to customers and provides maintenance and support for those products.

 

The Company’s reporting units have been aggregated into one of three operating segments due to their similar economic characteristics, products, or production and distribution methods. The first operating segment is applications and infrastructure, which is comprised of the components TNS, the AWS Entities (sold by the Company in April 2017), Tropical, RM Leasing, and RM Engineering. The Company’s second operating segment is professional services, which consists of the ADEX Entities and SDNE. The Company’s third operating segment is managed services, which consists of the IPC and RentVM components. The operating segments mentioned above constitute reporting segments.

 

During 2016, the Company consummated the sale of certain assets of its former VaultLogix and Axim subsidiaries. These subsidiaries comprised the Company’s former cloud services segment. The cloud services segment provided cloud computing and storage services to customers.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

The Company’s revenues are generated from its three reportable segments: applications and infrastructure, professional services, and managed services. The Company recognizes revenue on arrangements in accordance with ASC Topic 605-10, “Revenue Recognition”. The Company recognizes revenue only when the price is fixed or determinable, persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the service is performed, and collectability of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured.

 

The applications and infrastructure segment revenues are derived from contracts to provide technical engineering services along with contracting services to commercial and governmental customers. The contracts of TNS, Tropical and RM Engineering provide that payment for the Company’s services may be based on either direct labor hours at fixed hourly rates or fixed-price contracts. The services provided under the contracts are generally provided within one month. Occasionally, the services may be provided over a period of up to six months.

 

The AWS Entities, which the Company sold in April 2017, generally recognized revenue using the percentage of completion method. Revenues and fees under the contracts of these entities were recognized utilizing the units-of-delivery method, which used measures such as task completion within an overall contract. The units-of-delivery approach is an output method used in situations where it is more representative of progress on a contract than an input method, such as the efforts-expended approach. Provisions for estimated losses on uncompleted contracts, if any, were made in the period in which such losses were determined. Changes in job performance conditions and final contract settlements could have resulted in revisions to costs and income, which were recognized in the period in which revisions were determined.

 

The AWS Entities also generated revenue from service contracts with certain customers. These contracts were accounted for under the proportional performance method. Under this method, revenue was recognized in proportion to the value provided to the customer for each project as of each reporting date.

 

The revenues of the Company’s professional services segment, which is comprised of the ADEX Entities and SDNE, are derived from contracted services to provide technical engineering and management solutions to large voice and data communications providers, as specified by their clients. The contracts provide that payments made for the Company’s services may be based on either direct labor hours at fixed hourly rates or fixed-price contracts. The services provided under these contracts are generally provided within one month. Occasionally, the services may be provided over a period of up to four months. If it is anticipated that the services will span a period exceeding one month, depending on the contract terms, the Company will provide either progress billing at least once a month or upon completion of the clients’ specifications.

 

ADEX’s former Highwire division, which the Company sold in January 2017, generated revenue through its telecommunications engineering group, which contracted with telecommunications infrastructure manufacturers to install the manufacturer’s products for end users. The Highwire division recognized revenue using the proportional performance method. Management judgments and estimates were made and used in connection with revenue recognized using the proportional performance method. If management made different judgments and estimates, then the amount and timing of revenue for any period could differ materially from the reported revenue.

 

The Company’s TNS and IPC subsidiaries, as well as ADEX’s former Highwire division, sometimes require customers to provide a deposit prior to beginning work on a project. When this occurs, the deposit is recorded as deferred revenue and is recognized in revenue when the work is complete.

  

The Company’s IPC subsidiary, which is included in the Company’s managed services segment, is a value-added reseller that generates revenues from the resale of voice, video and data networking hardware and software contracted services for design, implementation and maintenance services for voice, video, and data networking infrastructure. IPC’s customers are higher education organizations, governmental agencies and commercial customers. IPC also provides maintenance and support and professional services. For certain maintenance contracts, IPC assumes responsibility for fulfilling the support to customers and recognizes the associated revenue either on a ratable basis over the life of the contract or, if a customer purchases a time and materials maintenance program, as maintenance is provided to the customer.  Revenue for the sale of third-party maintenance contracts is recognized net of the related cost of revenue.  In a maintenance contract, all services are provided by the Company’s third-party providers. As a result, the Company concluded that IPC is acting as an agent and IPC recognizes revenue on a net basis at the date of sale with revenue being equal to the gross margin on the transaction.  As IPC is under no obligation to perform additional services, revenue is recognized at the time of sale rather than over the life of the maintenance agreement.

 

IPC also generates revenue through the sale of a subscription-based cloud services to its customers. Revenue related to these customers is recognized over the life of the contract. This revenue is reported in the managed services segment.

 

For multiple-element arrangements, IPC recognizes revenue in accordance with ASC Topic 605-25, Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. The Company allocates revenue for such arrangements based on the relative selling prices of the elements applying the following hierarchy: first vendor specific objective evidence (“VSOE”), then third-party evidence (“TPE”) of selling price if VSOE is not available, and finally the Company’s estimate of the selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. VSOE exists when the Company sells the deliverables separately and represents the actual price charged by the Company for each deliverable. Estimated selling price reflects the Company’s best estimate of what the selling prices of each deliverable would be if it were sold regularly on a stand-alone basis taking into consideration the cost structure of the Company’s business, technical skill required, customer location and other market conditions. Each element that has stand-alone value is accounted for as a separate unit of accounting. Revenue allocated to each unit of accounting is recognized when the service is provided or the product is delivered. 

 

The Company’s former VaultLogix subsidiary, which was included in the Company’s cloud services segment, provides on-line data backup services to its customers. Revenue for these customers is deferred until the services are performed.

  

Inventory

 

The inventory balance at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 was related to the Company’s IPC subsidiary. IPC purchases inventory for resale to customers and records it at the lower of cost or market until sold. As inventory relates to specific customer orders, the Company determines the cost of the inventory using the specific identification method. If an item can no longer be matched to a specific customer order, the Company reserves the item at 100%. Inventory consisted of networking equipment for which title had not passed to customers as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. Inventory reserves were $227 and $84 at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

 

Goodwill and Indefinite Lived Intangible Assets

 

Goodwill was generated through the acquisitions made by the Company. As the total consideration paid exceeded the value of the net assets acquired, the Company recorded goodwill for each of the completed acquisitions. At the date of acquisition, the Company performed a valuation to determine the value of the intangible assets, along with the allocation of assets and liabilities acquired. The goodwill is attributable to synergies and economies of scale provided to the Company by the acquired entity.

 

The Company tests its goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment at least annually (as of October 1) and whenever events or circumstances change that indicate impairment may have occurred. A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of impairment has occurred. Such indicators may include, among others: a significant decline in the Company’s expected future cash flows; a sustained, significant decline in the Company’s stock price and market capitalization; a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate of the Company’s segments; unanticipated competition; and slower growth rates. Any adverse change in these factors could have a significant impact on the recoverability of goodwill, the indefinite-lived intangible assets and the Company’s consolidated financial results.

 

During 2016, indicators of potential impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets were identified by management in the managed services segment. The Company's management then determined that the IPC reporting unit assets were impaired and recognized an impairment loss as of December 31, 2016 related to intangible assets as the carrying value of the IPC reporting unit was in excess of its fair value. If IPC’s projected long-term sales growth rate, profit margins or terminal rate continue to change, or the assumed weighted-average cost of capital is considerably higher, future testing may indicate additional impairment in this reporting unit and, as a result, the remaining assets may also be impaired.

 

During 2017, indicators of potential impairment of goodwill and intangible assets were identified by management in the professional services segment as a result of the sale of ADEX’s Highwire division. Per ASC 350-20-40-7, when a portion of goodwill is allocated to a business to be disposed of, the goodwill remaining in the portion of the reporting unit to be retained shall be tested for impairment in accordance with paragraphs 350-20-35-3A through 35-19 using its adjusted carrying amount.

 

Based on the Company’s analysis, the Company recorded goodwill impairment for ADEX and SDNE of $2,885 and $261, respectively, and intangible asset impairment for ADEX and SDNE of $637 and $160, respectively, in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2017.

 

Commitments and Contingencies 

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to various contingencies. The Company records a contingency in the consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable, or otherwise disclosed, in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies ("ASC Topic 450"). Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC Topic 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, when applicable, adjust the accrual in the period in which the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to its financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. 

Breach of Contract Action 

In July 2013, a complaint was filed against our company in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida titled The Farkas Group, Inc., The Atlas Group of Companies, LLC and Michael D. Farkas v. InterCloud Systems, Inc. (Case No. 502013CA01133XXXMB) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that we have breached contractual agreements between our company and plaintiffs pertaining to certain indebtedness amounting to approximately $116 allegedly owed by us to the plaintiffs and our agreement to convert such indebtedness into shares of our common stock. The plaintiff alleges that they are entitled to receive in the aggregate 2.2 million shares of the Company’s common stock or aggregate damages reflecting the trading value at the high price for the common stock. We have asserted as a defense that such indebtedness, together with any right to convert such indebtedness into shares of common stock, was cancelled pursuant to the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of July 2, 2009 between our company and the plaintiffs. The Farkas Group was a control person of our company during the period that it was a public “shell” company and facilitated the transfer of control of our company to our former chief executive officer, Gideon Taylor. This matter is presently set on the court’s non-jury trial docket. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.  

Purported Class Action Suit 

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. 

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs’ counsel and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending actions. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2015 adding additional third-party defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. The Company’s motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on October 29, 2015. The Court held a status conference on February 29, 2016, and entered a PreTrial Scheduling Order on February 29, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. 

In April 2017, the parties in this proceeding and the related derivative actions described below reached a global settlement in principle for an aggregate of $3.0 million, which amount will be paid by the Company’s insurers. The Company and the other parties in such proceedings are currently in the process of finalizing the global settlement and obtaining preliminary court approval of the settlement. While the Company believes a global settlement can be reached by the parties and approved by the applicable courts, there can be no assurance that any such settlement will be reached and approved.  

Derivative Actions 

 

In January 2016, a derivative complaint entitled Michael E. Sloan, derivatively and on behalf of InterCloud Systems, Inc. v. Mark Munro, Mark F. Durfee, Charles K. Miller, Neal Oristano, Daniel J. Sullivan, Roger M. Ponder, Lawrence M. Sands, Frank Jadevaia, and Scott Davis, Defendants, and InterCloud Systems, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 11878 (DE Chancery) was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court. This action arises out of the same conduct at issue in the purported class action lawsuit. In the complaint, nominal plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty as directors and officers, abused control, grossly mismanaged, and unjustly enriched themselves by having knowingly hired a stock promotion firm that caused analyst reports to be disseminated that falsely stated they were not paid for by such stock promotion firm and the Company, and were written on behalf of the Company for the purpose of promoting the Company and driving up its stock price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, amendments to the Company’s articles of incorporation and by-laws, disgorgement from the individual defendants and costs and disbursements in the action. The defendants agreed to accept service on March 21, 2016 and counsel are negotiating a schedule to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the complaint.

 

In June 2016, a derivative complaint entitled Wasseem Hamdan, derivatively and on behalf of InterCloud Systems, Inc. v. Mark Munro, Mark F. Durfee, Charles K. Miller, Neal Oristano, and Roger M. Ponder, Defendants, and InterCloud Systems, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No.: 3:16-cv-03706 (D.N.J.) was filed in the New Jersey Federal District Court. This action arises out of the same conduct at issue in the purported class action lawsuit. In the complaint, nominal plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty as directors and officers, grossly mismanaged, and unjustly enriched themselves during the relevant period by having knowingly hired a stock promotion firm that caused analyst reports to be disseminated that falsely stated they were not paid for by such stock promotion firm and the Company, and were written on behalf of the Company for the purpose of promoting the Company and driving up its stock price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, amendments to the Company’s articles of incorporation and by-laws, disgorgement from the individual defendants and costs and disbursements in the action. On February 10, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with the derivative action described below. The court has not yet ruled on the consolidation motion, which is uncontested. It is anticipated that a consolidated amended derivative complaint will be filed.

 

In July 2016, a derivative complaint entitled John Scrutchens, derivatively and on behalf of InterCloud Systems, Inc. v. Mark E. Munro, Mark F. Durfee, Charles K. Miller, Neal Oristano, and Roger Ponder, Defendants, and InterCloud Systems, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case No.: 3:16-CV-04207-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey. This action arises out of the same conduct at issue in the purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company. In the complaint, nominal plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder because in exercising reasonable care as directors of the Company, the defendants knew or should have known that statements contained in the Company’s proxy statements for its annual stockholders’ meetings held in 2013 and 2014 were false and misleading in that such proxy statements (i) omitted material information regarding, among other wrongdoings, the purported wrongdoings of the defendants that generally are at issue in the purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company and the other derivative actions filed against the defendants, and (ii) included by reference materially false and misleading financial statements. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, amendments to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its stockholders from a repeat of the purported wrongdoings of the defendants, punitive damages from the individual defendants, disgorgement from the individual defendants and costs and disbursements in the action. As discussed above, on February 10, 2017, plaintiffs in the derivative action described above filed a motion to consolidate that action with this derivative action. The court has not yet ruled on the consolidation motion, which is uncontested. It is anticipated that a consolidated amended derivative complaint will be filed.

 

In April 2017, the parties in all of the these proceedings and in the purported class action suit described above reached a global settlement in principle for an aggregate of $3.0 million, which amount will be paid by the Company’s insurers. The Company and the other parties in such proceedings are currently in the process of finalizing the global settlement and obtaining preliminary court approval of the settlement. While the Company believes a global settlement can be reached by the parties and approved by the applicable courts, there can be no assurance that any such settlement will be reached and approved.

 

If such proposed global settlement is not reached by the parties and approved by the courts, the Company intends to dispute these claims and to defend these litigations vigorously. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of each of these litigations is uncertain. An unfavorable outcome in any such litigation could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Securities and Exchange Commission Subpoenas

 

On May 21, 2014, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC that stated that the staff of the SEC is conducting an investigation In the Matter of Galena Biopharma, Inc. File No. HO 12356 (now known as “In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions”) and that the subpoena was issued to the Company as part of an investigation as to whether certain investor relations firms and their clients engaged in market manipulation. The subpoena and accompanying letter did not indicate whether the Company is, or is not, under investigation. Since May 2014, the Company provided testimony to the SEC and produced documents in response to that subpoena and several additional subpoenas received from the SEC in connection with that matter, including a subpoena issued on March 1, 2016 requesting information relating to a transaction involving the Company’s Series H preferred shares in December 2013.


In connection with the SEC investigation, in May 2015, the Company received information from the SEC that it is continuing an investigation of the Company and certain of its current and former officers, consultants of the Company and others, of “possible violation[s]” of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and the rules of the SEC thereunder in the offer or sale of securities and certain other matters with respect to which the SEC claims it has information, including the possible market manipulation of the Company’s securities dating back to January 2013. Based upon the Company’s internal investigations, the Company does not believe either it or any of its current or former officers or directors engaged in any activities that violated applicable securities laws. The Company intends to continue to work with the staff of the SEC towards a resolution and to supplement its disclosure regarding the SEC’s investigation accordingly.

 

From time to time, the Company may become a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of its business. Although the results of such litigation and claims in the ordinary course of business cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

 

As of March 31, 2017, no accruals for loss contingencies have been recorded as the outcomes of these cases are neither probable or reasonably estimable.

 

The Company has obligations contingent on the performance of its subsidiaries. These contingent obligations, payable to the former owners of the subsidiaries, are based on metrics that contain escalation clauses. The Company believes that the amounts recorded within the liabilities section of the consolidated balance sheets are indicative of fair value and are also considered the most likely payout of these obligations. If conditions were to change, these liabilities could potentially impact the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and future cash flows.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation in accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation ("ASC Topic 718"). Under the fair value recognition provisions of this topic, stock-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award and is recognized as an expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, based on the terms of the awards.

 

Net Loss Per Share

 

The Company follows ASC 260, Earnings Per Share, which requires presentation of basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) on the face of the income statement for all entities with complex capital structures, and requires a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of the basic EPS computation to the numerator and denominator of the diluted EPS computation.

 

In the accompanying financial statements, basic loss per share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.

  

Potential common shares includable in the computation of fully-diluted per share results are not presented for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as their effect would be anti-dilutive.

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures ("ASC Topic 820") provides a framework for measuring fair value in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 

 

ASC Topic 820 defines fair value as 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. ASC Topic 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable inputs) and (2) an entity's own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (unobservable inputs).

 

The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy under ASC Topic 820 are described as follows:

 

  Level 1 — Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that are accessible at the measurement date.
     
  Level 2 — Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active; inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability; and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means.
     
  Level 3 — Inputs that are unobservable for the asset or liability.

 

The following section describes the valuation methodologies that the Company used to measure different financial instruments at fair value.

 

Debt

 

The fair value of the Company’s debt, which approximated the carrying value of the Company’s debt as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, was estimated at $38,617 and $43,729, respectively. Factors that the Company considered when estimating the fair value of its debt included market conditions, liquidity levels in the private placement market, variability in pricing from multiple lenders and term of the debt. The level of the debt would be considered as Level 2.

 

Contingent Consideration

 

The fair value of the Company’s contingent consideration payable is based on the Company’s evaluation as to the probability and amount of any earn-out that will ultimately be payable. The Company utilizes a third-party valuation firm to assist in the calculation of the contingent consideration at the acquisition date. The Company evaluates the forecast of the acquired entity and the probability of earn-out provisions being achieved when it evaluates the contingent consideration recorded at initial acquisition date and at each subsequent reporting period. The fair value of contingent consideration is measured at each reporting period and adjusted as necessary. The Company evaluates the terms in contingent consideration arrangements provided to former owners of acquired companies who become employees of the Company to determine if such amounts are part of the purchase price of the acquired entity or compensation.

 

Additional Disclosures Regarding Fair Value Measurements

 

The carrying value of cash, accounts receivable, inventory, other assets, and accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their fair value due to the short-term maturity of those items. 

 

Fair Value of Derivatives

 

The Company utilized a binomial lattice pricing model to determine the fair value of the derivative liability related to the warrants and the put and effective price of future equity offerings of equity-linked financial instruments.

 

Derivative Warrant Liabilities and Convertible Features 

 

The fair value of the derivative liabilities is classified as Level 3 within the Company’s fair value hierarchy. Please refer to Note 9, Derivative Instruments, for further discussion of the measurement of fair value of the derivatives and their underlying assumptions.

 

The fair value of the Company's financial instruments carried at fair value at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 were as follows:

 

    Fair Value Measurements at 
Reporting Date Using
 
    Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
    Significant Other Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
    Significant Unobservable Inputs 
(Level 3)
 
    March 31, 2017  
Liabilities:                  
Current derivative features related to convertible debentures   $ -     $ -     $ 2,719  
Current derivative features related to warrants     -       -       223  
Contingent consideration     -       -       515  
Long-term derivative features related to convertible debentures     -       -       1,800  
Long-term derivative features related to warrants     -       -       395  
                         
Total liabilities at fair value   $ -     $ -     $ 5,652  
                         
      December 31, 2016  
Liabilities:                        
Current derivative features related to convertible debentures   $ -     $ -     $ 1,749  
Contingent consideration     -       -       515  
Long-term derivative features related to convertible debentures     -       -       1,316  
                         
Total liabilities at fair value   $ -     $ -     $ 3,580  

  

The changes in Level 3 financial instruments measured at fair value on a recurring basis for the three months ended March 31, 2017 were as follows:

  

    Amount  
Balance as of December 31, 2016   $ 3,580  
Change in fair value of derivative features related to convertible debentures     (107 )
Change in fair value of warrant derivative     290  
Reclassification of equity warrants to derivative     110  
Fair value of JGB warrant derivative     65  
Adjustment of derivative liability upon extinguishment of debt     2,241  
Adjustment of make-whole provision upon payment     (815 )
Fair value of derivative features related to MEF I, L.P.     250  
Fair value of derivative features related to Dominion term loan     38  
Balance as of March 31, 2017   $ 5,652  

 

Treasury Stock

 

The Company records treasury stock at the cost to acquire it and includes treasury stock as a component of stockholders’ deficit.