ITEM 1. BUSINESS.
Overview
VerifyMe, Inc. (the “Company,” “VerifyMe,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) is a technology pioneer in the anti-counterfeiting industry. This broad market encompasses counterfeiting of physical and material goods and products, as well as counterfeiting of identities in digital transactions. We have the ability to deliver security solutions for identification and authentication of people, products and packaging in a variety of applications in the security field for both digital and physical transactions. Our products can be used to manage and issue secure credentials, including national identifications, passports, driver licenses and access control credentials, as well as comprehensive authentication security software to secure physical and logical access to facilities, computer networks, internet sites and mobile applications.
The challenges associated with digital access control and identity theft are problems that are highly relevant in the world today. Consumers, citizens, employees, governments and employers demand comprehensive solutions that are reliable but not intrusive. The current widespread use of passwords and personal identification numbers, or PINs for authentication has proven to be unsecure and inadequate. Individuals increasingly expect anywhere-anytime experiences-whether they are making purchases, crossing borders, accessing services or logging into online accounts or corporate resources. They expect those experiences to ensure the protection of their privacy and to provide uncompromising confidentiality.
We believe that the digital technologies we own will enable businesses and consumers to reconstruct their overall approaches to security-from identity and authentication to the management of legacy passwords and PINs. We empower our customers to take advantage of the full capabilities of smart mobile devices and provide solutions that are both simple to use and deliver the highest level of security. These solutions can be applied to corporate networks, financial services, e-gov services, digital wallets, mobile payments, entertainment, subscription services, and social media.
Our digital technologies involve the utilization of multiple authentication mechanisms, some of which we own. These mechanisms include biometric factors, knowledge factors, possession factors and location factors. Biometric factors include facial recognition with liveness detection, finger print and voice recognition. Knowledge factors include a personal gesture swipe and a safe and panic color choice. Possession factor includes devices that the user has in their possession such as a smartphone, smart watch, and other wearable computing devices. The location factor geo-locates the user during a secure login. We surround these authentication mechanisms with proprietary systems that improve the usability and the security of the solutions. Our solutions allow the assessment and quantification of risk using a sophisticated heuristic scoring mechanism. We have specialized systems that perform ‘liveness’ detection to insure the subject of authentication is in fact a live human being. We have systems that introduce learning capabilities into our solutions to improve the ease of use and flexibility.
We believe that the physical technologies we own will enable businesses and consumers to reconstruct their overall approaches to security-from counterfeit identification to employee or customer monitoring. Potential applications of our technologies are available in different types of products and industries-e.g., gaming, apparel, tobacco, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, event and transportation tickets, driver’s licenses, insurance cards, passports, computer software, and credit cards. We can generate sales through licenses of our technology and through direct sales of our technology.
Our physical technologies involve the utilization of invisible and/or color shifting/changing inks, which are compatible with today’s printing machines. The inks may be used with certain printing systems such as offset, flexographic, silkscreen, gravure, and laser. Based upon our experience, we believe that the ink technologies may be incorporated into existing manufacturing processes. We believe that some of our patents may have non-security applications, and we are attempting to commercialize these opportunities.
Anti-Counterfeiting Technologies and Products
Recent developments in copying and printing technologies have made it easier to counterfeit a wide variety of documents and products. Currency, lottery tickets, credit cards, event and transportation tickets, casino slot tickets, and travelers’ checks are all susceptible to counterfeiting. We believe that losses from such counterfeiting have increased substantially with improvements in counterfeiting technology. Counterfeiting has long caused losses to manufacturers of brand name products, and we believe that these losses have increased as the counterfeiting of labeling and packaging has become easier.
We believe that our physical and material goods anti-counterfeit technologies may be useful to businesses desiring to authenticate a wide variety of materials and products. Our technologies include (1) a technology utilizing invisible ink that can be revealed by use of laser light for authentication purposes, (2) an inkjet ink technology, which allows invisible codes to be printed and (3) a color shifting technology that is activated by certain types of lights. All of those technologies are intended to be substantially different than pen systems that are currently in the marketplace. Pen systems also rely on invisible ink that is activated by a special marker. If the item is an original and not an invisible print, then the ink will be activated and show a visible mark as a different color than on an illegitimate copy. We believe that our technologies are superior to the pen system technology because, in the case of its laser and color shifting technologies, it will not result in a permanent mark on the merchandise. Permanent marks generally lead to the disposal of the merchandise or its sale as a “second” rather than best-quality product. In the case of rubbed ink technology, no special tools are required to distinguish the counterfeit. Other possible variations of our laser based technology involve multiple color responses from a common laser, visible marks of one color that turn another color with a second laser, or visible and invisible marks that turn into a multicolored image. These technologies provide users with the ability to authenticate products and detect counterfeit documents. Applications include the authentication of documents having intrinsic value, such as currency, checks, travelers’ checks, gift certificates and event tickets, and the authentication of product labeling and packaging. When applied to product labeling and packaging, our technologies can be used to detect counterfeit products with labels and/or in packaging that do not contain the authenticating marks invisibly printed on the packaging or labels of legitimate products, as well as to combat product diversion (i.e., the sale of legitimate products through unauthorized distribution channels or in unauthorized markets). We believe that our technologies also could be used in a manner that permits manufacturers and distributors to track the movement of products from production to ultimate consumption when coupled with proprietary software.
In the past, we have focused on the widespread problem of counterfeiting in the gaming industry. We have incorporated our technology into traditional gaming accessories such as playing cards, casino chips, and dice as well as gaming-based machinery such as slot machines with cashless gaming systems. This is accomplished during the regular manufacturing and printing processes. Our products use ink that is incorporated into dice and casino chips that can be viewed with a laser to reveal the authenticity of the item.
Physical and Material Goods Anti-Counterfeit Industry - Overview
Currency, passports, ID cards and other high-value documents have historically been subject to counterfeiting and forgery and continue to be today. Many consumer industries such as pharmaceutical, luxury goods and auto parts are also subject to significant counterfeiting. In the last 15 years, the counterfeiting of goods has increased significantly on a global basis and has become a major threat to brand owners in most industries. Major brands, whether national or multinational, are being systematically attacked by sophisticated criminals and terrorists. Furthermore, counterfeiting and forgery have filtered down to the level of lone criminals due to the availability of digital scanning and copying technologies.
The U.S. is projected to remain the largest single consumer of security services and products in the world. One of the most important new areas of expansion is in the area of authentication, which is the act of confirming that objects such as currency, passports, casino chips, credit cards, stock certificates, pharmaceuticals, stamps, identification cards, lottery tickets, and so forth, are real and not forgeries. With the advent of the digital age, including the color copier and other new technologies and templates available on the web, thieves and forgers have been able to make near identical copies of almost any printed item, which has resulted in major financial losses to business and, importantly, has compromised security at critical installations. One particular problem is that criminal and civil penalties for forgery, fraud, and counterfeiting are relatively light, and many of those engaging in such activities are overseas and far from the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
While some currency and credit cards have introduced holograms, seals, and embedded strips in order to add a level of protection, most such methodologies are expensive and, in some cases, time-consuming in the production process. In other instances, such as when printing cigarette tax stamps or hundreds of millions of pieces used in a popular restaurant chain’s contest game pieces, the authentication process must be extremely inexpensive and easy to use or it will be rejected. There is no commercially fiscal way, for example, that a hologram, costing around five cents a copy, can be introduced to verify tax stamps. Moreover, more than half the national currencies in the world lack even one layer of protection and can easily be counterfeited.
Counterfeiting, product diversion, piracy, forgery, identity theft, and unauthorized intrusion into websites, physical locations and databases create significant and growing problems to companies in a wide range of industries as well as governments and individuals worldwide. Counterfeiting is a global problem, and it is a problem that appears to be increasing. According to the International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition (“IACC”) the number of Intellectual Property Rights (“IPR”) - related seizures in 2014 were 23,140. Direct and indirect U.S. jobs supported by Intellectual Property (“IP”) - intensive industries in 2013 was 55.7 million. The total value of IPR-infringing goods seized, originating from China in 2014 (including Hong Kong) was $1.08 billion. The total value of IPR-related seizures based on the Manufacturers’ Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”) in 2014 was $1.22 billion. The projected value of global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods in 2015 was $1.77 trillion. On April 18, 2016, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that imports of counterfeit and pirated goods were worth nearly half a trillion dollars per year, or around 2.5% of global imports, with the US, Italian and French brands hit the hardest. This report was based on customs seizure data over the period 2011 to 2013.
Counterfeiting is one of the fastest growing economic crimes of modern times. It presents companies, governments and individuals with a unique set of problems. What was once a cottage industry has now become a highly sophisticated network of organized crime that has the capacity to threaten the very fabric of national economies, endanger safety and frequently kill. It devalues corporate reputations, hinders investment, funds terrorism, and costs hundreds of thousands of people their livelihood every year.
The global anti-counterfeit packaging market is estimated at $107.26 Billion in 2016 and is projected to reach $206.57 Billion by 2021, at a compound annual growth rate of 14.0%. The base year considered for the study is 2015 with the market size projected from 2016 to 2021 based on a report by marketsandmarkets.com.
Based on Technology, the market has been segmented as follows:
·
Coding & printing technology
·
RFID
·
Hologram
·
Security labels
·
Packaging design
·
Others (digital mass sterilization, digital mass encryption, and surveillance technologies)
The anti-counterfeiting industry is segmented into four general categories: (i) Optical technologies - use of light, i.e. holograms; (ii) Electronic - magnetic strips and smart cards; (iii) Biotechnologies - uses characteristics of biological proteins such as antibodies, enzymes and DNA; and (iv) Chemical technologies - includes photochromic (or light-reactive) and thermochromic (or heat-reactive) inks.
We operate in the chemical technologies and security ink sectors of the industry. Products in this industry change color when exposed to either heat or light and revert to their original color when exposed again. Generally, the effect is reversible as often as required. Inks have also been developed that are invisible to the human eye but which can be read by bar-code scanners. These have been used in the fragrance and pharmaceutical industries to authenticate products. Other reactive inks change color when brought into contact with specific substances, such as ink from a felt-tipped pen.
The anticounterfeit packaging industry is segmented into the following:
·
Coding & printing technology
·
Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”)
·
Hologram
·
Security labels
·
Packaging design
·
Others (digital mass sterilization, digital mass encryption, and surveillance technologies)
We operate in the coding & printing technology, RFID and security labels segments in the anticounterfeit packaging industry.
Recent developments in printing technologies have made it easier to counterfeit a wide variety of documents. Lottery tickets, gift certificates, event and transportation tickets and travelers’ checks are all susceptible to counterfeiting, and we believe that losses from such counterfeiting have increased substantially due to improvements in technology. Counterfeiting has long caused losses to manufacturers of brand name products, and we believe that these losses have increased as the counterfeiting of labeling and packaging has become easier.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development based on its recently published study in 2016, estimates that global trade related counterfeiting accounts for 2.5% of world trade or approximately $461 billion. They also conclude that millions of consumers are risking their lives by using unsafe and ineffective counterfeit products unknowingly.
Identification Cards and Secure Documents
Governments are increasingly vulnerable to counterfeiting, terrorism and other security threats at least in part because currencies, identity and security cards and other official documents can be counterfeited with relative ease. For instance, Havocscope, a company that collects black market intelligence and identifies security threats, reports that the value of counterfeit identification and passports in the United States is approximately $100 million. Governments must also enforce the various anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy regimes of their respective jurisdictions which becomes increasingly difficult with the continued expansion of global trade. To highlight the size of the problem, in April 2012 the European Parliament estimated that of the 6.5 million biometric passports in circulation in France, between 500,000 and one million are ‘false,’ having been obtained using counterfeit documents. Our overt and covert ink pigment platform can provide secure, forensic, and cost-effective anti-counterfeiting, anti-piracy and identification solutions to local, state, and federal governments as well as the defense contractors and the other companies that do business with them. Our pigment solution cans be used for all types of identification and official documents, such as:
·
passports;
·
permanent resident, or “green” cards and visas;
·
drivers’ licenses;
·
Social Security cards;
·
military identification cards;
·
national transportation cards;
·
security cards for access to sensitive physical locations; and
·
other important identity cards, official documents and security-related cards.
The Company has a strategic partnership with AB Corp. based in Boston, Massachusetts, which is the largest manufacturer of plastic cards in North America. All of our revenue in 2016 was derived from AB Corp.
Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceutical industry faces major problems relative to counterfeit, diluted, or falsely labeled drugs that make their way through healthcare systems worldwide, posing a health threat to patients and a financial threat to producers and distributors. Counterfeit prescription pharmaceuticals are a growing trend, widely recognized as a public health risk and a serious concern to public health officials, private companies, and consumers. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that counterfeit drugs account for 1-2% of all drugs sold in the United States. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimates the annual worldwide “take” from counterfeit drugs to be £13 billion (approximately $20 billion USD), a figure that is expected to double by the end of this decade. In some countries, counterfeit prescription drugs comprise as much as 70% of the drug supply and have been responsible for thousands of deaths, according to the WHO. Counterfeit pharmaceuticals are estimated to be a billion-dollar industry, though some estimate it to be much larger. In 2012, the WHO reported that in over 50% of cases, medicines purchased over the Internet from illegal sites that conceal their physical address have been found to be counterfeit. According to the WHO, counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products and counterfeit pharmaceuticals may include products with the correct ingredients but fake packaging, with the wrong ingredients, without active ingredients or with insufficient active ingredients.
Based on this growing threat, many countries have started to address vulnerabilities in the supply chain by enacting legislation which, among other things, requires the implementation of a comprehensive system designed to combat counterfeit, diluted or falsely labelled pharmaceuticals. These systems are often referred to as serialization, or in the United States as e-Pedigree (electronic pedigree). One jurisdiction that has enacted such regulations is California, which passed legislation requiring that 50% of all “dangerous drugs” (defined as all prescription drugs) that are distributed in California must be serialized and have an electronic pedigree by January 1, 2015; 100% of all dangerous drugs must have an electronic pedigree by January 1, 2016.
We believe that ePedigree and serialization requirements will likely be implemented in all aspects of the pharmaceutical supply chain, from the manufacturer to the packager, wholesaler, distributor and final dispensing entity. The ePedigree provides an “audit trail,” or documented evidence, to help to identify and catch counterfeiting and diversion. Serialization requires manufacturers, or third-party packagers in some virtual supply chains, to establish and apply to the smallest saleable unit package or immediate container a “unique identification number.” In some cases, drug makers are spending as much as 8-10% of a medicine pack’s total production cost only on solutions to protect it from duplication and counterfeiting, according to company executives. Our unique pigments embedded in the ink of a unique serialized barcode can provide a layered security foundation for a customer solution in this market.
Consumer Products
Counterfeit items are a significant and growing problem with all kinds of consumer packaged goods, especially in the luxury retail and apparel industries. Our unique ink pigments can be incorporated in dyes and used by manufacturers in these industries to combat counterfeiting and piracy of actual physical goods. Our pigments expressed as inks can also be used on packaging, as well to track products that have been lost in transit, whether misplaced or stolen.
Food and Beverage
Counterfeit food threats are becoming more common as supply chains become more global and as imaging and manufacturing technology become more accessible. Numerous reports of counterfeit foods have been reported, including long-grain rice labelled and sold as basmati rice, Spanish olive oil bottled and sold as Italian olive oil, and mixtures of industrial solvents and alcohol sold as vodka. Although many of these stories have emerged from the U.K. and Europe, the fake-food problem is also relevant in the United States.
The National Center for Food Protection and Defense estimates that Americans pay $10 billion to $15 billion annually for fake food - often due to product laundering, dilution and intentionally false labeling. We believe our pigments and authentication tools can help in the battle against counterfeit foods and beverages.
Printing and Packaging
Counterfeiting in packaging has greatly intensified in recent years, causing concerns for consumers and financial concern for businesses worldwide. Billions of dollars per year are at stake for companies as they seek ways to ensure that the products sold with their logos and branding are authorized and authentic. The proliferation of counterfeiting requires brand owners and their converter/printer partners to work together to create a multi-layered protection plan so that their packaging and labels protect their brands and deter those trying to profit at their (and their reputation’s) expense.
Counterfeiters have become so good at their unlawful activity that spotting the difference between legitimate and counterfeit products can be daunting. Counterfeiters have many ways to subvert legitimate brands. These may include taking an out-of-date product and selling it in packaging and labels that have been forged; sometimes, the packaging, labels and product itself are all counterfeited. Counterfeiters might also use legitimate packaging coupled with fake products. We believe our pigment security systems are a cost-effective solution for printer and packagers and are easily integrated into their existing manufacturing process.
The Opportunity
As counterfeiting continues to increase and losses to manufacturers and others continue to escalate, we believe that those entities will seek better technologies to minimize their exposure. These technologies, however, must also be cost-effective, easy to integrate, and highly resistant to counterfeiting themselves.
Our Solutions
In the areas of authentication and serialization of physical goods, we offer clients the following products as anti-counterfeit systems:
·
RainbowSecure™;
·
SecureLight™;
·
SecureLight+™; and
·
Authentication tools.
RainbowSecureTM technology was our first technology to be patented. It combines an invisible ink with a proprietary tuned laser to enable counterfeit products to be exposed. It has been widely accepted in the gaming industry, where the technology has been used by casinos to protect their chips, dice, and playing cards from fraud. The technology also features a unique double layer of security which remains entirely covert at all times and provides licensees with additional protection. RainbowSecure™ is particularly well-suited to closed and controlled environments, such as casinos that want to verify transactions within a specific area, and are not interested in outside public verification by consumers. The technology is also appropriate for anti-counterfeit protection of tags and labels in the apparel industry, where it can be applied to a variety of different materials in the form of dyes.
SecureLightTM technology was developed as a result of our investment in new proprietary color shifting inks that could penetrate broader markets and result in far greater revenues. During the past nine years, we have refined our technologies and their applications, and now have what we believe to be the easiest, most cost effective and efficient authentication technologies available in the world today. Our technology, known as SecureLight™, takes advantage of the new ubiquitous energy efficient fluorescent lighting to change the color of ink, resulting in hundreds of new applications ranging from credit cards to driver’s licenses, passports, stock certificates, clothing labels, currency, ID cards, and tax stamps. The technologies can also be used to protect apparel, pharmaceuticals, and virtually any other physical product.
SecureLight+TM technology combines the covert characteristics of RainbowSecure and the overt characteristics of SecureLight. This provides a solution which can be authenticated in two different ways - by proprietary tuned laser devices, and also by anyone with fluorescent lighting including end consumers.
Authentication tools have been developed which we can sell to customers in conjunction with pigments and are tuned to authenticate the unique frequency of each batch. This will allow for customers to instantly authenticate items with a customized beeper which will only positively identify a product bearing their unique anti-counterfeit solution. This authentication is provided in the form of an LED indicator and audible ‘beep’.
Raw Material Suppliers
Our security pigments are manufactured from naturally occurring inorganic materials. The manufacturing process includes both chemical and mechanical elements. In many cases, we produce pigments that are unique to a particular customer or product line. This uniqueness can be achieved through a variety of techniques, including custom formulation or combination of our proprietary pigments and/or incorporation of other specialized taggants.
There are many manufacturers of these types of specialized pigments and we intend to maintain multiple simultaneous relationships to ensure ample sources of supply.
Distribution
We provide pigment mixing instructions for the specific uses of each client based on their existing equipment and processes. We maintain policies and procedures to monitor, track and log access to and disposition of all pigment. Our customers are also required to agree to and implement these policies and procedures.
Digital Authentication Technologies and Products
We believe accurate identification of human beings in electronic transactions, also known as Digital Identity Management, will continue to be a large and rapidly growing market. As more electronic transactions incorporate the exchange of value and money, the verification of the unique identity of human beings participating in those transactions becomes more important. In general, every electronic transaction has a least two actors - a subject and a relying party. The relying party has a business need to eliminate or reduce risk associated with the identification of the subject.
Electronic financial theft and electronic theft of private information make headlines almost every day - according to a 2015 Identity Fraud Study released by Javelin Strategy & Research, in 2014, $16 billion was stolen from 12.7 million U.S. consumers. The majority of this harm can be traced to weak authentication systems, such as Username/Password, yet these weak systems continue to be used in most of the world’s transactional systems.
Historically, stronger authentication solutions, such as biometric, two-factor and multi-factor solutions have been difficult to use and expensive to deploy and operate. The extraordinary proliferation of smart phones and tablets provide an infrastructure for disruptive solutions that leverage the mobile nature of these devices and the multi-sensor computing capabilities.
VerifyMe Authenticator is a digital identity management platform that provides extensible authentication mechanisms that can be dynamically invoked to achieve a specified degree of identity assurance. The Authenticator platform incorporates a risk engine that associates individual risk parameters and scores with every unique authentication mechanism. The risk engine then generates aggregate risk scores based on the specific combination of individual authentication mechanisms used to confirm the identity of the human being.
When we have sufficient working capital, we will devote resources to resolving certain functionality issues, which presently affect our Authenticator technology.
Digital Authentication Industry Background
The growth in internet banking and internet commerce and the increasing use and reliance upon proprietary or confidential information that is remotely accessible by many users by businesses, government and educational institutions, has made information security a paramount concern. We believe that enterprises are seeking solutions that will continue to allow them to expand access to data and financial assets while maintaining network security.
A vendor in the user authentication market delivers on-premises software/hardware or a cloud-based service that makes real-time authentication decisions for users who utilize an arbitrary endpoint device (that is, not just Windows PCs or Macs) to access one or more applications, systems or services in a variety of use cases. Where appropriate to the authentication methods supported, a vendor in this market also delivers client-side software or hardware that end users utilize to make those real-time authentication decisions.
The market is mature, with several vendors offering products that have been continuously offered during the past three decades (although ownership has changed over that time). However, new methods and vendors continue to emerge, with the most rapid growth occurring within the past decade in response to the changing market needs for different trade-offs among trust, user experience (“UX”) and total cost of ownership (“TCO”). The greater adoption of user authentication over a wider variety of use cases, the impact of mobile, cloud and big data analytics, and the emergence of innovative methods continue to be disruptive.
While over 100 authentication vendors currently operate in the market, the vast majority deliver two-factor authentication solutions. Even the few vendors that market biometric solutions simply combine them with a password for two-factor security.
Internet and Enterprise Security.  With the advent of personal computers and distributed information systems in the form of wide area networks, intranets, local area networks and the Internet, as well as other direct electronic links, many organizations have implemented applications to enable their workforce and third parties, including vendors, suppliers and customers, to access and exchange data and perform electronic transactions. As a result of the increased number of users having direct and remote access to such enterprise applications, data and financial assets have become increasingly vulnerable to unauthorized access and misuse.
Individual User Security.  In addition to the need for enterprise-wide security, the proliferation of personal computers, personal digital assistants and mobile telephones in both the home and office settings, combined with widespread access to the Internet, have created significant opportunities for electronic commerce by individual users such as electronic bill payment, home banking and home shopping.
The continued reliance by most enterprises on passwords and PINs has resulted in daily identity theft and data breaches, with massive attacks being announced almost every week. The companies that have been attacked and compromised private data include top brands in finance, retail, entertainment, technology and governments.
Strong Authentication Market
A strong authentication market has emerged, initially led by two-factor authentication solutions. Two-factor authentication solutions combine a password with a second factor, which typically involves proving possession of some object, which may include a one-time password token that generates rotating secret codes, a telephone via a callback or a SMS message, or an email address via emailing a secret code.
The global multifactor authentication (“MFA”) market was valued at $3.6 billion in 2014 and is predicted to reach more than $9.6 billion by 2020 as three-, four- and five-factor authentication systems gain prominence. Part of this growth can be attributed to the rise of biometric security services, such as fingerprint, retina and facial scanning. A recent report found that all authentication methods using more than two factors included some form of biometric scanning.
Currently, 90% of the MFA market belongs to two-factor authentication. These “standard” methods include passwords, hardware tokens and PINs, although some systems do employ a secondary biometric scan. With a predicated compound annual growth rate of 19.67 percent over the next three years, however, it’s clear that the other 10 percent - and the biometric technology needed to support them - will play a large role. As it stands, three-factor authentication is mostly used in bank lockers and immigration, while four- and five-step methods only make an appearance in high-level government operations. Part of the problem is cost since it’s often prohibitive for a small business to roll out full facial recognition or install high-level fingerprint scanners.
Password Manager/Digital Wallet Market
2012 was the year of password theft, according to SecurityCoverage. The security software company says that in the first six months of 2012, online password breaches increased 300% over the same period in 2011. Since then, this growth rate has continued. In the case of the recent data breach of dating service Ashley Madison, it is expected that the exposed personally identifiable information of over 30 million people will directly lead to the compromise of other password based accounts and services.
Until companies figure out a better way to protect their data in the cloud, we believe that the best solution is to enforce higher security with password managers. Password managers provide tools to encrypt text files that can store passwords that are not Web based, such as Windows and Outlook passwords, Lotus Notes passwords, administration passwords including local and domain accounts, BIOS passwords, encrypted hard drive passwords, cell phone and voicemail passwords and iPad and iPhone passwords. Password managers promise greater security while improving the user experience.
The best password managers sync to the cloud across all dominant platforms and require multi-factor authentication. There are currently no password managers that utilize more than two-factor authentication and none that incorporate additional biometric mechanisms.
The Opportunity
As identity theft and data breaches continue to increase and losses to service providers and individuals continue to escalate, we see both enterprises and consumers seeking better solutions to protect their interests. These solutions must be cost effective, easy to integrate, and simple to use.
Any transaction or action which requires authentication of an individual is a potential opportunity for a strong multi-factor solution such as VerifyMe Authenticator. This is a very large market opportunity, within which we are focused on four specific segments:
·
Subscription services market, where revenue is commonly lost due to multiple individuals sharing user credentials to access information and services;
·
Online gaming market, where financial transactions are performed and also geo-location is very important to comply with state/country regulations;
·
Financial services market, where there is a large financial risk to identity theft and fraud; and
·
Physical access control market, where the identity of individuals is key to allow access to buildings.
Our Solution
VerifyMe Authenticator delivers an electronic authentication solution for identifying individual human beings. When a subject attempts to access an internet resource and asserts an identity, VerifyMe Authenticator attempts to authenticate the asserted identity. It does this utilizing multiple strong authentication mechanisms, involving at least three independent factors. VerifyMe Authenticator can deliver identity assurance consistent with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Level 4 authentication requirements as specified in Special Publication 800-63-1.
VerifyMe Authenticator is based around mobile apps that incorporate a password manager and single sign on (“SSO”) capability. In addition to facilitating strong authentication during the logon process to the enterprise resource or service, VerifyMe Authenticator also lets the user conveniently integrate and protect all of their legacy username and passwords.
Fast and Easy to Use
VerifyMe Authenticator replaces passwords and PINs with a quick, intuitive and user-friendly interface. Our customers are able to authenticate end users in multiple ways (multi-factor) in the same timeframe as a conventional password login. The Service is platform agnostic (available for IOS, Android, Mac and PC), and scalable for use on wearable personal devices.
Support for Any Authentication Method
VerifyMe Authenticator has the ability to authenticate individuals using facial recognition, fingerprint, voice scanning, retina scanning, swipe pattern recognition, location detection and approved IP detection. We believe that Authenticator can provide the highest levels of confidence, security and account protection to a businesses’ customers, all within seconds. VerifyMe Authenticator are not limited to specific authentication factors. Our platform can support any available authentication mechanism, including those that require policy-driven mechanisms. We are continuing to add new authentication mechanisms , including mechanisms suitable for wearable devices and new biometrics.
Multi-Factor Confidence Scores
Depending on the desired level of confidence, different online and mobile application accounts can require varying quality scores. As the desired level of security increases, so does the required quality score to complete a sign-in transaction. As the quality score increases, additional authentication factors are added to the sign-in process.
Secure Platform, Easy to Integrate
VerifyMe Authenticator can be delivered either as managed service from our secure cloud or as licensed software which can be operated with existing infrastructure. VerifyMe Authenticator also features the following benefits:
·
Available to be white-labeled and integrated into existing digital platforms;
·
Non-Stop, audited, monitored, private cloud service;
·
Three independent, fault tolerant, redundant data centers (“Rackspace”);
·
Global load balancing and traffic management;
·
High level commercial API’s can be integrated in hours; and
·
Complete audit information, including fresh biometrics.
The three factors VerifyMe Authenticator utilize include, but are not limited to, the following:
Factor 1 - Something you have - a possession device - typically this is a registered mobile device, which we can authenticate either via SMS or email round robin protocol.
Factor 2 - Something you know - a knowledge factor - we currently utilize a color gesture swipe. This requires the subject to confirm their secret color and appropriately connect dots on a matrix consistent with their registered gesture pattern.
Factor 3 - Something you are - we utilize facial recognition to authenticate images captured in real-time using the registered device’s built in camera, with images that were stored in the subject’s profile during registration.
Our platform can be distinguished from competitors in that it is not limited to any of the above authentication mechanisms; VerifyMe Authenticator currently supports many more authentication mechanisms and we intend to continue expanding this list. For example, our platform is not limited to facial recognition as a biometric mechanism. It currently supports voice, fingerprint and other mechanisms.
In addition, VerifyMe Authenticator includes a risk-scoring engine that is able to enforce complex, customer specific authentication policies and shield them from the underlying complexity of evaluating multiple, independent authentication mechanisms. This risk engine allows us to constantly add new authentication mechanisms as they emerge. We see the emerging market of wearable devices as providing new authentication mechanisms that will be very simple and reliable for the end-user. Because our risk engine insulates the enterprise from the complexity of having to interface with all these different platforms, they are available to benefit from and insure their customers can utilize these devices to their full potential.
VerifyMe Authenticator is platform agnostic (available for IOS, Android, Mac, Linux and Windows) and scalable for use on wearable personal devices. The digital platform is an enterprise solution, which combines multiple independent authentication factors and can also determine geo-location utilizing a number of mechanisms including GPS, cell tower triangulation and IP/WIFI address. Because the service utilizes biometrics and liveness detection, it eliminates the possibility that users might share their authentication credentials, or that user accounts can be accessed by other individuals. The combination of biometrics and geo-location provides extremely strong transactional evidence, making it nearly impossible for an end-user to refute having been part of a transaction.
The VerifyMe Authenticator technology requires additional research and development efforts to produce the full array of features described above. We do not presently have sufficient working capital to resolve certain functionality issues affecting this technology.
Our Technology
We have attempted to achieve sufficient flexibility in our products and technologies so as to provide cost-effective solutions to a wide variety of counterfeiting problems. We intend to generate revenues primarily by selling pigment to manufacturers who incorporate our technologies into their manufacturing processes and their products as well as through licensing fees where we are providing unique or custom solutions.
Our Intellectual Property
Intellectual property is important to our business. Our current patent portfolio consists of nineteen granted patents and six applications pending. While some of our granted patents are commercially ready, we believe that others may have commercial application in the future but will require additional capital and/or a strategic partner in order to reach the potential markets. All of our patents are related to the inventions described above. Our patents begin to expire between the years 2019 and 2031.
We continue to develop new anti-counterfeiting technologies and to apply for patent protection for these technologies wherever possible. When a new product or process is developed, we may seek to preserve the economic benefit of the product or process by applying for a patent in each jurisdiction in which the product or process is likely to be exploited.
The granting of a patent does not prevent a third party from seeking a judicial determination that the patent is invalid. Such challenges to the validity of a patent are not uncommon and can be successful. There can be no assurance that a challenge will not be filed to one or more of our patents, if granted, and that if filed, such a challenge will not be successful.
We believe that the physical technologies we own will enable businesses and consumers to reconstruct their overall approaches to security-from counterfeit identification to employee or customer monitoring. Potential applications of our technologies are available in different types of products and industries-e.g., gaming, apparel, tobacco, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, event and transportation tickets, driver’s licenses, insurance cards, passports, computer software, and credit cards. We generate sales through licenses of our technology or through direct sales of our technology.
Research and Development
We have been involved in research and development since our inception and intend to continue our research and development activities, funds permitting. Until January 1, 2013, our research and development focused on pigment technologies. Since January 1, 2013, we have allocated research and development efforts between digital and pigment technologies. We hope to expand our technology into new areas of implementation and to develop unique customer applications. We spent approximately $0.3 million and $2.4 million on research and development during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
Our Revenue Model
To date, we have not generated significant revenue. We believe that creating demand for our products and services will require a marketing program that effectively reaches potential customers. In developing our most recent marketing approach, we have attempted to achieve sufficient flexibility in our products and technologies so as to provide cost-effective solutions to a wide variety of counterfeiting problems. We intend to generate revenues primarily by collecting license fees from manufacturers who incorporate our technologies into their manufacturing processes and user authentication protocols, as well as through the sale of pigments to be incorporated in inks and dyes and the sale of authentication tools.
Sales and Marketing Strategy
We plan to direct our sales and marketing strategy at multiple target groups as follows:
Consumer Product Security
·Pharmaceuticals
·Luxury goods
·Tobacco
·Alcohol
·Auto parts
·Aviation parts
·Any other packaging requirements
Documents of Value
·Currency
·Stock certificates and bonds
·Event tickets
·Lottery tickets
Homeland Security
·Passports
·ID cards
·Driver’s licenses
·Visas
·Container seals
·Pallet security
Gaming
·Online gaming sites
·Casino chips
·Dice
·Playing cards
·E-proms/critical memory devices
·Lottery tickets
Product Diversion Tracking
·Pharmaceuticals
·Apparel/licensed merchandise
·Cosmetics and fragrances
·Watches and jewelry
Financial Services and Products
·Consumer login credentials
·Online transaction approval
·Credit cards
·Bank checks
·Financial documents/promissory notes
We plan for our sales and marketing strategy to include an outreach program and sales programs that tailor the product to the governmental body or merchant, as well as key partnerships with authorities and merchants whose products or audiences can be complementary to our own. In particular, we will focus on building relationship with key partners who can deliver our products to their existing and prospective customers in target markets - i.e., printer/packagers, plastic card manufacturers and financial services intermediaries.
Competition
The market for protection from counterfeiting, diversion, theft and forgery is a mature 25-year-old industry dominated by a number of large, well-established companies, particularly in the area of traditional overt security technologies. This is due to the fact that security printing for currency production, for example, began in Europe over a century ago and has resulted in the establishment of old-line security printers which have branched out into brand and product protection as well. In North America, brand protection products, such as tamper-resistant packaging, security labels, and anti-theft devices are readily available and utilized on a widespread basis. In recent years, however, demand has increased for more sophisticated overt and covert security technologies. Competitors can be segregated into the following groups: (i) Security Ink Manufacturers. These are generally well-established companies such as SICPA and Sun Chemical, whose core business is printing inks; (ii) System Integrators. These companies have often evolved from other sectors in the printing industry, mainly security printing manufacturers, technology providers, or packaging and label manufacturers. These companies offer a range of security solutions, enabling them to provide a complete suite of solutions tailored to the customer’s specific needs and requirements. The companies in this space include 3M, DuPont, Honeywell, and Avery Dennison; (iii) System Consultancy Groups. These companies offer a range of technologies from several different providers and tailor specific solutions to end-users; (iv) Traditional Authentication Technology Providers. These purveyors include American Banknote Holographics and Digimarc, which provide holograms and digital watermarking, respectively; (iv) Product Diversion Tracking Providers. Next-Generation Technology Providers LLC falls into this group, along with several companies such as Applied DNA Sciences, Authentix, DNA Technologies, and Identif, which provide on-product and in-product tagging technologies; (v) Traditional Security Printers. This group includes traditional security printers such as Thomas de la Rue and Portals, whose core products are printing the world’s currencies; and (vi) Biometric Solution Providers. These companies offer biometric authentication capabilities to be integrated with existing mobile device authentication, such as ImageWare Systems.
To compete effectively, we expect that we will need to expend significant resources in technology and marketing. Each of our competitors has substantially greater financial, human and other resources than we have. As a result, we may not have sufficient resources to develop and market our services to the market effectively, if at all.
We expect competition with our products and services to continue and intensify in the future. We believe competition in our principal markets is primarily driven by:
·
product performance, features and liability;
·
price;
·
timing of product introductions;
·
ability to develop, maintain and protect proprietary products and technologies;
·
sales and distribution capabilities;
·
technical support and service;
·
brand loyalty;
·
applications support; and
·
breadth of product line.
If a competitor develops superior technology or cost-effective alternatives to our products, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be significantly harmed.
Major Customers/Vendors
During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, one and three customers accounted for 100.0% of total sales. Generally, a substantial percentage of the Company's sales has been made to a small number of customers and is typically on an open account basis.
During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we purchased 100.0% of our pigment from one vendor.
Facilities
Our principal offices are located at 409 Boot Road, Downingtown, PA 19335.
We believe that our office is suitable and adequate for our current needs but we do anticipate seeking more permanent office.
Employees
As of March 31, 2017, we had one full time employee.
ITEM 1A.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.
RISK FACTORS
Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following Risk Factors before deciding whether to invest in our Company. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial, may also impair our business operations or our financial condition. If any of the events discussed in the Risk Factors below occur, our business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In such case, the value and marketability of the common stock could decline.
Risks Relating to Our Business
Lack of working capital has severely curtailed our operations, and if we cannot complete a financing in the near future, we will be required to cease operations.
Due to lack of working capital, we have reduced our personnel to a single employee and our two executive officers, who serve as consultants, and we are marketing SecureLightTM and Rainbow SecureTM, which are the only products we currently have in inventory and available for sale. We incurred a net loss of $1.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2016. As of April 12, 2017, we expect that we can manage our accounts payable and sustain our scaled operations until April 30, 2017. Because small companies like ours generally face more obstacles in obtaining financing, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in raising additional capital if needed. Aditionally, if we complete a financing it will be very dilutive to shareholders. Further, even if we do raise all or substantially all of the capital we are seeking, it is likely we will need to implement another financing in the future.
Our ability to continue as a going concern is in doubt unless we obtain adequate new debt or equity financing and achieve sufficient sales levels.
As noted above, we have incurred significant net losses to date. We anticipate that we will continue to lose money for the foreseeable future. Additionally, we have negative cash flows from operations. Our continued existence is dependent upon generating sufficient working capital and obtaining adequate new debt or equity financing. Because of our continuing losses, without improvements in our cash flow from operations or new financing, we will have to continue to restrict our expenditures. Working capital limitations have impinged on our day-to-day operations, which contribute to continued operating losses.
If we are unable to reach an agreement with certain holders of our securities, any future financing may be very dilutive.
Holders of our preferred stock and certain warrants issued in February 2016 and November 2016 contain anti-dilution provisions that would apply in the event of any lower-priced financing and which would entitle the holders to additional warrants and additional shares of stock upon conversion of the preferred stock. Although we have an oral agreement with the November investors, we must reach a solution with the February investors that would permit a lower-priced financing with less extensive dilution. However, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in reaching an agreement. If we cannot do so, we cannot remain operational.
Because our management team has experienced turnover in recent periods, it may be difficult to evaluate our existing future prospects and the risk of success or failure of our business.
We have had numerous changes to our board of directors and executive officer roles in recent years. To provide stability and guidance, our founder, Norman Gardner, recently returned to the company and became Chairman and CEO. As a result of the turnover, it may be more difficult to project whether we will be successful in growing our business even if we are able to raise capital.
If we cannot expand our operations, or if we cannot manage our growth effectively, we may not become profitable.
As discussed above, due to limited operating capital, we are presently operating on a minimal scale, and we require immediate financing to expand our operations in order to generate revenue. However, businesses which grow rapidly often have difficulty managing their growth. If we successfully obtain financing, we intend to grow rapidly and we will need to expand our management by recruiting and employing experienced executives and key employees capable of providing the necessary support. We cannot assure you that our management will be able to manage our growth effectively or successfully. Our failure to meet these challenges could cause us to lose money, and your investment could be lost.
Our competitors in the anti-counterfeiting industry have much greater financial resources than we do and more functional technology offerings than we currently have. Therefore, we may not be able to successfully compete with them.
The market for protection from counterfeiting, diversion, theft and forgery is a mature 25-year-old industry dominated by a number of large, well-established companies, as described under “Competition,” above. To compete effectively, we will need to expend significant resources in technology and marketing. Each of our competitors has substantially greater financial, human and other resources than we have. As a result, we may not have sufficient resources to develop and market our services effectively, if at all. Further, as described below, our primary digital technology is not currently fully functional. If we cannot bring this product to functionality, we may not be able to compete in the key digital sector, which will harm our operating results.
If we are unable to hire an experienced sales team, or they are unsuccessful, we may not be able to generally material revenue.
Presently our sales personnel consists of one employee. Our potential customers are large companies which do not impulsively enter into large contracts. Accordingly, a portion of the proceeds we may receive will be used to hire more sales persons and support the sales effort. If we are unable to retain the right sales persons or they are unsuccessful, we may be unable to generate material revenue.
In order to market our digital technology, we need to resolve certain functionality issues but we do not presently have resources to engage in research and development activities.
Our VerifyMe Authenticator technology, described above, does not presently function as intended. Due to our lack of operating capital, we have been unable to invest in the research and development needed to bring this product to full functionality. Further, we cannot guarantee that even with sufficient financial resources we would be able to make this product fully functional, or that if functional, it would appeal to customers. If we cannot make the product function, or if it is not appealing to customers, we will not be able to compete in the digital technology sector, and our business may be unable to generate sufficient revenues to be profitable.
If we fail to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, or if the costs involved in protecting and defending these rights are prohibitively high, our business and operating results may suffer.
We regard the protection of our trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, domain names and other product rights as critical to our success. We strive to protect our intellectual property rights by relying on federal, state and common law rights, as well as contractual restrictions. We may enter into confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our employees and contractors and confidentiality agreements with parties with whom we conduct business in order to limit access to, and disclosure and use of, our proprietary information. However, these contractual arrangements and the other steps we have taken to protect our intellectual property may not prevent the misappropriation of our proprietary information or deter independent development of similar technologies by others.
As management deems appropriate, we will pursue the registration of our domain names, trademarks, and service marks in the United States and in certain locations outside the United States as we grow and launch our products. We will seek to protect our trademarks, patents and domain names in an increasing number of jurisdictions, a process that is expensive and time-consuming and may not be successful or which we may not pursue in every location. We may, over time, increase our investment in protecting our innovations through increased patent filings that are expensive and time-consuming and may not result in issued patents that can be effectively enforced. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the Leahy-Smith Act”) was adopted in September 2011. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. One of the key provisions of this law, changing the U.S. patent registry from a “first to invent” to a “first inventor to file” system, has only been effective since March 2013, and the effects of this change on small businesses like ours are not yet clear. It is remains possible that the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation will increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents, all of which could harm our business.
If we are required to sue third parties who we allege are violating our intellectual property rights, or if we are sued for violating a third party’s patents or other intellectual property rights, we may incur substantial expenses, and we could incur substantial damages, including amounts we cannot afford to pay.
Litigation may be necessary to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets or determine the validity and scope of proprietary rights claimed by others. Patent and intellectual property litigation is extremely expensive and beyond our ability to pay. While third parties do, under certain circumstances, finance litigation for companies that file suit, we cannot assure you we could find a third party to finance any claim we choose to pursue. Moreover, third parties do not finance companies that are sued. Any litigation of this nature, regardless of outcome or merit, could result in substantial costs, adverse publicity or diversion of management and technical resources, any of which could adversely affect our business and operating results. If we fail to maintain, protect and enhance our intellectual property rights, our business and operating results may be harmed.
From time to time, we may face allegations that we have infringed the trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties, including from our competitors and inactive entities. Patent and other intellectual property litigation may be protracted and expensive, and the results are difficult to predict. As the result of any court judgment or settlement we may be obligated to cancel the launch of a new feature or product, stop offering certain features or products, pay royalties or significant settlement costs, purchase licenses or modify our products and features while we develop substitutes.
Evolving regulations concerning data privacy may result in increased regulation and different industry standards, which could prevent us from providing our current products to our users, or require us to modify our products, thereby harming our business.
The regulatory framework for privacy issues worldwide is currently in flux and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Practices regarding the collection, use, storage, transmission and security of personal information by companies operating over the Internet and mobile platforms have recently come under increased public scrutiny, and civil claims alleging liability for the breach of data privacy have been asserted against companies like ours. The U.S. government, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce, has announced that it is reviewing the need for greater regulation for the collection of information concerning consumer behavior on the Internet, including regulation aimed at restricting certain targeted advertising practices. In addition, the European Union is in the process of proposing reforms to its existing data protection legal framework, which may result in a greater compliance burden for companies with users in Europe. Various government and consumer agencies have also called for new regulation and changes in industry practices. In addition, our business could be adversely affected if laws or regulations are adopted, interpreted, or implemented in a manner that is inconsistent with our current business practices and that require changes to these practices, the design of our website, products, features or our privacy policy. In particular, the success of our business will be driven by our ability to responsibly use the data that our users share with us. Therefore, our business could be harmed by any significant change to applicable laws, regulations or industry practices regarding the use or disclosure of data our users choose to share with us, or regarding the manner in which the express or implied consent of users for such use and disclosure is obtained. Such changes may require us to modify our products and features, possibly in a material manner, and may limit our ability to develop new products and features that make use of the data that our users voluntarily share with us.
Because we will process and store some of the personal information of our users, including credit card and other payment information, we are potentially vulnerable to security breaches resulting in the theft of confidential information, which would adversely affect our business.
Once we re-launch our digital technology operations, we will receive, store and process personal information and other user data, and we enable our users to share their personal information with each other and with third parties, including on the Internet and mobile platforms. There are numerous federal, state and local laws around the world regarding privacy and the storing, sharing, use, processing, disclosure and protection of personal information and other user data on the Internet and mobile platforms, the scope of which are changing, subject to differing interpretations, and may be inconsistent between countries or conflict with other rules. Compliance with these rules may be costly. Further, while we will take steps to protect our users’ confidential information from misuse and theft, we cannot guarantee that our electronic systems for storing and processing personal and credit card information will not be vulnerable to security breaches. Our own errors in the storage, use or transmission of personal information could also result in a breach of user privacy. If our users’ confidential information is stolen or inadvertently disseminated, we may become subject to lawsuits or other proceedings for purportedly fraudulent transactions or invasions of privacy. In addition, we could face in liability under state and federal privacy statutes and legal or administrative actions by state attorneys general, private litigants, and federal regulators. Any such claim or proceeding, or any adverse publicity resulting from these allegations, may harm our reputation, discourage users and potential users, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Because we are, and will continue to be, dependent on certain third party vendors for key services, we are vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of these services which are beyond our control, and which could harm our operations.
The Company currently depends on a single vendor of pigment for the inks we sell, and we may continue to be dependent on a small number of third party suppliers in the future, including servicers relating to our electronic technology. We cannot be certain that any of these providers will be willing and able to provide these services in an efficient and cost-effective manner or that they will be willing or able to meet our evolving needs. If our potential vendors or service providers fail to meet their obligations, provide poor, inaccurate or untimely service, or we are unable to make alternative arrangements for the supply of these services, we may fail, in turn, to provide our services or to meet our obligations to our users and our business, financial condition and our operating results could be materially harmed.
Risks Relating to Our Common Stock
Because our common stock is subject to the “penny stock” rules, brokers cannot generally solicit the purchase of our common stock, which adversely affects its liquidity and market price.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has adopted regulations which generally define “penny stock” to be an equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to specific exemptions. The market price of our common stock on the OTCQB is presently less than $5.00 per share and therefore we are considered a “penny stock” according to SEC rules. Further, we do not expect our stock price to rise above $5.00 in the immediate future. The “penny stock” designation requires any broker-dealer selling these securities to disclose certain information concerning the transaction, obtain a written agreement from the purchaser and determine that the purchaser is reasonably suitable to purchase the securities. These rules limit the ability of broker-dealers to solicit purchases of our common stock and therefore reduce the liquidity of the public market for our shares.
Moreover, as a result of apparent regulatory pressure from the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a growing number of broker-dealers decline to permit investors to purchase and sell or otherwise make it difficult to sell shares of penny stocks. The “penny stock” designation may continue to have a depressive effect upon our common stock price.
If one of the beneficial owners of our warrants were to exercise his warrants, he would gain control of our company and might be able to exert control over us to the detriment of minority shareholders.
As detailed under Item 12, below, Mr. Laurence J. Blickman, through an affiliated trust and defined benefit plan, holds a number of warrants to purchase common stock which, if exercised, would make him the beneficial owner of over 42% of our outstanding common stock. These warrants are not presently in the money, and we are not aware of any intention by Mr. Blickman to exercise these warrants or exert control over our management. Further, Mr. Blickman has historically been very supportive of our Company. However, investors should be aware that Mr. Blickman, if he did choose to exercise his warrants, would be able to control our management and affairs and all matters requiring shareholder approval, including significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing our change in control and might affect the market price of our common stock. For more information see Item 12, below.
If our common stock becomes subject to a “chill” imposed by the Depository Trust Company, or DTC, your ability to sell your shares may be limited.
The DTC acts as a depository or nominee for street name shares that investors deposit with their brokers. DTC in the last several years has increasingly imposed a chill or freeze on the deposit, withdrawal and transfer of common stock of issuers whose common stock trades on the tiers of the OTC Markets. Depending on the type of restriction, a chill or freeze can prevent shareholders from buying or selling shares and prevent companies from raising money. A chill or freeze may remain imposed on a security for a few days or an extended period of time (in at least one instance a number of years). While we have no reason to believe a chill or freeze will be imposed against our common stock again in the future, if it were your ability to sell your shares would be limited. In such event, your investment will be adversely affected.
Because we may issue preferred stock without the approval of our shareholders and have other anti-takeover defenses, it may be more difficult for a third party to acquire us and could depress our stock price.
In general, our Board may issue, without a vote of our shareholders, one or more additional series of preferred stock that have more than one vote per share, although the Company’s ability to designate and issue preferred stock is currently restricted by covenants under our agreements with prior investors. Without these restrictions, our Board could issue preferred stock to investors who support us and our management and give effective control of our business to our management. Additionally, issuance of preferred stock could block an acquisition resulting in both a drop in our stock price and a decline in interest of our common stock. This could make it more difficult for shareholders to sell their common stock. This could also cause the market price of our common stock shares to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.
Because we cannot raise capital from conventional bank financing, shareholders will be diluted in the future as a result of the issuance of additional securities.
To meet our working capital needs, we expect to issue additional shares of common stock or securities convertible, exchangeable or exercisable into common stock from time to time, which could result in substantial dilution to investors. Investors should anticipate being substantially diluted based upon the current condition of the capital and credit markets and their impact on small companies.
Because we may not be able to attract the attention of major brokerage firms, it could have a material impact upon the price of our common stock.
It is not likely that securities analysts of major brokerage firms will provide research coverage for our common stock since these firms cannot recommend the purchase of our common stock under the penny stock rules referenced in an earlier risk factor. The absence of such coverage limits the likelihood that an active market will develop for our common stock. It may also make it more difficult for us to attract new investors at times when we require additional capital.
Since we intend to retain any earnings for development of our business for the foreseeable future, you will likely not receive any dividends for the foreseeable future.
We have not paid dividends in the past and do not intend to pay any dividends in the foreseeable future, as we intend to retain any earnings for development and expansion of our business operations. As a result, you will not receive any dividends on your investment for an indefinite period of time.
ITEM 1B.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.
None.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.
Our principal offices are currently located at 409 Boot Road, Downingtown, PA 19335.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
None.
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.
Not applicable.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.
Our common stock is quoted on the OTCQB under the trading symbol “VRME”. The following table sets forth the range of high and low bid prices of our common stock for the periods indicated as reported by the OTCQB, Inc. Until recently, there was only sporadic and intermittent trading activity of our common stock. The quoted prices represent only prices between dealers on each trading day as submitted from time to time by certain of the securities dealers wishing to trade in our common stock, do not reflect retail mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions, and may differ substantially from prices in actual transactions.
Common Stockholders
As of March 31, 2017, our shares of common stock were held by approximately 1,326 stockholders of record.
Dividend Policy
We have never declared or paid a cash dividend. At this time, we do not anticipate paying dividends in the foreseeable future. The declaration and payment of dividends is subject to the discretion of our board of directors (the “Board”) and will depend upon our earnings (if any), our financial condition, and our capital requirements.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
On October 24, 2016, the Company issued to certain accredited investors 166,750 shares of 0% Series D Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Series D”) at a purchase price of $0.40 per share with gross proceeds to the Company of $66,700. In connection with the sale of the Series D, the Company issued to the purchasers warrants to purchase in the aggregate 667,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share. Each share of Series D is convertible into one share of common stock, subject to adjustment for lower priced issuances.
The foregoing issuances of the securities were exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of Section 4(a)(2) and Rule 506 as transactions not involving a public offering.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.
Not applicable.
ITEM 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.
This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation and other parts of this Annual Report on Form 10-K contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. All forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based on information available to us on the date hereof, and except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. The following should be read in conjunction with our annual financial statements contained elsewhere in this report.
Overview
VerifyMe is a technology pioneer in the anti-counterfeiting industry. This broad market encompasses counterfeiting of physical and material goods and products, as well as counterfeiting of identity in digital transactions. We can deliver security solutions for identification and authentication of people, products and packaging in a variety of applications in the security field for both digital and physical transactions. Our products can be used to manage and issue secure credentials, including national identifications, passports, driver licenses and access control credentials, as well as comprehensive authentication security software to secure physical and logical access to facilities, computer networks, internet sites and mobile applications.
The challenges associated with digital access control and identity theft are problems that are highly relevant in the world today. Consumers, citizens, employees, governments and employers demand comprehensive solutions that are reliable but not intrusive. The current widespread use of passwords or PINs for authentication has been proven insecure and inadequate. Individuals increasingly expect anywhere-anytime experiences-whether they are making purchases, crossing borders, accessing services or logging into online accounts or corporate resources. They expect those experiences to ensure the protection of their privacy and to provide uncompromising confidentiality.
We believe that the digital technologies we own will enable businesses and consumers to reconstruct their overall approaches to security-from identity and authentication to the management of legacy passwords and PINs. We empower our customers to take advantage of the full capabilities of smart mobile devices and provide solutions that are both simple to use and deliver the highest level of security. These solutions can be applied to corporate networks, financial services, e-gov services, digital wallets, mobile payments, entertainment, subscription services, and social media.
Brand owners, government agencies, professional associations, and others all share in the challenge of responding to counterfeit goods and product protection issues. Counterfeit goods span across multiple industries including from currency, passports, ID cards, pharmaceuticals, apparel, accessories, music, software, food, beverages, tobacco, automobile and airplane parts, consumer goods, toys and electronics. Described by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation as the crime of the twenty-first century, product counterfeiting accounts for an estimated 2.5% of global trade or $461 billion and wreaks dire global health, safety and economic consequences on individuals, corporations, government and society.
We believe that the physical technologies we own will enable businesses and consumers to reconstruct their overall approaches to security-from counterfeit identification to employee or customer monitoring. Potential applications of our technologies are available in different types of products and industries-e.g., gaming, apparel, tobacco, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, event and transportation tickets, driver’s licenses, insurance cards, passports, computer software, and credit cards. We generate sales through licenses of our technology or through direct sales of our technology.
Our physical technologies involve the utilization of invisible and/or color shifting/changing inks, which are compatible with today’s printing machines. The inks may be used with certain printing systems such as offset, flexographic, silkscreen, gravure, and laser. Based upon our experience, we believe that the ink technologies may be incorporated into existing manufacturing processes. We believe that some of our patents may have non-security applications, and we are attempting to commercialize these opportunities.
Our digital technologies involve the utilization of multiple authentication mechanisms, some of which we own and some of which we license. These mechanisms include biometric factors, knowledge factors, possession factors and location factors. Biometric factors include facial recognition with liveness detection, finger print and voice recognition. Knowledge factors include a personal gesture swipe and a safe and [panic] color choice. Possession factor includes devices that the user has in their possession such as a smartphone, smart watch, and other wearable computing devices. The location factor geo-locates the user during a secure login. We surround these authentication mechanisms with proprietary systems that improve the usability and the security of the solutions. Our solutions allow the assessment and quantification of risk using a sophisticated heuristic scoring mechanism. We have specialized systems that perform ‘liveness’ detection to insure the subject of authentication is in fact a live human being. We have systems that introduce learning capabilities into our solutions to improve the ease of use and flexibility.
Results of Operations
Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015
The following discussion analyzes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. The following information should be considered together with our financial statements for such periods and the accompanying notes thereto.
Revenue/Net Loss
We have not generated significant revenue since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we generated revenues of $37,055 and $217,268. Our net loss was $1,646,255 for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $655,630 from a net loss of $2,301,885 for the year ended December 31, 2015, primarily as a result of cost conservation measures, which included reducing the number of employees and salary reductions.
Cost of Sales
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we incurred proprietary technology costs of sales of $24,363 and $65,723. Cost of sales was lower for the year end December 31, 2016, since we had lower sales volumes.
General and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses were $1,010,648 for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to $449,483 for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $561,165. The increase is attributable primarily to increased consulting expenses of approximately $762,000, including non-cash option and warrant expense of approximately $606,000, offset by approximate decreases in bad debt expense of $62,000, depreciation of $67,000, SEC filing fees of $32,000, rent expense of $43,000 and website expenses of $41,000.
Legal and Accounting
Legal and accounting fees decreased $44,769 to $414,032 for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $458,801 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease in legal and accounting fees related to cost containment measures implemented in the last quarter of 2016.
Payroll Expenses
Payroll expenses decreased to $1,789,303 for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $1,875,488 for the year ended December 31, 2015, a decrease of $86,185. The majority of the decrease was the result of reduced sales and marketing payroll expenses during the year ended December 31, 2016.
Research and Development
Research and development expenses decreased $2,162,653 to $250,180 for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $2,412,833 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease in research and development expenses was due to license fees related to the Patent and Technology License Agreement which were $2,000,000 in 2015 and did not reoccur in 2016.
Sales and Marketing
Sales and marketing expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $282,867 as compared to $197,430 for the year ended December 31, 2015, an increase of $85,437. The increase was related to deferred compensation costs for consultants hired at the end of 2015, for which the expense was incurred primarily in 2016.
Interest Expense
During the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred interest expense of $12,871, as compared to $61,438 for the year ended December 31, 2015, a decrease of $48,567. The decrease in interest expense relates to the conversion of notes payable and accrued interest into common stock as part of the restructuring transaction in June 2015.
Gain (Loss) on Extinguishment of Debt
The gain from extinguishment of debt was $0 for the year ended December 31, 2016 and $332,523 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The gain on extinguishment of debt was a result of the excess fair value of the notes payable and accrued interest over the value of the common stock issued, and accrued interest thereon, that were part of the restructuring transaction in June 2015.
Change in Fair Value of Warrants
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company benefitted from the change in the fair value of warrants in the amount of $3,357,149 as compared to $2,669,520 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The change resulted from the re-valuation of warrants associated with the Investment Agreement entered into on December 31, 2012, the Subscription Agreement entered into on January 31, 2013, the notes payable issued during 2014 and warrants issued in February and October of 2016. The value of the warrant liability has decreased because the value of the Company’s stock has decreased during 2016.
Change in Fair Value Embedded Derivative Liability
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company benefitted from the change in fair value of the embedded derivative liability in the amount of $698,303 as compared to $0 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease in the fair value of the embedded derivative liability was due to the decrease in the price of the Company’s common stock from the dates of the Subcription Agreements, February 2016 and October 2016, to December 31, 2016.
Fair Value of Warrants in Excess of Consideration for Convertible Preferred Stock
During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company issued warrants with convertible preferred stock. The fair value of the warrants were in excess of consideration for the convertible stock and resulted in a loss of $1,949,517. No such transaction occurred during the ended December 31, 2015.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Net cash used in operating activities increased $1,344,708 to $1,344,708 for the year ended December 31, 2016 as compared to $1,495,315 for the year ended December 31, 2015. The decrease resulted primarily from operational changes discussed previously.
Net cash used in investing activities was $0 for the year ended December 31, 2016, materially unchanged from $2,532 for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Net cash provided by financing activities increased by $74,843 to $1,363,200 for the year ended December 31, 2016 from $1,438,043 for the year ended December 31, 2015. Cash provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2016, consisted primarily of our Series C and Series D Preferred Stock offerings which raised $1,284,200 and bridge loans of $79,000. Financings during the year ended December 31, 2015 related to our Series A Preferred Stock offering.
Since our inception, we have focused on developing and implementing our business plan. Our business plans are dependent on our ability to raise capital through private placements of our common stock and/or preferred stock, through the possible exercise of outstanding options and warrants, through debt financing and/or through future public offering of our securities.
As of April 12, 2017 we had cash resources of approximately $11,000. Our existing cash resources are not sufficient to sustain our operations during the next twelve months, and we may need to raise additional funds in the future. To supply immediate working capital, we are seeking to raise a minimum of $600,000 and a maximum of $1.75 million from the sale of units of common stock and warrants. In order to do so, we must obtain concessions from the purchasers in our Series C Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series C”) offering as well as the Series D investor and our lender must convert its outstanding notes into common stock. While we have oral agreements with the holders of our Series D and notes, we are uncertain if the Series C investors will agree to the concessions. If we are unsuccessful in obtaining the concessions and raising capital, we will cease operations.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As of December 31, 2016, we did not have any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partners, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. As such, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in such relationships.
Critical Accounting Policies
Our financial statements are impacted by the accounting policies used and the estimates and assumptions made by management during their preparation. A complete summary of these policies is included in note 1 of the notes to our financial statements included elsewhere herein. We have identified below the accounting policies that are of particular importance in the presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows and which require the application of significant judgment by management.
Stock-based Compensation
We account for stock-based compensation under the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”), which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors based on estimated fair values on the grant date. We estimate the fair value of stock-based awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods using the straight-line method.
We account for stock-based compensation awards to non-employees in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 505-50, Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees (“ASC 505-50”). Under ASC 505-50, we determine the fair value of the warrants or stock-based compensation awards granted as either the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measurable.
All issuances of stock options or other equity instruments to non-employees as consideration for goods or services received by the Company are accounted for based on the fair value of the equity instruments issued. Any stock options issued to non-employees are recorded as an expense and additional paid-in capital in stockholders’ equity over the applicable service periods using variable accounting through the vesting dates based on the fair value of the options at the end of each period.
Revenue Recognition
In accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition (Codified in FASB ASC 605), we recognize revenue when (i) persuasive evidence of a customer or distributor arrangement exists, (ii) a retailer, distributor or wholesaler receives the goods and acceptance occurs, (iii) the price is fixed or determinable, and (iv) collectability of the sales revenues is reasonably assured. Subject to these criteria, the Company recognizes revenue from product sales, consisting mainly of pigments and penlights, upon shipment to the customer. Royalty revenue is recognized upon receipt of notification from a customer that the Company’s product has been used in the customer’s production process.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
Recently issued accounting pronouncements are discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements contained elsewhere in this report.
ITEM 7A.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.
Not required.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.
The financial statements required to be filed pursuant to this Item 8 are appended to this report beginning on page located immediately after the signature page.
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
None.
ITEM 9A.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Our management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016 using criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Our management has concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were not effective as of December 31, 2016. Management’s conclusion was based on a lack of segregation of duties resulting from staff reductions in accordance with cost containment measures. If we are able to obtain additional funding in the future, we intend to hire sufficient staff to enable an appropriate level of segregation of duties and to provide appropriate controls surrounding the financial reporting function.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of our registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by our registered public accounting firm pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which permits us to provide only management’s report in this annual report.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
As of December 31, 2016, our management carried out the evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures required by Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2016, our disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective to ensure that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is: (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during our fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 9B.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION.
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
The current members of our board of directors and executive officers of the Company are as follows:
*
Appointed Chairman effective December 10, 2016 and Chief Executive Officer effective January 31, 2017
**
Appointed as Director by VerifyMe, Inc. (a Texas Corporation)
Board of Directors
We believe that our board of directors should be composed of individuals with sophistication and experience in many substantive areas that impact our business. We believe that experience, qualifications, or skills in the following areas are most important: security industry experience, accounting and finance; strategic planning; human resources and development practices; and board practices of other corporations. These areas are in addition to the personal qualifications described in this section. We believe that all of our current board members possess the professional and personal qualifications necessary for board service, and have highlighted particularly noteworthy attributes for each board member in the individual biographies below. The principal occupation and business experience, for at least the past five years, of each current director is as follows:
NORMAN A. GARDNER
Mr. Gardner was appointed Chief Executive Officer on January 31, 2017. He became Chairman of the Board on December 10, 2016 and has been a consultant to the Company since 2013. Mr. Gardner was the developer of our core technologies.
Mr. Gardner’s experience leading the Company in the past and his familiarity with the Company’s technology strengthens the Board’s collective qualifications, skills and experience.
CLAUDIO R. BALLARD
Claudio R. Ballard has served as a director on our board of directors since March 30, 2013. He currently serves as the Chairman, Founder and one of the Managing Members of VEEDIMS, where he has served since April 2011.
Mr. Ballard’s knowledge of the digital technology strengthens the Board’s collective qualifications, skills and experience.
LAWRENCE G. SCHAFRAN
Lawrence G. Schafran has served as a director on our board of directors since September 30, 2015. Since 2006, Mr. Schafran has served as a director, chairman of the audit committee and member of the compensation committee of Wright Investors’ Service Holdings, Inc., a provider of investment and financial services. Mr. Schafran was previously a director, audit committee chairman and member of the compensation committee of SecureAlert, Inc., now Track Group, Inc. a manufacturer and distributor of tracking systems, from 2006 to 2013.
Mr. Schafran’s experience in finance and with public company boards strengthens the Board’s collective qualifications, skills and experience.
JONATHAN WEINBERGER
Jonathan R. Weinberger has served as a director on our board of directors since November 21, 2012. He has been Vice President of Innovation and Technology at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, based in Washington D.C. since September 2015. The Alliance is the leading advocacy group for the auto industry and represents 77% of all car and light truck sales in the United States. He previously served as President and Executive Vice President Veedims, LLC, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from 2012 to 2015. He also acted as a senior advisor to the owners of the private holding company that owns Veedims. He held a variety of important jobs in the White House with his most recent position from 2008 - 2012 being Executive Secretary and Associate General Counsel in the office of the United States Trade Representative.
As a result of these and other professional experiences, Mr. Weinberger possesses particular knowledge and experience in information technology that strengthen the board’s collective qualifications, skills and experience.
SCOTT MCPHERSON
Scott McPherson has served as our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of VerifyMe, Inc. since December 1, 2014. Mr. McPherson previously served as our Chief Financial Officer from December 2012 to October 2013. Mr. McPherson is currently the CFO of Virtual Piggy, Inc. Mr. McPherson also served as CFO of Cannlabs from April 2014 to June 2015. He also served as Chief Executive Officer of Cannlabs from April 2015 to June 2015. Prior to his tenure with us, from August 2012 through November 2012, Mr. McPherson served as the CFO of Virtual Piggy, Inc., from August 2012 through November 2012. In January 2005, Mr. McPherson formed McPherson, CPA, PLLC in January 2005, which he continues to manage today. The firm performs accounting and tax services for numerous clients in various industries. The firm also performs in addition to providing litigation support services, primarily involving for clients involved in class action lawsuits and other lawsuits involving accounting malpractice or manipulation.
Composition of our Board of Directors
Our board of directors currently consists of four members, three of whom are non-employee directors. Our directors hold office until their successors have been elected and qualified or until the earlier of their death, resignation or removal. There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.
Board Diversity
Our nominating and governance committee is responsible for reviewing with the board of directors, on an annual basis, the appropriate characteristics, skills and experience required for the board of directors as a whole and has individual members. In evaluating the suitability of individual candidates (both new candidates and current members), the nominating and corporate governance committee, in recommending candidates for election, and the board of directors, in approving (and, in the case of vacancies, appointing) such candidates, takes into account many factors, including the following:
•
diversity of personal and professional background, perspective, experience, age, gender, ethnicity and country of citizenship;
•
personal and professional integrity and ethical values;
•
experience in one or more fields of business, professional, governmental, scientific or educational endeavors, and a general appreciation of major issues facing public companies similar in scope and size to us;
•
experience relevant to our industry or with relevant social policy concerns;
•
relevant academic expertise or other proficiency in an area of our operations;
•
objective and mature business judgment and expertise; and
•
any other relevant qualifications, attributes or skills.
Committees of the Board of Directors
Our board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance committee. Each committee operates under a charter approved by our board of directors. The composition and function of each of these committees are described below.
Audit Committee. Our audit committee is comprised of Lawrence Schafran, Jonathan Weinberger, and Claudio Ballard. Mr. Schafran is the chairperson of the committee. Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Schafran is an audit committee financial expert, as defined by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and satisfies the financial sophistication requirements of applicable NASDAQ rules.
Our board of directors has determined that each of the audit committee members other than Claudio Ballard is an independent director under the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules and Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act.
Our audit committee is authorized to:
•
approve and retain the independent auditors to conduct the annual audit of our financial statements;
•
review the proposed scope and results of the audit;
•
review and pre-approve audit and non-audit fees and services;
•
review accounting and financial controls with the independent auditors and our financial and accounting staff;
•
review and approve transactions between us and our directors, officers and affiliates;
•
recognize and prevent prohibited non-audit services;
•
establish procedures for complaints received by us regarding accounting matters;
•
oversee internal audit functions, if any; and
•
prepare the report of the audit committee that the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission require to be included in our annual meeting proxy statement.
Compensation Committee. Our compensation committee is comprised of Claudio Ballard, Lawrence Schafran and Jonathan Weinberger. Mr. Ballard is the chairman of the compensation committee. Our compensation committee is authorized to:
•
review and recommend the compensation arrangements for management, including the compensation for our president and chief executive officer;
•
establish and review general compensation policies with the objective to attract and retain superior talent, to reward individual performance and to achieve our financial goals;
•
administer our stock incentive plans; and
•
prepare the report of the compensation committee that the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission require to be included in our annual meeting proxy statement.
Nominating and Governance Committee. Our nominating and governance committee is comprised of Jonathan Weinberger, Claudio Ballard and Lawrence Schafran. Mr. Weinberger is the chairman of the nominating and governance committee. Our nominating and governance committee is authorized to:
•
identify and nominate members of the board of directors;
•
develop and recommend to the board of directors a set of corporate governance principles applicable to our company; and
•
oversee the evaluation of our board of directors.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that will apply to all of our employees, officers and directors, including those officers responsible for financial reporting. The code of business conduct and ethics is available on our website at http://www.verifyme.com. We expect that any amendments to the code, or any waivers of its requirements, will be disclosed on our website.
Board Leadership Structure and Board’s Role in Risk Oversight
Our amended and restated by-laws and corporate governance guidelines do not require that our chairman and chief executive officer positions be separate. Our board of directors believes that having a single person in both positions is the appropriate leadership structure for us at this time.
Risk is inherent with every business, and how well a business manages risk can ultimately determine its success. We face a number of risks, including risks relating to product candidate development, technological uncertainty, dependence on collaborative partners and other third parties, uncertainty regarding patents and proprietary rights, comprehensive government regulations, having no commercial manufacturing experience, marketing or sales capability or experience and dependence on key personnel. Management is responsible for the day-to-day management of risks we face, while our board of directors, as a whole and through its committees, has responsibility for the oversight of risk management. In its risk oversight role, our board of directors has the responsibility to satisfy itself that the risk management processes designed and implemented by management are adequate and functioning as designed.
Our board of directors is actively involved in oversight of risks that could affect us. This oversight is conducted primarily through committees of the board of directors, but the full board of directors has retained responsibility for general oversight of risks. Our board of directors satisfies this responsibility through full reports by each committee chair regarding the committee’s considerations and actions, as well as through regular reports directly from officers responsible for oversight of particular risks within our company as our board of directors believes that full and open communication between management and the board of directors is essential for effective risk management and oversight.
Limitation of Directors’ and Officers’ Liability and Indemnification
The corporate laws of the state of Nevada authorize corporations to limit or eliminate, subject to specified conditions, the personal liability of directors to corporations and their stockholders for monetary damages for breach of their fiduciary duties. Our amended and restated articles of incorporation limit the liability of our directors to the fullest extent permitted by Nevada law.
We have obtained director and officer liability insurance to cover liabilities our directors and officers may incur in connection with their services to us. Our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws also provide that we will indemnify and advance expenses to any of our directors and officers who, by reason of the fact that he or she is one of our officers or directors, is involved in a legal proceeding of any nature. We will repay certain expenses incurred by a director or officer in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative or investigative action or proceeding, including actions by us or in our name. Such indemnifiable expenses include, to the maximum extent permitted by law, attorney’s fees, judgments, fines, ERISA excise taxes, penalties, settlement amounts and other expenses reasonably incurred in connection with legal proceedings. A director or officer will not receive indemnification if he or she is found not to have acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to, our best interest.
The Company has entered into separate agreements with its directors and officers. Pursuant to such agreements, the Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless each director to the fullest extent of the law of the State of Nevada and in accordance with the Company’s amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws. Such indemnification applies to any actions taken in the director’s official capacity as a director, as well as those actions that relate to the Company’s business while the director holds office. Such indemnification does not apply to matters arising out of the director’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The Company’s indemnification of its directors covers payment for or reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees and expenses. Additionally, the company agrees to maintain directors’ and officers’ insurance throughout the terms of such agreements and for a period of six years thereafter. We believe that these provisions and agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as directors and officers.
Such limitation of liability and indemnification does not affect the availability of equitable remedies. In addition, we have been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.
There is no pending litigation or proceeding involving any of our directors, officers, employees or agents in which indemnification will be required or permitted. We are not aware of any threatened litigation or proceeding that may result in a claim for such indemnification.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires that our officers and directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our common stock file initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in beneficial ownership of our common stock with the SEC. They are also required to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms that they file with the SEC. Based solely on our review of the copies of such forms received by us, or written representations from such persons that no reports were required for those persons, we believe that all Section 16(a) filing requirements were satisfied in a timely fashion during our fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, except for the late filings or failures to file by Norman Gardner, Scott McPherson, Ben Burrell, Sandy Fliderman, Claudio Ballard, Jonathan Weinberger, and Lawrence Schafran set forth below:
With respect to Norman Gardner, he failed to file his Form 3 upon his appointment as a director of the Company in December 2016, and his Form 4 upon his receipt of which included his receipt of 165,000 options at an exercise price of $0.11 per share and 250,000 options at an exercise price of $0.25 per share in December 2016.
With respect to Scott McPherson, he failed to file a Form 4 upon his receipt of 300,000 options at an exercise price of $0.11 per share, and 250,000 options at an exercise price of $0.25 per share in December 2016.
With respect to Jonathan Weinberger, he failed to file a Form 4 upon his receipt of 175,000 options at an exercise price of $0.11 per share, and 250,000 options at an exercise price of $0.25 per share in December 2016.
With respect to Claudio Ballard, he failed to file a Form 4 upon his receipt of 75,000 options at an exercise price of $0.11 per share, and 250,000 options at an exercise price of $0.25 per share in December 2016.
With respect to Lawrence Schafran, he failed to file a Form 4 upon his receipt of 75,000 options at an exercise price of $0.11 per share, and 250,000 options at an exercise price of $0.25 per share in December 2016.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth the compensation earned by the Company’s principal executive officer and named executive officers during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
(1)
Represents the grant date fair value of the option award, calculated in accordance with FASB Accounting Standard Codification 718, “Compensation - Stock Compensation,” or ASC 718. The assumptions used in calculating the grant date fair value of the option awards are set forth in Note 13 of our Financial Statements.
(a)
- Mr. Gardner was appointed Chairman on December 10, 2016.
(b)
- Mr. Nicolette was appointed Chief Executive Officer on May 1, 2016.
As of December 31, 2016, the named executive officer had accrued the following:
*
$18,750
As of December 31, 2015, the named executive officer had accrued the following:
**
$4,167
Outstanding Equity Awards At December 31, 2016
The following table sets forth, for each named executive officer had no outstanding equity awards as of the end of our fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Director Compensation
(1)
Represents the grant date fair value of the option award, calculated in accordance with FASB Accounting Standard Codification 718, “Compensation - Stock Compensation,” or ASC 718. The assumptions used in calculating the grant date fair value of the option awards are set forth in Note 13 of our Consolidated Financial Statements.
(2)
Paul Donfried who was a director in 2016 is not included in this table as he was an employee director who did not receive additional compensation for his service as a director.
Narrative Disclosure to Directors Compensation Table
We only paid a fee to the then Chairman of the Board, Michael Madon during 2016 and nothing in 2015. Each member of our board of directors receives reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with his or her services as a member of our board or board committees.
Our non-employee directors are eligible to receive options, restricted stock and other equity linked grants under our options plans.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS, MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTORS
Security Ownership
The following table sets forth, as of March 28, 2017, information with respect to the securities holdings of all persons that we have reason to believe, pursuant to filings with the SEC, may be deemed the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock. The following table also sets forth, as of such date, the beneficial ownership of our common stock by all executive officers and directors, individually and as a group.
The beneficial owners and amount of securities beneficially owned have been determined in accordance with Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act and, in accordance therewith, includes all shares of our common stock that may be acquired by such beneficial owners within 60 days of filing of this Form 10-K upon the exercise or conversion of any options, warrants or other convertible securities. Unless otherwise indicated, each person or entity named below has sole voting and investment power with respect to all common stock beneficially owned by that person or entity, subject to the matters set forth in the footnotes to the table below, and has an address of c/o VerifyMe, Inc., 409 Boot Road, Downingtown, PA 19335.
*
Less than 1 percent
+
In accordance with SEC rules, options, warrants and other securities exercisable for or convertible into shares of our common stock that were exercisable as of March 28, 2017, or would become exercisable within 60 days thereafter, are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding such options, warrants or other securities for the purpose of computing such person’s percentage ownership, but are not deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person.This table has been prepared based on 8,590,696 shares of our common stock outstanding on March 28, 2017.
(1)
Consists of 600,831 shares of common stock and 134,089 shares owned by PFK Acquisition Group II LLC, which is under common control and 3,700,000 shares of common stock owned by Paul F. Klapper underlying warrants exercisable at $0.40 per share.
(2)
Consists of 3,529 shares of common stock underlying warrants exercisable at $4.25; 50,000 shares of common stock held by the Blickman 2005 Family Trust; 1,250,000 shares, underlying warrants exercisable at $0.40 per share held by the Laurence J. Blickman ’91 Trust; and 5 million shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.40 per share held by the Laurence J. Blickman Defined Benefit Plan. The beneficial ownership table does not include shares underlying warrants that are subject to 4.99% blockers. The Company has no knowledge as to whether Mr. Blickman is disclaiming beneficial ownership relative to any of the disclosed beneficial ownership shares above.
(3)
Includes 21,691 shares of common stock, 165,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.11 per share and 250,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.25 per share.
(4)
Includes 75,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.11 per share and 250,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.25 per share.
(5)
Includes 175,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.11 per share and 250,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.25 per share.
(6)
Includes 75,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.11 per share and 250,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.25 per share..
(7)
Includes 20,000 shares of common stock, 300,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.11 per share and 250,000 shares of common stock underlying options exercisable at $0.25 per share.
Transfer Agent
Our Transfer Agent is Interwest Transfer Company, Inc. and their address and phone number are 1981 Murray Holladay Road, #100, Salt Lake City, UT 84117; (801) 272-9294.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides certain information with respect to all of our equity compensation plans in effect as of the date of this filing.
2003 and 2013 Stock Option Plans
We adopted our 2003 Stock Option Plan as of December 17, 2003 (the “2003 Plan”). Awards were available to be made under the 2003 Plan for up to 18,000,000 shares of our common stock in the form of stock options or deferred stock awards. Awards were available to be made to our employees, officers or directors as well as our consultants or advisors. The Plan is administered by our board of directors which has full and final authority to interpret the Plan, select the persons to whom awards may be granted, and determine the amount, vesting and all other terms of any awards.
During 2013, our Board adopted, and our shareholders approved, a new comprehensive incentive compensation plan (the “2013 Plan”, and together with the 2003 Plan, the “Plans”) which serves as the successor incentive compensation plan to the 2003 Plan, and provides the Company with an omnibus plan to design and structure grants of stock options, stock units, stock awards, stock appreciation rights and other stock-based awards for selected individuals in our employ or service. Our Board believes that the availability of (i) 20,000,000 new shares of our common stock, plus (ii) the number of shares of our common stock subject to outstanding grants under the 2003 Plan as of the date of the 2013 Annual Meeting, plus (iii) the number of shares of our common stock remaining available for issuance under the 2003 Plan but not subject to previously exercised, vested or paid grants, for issuance under the 2013 Plan, as sufficient to meet the current needs of the Company.
All stock options issued prior to June 12, 2015 under the Plans are exercisable for a period of up to ten years from the date of grant. All stock options issued on or subsequent to June 12, 2015 under the Plans are exercisable for a period of up to five years from the date of grant. All of the options are subject to vesting as determined by the Board upon grant, and have an exercise price equal to not less than the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant (except for incentive stock options granted to 10% stockholders, which are required to have an exercise price of not less than 110% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date the option is granted). Unless otherwise determined by the Board, awards may not be transferred except by will or the laws of descent and distribution. The Board has discretion to determine the effect on any award granted under the Plans of the death, disability, retirement, resignation, termination or other change in employment or other status of any participant in the Plans.
Upon the occurrence of a “Change in Control”, as defined in the Plans, the Board may take any number of actions. These actions include, providing for all options outstanding under the Plans to be assumed by the acquiring corporation or to become immediately vested and exercisable in full. As of the date of this report, we have issued options and restricted stock units under the Plans to purchase 3,695,148 shares of common stock that are outstanding.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Related Party Transactions
None.
Policies and Procedures for Reviewing Related Party Transactions
We have not adopted any written policies or procedures governing the review, approval or ratification of related party transactions. However, our Board of Directors reviews, approves or ratifies, when necessary, all transactions with related parties.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND DISCLOSURES.
Audit Fees
The fees billed for professional services rendered by our principal accountant for the audit of our annual financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the review of the financial statements included in each of our quarterly reports during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, were $66,900 and $72,400, respectively.
Audit-Related Fees
There were no fees billed by our independent accountants for audit-related services during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
Tax Fees
During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, there were no fees billed for tax compliance, tax advice and/or tax planning by our principal accountants.
All Other Fees
During the for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, there were no additional fees billed for products and services provided by the principal accountant other than those set forth above.
Audit Committee Approval
Our audit committee approves the engagement of our independent auditors, and meets with our independent auditors to approve the annual scope of accounting services to be performed and the related fee estimates. It also meets with our independent auditors prior to the completion of our annual audit and reviews the results of their audit and review of our annual and interim consolidated financial statements, respectively. During the course of the year, our chairperson has the authority to pre-approve requests for services that were not approved in the annual pre-approval process. The chairperson reports any interim pre-approvals at the following quarterly meeting. At each of the meetings, management and our independent auditors update our board of directors regarding material changes to any service.
We did not have any pre-approval policies for the year ended December 31, 2016.
PART IV
ITEM 15.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
*
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
**
This exhibit is being furnished rather than filed and shall not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing, in accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:
Signature
Title
Date
/s/ Norman Gardner
Chairman of the Board and Chief
April 12, 2017
Norman Gardner
Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Signature
Title
Date
/s/ Scott McPherson
Chief Financial Officer
April 12, 2017
Scott McPherson
(Principal Financial Accounting
Officer)
Signature
Title
Date
/s/ Claudio Ballard
Director
April 12, 2017
Claudio Ballard
Signature
Title
Date
/s/ Jonathan Weinberger
Director
April 12, 2017
Jonathan Weinberger
Signature
Title
Date
/s/ Lawrence Schafran
Director
April 12, 2017
Lawrence Schafran
ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY
Not provided.
CONTENTS
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors
VerifyMe, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of VerifyMe, Inc. as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of VerifyMe, Inc. as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has incurred significant losses and experienced negative cash flow from operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
/s/ MORISON COGEN LLP
Blue Bell, Pennsylvania
April 12, 2017
VerifyMe, Inc.
Balance Sheets
The accompanying notes are an integral part to these financial statements.
VerifyMe, Inc.
Statements of Operations
The accompanying notes are an integral part to these financial statements.
VerifyMe, Inc.
Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Deficit
For the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015
The accompanying notes are an integral part to these financial statements.
VerifyMe, Inc.
Statements of Cash Flows
The accompanying notes are an integral part to these financial statements.
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Nature of the Business
On July 14, 2015, LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (“the Company”) changed its name to VerifyMe, Inc., effective July 23, 2015.
The Company was incorporated in the State of Nevada on November 10, 1999. The Company is based in Downingtown, Pennsylvania and its common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), is traded on the over-the-counter market and quoted on the OTC QB, organized by the OTC Markets Group, Inc., and the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol “VRME.”
The Company is a technology pioneer in the anti-counterfeiting industry. This broad market encompasses counterfeiting of physical and material goods and products, as well as counterfeiting of identity in digital transactions. The Company delivers security solutions for identification and authentication of people, products and packaging in a variety of applications in the security field for both digital and physical transactions. The products can be used to manage and issue secure credentials, including national IDs, passports, driver licenses and access control credentials, as well as comprehensive authentication security software to secure physical and logical access to facilities, computer networks, internet sites and mobile applications.
The Company’s activities are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, including the need to secure additional funding to operationalize the Company’s current technology.
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying financial statements are presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Reverse Stock Split and Changes to Company’s Preferred Stock
On May 26, 2015, the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”), acting by written consent in lieu of a special meeting, unanimously approved and adopted: (a) a reverse stock split of all of the Company’s issued and outstanding capital stock based on a minimum 1-for-40 split, up to a maximum 1-for-100 split (the “Reverse Stock Split”), and recommended the same for the Company’s stockholders for approval, and (b) a Second Amended Certificate of Designation for Series A Preferred Stock, which amended the designations, preferences, powers and rights of the shares of the Company’s Series A convertible preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), which were originally set forth in that certain Amended Certificate of Designation for Series A Preferred Stock, dated December 19, 2003.
On May 28, 2015, those stockholders of the Company holding a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock and Series A Preferred Stock, acting by written consent in lieu of a special meeting, voted to approve the Reverse Stock Split.
On June 11, 2015, at a duly authorized special meeting of the Board, the Board (a) finalized, adopted and approved a resolution setting the Reverse Stock Split exchange ratio to a 1-for-85 split and (b) approved and adopted a new Certificate of Designation for Series B Preferred Stock, establishing the designations, preferences, powers and rights of the shares of the Company’s Series B convertible preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Series B Preferred Stock,” and together with the Series A Preferred Stock, the “Preferred Stock”).
On July 23, 2015, the Company completed the 1-for-85 Reverse Stock Split of all of its outstanding Common Stock and Preferred Stock. The total number of authorized capital stock of the Company remained unchanged at its current total of 750,000,000, with 675,000,000 designated as Common Stock and 75,000,000 designated as Preferred Stock. The accompanying financial statements and notes to the financial statements give retroactive effect to the Reverse Stock Split for all periods presented, unless otherwise specified.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. 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. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
Comprehensive Income
The Company follows Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (“FASB ASC”) 220, “Comprehensive Income,” in reporting comprehensive income. Comprehensive income is a more inclusive financial reporting methodology that includes disclosure of certain financial information that historically has not been recognized in the calculation of net income. Since the Company has no items of other comprehensive income (loss), comprehensive income (loss) is equal to net income (loss).
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Company’s financial instruments consist of accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses, notes payable, embedded derivative liability and warrant liability. The carrying value of accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their fair value because of their short maturities. The Company believes the carrying amount of its notes payable approximate fair value based on rates and other terms currently available to the Company for similar debt instruments.
The Company follows FASB ASC 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures,” and applies it to all assets and liabilities that are being measured and reported on a fair value basis. The statement requires that assets and liabilities carried at fair value will be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
Level 1: Quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities
Level 2: Observable market based inputs or unobservable inputs that are corroborated by market data
Level 3: Unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data
The level in the fair value within which a fair value measurement falls is based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
For purposes of reporting cash flows, the Company considers all cash accounts, which are not subject to withdrawal restrictions or penalties, and certificates of deposit and commercial paper with original maturities of 90 days or less to be cash or cash equivalents.
Concentration of Credit Risk Involving Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Company’s cash and cash equivalents are held at one financial institution. At times, the Company’s deposits may exceed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) coverage limits. The Company has not experienced any losses from maintaining cash accounts in excess of federally insured limits.
Inventory
Inventory principally consists of penlights and pigments and is stated at the lower of cost (determined by the first-in, first-out method) or market.
Property and Equipment
Property and equipment is stated at cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, principally five to seven years. Maintenance and repairs of property are charged to operations, and major improvements are capitalized. Upon retirement, sale, or other disposition of property and equipment, the costs and accumulated depreciation are eliminated from the accounts, and any resulting gain or loss is included in operations.
Patents and Trademark
The current patent portfolio consists of ten granted patents and six applications pending. The Company has also purchased a trademark. Costs associated with the registration and legal defense of the patents have been capitalized and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the patents which were determined to be 17 to 20 years.
Long-Lived Assets
The Company evaluates the recoverability of its long-lived assets in accordance with ASC 360 “Property, Plant, and Equipment.” The Company reviews long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of long-lived assets are measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset, undiscounted and without interest or independent appraisals. 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 asset exceeds the fair value of the assets.
Deferred Financing Costs
Costs incurred in securing long-term debt are deferred and amortized, as a charge to interest expense, over the term of the related debt. In the case of long-term debt modifications, the Company follows the guidance provided by ASC 470-50, “Debt - Modification and Extinguishments.”
Notes Payable with detachable warrants
In accordance with FASB ASC 470-20, “Debt with Conversion and Other Options,” the proceeds of notes payable with detachable stock purchase warrants have been allocated between the two based on the relative fair values of the debt instrument without the warrants and of the warrants themselves at the time of issuance. The portion allocated to the warrants has been accounted for as a discount to the notes payable, and amortized over the term of the notes.
Derivative Instruments
The Company evaluates its convertible debt, Preferred Stock, warrants or other contracts to determine if those contracts or embedded components of those contracts qualify as derivatives to be separately accounted for in accordance with FASB ASC 480, “Distinguish by Liabilities from Equity” (FASB ASC 480), and FASB ASC 815, “Derivatives and Hedging” (“FASB ASC 815”). The result of this accounting treatment is that the fair value of the embedded derivative, if required to be bifurcated, is marked-to-market at each balance sheet date and recorded as a liability. The change in fair value is recorded in the Statement of Operations as a component of other income or expense. Upon conversion or exercise of a derivative instrument, the instrument is marked to fair value at the conversion date and then that fair value is reclassified to equity.
In circumstances where the embedded conversion option in a convertible instrument is required to be bifurcated and there are also other embedded derivative instruments in the convertible instrument that are required to be bifurcated, the bifurcated derivative instruments are accounted for as a single, compound derivative instrument.
The classification of derivative instruments, including whether such instruments should be recorded as liabilities or as equity, is re-assessed at the end of each reporting period. Equity instruments that are initially classified as equity that become subject to reclassification are reclassified as liabilities at the fair value of the instrument on the reclassification date. Derivative instrument liabilities will be classified in the balance sheet as current or non-current based on whether net-cash settlement of the derivative instrument is expected within 12 months of the balance sheet date.
Revenue Recognition
In accordance with FASB ASC 605, “Revenue Recognition,” the Company recognizes revenue when (i) persuasive evidence of a customer or distributor arrangement exists, (ii) a retailer, distributor or wholesaler receives the goods and acceptance occurs, (iii) the price is fixed or determinable, and (iv) collectability of the revenue is reasonably assured. Subject to these criteria, the Company recognizes revenue from product sales, consisting mainly of pigments and penlights, upon shipment to the customer. Royalty revenue is recognized upon receipt of notification from a customer that the Company’s product has been used in the customer’s production process.
Income Taxes
The Company follows FASB ASC 740, “Income Taxes,” when accounting for income taxes, which requires an asset and liability approach to financial accounting and reporting for income taxes. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are computed annually for temporary differences between the financial statements and tax bases of assets and liabilities that will result in taxable or deductible amounts in the future based on enacted tax laws and rates applicable to the periods in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized. Income tax expense is the tax payable or refundable for the period plus or minus the change during the period in deferred tax assets and liabilities. Tax years from 2013 through 2016 remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions.
Stock-based Payments
The Company accounts for stock-based compensation under the provisions of FASB ASC 718, “Compensation-Stock Compensation”, which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors based on estimated fair values on the grant date. The Company estimates the fair value of stock-based awards on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes model. The value of the portion of the award that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods using the straight-line method.
The Company accounts for stock-based compensation awards to non-employees in accordance with FASB ASC 505-50, “Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees” (“FASB ASC 505-50”). Under FASB ASC 505-50, the Company determines the fair value of the warrants or stock-based compensation awards granted as either the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measurable.
All issuances of stock options or other equity instruments to non-employees as consideration for goods or services received by the Company are accounted for based on the fair value of the equity instruments issued. Non-employee equity based payments are recorded as an expense over the service period, as if the Company had paid cash for the services. At the end of each financial reporting period, prior to vesting or prior to the completion of the services, the fair value of the equity based payments will be re-measured and the non-cash expense recognized during the period will be adjusted accordingly. Since the fair value of equity based payments granted to non-employees is subject to change in the future, the amount of the future expense will include fair value re-measurements until the equity based payments are fully vested or the service completed.
Advertising Costs
Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. Advertising costs were approximately $0 and $458 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and are included in sales and marketing expenses.
Research and Development Costs
In accordance with FASB ASC 730, research and development costs are expensed when incurred. Research and development costs for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were $250,180 and $2,412,833.
Basic and Diluted Net Income per Share of Common Stock
The Company follows FASB ASC 260, “Earnings Per Share,” when reporting Earnings Per Share resulting in the presentation of basic and diluted earnings per share. Because the Company reported a net loss for each of the years presented, common stock equivalents, including preferred stock, stock options and warrants were anti-dilutive; therefore, the amounts reported for basic and diluted loss per share were the same.
Segment Information
The Company is organized and operates as one operating segment wherein the Company’s patented technologies are utilized to address counterfeiting issues. In accordance with FASB ASC 280, “Segment Reporting” (“FASB ASC 280”), the chief operating decision-maker has been identified as the Chief Executive Officer, who reviews operating results to make decisions about allocating resources and assessing performance for the entire Company. Since the Company operates in one segment and provides one group of similar products, all financial segment and product line information required by FASB ASC 280 can be found in the financial statements.
Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The amendments in this Update provide guidance about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued and to provide related footnote disclosures. Substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern exists when relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that the entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The amendments in this Update are effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual periods and interim periods thereafter. Early application is permitted. The amendments were adopted as of December 31, 2016, see Note 2 for management’s evaluation and disclosure.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or 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.
In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 which deferred the effective date of Update 2014-09 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company anticipates that the impact of this guidance on the financial statements will not be material.
In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740), Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. The amendments in this Update require that deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as noncurrent in a classified statement of financial position. For public business entities, the amendments in this Update are effective for financial statements issued for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Earlier application is permitted for all entities as of the beginning of an interim or annual reporting period. The Company does not anticipate the adoption of this standard to have a material effect on the financial statements.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). The amendments in this Update specify the accounting for leases. The core principle of Topic 842 is that a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases. For public business entities, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company anticipates that the impact of this guidance on the financial statements will not be material.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, which simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions, including: (1) income tax consequences; (2) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and (3) classification on the statement of cash flows. For public companies, the amendments in the ASU are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Company is currently assessing the impact of adoption that this guidance will have on the financial statements.
NOTE 2 - GOING CONCERN
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company has incurred significant losses and experienced negative cash flow from operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
In February 2017, the Company raised proceeds of $100,000 through the issuance of notes payable, which included a warrant to purchase 5 million shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.40 per share. Even with this infusion of capital, the Company does not believe that its existing cash resources will be sufficient to sustain operations during the next twelve months. The Company currently needs to generate revenue in order to sustain its operations. In the event that the Company cannot generate sufficient revenue to sustain its operations, the Company will need to reduce expenses or obtain financing through the sale of debt and/or equity securities. The issuance of additional equity would result in dilution to existing stockholders. If the Company is unable to obtain additional funds when they are needed or if such funds cannot be obtained on terms acceptable to the Company, the Company may be unable to execute upon the business plan or pay costs and expenses as they are incurred, which could have a material, adverse effect on the business, financial condition and results of operations.
If sufficient revenues are not generated to sustain operations or additional funding cannot be obtained in the short term, the Company will need to reduce monthly expenditures to a level that will enable the Company to continue until such funds can be obtained.
Successful completion of the Company’s development program, and the attainment of profitable operations are dependent upon future events, including obtaining adequate financing to fulfill its development activities and achieving a level of sales adequate to support the Company’s cost structure. However, there can be no assurances that the Company will be able to secure additional equity investment or achieve an adequate sales level.
NOTE 3 - PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
Equipment consists of the following:
Depreciation of property and equipment was $2,856 and $69,415 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
NOTE 4 - PATENTS AND TRADEMARK
The current patent portfolio consists of ten granted patents and six applications pending. Accordingly, costs associated with the registration and legal defense of these patents have been capitalized and are amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the patents which were determined to be 17 to 20 years. The trademark is also being amortized on a straight-line basis over its estimated useful life of 20 years. During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company capitalized $0 and $200,100 of patent costs and trademarks. Amortization expense for patents and trademarks was $27,343 and $24,707 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
NOTE 5 - INCOME TAXES
The Company follows FASB ASC 740-10-10 whereby an entity recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities for future tax consequences or events that have been previously recognized in the Company’s financial statements or tax returns. The measurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities is based on provisions of enacted tax law. The effects of future changes in tax laws or rates are not anticipated.
At December 31, 2016 the Company has a net operating loss (“NOL”) that approximates $32.0 million. Consequently, the Company may have NOL carryforwards available for federal income tax purposes, which would begin to expire in 2019. Due to changes in ownership, a portion of the NOL carryforward may be subject to certain annual limitations imposed under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Deferred tax assets would arise from the recognition of anticipated utilization of these net operating losses to offset future taxable income.
The income tax benefit (provision) consists of the following:
The following is a reconciliation of the tax derived by applying the U.S. Federal Statutory Rate of 35% to the earnings before income taxes and comparing that to the recorded tax provisions:
The primary components of the Company’s December 31, 2016 and 2015 deferred tax assets, liabilities and related valuation allowance are as follows:
Management has determined that the realization of the net deferred tax asset is not assured and has created a valuation allowance for the entire amount of such benefits.
The Company follows FASB ASC 740-10, which provides guidance for the recognition and measurement of certain tax positions in an enterprise’s financial statements. Recognition involves a determination whether it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination with the presumption that the tax position will be examined by the appropriate taxing authority having full knowledge of all relevant information.
The Company’s policy is to record interest and penalties associated with unrecognized tax benefits as additional income taxes in the consolidated statement of operations. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had no unrecognized tax benefits. There were no changes in the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. The Company did not recognize any interest or penalties during 2016 and 2015 related to unrecognized tax benefits.
NOTE 6 - RECAPITALIZATION TRANSACTION
On or about June 12, 2015, the Company entered into definitive agreements to restructure the overall capitalization of the Company (the “Recapitalization Transaction”). To effectuate the Recapitalization Transaction, the Company entered into a Master Acquisition Agreement (the “Master Agreement”) with OPC Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“OPC”), VerifyMe Inc., a Texas corporation (“VFM”), Zaah Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Zaah”), and an additional private investor (the “Private Investor”).
Pursuant to the Master Agreement, the Company entered into several other material definitive agreements (collectively, the “Transaction Documents”) required to consummate the Recapitalization Transaction. A brief summary of the Transaction Documents is included below. Each of the Transaction Documents was entered effective as of June 12, 2015, upon the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction.
Note Conversion Agreement. The Company entered into various Note Conversion Agreements with various holders of promissory notes executed by the Company (the “Noteholders”), pursuant to which the Noteholders converted $731,426 of outstanding notes and accrued interest (net of gain on conversion of $297,370) into 57,265,030 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of restricted non-trading Common Stock of the Company at a conversion rate of one (1) share of Common Stock per $0.018 of outstanding principal and interest.
Warrant Conversion Agreement. The Company entered into various Warrant Conversion Agreements with various holders of warrants for the Company’s Common Stock (the “Warrantholders”), pursuant to which the Warrantholders converted 3,700,000 outstanding Common Stock warrants into 3,700,000 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of restricted non-trading Common Stock of the Company at a conversion ratio 1:1.
Preferred Stock Conversion Agreement. The Company and VFM entered into a Preferred Stock Conversion Agreement, pursuant to which VFM converted 21,111,111 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred Stock of the Company that it currently owns into shares of Common Stock of the Company on a 1:1 basis (pre Reverse Stock Split).
Patent and Technology License Termination Agreement. Pursuant to a Patent and Technology License Termination Agreement, the Company and VFM terminated that certain Patent and Technology License Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2012, by and between the Company and VFM (the “License”), and VFM agreed to receive eighty five (85) shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series B Preferred Stock in complete satisfaction of $4,500,000 in past due license payments and $2,000,000 exclusivity payments owed by the Company under the License. As a result of the Patent Purchase Agreement explained below, $176,316, net of amortization of $23,684, of prepaid expenses related to the patents were reclassified to patent expense.
Termination of Registration Rights. Pursuant to a Registration Rights Termination Agreement, the Company and VFM have terminated that certain Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2012, by and between the Company and VFM.
Termination of Technology and Services Agreement. Pursuant to a Technology and Services Agreement Termination Agreement, the Company and VFM terminated that certain Technology and Services Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2012, by and between the Company and VFM.
Termination of Investment Agreement. Pursuant to an Investment Agreement Termination Agreement, the Company and VFM terminated that certain Investment Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2012, by and between the Company and VFM.
Patent Purchase Agreement. The Company and VFM entered into and consummated a Patent Purchase Agreement, transferring and assigning over to the Company all of VFM’s rights, title and interest into certain U.S. patents and pending U.S. patent applications.
Termination of Zaah Technology and Services Agreement. Pursuant to a Technology and Services Agreement Termination Agreement, the Company and Zaah terminated that certain Technology and Services Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2012, by and between the Company and Zaah.
Series A Preferred Stock Subscription Agreement. The Company entered into a Subscription Agreement with OPC, pursuant to which the Company issued 37,564,767 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred Stock to OPC for a cash investment $1,278,501, plus the conversion of deferred compensation, notes payable and accrued interest amounting to $171,813, into the Company by OPC.
Common Stock Subscription Agreement. The Company entered into a Subscription Agreement with the Private Investor, pursuant to which the Company issued 25,906,736 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of restricted non-trading Common Stock to the Private Investor for a cash investment of $50,000 into the Company by the Private Investor.
Series B Preferred Stock Subscription Agreement. In connection with the termination of the License with VFM, the Company entered into a Subscription Agreement with VFM, pursuant to which to the Company issued 85 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series B Preferred Stock to VFM.
The foregoing description of the Master Agreement and the related Transaction Documents is a summary, and does not purport to be a complete description of the Master Agreement and the related Transaction Documents, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Master Agreement and the related Transaction Documents, copies of which are filed as Exhibits 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on June 18, 2015.
NOTE 7 - SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTES PAYABLE - RELATED PARTIES
On June 12, 2015, as part of the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the Company restructured the Senior Secured Convertible Notes Payable - Related Parties. As a result the principal balance of $114,000 and accrued interest of $118,775 was converted into 154,184 shares (13,105,662 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018 per share) of the Company’s Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $103,456. Of this amount, $17,967 was related to a stockholder and recorded as additional paid in capital, with the remaining $85,489 being recorded as a gain on extinguishment of debt.
NOTE 8 - NOTES PAYABLE
Notes payable consists of the following as of December 31:
At December 31, 2016 and 2015 accrued interest on notes payable was $29,668 and $23,667.
The warrant liabilities in this section were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 173.7% to 180.7%, risk free interest rate of 1.75% and expected lives of four to five years.
On June 10, 2014, the Company issued a note payable for $250,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 1,000,000 shares pre Reverse Stock Split of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.10 per share, expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $39,650 using Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 248.2%, risk free interest rate of 1.67% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $34,222 and was recorded as a discount to the notes payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25, “Recognition” (“FASB 835-30-25”) and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the year ended December 31, 2014, $34,222 was accreted through interest expense. The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum was originally due on December 11, 2014, but the Company received approval to extend the maturity until December 31, 2014. The warrants are subject to anti-dilutive adjustments and are therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $8,113.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the note’s principal balance of $250,000 and accrued interest of $20,263 was converted into 176,471 shares (15,000,000 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $120,117, and, because this individual is a stockholder, was recorded as additional paid in capital.
On August 5, 2014, the Company issued notes payable for $100,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 600,000 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.05 per share, expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $29,725 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 233.8%, risk free interest rate of 1.67% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $22,914 and was recorded as a discount to the notes payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25, and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the year ended December 31, 2014, $22,914 was accreted through interest expense. The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum were due in full on December 1, 2014. The warrants were subject to anti-dilutive adjustments and were therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $5,151.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the principal balance of $50,000 and accrued interest of $3,414 was converted into 34,898 shares (2,966,210 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $23,740, which was recorded as a gain on the extinguishment of debt. The remaining $50,000 was paid in full, plus accrued interest in September 2015. The 3,529 warrants (300,000 warrants pre Reverse Stock Split) to purchase shares of Common Stock associated with the $50,000 note payable remain outstanding and must be re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the warrants were valued at $262 and $7,902.
On August 12, 2014, the Company issued a note payable for $50,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 300,000 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.05 per share, expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $26,817 using Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 233.8%, risk free interest rate of 1.67% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $17,455 and was recorded as a discount to the note payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25, and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the year ended December 31, 2014, $17,455 was accreted through interest expense.
The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum were due in full on December 1, 2014. The warrants were subject to anti-dilutive adjustments and are therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $2,575.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the principal balance of $50,000 and accrued interest of $3,370 was converted into 34,843 shares (2,961,644 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $23,720, which was recorded as a gain on the extinguishment of debt.
On August 14, 2014, the Company issued a note payable for $100,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 600,000 shares pre Reverse Stock Split of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.05 per share, expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $47,676 using Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 233.8%, risk free interest rate of 1.67% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $32,274 and was recorded as a discount to the note payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25 and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the year ended December 31, 2014, $32,274 was accreted through interest expense. The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum were due in full on December 1, 2014. The warrants were subject to anti-dilutive adjustments and were therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $5,153.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the principal balance of $100,000 and accrued interest of $6,697 was converted into 69,657 shares (5,920,852 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $47,421, which was recorded as a gain on the extinguishment of debt.
On September 8, 2014, the Company issued notes payable for $150,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 900,000 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.05 per share, expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $62,544 using Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 233.8%, risk free interest rate of 1.67% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $44,140 and was recorded as a discount to the notes payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25 and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the year ended December 31, 2014, $44,140 was accreted through interest expense. The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum were due in full on December 1, 2014. The warrants were subject to anti-dilutive adjustments and were therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was re-valued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $7,725.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the principal balance of $150,000 and accrued interest of $9,222 was converted into 103,991 shares (8,839,269 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $70,766, which was recorded as a gain on the extinguishment of debt.
On December 5, 2014, the Company issued a note payable for $23,000 to a stockholder, which bears interest at 5.0% and was due on April 5, 2015. As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the principal balance of $23,000 and accrued interest of $609 was converted into 15,418 shares (1,310,510 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $10,493 and, because this entity is a stockholder, was recorded as additional paid in capital.
On December 31, 2014, the Company issued a note payable for $100,000, which included fully vested warrants to purchase 600,000 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.05 per share expiring in five years. The warrants were valued at $11,812 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 229.0%, risk free interest rate of 1.68% and expected life of five years. The relative fair value of the warrants was $10,563 and was recorded as a discount to the notes payable in accordance with FASB ASC 835-30-25 and was accreted over the term of the note payable for financial statement purposes. For the three months ended March 31, 2015, the final $10,447 was accreted through interest expense. The note and accrued interest at 8% per annum were due in full on April 1, 2015. The warrants were subject to anti-dilution adjustments and were therefore classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815. The warrant liability was revalued at each reporting period with the change in fair value recorded through earnings. As of June 12, 2015, the date of conversion in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the fair value of the warrant liability was $5,226.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction, the principal balance of $100,000 and accrued interest of $3,689 was converted into 67,637 shares (5,749,163 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $46,084, which was recorded as a gain on the extinguishment of debt.
On February 10, 2015, the Company issued a note payable for $25,000, bearing interest at 5.0% to an accredited investor and director of the Company. As a result of the recapitalization transaction (see Note 6), the principal balance of $25,000 and accrued interest of $417 was converted into 16,608 shares (1,411,720 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.018) of Common Stock. This resulted in a gain of $11,296 and, because this entity is a stockholder, was recorded as additional paid in capital.
The conversion of the notes above on June 12, 2015 was treated as an extinguishment of debt. In accordance with FASB ASC 470-50, the difference between the cash acquisition price of the debt and its net carrying amount shall be recognized currently in income in the period of extinguishment as losses or gains. Similar transactions between stockholders was recognized as additional paid in capital.
On March 27, 2015, the Company issued a note payable for $111,102, bearing interest at 8.0% to an accredited investor.
On April 30, 2015, the Company issued a note payable for $4,887, bearing interest at 8.0% to an accredited investor.
On May 15, 2015, the Company issued a note payable for $4,480, bearing interest at 8.0% to an accredited investor.
On May 21, 2015, the Company issued a note payable for $14,074, bearing interest at 8.0% to an accredited investor.
As a result of the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the principal balance of the above four notes of $134,542 and accrued interest of $2,271 was converted into 41,603 shares (3,536,254 shares pre Reverse Stock Split at $0.0386) of the Company’s Series A Preferred stock as part of the $1,450,000 cash investment.
On June 12, 2015, the conversion of the four notes issued from March 27, 2015 to May 21, 2015, was treated as a troubled debt restructuring in accordance with FASB ASC 470-60-15, “Debt - Troubled Debt Restructurings by Debtors.”
A debtor that issues or otherwise grants an equity interest to a creditor to settle fully a payable, shall account for the equity interest at its fair value. The difference between the fair value of the equity interest granted and the carrying amount of the payable settled was recognized as a gain on restructuring payables.
During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company issued notes payable in the amount of $79,000 in addition to 3,950,000 warrants to purchase the Company’s common stock at $0.40 and have a term of five years. The notes bear interest at the rate of 5% per annum and are due on June 30, 2017. In accordance with FASB ASC 470-20, “Debt with Conversion and Other Options,” the proceeds of notes payable with detachable stock purchase warrants have been allocated between the two based on the relative fair values of the debt instrument without the warrants and of the warrants themselves at the time of issuance. The portion allocated to the warrants has been accounted for as a discount to the notes payable and amortized over the term of the notes.
The warrants were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 194.6% to 197.5%, risk free interest rate of 1.26% to 2.03% and expected lives of five years. The fair value of the warrants was $729,035, of which $69,500 was allocated to the notes payable as discount to the notes payable.
NOTE 9 - WARRANT LIABILITY
On December 31, 2012, the Company entered into an Investment Agreement, a Technology and Service Agreement, a Patent and Technology License Agreement and an Asset Purchase Agreement with VFM and on the same date entered into a Technology and Service Agreement with Zaah (collectively with the VFM agreements, the “Agreements”). Contemplated by those Agreements were warrant issuances by the Company for the purchase of Common Stock.
Warrants exercisable for 627,451 shares (53,333,333 shares pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock associated with these Agreements are subject to anti-dilution adjustments outlined in the Agreements. In accordance with FASB ASC 815, the warrants were classified as a liability in the total amount of $2.4 million at December 31, 2012. In addition, the warrants must be revalued every reporting period and adjusted to market with the increase or decrease being adjusted through earnings. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the fair value of the warrant liability was $22,063 and $1,020,632.
On January 1, 2014, the Company issued warrants to purchase 74,697 shares (6,349,245 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock as consideration for technology received from VFM under to the Patent and Technology License Agreement dated December 31, 2012. The warrants are exercisable at $0.10 per share. The warrants are subject to anti-dilution adjustments outlined in the Agreement. In accordance with FASB ASC 815, the warrants were classified as a liability with an initial fair value of $444,000, which was immediately expensed as research and development costs. In addition, the warrants must be revalued every reporting period and adjusted to market with the increase or decrease being adjusted through earnings. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the fair value of the warrant liability was $4,885 and $147,524.
The Company made the payment of warrants to VFM on a good faith basis, based on the assumption that the technology conveyed to the Company would be patentable and licensable. The Company had not reached a conclusion at that time that the technology would be patentable and licensable.
As of June 12, 2015, the Company concluded that the technology received from VFM is patentable and licensable, and that the Company was required to make, on January 1, 2015, an additional payment pursuant to Patent and Technology Agreement in the amount of $4,500,000, to be paid by issuing (i) a number of shares of Common Stock equal to (x) $4,500,000 divided by (y) a price which equals a 10% discount to the market price at the time of issuance and (ii) warrants to purchase an equal number of shares of Common Stock exercisable at a price of $0.10 per share. Based upon the share price of $0.04 per share, this would result in the issuance of approximately an additional 125 million shares of Common Stock and warrants to purchase an additional 125 million shares. The $4,500,000 was accrued at December 31, 2014. The number of warrants to be issued based on a stock price of $0.02 at December 31, 2014 was 250 million warrants. The warrants were valued at $4,892,089 using the Black-Scholes pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the warrants with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 229.1%, risk free interest rate of 1.65% and expected life of five years.
In conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6), the Company agreed that an additional $2,000,000 in exclusivity licensing fees was required to be paid and converted the $6,500,000 into shares of Series B Preferred Stock. In addition, the fair value of the associated warrants was $1,867,417 as of June 12, 2015 and was recorded as additional paid in capital on conversion.
The warrants associated with the notes payable (see Note 6) were revalued at June 12, 2015, based on the cashless conversion modification. The total fair value of those warrants was $37,000 and was recorded as additional paid in capital on conversion.
NOTE 10 - CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
Subscription Agreement
The Company entered into a Subscription Agreement with VerifyMe on January 31, 2013 (the “Subscription Agreement”). Under the terms of the Subscription Agreement, VerifyMe subscribed to purchase 33,333,333 shares of the Company’s Series A preferred stock (the “Preferred Stock”) and a warrant to purchase 33,333,333 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.12 per share, for $1 million.
At any time before January 31, 2015, VerifyMe has the right, but not the obligation, to require the Company to repurchase all, but not less than all, of the capital stock of the Company and warrants exercisable for capital stock of the Company held by VerifyMe in exchange for the price originally paid by VerifyMe therefor upon the occurrence of any of the following events:(i) the consummation of any bona fide business acquisition, (ii) the incurrence of any indebtedness by the Company in an amount in excess of $2 million, (iii) the issuance or sale of any security having a preference on liquidation senior to common stock, or (iv) the sale by the Company of capital stock or warrants exercisable for its capital stock at a price below $0.03 per share. This right has not been exercised.
In accordance with FASB ASC 480 and 815, the Preferred Stock has been classified as permanent equity and was valued at $1 million at January 31, 2013.
The conversion feature of the Preferred Stock is an embedded derivative, which is classified as a liability in accordance with FASB ASC 815 and was valued in accordance with FASB ASC 470 as a beneficial conversion feature at a fair value of $0 at June 12, 2015 and $800,000 at December 31, 2014. This was classified as an embedded derivative liability and a discount to Preferred Stock. Because the Preferred Stock can be converted at any time, the full amount of the original fair value was accreted and classified as a reduction to the discount on Preferred Stock and a deemed dividend distribution in the full amount of $1 million, in 2013.
On August 5, 2013, 12,222,222 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred Stock were converted into 12,222,222 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock.
The Company has determined that the Series A Preferred Stock issuance in the Recapitalization Transaction does not meet the requirements of FASB ASC 480-10 for liability treatment and therefore has been classified as permanent equity. Additionally, it was determined that the economic characteristics of the beneficial conversion feature are clearly and closely related to the host, and are based on a fixed conversion rate into shares of Common Stock and therefore do not require bifurcation.
The Series A Preferred Stock was converted into 248,366 (21,111,111 pre Reverse Stock Split) shares of Common Stock on June 12, 2015 in conjunction with the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6).
The 392,157 warrants (33,333,333 warrants pre Reverse Stock Split) associated with the Series A Preferred Stock were also classified as a liability since they are subject to anti-dilutive adjustments outlined in the warrant agreement and valued at a fair market value of $2,995,791 at January 31, 2013. In addition, the warrants must be revalued every reporting period and adjusted to market with the increase or decrease being adjusted through earnings. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the fair value of the warrants was $18,107 and $626,317.
On May 26, 2015, the Company amended its Amended Certificate of Designation, dated February 1, 2013, with respect to its Series A Preferred Stock, to amend the designations, preferences, powers and rights of the Series A Preferred Stock, and authorizing the issuance of up to 37,564,767 shares of Series A Preferred Stock. The Series A Preferred Stock are currently convertible at 20:1. 37,564,767 (pre-Reverse Stock Split) shares of Series A Preferred Stock were issued as part of the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6).
Additionally, on May 26, 2015, the Company amended its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, dated December 19, 2003, to establish the Series B Preferred Stock, authorizing the issuance of up to 85 shares of Series B Preferred Stock. The Series B Preferred Stock are convertible currently at 8,496,732:1. 85 shares (pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series B Preferred Stock were issued to settle the $6.5 million of licensing fees due and the associated warrants as part of the Recapitalization Transaction (see Note 6). The foregoing description of the Certificate of Designation is a summary, and does not purport to be a complete description of the Certificate of Designation, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Certificate of Designation, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit 3.3 to the Company’s Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on June 18, 2015.
On June 12, 2015, the Company issued 389,668 shares (33,121,777 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred shares to an investor for $1,278,501 as part of the total $1,450,813 transaction with the investor. Further, an officer of the Company and a stockholder are partial owners in the investor and therefore the investor received an additional 10,667 shares (906,736 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred Stock for the forgiveness of previously accrued but unpaid compensation valued at $35,000 and notes payable and accrued interest were converted into 41,603 shares (3,536,254 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Series A Preferred Stock also as part of the $1,450,813 transaction.
Each of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock have a preference in liquidation that the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock are to be paid out of assets available for distribution prior to holders of Common Stock. The holders of Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock may cast the number of votes equal to the number of whole shares of Common Stock into which the shares of Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock can be converted, with certain limitations. In addition, the holders of Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock are to be paid dividends, based on the number of shares of Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock, as the case may be, as if the shares had been converted to Common Stock, prior to the holders of Common Stock receiving a dividend.
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock
On March 10, 2016, 14,720 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock were converted into 294,400 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On June 1, 2016, 14,720 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock were converted into 294,400 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On August 23, 2016, 14,720 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock were converted into 294,400 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
On May 26, 2015, the Company amended its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation dated December 19, 2003 to establish the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock and authorized 1 share (85 shares pre-reverse stock split). The par value of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is $0.001 and they are convertible currently at 8,496,732:1. These shares were issued to settle the $6.5 million of licensing fees due and the associated warrants as part of the Company’s recapitalization transaction in July 2015.
On March 17, 2016, 0.03 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock were converted into 291,780 shares of the Company’s common stock.
On October 5, 2016, 0.05 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock were converted into 383,203 shares of the Company’s common stock.
Series C Convertible Preferred Stock
On February 9, 2016, the Company issued 2,587,500 shares of Series C, par value $0.001 per share, at a purchase price of $0.40 per share with gross proceeds to the Company of $1,035,000. In connection with the sale of the Series C, the Company issued to the purchasers warrants to purchase in the aggregate 2,587,500 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share. Further, as a part of the same offering, on February 29, 2016, the Company issued 500,000 shares of Series C, at a purchase price of $0.40 per share with gross proceeds to the Company of $200,000. In connection with the sale of the Series C, the Company issued to the purchasers warrants to purchase in the aggregate 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share. Each share of Series C is convertible into one share of common stock. The Series C provides for certain adjustments that may be made to the exercise price and the number of shares issuable upon exercise due to future corporate events or otherwise, including, for a proscribed period of time, upon the issuance of securities at a price that is less than the exercise price of the Series C.
The 3,087,500 warrants associated with the Series C Preferred Stock were classified as a liability since they are subject to anti-dilutive adjustments outlined in the warrant agreement and valued at a fair market value of $1,767,576 at February 9, 2016 and February 29, 2016. In addition, the warrants must be revalued every reporting period and adjusted to market with the increase or decrease being adjusted through earnings. As of December 31, 2016, the fair value of the warrants was $285,290.
In addition, the Company incurred stock issuance costs of $17,500 related to the issuance of Series C.
The Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with each of the purchasers of the Series C pursuant to which the Company agreed to file a registration statement with the SEC covering the resale of the common stock underlying the Series C, as well as the shares of common stock that are issuable upon exercise of the warrants. The registration statement was filed in April 2016 and declared effective on April 29, 2016.
On May 2, 2016, 487,500 shares of Series C were converted into 487,500 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On May 3, 2016, 125,000 shares of Series C were converted into 125,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On May 5, 2016, 353,000 shares of Series C were converted into 353,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On June 6, 2016, 84,500 shares of Series C were converted into 84,500 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On October 14, 2016, 125,000 shares of Series C were converted into 125,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
Series D Convertible Preferred Stock
On October 24, 2016, the Company issued 166,750 shares of Series D, par value $0.001 per share, at a purchase price of $0.40 per share with gross proceeds to the Company of $66,700. In connection with the sale of the Series D, the Company issued to the purchasers warrants to purchase in the aggregate 667,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share. Each share of Series D is convertible into one share of common stock. The Series D provides for certain adjustments that may be made to the exercise price and the number of shares issuable upon exercise due to future corporate events or otherwise, including, for a proscribed period of time, upon the issuance of securities at a price that is less than the exercise price of the Series D.
The 667,000 warrants associated with the Series D Preferred Stock were classified as a liability since they are subject to anti-dilutive adjustments outlined in the warrant agreement and valued at a fair market value of $181,942 at October 24, 2016. In addition, the warrants must be revalued every reporting period and adjusted to market with the increase or decrease being adjusted through earnings. As of December 31, 2016, the fair value of the warrants was $64,137.
NOTE 11 - FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Derivative Liabilities
For purposes of determining whether certain instruments are derivatives for accounting treatment, the Company follows the accounting standard that provides guidance for determining whether an equity-linked financial instrument, or embedded feature, is indexed to an entity’s own stock. The standard applies to any freestanding financial instruments or embedded features that have the characteristics of a derivative, and to any freestanding financial instruments that are potentially settled in an entity’s own common stock.
Liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized as follows:
The following table details the approximate fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy of the Company’s derivative liabilities using Level 3 inputs:
The Company has no assets that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis. There were no assets or liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis during the year ended December 31, 2016.
As of December 31, 2016, some of the Company’s outstanding warrants were treated as derivative liabilities and changes in the fair value were recognized in earnings. These Common Stock purchase warrants did not trade in an active securities market, and as such, the Company estimated the fair value of these warrants using Black-Scholes and the following assumptions:
Expected volatility was based primarily on historical volatility. Historical volatility was computed using daily pricing observations for recent periods. The Company believes this method produced an estimate that was representative of the Company’s expectations of future volatility over the expected term of these warrants. The Company had no reason to believe future volatility over the expected remaining life of these warrants was likely to differ materially from historical volatility. The expected life was based on the remaining contractual term of the warrants. The risk-free rate was based on the U.S. Treasury rate that corresponded to the expected term of the warrants.
NOTE 12 - STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
On June 2, 2015, the Company issued 68,236 shares (post Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock to two vendors to settle outstanding payable balances of $58,000.
On June 12, 2015, the Company issued 304,785 shares (25,906,735 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock and raised $50,000.
During the three months ended June 30, 2015, one stockholder received 2,353 shares (post Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock in a cashless exercise.
On June 11, 2015, the Company issued 525,000 Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) (44,625,000 pre Reverse Stock Split) to two officers of the Company. The RSUs were valued at the closing stock price of $0.01 on June 11, 2015, at $446,250, fair value. These RSUs are being expensed over the vesting terms. On December 31, 2016, one of the officers resigned and forfeited 112,500 RSUs. As a result the Company reversed deferred compensation related to the RSUs in the amount of $95,625. In addition, the value of the RSUs included in deferred compensation in the amount of $637,500 was reclassified to additional paid in capital. For the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company expensed $270,052 and $80,573 related to the RSUs.
On June 30, 2015, the Company issued 48,761 shares (post Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock to a vendor to settle an outstanding payable balance of $41,447, net of gain on conversion of $35,153.
On July 9, 2015, the Company hired a Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). The COO will receive 225,000 RSUs (19,125,000 pre Reverse Stock Split), vesting over a three-year period, with one-third vesting the first year and one-twelfth vesting ratably on a quarterly basis thereafter. The RSUs were valued at fair value of $918,000 based on the closing stock price of $4.08 on July 9, 2015. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company expensed $127,500 related to the RSUs. The COO resigned on May 31, 2016, therefore forfeiting his RSUs, and as a result the Company reversed the deferred compensation related to the RSUs in the amount of $637,500.
On July 23, 2015, the Company completed the Reverse Stock Split of its outstanding Common Stock and Preferred Stock, as further described in Note 1 and Note 6 above.
On August 10, 2015, the Company agreed to issue the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) 20,000 RSUs vesting over six months and 100,000 RSUs vesting annually over three years. The RSUs were valued at a fair value of $692,400 based on the closing stock price of $5.77 per share on August 10, 2015. In February 2016, the Company issued 20,000 shares of the Company’s common stock in accordance with this agreement. On December 31, 2016, the CFO voluntarily forfeited the right to receive the remaining 100,000 RSUs. As a result the Company reversed the deferred compensation related to the RSUs in the amount of $336,583. The Company expensed $179,511 and $176,305 during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 relative to these RSUs.
On October 1, 2015, the Company agreed to issue 100,000 RSUs to a consultant for services. Of the 100,000 RSUs, 60,000 were issued upon execution of the agreement, 20,000 shares are to be issued on January 1, 2016 and 20,000 shares are to be issued on April 1, 2016. The RSUs were originally valued at $195,000. The Company expensed $124,750 and $54,250 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 relative to these RSUs. As a result of having to revalue these RSUs until issuance, the Company was able to reclassify $38,000 to additional paid in capital on the final valuation of the RSUs.
On October 7, 2015, the Company agreed to pay $15,000 to a consultant/stockholder as well as an additional $35,000 based on certain milestones being met. Additionally, as of August 1, 2015 the Company agreed to issue the individual 30,000 RSUs originally valued at $165,000 in quarterly installments on November 1, 2015, February 1, 2016, May 1, 2016 and August 1, 2016, which began vesting on August 1, 2015. The Company expensed $18,563 and $34,687 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 relative to these RSUs. Further the individual was to receive a 2% to 5% commission on company sales while this agreement is in effect, however no commissions were earned during 2016 or 2015. The agreement was terminated on April 29, 2016. In addition, the remaining value of the RSUs included in deferred compensation in the amount of $51,375 was reclassified to additional paid in capital as a result of the termination of the agreement.
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company expensed $683,251 and $498,816 relative to the RSUs.
On February 8, 2016, the Company issued 23,500 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for assistance in raising capital. The shares were valued at $15,275 based on the closing stock price of the Company’s stock price on February 8, 2016 of $0.65 per share. The value of the shares was expensed immediately.
On May 24, 2016, the Company issued 9,483 shares of Common Stock to a consultant as a finder’s fee for an employee. The shares were value at $5,500 based on the closing stock price of the Company’s common stock on March 11, 2016 per the agreement. The value of the shares was expensed immediately.
In accordance with FASB ASC 505-50, “Equity - Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees,” restricted stock with performance conditions should be revalued based on the modification accounting methodology described in FASB ASC 718-20, “Compensation-Stock Compensation-Awards Classified as Equity.” There were no outstanding equity-based payments to non-employees as of December 31, 2016.
NOTE 13 - STOCK OPTIONS AND WARRANTS
During 1999, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Company adopted, with the approval of the stockholders, a Stock Option Plan. In 2000, the Board superseded that plan and created a new Stock Option Plan, pursuant to which it is authorized to grant options to purchase up to 1.5 million shares of common stock. On December 17, 2003, the Board, with approval of the stockholders, superseded the 2000 plan and created the 2003 Stock Option Plan (the “2003 Plan”). Under the 2003 Plan the Company is authorized to grant options to purchase up to 18,000,000 shares of common stock to the Company’s employees, officers, directors, consultants, and other agents and advisors. The Plan is intended to permit stock options granted to employees under the Plan to qualify as incentive stock options under Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Incentive Stock Options”). All options granted under the 2003 Plan, which were not intended to qualify as Incentive Stock Options, are deemed to be non-qualified options (“Non-Statutory Stock Options”). The 2003 Plan has expired and therefore no new options will be issued under the 2003 Plan. As of December 31, 2016, options to purchase 11,765 shares of common stock have been issued and are unexercised, under the 2003 Plan.
During 2013, our Board adopted a new omnibus incentive compensation plan that was ratified by the shareholders at the 2013 annual meeting, (the “2013 Plan”) which will serve as the successor incentive compensation plan to the 2003 Plan. Under the 2013 Plan, the Company is authorized to grant awards of stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units and other stock-based awards of up to an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of common stock. The 2013 Plan is intended to permit stock options granted to employees under the 2013 Plan to qualify as Incentive Stock Options. All options granted under the 2013 Plan, which are not intended to qualify as Incentive Stock Options are deemed to be Non-Statutory Stock Options. As of December 31, 2016, under the 2013 Plan grants of restricted stock and options to purchase 2,837,500 shares of common stock have been issued and are unvested or unexercised, and 17,162,500 shares of common stock remain available for grants under the 2013 Plan.
The 2013 Plan is administered by a committee of the Board (“Compensation Committee”) which determines the persons to whom awards will be granted, the number of awards to be granted and the specific terms of each grant, including the vesting thereof, subject to the provisions of the plan.
In connection with Incentive Stock Options, the exercise price of each option may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of the common stock on the date of the grant (or 110% of the fair market value in the case of a grantee holding more than 10% of the outstanding stock of the Company). The aggregate fair market value (determined at the time of the grant) of stock for which an employee may exercise
Incentive Stock Options under all plans of the company shall not exceed $1,000,000 per calendar year. If any employee shall have the right to exercise any options in excess of $100,000 during any calendar year, the options in excess of $100,000 shall be deemed to be Non-Statutory Stock Options, including prices, duration, transferability and limitations on exercise.
The Company issued Non-Statutory Stock Options pursuant to contractual agreements with non-employees. Options granted under the agreements are expensed when the related service or product is provided.
Determining the appropriate fair value of stock-based awards requires the input of subjective assumptions. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model to value its stock option awards. The assumptions used in calculating the fair value represent management’s best estimates and involve inherent uncertainties and judgments.
On June 11, 2015, the Company issued options to purchase an aggregate of 1,225,000 shares (104,125,000 pre Reverse Stock Split) of the Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.85 per share, with a term of five years, to three employees and two members of the Board. The fair value of options issued was $993,083. These options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 176.6%, risk-free interest rate of 1.74% to 1.75% and expected option life of five years. The options are being expensed over the vesting terms for the employees and over the Board members’ remaining service terms as that is shorter than the vesting terms. In December 2016, one of the officers resigned and as part of his severance agreement all of his options vested and the remaining unamortized option expense of $173,113 was expensed.
On July 9, 2015, the Company hired a COO who received 375,000 options (31,875,000 pre Reverse Stock Split) to purchase shares of Common Stock of the Company, with an exercise price of $0.85 ($0.01 pre reverse split) and valued at $1,502,219. The options vest quarterly over three years. The fair value of the options was valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 180.1%, risk free interest rate of 1.58% and expected life of five years. The options were being expensed over the vesting terms. The COO resigned on May 31, 2016, therefore forfeiting his options and the Company did not reverse any expense related to these options.
On August 10, 2015, the Company hired a CFO who received 200,000 options (17,000,000 pre Reverse Stock Split) to purchase shares of Common Stock vesting annually over three years. The options were valued at fair value of $1,107,857, using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 182.2%, risk free rate interest rate of 1.62% and expected life of five years. The options were being expensed over the vesting terms. On December 21, 2016, the CFO voluntarily forfeited these options and the Company did not reverse any expense related to these options.
On September 25, 2015, the Company issued options to purchase an aggregate of 75,000 shares (6,375,000 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock at an exercise price of $2.15 per share, with a term of five years to a member of the Board. The fair value of options issued was $155,003. These options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 183.5%, risk-free interest rate of 1.48% and expected option life of five years. The options are being expensed over the service term as that is shorter than the vesting terms.
On February 29, 2016, the Company issued options to purchase an aggregate of 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.57 per share, with a term of five years, to the former Chairman of the Board. The fair value of options issued was $53,731. These options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 202.9%, risk-free interest rate of 1.22% and expected option life of five years. The options were being expensed over the Board Chairman’s remaining service terms as that is shorter than the vesting terms. The former Chairman of the Board resigned on December 1, 2016 and therefore, forfeited the unvested options and the Company did not reverse any expense related to these options.
On March 10, 2016, the Company issued options to purchase 150,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.56 per share, with a term of five years, to an employee. The fair value of options issued was $82,113. These options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 202.9%, risk-free interest rate of 1.45% and expected option life of five years. The options were being expensed over the vesting terms for the employee. The employee was terminated during 2016 and expense related to the options of $2,281 was reversed.
On March 24, 2016, the Company issued options to purchase 50,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.43 per share, with a term of five years, to a consultant, which vest immediately. The fair value of options issued was $21,068. These options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 203.1%, risk-free interest rate of 1.39% and expected option life of five years. The options were expensed immediately.
On December 21, 2016, the Company issued 890,000 options in aggregate to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock to the Board of Directors, the CFO and an employee at an exercise price of $0.11, expiring in ten years and vesting immediately. In conjunction with this issuance the Board of Directors, the CFO and an employee forfeited 789,706 options. The fair value of the options issued was $133,411. All of the options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 324.6%, risk-free interest rate of 2.55% and expected option life of ten years. The options were expensed immediately.
On December 22, 2016, the Company issued 1,300,000 options in aggregate to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, to the Board of Directors, the CFO and an employee at an exercise price of $0.25, expiring in ten years and vesting immediately. The fair value of the options issued was $148,070. All of the options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 324.7%, risk-free interest rate of 2.55% and expected option life of ten years. The options were expensed immediately.
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company expensed $1,355,992 and $849,971 with respect to the options.
During the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the weighted average fair value of stock options granted during the period was $0.18 and $0.04. The fair value of stock options is expensed over the vesting term in accordance with the terms of the related stock option agreements.
During the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the period was $0.
As of December 31, 2016, there was no unrecognized compensation cost related to outstanding stock options. The difference between the stock options exercisable at December 31, 2016 and the stock options exercisable and expected to vest relates to management’s estimate of options expected to vest in the future.
The following table presents the weighted-average assumptions used to estimate the fair values of the stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
The following table summarizes the activities for the Company’s stock options for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
(1)
The aggregate intrinsic value is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying awards and the closing stock price of $0.11 for our common stock on December 31, 2016.
The following table summarizes the activities for the Company’s unvested stock options for the year ended December 31, 2016:
On May 1, 2016, the Company issued warrants to purchase 100,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share, with a term of five years, to the Chief Executive Officer, which vest immediately. The fair value of warrants issued was $49,885. These warrants were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model to calculate the grant-date fair value of the options, with the following assumptions: no dividend yield, expected volatility of 204.0%, risk-free interest rate of 1.28% and expected life of five years. The options were expensed immediately.
The following table summarizes the activities for the Company’s warrants for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:
(1)
The aggregate intrinsic value is calculated as the difference between the exercise price of the underlying warrants and the closing stock price of $0.11 for our common stock on December 31, 2016.
All of the options were vested as of December 31, 2015.
NOTE 14 - OPERATING LEASES
For the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, total rent expense under leases amounted to $11,835 and $55,153. At December 31, 2016, the Company was not obligated under any non-cancelable operating leases.
NOTE 15 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
At June 12, 2015, three stockholders of the Company held $317,000 of the senior secured convertible notes payable and were owed accrued interest of $42,713. The notes and accrued interest were converted into 234,735 shares (19,952,489 pre Reverse Stock Split) of Common Stock as further described in Note 7 and 8.
At December 31, 2016, one shareholder of the Company held $54,000 of notes payable and was owed $298 in accrued interest.
As of December 31, 2016, the Company owed the current Chairman of the Board $19,757 for services and expenses rendered, the CEO $6,250 for services rendered and the CFO $38,006 for services and expenses rendered. All of these amounts were included in accounts payable.
NOTE 16 - MAJOR CUSTOMERS/VENDORS
During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, one and three customers accounted for 100.0% of total sales. Generally, a substantial percentage of the Company's sales has been made to a small number of customers and is typically on an open account basis.
During the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, we purchased 100.0% of our pigment from one vendor.
NOTE 17 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On January 6, 2017, 13,000 shares of Series A were converted into 260,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock.
On January 31, 2017, the Company issued options to purchase 225,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to a consultant at an exercise price of $0.09, with a term of 5 years and vesting over three months.
On January 24, 2017 and January 31, 2017, the Company issued notes payable and received proceeds in the aggregate amount of $20,000 to an investor, bearing interest at five percent per annum, which also included warrants to purchase 1,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock at $0.40 and that have a term of five years.
On February 6, 2017, the Company issued options to purchase in the aggregate of 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to a consultant at an exercise price of $0.068 for 250,000 options and $0.25 for the remaining 250,000 options, all with a term of 5 years and vesting immediately.
On February 13, 2017, the Company issued a promissory note and received proceeds in the amount of $100,000 to an investor, bearing no interest, and which included a warrant to purchase 5 million shares of the Company’s common stock, with an exercise price of $0.40 and a term of 5 years.
On March 28, 2017, the Company issued a promissory note and received proceeds in the amount of $25,000 to an investor, bearing no interest, and which included a warrant to purchase 1,250,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, with an exercise price of $0.40 and a term of 5 years.
On March 30, 2017, an investor converted 20,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Convertible Preferred Stock into 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.