SEC Info  
    Home      Search      My Interests      Help      Sign In      Please Sign In

DBS Industries Inc – ‘10KSB/A’ for 12/31/01

On:  Monday, 7/22/02, at 6:53pm ET   ·   As of:  7/23/02   ·   For:  12/31/01   ·   Accession #:  1001277-2-352   ·   File #:  0-28348

Previous ‘10KSB’:  ‘10KSB’ on 6/3/02 for 12/31/01   ·   Latest ‘10KSB’:  This Filing

Find Words in Filings emoji
 
  in    Show  and   Hints

  As Of                Filer                Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size              Issuer               Agent

 7/23/02  DBS Industries Inc                10KSB/A    12/31/01    1:302K                                   Locke Lord Bi… Lidell/FA

Amendment to Annual Report — Small Business   —   Form 10-KSB
Filing Table of Contents

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10KSB/A     Amendment to Annual Report -- Small Business         104    559K 


Document Table of Contents

Page (sequential) | (alphabetic) Top
 
11st Page   -   Filing Submission
3Item 1. Business
15Landing Rights
17Competition for our E-SAT system
20Risk Factors
23The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license
27Our key engineering subcontractor is emerging from a bankruptcy proceeding that could harm our completion of the Iridium based system
31Item 2. Properties
"Item 3. Legal Proceedings
"Item 4. Submission of Matters to A Vote of Security Holders
32Item 5. Market for Company's Common Stock and Related Stockholder Matters
36Plan of Operation
44Item 7. Financial Statements and Supplemental Data
"Item 8. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
45Item 9. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, PROMOTERS AND CONTROL PERSONS; COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 16(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
53Item 11. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
54Item 12. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
55Item 13. Financial Statements, Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
10KSB/A1st Page of 104TOCTopPreviousNextBottomJust 1st
 

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-KSB/A AMENDMENT NO. 1 [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (FEE REQUIRED) For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (NO FEE REQUIRED) For the transition period from ____________________ to ____________________ Commission File No. 0-28348 DBS INDUSTRIES, INC. (Name of small business issuer in its charter) Delaware 84-1124675 -------- ----------- (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 100 Shoreline Highway, Suite 190A Mill Valley, California 94941 (Address of principal executive (Zip Code) offices) Issuer's telephone number: (415) 380-8055 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act: None Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act: Common Stock, par value $.0004 per share
10KSB/A2nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 2nd
Indicate by check mark whether the issuer (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES X NO Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is contained herein, or will be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-KSB or any amendment to this Form 10-KSB. [ ] Issuer's revenues for its most recent fiscal year: $-0- The number of shares outstanding of registrant's only class of Common Stock, as of July 5, 2002, was 35,726,034 shares of its Common Stock, par value $.0004 per share. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Certain exhibits required by Item 13 have been incorporated by reference from the Company's previous Form 10-KSBs, Form 8-Ks, and its Registration Statements on Form SB-2. Exhibit Index is located at Page 52.
10KSB/A3rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 3rd
PART I ITEM 1. BUSINESS Overview The Company DBS Industries, Inc. is dedicated to providing innovative satellite and telecommunications based solutions for the monitoring and control of energy and critical natural resources and their often-inaccessible remote infrastructure. Through our ten years of development experience in satellite system design and energy monitoring and control, we have developed expertise that enabled us to develop what we believe is a currently marketable data messaging system and obtained control over a satellite license that we believe will significantly aid the future expansion of our service. We are a development stage company and have an accumulated net loss since inception of more than $24 million and negative working capital of more than $3 million. Due to our losses and negative cash flows from operating activities since inception and our need for additional financing, our independent accountants have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Through our 80% ownership interest in E-SAT, Inc., we are the only company currently licensed by the FCC to provide commercial two-way data messaging using low earth orbiting satellites, VHF frequencies and code division multiple access technology. This license is internationally recognized through the United States LEOTELCOM-2 license. We intend to utilize the E-SAT license, whose majority ownership and control was obtained in 2000, to deliver global low-cost resource infrastructure monitoring and control services, with our first target market comprised of automated electric meter reading and control. We have estimated the costs associated with building the six satellite global constellation to service this market to be approximately $60 million. Financial difficulties in the satellite sector and sharp declines in telecommunications and technology sectors have, however, made it difficult for us to attract the necessary system construction financing to complete the E-SAT system and have made us unable to meet certain milestones required by the FCC license. (See "Risk Factors-- The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license."). As a result, in 2001 we developed a strategy to take advantage of the telecommunications downturn by purchasing satellite capacity and combining it with the energy communications technologies and expertise we have developed over the past ten years. With this strategy, we believe that we could more quickly deliver our services to customers and, at the same time, demonstrate the market value of low earth orbiting satellite systems for remote infrastructure services. We initiated our strategy in June 2001 when we completed a seven-year operator-to-operator agreement with Iridium Satellite LLC, the purchaser of the Iridium system out of bankruptcy, gaining low rates on satellite capacity and limited exclusivity through a revenue sharing arrangement. We also contracted with TIAX, LLC, formerly Arthur D. Little, Inc.'s Technology and Innovation business, a technology firm with specific expertise in the Iridium Satellite system, to help us develop a data network solution for this primarily voice telecommunications system. (See "Risk Factors-- Our key engineering subcontractor is emerging from a bankruptcy proceeding that could harm our completion of the Iridium based system.") To date, we have not recognized any significant revenue. We plan to begin providing our data messaging services on a commercial basis during 2002, utilizing the satellite capacity we contracted from Iridium Satellite.
10KSB/A4th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 4th
In June 2001, following the first successful demonstration of turning on and off a 60-ton shopping mall air conditioner by satellite before representatives of the California governor's office and the media, we entered into negotiations with the State of California to provide satellite-based energy management services. On May 23, 2002, we entered into a Demand Reserves Provider Agreement with the California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority, commonly referred to as the California Power Authority, to implement a satellite-based automated conservation system designed to conserve significant electrical usage on demand at peak or emergency times. Under the contract, we shall provide a minimum of 200 megawatts and a maximum of 360 megawatts of daily available demand reduction from qualified end users. This minimum and maximum of daily available demand reduction increases to 400 megawatts and 560 megawatts, respectively, effective June 1, 2003. We are currently seeking financing to implement and complete the engineering, deployment, and operation of the automated load curtailment system which is estimated to cost approximately $15 to $20 million over the next two years. In addition, we are in the process of signing up customers to participate in the program. (See "Risk Factors-- We may be unable to sign up participants to make load available for our automated load curtailment services and - We may be unable to raise sufficient capital for implementation of the Iridium-based system".) To aid us in implementing and deploying services for the California Power Authority we have engaged Bechtel Corporation to provide program management services, and TIAX, LLC for engineering services. At the same time we are seeking to implement services to the California Power Authority, we plan to continue to pursue development of our E-SAT system as a complementary source of satellite capacity. We believe that our use of Iridium's L-Band satellite capacity will be complementary to our ultimate VHF-Band E-SAT system. This is primarily because the E-SAT system operates in the VHF spectrum that does not require a sky view from the satellite to the remote device. The Iridium system operates in the L-Band spectrum and does require a sky view, which prohibits the placement of the devices inside buildings or in other locations where there is no direct view of the satellite. Both of these systems are low-earth-orbiting satellite systems that we believe offer significant advantages over competing systems and alternative customer solutions, including: Global coverage: Using a little low earth orbiting satellite-to-internet system, we will be able to provide reliable, global, two-way data and messaging communications services. Security: By using both the Iridium system, which is used by the U.S. Department of Defense, and the planned E-SAT system, we believe that we will be capable of providing security benefits through the implementation of a virtual private network that does not rely on any public switched phone system. Low cost: Unlike terrestrial systems, no incremental communications network infrastructure is required for new locations, regardless of how remote they are. In addition, both the Iridium System and the planned E-SAT system require fewer ground stations than other satellite solutions. In Iridium's case, this is because the system supports inter-satellite communications; in E-SAT's case, this is because the system is store-and-forward, so satellites can store the information until a ground station is reached. Low-cost ground transceiver: As compared to geostationary satellites operating at over 22,000 miles from earth, the Iridium and E-SAT low earth orbiting systems operate less than 500 miles from earth and therefore can utilize smaller and less expensive transceivers. In addition, in the case
10KSB/A5th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 5th
of the E-SAT system, the use of spread spectrum (Code Division Multiple Access) communications technology and an Application Specific Integrated Circuit technology should allow us to produce smaller and lower-cost ground transceivers than competing systems. Our principal executive offices are located at 100 Shoreline Highway, Suite 190A, Mill Valley, California, 94941 and our phone number is 415-380-8055. Our Strategy To achieve our business objectives, we have identified the following key components to our business strategy: Minimizing risk and entering into early commercial service by obtaining communication capacity on existing satellite platforms. We believe such a strategy can both reduce the initial capital required for us to become operational, provide an ability for us to build a customer base and market credibility, and demonstrate the market opportunity to potential investors for the purpose of raising capital to complete construction of our E-SAT system. Providing a reliable, worldwide, two-way data communications network based on existing technologies. We believe that the Iridium system, which is also used by the U.S. Department of Defense, is a proven technology. With regard to our E-SAT system, we are incorporating existing and proven technologies such as Code Division Multiple Access communications technology and a store-and-forward design. Offering a low-cost service. We believe that low cost is of fundamental importance to our potential clients. By obtaining existing satellite capacity from a firm that has been purchased out of bankruptcy, we have been able to obtain service at a significantly lower cost than we believe would otherwise have been possible. With regard to our planned E-SAT system, we believe the relatively lower costs involved in design, construction, launch and operations, together with lower-powered, relatively inexpensive ground transceivers, will allow us to provide data messaging services to customers in hard-to-access or remote locations at substantially lower rates than competing systems. We have designed the E-SAT system specifically for the two-way communication of short messages, using fewer satellites than competing near-real time low earth orbit systems and less complex and less expensive components than those required for larger satellite systems designed to carry voice, video and high-intensity data traffic. Competing little low earth orbiting systems using the older Time Division Multiple Access communications technology will require more satellites and more gateway earth stations than the E-SAT system. Capitalizing on not being the first to market. We have learned a great deal from earlier commercial satellite operators whose services have not developed as they may have anticipated. We believe that this experience has confirmed our focus on low-cost solutions for clearly targeted niche markets. Capitalizing on the barriers to entry for potential competitors to our E-SAT system. The primary barrier to entry into the little low earth orbiting satellite service market in the United States is the acquisition of an operating license from the FCC. Before the FCC issues any additional licenses, it must allocate an additional portion of the frequency spectrum for use, which we do not expect to happen in the near future.
10KSB/A6th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 6th
Directly marketing to large industrial customers and governmental entities. We believe that marketing directly to large industrial customers and governmental entities will ensure greater customer service and support in each geographic region or targeted market than will value-added resellers, and will reduce our selling and administrative expenses for bringing the E-SAT system to market. Outside of the United States, it will also aid us in securing any necessary local regulatory and other approvals. Capitalizing on the commitment and expertise of our strategic partners. We have successfully allied ourselves with companies and investors who we believe are highly qualified strategic partners. For our initial service we have contracted with Iridium Satellite for satellite services, TIAX LLC for engineering, and Bechtel Corporation for program management. For our E-SAT system, we have strong relationships with Eurockot Launch Services, our launch service provider, and Surrey Satellite Technology Limited, our satellite manufacturer. Development Milestones - Iridium-based system To develop currently marketable remote infrastructure monitoring and control services using the Iridium system, we have achieved the following milestones to date: Executed a seven-year operator-to-operator agreement with Iridium Satellite LLC. In June 2001, we executed a seven-year operator-to-operator agreement with Iridium Satellite LLC, the purchaser of the Iridium system from bankruptcy, gaining low rates and limited exclusivity through a revenue sharing arrangement. Conducted a system demonstration in June 2001, by successfully turning on and turning off a 60-ton shopping mall air conditioner by satellite before representatives of the California governor's office and the media. Entered into a Demand Reserves Provider Agreement. In May 2002, we entered into a five-year Demand Reserves Provider Agreement with the California Power Authority to provide a minimum of 200 megawatts and a maximum of 360 megawatts of daily available electrical demand reduction from energy reduction participants. Development Milestones - E-SAT system We will not be able to deploy two little low earth orbiting satellites, which make up a part of E-SAT's planned six-satellite system, in compliance with the milestone dates required under the FCC license. As a result, on March 29, 2002, we applied to the FCC for an extension of the milestone requirements for an additional two years. The request was accepted by the FCC and there were no opposing comments to our request after a 30-day public notice period. We are awaiting the formal grant of the extension by the FCC. (See "Risk Factors-- The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license.") To date, we have achieved the following milestones: Development of the system. We initially conducted research and testing to develop our E-SAT system design and were successful in integrating our satellite transmitter and antenna completely within a utility meter. Completed proof-of-concept trials. We conducted proof-of-concept demonstrations with 36 electric and natural gas utilities demonstrating little low earth orbiting satellite technology as a
10KSB/A7th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 7th
viable method to collect data from hard-to-access locations. We conducted a proof-of-concept trial for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, in which data from several natural gas wellhead meters was collected and transmitted by little low earth orbiting satellites to the customer. This trial was completed in April 1995. Subsequently, a series of proof-of-concept demonstrations were conducted in conjunction with ABB Power T&D Company, Inc., in which prototype radio terminal units and electric meters were installed at 34 electric utilities in the continental United States and two international utility companies in South America and Canada. Typical trial demonstrations lasted for a 30-day period, and the demonstrations were completed in late 1997. These early trials utilized the Argos System, a satellite location and data collection system operated and controlled by the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (France) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. Granting of FCC License. On March 31, 1998, E-SAT was issued a license by the FCC to provide little low earth orbiting satellite services in the United States. Signed contract to construct the satellites. On March 31, 1999, we signed a contract with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited for the construction of E-SAT's planned constellation of six little low earth orbiting satellites. Should we bring into effect our prime contract with Alcatel Space Industries (see below in this section, "Entered into an agreement with an end-to-end prime contractor for the E-SAT system"), our contract with Surrey would be assigned to Alcatel. Engaged a launch service provider to deliver our satellites into orbit. On March 31, 1999, we signed a contract with Eurockot Launch Services GmbH, for two launches, each for a set of three satellites. Entered into an agreement with an end-to-end prime contractor for the E-SAT system which, as of July 5, 2002, is no longer in effect but did provide us with certain assets. On October 8, 1999, we signed a contract with Alcatel Space Industries for the final design, construction and delivery to the launch site of six little low earth orbiting satellites. Pursuant to that contract, we paid approximately $2 million to Alcatel, for which Alcatel completed and provided to us the preliminary engineering design review for the E-SAT system, including the payload design and designs for the gateway earth station and tracking facilities, as well as the satellite orbital analysis and communications link margins to and from space. The agreement with Alcatel required a payment at the end of 1999 of approximately $9.1 million in cash and the equivalent of $5 million of our common stock to bring the contract into effect in order to initiate the full development schedule. As of July 5, 2002 this payment, which was originally due in November 1999, has not been made and therefore the agreement with Alcatel is not currently in effect. (See, "Risks-- The contract with our prime contractor for the E-SAT system could be declared void.") However, we did receive valuable engineering specifications and analyses that we believe are an integral part of E-SAT's ability to construct the satellite system. Negotiated equity investments in us by E-SAT strategic partners. We negotiated equity investments totaling approximately $10 million by Eurockot Launch Services and Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. Organized our risk management through insurance. On July 14, 1999, we engaged Frank Crystal and Co. and its subsidiary, International Space Brokers, as our exclusive risk management advisors and insurance brokers for both space and ground segments.
10KSB/A8th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 8th
Successfully launched and commissioned first satellite payload, bringing our international license into service. On June 28, 2000, we launched our first satellite payload aboard a SNAP-1 nanosatellite, and completed the in-orbit commissioning in August and September. The satellite, which is not being used for commercial service, has succeeded in its purpose of validating critical design elements that we believe will lead to the successful deployment of our E-SAT commercial satellite services. Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. completed the payload from design to commissioning in only seven months. On October 20, 2000, the FCC informed the International Telecommunications Union that this payload brought into service the LEOTELCOM-2 international frequency license, under which E-SAT operates. Acquired controlling interest in E-SAT. On July 31, 1999, we signed a contract with EchoStar Communications Corp. to increase our ownership interest in E-SAT to 80.1%. EchoStar retains 19.1% of the ownership interest in E-SAT, Inc. Under the terms of that agreement, EchoStar has the right to use 20% of the communication capacity of the E-SAT system. The FCC approved the transfer of control to us on November 21, 2000 and on December 29, 2000, we executed documents for the formal transfer from EchoStar. Target Markets - Automated Electricity Load Curtailment Supply and demand imbalances are driving forces in energy markets worldwide. Our technology seeks to mitigate these imbalances by providing low cost and targeted automated load curtailment that can effectively provide large amounts of electricity at times of severe imbalances, in effect creating strategic energy conservation reserves. Such reserves consist of non-essential uses of electricity that can be surgically curtailed in the event of local, regional or national energy crises without impacting health, safety or economic productivity. We believe that our technology can provide a satellite-based command and control system that enables us to provide near real-time curtailment of energy using devices, such as air conditioners, at peak usage and other emergency times when the shortage of energy could cause blackouts. This program incorporates new and highly secure metering, communications and control technologies that permit direct, near real-time and geographically targeted access to significant amounts of curtailable demand, and direct metering at the load source. As a result, we endeavor to provide an effective day-in and day-out energy management tool to reduce energy peaks at a cost significantly below that of generating plants and without the significant environmental, social and financial costs of building new generation plants. In particular, we focused on the events surrounding the energy crisis in California in the spring and summer of 2001. We noted that a significant percentage of all electrical consumption is attributed to commercial air conditioning systems and concluded that, by providing automated curtailing of these systems during critical time periods, we could offer the following potential benefits: Prevents blackouts. Through the identification and consolidation of non-critical and non-essential energy use across a state, a massive voluntary prospective reserve of energy can be developed for automated conservation on command. This automated conservation can be used to protect against rolling blackouts and the potentially serious health, safety and short and long-term economic consequences that may result from blackouts. Protect consumers and businesses. By providing an effective method for gaining greater control over the regional energy spot market, we may be able to reduce price pressures. This could reduce the potential for temporary energy
10KSB/A9th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 9th
bottlenecks or energy market manipulation by providing an effective tool to ratchet down energy use during spikes and, therefore, preventing excessive energy pricing. This could save retail customers, businesses and government significant amounts from their power bills. Conserve energy and protect the environment. Using automated energy conservation at peak loads avoids the significant environmental cost of building and operating peak generation and transmission facilities. Enhance grid infrastructure security. In the event of inadvertent or intentional damage to a portion of the electricity grid, the ability to execute command conservation could be used to prevent a dramatic and cascading impact on the regional grid, as illustrated by the Northeast blackout of 1977. On May 23, 2002, we entered into a Demand Reserves Provider Agreement with the California Power Authority. Under the agreement, beginning October 1, 2002, we shall provide a minimum of 200 megawatts and a maximum of 360 megawatts of daily available electrical demand reduction from qualified end users. This minimum and maximum of daily available demand reduction increases to 400 megawatts and 560 megawatts, respectively, effective June 1, 2003. Through our proposed services, the California Power Authority will be able to immediately reduce non-critical power consumption at locations throughout the state in order to create energy reserves to smooth out energy usage during peak use and emergency times. It is anticipated that qualified end users will consist of primarily large private commercial energy users such as owners of retail stores and shopping centers. For our services, the California Power Authority will pay us approximately $51,000 per year per megawatt for "non-spinning reserves". A portion of these fees will be remitted to the qualified end users as an incentive to participate in the demand reserves program. The agreement with the California Power Authority will terminate in May 2007. In addition, the agreement may be terminated earlier if we fail to provide the California Power Authority with the daily minimum megawatt of demand reduction by October 1, 2002, the California Power Authority fails to enter into a Participating Load Agreement with the California Independent System Operator by October 1, 2002 or such Participating Load Agreement is terminated during the term of our Demand Reserves Provider Agreement, or we fail to make available for reduction a specified level of energy usage for two consecutive months during the summer. We expect the capital and operating costs for the full deployment of the system to cost approximately $15 to $20 million over the next two years. We are in the process of signing up qualified end users to participate in the program. Other Target Markets We believe other significant markets for the technology we are developing for our Iridium-based system include: Natural Resource/Energy Infrastructure Command and Control. In the United States, an aging and substantially under-invested energy and natural resource infrastructure, often located in remote areas, is increasingly bottlenecking efficient resource allocation. Globally there is growing demand for solutions to critical natural resource, energy and water scarcity and distribution inefficiencies. These trends increase the importance of and demand for
10KSB/A10th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 10th
technologies that can provide remote real-time monitoring and control to remote natural resource infrastructure. We believe that our technology can provide unique solutions in this market by providing the ability to remote command and control remote infrastructure. Our technology is designed to provide direct remote monitoring and control of switches, transmission lines, meters, pipelines, hydraulic controls and related equipment to monitor usage, send alerts and remotely control other devices in order to prevent or isolate problems and reroute resources. Infrastructure Security Command and Control. Recent events have focused national security concerns on the vulnerabilities of the United States infrastructure to terrorism, serious vandalism, and natural disaster. Utilizing the potential for secure communication of our system, we believe we are capable of addressing certain critical security concerns related to United States infrastructure protection. Much of the energy infrastructure is intentionally located in or routed through remote and isolated areas for security reasons. For example, our nation's vulnerable and decentralized energy infrastructure includes approximately: * 670,000 miles of electric power transmission lines * 200,000 miles of petroleum pipeline * 180,000 miles of natural gas pipeline * 70,000 miles of propane pipeline * 38 major oil refineries * 10 unconnected independently managed electrical grids * 6 federal and hundreds of commercial fuel energy reserve depots * 390 hydroelectric dams * 100+ nuclear power-generating plants We believe that our system will be able to provide a comprehensive, centralized monitoring and command network for these disparate systems to, among other things: (1) monitor, activate early warning, and provide a national real-time view to detect emergency incidents and patterns across the range of infrastructure, from energy to water to ships at sea; and (2) enable strategic intervention to contain the impact or spread of local infrastructure emergencies. Target Markets - E-SAT system and Automated Meter Reading We plan to continue to pursue development of our E-SAT system as a complementary source of satellite capacity. We have designed the E-SAT system to provide low cost, two-way data messaging services to industrial customers throughout the world who need regular, but not real-time, information. We believe that our use of E-SAT's VHF-Band system will be complementary to our Iridium L-Band satellite capacity. This is primarily because the E-SAT system operates in the VHF spectrum that does not require a sky view from the satellite to the remote device enabling E-SAT transceivers to be placed inside buildings or in other locations where there is no direct view of the satellite. In addition, we believe that the E-SAT transceivers can be produced at a significantly lower cost than Iridium transceivers. By focusing on the non-real-time market, where some delay between data collection and transmission to the customer has insignificant business consequence, the E-SAT system can be developed at relatively low costs compared to other global communications networks, and therefore serve markets such as automated meter reading, where we believe reduced costs will be an important consideration. By focusing on collecting data that is in remote or
10KSB/A11th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 11th
hard-to-access locations, we reduce our competition from terrestrial technologies, such as cellular communications, which cannot justify the infrastructure expense in each remote location, and we increase the value offered to the customer as a result of their higher costs in those areas. Our initial focus for the E-SAT system is on energy meters in remote locations. One of our target markets is the United States electric and natural gas utility industries, particularly their high-cost-to-read metering segment which historically required such "meter reading" to be conducted by utility personnel. This labor intensive activity presents logistical issues such as significant travel time to a meter site, rugged terrain, physical risk, restricted sites, environmental issues, and mis-reads requiring additional site visits, all of which can contribute to higher costs for utilities. Our proposed messaging services are designed to provide a reduction in the cost to gather data from hard-to-access meters. We expect to charge significantly less than the costs utility companies normally incur in sending meter reading personnel out to each of those difficult to reach locations. This provides several advantages including: * Planning and decision-making is improved through greater and more timely availability of their consumers' energy-related information. * Estimated billing is eliminated. * Service connects and disconnects can be scheduled and performed automatically. * Value added features are available such as meter diagnostics, tamper detection, outage reporting, and power quality information. * Two-way communication capabilities can substantially reduce customer costs while enabling new customer applications such as initiating remote diagnostics and remote turn-on/turn-off of electric meters. In the United States, the emergence of automatic meter reading as an accepted technology and the deregulation of the utility industry in a number of states, which has forced utility companies to focus on all aspects of their costs and, in some cases, to compete to retain the meter reading activity, has provided a foundation for us to market our services. There is also a significant potential market for our services in countries that do not broadly monitor energy consumption. For those countries, implementing or expanding coverage of metering is of significant strategic and economic benefit both as a source of revenue and as a critical component of implementing their energy infrastructure. By working with these countries as they develop their services and providing them with a low-cost alternative to traditional meter reading methods, we believe we can succeed in becoming an integral part of their utility infrastructure. Technology: Iridium-based System The Iridium system is comprised of three principal components: the little low earth orbiting satellite network, the ground network and the user terminal unit.
10KSB/A12th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 12th
This system, developed together with Arthur D. Little, Inc., utilizes a proprietary master control system and remote controller connected to the Iridium Satellite System to remotely monitor and control roof-top air conditioning systems or other types of electricity-using devices. As of December 31, 2001, the Iridium satellite network consists of a constellation of 73 satellites (66 are operational plus 7 on-orbit spares) and a ground support network. The satellites are grouped into eleven polar planes, each having six satellites functioning as switching nodes in the Iridium telephony network. Each satellite weighs approximately 680 kg and travels in near-polar orbits at an altitude of 485 miles (780 km) above the earth. Each satellite is cross-linked to four other satellites; two satellites in the same orbital plane and two in an adjacent plane. This constellation is designed to ensure that every region on the globe is covered by at least one satellite at all times. The Iridium network operates in the L, K and Ka frequency bands. Planned aspects of our technology include: o Universal control of virtually any significant energy using device - remote operation shut-down o Independent control of multiple AC units or other loads o Security o Automatic site identification when connection is initiated o Remote status monitoring of the energy using device and the remote controller o Battery backup for several days without commercial power o Weather-proof remote control unit is designed for simple installation and trouble-free operation Technology: The E-SAT system The E-SAT system is designed to minimize infrastructure investment and maximize efficiency by utilizing a small constellation of little low earth orbiting satellites with the ability to reach markets not readily accessible by terrestrial technologies. We expect that the aggregate cost to construct and launch the E-SAT system into commercial service will be approximately $60 million, in addition to the approximately $12.2 million which has been spent through December 31, 2001. The E-SAT system's radio terminal units will attach to a customer's meter or other device and transmit data to the satellites using Code Division Multiple Access technology. From these little low earth orbiting satellites, the data is transmitted to ground stations, which sort the data and transmit the information to our customers via the Internet. The two-way service also allows our customers to send instructions, messages, and updates to their remote meters or other devices. Space Segment The constellation to be launched will consist of six satellites. We plan to initially launch three satellites on a single launch vehicle in a circular, near polar orbit at an altitude of approximately 550 miles and a 99 degree inclination angle. At this altitude, there will be fourteen revolutions per satellite per day, taking about 100 minutes per orbit. After the initial three satellites are deployed and become operational, and the system is established, an additional three satellites will be deployed in a second near-polar orbital plane within FCC guidelines. These little low earth orbiting satellites, which will weigh about 110 kg each, will be almost constantly illuminated by the sun, thereby significantly reducing battery usage. Supplemental battery power will be required only for power load leveling, occasional brief eclipse periods and contingencies. Based on the current design, we estimate that each satellite will operate for a period of five years.
10KSB/A13th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 13th
The satellites will consist of two functional segments, the platform and the payload. Put simply, the platform is the structure part of the satellite. The payload is the radio frequency equipment on board the satellite that allows it to communicate with earth-based transceivers. The platform provides the payload with power and thermal control, allowing it to operate and perform the mission. The platform provides the altitude control in order to keep the payload antenna pointing towards the earth. Orbit determination and control is performed by the platform in order to maintain the proper constellation configuration. The FCC license will allow us to operate from earth to the satellites in the 148.0000 - 148.905 MHz band and from the satellites to the earth in the 137.0725 to 137.9275 MHz band. The communications plan for our system will utilize direct sequence spread spectrum multiple access transmission for service links, from meter to satellite, and feeder links, from ground station to satellite. This modulation technique is designed to allow the communications to distinguish between messages and the background noise emanating into space. Due to the continuing growth of electrical and electronic equipment, such as personal paging systems that incorporate wireless communication technology, the radio frequency spectrum has become crowded or "noisy." Commercial applications demand reliable communication systems. This objective is harder to achieve with conventional solutions because of numerous wireless systems creating more noise in the frequency bands of operation. Code Division Multiple Access is designed to enable our system to provide high functionality in a noisy radio frequency environment and achieve those particular data transmission objectives. With most conventional modulation techniques, energy concentration is maximized for a narrowband transmission channel. While narrowband solutions opt for a single carrier channel, the transmitted signal must be strong enough to be recognized over the background noise. Therefore, terminals operating in a narrowband technique must have relatively high power capability. Code Division Multiple Access spreads the data signal over the entire band of operations reducing the power required by a terminal unit to transmit data to a satellite. Through E-SAT, we are presently the only commercial little low earth orbiting system operator licensed in the United States to implement Code Division Multiple Access in its communications protocol. Ground Segment Rather than using traditional technology that transmits the data to a ground station as soon as it is received, the non-real-time nature of our markets allows us to use a store-and-forward design. Our satellites are designed to receive the information from terminals on the ground, store it in memory and hold all of the data until they pass over a ground station. This allows us to use fewer ground stations, reducing costs and radio frequency licensing and coordination requirements. We currently intend to locate our initial ground station on Svalbard Island in Spitzbergen, Norway, and are evaluating certain sites in other countries for additional service. The mission control center will manage the collection and retrieval of data. It will interface with ground stations and a satellite control center. The satellite control center will communicate directly with and provide overall operational control of the satellites. The mission center location is currently in review and the satellite control center is currently planned to be located in the United Kingdom. Secure Internet communication with customers is a crucial part of the E-SAT system. Data collected or delivered will utilize the Internet as a global,
10KSB/A14th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 14th
cost-effective vehicle to disseminate data and maximally automate the customer servicing system. Data will lack meaningful descriptors or customer identification and so should have no meaning if intercepted, but may also be encrypted. Terminals The system is also comprised of remote terminal units that will connect to a device such as an electric utility meter and allow that device to send and receive signals to and from the system. The terminal will provide the communication link between the meter and our satellites. A relatively low-cost terminal is a key success factor for this business plan and, for that reason, we intend to strictly control the development and manufacturing of the terminals. The complete terminal unit will consist of two parts, the core engine and the fixed asset interface module. The core engine will include a programmable controller unit and will incorporate the cost-saving benefits of the ASIC technology. This will allow us to manufacture the terminals at a lower cost. The fixed asset interface module will be optimized for the specific application, such as an electric meter, vending machine or propane tank, and will contain all the application specific functions required to interface the device with the core engine. The interface will also contain any necessary power conditioning components to allow reliable communication between the terminal and the satellites. During 1998, we worked with SAIT Radio Holland SA to perform studies on antennas for the proposed terminal units and to develop and test prototypes. The development of terminal units was also included as an item under our agreement with Alcatel. (See "Development Milestones--Entered into an agreement with an end-to-end prime contractor for the E-SAT system".) We have not yet identified a main subcontractor for the engineering, development and provision of hardware and software for terminal units, or for the manufacture of terminals. Regulatory Environment United States All commercial non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite services, such as little low earth orbiting satellites, in the United States are subject to the regulatory authority of the FCC. Little low earth orbiting operators must obtain authorization from the FCC to launch and operate their satellites and to provide permitted services in assigned spectrum segments. In November 1994, E-SAT filed an application with the FCC for a license to develop a commercial little low earth orbiting satellite system for data collection and transmission. E-SAT was one of five applicants requesting approval for essentially the same frequency band but proposing a different use. The five applicants mutually agreed upon a spectrum sharing plan which requires the applicants to share an uplink and downlink frequency band with other satellite systems. In October 1997, the FCC released a report and order which concluded that with use of appropriate transmission techniques, proper system coordination, the time-sharing of frequencies and the adoption of the spectrum sharing plan, there was sufficient spectrum to license all five applicants. Thereafter, E-SAT filed an amendment conforming its application to the guidelines adopted by the FCC report and order. On March 31, 1998, the FCC approved E-SAT's application for a little low earth orbiting satellite license. Under the license, E-SAT is authorized to launch and operate six little low earth orbiting satellites to provide a two-way, low-cost
10KSB/A15th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 15th
messaging service in the United States in the 148 to 148.905 MHz for service and feeder uplinks, and the 137.0725 to 137.9725 MHz frequency band for service and feeder downlinks. For its uplink, E-SAT is licensed to utilize 500 kHz of contiguous spectrum in the 148 to 148.855 MHz band that is not shared with the other United States licensees. Some of this spectrum may be required to be operated co-frequency with the French S-80 system, based on inter-governmental agreements between the United States and France. In December 1998, we completed our coordination with France on this shared use. E-SAT is licensed to utilize 148.855 to 148.905 MHz for feeder uplinks. E-SAT will operate in the other 355 kHz of the 148 to 148.905 MHz band on a co-frequency basis with three other companies, Leo One USA Corporation, Final Analysis Communication Services and Orbcomm Corp. In the downlink direction, E-SAT will operate in the band 137.0725 to 137.9275 MHz co-frequency with NOAA satellites, Orbcomm and Final Analysis. E-SAT is obligated to coordinate with the other little low earth orbiting licensees and NOAA, coordinate internationally and engage in consultations as required by Article 14 of the INTELSAT Agreement and Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention. In order to maintain the validity of the FCC license, E-SAT must comply at all times with the terms of the FCC license, unless specifically waived or modified by the FCC. The terms include, among other things, system construction milestones. In order to comply with the milestone requirements of the FCC license, E-SAT was required to commence construction of the first two satellites by March 1999 and the remaining four satellites by March 2001. On March 31, 1999, we, on E-SAT's behalf, entered into an agreement with Surrey Satellite for the construction of the little low earth orbiting satellites, and we notified the FCC on April 8, 1999, that we had met the first milestone of the license, commencement of satellite construction by March 1999. The FCC has neither confirmed nor denied our assertion. We have not met the next milestone, which is the completion of construction of the first two satellites by March 2002 and it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for us to meet the following milestone, which is to launch those two satellites by September 2002. Because of this, on March 29, 2002, E-SAT filed the request for an extension of milestones with the FCC and is awaiting a reply. (See "Risk Factors--The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license".) The terms of the FCC license also require that construction, launch and operation of the E-SAT system be accomplished in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in the FCC application and consistent with the FCC's rules, unless specifically waived. During the process of constructing the E-SAT system, there may be certain modifications to the design set forth in the FCC application that may necessitate regulatory approval. Assuming continued compliance, the FCC license will remain effective for ten years from the date on which we certify to the FCC that the initial satellites have been successfully placed into orbit and that the operations of the satellites conform to the terms and conditions of the FCC license. In addition, the FCC must approve the integration of E-SAT system's ground transceivers with the fixed devices. If received, the approval would apply to all transceivers to be operated in the United States. International Regulations Landing Rights. In addition to the FCC license for operation of the E-SAT system in the United States, we will be required to seek certain "landing rights" in each country in which our ground transceivers will be located. We intend to utilize international clients, partners or affiliates in each country we intend to operate in to obtain such authority. In the event we are unsuccessful in obtaining a foreign license in a particular country, we will be able to offer only one-way, broadcasting from the satellite, data and messaging services in
10KSB/A16th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 16th
that country. International Telecommunications Union Coordination. The E-SAT system will operate in frequencies that are allocated on an international basis under the authority of the International Telecommunications Union. The United States, on behalf of various little low earth orbiting service providers, pursued international allocations of additional frequencies for use by little low earth orbiting systems. In addition to cooperation through the FCC, E-SAT will be required to engage in international coordination with respect to other satellite systems, and in some cases, with terrestrial communication systems. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that communication systems will be able to operate without unacceptable radio frequency interference from other communication systems. This process, called "satellite coordination," takes place under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union and is essentially a first come, first served process. That is, earlier filings generally establish some priority over later filings although the International Telecommunications Union encourages applicants to cooperate to enable as many satellite systems as possible to be implemented. Ownership Interest in E-SAT E-SAT was incorporated in 1994 in partnership with EchoStar. In connection with the formation agreement, we hold 80.1% of the outstanding shares of E-SAT and EchoStar holds the remaining 19.9%. E-SAT was formed for the purpose of acquiring an FCC license to develop, construct and operate a little low earth orbiting satellite system. In March 1998 the FCC issued the license to E-SAT. In July 1999, we entered into an agreement to acquire an additional 60.1% from EchoStar, to bring our total ownership of E-SAT to 80.1%. The agreement and transfer of control of E-SAT is subject to FCC approval, which was formally requested on May 2, 2000 and approved by the FCC on November 21, 2000. The transfer agreements were executed in December 2000. The terms of the agreement granted EchoStar a 20% undivided interest in the satellite transmission capacity associated with the FCC E-SAT license. Competition Load Curtailment Competition Our automated conservation capability falls in the general category of electricity peak load curtailment services. For decades, when utilities had a problem meeting their peak demand, they called (usually by phone) customers with large concentrated loads to obtain voluntary reductions. These customers include industrial corporations, government, and large institutions such as hospitals and universities. Such reductions were generally voluntary but unpaid. "Interruptible" electric rates emerged in the 1970s. Customers would pay low power rates most of the time, but promised to cut back load by a defined amount when called or face a significant penalty. In the 1980s and early 1990s, some utilities offered residential and small commercial customers lower electric rates in exchange for installing automated demand control devices on electric hot water heaters and air conditioners. The demand control devices would respond to radio signals from the utility. Many of those programs, however, were either cut back or not pursued sufficiently to make much of a difference. Since there was no easy way to verify which customers had disabled the devices, questions were also raised regarding their sustained impact. During the late 1990's a combination of rapid load growth caused by a sustained economic boom, a failure to build new power plants, and difficulties with retail deregulation contributed to reductions in utility spare capacity and increasing
10KSB/A17th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 17th
requirements for effective curtailment solutions. Curtailable load programs often featured the following types of requirements: o Minimum load reduction of 100 kW per customer o Reduction must be available between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on any day of the week o Notification is usually at least 4 hours prior to curtailment o Reduction commitment must be met within 1 hour of curtailment o Customer must be able to receive and act upon the form of notification (e.g., beeper, radio signal) o Customer must have installed meters able to record integrated hourly values for actual net generation In these programs, meters measure and report load both before and after the reduction request. Samples of several such tariffs may be found at the web sites of a few utilities and some of the Independent System Operators. Load curtailment differs from demand-side management (often referred to as DSM), which typically focuses on permanent or continuous demand reduction, unrelated to market-based pricing. Many firms offer a wide variety of energy solutions for energy efficiency, demand-side-management and load curtailment, including Apogee (also called The Demand Exchange), Ancillary Services Coalition, Infotility, Planergy, Comverge Technologies, Retx.com, New West Energy, AES New Energy, Skytel, Silicon Energy, Circadian Information Systems, and Energy Interactive. In addition, utilities themselves may compete with these firms for direct relationships with sources of load to be curtailed. While the energy monitoring and control marketplace is highly populated with competitors, we believe that these competitors rely dominantly on fixed or wireless mobile terrestrial communications technologies to implement their businesses. We believe that the use of low-earth-orbiting satellites will provide improved access to customers over large geographical regions with improved coordination and targeting of loads, and significantly enhanced security than our competitors. For discussion of potential satellite competitors, see "Competition for our E-SAT system," below. Competition for our E-SAT system Competition in the communications industry is intense, fueled by rapid and continuous technological advances and alliances between industry participants seeking competitive advantages on an international scale to capture greater share of existing and emerging markets. In addition to E-SAT, three other commercial entities have been licensed by the FCC to provide little low earth orbiting satellite services in the United States although no other entity has been issued a license to use Code Division Multiple Access communication protocols: Orbcomm Global, Leo One, and Final Analysis. The FCC also granted a license in 1998 to Volunteers in Technical Assistance to transmit health, research and scientific data on a delayed basis between developing countries and the United States. Of the three commercial entities, only Orbcomm is currently in service. Orbcomm failed to generate revenue sufficient to cover its debt and was purchased out of bankruptcy protection in 2001. Over $800 million has been invested to date in the Orbcomm service, which was initiated in 1996 and consists of approximately thirty satellites, 5 gateway control centers, and 10 gateway Earth stations.
10KSB/A18th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 18th
Orbcomm aimed at serving on a near-real-time basis the broad data markets of mobile asset tracking of trailers, containers, rail cars, heavy equipment, autos, fishing vessels and barges and U.S. government assets; fixed asset monitoring of oil and gas tanks, pipelines, chemical tanks, electric utility meters, and environmental projects; two-way commercial and U.S. government messaging; home and commercial security systems; and personal messaging. Orbcomm uses Time Division Multiple Access narrow band communication protocols. Other than Orbcomm's existing Time Division Multiple Access based system, we do not believe that any of the other proposed little low earth orbiting systems will be commercially operational in the near term. We believe that we hold an advantage over these potential competitors by having obtained an FCC license for the only Code Division Multiple Access based store-and-forward little low earth orbiting system in the United States; by focusing on a low-cost and highly targeted market; and by achieving international coordination of our designated frequencies through the International Telecommunications Union. Over the course of the next several years, we expect to obtain further advantages over these potential competitors by demonstrating that a Code Division Multiple Access store-and-forward system can offer service at lower cost than those offered by the competition. Plans for little low earth orbiting systems have also been announced in Australia, Brazil, France, Russia, South Korea, Tonga and Uganda, although we believe that, without additional allocations of spectrum in the United States, these systems will be unable to offer services in the United States, and they will have to reach coordination agreements with all countries who have prior International Telecommunications Union filings for the same spectrum, namely the spectrum license filed by the FCC which it awarded to us. We expect that potential competitors will include other low earth orbiting systems and certain geosynchronous or geostationary orbit, or GEO-based systems and terrestrial-based communications systems. We believe further that we will compete in certain of our market segments with existing operators and users of certain GEO-based systems such as American Mobile and Qualcomm, and companies providing services using the Inmarsat system. American Mobile offers data services, both satellite only and dual-mode, satellite and terrestrial, through a public data network that can reach both densely populated urban areas and sparsely populated rural areas. In 1998, American Mobile acquired Motorola's ARDIS two-way terrestrial-based wireless messaging network, which complements American Mobile's existing satellite-based voice and data communications services. This allows American Mobile to offer a hybrid solution that has the ability, among other things, to serve urban areas and to penetrate buildings. Qualcomm designs, manufactures, distributes and operates a satellite-based, two-way mobile communications and tracking system that provides messaging, position reporting and other services for transportation companies and other mobile and fixed site customers using GEO satellites. In addition, various companies using the Inmarsat system are providing fishing vessel and other marine tracking applications. We believe that the E-SAT system will have certain advantages over these other systems, including worldwide coverage and lower equipment costs. The Big Low earth orbiting and Medium Earth Orbiting systems mentioned earlier are expected to provide real time, uninterrupted service. These systems are designed primarily to provide two-way voice services that require larger, more complex satellites than our satellites and larger constellations to provide coverage. As a result, the cost of the Big Low earth orbiting and Medium Earth Orbiting systems is significantly greater than those of the E-SAT system. However, the marginal cost on a per-message basis of providing services similar to those we will offer could be relatively low for a big low earth orbiting or Medium Earth Orbiting system that is unable to sell its capacity for voice services. For example, the satellite system operated by Globalstar, L.P. is
10KSB/A19th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 19th
expected to utilize a multi-billion dollar constellation of 48 satellites--as compared with DBS Industries' planned system of 6 satellites with an expected construction, marketing and operating cost of approximately $110 million--with those system costs then having to be allocated into each company's pricing structure and strategy. We also face competition from a wide range of terrestrial technologies, including paging, cellular, and power line carrier systems. Generally, our focus is not to compete with existing and planned terrestrial-based communications systems. However, in particular segments of our market, we believe we may encounter certain of these systems. While providing cost-effective services primarily in metropolitan areas where subscriber densities justify construction of radio towers, terrestrial systems generally do not have sufficient coverage outside metropolitan areas, which makes them less attractive to the hard-to-access and remote location markets that we initially targeted. In addition, we believe that the E-SAT system will present an attractive complement to tower-based services because E-SAT can provide geographic gap-filler service at affordable costs without the need for additional infrastructure investment. Because of the inherent coverage limitations of a terrestrial-based communications system, we believe that the E-SAT system will complement such systems. SkyTel, for example, provides paging messaging services in U.S. cities and is using its messaging network to provide fixed location services, specifically utility meter reading in urban areas. Hunt Technologies and Distribution Control Systems which provide power line carriers solutions using very low frequencies to transmit messages over power distribution lines, typically transmit data one-way and very slowly. Phone line carriers, which use a dedicated common carrier telephone service, are constrained by industry infrastructure transaction volume and addressability limitations. Cellemetry, which operates within the control channel of common carrier cellular frequencies, and Cellular Digital Packet Data, which uses common carrier cellular frequencies to send messages in high speed bursts during the idle time in voice transmission, require local infrastructures to operate. The triple shortcomings of these systems - namely (1) lack of instantaneous, cross-continental data collection, (2) "black holes" and lack of ubiquitous coverage, and (3) high incremental infrastructure and per message costs outside concentrated population centers - are all competitive advantages for the E-SAT system. Employees As of December 31, 2001, we had six full-time employees. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.
10KSB/A20th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 20th
RISK FACTORS An investment in shares of our Common Stock is very risky. You should carefully consider the risks described below in addition to other information in this filing. Our business, operating results and financial condition could be seriously harmed due to any of the following risks. The trading price of the shares of our Common Stock could decline due to any of these risks, and you could lose all or part of your investment. We are a development stage company and have not earned any significant revenues. Although we previously recorded gains from the sale of interests in entities which own direct broadcast satellites licenses, we have not earned any significant revenues since our formation. Given our limited operating history and lack of revenues, we cannot assure you that we will be able to construct and implement the E-SAT system or implement and develop a sufficiently large customer base to make our usage of the Iridium system profitable. We may be unable to sign up participants to make load available for our automated load curtailment services. Under our Demand Reserves Provider Agreement with the California Power Authority, beginning October 1, 2002, we are required to provide a minimum of 200 megawatts and a maximum of 360 megawatts of daily available electrical demand reduction. This minimum and maximum of daily available demand reduction increases to 400 megawatts and 560 megawatts, respectively, effective June 1, 2003. In the event we are unable to attract and sign up a sufficient number of participants who will voluntarily allow electricity usage to be curtailed, we may lose our contract with the California Power Authority. We are dependent on the Iridium system and the design, construction, and testing of our Iridium-based system has numerous risks. Our automated load curtailment system is a new application of the Iridium system and a new approach to electricity load curtailment. The remote curtailment units are new and will be subject to outside rooftop conditions including heat, cold, and inclement weather, for which the failure rate of these units cannot be assured. In addition, in using the Iridium system for data transfer, we are using it in a manner different from voice telephony, which was the intention of the original design. Further, the Iridium system may encounter significant problems or the software controlling the exchange of data and control instructions may fail and, like any satellite based technology, we are faced with the potential for satellite failure based on a variety of uncontrollable factors. In addition, we may encounter unexpected delays and expenses due to technical problems we have not foreseen. Should the system fail or encounter significant deficiencies, our business and future success will be adversely affected. We may be unable to raise sufficient capital for implementation of the Iridium-based system. We currently estimate for the first two years that we may require up to approximately $15 to $20 million to complete the engineering of the Iridium-based system and to deploy and operate the proposed automated load curtailment system for the California Power Authority. Given the risks and
10KSB/A21st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 21st
uncertainties in this undertaking, we cannot assure you that actual cash requirements will not exceed our estimates. Further, the current state of capital markets is uncertain, specifically for telecommunications companies and companies that rely on energy contracts contracted with the State of California. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise the funds required to complete the development and installation of the system, or that the timing and terms of any such financing will be favorable to us. If we are unable to obtain a sufficient amount of financing necessary to complete the system on commercially acceptable terms, our business and future success will be severely and adversely affected. Unless and until we begin to generate revenues, we will continue to generate further operating losses and negative net cash flow both for engineering the system and for our daily operations. Future financings and strategic alliances will be required and will likely result in significant stockholder dilution and/or significant liabilities and may have restrictive conditions. Our current plans are to raise capital through a combination of debt and equity financing. Should we sell debt securities this would increase our liabilities and future cash commitments and may subject us to restrictive conditions on our growth and operations. However, we may be unable to obtain debt financing, and we would then depend principally on equity financings to pay for our systems, or even if we obtain debt financing, we may be required to provide some form of equity in addition. The issuance of additional equity securities by us may result in significant dilution to the equity interests of the current stockholders. Other types of growth participation arrangements may significantly lower the value of the equity interests of our current stockholders by reducing the revenue, profits, or other elements of the market value of the Company. In order to execute our business plans, we plan to seek strategic alliances with entities that can provide communications systems, engineering, deployment, and distribution services and assets. Such alliances will likely require that we provide such entities the ability to participate in our growth. Examples of such participation may be, but are not limited to, revenue and profit sharing and the issuance of equity securities in us or our subsidiaries. Regardless of how we structure our financings and strategic alliances, we may be required to pledge our assets, including our potential revenues related to our contract with the California Power Authority, and/or our ownership interest in E-SAT. Other restrictive conditions may also be imposed on the conduct of our business. In the event of a default on such pledges or conditions, it would be unlikely that there will be any assets remaining to be distributed to our stockholders.
10KSB/A22nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 22nd
We have incurred significant losses to date and could continue to do so, which continues to raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Without contracts for services utilizing the Iridium system, we will continue to incur operating losses while we seek to construct our E-SAT system. We recorded operating losses of approximately $4.8 million for 2001 and approximately $6.5 million for 2000, and no revenues for either year. Without customers for services utilizing the Iridium system, we would not anticipate any revenues during fiscal 2002. Without significant revenue from the Iridium system, we will continue to incur substantial and increasing operating losses and negative net cash flows until the E-SAT system is developed, deployed and operating in a profitable manner. As of December 31, 2001, our cash and cash equivalents amounted to $20,494 while our current liabilities, including amounts owed to employees, amounted to $3,730,277. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as discussed in the report of our independent accountants and Note 1 to our financial statements. We currently estimate that for the first two years we would require up to approximately $15 to $20 million in additional working capital for engineering, deployment, and operation of the proposed automated load curtailment system for the State of California, and $60 million in additional capital related to the construction and launch costs associated with the E-SAT system. Given the risks in undertakings of this nature, we cannot assure you that actual cash requirements will not exceed our estimates. In particular, additional capital, over and above amounts anticipated, will be required in the event that we: o incur unexpected costs in completing the design of our systems or encounter any unexpected technical or regulatory difficulties; o find that the power utilization of participants in our automated load conservation system is significantly lower than our estimates and, as a result, additional participants are necessary; o incur delays and additional expenses as the result of an E-SAT system launch or satellite failure; o are unable to enter into marketing agreements with third parties to sell our services; or o incur any other significant unanticipated expenses. The occurrence of any of these events would adversely affect our ability to meet our business objectives. If we are unable to obtain a sufficient amount of financing to complete our systems and on commercially acceptable terms, our business and future success will be adversely affected. We are subject to development contract commitments for the E-SAT system. In order to comply with development milestones required by E-SAT's FCC license, we have entered into various development contracts including satellite construction contracts with Alcatel Space Industries and Surrey Satellite and a satellite launch contract with Eurockot. Entering into these and other development and service contracts are critical to the overall development of the E-SAT system. We have failed to make necessary payments to Alcatel and that contract could be declared void. (See Risk Factor "The contract with our prime contractor for the E-SAT system is suspended and could be cancelled.") Failure
10KSB/A23rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 23rd
to maintain these contracts or to arrange acceptable alternatives, would adversely affect our ability to construct the E-SAT system and our future success. The contract with our prime contractor for the E-SAT system is suspended and could be cancelled by our prime contractor. We have not made the necessary payments to our prime contractor, Alcatel, and, as a result, Alcatel is not obligated to honor the contract and it could cancel it at any time. The agreement with Alcatel required a payment at the end of 1999 of approximately $9.1 million in cash and the equivalent of $5 million shares of our Common Stock. This payment was necessary for Alcatel to continue work and to trigger an effective date for the full system development schedule. As of July 5, 2002, this payment has not been made and Alcatel, therefore, has the right to cancel the contract. Although Alcatel has verbally indicated that it does not intend to terminate the contract, it has the right to do so. Although we have a satellite construction contract with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited, any cancellation of our prime contractor's contract could cause delay in construction of the E-SAT system that could result in the loss of the FCC license. (See also "Risk Factor--The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license.") The technology, design and construction of our E-SAT system are subject to numerous risks. The design and construction of the E-SAT system are subject to a number of risks associated with space-based communications systems. Although we believe that the E-SAT system is based on sound technology, its design will contain certain technology that has not been used in a commercial application. Although we intend to engage contractors that are experienced in the satellite and communications industry, we have no experience in developing, constructing, and operating a satellite based data communications system. The failure of the E-SAT system to be constructed, or to function as designed, or the failure of system components to function with other components or to specification could result in delays, unanticipated costs, and loss of system performance, thereby rendering the E-SAT system unable to perform at the quality and capacity levels we anticipate. The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license. Our business is subject to both United States and international regulations and licensing. The E-SAT license has several FCC milestones, including: * the completion of construction of the first two satellites by March 2002, * the launch of those satellites by September 2002, and * the construction and launch of the remaining four satellites by March 2004. We failed to meet the milestone for completion of the construction of the first two satellites and, given the delays in construction due to our inability to obtain sufficient financing, the other milestones will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to meet. The failure to meet milestones could lead to a loss of the license. On March 29, 2002 E-SAT filed a request for an extension of milestones with the FCC. The request was accepted by the FCC after a 30-day public notice period during which no opposing comments were filed. Based on advice from our regulatory counsel, we believe it is likely that we will be granted the extension. However, we have very little control over whether any
10KSB/A24th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 24th
extension will be granted and the failure to obtain an extension or meet the milestones would likely result in the loss of E-SAT's FCC license which would have a material adverse effect on our business financial condition and results of operations. We will face many risks associated with the construction, launch and implementation of E-SAT satellites. Once construction is fully commenced, delays and related increases in costs in the construction, launch and implementation of the E-SAT system could result from a variety of causes, including: * delays encountered in the construction, integration and testing of the E-SAT system; * launch delays or failures; * delays caused by design reviews in the event of a launch vehicle failure or a loss of satellites or other events beyond our control; * further modification of the design of all or a portion of the E-SAT system in the event of, among other things, technical difficulties or changes in regulatory requirements; * our failure to enter into agreements with marketing providers on terms acceptable to us; and * the failure to develop or acquire effective applications for use with the E-SAT system. Satellite launches are subject to considerable risks, including the possible failure of the launch vehicle, which may result in the loss or damage to the satellite or its deployment into an incorrect or unusable orbit. Each launch is expected to carry three little low earth orbiting satellites. Consequently, an unsuccessful launch could adversely affect one-half of our planned satellite constellation. We intend to obtain a certain amount of insurance to cover some of our potential losses in this area, but we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain adequate insurance to cover all incidents or in a sufficient amount to cover the losses. We have entered into a launch services agreement with Eurockot Launch Services GmbH, headquartered in Bremen, Germany to provide for two payload launches from a launch site in Plesetzk, Russia during specified periods. Eurockot has limited experience in launching commercial satellites. Further, it is anticipated that any launch must be approved by a governmental agency of the Russian Federation. We do not know whether the launches will be approved by the Russian Federation or if the launches will take place as planned. Various political and military considerations, including as yet unknown factors resulting from the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, could impact these launches. The failure of the launches or the occurrence of any significant problems generally associated with satellite launches would have an adverse effect on us and our ability to provide the services contemplated. We will only be able to obtain a limited amount of satellite insurance for our E-SAT system. We expect to obtain launch insurance for each of our satellite launches and have engaged Frank Crystal & Co. and its subsidiary, International Space Brokers, Inc. to provide risk management counsel in obtaining insurance coverage for our planned little low earth orbiting satellite constellation. This insurance would, in the event of a launch failure, provide funds for replacement launch satellites. In addition, we expect to obtain satellite replacement insurance,
10KSB/A25th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 25th
which we hope will provide sufficient funds for rebuilding satellites damaged in construction, shipment or launch. In the event a covered loss occurs, we will need to satisfy the insurance underwriters that the technological or other problems associated with the covered loss have been addressed prior to continuing the launch process. The launch and replacement insurance marketplace is volatile and we do not know whether launch or replacement insurance, or both, will be available to us, or if available, will be available on terms acceptable to us. We will continue to evaluate the insurance marketplace to determine the level of risk we are willing and able to absorb internally as well as the amount of risk we may be able to transfer to third parties. Our E-SAT system is subject to governmental regulation that can be difficult to satisfy. We will need to secure "landing rights" in various countries where we hope to do business. Failure to secure foreign landing rights would preclude us from offering our full services in such countries, which would adversely affect our anticipated results of operation. In addition, our international license, LEOTELCOM-2, is sponsored by the United States, and should we fail to maintain our FCC license, our international license rights may be subject to challenge. Further, we will be subject to varying export and communications regulatory requirements for the U.S. and internationally, not only for construction and launch of the E-SAT system, but also for the continuing operation of the system. The services we intend to provide must be acceptable to the energy industry. Our success is largely dependent on whether governments, utilities and other related entities will contract for services utilizing the Iridium and/or E-SAT systems. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in completing the development and commercial implementation of our services. Governments and utility companies typically go through numerous steps before making final decisions. This process can be time consuming and take up to several years to complete. Further, utilizing satellite data messaging services is a relatively new and evolving business. It is difficult to predict the future growth of the market or the potential size of the market. There are a number of competing products from entities providing various types of communication technologies. The use of low-earth-orbiting satellites provides only one of many possible solutions for data communications with remote sites, and potential customers may choose other competing solutions. In the event that customers do not adopt our technology, or do so less rapidly than expected, our future results, including our ability to achieve profitability, will be materially and adversely affected. Future advances in the industry could make our services obsolete. Future advances in the telecommunications industry could lead to new technologies, products or services competitive or superior to the products or services we intend to provide. Such technological advances could also lower the costs of other products or services that may compete with our systems, resulting in pricing pressures on our proposed products and services, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. Intense competition from existing and new entities could adversely affect our business. We will encounter competition from other satellite systems, as well as from competitive terrestrial-based communication companies. The market for collection and transmission of data from fixed devices and the potential market for other applications of data messaging services have led to substantial and increasing
10KSB/A26th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 26th
competition. Many of our present and future competitors using low earth orbiting satellites have begun to address the collecting and transmitting of data from fixed devices and at least one of these competitors has substantially greater marketing, technical and manufacturing resources, name recognition, and experience. Such competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new or emerging advancements in the industry and to devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products and services. Our technology must be competitive so that the systems can provide the data transmission service at a cost lower than most of our competitors' systems. We cannot assure you that such competitors will not succeed in developing better or more cost-effective data transmission systems. We face increased competition as a result of strategic alliances and other consolidation in the industry. Our current and potential competitors may make strategic acquisitions or establish cooperative relationships among themselves or with third parties that could increase their ability to reach commercial customers or subscribers of data messaging services. Further, terrestrial-based wireless communication systems are already providing data messaging services to the utility industry. Such existing and future competition could affect our ability to form and maintain agreements with utility companies and other customers. We cannot assure you that we will be able to compete successfully against our current and future competitors, and our failure to do so would have a material adverse effect on our business. The price of ground transceivers will affect the success of our service. The development of low-cost ground transceivers to collect and transmit data from fixed devices will be important in the development of a broad market for our services. Ground transceivers must be manufactured and operated at a low cost in order to make our data messaging services attractive to potential commercial customers. It is expected that the cost of ground transceivers will decline as the volume of units produced increases. We must develop a low-cost ground transceiver which requires less power to operate and will be attractive to utility and other companies. However, we cannot assure you that ground transceivers can be developed at a cost and with the capabilities that will attract a large enough commercial subscriber base for us to receive significant revenues or achieve profitability. We are dependent on third party vendors and consultants. We have relied on, and will continue to rely on, vendors and consultants that are not our employees to complete the design, construction and implementation of ours services, to market and deploy our data messaging services and for representation on regulatory issues. These vendors and consultants must continue to provide the expertise necessary. We cannot assure you that suitable vendors and consultants will be available in the future, and if available, will be available on terms deemed acceptable to us. We cannot assure you that these manufacturers of parts and equipment for our systems such as transceivers, antennas, load curtailment equipment and other devices, will be able to meet our needs in a satisfactory and timely manner or that we will be able to obtain additional manufacturers when and if necessary. A significant price increase, a quality control problem, an interruption in supply or other difficulties with third party manufacturers could have a material and adverse effect on our ability to successfully provide our proposed services. Further, the failure of third parties to deliver the products, components, necessary parts or equipment on schedule, or the failure of third parties to
10KSB/A27th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 27th
perform at expected levels, could delay our deployment of our services. Any such delay or increased costs could significantly harm our business and operating results. Our key engineering subcontractor is emerging from a bankruptcy proceeding that could harm our completion of the Iridium based system. In April 2002, Arthur D. Little, the engineering firm that we contract with, was liquidated and portions transferred to five different companies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts. The division that is providing services to us was sold to a company called TIAX LLC for approximately $16.5 million. TIAX has continued to develop the Iridium-based system. However, TIAX may be unable to retain the necessary personnel to properly develop the system, or they may lack resources to devote to the engineering of the system, or they may be delayed by circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy and acquisition. Any such failure or delay could significantly harm our ability to complete our Iridium-based system and would therefore harm our business and operating results. Failure to effectively manage our growth would harm our future business results. As we seek to proceed from a development stage company to an operational company, we may experience significant and rapid growth in the scope and complexity of our business. We may need to rapidly engineer and deploy new services across wide geographic areas and engage in significant and complex business development and strategic alliance efforts. We will likely have an increased need and opportunity to market our services, manage operations, control the operations of our proposed systems, handle sales and marketing efforts and perform finance and accounting functions. This growth is likely to place a strain on our small management team and limited operational resources, and there is a risk that we may not effectively manage this growth. To lessen this requirement, and assist us in executing our business plan, we recently signed agreements with Arthur D. Little, Inc. (now TIAX LLC) for engineering services, and with Bechtel Corporation to provide program management services for the installation and deployment of the proposed Voluntary Command Conservation System. However, these organizations may terminate their contracts with us on short notice, and further there is no assurance that we will effectively manage the subcontractors. The failure to develop and implement effective systems, or the failure to hire or subcontract and train sufficient personnel for the performance of all of the functions necessary to effectively grow and manage our potential customer base and business, or the failure to manage growth effectively, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We are dependent on key personnel. Our success is substantially dependent on the performance of our executive officers and key personnel and on our ability to retain and motivate our personnel. The loss of any of our key personnel, particularly Fred W. Thompson, our president, would harm our ability to manage operations and development of our systems, and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results. Substantially all of our assets consist of our capitalized satellite construction costs ($12.2 million or 83% of total assets) and acquisition costs relating to the E-SAT license ($2.4 million or 16% of total assets) and these assets may be significantly impaired if we are unable to obtain the necessary financing or to maintain our FCC license.
10KSB/A28th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 28th
We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain financing in a sufficient amount for the construction and deployment of our satellite constellation. Our failure to obtain sufficient and timely financing or to maintain our FCC license could result in our conclusion that the carrying amounts of the capitalized satellite construction costs and the investment in E-SAT are not recoverable. Under generally accepted accounting principles relating to the impairment of assets, we would then be required to write off all or a portion of the capitalized satellite construction costs and our acquisition costs relating to the E-SAT license which would have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial position. Our certificate of incorporation and Delaware law contain certain provisions that could deter takeovers which may prevent you from receiving a premium for your shares. Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and Delaware law could delay, defer or prevent a change in our control. Our certificate of incorporation contains a fair price provision that requires a certain threshold approval by our board of directors in the event of a merger, sale of assets or other types of business combinations. In addition, our board consists of members who serve staggered three-year terms so that only a portion of our board can be removed at the annual meeting of stockholders. Further, the board is authorized to issue preferred stock, the classes and terms of which may be determined by the board. We are also subject to the anti-takeover provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation law, which prohibits us from engaging in a "business combination" with an "interested stockholder" for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner, under Delaware law. These provisions in our certificate of incorporation and Delaware law could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, even if doing so would be beneficial to our stockholders. We have not paid dividends and are not likely to pay dividends on our Common Stock in the future. We have not declared or paid any dividends on our Common Stock, and do not anticipate paying any dividends for the foreseeable future. In addition, the holders of our shares of series A preferred stock and series B preferred stock are entitled to receive, out of any legally available funds, annual cumulative dividends equal to five percent and ten percent, respectively, of the liquidation preference of their shares. All dividends must be paid on the series A preferred stock and series B preferred stock before any may be declared or paid on the Common Stock. It is also anticipated that if we obtain bond financing or other financing facilities, we will be restricted in our ability to declare future dividends on our Common Stock. We have not paid any dividends on Common Stock and do not have any accrued dividends for Common Stock. Accrued dividends for preferred stock total $111,218 as of December 31, 2001. Our stock price is volatile. Our Common Stock is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and is thinly traded. In the past, our trading price has fluctuated widely, depending on many factors that may have little to do with our operations or business prospects. In addition, the OTC Bulletin Board is not an exchange and, because trading of securities on the OTC Bulletin Board is often more sporadic than the trading of securities listed on an exchange, such as NASDAQ, you may have difficulty reselling any of the shares that you purchase. The exercise of outstanding options, warrants and convertible securities may adversely affect our Common Stock price and your percentage of ownership.
10KSB/A29th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 29th
As of July 5, 2002, there were outstanding warrants and options to purchase an aggregate of approximately 28.5 million shares of our Common Stock. Of these outstanding warrants and options, approximately 27.8 million are vested, and approximately 24.8 million have exercise prices of $1.00 or less, with approximately 14.6 million having exercise prices ranging from $0.10 to $0.13. In addition to our outstanding warrants and options, we have outstanding shares of preferred stock that are convertible into shares of our Common Stock. The outstanding shares of our Series A preferred stock may be converted into 415,600 shares of Common Stock and the 296 outstanding shares of our Series B preferred stock may be converted into shares of Common Stock at the lower of a conversion rate fixed at October 6, 2000 (the date of commitment) of $0.96 per share, or a fixed discount to the Common Stock's market price at the date of conversion equal to 80% of the average of the three lowest closing bid prices for the 20-day trading period prior to the conversion date. You should also be aware that: >> Assuming all of our outstanding warrants, options and preferred shares were converted, as of July 5, 2002 these securities would convert into approximately 35.6 million shares of our Common Stock, representing approximately 50% of our total shares outstanding following such conversions. Of that amount approximately 17.3 million shares of our Common Stock, representing approximately 50% of our total shares outstanding following such conversions, are vested and have conversion prices at or below the market price of our common stock as of July 5, 2002. However, due to the floating conversion rates of our Series B preferred stock and certain outstanding warrants, we do not know the exact number of shares that will be issued when they are actually converted. >> To the extent that the holders of these securities convert and then sell the shares of Common Stock they receive after converting, the market price for shares of our Common Stock may decrease due to the additional shares in the market. This could allow the holders to receive even greater amounts of our Common Stock, the sale of which would further depress the market price for our Common Stock. >> To the extent that the holders of these securities continue to convert and then sell material amounts of our Common Stock, this may create significant downward pressure on the market price of our Common Stock and could encourage short selling by the holders or others. This could place even further downward pressure on the market price of our Common Stock. >> Under circumstances in which the price of our Common Stock decreases to a level below $0.02 per share, assuming the conversion of the Series B convertible preferred stock at that time, this could result in a change in control of the Company, if the Company has not previously issued additional shares. In addition, the conversion of our Series A and B preferred stock and the exercise of the outstanding warrants and options may have a detrimental impact on the terms under which we may obtain financing through a sale of our Common Stock in the future since they may hinder our ability to raise capital at an
10KSB/A30th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 30th
attractive market price. For these reasons, any evaluation of the favorability of market conditions for a subsequent stock offering must take into account our outstanding convertible securities. Our failure to timely register shares of our Common Stock has resulted in liquidated damages and will continue to do so. We have incurred liquidated damages related to our Series B convertible preferred stock in the amount equal to 5% of the purchase price for each 30 days we have failed to effectively register the underlying shares of Common Stock. The liquidated damages may be demanded by the holder in cash or as an accrual to the liquidation preference associated with each share of the Series B convertible preferred stock. As of December 31, 2001, we have incurred $87,267 in liquidated damages. We have also incurred liquidated damages related to our Convertible Debenture F in an amount equal to 3% of the purchase price for each month we have failed to effectively register the underlying shares of Common Stock, up to a maximum of $100,000. One June 24, 2002, 400,000 shares of Common Stock were issued to the holder of the Convertible Debenture in lieu of a cash payment for the $100,000 of liquidated damages. We have also incurred liquidated damages related to three issuances of Common Stock and warrants to purchase Common Stock. With respect to two of these issuances, for each month that the effective date of registration is delayed beyond May 1, 2001, liquidated damages have accrued at the rate of 10% of securities purchased. As of December 31, 2001, the total liquidated damages amount to 976,000 shares of our Common Stock and warrants to purchase 244,000 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. With respect to the third issuance, for each month that the effective date of registration is delayed beyond November 1, 2001, liquidated damages have accrued at the rate of 10% of securities purchased. As of December 31, 2001, the total liquidated damages amount to 160,000 shares of our Common Stock and warrants to purchase 40,000 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. Until we have an effective registration statement registering the underlying shares of common stock, we will continue to incur these liquidated damages, which will further increase our liabilities and dilute our common stockholders. We may be forced to redeem shares as a result of our failure to timely register shares of our Common Stock. As a result of our failure to register the underlying shares of Common Stock by August 4, 2001, the holders of the Series B convertible preferred stock have the right to require us to redeem all or a portion of the Series B convertible preferred stock in an amount equal to at least 125% of the liquidation preference amount. FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This report contains forward-looking statements, as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in the items entitled "Business," "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," and elsewhere. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts,"
10KSB/A31st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 31st
"potential" or "continue" or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including the risks set forth below under "Risk Factors," that may cause our or our industry's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. Except as required by applicable law, including the securities laws of the United States, we do not intend to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this report to conform these statements to actual results. ITEM 2. PROPERTIES We have leased 3,550 square feet at a monthly rate of $12,353, for our principal offices at 100 Shoreline Highway, Suite 190A, Mill Valley, California, on a three-year lease which expires on July 31, 2003. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We are not a party to any legal proceedings. ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS None.
10KSB/A32nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 32nd
PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS Price Range of Common Stock The following table sets forth the high and low bids quoted for our common stock during each quarter for the past two fiscal year ends and until the quarter ended December 31, 2001, as quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board. Common Stock Quarter Ended High Low ------ ----- December 31, 2001 $0.25 $0.22 September 30, 2001 1.07 0.38 June 30, 2001 0.63 0.20 March 31, 2001 0.80 0.31 December 30, 2000 1.06 0.31 September 30, 2000 1.69 0.81 June 30, 2000 3.06 1.09 March 31, 2000 5.45 1.66 These quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail markup, markdown or commission, and may not represent actual transactions. As of December 31, 2001, we had 24,734,420 shares of common stock outstanding and 429 stockholders of record. The number of stockholders does not include those who hold our securities in street name. DIVIDEND POLICY We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our Common Stock since our inception. The holders of our shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock are entitled to receive, out of any legally available funds, annual cumulative dividends equal to five percent and ten percent, respectively, of the liquidation preference of their shares. All dividends must be paid on the Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock before any may be declared or paid on the Common Stock. We currently intend to retain any additional future
10KSB/A33rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 33rd
earnings for use in the operation and expansion of our business. We do not intend to pay any cash dividends on our Common Stock in the foreseeable future. SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES Preferred Stock Transactions The Company issued warrants to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.17 per share in exchange for an agreement of the Series B preferred holders to delay the Company's obligation to register shares of their underlying Common Stock, for a total fair value of $98,850 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The warrants were issued in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) or Regulation S of the Securities Act. Common Stock Transactions On November 12, 2001, the Company issued 1,000 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered for a total fair value of $390. The transaction was performed by the Company in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. On November 19, 2001, the Company issued 150,000 shares of Common Stock to a terminated employee in accordance with his termination settlement for a total fair value of $46,800. On November 19, 2001, the Company issued 172,414 shares of its Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.29 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $50,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 17,241 shares of its Common Stock at $0.29 per share. The transaction was performed by the Company in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. On November 30, 2001 the Company issued 441,176 shares of Common Stock to two investors upon conversion of an aggregate of 120 shares of series B preferred stock based upon $0.272 per Common Share. Additionally, a total of 50,498 shares of Common Stock were issued to investors in lieu of accrued and unpaid cash dividends at the same conversion price. The transaction was performed by the Company in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) or Regulation S of the Securities Act. On December 13, 2001, the Company issued 166,667 shares of Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.30 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $50,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 83,333 shares of its Common Stock at $0.30 per share. The transaction was performed by the Company in reliance upon the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.
10KSB/A34th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 34th
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION This discussion, other than the historical financial information, may consist of forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including quarterly and yearly fluctuations in results, the timely availability of new communication products, the impact of competitive products and services, and the other risks described in the Company's SEC reports, including this report. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof and should not be given undue reliance. Actual results may vary significantly from those projected. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. General We were formed in Delaware in 1989 and our principal executive offices are located in Mill Valley, California. We completed a share exchange reorganization with DBS Network in 1992. Since 1994, our focus has been to pursue business opportunities in satellite telecommunications. We began this pursuit originally by purchasing interests in direct broadcast satellite licensees. During 1997, we sold our last indirect interest in a direct broadcast satellite license. We formed E-SAT, Inc., a Colorado corporation, in partnership with EchoStar Communications Corp. in November 1994 for purposes of applying for a little low earth orbiting FCC license. On March 31, 1998, the FCC issued a license to E-SAT to launch and operate a little low earth orbiting satellite system. Pursuant to the agreement entered into with EchoStar in July 1999, we now hold 80.1% of the capital stock of E-SAT and EchoStar holds the remaining 19.9%. During the intervening years, we raised financing and began the development of a little low earth orbiting satellite system (the "E-SAT system") to provide automated meter reading and short messaging services. We signed a contract with Eurockot for the launch of the satellites, a contract with Surrey Satellite for the development of ground stations and the satellite bus and a contract with Alcatel for the engineering and production of the satellites (this work was subsequently transferred to Surrey Satellite). However, we have been unable to secure financing to complete the launch and commercialization of the satellite system. We initially estimated the costs associated with building the six satellite global constellation to service this market to be approximately $120 million and now believe that cost reductions are available to renegotiate these costs lower, to approximately $60 million, in addition to costs already incurred, which are allocated as follows: Surrey Satellite (six satellites) $17.0 million Eurockot (2 launches) $30.0 million Six Transponders $ 9.0 million Launch and Satellite Insurance $ 3.5 million On June 2, 2001 we signed a seven-year operator-to-operator agreement with Iridium Satellite LLC to provide remote monitoring and control services to the energy industry. The Iridium satellite system is a low earth orbiting satellite network consisting of 66 satellites. Using Iridium's currently available commercial satellite network and our contract with the California Power Authority detailed below, we hope to begin providing specialized satellite-based data services during fiscal 2002. Under the agreement with Iridium, we have the right to utilize Iridium capacity at predetermined per-minute pricing and the right to purchase Iridium phones to utilize in our system. There are no contingencies on our ability to utilize Iridium services under the
10KSB/A35th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 35th
agreement. We estimate that we will require $1 million to $3 million to develop an interface to the Iridium system for data applications to utilize the Iridium system for our services. We expect the capital and operating costs for full deployment of the system to cost approximately $15 million to $20 million over the next two years, including engineering, installing and implementing the system as well as the costs of $1 million to $3 million estimated to develop the interface. On June 14, 2001 we demonstrated to California state officials how a satellite-based energy control system could curtail electricity consumption by temporarily deactivating air conditioning units located on the rooftops of California shopping malls. Shortly thereafter, we commenced negotiations with the State of California to provide satellite-based energy management services. On April 12, 2002, the California Power Authority approved a Demand Reserves Program that was essentially based on our proposals and authorized negotiations. On May 23, 2002, we entered into a Demand Reserves Provider Agreement with the California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority ("California Power Authority"). Under the agreement, beginning October 1, 2002, we must provide a minimum of 200 megawatts and a maximum of 360 megawatts of daily available electrical demand reduction at peak or emergency times from qualified end users. The minimum and maximum amount of daily available demand reduction requirements increase to 400 megawatts and 560 megawatts, respectively, effective June 1, 2003. Through our proposed system, the California Power Authority will be able to immediately reduce non-critical power consumption at locations throughout the state in order to create energy reserves to smooth out energy usage during peak use or emergency times. We intend to utilize the Iridium-based system to provide our services to the California Power Authority. Our system utilizes a proprietary master conrol system and remote controller connected to the Iridium-based system to remotely monitor and control roof-top air conditioning systems or other types of electricity-using devices. TIAX, LLC, formerly Arthur D. Little's Technology and Innovation business, is providing engineering services to us. It is anticipated that qualified end users will consist of primarily large private commercial energy users such as owners of large retail stores and shopping centers. For our services, we will be paid by the California Power Authority approximately $51,000 per year per megawatt for "non-spinning reserves." A portion of these fees will be remitted to the qualified end users as an incentive to participate in the demand reserve program. We do not pay any other fees in connection witih this program. The Demand Reserves Provider Agreement will terminate in May 2007. In addition, this agreement may be terminated earlier if we fail to provide the California Power Authority with the daily minimum megawatt of electrical demand reduction by October 1, 2002, the California Power Authority fails to enter into a Participating Load Agreement with the California Independent System Operator by October 1, 2002, such Participating Load Agreement is terminated during the term of the Demand Reserves Provider Agreement, or we fail to reduce energy usage by the specified level for two consecutive months during the summer. We are in the process of signing up qualified customers to participate in the program. If we successfully obtain enough customers to curtail at least 560 megawatts per day, our revenues could reach a total of $100 million over the five-year term of the program. We are currently engaged in preliminary discussions with investment firms with regard to equity financing for approximately one third of the required capital
10KSB/A36th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 36th
and debt financing for the amount of remaining required capital. If we are unable to raise a significant portion of this financing, we will be unable to implement the system and the California Power Authority could terminate our agreement. We hope to begin generating revenues in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002. Successful implementation and completion of the California Power Authority contract would also offer us a basis for offering similar services to other entities worldwide. Additionally, cash flow from such satellite-based energy management services would provide us with funds and market justification to continue the development of the E-SAT system, which we have estimated will cost an additional $60 million. Until then, and on a continuing basis if we are not successful, we will seek to satisfy our short-term cash requirements by raising new equity and debt capital. Plan of Operation Bankruptcies in the satellite sector and sharp declines in telecommunications and technology sectors have impeded our financing efforts and have required us to modify our business strategy. Our current strategy is to take advantage of the telecommunications downturn to secure low-cost capacity on existing satellite systems and combine it with the energy communications technologies we have developed over the past ten years, with an objective of generating revenue and proving our market potential in fiscal 2002. Throughout the year, we have focused on this strategy, reducing operating expenses and concentrating our efforts on raising short-term and strategic financing, while establishing a current operating business utilizing the existing satellite capacity held by Iridium. At the same time, we have continued our efforts to reduce the overall cost of the E-SAT system and to identify and commence negotiations with strategic partners who may serve as both customers and financial partners for our proposed satellite-based energy management systems. We have held preliminary discussions with several international strategic partners over the past four years. To date, we have not entered into definitive contractual discussions with any of these partners. We currently lack adequate financing and sufficient time to build and launch two low earth orbiting satellites in advance of the required FCC construction and launch date of March 2002 and September 2002, which could result in the loss of our FCC license. We estimate that we could require up to $10 million of capital and up to 18 months to successfully launch the required satellites. This amount is in addition to the estimated $15 million to $20 million required to deploy and implement the Iridium system for use in the Demand Reserves program. On March 29, 2002, E-SAT filed with the FCC to extend the required milestones. The request was accepted by the FCC after a 30-day public notice period during which no opposing comments were filed, and we know of no reason that the FCC would not grant our extension. We continue to plan to construct and deploy a low-cost global satellite system utilizing our E-SAT FCC and international licenses. (See "Risks and Uncertainties Affecting Future Operating Results".) The current circumstances in the satellite and telecommunications industry, as well as in the financial markets, particularly in relation to technology stocks, have led to delays in our ability to raise short-term operating capital. Our right to raise capital by selling common shares to the Torneaux Fund has been limited by our stock price, which, during 2001 has been below the contractual minimum threshold price of $1.00 per share. Any sale of shares to the Torneaux Fund at prices below that threshold price requires Torneaux's approval. As a result of deficiencies in short-term capital raising, we have delayed payment to many of our vendors, and certain of our employees. As of December 31, 2001, our
10KSB/A37th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 37th
cash and cash equivalents amounted to $20,494 while our current liabilities, including amounts owed to employees, amounted to $3,730,277. Throughout the year, we have continued to focus on reducing operating expenses while concentrating our efforts on raising short-term and strategic financing and establishing a current operating business utilizing the existing satellite capacity held by Iridium. Until we begin to generate positive cash flow through our operations, we will continue to seek to satisfy our cash requirements by raising new equity and debt capital, as well as by seeking the exercise of previously issued third-party warrants and stock options. The issuance of additional equity securities by us will result in significant dilution of the equity interests of the current stockholders. Critical Accounting Policy During the construction of its E-SAT system, the Company is capitalizing all design, engineering, launch and construction costs. Such costs amounted to approximately $12.2 million as of September 30, 2001. Because of our difficulties in financing construction of the E-SAT system and resulting inability to meet required FCC milestones, the Company reviews its capitalized satellite construction and FCC license costs for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of these assets may not be recoverable. The Company's management and Audit Committee of the Board concluded no such event or changes in circumstances exist and, accordingly, it would be inappropriate to write down the capitalized satellite construction costs as impaired as of December 31, 2001. In reaching this conclusion, the Company applied Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 121, Accounting for Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed of. Under this standard, the Company periodically reviews whether there have been events or changes in circumstances that indicate that the carrying amount of the satellite construction costs may not be recoverable. If an impairment event exists, the amount of the impairment loss, if any, would be calculated based on the excess of the carried amount of the assets over their fair value. Of the capitalized amounts, approximately $2 million was paid to Alcatel Space Industries ("Alcatel") for preliminary engineering design review for the Company's system, including the payload design and designs for the gateway earth station and tracking facilities, as well as the satellite orbital analysis and communications link margins to and from space. On October 8, 1999, the Company signed a contract with Alcatel for the final design, construction and delivery to the launch site of six Little Low earth orbiting satellites. This agreement also includes the final design, construction and delivery of the ground infrastructure, including the gateway earth station, mission center, satellite control center, ground communications network and ground-based transceivers to be installed into devices, like utility meters. Alcatel is also responsible for providing in-orbit testing of the E-SAT system. The total contract price for the end-to-end system is $88.5 million. Either party has the right to terminate this agreement under certain circumstances. As noted above, the Company paid $2 million in construction payments to Alcatel for engineering specifications. The Company has not made a further payment required by the agreement with Alcatel, due at the end of 1999, of approximately $9.1 million in cash and the equivalent of $5 million in Common Stock. This payment was necessary for Alcatel to continue work and to trigger an effective date for the Company's full system development schedule. As of December 31, 2001, this payment has not been made, and Alcatel therefore has the right to consider this contract void as to further work, and that the contract is therefore not currently in effect. If the Alcatel contract is never brought into effect, the Company retains the engineering specifications provided by Alcatel, which would still be used by the Company's other contractors in the construction of the Company's satellite network.
10KSB/A38th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 38th
On March 31, 1999, the Company signed construction and launch contracts with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited ("Surrey") and Eurockot, respectively, and made advance payments of $7.8 million in April 1999 and $2.0 million in July 1999. Total payments under these cancelable contracts will amount to approximately $47 million. In July 1999, the Company, Surrey and Eurockot reached agreements under which $3.2 million of the required milestone payments due in July 1999 totaling $4.8 million were deferred to yet to be agreed upon dates. Surrey's construction contract, which was to build the satellite infrastructures that would house the telecommunications payload, was to be managed by Alcatel as prime contractor, if and when the Company paid Alcatel $14.1 million to trigger the Alcatel contract effective date. As this payment has not been made, the Alcatel contract is not in effect and Surrey remains a direct contractor of the Company. The Company evaluated a number of factors in its consideration of whether an impairment event has incurred, including: (1) whether the Company's failure to meet its FCC milestone requirements would result in termination of the license; (2) whether the assets continue to have value notwithstanding the delay since contracting; (3) whether the Company's failure to bring the Alcatel prime contract into effect prevents the Company from constructing its system; (4) whether the state of difficulties in the satellite financing capital markets were likely to prevent the Company from financing its system in the future; (5) whether the telecommunications industry had overcapacity such that there would be no business opportunity for the E-SAT system; and (6) whether the Company's implementation of an Iridium-based system effectively replaced the E-SAT system. In more detail, the Company concluded, subject to the Risk Factors detailed in this Annual Report, these points as detailed below: 1. The Company believes that its failure to meet its milestones are not likely to result in termination of the license. The Company recognizes that the loss of the FCC license held by its subsidiary E-SAT, Inc. would be a change in circumstance and that the failure to meet certain milestones could lead to a loss of the license. The Company currently lacks adequate financing and time to build and launch two Low earth orbiting satellites in advance of the required FCC construction and launch date of March 2002 and September 2002, respectively. As part of the Company's impairment analysis, the Company received a report and opinion from Leslie Taylor Associates, its regulatory counsel, that the license was likely to be extended. This opinion was based on the satellite construction progress to date, including the launch of one satellite, and the fact that there were no other pending applicants for the spectrum covered by E-SAT's license. As recommended by Leslie Taylor Associates, on March 29, 2002 E-SAT filed the request for an extension of milestones with the FCC and is awaiting a reply. The request was accepted by the FCC and placed on a 30-day public notice on April 24, 2002. As of May 24, 2002, the request came off public notice and no opposing commenets were filed during the 30-day period. Based on these facts, the Company believes, while there is no guarantee, the FCC will grant the extension and that it is therefore not in imminent danger of losing its FCC license, but will continue to monitor the situation for any changes. 2. The Company believes that its satellite construction assets continue to have value notwithstanding the delay since contracting. Included in the capitalized satellite construction costs are payments to Alcatel Space Industries, Eurockot and Surrey Satellite. The Company paid Alcatel for the production of engineering specifications and analysis
10KSB/A39th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 39th
which information remains the property of the Company. These specifications are an integral part of E-SAT's ability to construct the satellites and were transferred by the Company to Surrey Satellite in 2001, and will be used by Surrey in satellite construction regardless of whether the Alcatel contract is ever brought into effect. Surrey Satellite was paid for the design of the satellite ground station, among other things, which is crucial to the design of the system and remains an important element to completion of a complete satellite communication network. Eurockot was paid for the launch of the satellites and although the launch date has been extended past 2002, E-SAT's right to Eurockot's launch services remains intact. 3. The Company believes that its failure to bring the Alcatel prime contract into effect does not prevent the Company from constructing its system. The Company's contract with Alcatel called for a payment by the Company at the end of 1999 that has not been paid to date and, as a result, Alcatel has the option to termination the contract. Alcatel has not indicated to the Company that it intends to terminate the contract, and the Company believes that Alcatel would seek to bring the contract into effect when the Company receives financing. In addition, the Company believes that currently alternative suitable prime contractors are available to manage construction as prime contractor, including Surrey Satellite, for a significantly lower cost than negotiated with Alcatel, and so the Company may not choose to reinstate the Alcatel contract. As noted above, the Company has received viable assets consisting of engineering specifications and analysis in return for the $2.1 million paid to Alcatel. 4. The Company believes that the state of difficulties in the satellite financing capital markets is not likely to prevent the Company from financing its system in the future. The Company believes that satellite financing is cyclical and further that the low cost of its system, approximately $60 million, compared to other global telecommunications system, allows it to be financed through a wide variety of sources, including customers and strategic partners. The Company believes that the primary impediment to financing is therefore a demonstration of market viability of low-earth-orbiting satellites for data communications to remote infrastructure. 5. The Company believes that current telecommunications industry overcapacity does not obviate the market opportunity for the E-SAT system. The Company believes that the E-SAT system will have unique competitive advantages even if the telecommunications industry maintains a position of low per minute costs due to overcapacity. These advantages are primarily low terminal cost due to usage of low power-spread spectrum transceivers permitted by the E-SAT license, and high penetration of buildings, remote terrain and poor weather because the E-SAT license uses VHF frequencies. 6. The Company believes that the Company's implementation of an Iridium-based system is not a substitute for the E-SAT system. The Company believes that the Iridium-based system, which has a higher transceiver cost and operates on the L-Band which requires line of sight, is potentially complementary to the E-SAT system with lower transceiver cost and operates on VHF frequencies which have strong building, terrain and weather penetration. The Company believes that if the funding necessary to complete the satellite network and to remain a going concern is obtained, the capitalized satellite
10KSB/A40th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 40th
construction costs will be recoverable from future operating cash flows. On May 23, 2002, the Company entered into a Demand Reserves Authority Provider Agreement with the California Power Authority to implement a satellite-based (using Iridium capacity) automated conservation system design to conserve significant electrical usage on demand at peak or emergency times. The Company believes that implementation of this program, if successful, would provide some of the funding for the further development of the E-SAT system. Should the FCC extension request be denied, or any of the other above factors materially change, the Company may be required to record an impairment of the capitalized satellite construction costs. Revenues The Company remains in the development stage and did not generate revenues in the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. Operating Expenses Total operating expenses for fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2000, were $4,776,671 and $6,496,009 respectively. These costs are related to marketing and sales expenses, general and administrative expenses, and research and development expenses. Marketing and Sales Expenses Marketing and sales expenses are primarily the costs of personnel (including non-cash stock compensation), consulting and travel. Marketing and sales expenses totaled $186,043 (3.9% of operating expenses) and $1,721,725 (26.5% of operating expenses) in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2000, respectively. This reduction in expenses is due to the termination of our dedicated marketing and sales group in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000 in order to reduce our cash expenditures. General and Administrative Expenses General and administrative expenses include the costs of finance, legal, administrative and general management functions of DBS Industries. General and administrative expenses for fiscal 2001 and 2000 were $2,990,808 (62.6% of operating expenses), and $4,037,509 (62.2% of operating expenses) respectively. The reduction of $1,046,700 was due to a reduction in consulting fees of $574,200, reduced personnel costs of $184,900, a reduction of legal expenses of $124,000, a reduction of third party services for investor relations of $115,100, and a reduction in office supplies of $41,700. Research and Development Expenses Research and development expenses represent non-capitalized costs incurred to develop our system. Research and development expenses for fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2000 were $1,599,820 (33.5% of operating expenses), and $736,775 (11.3% of operating expenses), respectively. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000 we terminated our research and development office in Toulouse, France in order to reduce our operating expenses. During the second half of fiscal 2001, we utilized the expertise of a third-party consulting firm to develop the Iridium-based energy management system, incurring during that period $1,588,179 in consulting fees, compared with consulting fees of $33,013 incurred for research and development of our E-SAT system during fiscal 2000. Non-Cash Stock Compensation In order to attract and retain qualified personnel, we have granted options to purchase Common Stock to several employees. Some of the exercise prices were
10KSB/A41st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 41st
below the fair market value of the Common Stock at the time of grant, resulting in deferred stock compensation. The deferred stock compensation was amortized over the vesting periods of the granted options and as of December 31, 2001 is fully amortized. The Company recognized a total of $450,129 as non-cash stock compensation expense in fiscal 2001 compared to $1,078,857 in fiscal 2000. As of December 31, 2001, the entire amount of deferred stock compensation has been fully amortized. Other Income (Expense) The Company recorded non-operating income of $258,144 during fiscal 2001 as compared to a loss of $59,940 during fiscal 2000. The income in 2001 was the result of an approximately $384,000 gain due to the Company's application of the provisions of EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own Stock, during fiscal 2001. The EITF required the Company to assess, during 2001, the balance sheet classification of all outstanding warrants. As a result of this assessment, certain warrants that met liability classification criteria were reclassified as liabilities and measured at fair value, with subsequent changes in fair value repoted in the statement of operations. The decrease in the fair value of the warrants that resulted in such gains was due to a decrease in fair value of our Common Stock, shorter remaining terms for the remeasured warrants due to the passage of time, changes in volatility and interest rates. Net Loss The Company's net loss for fiscal 2001 was $4,520,127 compared to $6,557,549 for fiscal 2000. Liquidity and Capital Resources We have been in the development stage since our inception and have not recognized any significant revenues. Our monthly expenditures excluding non-cash items averaged approximately $309,000 per month during fiscal 2001. However, expenses will increase during fiscal 2002 with the demands of increased efforts in both systems and business development. Additional capital will be necessary to expand operations or continue current operations, which will result in further dilution to our stockholders. Until we are successful in raising the capital necessary to deploy the Iridium system for use in the State of California Demand Reserves Program, we will likely continue to raise only enough capital to continue our operations for the next 1 to 3 months at a reduced rate of approximately $150,000 per month. We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms or at all. We do not currently have financing in place to fund operations for the next twelve months and estimate that, without additional capital, we will not have enough working capital to sustain operations. Traditionally, we have relied on equity and debt placements to finance our operations. This financing was supplemented from the sale of our interest in entities that held direct broadcast satellite licenses. We no longer have any interest in direct broadcast satellite licensees. During fiscal 2001, we received proceeds from the sale of common and preferred stock totaling $2,002,874 before stock issuance costs of $88,200. We had cash and cash equivalents of $20,494 and $389,319 as of December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000 respectively. We had negative working capital of $3,657,802 as of December 31, 2001, compared to a negative working capital of $2,216,321 as of December 31, 2000. Until we are able to either: 1) successfully implement our program with the California Power Authority to provide satellite-based energy management services, or 2) develop, construct and operate the E-SAT system and derive
10KSB/A42nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 42nd
revenues therefrom, we must continue to rely solely on outside sources to raise cash for our operations. Net cash used in operating activities during fiscal 2001 was $2,858,390, as compared to $2,385,941 for fiscal 2000. The $2,858,390 results from a net loss of $4,520,127 offset primarily by: - non-cash stock compensation of $450,129; - non-cash warrants issues and other non-cash charges of $555,960; and - an increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $649,375 due primarily to difficulties in raising capital financing; Net cash used in investing activities for fiscal 2001 was $30,109 compared to $96,552 for fiscal 2000. Net cash provided by financing activities for fiscal 2001, was $2,520,674 compared to $2,588,866 for fiscal 2000. Net cash provided by financing activities during fiscal 2001 was related primarily to the net proceeds from the sale of common stock and the exercise of options and warrants by our stockholders and to the issuance of convertible debt in the amount of $501,000. We are required to pay certain license fees to the FCC to maintain the validity of our license. Over the next five years, we are expected to make payments to the FCC of approximately $90,000 per year. The FCC waived our license fee for 2001 following our application for such waiver on the grounds of financial hardship, and our 2002 license fee is due in September 2002. In 1996, we received milestone payments under the terms of a $1.2 million purchase order for 10,000 satellite radio units from ABB. Under this agreement, the Company was eligible to receive up to $500,000 towards development costs upon meeting the milestone requirements of the contract. We met the first four milestones of the contract and have received $400,000 in cash. The parties agreed to suspend all development under this agreement due to the expiration of the Company's agreement for the use of the Argos System on December 31, 1997, and the subsequent limits placed on future commercial use of the Argos System. Therefore, such milestone payments could be subject to refund, in whole or in part. A number of factors could cause future results to differ materially from historic results. We are a development stage company and as of December 31, 2001, we had no customers. Given our limited operating history and lack of revenues, we cannot assure you that we will be able to construct and implement our system, and, if implemented, to develop a sufficiently large customer base to be profitable. While we continue the strategic fund-raising efforts (see "Plan of Operation") that are necessary to our ultimate success, our continued cost of operations significantly exceeds our short-term capital. In addition, we currently estimate for the first two years that we will require approximately $15 million to $20 million of working capital to develop, install, and operate the equipment for satellite-based energy management services for the California Power Authority and $60 million in capital related to the construction and launch costs associated with the E-SAT system. No assurance can be given that capital will be available to us on commercially acceptable terms to meet development costs or on
10KSB/A43rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 43rd
terms acceptable to us. The issuance of additional equity securities by us will result in significant dilution of the equity interests of the current stockholders. Selling debt securities such as bonds will increase our liabilities and future cash commitments. In order to comply with development milestones required by the FCC license, we have entered into various development contracts including a satellite construction contract and a satellite launch contract. All of these contracts require that we have available capital, which is not currently available. Potential impact on our liquidity and capital resources of our failure to timely register certain shares of our Common Stock and resulting liquidated damages. We have also incurred liquidated damages related to our Series B convertible preferred stock in the amount equal to 5% of the purchase price for each 30 days we have failed to effectively register the underlying shares of Common Stock. The liquidated damages may be demanded by the holder in cash or as an accrual to the liquidation preference associated with each share of the Series B convertible preferred stock. As of December 31, 2001, we have incurred $87,267 in liquidated damages. We have also incurred liquidated damages related to our Convertible Debenture F in the amount equal to 3% of the purchase price for each month we have failed to effectively register the underlying shares of Common Stock. As of December 31, 2001, we have incurred $1,000 in liquidated damages. We have also incurred liquidated damages related to three issuances of Common Stock and warrants to purchase Common Stock. With respect to two of these issuances, for each month that the effective date of registration is delayed beyond May 1, 2001, liquidated damages have accrued at the rate of 10% of securities purchased. As of December 31, 2001, the total liquidated damages amount to 976,000 shares of our Common Stock and warrants to purchase 244,000 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. With respect to the third issuance, for each month that the effective date of registration is delayed beyond November 1, 2001, liquidated damages have accrued at the rate of 10% of securities purchased. As of December 31, 2001, the total liquidated damages amount to 160,000 shares of our Common Stock and warrants to purchase 40,000 shares of our Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. Until we have an effective registration statement registering the underlying shares of common stock, we will continue to incur these liquidated damages, which will further increase our liabilities and dilute our common stockholders. As a result of our failure to register the underlying shares of Common Stock by August 4, 2001, the holders of the Series B convertible preferred stock have the right to require us to redeem all or a portion of the Series B convertible preferred stock in an amount equal to at least 125% of the liquidation preference amount. Other Risks and Uncertainties Affecting Future Operating Results Other factors, in addition to those identified in this filing, which could affect future results would include the dependence and uncertainty of utility companies or other commercial customers to utilize such data messaging service, the reliance on third parties for the advancement of the design, manufacturing and marketing of the E-SAT system, satisfying the milestones of E-SAT's FCC license and construction contracts, the fulfillment of contract obligations by suppliers and other third parties, the availability of qualified personnel and equipment, delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary governmental approvals, obtaining permits and licenses or renewals thereof, risks and uncertainties relating to general economic and political conditions, both domestically and internationally, changes in the law and regulations governing
10KSB/A44th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 44th
the Company's activities in the little low earth orbiting satellite technology, unscheduled delays or technological difficulties, satellite launch risks, potential satellite malfunction, limited availability of insurance, results of the Company's financing efforts and marketing conditions, competition, and other risk factors related to the Company's business. Readers of this filing are cautioned not to put undue reliance on "forward looking" statements that are, by their nature, uncertain as reliable indicators of future performance. ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA The response to this item is being submitted in a separate section of this report beginning on page 56. ITEM 8. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE None.
10KSB/A45th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 45th
43 PART III ITEM 9. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, PROMOTERS AND CONTROL PERSONS; COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 16(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT Directors, Executive Officers and Key Employees of the Company The present directors, executive officers, and key employees of the Company, their ages, positions held in the Company, and duration as such, are as follows: [Enlarge/Download Table] Name Position Age Period ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Fred W. Thompson Chairman of the Board, President, Chief 59 December 1992 - present Executive Officer, and November 1993 - present Chief Financial Officer February 2002 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Randy Stratt Director, Chief Operating Officer, 45 February 2002 - present General Counsel and Secretary November 1999 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Michael T. Schieber Director 62 December 1992 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Jerome W. Carlson Director 65 May 1997 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Roy T. Grant Director 45 August 1999 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Jessie J. Knight, Jr. Director 51 February 1999 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- Michael J. Apatoff Director 47 February 2002 - present ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------------- The Company adopted staggered terms for its Board of Directors at its 1996 Annual Stockholders Meeting. Messrs. Thompson and Knight will serve until the 2002 annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors have been elected; Messrs. Carlson and Grant will serve until the 2003 Annual Meeting of stockholders or until their successors have been elected; and Mr. Schieber will serve until the 2004 Annual Meeting of stockholders or until his successor has been elected. Messrs. Apatoff and Stratt were appointed on February 5, 2002 to serve on the Board of Directors on an interim basis.
10KSB/A46th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 46th
44 Business Experience The following is a brief account of the education and business experience during at least the past five years of each director, executive officer, and key employee, indicating the principal occupation and employment during that period, and the name and principal business of the organization in which such occupation and employment were carried out. Fred W. Thompson has served as Chairman of the Board, President and CEO since 1992. Mr. Thompson was appointed to serve as Chief Financial Officer in February 2002. Mr. Thompson has over 30 years of senior management experience in the telecommunications industry, including more than 20 years with AT&T Bell Labs, Western Electric Co. and the Long Lines Dept. As founder and Chief Executive Officer of Inter Exchange Consultants, Inc., Mr. Thompson was responsible for the successful management, design and engineering of the pioneering cellular telephone operations in major world markets, including New York, San Francisco, London and Tokyo. Mr. Thompson utilized his skills and experience in bringing new communications technologies to market by founding DBS Industries, Inc. and steering it through the FCC licensing process toward the operational phase. Mr. Thompson received a BS degree in Electrical Engineering from California Polytechnic. Randy Stratt, Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel and Secretary, joined the Company in November 1999 and was appointed to the Board in February 2002. Mr. Stratt has over 20 years of management, business development, and corporate/securities counsel experience with both public and private firms in the finance and high technology industries. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Stratt was Director of Strategic Development and Communications with Dresdner RCM Global Investors, an international investment firm that at the time held over $65 billion of assets under management. From 1987 to 1993, Mr. Stratt was Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Spear Financial Services, Inc., a California-based NASDAQ NMS financial services firm with traditional and on-line broker-dealer operations. Prior to that, Mr. Stratt was an executive with Source Telecomputing Corporation, one of the first on-line consumer services, which was eventually acquired by CompuServe and ultimately acquired by America On-line. Mr. Stratt is a licensed attorney in California and three other states. He holds a BA from Cornell University and received a JD from George Washington University law school and an MS in Information Systems from George Washington University Business School. Jessie J. Knight, Jr., a Director appointed in February 1999, is President and Chief Executive Officer of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. He was a Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission from 1993 through December 1998. Appointed by former Governor Peter Wilson, he was one of five individuals responsible for economic and regulatory oversight of California's telecommunications, utility, trucking and rail industries. Before his appointment to the Commission, he was Executive Vice President of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, responsible for international operations, economic development and attracting businesses to San Francisco. He also served as Vice President, Marketing for the San Francisco Newspaper Agency, a publishing operation encompassing the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner. Mr. Knight serves on the board of directors of Avista, Inc. Mr. Knight holds a BA degree from St. Louis University and an MBA from the University of Wisconsin. Roy T. Grant has served as a Director since August 1999. Mr. Grant is currently an independent consultant. From January 2000 to April 2001, Mr. Grant was Chief Financial Officer of Wayport, Inc. Prior thereto from November 1996 through April 1999, Mr. Grant was employed by Iridium, LLC, most recently as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Subsequent to Mr. Grant's departure, Iridium, LLC filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws in 1999. From 1992 to 1996, Mr. Grant served as Finance Director for Edison Mission Energy, the largest independent power developer in the United States. Mr. Grant is a
10KSB/A47th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 47th
45 director of e-tel Corporation and Pritest. Mr. Grant holds a BS in Administration and Management Science, Mathematics and Economics from Carnegie Mellon University and an MBA in Finance from the University of Chicago. Michael J. Apatoff, Director, was appointed to the Board in February 2002. Mr. Apatoff is currently an independent consultant. From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Apatoff was employed by Dresdner RCM Global Investors, most recently as its President. Previously from 1986 to 1990, Mr. Apatoff was Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and was closely tied into institutional investors and venture and private equity community. From 1981 to 1985, he was Special Assistant to Congressman Tom Foley, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Apatoff earned his BA from Reed College. Jerome W. Carlson, a Director appointed in May 1997, is currently President of Raljer, Inc., a management consulting firm, and has held that position since January 1995. Previously, from 1984 to 1995, Mr. Carlson was the Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and Corporate Secretary for Triad Systems Corporation in Livermore, California. Mr. Carlson has over twenty years experience in both finance and general management positions with Hewlett Packard. Since 1995 he has assisted a number of businesses in developing and achieving certain strategic and tactical goals in their industries. Mr. Carlson is a director of Valley Community Bank. He holds a BS degree from the University of California at Davis and an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Michael T. Schieber has served as a Director of the Company since December 1992. From 1987 to December 1992, Mr. Schieber was the Managing Partner of Amador Telecommunications and since 1990 has been a partner in Columbia Communications, both investors in nation-wide paging licenses. He retired from the Department of Fisheries with the State of Washington in May 1993 where he had served as a civil engineer since 1984. He is also a retired Air Force Major and Command Pilot with service in Vietnam where he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal with 2 oak leaves and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Mr. Schieber received an MA degree in International Relations and Government from the University of Notre Dame, a BS in Engineering from the Air Force Academy, and a BA in Business from The Evergreen State College. Section 145 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware provides for the indemnification of officers and directors under certain circumstances against expenses incurred successfully defending against a claim and authorizes Delaware corporations to indemnify their officers and directors under certain circumstances against expenses and liabilities incurred in legal proceedings involving such persons because of their being or having been an officer or director. Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide for indemnification of our officers and directors to the fullest extent authorized by law. Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be permitted to our directors, officers and controlling persons pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, we have been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. Family Relationships There are no family relationships between any director and executive officer. Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
10KSB/A48th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 48th
46 Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires the Company's executive officers and directors, and persons who own more than 10% of the Company's Common Stock, to file reports of ownership on Form 3 and changes in ownership on Form 4 or 5 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Such executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders are also required by SEC rules to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. Based solely upon its review of copies of such forms received by it, or on written representations from certain reporting persons that no other filings were required for such persons, the Company believes that, during the year ended December 31, 2001, its executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders complied with all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements.
10KSB/A49th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 49th
47 ITEM 10. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Executive Compensation The following table provides certain summary information concerning compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and each of our employees or the employees of subsidiaries who earned in excess of $100,000 for the year ended December 31, 2001. Columns regarding "Other Annual Compensation", "Restricted Stock Awards" and "Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) Payouts" are excluded because no reportable payments were made to such executive officers for the relevant years. SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE [Enlarge/Download Table] Annual Compensation Long-Term Compensation --------------------------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------- ---- ----------------- ------------------ Securities Name and Underlying All Other Principal Position Year Salary(1) Bonus Options Compensation --------------------------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------- ---- ----------------- ------------------ Fred W. Thompson 2001 $262,501 - 0 - 1,250,005 $ 7,755(2) President, CEO 2000 $250,000 - 0 - - 0 - $ 7,386(3) 1999 $215,000 $45,000 1,000,000 $ 16,761(4) Randy Stratt 2001 $190,000 - 0 - 515,625 $ 3,997(5) Chief Operating Officer 2000 $165,000 - 0 - - 0 - $ 1,017(6) General Counsel 1999 $ 24,433 - 0 - 160,000 - 0 - James Stoutenberg 2001 $120,000 - 0 - 212,500 $ 8,250(7) Vice President 2000 $ 80,000 - 0 - 120,000 - 0 - Stanton C. Lawson* 2001 $190,417 - 0 - 562,500 $ 4,410(8) Former Chief Financial Officer 2000 $180,000 - 0 - - 0 - $ 1,485(9) 1999 $ 37,500 - 0 - 180,000 - 0 - Frederick R. Skillman* Former Vice President 2001 $147,500 - 0 - 421,875 $ 13,857(10) 2000 $135,000 - 0 -0- $ 5,044(11) 1999 $120,415 -$54,500 150,000 $ 4,911(12) --------------------------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------- ---- ----------------- ------------------ * Both Mr. Lawson and Mr. Skillman resigned from the Company because of the Company's inability to pay ongoing salary obligations. Pursuant to their employment agreements, these terminations were deemed terminations without cause. Mr. Lawson's termination from the Company was effective February 11, 2002, and Mr. Skillman's termination from the Company was effective April 1, 2002. (1) In order to support the Company's financing efforts, executives elected to defer payment of salary earned in 2001 as follows: Mr. Thompson - $95,834; Mr. Stratt - $80,000; Mr. Stoutenberg - $30,000; Mr. Lawson - $70,417; Mr. Skillman - $57,500. Executives received during 2001 salaries which had been deferred from 2000 as follows: Mr. Thompson - $125,000; Mr. Stratt - $41,250; Mr. Stoutenberg - $25,000; Mr. Lawson - $45,000; Mr. Skillman - $33,750. (2) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $4,005 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $3,750. (3) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $2,586 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $4,800.
10KSB/A50th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 50th
48 (4) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $9,972 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $6,789. (5) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $360 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $1,125. (6) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $284 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $733. (7) Payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan. (8) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $360 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $4,050. (9) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $360 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $1,125. (10) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $244 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $13,613. (11) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $244 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $4,800. (12) Includes payment of life insurance premium of $244 and payment of contribution to IRA Retirement Plan of $4,667. [Enlarge/Download Table] OPTION GRANTS IN THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001 INDIVIDUAL GRANTS --------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------- Number of Securities % of Total Options Underlying Options Granted to Employees Granted 2001 in Fiscal Year 2001 Exercise or Base Price Expiration Name ($/SHARE) Date --------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------- Fred W. Thompson 312,500 10.4% $0.49 February 6, 2011 President, Chief Executive 937,505 31.1% $0.77 August 7, 2011 Officer, Chief Financial Officer Randy Stratt 103,125 3.4% $0.49 February 6, 2011 Chief Operating Officer, 412,500 13.7% $0.77 August 7, 2011 General Counsel James Stoutenberg 62,500 2.9% $0.49 February 6, 2011 Vice President 150,000 4.1% $0.77 August 7, 2011 Stanton C. Lawson* 112,500 3.7% $0.49 February 6, 2011 Former Chief Financial 450,000 15.0% $0.77 August 7, 2011 Officer Frederick R. Skillman* 84,375 2.8% $0.49 February 6, 2011 Former Vice President 337,500 11.2% $0.77 August 7, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Both Mr. Lawson and Mr. Skillman resigned from the Company because of the Company's inability to pay ongoing salary obligations. Pursuant to their employment agreements, these terminations were deemed terminations without cause. Mr. Lawson's employment was terminated from the Company effective February 11, 2002, and Mr. Skillman's employment was terminated from the Company effective April 1, 2002.
10KSB/A51st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 51st
49 Aggregated Option Exercises in Last Fiscal Year and Fiscal Year-End Option Values There were no options exercised during the year ended December 31, 2001 by executive officers. Ten-Year Options/SAR Repricings There was no repricing of options for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. Long-Term Incentive Plans - Awards in Last Fiscal Year There were no awards made to the named executive officers under any long-term incentive plan during the year ended December 31, 2001. Compensation of Directors On September 1, 1999, our Board of Directors adopted a directors' compensation plan. Under the compensation plan, each non-employee director shall receive an annual retainer of $12,000 plus a fee of $1,000 and reasonable travel expenses for attendance at each Board meeting. Each committee chairman shall receive $2,500 annually for each year of service as committee chairman, and each committee member shall receive $500 for attendance at each committee meeting. In lieu of cash compensation, non-employee directors may elect to receive either the Company's Common Stock or stock options to purchase Common Stock, the value of which under either election, shall not exceed $20,000 annually. If either Common Stock or stock options are elected, the price will be determined by the average closing price for the five trading days of the Common Stock at the beginning of a six-month period ending either June 30 or December 31. Further, with respect to stock options elected as compensation, the cash equivalent number of stock options will be determined based upon a number of factors, including but not limited to, vesting periods, estimated growth rates and risk-free rates. In addition, each non-employee director shall receive an annual grant of non-qualified options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock in accordance with the Company's current Stock Option Plan. The exercise price shall be determined by the closing price of the Common Stock of the five trading days up to and including the date of the Annual Stockholders Meeting, subject to discounting pursuant to a formula adopted by the Board. These options shall vest one year from date of grant. Further, upon either the first-time appointment or election to the Board, a new non-employee director shall receive options to acquire 10,000 shares of Common Stock, the exercise price of which will be determined by a formula adopted by the Board. These options shall vest immediately. In 2001, Michael T. Schieber was awarded options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.22 per share, options to purchase 71,202 shares of Common Stock at $0.4156 per share, and options to purchase 30,974 shares of Common Stock at $0.46 per share; Jerome W. Carlson was awarded options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.22 per share, options to purchase 73,840 shares of Common Stock at $0.4156 per share, and options to purchase 28,591 shares of Common Stock at $0.46 per share; Jessie J. Knight, Jr., was awarded options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.22 per share, options to purchase 68,565 shares of Common Stock at $0.4156, and options to purchase 33,365 shares of Common Stock at $0.46 per share; and Roy T. Grant was awarded options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.22 per share and 32,843 shares of Common Stock. The directors' compensation plan was prepared following a report by an independent compensation firm. It was recommended by the compensation committee and adopted by the Board.
10KSB/A52nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 52nd
50 Employment Agreements Mr. Thompson entered into an employment agreement with us on April 18, 1996, effective January 1, 1996. His annual salary under the agreement was $180,000, and included non-qualified stock options to purchase 312,500 shares of our Common Stock. In October 1998, we paid Mr. Thompson the amount of $208,000 related to his previously deferred compensation through December 31, 1997. Effective July 1, 1999, Mr. Thompson's employment agreement was extended until July 1, 2004. In connection with the extension, Mr. Thompson's annual salary was increased to $250,000, and he was granted non-qualified options to purchase 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.3496 based on a formula. Options to purchase 250,000 shares of Common Stock vest immediately and the remaining options to purchase 750,000 shares of Common Stock vest in 250,000 increments beginning on January 1, 2000, and each year thereafter. Effective August 1, 2001, Mr. Thompson's annual salary was increased to $280,000. If Mr. Thompson is terminated without cause during the term of his employment agreement, his salary will continue for 12 months following termination so long as he does not compete with us. Upon termination without cause or in the event of a change of control, all options granted to Mr. Thompson in connection with his employment agreement will vest immediately. We maintained during 2001 a key person insurance policy on Mr. Thompson's life in the face amount of $2,000,000, for which we were the sole beneficiary of such policy, and we will seek to reinstate this policy during 2002. Effective November 18, 1999, we entered into a three-year employment agreement with Mr. Randy Stratt to serve as a Senior Vice President and our General Counsel. Mr. Stratt's starting annual salary was $165,000. Mr. Stratt also received a non-qualified option to purchase 160,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to $1.0797 per share based upon a formula. Effective August 1, 2001, Mr. Stratt's annual salary was increased to $225,000. Also, upon his appointment as Chief Operating Officer effective February 5, 2002, Mr. Stratt received a non-plan, non-qualified option to purchase 450,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable for ten years at $0.12 per share. If Mr. Stratt is terminated without cause during the term of his employment agreement, his salary will continue for 12 months following termination so long as he does not compete with us. Upon termination without cause, all options granted to Mr. Stratt in connection with his employment agreement will vest immediately. Effective October 18, 1999, we entered into a three-year employment agreement with Mr. Stanton C. Lawson to serve as our Senior Vice President of Finance. Mr. Lawson's starting annual salary was $180,000. Mr. Lawson also received a non-qualified option to purchase 180,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to $1.0952 per share based upon a formula. Effective August 1, 2001, Mr. Lawson's annual salary was increased to $205,000. If Mr. Lawson is terminated without cause during the term of his employment agreement, he will receive a lump sum cash payment of 12 months' salary following termination so long as he does not compete with us. Upon termination without cause, all options granted to Mr. Lawson in connection with his employment agreement will vest immediately. Mr. Lawson resigned from the Company because of the Company's inability to pay ongoing salary obligations. Pursuant to his employment agreement, this termination was deemed termination without cause and was effective February 11, 2002. Effective July 28, 1999, DBSI entered into a one-year employment agreement with Mr. Frederick R. Skillman, Jr., to serve as our Vice President, Operations. Under this employment agreement, Mr. Skillman's annual salary was established at $135,000. He also received $13,500 upon the execution of the agreement and an additional $13,500 in November 1999 as a bonus. Mr. Skillman also received a non-qualified option to purchase 150,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to $0.7573 per share based upon a formula. Mr. Skillman's agreement was subsequently extended one year to July 28, 2001 and, effective August 1, 2001, extended two years to July 28, 2003 with an increase in annual salary to $165,000. If Mr. Skillman is terminated without cause during the term of his employment agreement, he will receive a lump sum cash payment of 12 months' salary following termination so long as he does not compete with us. Upon termination without cause, all options granted to Mr. Skillman in connection with his employment agreement will vest immediately. Mr. Skillman resigned from the Company because of the Company's inability to pay ongoing salary obligations. Pursuant to his employment agreement, this termination was deemed
10KSB/A53rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 53rd
51 termination without cause and was effective April 1, 2002. ITEM 11. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT Principal Stockholders The following table sets forth certain information as of July 5, 2002, with respect to the beneficial ownership of our Common Stock for each director, all directors and officers of the Company as a group, and each person known to us to own beneficially five percent (5%) or more of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock. [Download Table] Name and Address of Beneficially and Beneficial Owner Record Owned (1) Percent of Class Fred W. Thompson (2) 6,599,487 (3) 16.9% Randy Stratt (2) 956,250 (4) 2.6% Michael T. Schieber (2) 595,831 (5) 1.6% Jerome W. Carlson(2) 469,956 (6) 1.3% Jessie J. Knight, Jr. (2) 326,661 (7) * Roy T. Grant (2) 552,336 (8) 1.5% Michael J. Apatoff (2) 19,470,363 (9) 39.4% Officers and Directors as a Group 28,970,884 51.3% (7 Persons) Bradley N. Rotter 2,272,754 6.2% 1700 Montgomery Street #250 San Francisco, CA 94111 * Less than 1%. (1) The persons named in the table have sole voting or investment power with respect to all of the Common Stock shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws where applicable and the information contained in the footnotes to this table. (2) The address for each of these persons is: c/o DBS Industries, Inc., 100 Shoreline Highway #190A, Mill Valley CA 94941. (3) Includes (i) 31,593 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Thompson; (ii)
10KSB/A54th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 54th
52 174,558 shares of Common Stock held in Thompson 1996 Revocable Trust; (iii) 3,166,666 shares held by Mr. Thompson through an affiliated business entity; (iv) options to purchase 312,500 shares of Common Stock at $0.531 per share expiring January 1, 2006, 185,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.584 per share and expiring December 31, 2002, 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.3496 per share expiring September 1, 2009, 208,332 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.49 per share expiring February 6, 2011, and 937,505 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.77 per share expiring August 7, 2011; and (v) warrants to purchase 416,667 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring October 15, 2002, and warrants to purchase 166,667 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring October 15, 2002. (4) Includes (i) 15,000 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Stratt; and (ii) options to purchase 160,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.0797 per share expiring October 18, 2009, 68,750 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.49 per share expiring February 6, 2011, 412,500 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.77 per share expiring August 7, 2011, and 300,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring February 5, 2012. (5) Includes (i) 220,000 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Schieber jointly with spouse, Arlene Schieber, (ii) 10,005 shares of Common Stock held solely by Mr. Schieber, (iii) 4,075 shares of Common Stock held solely by Ms. Schieber, of which shares Mr. Schieber disclaims beneficial ownership, (iv) options to purchase 13,750, 12,534 and 37,500 shares of Common Stock all exercisable at $1.4375 per share which expire on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006 and April 30, 2006, respectively, 22,500 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.1875 per share which expire on May 12, 2008, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.7235 per share expiring September 1, 2009, 4,391 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.8625 per share expiring December 31, 2009, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.1953 per share expiring May 22, 2010, 5,625 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.5875 per share expiring June 30, 2010, 7,591 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.5687 expiring December 31, 2010, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.22 per share expiring June 5, 2011, 71,202 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.4156 per share expiring June 30, 2011, 30,974 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.46 per share expiring December 31, 2011, 75,684 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.24 per share expiring June 30, 2012; and (v) a warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.25 per share expiring May 1, 2003. (6) Includes (i) 92,065 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Carlson, (ii) options to purchase 37,500 shares of Common Stock at $2.1875 per share which expire May 12, 2008, 4,391 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.8625 per share expiring December 31, 2009, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.1953 per share expiring May 22, 2010, 6,137 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.5875 expiring June 30, 2010, 6,748 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.5687 per share expiring December 31, 2010, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.22 per share expiring June 5, 2011, 73,840 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.4156 per share expiring June 30, 2011, 28,591 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.46 per share expiring December 31, 2011, 75,684 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.24 per share expiring June 30, 2012; and (iii) a warrant to purchase 125,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.45 per share expiring June 29, 2003. (7) Includes (i) 60,256 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Knight, (ii) options to purchase 37,500 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $5.50 per share which expire February 19, 2009, 12,500 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.8125 per share expiring August 25, 2009, 4,160 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.8625 expiring December 31, 2009, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.7235 per share expiring September 1, 2009, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.1953 per share expiring May 22, 2010, 4,347 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.5875 expiring June 30, 2010, 8,013 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.5687 per share expiring December 31, 2010, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.22 per share expiring June 5, 2011, 68,565 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.4156 per share expiring June 30, 2011, 33,365 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.46 per share expiring December 31, 2011, 62,636 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.24 per share expiring June 30, 2012; and (iii) a warrant to purchase 5,319 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.47 per share expiring August 16, 2005. (8) Includes (i) 60,767 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Grant, and (ii) options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.3897 per share expiring September 1, 2009, 3,236 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $2.8625 which expire December 31, 2009, 8,333 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.7235 per share expiring September 1, 2009, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.1953 per share expiring December 31, 2010, 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.22 per share expiring June 5, 2011, and 450,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring March 1, 2012. (9) Includes (i) 5,878,371 shares of Common Stock held by Mr. Apatoff, (ii) warrants to purchase 36,250 shares of Common Stock at $0.70 per share expiring January 18, 2005, 25,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.60 per share expiring July 27, 2005, 50,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.62 per share expiring September 9, 2005, 53,191 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.47 per share expiring August 16, 2005, 50,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.50 per share expiring August 20, 2005, 250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.50 per share expiring August 20, 2005, 17,241 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.29 per share expiring November 19, 2005, 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.10 per share expiring July 15, 2002, 1,150,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring August 15, 2002, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring September 15, 2002, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring October 15, 2002, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring November 15, 2002, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring December 15, 2002, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring January 15, 2003, 1,250,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.12 per share expiring February 15, 2003, 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring September 7, 2002, 50,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring September 25, 2002, 1,050,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring October 15, 2002, and 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring November 15, 2002; and (iii) options to purchase 13,333 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.10 per share expiring February 5, 2012, and 46,977 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.24 per share expiring June 30, 2012. ITEM 12. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS Except as otherwise noted below, during 2000 and 2001, the Company has not been a party to any transaction, proposed transaction, or series of transactions in which the amount involved exceeds $60,000, and in which, to the knowledge of the Company any director or executive officer, nominee, five percent beneficial security holder, or any member of the immediate family of the foregoing persons have or will have a direct or indirect material interest. During fiscal year 2001, several of our executives deferred receipt of their salaries due. This includes our president, Fred W. Thompson ($95,834), our Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel, Randy Stratt ($80,000), former Chief Financial Officer Stanton C. Lawson ($70,417), and former Vice President of Operations Frederick R. Skillman, Jr. ($57,500). In June 2001, the Company received a six-month loan from Jerome W. Carlson, a director of the Company in the amount of $25,000. In consideration for the loan, the Company will pay interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum and has issued a warrant to the director to purchase a total of 125,000 shares of restricted Common Stock exercisable at $0.45 per share. In May 2001, the Company received a six-month loan from Michael T. Schieber, a director of the Company, and certain affiliates of Mr. Schieber in the amount of $30,000. In consideration for the loan, the Company will pay interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum and has issued warrants to the director to purchase a total of 50,000 shares of restricted Common Stock exercisable at $0.25 per share. In November 2001, the Company received a loan from Michael J. Apatoff, a director of the Company, in the amount of $50,000 at no interest.
10KSB/A55th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 55th
54 During fiscal year 2000, several of our executives deferred receipt of their salaries due. This includes our President, Fred W. Thompson ($125,000), our Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel, Randy Stratt ($41,250), former Chief Financial Officer, Stanton C. Lawson ($45,000), and former Vice President of Operations, Frederick R. Skillman, Jr. ($33,750). ITEM 13. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K Financial Statements The following Financial Statements pertaining to the Company are filed as part of this report: Report of Independent Accountants 56 Consolidated Balance Sheets 57 Consolidated Statements of Operations 58 Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity 59 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 68 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 69
10KSB/A56th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 56th
55 Exhibits (2.1)Plan and Agreement of Reorganization, dated September 30, 1992, entered into with DBS Industries, Inc., Network, Inc, and certain of its shareholders which was previously filed in, and is hereby incorporated by reference to, the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, date of report, December 2, 1991.(1) (3.0) Restated Certificate of Incorporation, effective May 28, 1997.(1) (3.1) Bylaws, effective February 19, 1999.(1) (3.2)Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation, effective April 28, 1999.(1) (3.3)Certificate of Designations, creating the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock effective January 25, 2000.(8) (3.4)Certificate of Designations, creating the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock effective September 25, 2000. (10) (3.5)Certificate of Correction to Certificate of Designations of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, effective October 10, 2000. (11) (3.6)Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Designations of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock effective March 6, 2001. (11) (3.7)Certificate of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of E-SAT, Inc. dated December 29, 2000. (11) (3.8)Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation, effective September 4, 2001. (15) (4.1)Form of Unit Warrant Agreement, which was previously filed in, and is hereby incorporated by reference to, the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-18, No. 33-31868-D, effective May 11, 1990.(1) (4.2) Specimen Stock Certificate.(1) (4.3) Form of Warrant issued to SJ Capital.(8) (10.6)1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan for DBS Industries, Inc.(1) (10.7)1993 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors of DBS Industries, Inc.(1) (10.8)1993 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Consultants of DBS Industries, Inc.(1)
10KSB/A57th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 57th
56 (10.9) Commercial Lease and Sublease and Consent pertaining to Mill Valley, CA office space.(1) (10.20) AXION Royalty Agreement incorporated by reference to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 16, 1994.(1) (10.24) DBS Industries, Inc. $3,000,000, Three-Year Convertible Debenture Series B due January 12, 1999, incorporated by reference to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 1, 1996.(1) (10.25) Memorandum of Understanding between ABB Power T&D Company, Inc. and Global Energy Metering Service, Inc. dated February 9, 1996.(1) (10.26) Stock Purchase Agreement between Seimac Limited and DBS Industries, Inc., comprised of Common Stock Exchange Agreement and Shareholders Agreement both dated December 13, 1995.(1) (10.30) DBS Industries, Inc., $640,000 Three-Year Convertible Debenture, Series C. due December 31, 1999.(1) (10.31) Employment Agreement between Fred W. Thompson and the Company, dated April 18, 1996.(1) (10.32) Employment Agreement between Randall L. Smith and GEMS (the Company's Subsidiary), dated March 1, 1996.(1) (10.33) Employment Agreement between E.A. James Peretti and GEMS (the Company's subsidiary) dated April 18, 1996.(1) (10.34) 1996 Stock Option Plan.(1) (10.36) 1998 Stock Option Plan.(1) (10.37) Memorandum of Understanding Between DBS Industries, Inc. and Matra Marconi Space.(2) (10.38) Letter of Intent with SAIT-Radio Holland SA.(2) (10.39) Purchase Agreement with Astoria Capital, L.P. and Microcap Partners, L.P.(2) (10.40) Warrant Agreement with Astoria Capital, L.P. and Microcap Partners, L.P.(2) (10.41) Employment Agreement between Gregory T. Leger and DBS Industries, Inc. dated March 1, 1998.(3) (10.42) Unit Purchase Agreement with Michael Associates.(4)
10KSB/A58th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 58th
57 (10.43) Unit Purchase Agreement with Lodestone Capital Fund LLC, Fourteen Hill Capital, LP, High Peak Limited and Michael Fitzsimmons.(3) (10.44) Launch Services Agreement with Eurockot Launch Services GmbH dated March 31, 1999.(4) (Redacted per Confidential Treatment Request) (10.45) Satellite Construction Agreement with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited dated March 31, 1999.(4) (Redacted per Confidential Treatment Request) (10.46) Amendment to Employment Agreement between Fred W. Thompson and DBS Industries, Inc. dated September 1, 1999.(6) (10.47) Amendment to Employment Agreement between Gregory T. Leger and DBS Industries, Inc., dated September 1, 1999.(6) (10.48) Employment Agreement between Frederick R. Skillman, Jr., and DBS Industries, Inc., dated July 28, 1999.(6) (10.49) Amendment to Employment Agreement between Frederick R. Skillman, Jr., and DBS Industries, Inc. dated September 1, 1999.(6) (10.50) Employment Agreement between H. Tate Holt and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 1, 1999. (6) (10.51) Employment Agreement between Stanton C. Lawson and DBS Industries, Inc. dated October 18, 1999. (6) (10.52) Employment Agreement between Randy Stratt and DBS Industries, Inc. dated November 8, 1999. (6) (10.53) Prime Contract for E-SAT Communications System between DBS Industries, Inc. and Alcatel Space Industries dated October 8, 1999, and as amended on December 22, 1999. (6) (Redacted per Confidential Treatment Request) (10.54) Share Purchase Agreement between EchoStar DBS Corporation and DBS Industries, Inc. dated July 30, 1999. (6) (Redacted per Confidential Treatment Request) (10.55) 2000 Stock Option Plan. (7) (10.56) Common Stock Purchase Agreement between Torneaux Ltd. and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 2, 2000. (8) (10.57) Amendment to Common Stock purchase Agreement between Torneaux Ltd. and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 30, 2000. (10) (10.58) Stock Purchase Agreement between Courtney Benham and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 2, 2000. (11) (10.59) Stock Purchase Agreement between Codera Wine Group Pension Plan and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 2, 2000. (11)
10KSB/A59th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 59th
58 (10.60) Stock Purchase Agreement between Patrick Watt House Living Trust and DBS Industries, Inc. dated June 2, 2000. (11) (10.61) Stock Purchase Agreement between Barbara J. Drew and DBS Industries, Inc. dated July 25, 2000. (11) (10.62) Registration Rights Agreement between EchoStar DBS Corporation and DBS Industries, Inc. dated December 29, 2000. (12) (10.63) Voting Agreement between EchoStar DBS Corporation and DBS Industries, Inc. dated December 29, 2000. (12) (10.64) Operator-to-Operator Agreement between Iridium Satellite LLC and DBS Industries dated May 24, 2001. (13) (10.65) Amendment to Series B Preferred Stockholder Agreement dated June 26, 2001. (13) (10.66) 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (5) (10.67) Securities Purchase Agreement between Azure Capital Holdings LLC and DBS Industries dated August 31, 2001. (14) (10.68) 6% Convertible Debenture between Azure Capital Holdings LLC and DBS Industries dated August 31, 2001. (14) (10.69) Series B Convertible Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement between Magellan International Ltd., Aspen International Ltd. and DBS Industries dated October 6, 2000. (15) (10.70) Demand Reserves Provider Agreement between California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority and DBS Industries, Inc. (16) (21.1) List of Subsidiaries of DBS Industries, Inc. (23.1) Consent of Leslie Taylor Associates. (23.2) Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (1) Previously filed in, and incorporated by reference to, Form 10-KSB for Fiscal Years July 31, 1993, July 31, 1994, July 31, 1995 and December 31, 1995, December 31, 1996, December 31, 1997, December 31, 1998, and December 31, 1999 or Form 8-K where indicated. (2) Previously filed with Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed on September 16, 1998. (3) Previously filed with Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed on November 30, 1998. (4) Previously filed with Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed on May 3, 1999. (5) Previously filed in the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed on May 4, 1999. (6) Previously filed in the Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 1999. (7) Previously filed in the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed on April 11, 2000. (8) Previously filed in the Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2000. (9) Previously filed with Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed on August 11, 2000. (10) Previously filed with Form 10-Q for period ended June 30, 2000. (11) Previously filed with Form 10-Q for period ended September 30, 2000. (12) Previously filed with Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2000. (13) Previously filed with Form 10-Q for period ended June 30, 2001. (14) Previously filed with Form 10-Q for period ended September 30, 2001. (15) Previously filed with Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed on January 11, 2002. (16) Incorporated by reference to Form 8-K filed with the Commission on May 30, 2002.
10KSB/A60th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 60th
59 Reports on Form 8-K None. SIGNATURES In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. DBS INDUSTRIES, INC. Dated: July 19, 2002 By: /S/ FRED W. THOMPSON --------------------------------- Fred W. Thompson President In accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Annual report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated. /S/ FRED W. THOMPSON July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Fred W. Thompson President, Chairman, Principal Officer & Principal Financial Officer /S/ MICHAEL T. SCHIEBER July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Michael T. Schieber Director /S/ JEROME W. CARLSON July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Jerome W. Carlson Director /S/ MICHAEL J. APATOFF July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Michael J. Apatoff Director /S/ JESSIE J. KNIGHT, JR. July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Jessie J. Knight, Jr. Director /S/ RANDY STRATT July 19, 2002 -------------------------------- Randy Stratt Director, Chief Operating Officer, Secretary
10KSB/A61st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 61st
60 /S/ ROY T. GRANT July 19, 2002 ---------------------------- Roy T. Grant Director
10KSB/A62nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 62nd
61 Report of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries: In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related consolidated statements of operations, of stockholders' equity, and of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the three years ended December 31, 2001 and for the period from April 25, 1990 (date of inception) to December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 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 of these statements in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has incurred losses and negative cash flows from operating activities since inception and will require additional financing. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans as to these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP San Francisco, California May 24, 2002
10KSB/A63rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 63rd
62 DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Balance Sheets The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. - [Enlarge/Download Table] December 31, ----------------------------- 2001 2000 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 20,494 $ 389,319 Prepaid and other current assets 51,981 57,378 ----------- ----------- Total current assets 72,475 446,697 ----------- ----------- Furniture and equipment, net 27,999 32,393 Licensed and Satellite Construction Costs 14,623,873 14,598,995 ----------- ----------- Total other assets 14,651,872 14,631,388 ----------- ----------- Total assets $ 14,724,347 $ 15,078,085 ----------- ----------- Liabilities, Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Stock, and Stockholders' Equity Current liabilities Accounts payable $2,253,859 $1,482,476 Customer advances 400,000 400,000 Accrued compensation 563,710 601,132 Related party loans 105,000 - Warrants 342,956 - Other liabilities 94,825 179,410 ----------- ----------- Total current liabilities 3,760,350 2,663,018 ----------- ----------- Non-current liabilities: Convertible debentures 167,429 - ----------- ----------- Total liabilities 3,927,779 2,663,018 ----------- ----------- Series B mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred stock, $0.0004 par value; 550 shares authorized; 320 shares and 440 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000 respectively (liquidation preference $447,587 as of December 31, 2001) 447,587 347,971 ----------- ----------- Stockholders' equity: Series A convertible preferred stock, $0.0004 par value; 35,897 shares authorized; 25,899 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2001 and 2000 (liquidation preference $ 625,059 as of December 31, 2001) 10 11 Common stock, $0.0004 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized; 24,734,420 and 15,601,143 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively 9,913 6,260 Capital in excess of par value 30,776,417 29,126,919 Warrants 3,688,432 2,989,698 Deferred stock-based compensation - (450,129) Deficit accumulated during the development stage (24,125,791) (19,605,664) ----------- ----------- Total stockholders' equity 10,348,982 12,067,095 ----------- ----------- Total liabilities, mandatorily redeemable preferred stock, and stockholders' equity $ 14,724,347 $ 15,078,085 ----------- ----------- The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolitdated financial statements.
10KSB/A64th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 64th
63 DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Operations [Enlarge/Download Table] April 25, 1990 (Inception) to December 31, December 31, ----------------------------------------------------- 2001 2000 1999 2001 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ 161,420 Cost and operating expenses Cost of revenue - - - 127,580 Marketing and sales 186,043 1,721,725 922,623 2,830,391 General and administrative 2,990,808 4,037,509 4,059,310 19,749,316 Research and development 1,599,820 736,775 1,045,296 6,348,609 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 4,776,671 6,496,009 6,027,229 29,055,896 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Loss from operations (4,776,671) (6,496,009) (6,027,229) (28,894,476) ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Other income (expense) Interest, net (125,629) (59,940) 113,336 (781,692) Equity in loss of investees, net - - - (512,920) Gain on sale of investments - - - 5,829,218 Other, net 383,773 - - 327,139 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 258,144 (59,940) 113,336 4,861,745 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Loss before provision for income taxes and minority interest (4,518,527) (6,555,949) (5,913,893) (24,034,331) Minority interest in income of consolidated subsidiaries - - - 8,575 Provision for income taxes (1,600) (1,600) (1,600) (100,035) ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Net loss $ (4,520,127) $ (6,557,549) $ (5,915,493) $(24,125,791) ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Preferred Stock dividends associated with late registration penalties, issued warrants, and accretions (365,200) (42,020) - ------------ ------------ ------------ Net loss attributable to Common Stockholders $(4,885,327) $(6,599,569) $ (5,915,493) ------------ ------------ ------------ Basic and diluted net loss per share $ (0.23) $ (0.44) $ (0.45) ------------ ------------ ------------ Weighted average number of shares of common stock, basic and diluted 21,088,762 14,832,155 13,088,723 ------------ ------------ ------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A65th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 65th
64 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity Balance at December 31, 1990, of DBSN as restated pursuant to the merger on December 2, 1992 301,000 120 46,375 (219,990) (173,495) Issuance of common stock for professional services at $1.01 to $2.14 per share 520,000 208 47,542 47,750 Issuance of common stock for cash at $.01 to $1.00 per share 244,500 98 124,507 124,605 Stock issue costs for the twelve months ended December 31, 1991 (15,774) (15,774) Net loss for the twelve months ended December 31, 1991 - (115,339) (115,339) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1991 1,065,500 426 202,650 - - - (335,329) (132,253) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Issuance of common stock for cash at $.01 to $1.00 - per share 1,317,290 527 538,998 539,525 Issuance of common stock for professional services at $.01 to $.10 - per share 214,240 86 12,338 12,424 Issuance of common stock in payment of stockholder loans: June 1992 at $.01 per share 230,000 92 2,208 2,300 Net loss for the seven months ended July 31, 1992 (90,750) (90,750) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at July 31, 1992 2,827,030 1,131 56,194 - - - (426,079) 331,246 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shares of Fi-Tek IV, Inc.from August 3, 1989 (inception)through December 2, 1992 817,540 327 155,450 155,777 Issuance of common stock for cash at $.01 to $3.20 per share 1,313,926 527 998,088 998,615 Issuance of common stock for interest at $5.00 per share 10,000 4 4,996 5,000 Issuance of common stock for JPS common stock on September 11, 1992 at $.80 per share 61,447 24 49,134 49,158
10KSB/A66th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 66th
65 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity Issuance of common stock for professional services on September 11, 1992 at $.10 per share 6,679 3 665 668 Issuance of common stock in exchange for DBSC common on October 9,1992, at $2.00 per share 6,375 2 12,748 12,750 Redemption of 97,450 common stock warrants on October 2, 1992, at $8.00 per share (19,490) (19,490) Issuance of common stock December 2, 1992, at closing of acquisition of DBSN as a finder's fee at $.0004 per share 25,000 10 - 10 Issuance of common stock for Axion common stock during March 1993 at $1.60 per share 50,000 20 79,980 80,000 Issuance of common stock for DBSC common stock on July 2, 1993, at $1.60 per share 133,306 53 213,238 213,291 Stock issue costs for the period from August 1, 1992 through July 31, 1993 (6,374) (6,374) Net loss for the twelve months ended July 31, 1993 (755,040) (755,040) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at July 31, 1993 5,251,303 2,101 2,244,629 - - - (1,181,119) 1,065,611 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A67th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 67th
66 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ July 31, 1993 - - 5,251,303 2,101 2,244,629 - - - (1,181,119) 1,065,611 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Issuance of common stock for cash at $4.00 per share (August 1993 through April 1994) 102,256 41 411,943 411,984 Stock issued in exchange for 46% of JPS stock on November 19, 1993 3,379 1 10,137 10,138 Stock issued for professional services: January 28, 1994, at $3.60 per share 5,331 2 19,188 19,190 July 29, 1994, at $2.00 per share 3,833 2 7,663 7,665 Stock issued due to exercise of warrants, at $2.00 per share (March and April 1994) 2,500 1 4,999 5,000 Stock issued for interest on July 31, 1994, at $2.00 per share 1,000 2,000 2,000 Purchase of shares of common stock on January 28, 1994, at $3.20 per share (1,563) (5,000) (5,000) Reacquisition of common stock pursuant to sale of investment in Axion in May 1994, at $1.60 per share (50,000) (80,000) (80,000) Net loss for the twelve months ended July 31, 1994 (26,909) (26,909) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at July 31, 1994 5,318,039 2,148 2,615,559 - - - (1,208,028) 1,409,679 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stock issued for services: November 30, 1994, at $1.88 per share 10,000 4 18,796 18,800 May 15, 1995, at $2.00 per share 10,724 4 21,443 21,447 July 15, 1995, at $1.60 per share 11,373 5 18,192 18,197 Net loss for the twelve months ended July 31, 1995 (1,284,558) (1,284,558) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at July 31, 1995 5,350,136 2,161 2,673,990 - - - (2,492,586) 183,565 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10KSB/A68th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 68th
67 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity Issuance of common stock for 1% JPS common stock on September 21, 1995 at $1.20 per share 9,450 4 11,336 11,340 Issuance of common stock for 20% Seimac Limited common stock on December 13, 1995 at $4.00 per share 165,519 66 662,010 662,076 Issuance of common stock for professional services at $5.60 per share 2,934 1 16,427 16,428 Net loss for the twelve months ended December 31, 1995 (662,877) (662,877) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1995 5,528,039 2,232 3,363,763 - - - (3,155,463) 210,532 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A69th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 69th
68 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1995 - - 5,528,039 2,232 3,363,763 - - - (3,155,463) 210,532 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Warrants issued on January 13, 1996, to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock for services rendered at an exercise price of $7.30 per share 112,500 112,500 Issuance of common stock for cash January 15, 1996, at $4.00 per share, less noncash issuance cost of $63,900 200,000 80 736,020 736,100 February 15, 1996, at $5.20 per share, less noncash issuance cost of $19,999 38,462 15 179,988 180,003 Stock issued for services January 1 - June 30, 1996, at $3.75 per share 22,743 9 85,277 85,286 August 15, 1996, at $4.80 per share 6,018 2 28,884 28,886 September 21, 1996, at $5.60 per share 4,821 2 26,996 26,998 July 1 - December 31, 1996, at $2.00 per share 7,605 3 15,207 15,210 Placement fee associated with January 15 and February 15, 1996, issuances settled through issuance of common stock 19,821 8 83,891 83,899 Net loss for the twelve months ended December 31, 1996 (3,752,583) (3,752,583) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1996 5,827,509 2,351 4,520,026 112,500 - - (6,908,046) (2,273,169) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stock issued for services January 31, 1997, at $1.69 per share 5,088 2 8,586 8,588 February 14, 1997, at $1.75 per share 4,701 2 8,225 8,227 February 28, 1997, at $2.00 per share 7,918 3 15,834 15,837 March 31, 1997, at $1.63 per share 302 - 491 491 April 10, 1997, at $2.00 per share 7,500 3 14,997 15,000 April 30, 1997, at $1.50 per share 332 - 498 498 June 30, 1997, at $1.13 per share 14,578 6 16,394 16,400 July 9, 1997, at $0.75 per share 15,000 6 11,244 11,250 Net income for the twelve months ended December 31, 1997 3,068,917 3,068,917 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1997 5,882,928 2,373 4,596,295 112,500 - - (3,839,129) 872,039 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A70th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 70th
69 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1997 - - 5,882,928 2,373 4,596,295 112,500 - - (3,839,129) 872,039 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Common stock issued for cash, on April 16, 1998, at $2.00 per share 102,000 41 203,959 204,000 Common stock issued upon exercise of options, on June 11, 1998, at $1.44 per share 12,500 5 17,964 17,969 Common stock issued (voided) in connection with services rendered February 12, 1998, at $0.53 per share 26,209 10 13,906 13,916 April 1, 1998, at $3.25 per share 10,000 4 32,496 32,500 May 14, 1998, at $3.75 per share 13,646 6 51,168 51,174 May 14, 1998, at $3.75 per share (22,743) (9) (85,277) (85,286) Common stock issued for cash in August and September 1998 at $2.00 per share net of issuance costs of $485,826 2,800,000 1,120 5,113,054 5,114,174 Common stock issued upon exercise of options at $0.53 per share 17,202 6 9,128 9,134 Fair value of Common Stock warrants committed to representing stock issuance costs (973,000) 973,000 - Fair value of options granted in connection with services rendered 159,000 159,000 Common stock issued for exercise of options $0.60 per share 10/1/98 37,500 15 22,485 22,500 Common stock returned to investees at $2.00 per share in October 1998 (400,000) (160) (799,840) (800,000) Common stock issued upon exercise of options $0.531 per share in October 1998 94,375 38 50,075 50,113 Common stock issued representing stock issuance costs 7,500 3 14,997 15,000 Net loss for the year ended December 31, 1998 (3,293,493) (3,293,493) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1998 8,581,117 3,452 8,426,410 1,085,500 - - (7,132,622) 2,382,740 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A71st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 71st
70 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of Notes Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Receivable Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1998 - - 8,581,117 3,452 8,426,410 1,085,500 - - (7,132,622) 2,382,740 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Common stock issued for cash February 1999 at $2.50, net of issuance costs of $2,104 50,000 20 122,876 122,896 February 1999 at $3.00, net of issuance costs of $25,246 500,000 200 1,474,554 1,474,754 April 1999 at $3.00 per share 1,666,667 667 4,999,333 5,000,000 Common stock issued upon exercise of options January, March, August, and December 1999 at $0.53 per share 195,227 78 103,557 103,635 February 1999 at $0.58 12,625 5 7,368 7,373 January and February 1999 at $0.60 26,667 11 15,990 16,001 February 1999 at $1.44 37,500 15 53,891 53,906 February and March 1999 at $1.45 200,000 80 289,920 290,000 January, February, and March 1999 at $1.50 195,084 78 292,548 292,626 January 1999 at $2.80 8,125 3 22,747 22,750 Common stock issued upon exercise of warrants January 1999 at $0.50 per share 200,000 80 99,920 100,000 January 1999 at $1.44 per share 11,080 4 15,923 15,927 January and February 1999 at $1.50 per share 64,380 26 183,251 (86,707) 96,570 March 1999 at $2.00 per share 7,500 2 24,673 (9,675) 15,000 February and March 1999 at $2.10 per share 33,700 13 111,534 (40,777) 70,770 January - March 1999 at $3.00 per share, net of issuance costs of $123,805 2,452,000 983 7,239,689 (8,475) 7,232,197 March 1999 at $3.50 per share net of issuance costs of $3,344 50,000 20 172,035 172,055 Expiration of warrants 15,730 (15,730) Deferred stock compensation 2,490,337 (2,490,337) - Options issued in connection with services rendered 751,497 751,497 Amortization of deferred stock compensation 957,755 957,755 Warrants issued in connection with services rendered in November and December 1999 22,800 22,800 Issuance of common stock in connection with Litigation settlement in March 1999 at $5.00 per share 63,239 25 324,391 324,416 Fair value of Common Stock warrants committed to representing deferred stock issuance costs 673,500 673,500 in December 1999 - Warrant issued in connection with stock issuance costs (270,000) 270,000 - Note Receivable from Stockholder (60,000) (60,000) Retirement of Treasury Stock - Net loss for the year ended December 31, 1999 (5,915,493) (5,915,493) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1999 14,354,911 5,762 26,968,174 1,890,436 (60,000) (1,532,582) (13,048,115) 14,223,675 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A72nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 72nd
71 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Notes Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Receivable Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of from Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Stockholder Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 1999 - - 14,354,911 5,762 26,968,174 1,890,436 (60,000) (1,532,582) (13,048,115) 14,223,675 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Common stock issued for cash January 2000 under Employee Stock Purchase Plan 490 900 900 at $1.83 July 2000 under Employee Stock Option Plan at $1.43 6,961 3 9,951 9,954 June 2000 at $1.00 166,298 67 166,231 166,298 July 2000 at $.75 133,333 53 99,946 100,000 September 2000 at $.9863 84,490 34 83,299 83,333 October 2000 at $.8805 63,092 25 55,531 55,556 Common stock issued upon exercise of options February 2000 at $2.1875 15,000 6 32,807 32,813 March 2000 at $.531 15,000 6 7,959 7,965 March 2000 at $1.45 50,000 20 72,480 72,500 March 2000 at $1.50 10,000 4 14,996 15,000 April 2000 at $.5840 5,500 2 3,210 3,212 June 2000 at $.60 37,500 15 22,485 22,500 June and August 2000 at $.7235 10,000 4 7,231 7,235 December 2000 at $.584 1,375 1 802 803 Cash received for common stock to be issued 600,000 600,000 Common stock issued upon exercise of warrants March 2000 at $1.50 2,495 1 5,001 5,002 September 2000 at $.70 125,000 50 87,450 87,500 Common stock issued in connection with services rendered January 2000 at $2.2937 4,687 2 10,748 10,750 June 2000 at $1.50 66,667 26 99,974 100,000 September 2000 at $1.25 200,000 80 249,920 250,000 December 2000 at $0.5625 65,569 26 36,856 36,883 July 2000 at $2.5875 3,672 1 9,500 9,501 Series A Preferred Shares issued January - July 2000 at $30.00 35,897 14 1,076,896 1,076,910 Series B Preferred Shares issued in October, 2000 as Stock Issuance Costs 40,000 40,000 Preferred B Warrants 78,044 78,044 Dividends to Preferred B Stockholders (26,016) (26,016) Stock issuance costs - January to December 2000 (636,576) (636,576) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A73rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 73rd
72 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Notes Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Receivable Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of from Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Stockholder Compensation Stage Equity Series A Preferred Shares converted September 2000 at $1.6812 (1,666) (1) 29,728 12 (11) - Series A Preferred Shares converted October 2000 at $1.6812 (1,666) (1) 29,728 12 (11) - Series A Preferred Shares converted November 2000 at $1.70 (3,333) (1) 58,817 24 (22) - Series A Preferred Shares converted November 2000 at $1.6438 (3,333) (1) 60,830 24 (23) - Options and Warrants issued in connection with services rendered 30,828 693,919 724,747 Warrants issued in connection with stock issuance - costs 327,299 327,299 Amortization of deferred stock compensation 1,078,856 1,078,856 Cancellation of deferred stock compensation (3,597) 3,597 Repayment of Note Receivable from Stockholder 60,000 60,000 Net loss for the year ended December 31, 2000 (6,557,549) (6,557,549) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 2000 25,899 10 15,601,143 6,260 29,126,919 2,989,698 - (450,128) (19,605,664) 12,067,096 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A74th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 74th
73 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Note Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Receivable Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of from Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Stockholder Compensation Stage Equity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 2000 25,899 10 15,601,143 6,260 29,126,919 2,989,698 - (450,128) (19,605,664) 12,067,096 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Series B Preferred Shares and dividends converted November 2001 at $0.272 491,674 197 133,538 133,735 Common stock issued for cash January 2001 under Employee Stock Purchase Plan at $0.32 9,844 4 3,146 3,150 January 2001 at $0.25 (cash received in Dec. 2000) 2,000,000 800 (800) - January 2001 at $0.50 (cash received in Dec. 2000) 200,000 80 (80) - January 2001 at $0.50 500,000 200 249,800 250,000 January 2001 at $0.3448 290,000 116 99,884 100,000 March 2001 at $0.44 568,182 227 249,773 250,000 July 2001 at $0.20 1,459,458 584 281,640 82,642 364,865 July 2001 at $0.02 450,000 180 9,820 10,000 July 2001 at $0.60 600,000 240 330,195 29,565 360,000 July 2001 under Employee Stock Purchase Plan 12,083 5 4,345 4,350 at $0.36 August 2001 at $0.47 478,722 191 197,529 27,280 225,000 August 2001 at $0.50 500,000 200 162,245 87,555 250,000 August 2001 at $0.69 94,203 38 59,614 5,348 65,000 November 2001 at $0.29 172,414 69 44,931 5,000 50,000 December 2001 at $0.30 166,667 67 23,756 26,177 50,000
10KSB/A75th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 75th
74 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Note Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Receivable Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of from Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Stockholder Compensation Stage Equity Common stock issued upon exercise of options March 2001 at prices ranging from $0.53 to $0.60 118,875 48 64,955 65,002 Cash received for stock issued in fiscal 2000 3,207 3,207 Warrants issued in connection with services rendered by third parties 351,658 351,658 Common stock issued in connection with - services rendered by third parties 821,469 329 431,671 432,000 Common stock issued in connection with services rendered by related parties 49,686 20 27,980 28,000 Common stock issued in connection with termination settlement 150,000 60 46,740 46,800 Warrants issued in connection with stock issuance costs (83,509) 83,509 - The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A76th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 76th
75 DBS Industries, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity [Enlarge/Download Table] Deficit Preferred Stock Common Stock Note Accumulated --------------- ------------- Capital in Receivable Deferred During the Total Par Par Excess of from Stock-Based Development Stockholders' Shares Value Shares Value Par Value Warrants Stockholder Compensation Stage Equity Amortization of deferred stock compensation 450,128 450,128 Stock issuance costs - January to December 2001 (88,200) (88,200) Beneficial conversion feature on Convertible Debentures 222,816 222,816 Dividend relating to the issuance of warrants to Series B Preferred Stockholders (98,850) (98,850) Cumulative dividends and penalties relating to Preferred Stock (233,350) (233,350) Penalties in the form (126,222) (126,222) of warrants associatd with issued common stock Classification of warrant values due to change in accounting principle (367,076) (367,076) Net loss for the year ended December 31, 2001 (4,520,127) (4,520,127) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Balance at December 31, 2001 25,899 10 24,734,420 9,913 30,776,417 3,688,432 - - (24,125,791) 10,348,982 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
10KSB/A77th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 77th
76 DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (A Development Stage Company) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows [Enlarge/Download Table] April 25, 1990 (Inception) to Year Ended December 31, December 31, ---------------------------------------- 2001 2000 1999 2001 Cash flows from operating activities Net loss $(4,520,127) $(6,557,549) $(5,915,493) $(24,125,791) Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 9,749 16,866 15,719 473,590 Minority interest's share of net loss - - - (8,575) Noncash charges 578,326 673,500 - 2,336,371 Amortization of deferred stock-based compensation 450,129 1,078,857 957,755 2,486,740 Issuance of options and warrants for services rendered 351,658 1,021,218 774,298 2,147,174 Effect of remeasurement of warrants (383,773) - - (383,773) Issuance of common stock in connection with litigation settlement - - 324,391 324,391 Equity in loss of investees, net - - - 529,972 Loss (gain) on sale of investments (124) - - (5,829,342) Allowance for losses on advances - - - 216,932 Common stock issued as payment for interest - - - 7,000 Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable and other assets 5,397 57,060 (43,301) (32,778) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities 649,375 1,324,107 204,675 2,583,397 Increase in customer advances - - - 400,000 --------- --------- --------- ---------- Net cash used in operating activities (2,859,390) (2,385,941) (3,681,956) (18,874,691) --------- --------- --------- ---------- Cash flows from investing activities Proceeds from sale of investment 2,546 - - 1,102,486 Proceeds from Loral settlement - - - 3,573,677 Purchase of fixed assets (7,777) - (34,394) (153,218) Satellite construction payments - (157,034) (10,800,790) (12,229,907) Organization costs - - - (28,526) Repayment (issuance) of note receivable from stockholder - 60,000 (60,000) (31,187) Purchase of interest in Continental - - - (2,292,409) Investments, license acquisition costs and other (24,878) 482 (1,518,081) (2,751,203) Net assets of purchased subsidiaries - - - (147,500) Cash transferred from Fi-Tek IV, Inc. pursuant to the merger and reorganization - - - 156,648 Cash of divested subsidiary - - - (277) Purchase of patents - - - (18,251) Proceeds from repayment of advances to affiliate - - - 152,500 Restricted cash on credit line - - - 300,000 --------- -------- ----------- ---------- Net cash used in investing activities (30,109) (96,552) (12,413,265) (12,367,166) --------- -------- ----------- ---------- Cash flows from financing activities Repayment of borrowing under credit line - - - (300,000) Issuance of debentures 501,000 - - 5,318,501 Issuance of common and preferred stock 2,002,874 3,225,442 15,240,555 27,402,644 Redemption of common stock warrants - - - (19,490) Stock issuance costs (88,200) (636,576) (154,100) (1,378,611) Purchase of shares - - - (5,000) Payment of debentures - - - (1,168,445) Proceeds from stockholders' loans 105,000 - - 547,750 Payment of stockholders' loans - - - (351,967) --------- --------- ---------- ---------- Net cash provided by financing activities 2,520,674 2,588,866 15,086,455 30,045,382 --------- --------- ---------- ---------- Net increase (decrease) in cash (368,824) 106,373 (1,008,766) 20,494 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period 389,318 282,945 1,291,711 - Cash and cash equivalents, end of period $ 20,494 $ 389,318 $ 282,945 $ 20,494 --------- --------- --------- --------- Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information Interest paid $ 125,629 $ 59,940 $ 4,672 $ 210,461 --------- --------- --------- --------- Income taxes paid $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 25,020 --------- --------- --------- ---------
10KSB/A78th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 78th
77 DBS Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries (A Development Stage Company) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 1. Organization and Basis of Presentation These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of DBS Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Global Energy Metering Service, Inc. ("GEMS"), and NewStar Limited ("NewStar"). The Company consolidates the financial statements of E-SAT Inc., in which the Company has an ownership interest of 80.1%. Intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company was organized as a Delaware corporation on August 3, 1989. Since inception the Company has been in the development stage. The Company's current business plan is to develop a data communication service using a constellation of low earth orbit satellites and the Internet. The Company's financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. Since inception, the Company has devoted substantially all of its efforts to developing its business. The Company has therefore incurred substantial losses and negative cash flows from operating activities as reflected in these consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the Company has relied primarily upon obtaining equity capital and debt financing to support its operations. The Company does not expect revenue to exceed costs and expenses in 2002 and, accordingly, will continue to incur losses and negative cash flows from operating activities. To address financing needs, the Company is pursuing various financing alternatives. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. These financial statements do not reflect any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the above uncertainty. During fiscal 2001, the Company raised approximately $2.5 million, net of stock issuance costs, from warrant exercises, issuance of debentures, and sale of shares of common and preferred stock. However, the Company will need substantial additional capital, at least $60 million, to construct its proposed E-SAT satellite constellation. Such financing is likely to result in a significant dilution in the equity interests of the current stockholders. The construction of the first two of the six planned satellites was required to be completed by March 2002 pursuant to the terms of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") license granted to E-SAT. (See Note 3 - "License Costs".) On March 29, 2002, the Company notified the FCC that it has not achieved this milestone and requested a two-year extension. On May 23, 2002, the Company entered into a contract with an agency of the State of California. (See Note 12- "Subsequent Events".) The Company believes the implementation of this contract, if successful, would provide some of the funding for the further development of the E-SAT system. GEMS is a Delaware corporation in the development stage whose primary activity has been the development of satellite and radio systems for use in automating the control and distribution of gas and electric power by utility companies. GEMS had no significant activity during fiscal 2001. In January 1998, the Company created NewStar, a wholly-owned subsidiary organized under the Laws of the Republic of Bermuda to market and sell our service to international customers.
10KSB/A79th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 79th
78 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, all references to the "Company" include DBS Industries, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and E-Sat, Inc. Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Such estimates include the recoverability of satellite construction costs and the investment in ESAT. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Consolidation The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of E-SAT, a majority owned subsidiary. All significant inter-company transactions have been eliminated. Cash equivalents The Company considers all money market instruments and other highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Depreciation Furniture and equipment are depreciated over the estimated useful lives of the assets ranging from five to seven years using the straight-line method of depreciation. When assets are disposed of, the related cost and accumulated depreciation are removed from the books and the resulting gain or loss is recognized in the year of disposal. Satellite construction costs Satellite construction costs will be depreciated over the useful economic lives of the satellites once they enter into service. The Company reviews satellite construction costs and other long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. The amount of the impairment loss, if any, would be calculated based on the excess of the carrying amount of the assets over their fair value. Goodwill Goodwill is amortized using the straight-line method over five years. Amortization expense charged to operations for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999, was $0, $1,047, and $2,515 respectively. Income taxes Income taxes are accounted for in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Under SFAS No. 109, deferred income tax liabilities and assets are determined based on the difference between the financial reporting amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities that will result in taxable or deductible
10KSB/A80th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 80th
79 amounts in the future. Such amounts are based on enacted tax laws and rates in effect for the years in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income, net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amounts expected to be realized. Income tax expense is the tax payable for the period and the change during the period in deferred tax assets and liabilities. Stock-Based Compensation The company accounts for stock-based employee compensation agreements in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No.25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (APB No.25) and complies with the disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS 123). Under APB No.25, compensation expense is based on the difference, if any, between the fair value of the Company's stock and the exercise price of the option on the measurement date, which is typically the date of grant. In March of 2000, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued FIN 44, Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock Compensation, an interpretation of APB No.25. Fin 44 was effective July 1, 2000. The implementation of FIN 44 did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company accounts for options granted to non-employees under SFAS No.123 and Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") No. 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments that are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with, Selling Goods or Services. Under SFAS No.123 and EITF No. 96-18, options are recorded at their fair value on the measurement date, which is typically the date of grant. Net loss per share In February 1997, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 128, Earnings per Share, which establishes standards for computing and presenting earnings (loss) per share. Under these standards, basic earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding and excludes any potential dilution; diluted earnings per share reflects diluted effects of all outstanding common stock equivalents. Options and warrants are excluded from the EPS calculation in loss years due to their antidilutive effect. Diluted net loss per share does not include the effect of the following potential common shares: Year Ended December 31, 2001 2000 1999 Shares issuable pursuant to options and warrants 13,204,724 8,103,582 6,150,994 Recently issued accounting pronouncements In July 2002, the FASB issued SFAS 141, Business Combinations and SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. SFAS 141 requires business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 to be accounted for using the purchase method of accounting, and clarifies the criteria for recording intangible assets separate from goodwill. SFAS 142 requires the use of a non-amortization approach to account for purchased goodwill and certain intangibles. Under a non-amortization approach, goodwill and certain
10KSB/A81st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 81st
80 intangibles are not amortized, but instead are reviewed annually for impairment and written down via a charge to results of operations in any periods in which the recorded value of goodwill and certain intangibles is more than their fair value. SFAS 142 is effective January 1, 2002 and such equities had no impact on the Company's unaudited financial statements. In October 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 144 ("SFAS 144"), Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. SFAS 144 supersedes SFAS 121, Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to Be Disposed Of and applies to all long-lived assets (including discounted operations) and consequently amends Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 30 ("APB 30"), Reporting results of Operations-Reporting the Effects of Disposal of a Segment of a Business. SFAS 144 develops one accounting model (based on the model in SFAS 121) for long-lived assets that are to be disposed of by sale, as well as addresses the principal implementation issues. SFAS 144 requires that long-lived assets that re to be disposed of by sale be measured at the lower of book value or fair value less cost to sell. That requirement eliminates APB 30's requirement that discontinued operations be measured at net realizable value or that entities include under discontinued operations amounts for operating losses that have not yet occurred. Additionally, SFAS 144 expands the scope of discontinued operations to include all components of an entity with operations that (1) can be distinguished from the rest of the entity and (2) will be eliminated from the ongoing operations of the entity in a disposal transaction. SFAS 144 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001. (See Note 4.) Reclassifications Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current year's presentation. Segment reporting We have determined that we have a single reportable operating segment as defined by SFAS No. 131 Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. Comprehensive income (loss) The Company had no other comprehensive income or loss for all periods presented. 3. License Costs In October 1994, the Company and EchoStar formed E-SAT for the purpose of filing with the FCC for a license to operate a low earth orbit satellite system. E-SAT filed with the FCC on November 16, 1994. On March 31, 1998, the FCC approved E-SAT's application for a low earth orbit satellite license. E-SAT is required to meet certain milestones and other covenants in order to maintain its license. On April 8, 1999, the Company notified the FCC that it had entered into a construction contract for the first two satellites of the E-SAT system on March 31, 1999.
10KSB/A82nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 82nd
81 On July 30, 1999, the Company entered into an agreement with EchoStar under which it received 60.1% of E-SAT's shares from EchoStar in exchange for consideration, including the grant of rights to use up to 20% of the satellite capacity of the E-SAT system by EchoStar. As a result of this transaction, which was subsequently approved by the FCC, the Company now owns 80.1% of the E-SAT shares. In connection with the negotiations of the share purchase agreement with EchoStar, the Company paid $1,517,187 to a consultant during 1999 and capitalized such costs as part of the purchase price. 4. Satellite Construction Costs During the construction of its satellite system, the Company is capitalizing all design, engineering, launch and construction costs. Such costs amounted to approximately $12.2 million as of December 31, 2001. Of that amount, approximately $2 million was paid to Alcatel Space Industries ("Alcatel") for preliminary engineering design review for the Company's system, including the payload design and designs for the gateway earth station and tracking facilities, as well as the satellite orbital analysis and communications link margins to and from space. On October 8, 1999, the Company signed a contract with Alcatel for the final design, construction and delivery to the launch site of six little low earth orbiting satellites. This agreement also includes the final design, construction and delivery of the ground infrastructure, including the gateway earth station, mission center, satellite control center, ground communications network and ground-based transceivers to be installed into devices, like utility meters. Alcatel is also responsible for providing in-orbit testing of the E-SAT system. The total contract price for the end-to-end system is $88.5 million. Either party has the right to terminate this agreement under certain circumstances. As noted above, the Company paid $2 million in construction payments to Alcatel for engineering specifications. The Company has not made a further payment required by the agreement with Alcatel, due at the end of 1999, of approximately $9.1 million in cash and the equivalent of $5 million in Common Stock. This payment was necessary for Alcatel to continue work and to trigger an effective date for the Company's full system development schedule. As of December 31, 2001, this payment has not been made, and Alcatel therefore has the right to consider this contract void as to further work, and that the contract is therefore not currently in effect. If the Alcatel contract is never brought into effect, the Company retains the engineering specifications provided by Alcatel, which would still be used by the Company's other contractors in the construction of the Company's satellite network. On March 31, 1999, the Company signed construction and launch contracts with Surrey Satellite Technology Limited ("Surrey") and Eurockot, respectively, and made advance payments of $7.8 million in April 1999 and $2.0 million in July 1999. Total payments under these cancelable contracts will amount to approximately $47 million. In July 1999, the Company, Surrey and Eurockot reached agreements under which $3.2 million of the required milestone payments due in July 1999, totaling $4.8 million were deferred to yet to be agreed upon dates. Surrey's construction contract, which was to build the satellite infrastructures that would house the telecommunications payload, was to be managed by Alcatel as prime contractor, if and when the Company paid Alcatel $14.1 million to trigger the Alcatel contract effective date. As this payment has not been made, the Alcatel contract is not in effect and Surrey remains a direct contractor of the Company. In accordance with SFAS 121, the Company reviews capitalized satellite construction and FCC license costs for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be
10KSB/A83rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 83rd
82 recoverable. The Company's management and Audit Committee of the Board has concluded that no such events or changes in circumstances have occurred and, accordingly, it would be inappropriate to write down the capitalized satellite construction costs as impaired as of December 31, 2001. The Company evaluated a number of factors in its consideration of impairment events and changes in circumstances including: (1) whether the Company's failure to meet its FCC milestone requirements would result in termination of the license; (2) whether the assets continue to have value notwithstanding the delay since contracting; (3) whether the Company's failure to bring the Alcatel prime contract into effect prevents the Company from constructing its system; (4) whether the state of difficulties in the satellite financing capital markets were likely to prevent the Company from financing its system in the future; (5) whether the telecommunications industry had overcapacity such that there would be no business opportunity for the E-SAT system; and (6) whether the Company's implementation of an Iridium-based system effectively replaced the E-SAT system. In more detail, the Company concluded subject to the risk factors detailed in the Company's Form 10-KSB, these points as detailed below: a. The Company believes that its failure to meet its milestones are not likely to result in termination of the license. The Company recognizes that the loss of the FCC license held by its subsidiary E-SAT, Inc. would be a change in circumstance and that the failure to meet certain milestones could lead to a loss of the license. The Company currently lacks adequate financing and time to build and launch two low earth orbiting satellites in advance of the required FCC construction and launch date of March 2002 and September 2002 respectively. As part of the Company's impairment analysis, the Company received a report and opinion from Leslie Taylor Associates, its regulatory counsel, that the license was likely to be extended. This opinion was based on the satellite construction progress to date, including the launch of one satellite, and the fact that there were no other pending applicants for the spectrum covered by E-SAT's license. As recommended by Leslie Taylor Associates, on March 29, 2002, E-SAT filed the request to the FCC for an extension of milestones requirements. The request was accepted by the FCC and placed on a 30-day public notice on April 24, 2002. As of May 24, 2002, the request came off public notice and no opposing comments were filed during the 30-day period. Based on these facts, the Company believes, while there is no guarantee, the FCC will grant the extension and that it is therefore not in imminent danger of losing its FCC license but will continue to monitor the situation for any changes. b. The Company believes that its satellite construction assets continue to have value notwithstanding the delay since contracting. Included in the capitalized satellite construction costs are payments to Alcatel Space Industries, Eurockot and Surrey Satellite. The Company paid Alcatel for the production of engineering specifications and analysis which information remains the property of the Company. These specifications are an integral part of E-SAT's ability to construct the satellites and were transferred by the Company to Surrey Satellite in 2001, and will be used by Surrey in satellite construction regardless of whether the Alcatel contract is ever brought into effect. Surrey Satellite was paid for the design of the satellite ground station, among other things, which is crucial to the design of the system and remains an important element to completion of a complete satellite communication network. Eurockot was paid for the launch of the satellites and although the launch date has been extended past 2002, E-SAT's right to Eurockot's launch services remains intact. c. The Company believes that its failure to bring the Alcatel prime contract into effect does not prevent the Company from constructing its system. The Company's contract with Alcatel called for a payment by the Company at the end of 1999 that has not been paid to date and, as a result, Alcatel has the option to terminate the contract. Alcatel has not indicated to the Company that it intends to terminate the contract, and the Company believes that Alcatel would seek to bring the contract into effect when the Company receives financing. In addition, the Company believes that currently alternative suitable prime contractors are available to manage construction as prime contractor, including Surrey Satellite, for a significantly lower cost than negotiated with Alcatel, and so the Company may not choose to
10KSB/A84th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 84th
83 reinstate the Alcatel contract. As noted above, the Company has received viable assets consisting of engineering specifications and analysis in return for the $2.1 million paid to Alcatel. d. The Company believes that the state of difficulties in the satellite financing capital markets is not likely to prevent the Company from financing its system in the future. The Company believes that satellite financing is cyclical and further that the low cost of its system, approximately $60 million, compared to other global telecommunications systems, allows it to be financed through a wide variety of sources, including customers and strategic partners. The Company believes that the primary impediment to financing is therefore a demonstration of market viability of low-earth-orbiting satellites for data communications to remote infrastructure. e. The Company believes that current telecommunications industry overcapacity does not obviate the market opportunity for the E-SAT system. The Company believes that the E-SAT system will have unique competitive advantages even if the telecommunications industry maintains a position of low per minute costs due to overcapacity. These advantages are primarily low terminal cost due to usage of low power-spread spectrum transceivers permitted by the E-SAT license, and high penetration of buildings, remote terrain and poor weather because the E-SAT license uses VHF frequencies. f. The Company believes that the Company's implementation of an Iridium-based system is not a substitute for the E-SAT system. The Company believes that the Iridium-based system, which has a higher transceiver cost and operates on the L-Band which requires line of sight, is potentially complementary to the E-SAT system with lower transceiver cost and operates on VHF frequencies which have strong building, terrain and weather penetration. The Company believes that if the funding necessary to complete the satellite network and to remain a going concern is obtained, the capitalized satellite construction costs will be recoverable from future operating cash flows. On May 23, 2002, the Company entered into a Demand Reserves Authority Provider Agreement with the California Power Authority to implement a satellite-based (using Iridium capacity) automated conservation system design to conserve significant electrical usage on demand at peak or emergency times. The Company believes that implementation of this program, if successful, would provide some of the funding for the further development of the E-SAT system. Should the FCC extension request be denied, or any of the other above factors materially change, the Company may be required to record an impairment of the capitalized satellite construction costs. 5. Customer Advances The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, GEMS, is party to a contract to deliver 10,000 satellite radio units. The purchase order is for $1.2 million and under the terms of the purchase order, GEMS would receive a total of $500,000 in advance payments on the contract, based on certain milestone achievements. As of December 31, 1998, this purchase order had been suspended by both parties when the Argos System became unavailable. The $400,000 in milestone payments received is reported as customer advances on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. These milestone payments could be subject to refund in whole or in part.
10KSB/A85th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 85th
84 6. Commitments Operating leases The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries lease their facilities under noncancelable operating leases which run concurrently and expire in July 2003. Minimum future rental payments under the leases are as follows: Year Ending December 31, 2002 148,234 2003 86,470 ---------------- $234,704 ---------------- Total rent expense was $151,253, $226,268, and $150,084 for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively. Other Refer to Note 4 for certain contract commitments. 7. Stockholders' Equity Preferred stock The Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended in 2001, authorizes the issuance of 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock with par value of $0.0004 per share. The Board of Directors of the Company is authorized to issue preferred stock from time to time in series and is further authorized to establish such series, to fix and determine the variations in the relative rights and preferences as between the series, and to allow for the conversion of preferred stock into common stock. Common stock The Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended in 2001, authorizes the issuance of 100,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.0004 per share. Each record holder of common stock is entitled to one vote for each share held on all matters properly submitted to the stockholders for their vote. Cumulative voting of the election of directors is not permitted by the Certificate of Incorporation. Equity transactions with non-employees Preferred Stock Transactions During fiscal 2000, the Company sold to accredited investors an aggregate of 35,897 shares of its Series A Convertible Preferred Stock at $30 per share, for an aggregate placement of $1,076,910. The shares of preferred stock have a liquidation preference of $30.00 per share and were initially convertible, at the option of the holder, into ten shares of our common stock, or at a rate of $3.00 per common share. Per the conversion terms,
10KSB/A86th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 86th
85 the conversion rate was adjusted to a range between $1.6438 and $1.8625, based upon the 5-day average closing price of the Company's common stock three months after the shares were issued, because the Company's common stock was trading below $3.00 per share. Commissions were paid to one placement agent in the aggregate amount of approximately $7,000, plus a warrant was issued in July 2000 to the placement agent to purchase 57,586 shares of common stock at the exercise price of $3.00 per share. As of December 31, 2001, 25,899 shares of Series A Preferred Shares remain outstanding. Accreted dividends totaled $70,898 based on 5% dividend rate per annum. On October 6, 2000, the Company received from accredited investors proceeds of $400,000 from the sale in a private placement of (1) 400 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, (2) warrants to purchase 83,660 shares of Common Stock with an exercise price of $1.052 per share and (3) warrants to purchase 83,660 shares of Common Stock with an exercise price of $1.434 per share. During the first 180 days following October 6, 2000, the Series B Preferred Stock may not be converted; and the Company has the right to redeem these shares if the Company repays the purchase price plus an additional 5-7% depending on repayment date, plus dividends at a rate of 10% per annum. After 180 days following October 6, 2000, the Series B Preferred Stock are convertible into Common Stock at the lesser of (1) approximately $.96 per share or (2) 80% of the average of the three lowest closing bid prices of the Common Stock for the 20-day trading period prior to the conversion date. The Compnay did not record a beneficial conversion feature under the provisions of EITF 98-5, "Accounting for Convertible Securities with Beneficial Conversion Features or Contingently Adjustable Conversion Ratios", as the most beneficial conversion price of $.94 exceeded the fair value of the Common Stock on the date of commitment which was $.84. The Company also has the obligation to register the Common Stock underlying the warrants and, after 180 days, Common Stock underlying any redeemed Series B Preferred Stock. For this transaction, an agent received a fee of 40 shares of Series B Preferred Stock and warrants to purchase 120,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company with an exercise price of $1.052 per share. As of December 31, 2001, 320 shares of Series B Preferred Shares remain outstanding, and accreted dividends amounted to $40,320 based on a 10% dividend rate per annum. On June 26, 2001, the Company's Series B preferred stockholders agreed to modify their preferred stock agreement with the Company. As a result of the modification, the Company's requirement to file a registration statement for the Series B equity was delayed four months to August 4, 2001. The Company has not filed such registration statement as of December 31, 2001 and therefore has recorded accretions of 5% monthly of the Series B Preferred Stock's liquidation amount of $440,000. These accretions amounted to $87,267 for the year ended December 31, 2001. The preferred stockholders have the right to require redemption of the Series B Preferred Stock amounts, including accretions, 90 days subsequent to August 4, 2001 in the event that the registration statement is not declared effective at that time. In conjunction with this modification, the Company agreed to reprice the existing 287,322 warrants issued on October 6, 2000 to the Series B preferred stockholders ranging in price from $1.0126 to $1.1342 to $0.17 per share. In addition, the Company issued to the Series B preferred stockholders warrants to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.17 per share. The fair value of $98,850 of such warrants was calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following variables: exercise price of $0.17, closing stock price on June 26, 2001 of $0.44, life of warrants of 3 years, volatility of 150% and risk free interest rate of 5.5%. The value of such warrants was deemed to be analogous to a dividend to the preferred stockholders as prescribed under the provisions of EITF 98-5 and was recognized at the date of issuance as the warrants were immediately exercisable.
10KSB/A87th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 87th
86 Common Stock Transactions On January 13, 1996, the Company issued warrants for the purchase of 75,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $7.30. On December 31, 1997, the Company replaced these with new warrants to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.44. These warrants were issued for services rendered and are exercisable through January 2006. As of December 31, 2001, none of these warrants have been exercised. On July 9, 1997, the Company issued warrants for the purchase of 200,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share. These warrants were issued in connection with a $100,000 short-term loan made by a stockholder of the Company. As of December 31, 1997, the loan had been repaid. These warrants were exercised during 1999. In April 1998, the Company granted options to two consulting firms to purchase 400,000 and 233,334 shares of the Company's Common Stock at prices of $1.45 and $1.50 per share, respectively. These options have terms of five years and vest over a one-year period. In June 1998, the Company issued 102,000 shares of its Common Stock at a price of $2.00 per share. In connection with this stock offering, the Company issued warrants to purchase 102,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share through June 30, 2001. In July 1998, the Company's president was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a firm claiming that it was promised shares of the Company's Common Stock. In March 1999, the Company settled this matter by issuing 63,239 shares of the Company's Common Stock, valued at approximately $324,000, and paying $15,000 in cash to the plaintiff. During the six months ended December 31, 1998, the Company issued 2,800,000 units each consisting of a share of Common Stock at a price of $2.00 per share and a warrant to purchase a share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.00. In connection with this stock offering, the Company incurred the following stock issuance costs: (i) cash payments of $442,500, (ii) 7,500 shares of Common Stock with a fair value of $15,000, and (iii) warrants to purchase 728,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at exercise prices varying from $1.50 to $3.00. The fair value of such warrants amounted to $973,000 and was recorded as a separate element of the Company's equity. In October 1998, at the request of two stockholders due to changes in their financial condition, the Company rescinded stock purchase agreements relating to 400,000 units and refunded $800,000 in proceeds to the two stockholders. In February 1999, the Company issued (a) 500,000 units each consisting of a share of Common Stock at a price of $3.00 per share and a warrant to purchase a share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $4.00, (b) 50,000 units consisting of a share of common stock at a price of $2.50 per share and a warrant to purchase a share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.50. Sale of these units resulted in gross proceeds to the Company of approximately $1.6 million. In connection with this offering, the Company granted warrants to purchase 75,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.75. Such grant represented stock issuance costs and therefore, its fair value of $270,000 was recorded as an offset against the proceeds of the offering. In March 1999, the Company received proceeds of approximately $7.5 million from the exercise of warrants to purchase 2.5 million shares of the Company's Common Stock.
10KSB/A88th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 88th
87 During April 1999, Surrey and Eurockot purchased 1,666,667 shares of the Company's Common Stock for a total $5 million in cash. During 1999, the Company granted options and warrants to purchase 347,273 shares of the Company's Common Stock at exercise prices ranging from $0.79 to $2.75 to several service providers. The fair value of such options and warrants, which amounted to approximately $774,000, was recorded as an expense during 1999. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 100%, expected life of 10 years for options and 2 to 3 years for warrants, risk free interest of 5% to 6% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. In December 1999, the Company granted warrants to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $2.81 per share to a financial institution as consideration for its efforts to help raise capital. The fair value of such warrants of $674,000 was originally recorded as a long term asset and expensed in 2000. The fair value of the warrants was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes model with volatility of 100%, expected life of 3 years, risk-free interest rate of 5% and fair market value of the Common Stock of $2.25 per share. On July 21, 2000, 400,000 of these warrants were cancelled. During 1999, the Company received proceeds of $598,526 from the exercise of options to purchase 425,084 shares of the Company's Common Stock, and proceeds of $320,768 from the exercise of warrants to purchase 324,160 shares of the Company's Common Stock. On June 2, 2000, the Company entered into an agreement to sell shares of its Common Stock, at the Company's option, to Torneaux Ltd., a corporation organized in the Bahamas, an accredited investor. The Company issued a Warrant to purchase 250,000 shares of its Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.01 per share as a finder's fee. In September 2000, warrants for 125,000 shares of Common Stock were exercised at the reduced price of $.70 per share and a new warrant to purchase an additional 125,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.1875 per share was issued. The transaction was exempt from registration in reliance upon Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. In September 2000, the Company sold 84,490 shares of Common Stock to Torneaux Ltd. in accordance with the agreement, resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $83,333 and issued a warrant to purchase 42, 245 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.1342 per share. In October 2000, the Company sold 63,092 shares of Common Stock to Torneaux Ltd. in accordance with the agreement, resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $55,556 and issued a warrant to purchase 31,546 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.0126 per share. On June 2, 2000, the Company sold an aggregate of 166,298 shares of its Common Stock to three accredited investors. The stock was sold for $1.00 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $166,298. A finder's fee of approximately $11,641 was paid in connection with these transactions. In May 2000, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 300,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant for past services. No commissions were paid. The warrant has an exercise price of $0.6749 per share. The fair value of such warrants of $470,700 was charged to consulting expense and was estimated on the date of grant using the Black Scholes model with volatility of 150%, expected life of 3 years, risk free interest rate of 6% and a fair market value of the Common Stock of $1.75 per share. In July 2000, the Company received from an accredited investor $100,000 from a private placement of 133,333 shares of Common Stock and granted a warrant to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable through July 2004 at an exercise price of $0.75 per share. No commissions were paid.
10KSB/A89th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 89th
88 In August 2000, the Company granted warrants to purchase 49,000 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrants are exercisable through August 2003 at an exercise price of $0.9062 per share. The fair value of such warrants of $36,309 was expensed and was estimated on the date of grant using the Black Scholes model with volatility of 150%, expected life of 3 years, risk free interest rate of 6% and a fair market value of the Common Stock of $0.90 per share. In September 2000, the Company issued 200,000 shares of Common Stock and a warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrants are exercisable through September 2003 at an exercise price ranging from $1.50 to $2.50 per share. The fair value of such warrants of $194,500 was expensed and was estimated on the date of grant using the Black Scholes model with volatility of 150%, expected life of 3 years, risk free interest rate of 6% and a fair market value of the Common Stock of $1.25 per share. In October 2000, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.31 per share to a financial institution as consideration for its efforts to help raise capital. Warrants to purchase the first 50,000 vested as of the grant date and will expire in October 2003. The fair value of the 50,000 warrants of $38,950 was charged to stock issuance cost and was estimated on the date of grant using the Black Scholes model with volatility of 150%, expected life of 3 years, risk free interest rate of 6% and a fair market value of the Common Stock of $1.00. The remaining warrants to purchase 450,000 shares were cancelled in April 2001. In December 2000, options to purchase 70,571 shares of the Company's Common Stock that were previously issued to a Director at prices ranging from $0.060 to $2.19, were transferred to his spouse in connection with his divorce settlement. These warrants are fully vested and have expiration dates ranging between December 18, 2004 and May 22, 2008. In December 2000, the Company received from accredited investors proceeds of $100,000 in exchange for 100,000 units, each unit consisting of two shares of Common Stock at a price of $0.50 per share and a warrant to purchase one-quarter of one share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share. In connection with this transaction, a finder's fee of $7,000.00 was paid and a warrant was issued to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.00 per share. The 200,000 shares of Commons Stock were issued in January 2001. In December 2000, the Company received from three accredited investors proceeds of $500,000 in exchange for 500,000 units, each unit consisting of four shares of Common Stock at a price of $0.25 per share and a warrant to purchase one share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. In connection with this transaction, a finder's fee of $35,000.00 was paid and a warrant was issued to purchase 100,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.50 per share. For each month that the effective date of registration is delayed beyond May 1, 2001, liquidated damages in the form of common stock and warrants have accrued at the rate of 10% of securities purchased by two of the investors and beyond November 1, 2001 by the third investor for failure to effectively register the purchased Common Stock and Common Stock underlying the warrants. As of December 31, 2001, the total damages amount to 1,136,000 shares of Common Stock and warrants to purchase 284,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.50. The fair value of such warrants approximated $126,000 and was recorded as a liability under the provisions of EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own Stock. Such securities were committed to but not issued as of December 31, 2001.
10KSB/A90th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 90th
89 During fiscal 2000, the Company received proceeds of $87,500 from the exercise of options to purchase 60,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock, and proceeds of $5,805 from the exercise of warrants to purchase 3,870 shares of the Company's Common Stock. During 1999, for services rendered, three consultants who served in an advisory capacity to NewStar Ltd. were issued fully vested options to purchase 22,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company. During 2000, a total of 136,923 shares of Common Stock were issued for services rendered to three consultants for a total fair value of $147,634 which was expensed during the course of the year. In January 2001, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $100,000 from an accredited investor in exchange for 290,000 shares of Common Stock and a warrant to purchase 36,250 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.70 per share. In January 2001, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $200,000 from an accredited investor in exchange for 400,000 shares of Common Stock and a warrant to purchase 100,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.00 per share. In connection with this transaction, a finder's fee of $14,000 was paid and a warrant was issued for 40,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.00 per share. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $16,000, was recorded as stock issuance costs. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. In January 2001, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $50,000 from three accredited investors in exchange for 100,000 shares of Common Stock and warrants to purchase 12,500 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.00 per share. In connection with this transaction, a finder's fee of $3,500 was paid and a warrant was issued for 5,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $1.00 per share. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $2,000, was recorded as stock issuance costs. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. In March 2001, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $250,000 from an accredited investor in exchange for 568,182 shares of Common Stock and a warrant to purchase 113,636 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.90 per share. An additional warrant to purchase 450,000 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.50 per share was issued to the same accredited investor, relative to the same transaction, in April 2001. In connection with this transaction, a finder's fee of $17,500 was paid and a warrant was issued for 56,818 shares of Common Stock exercisable at $0.90 per share. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $19,000, was recorded as stock issuance costs. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. In March 2001, the Company issued 488,136 shares of Common Stock of the Company to a consultant for services rendered for a total fair value of $216,000. This amount was recorded as consulting expense.
10KSB/A91st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 91st
90 On April 18, 2001, the Company granted to an accredited investor a warrant to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at an exercise price of $0.50 per share in exchange for extending the period during which the Company was required to file a registration statement with regard to securities purchased by the investor on December 27, 2000. In May 2001, the Company received six-month loans from three current stockholders and a director of the Company in the amount of $30,000. In consideration for the loans, the Company will pay interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum, and has issued warrants to said stockholders and director to purchase a total of 150,000 shares of restricted Common Stock exercisable at $0.25 per share. In June 2001, the Company received a six-month loan from a director of the Company in the amount of $25,000. In consideration for the loan, the Company will pay interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum, and has issued a warrant to the director to purchase a total of 125,000 shares of restricted Common Stock exercisable at $0.45 per share. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $41,000, is being amortized as interest expense over the term of the loans. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 6 months, risk free interest of 6% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. During July 2001, the Company issued a total of 1,909,458 shares of Common Stock and warrants to purchase a total of 1,086,486 shares of Common Stock as part of a private placement to five accredited investors, including Torneaux Lt., for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $375,000. Of the shares issued, 486,486 shares were delivered upon the exercise of a portion of the total warrants that were issued in the transaction. In addition, the Company agreed to reprice certain existing Torneaux Ltd. warrants to purchase an aggregate of 73,791 shares of Common Stock from exercise prices ranging from $1.0126 to $1.1342 to $0.17 per share. On July 9, 2001, the Company granted a warrant to purchase an aggregate of 500,000 shares of its Common Stock to two consultants as part of two agreements dated July 9, 2001. The warrants have an exercise price of $0.38 per share. Of these 500,000 warrants, 175,000 vested upon performance of service during the quarter ended September 30, 2001, while the vesting of the remainder is contingent upon the occurrence of future events. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $54,250, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 3 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. On July 27, 2001, the Company sold an aggregate of 600,000 shares of its Common Stock to three accredited investors. The stock was sold for $0.60 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $360,000. In addition, the Company issued warrants to purchase an aggregate of 59,999 shares of its Common Stock at $0.60 per share. On August 1, 2001, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 62,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant as part of an agreement dated August 1, 2001. The warrant has an exercise price of $0.77 per share. Of these 62,000 warrants, 25,000 vested upon performance of service during the quarter ended September 30, 2001, while the vesting of the remainder is contingent upon the occurrence of a future event. The fair value of the 25,000 warrants, which amounted to approximately $17,000, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant.
10KSB/A92nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 92nd
91 On August 9, 2001, warrants to purchase 100,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable at $0.62 per share were issued to two consultants for services rendered. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $55,000, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. On August 10, 2001, warrants to purchase a total of 50,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable at $0.67 per share were issued to two consultants for services rendered. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $29,500, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. On August 16, 2001, the Company sold an aggregate of 425,531 shares of its Common Stock to two accredited investors. The stock was sold for $0.47 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $200,000. In addition, the Company issued warrants to purchase 69,148 shares of its Common Stock at $0.47 per share. On August 19, 2001, a warrant to purchase 9,722 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable at $0.59 per share was issued to a consultant for services rendered. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $5,000, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. On August 20, 2001, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 250,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrant has an exercise price of $0.50 per share. The fair value of such warrants, which amounted to approximately $150,000, was recorded as an expense. The following variables were used to determine the fair value of such instruments under the Black-Scholes option pricing model: volatility of 150%, expected life of 4 years, risk free interest of 6.5% and underlying stock prices equal to fair market value at the time of grant. Also on August 20, 2001, the Company sold 500,000 shares of its Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.50 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $250,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 300,000 shares of its Common Stock at $0.50 per share. On August 29, 2001, the Company sold 94,203 shares of its Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.69 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $65,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 9,420 shares of its Common Stock at $0.69 per share. On August 31, 2001, the Company issued 500,000 units to one accredited investor at a purchase price equal to $1.00 per unit. Each unit consisted of one convertible debenture, with the principal amount of the convertible debenture due August 31, 2006, together with a warrant to purchase one-half (1/2) share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $1.06 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $500,000. The convertible debentures accrue simple interest on the principal amount at the rate of 6% per annum. The convertible debenture principal and accrued interest is convertible into shares of Common Stock at the lower of (i) a fixed conversion price equal to $0.98 (maximum conversion price) or (ii) a variable conversion price equal to 85% of the market price, but in no event
10KSB/A93rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 93rd
92 lower than $0.21 per share (minimum conversion price). The warrants have a term of five years. A structuring fee of $30,000 was paid to Azure Capital Holdings, LLC and a finder's fee of $15,000 was paid to Madison & Wall Worldwide, Inc. On September 7, 2001, the Company issued 333,333 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered for a total fair value of $216,000. The Company recorded this amount as consulting expense. On November 12, 2001, the Company issued 1,000 shares of Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered for a total fair value of $390. On November 19, 2001, the Company issued 150,000 shares of Common Stock to a terminated employee in accordance with his termination settlement for a total fair value of $46,800. On November 19, 2001, the Company sold 172,414 shares of its Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.29 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $50,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 17,241 shares of its Common Stock at $0.29 per share. On November 30, 2001 the Company issued 441,176 shares of Common Stock to two investors upon conversion of an aggregate of 120 shares of series B preferred stock based upon $0.272 per Common Share. Additionally, a total of 50,498 shares of Common Stock were issued to investors in lieu of accrued and unpaid cash dividends at the same conversion price. On December 13, 2001, the Company issued 166,667 shares of Common Stock to an accredited investor. The stock was sold for $0.30 per share resulting in gross proceeds to the Company of $50,000. In addition, the Company issued a warrant to purchase 83,333 shares of its Common Stock at $0.30 per share. The Company has applied the provisions of EITF 00-19, Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company's Own Stock during fiscal 2001. The EITF required the Company to assess, during 2001, the balance sheet classification of all outstanding warrants. As a result of this assessment, certain warrants that met liability classification criteria were reclassified as liabilities and measured at fair value, with subsequent changes in fair value reported in the statement of operations. The decrease in the fair value of the warrants resulted in a gain of $383,773 for the year ended December 31, 2001, was due to a decrease in fair value of our Common Stock, shorter remaining terms for the remeasured warrants due to the passage of time, changes in volatility and interest rates. Equity transactions with employees Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company has established the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "1999 Plan"), which was approved by the stockholders in June 1999 to serve as a vehicle to attract and retain the services of key employees and to help such key employees realize a direct proprietary interest in the Company. Under the 1999 Plan, employees, including officers, who do not beneficially own stock and/or options totaling 5% or more of the voting power of the Company, will be eligible to participate. However, no participant may be granted rights to purchase more than $25,000 worth of Common Stock (valued at the time the purchase right is granted) for each calendar year in which such purchase rights are outstanding under any other stock purchase plans. An aggregate of 50,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company were reserved for issuance under the 1999 Plan of which 39,222 were issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2001. Employees electing to
10KSB/A94th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 94th
93 participate in the 1999 Plan are allowed to deduct from 1% to 10% of their compensation to purchase shares of Common Stock. Twice a year, the employees' accumulated payroll deductions will be used to purchase shares of Common Stock at a price equal to 85% of the closing price of the Common Stock on either the first business day or last business day of the offering period, whichever is lower. Employee Stock Option Plans In February 1996, the Company adopted the 1996 Stock Option Plan (the 1996 Plan) to consolidate its three existing plans. In May 1998, the Company adopted the 1998 Stock Option Plan (the "1998 Plan"), which provided for the issuance of a maximum of 500,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock. In May 2000, the Company adopted the 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "2000 Plan"), which provides for the issuance of a maximum of 1,750,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock. Provisions of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 Plans are substantially similar to those of the earlier plans. The overall purpose of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 Plans is to advance the long-term interest of the Company by attracting, motivating and retaining its employees, directors and consultants with the opportunity to obtain an equity interest in the Company. Eligible employees, directors and consultants can receive options to purchase shares of the Company's Common Stock at a price generally not less than 100% of the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of the grant of incentive stock options. Nonqualified and nonplan options may be granted at a price lower than fair market value. The options granted under the 1996, 1998 and 2000 Plans are exercisable over a maximum term of ten years from the date of grant and generally vest over (i) one year in the case of directors and consultants, and (ii) up to a five-year period in the case of employees. Shares sold under the 1996, 1998 and 2000 Plans are subject to various restrictions as to resale. In addition, the Company granted non-plan options to certain employees in connection with their employment.
10KSB/A95th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 95th
94 Information with respect to plan and non-plan activity is set forth below: [Enlarge/Download Table] Outstanding Options -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Weighted Average Number of Price per Aggregate Exercise Shares Share Price Price Balance, December 31, 1998 2,044,156 $0.40 - $5.60 $ 1,741,255 0.85 Granted 2,149,700 $0.39 - $5.50 2,759,768 1.28 Exercised (280,144) $0.53 - $2.80 (203,695) 0.73 Terminated (10,340) $0.53 (5,491) 0.53 ---------- ---------- Balance, December 31, 1999 3,903,372 $0.40 - $5.60 $ 4,291,837 1.10 ---------- ---------- Granted 218,461 $0.91 - $2.59 268,302 1.23 Exercised (83,000) $0.60 - $2.19 (73,724) 0.89 Terminated (95,571) $0.60 - $2.19 (145,065) 1.52 ---------- ----------- Balance, December 31, 2000 3,943,262 $0.40 - $5.60 $ 4,341,350 1.10 ---------- ----------- Granted 3,505,355 $0.91 - $2.59 2,351,544 0.67 Exercised (118,875) $0.60 - $2.19 (65,003) 0.55 Terminated (56,313) $0.60 - $2.19 (29,902) 0.53 ---------- ----------- Balance, December 31, 2001 7,273,429 $ 6,597,989 0.91 ---------- ----------- The following table summarizes information with respect to stock options outstanding at December 31, 2001: [Enlarge/Download Table] Outstanding Options Options Exercisable ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Weighted Average Remaining Weighted Weighted Contractual Average Average Range of Number Life Exercise Number Exercise Exercise Price Outstanding (years) Price Exercisable Price $0.22 - $0.49 1,106,537 9.25 $ 0.46 574,869 $ 0.46 $0.53 - $0.77 3,788,872 7.86 0.69 3,776,372 0.69 $0.91 - $1.75 2,174,449 7.56 1.29 1,884,449 1.29 $2.00 - $2.86 147,287 6.27 2.40 147,287 2.40 $5.50 - $5.60 56,284 6.12 5.51 56,284 5.51 ---------------- --------------- Balance, December 31, 2001 7,273,429 6,439,261 ---------------- ---------------
10KSB/A96th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 96th
95 The stock based compensation for the twelve months ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 has been allocated across the relevant functional expense categories within operating expense as follows: Year Ended December 31, ----------------------------------------- 2001 2000 1999 Marketing and sales $ - $ 358,332 $153,324 General and administrative 450,129 593,871 756,035 Research and development - 126,654 48,396 ---------- ---------- --------- Total stock based compensation $ 450,129 $1,078,857 $957,755 ---------- ---------- --------- The Company accounts for employee and board of director stock options in accordance with the provisions of APB No. 25 and complies with the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 123. Under APB No. 25, compensation expense is recognized based on the amount by which the fair value of the underlying Common Stock exceeds the exercise price of the stock options at the measurement date, which in the case of employee stock options is typically the date of grant. For financial reporting purposes, the Company has determined that the deemed fair market value on the date of grant of certain employee stock options was in excess of the exercise price of the options. This amount is recorded as deferred compensation and is classified as a reduction of stockholders' equity and is amortized as a charge to operations over the vesting period of the applicable options. The vesting period is generally four years. The fair value per share used to calculate deferred compensation was derived by reference to the common stock values. Consequently, the Company recorded deferred stock compensation of $0, $0 and $2,490,337 during the year ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively. Amortization recognized for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 totaled $450,129, $1,078,857 and $957,755, respectively. The weighted average fair value of the options granted or modified for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were $0.64, $1.37 and $0.90, respectively. The fair value of each stock option is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions: 2001 2000 1999 Risk free interest rate 5.5% 6.0% 5.5% Expected life 4 years 4 years 4 years Volatility 120% 150% 100% Dividend yield - - -
10KSB/A97th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 97th
96 The following pro forma net loss information has been prepared following the provisions of SFAS No. 123: December 31, ------------------------------------------------ 2001 2000 1999 Net loss As reported $ (4,520,127) $ (6,557,549) $ (5,915,493) Pro forma $ (6,499,695) $ (7,226,245) $ (6,252,010) Net loss per share As reported $ (0.23) $ (0.44) $ (0.45) Pro forma $ (0.31) $ (0.49) $ (0.48) 8. Related Party Transactions In fiscal 2000, several executives of the Company deferred receipt of their salaries due. The executives included the President ($125,000), the Chief Financial Officer ($45,000), the Legal Counsel ($41,250) and the Vice President of Operations ($33,750). In fiscal 2001, certain executives of the Company deferred receipt of their salaries due. The executives included the President ($95,000), the Chief Financial Officer ($70,000), the Legal Counsel ($80,000), the Vice President of Operations ($45,000), and the Vice President of Government Affairs ($30,000). In fiscal 2001, the Company borrowed funds from three of its Directors: one loan for $30,000 at 6.5% interest, one loan for $25,000 at 5% interest and one loan for $50,000 bearing no interest. These loans are payable on demand. 9. Income Taxes The provision for income taxes for all periods presented relates to current minimum taxes. The estimated tax effect of significant temporary differences and carryforwards that gave rise to deferred income tax assets as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, is as follows:
10KSB/A98th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 98th
97 [Enlarge/Download Table] 2001 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal State Federal State Deferred tax assets: Net operating loss carryforwards $ 7,277,000 1,290,000 $ 5,325,000 $ 936,000 Research and development credit carryforwards 190,000 - 177,000 - Deferred compensation and other 40,000 7,000 35,000 6,000 --------- ---------- --------- --------- Deferred tax assets 7,507,000 1,297,000 5,537,000 942,000 Valuation allowance (7,507,000) (1,297,000) (5,537,000) (942,000) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Net deferred tax assets $ - $ - $ - $ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the uncertainty of realization, a valuation allowance has been provided to offset the net deferred tax assets. The increase in the valuation allowance was $2,318,000 and $2,215,000 during the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively. The provision for income taxes differs from the amount which would arise by applying the combined statutory income tax rate of approximately 40% due to changes in the deferred tax valuation allowance. As of December 31, 2001, the Company has net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $21,403,000 and $21,164,000 for federal income tax purposes and California state franchise tax purposes, respectively. The Company also has research and development credit carryforwards. Such carryforwards expire in varying amounts between 2002 and 2021. As a result of changes enacted by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, utilization of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be limited due to equity transactions occurring on or after May 6, 1986. 10. Concentration of Risks The Company periodically maintains cash balances at banks in excess of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limit of $100,000. 11. Supplemental Disclosures of Non Cash Investing and Financing Activities During fiscal 2000 the Company issued 132,236 shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash for services rendered by two vendors. The total value of the services provided was $ 138,882.
10KSB/A99th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 99th
98 During fiscal 2001 the Company issued 821,469 shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash for services rendered by a vendor. The total value of the services provided was $ 431,671. Also, during fiscal 2001, the Company issued 49,686 shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash for services rendered by two of its Directors. The total value of the services provided was $27,980. Further, the Company issued during fiscal 2001 150,000 shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash for salary owed to a terminated employee with a value of $46,800. 12. Subsequent Events In January 2002, the Company issued 19,565 shares of Common Stock to a director for past services on the Board. On January 30, 2002, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 100,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrant is exercisable for three years from date of grant at $0.10 per share. 10,000 shares vested at the date of the grant and the remaining 90,000 vest in increments of 15,000 each month for six months. On February 5, 2002, in exchange for cancellation of loans and interest to the Company totaling $66,500, 6 warrants were granted to a director of the Company to purchase an aggregate of 6,650,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share. Each warrant is exercisable for a short period of time as follows: Warrant 1 for 1,100,000 shares exercisable March 15, 2002; Warrant 2 for 1,100,000 shares exercisable April 15, 2002; Warrant 3 for 1,100,000 shares exercisable to May 15, 2002; Warrant 4 for 1,100,000 shares exercisable to June 15, 2002; Warrant 5 for 1,100,000 shares exercisable to July 15, 2002; and Warrant 6 for 1,150,000 shares exercisable to August 15, 2002. If Warrants Nos. 1, 2 and/or 3 or a portion thereof are exercised prior to their expiration dates, investor will be granted replacement warrants to purchase 1,100,000 shares exercisable for 6 months from the date of each exercise at $0.10 per share. On March 7, 2002 investor exercised Warrant 1. In accordance with the terms of the warrant, the Company issued the investor 1,100,000 restricted shares of Common Stock of the Company, and a replacement warrant to purchase an additional 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. On March 25, 2002 a portion of Warrant 2 was exercised for 50,000 shares. In accordance with the terms of the warrant, the Company issued the investor 50,000 restricted shares of Common Stock of the Company and a replacement warrant to purchase an additional 50,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. Subsequently, on April 15, 2002, investor exercised the remainder of Warrant 2 for 1,050,000 shares. In accordance with the terms of the warrant, the Company issued the investor 1,050,000 restricted shares of Common Stock of the Company, and a replacement warrant to purchase an additional 1,050,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. Further, on May 15, 2002, investor exercised Warrant 3 for 1,100,000 shares. In accordance with terms of the warrant, the Company issued the investor 1,100,000 restricted shares of Common Stock of the company and a replacement warrant to purchase an additional 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. On February 1, 2002, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 12,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrant is exercisable for four years from the date of grant at $0.12 per share and vests at a rate of 2,000 shares per month for six months from the date of grant. On February 5, 2002, the Company granted to a newly appointed member of the
10KSB/A100th Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 100th
99 Board of Directors non-qualified options under the 2000 Stock Option Plan to purchase 13,333 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable for ten years at $0.10 per share. Also on February 5, 2002, a non-plan, non-qualified option was granted to an officer of the Company upon his appointment as Chief Operating Officer to purchase 450,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company exercisable for ten years at $0.12 per share. On March 1, 2002, the Company granted an option to a director to purchase 450,000 shares of its Common Stock for financial officer consulting services rendered. The warrant is exercisable for ten years from the date of the grant at $0.12 per share. On March 4, 2002, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $100,000 from its chief executive officer, through an affiliated business entity of that individual. Of the $100,000 proceeds, $30,000 was invested in exchange for warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,250,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at the then current market price of $0.12 per share; and $70,000 was invested as an exercise of certain of those warrants. Each of the warrants purchased is exercisable for a short period of time as follows: Warrant 1 for 416,666 shares exercisable to April 4, 2002; Warrant 2 for 416,666 shares exercisable to May 4, 2002; Warrant 3 for 416,667 shares exercisable to June 4, 2002; Warrant 4 for 416,667 shares exercisable to July 4, 2002; Warrant 5 for 416,667 shares exercisable to August 4, 2002; and Warrant 6 for 416,667 shares exercisable to September 4, 2002. If Warrants Nos. 1, 2 and/or 3 or a portion thereof are exercised prior to their expiration dates, investor will be granted replacement warrants to purchase 416,666 shares exercisable for 6 months from the date of each exercise at $0.12 per share. Of the $100,000 proceeds, $70,000 was through the full exercise of Warrant 1 for 416,666 shares and partial exercise of Warrant 2 for 166,667 shares. In accordance with the terms of each warrant, the Company issued the investor 416,666 plus 166,667 restricted shares of Common Stock of the Company, and two replacement warrants to purchase an additional 416,666 and 166,667 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.12 per share, each warrant exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. Subsequently, on April 15, 2002 the remainder of Warrant 2 was exercised for 249,999 shares and Warrant 3 was exercised for 416,667 shares. In accordance with the terms of each warrant, the Company issued the investor 249,999 plus 416,667 restricted shares of Common Stock of the Company and two replacement warrants to purchase an additional 249,999 and 416,667 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.12 per share, each warrant exercisable for 6 months from date of grant. Further, on May 10, 2002, investor exercised Warrant 4 for 416,667 shares, Warrant 5 for 416,667 shares, Warrant 6 for 416,667 shares and Warrant 7 for 416,666 shares and, accordingly, 1,666,667 restricted shares of Common Stock were issued to investor. On March 7, 2002, the Company received proceeds in a private placement of $200,000 from a director. Of the $200,000 proceeds, $90,000 was invested in exchange for warrants to purchase an aggregate of 7,500,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at the then current market price of $0.12 per share, and $110,000 was invested as an exercise of certain warrants granted on February 5, 2002. Each of the warrants purchased is exercisable for a short period of time as follows: Warrant 1 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to September 15, 2002; Warrant 2 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to October 15, 2002; Warrant 3 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to November 15, 2002; Warrant 4 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to December 15, 2002; Warrant 5 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to January 15, 2003; and Warrant 6 for 1,250,000 shares exercisable to February 15, 2003. If Warrants Nos. 1, 2 and/or 3 or a portion thereof are exercised prior to their expiration dates, investor will be granted replacement warrants to purchase 1,250,000 shares exercisable for 6 months from the date of each exercise at $0.12 per share. Of the $200,000 proceeds, $110,000 was through the full exercise of a warrant granted February 5, 2002 for 1,100,000 shares at $0.10 per share. In accordance with the terms of the warrant, the Company issued the investor 1,100,000 restricted common shares, and a replacement warrant to purchase an additional 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.10 per share, such warrant exercisable for 6 months from date of grant.
10KSB/A101st Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 101st
100 On March 8, 2002, a Series A preferred shareholder converted 2,000 Series A preferred shares into 35,294 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $1.70 per share. On March 8, 2002, the holder of Convertible Debenture F converted $150,000 into 714,286 shares of Common Stock at $0.21 per share and elected to receive 22,381 shares of Common Stock of the Company in lieu of accrued cash dividends of $4,700. On March 18, 2002, Series B preferred shareholders converted 24 Series B preferred shares into 375,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.064 per share. The preferred shareholders elected to receive 54,286 shares of Common Stock of the Company at $0.064 in lieu of accrued cash dividends of $3,474.24. On May 3, 2002, the holder of Convertible Debenture F converted the remaining balance of $350,000 into 1,169,787 shares of Common Stock at $0.2992 per share and elected to receive 47,571 shares of Common Stock of the Company in lieu of accrued cash dividends of $14,233. On May 8, 2002, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of its Common Stock to a consultant for services rendered. The warrant is exercisable for three years from the date of grant at $0.40 per share and vests immediately. On May 23, 2002, the Company entered into a Demand Reserves Authority Provider Agreement with the California Consumer Power and Conservation Authority to implement a satellite-based (using Iridium capacity) automated conservation system designed to conserve significant electrical usage on demand at peak or emergency time.
10KSB/A102nd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 102nd
Exhibit 21.1 - List of Subsidiaries of DBS Industries, Inc. Global Energy Metering Service, Inc. NewStar Limited E-SAT, Inc.
10KSB/A103rd Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 103rd
EXHIBIT 23.1 - Consent of Leslie Taylor Associates We consent to the reference to our firm and our report dated October 11, 2001 as referenced in the following sections of Form 10-KSB/A filed on behalf of DBS Industries, Inc. for calendar year 2001: Risk Factor - The E-SAT system has experienced delays that could Lead to the loss of the E-SAT FCC license Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operations Notes 1 and 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements We are providing the consent to the company who is relying on us as expert for purpose of the company's FCC regulatory compliance. LESLIE TAYLOR ASSOCIATES /s/ Leslie A. Taylor, Esq. ------------------------------ Leslie A. Taylor, Esq. Bethesda, Maryland July 19, 2002
10KSB/ALast Page of 104TOC1stPreviousNextBottomJust 104th
Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-70117) of DBS Industries, Inc. of our report dated May 24, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-KSB/A. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP San Francisco, California July 19, 2002

Dates Referenced Herein   and   Documents Incorporated by Reference

Referenced-On Page
This ‘10KSB/A’ Filing    Date First  Last      Other Filings
6/30/1254
3/1/1254
2/5/1254
12/31/1154
8/7/115054
6/30/1154
6/5/1154
2/6/115054
12/31/1054
6/30/1054
5/22/1054
12/31/0954
10/18/0954
9/1/0954
8/25/0954
2/19/0954
5/22/0889
5/12/0854
8/31/0692
4/30/0654
2/15/0654
1/1/0654
11/19/0554
9/9/0554
8/20/0554
8/16/0554
7/27/0554
2/15/0554
1/18/0554
12/18/0489
7/1/0452
7/31/0331
7/28/0352
6/29/0354
6/1/03435
5/1/0354
2/15/0354100
1/15/0354100
12/31/0254
12/15/0254100
11/15/0254100
10/15/0254100
10/1/02935
9/25/0254
9/15/0254100
9/7/0254
9/4/02100
8/15/0254994,  NT 10-Q
8/4/02100
Filed as of:7/23/0210QSB/A
Filed on:7/22/0210QSB/A
7/19/0260104
7/15/025499
7/5/02253
7/4/02100
6/24/0230
6/15/0299
6/4/02100
5/30/02598-K
5/24/02381044,  SC 13D/A
5/23/0241018-K
5/15/0299NT 10-Q
5/10/02100
5/8/02101
5/4/02100
5/3/02101
4/24/023883
4/15/0299100
4/12/0235
4/4/02100
4/1/024953NT 10-K
3/29/02683
3/25/0299
3/18/02101
3/15/0299
3/8/02101
3/7/0299100
3/4/02100
3/1/02100
2/11/024952
2/5/02451003
2/1/0299
1/30/0299
1/11/0259SB-2
1/1/0281
For Period End:12/31/0119810KSB,  NT 10-K
12/15/0181
12/13/013393
11/30/013393
11/19/013393
11/12/013393
11/1/013089
10/11/01103
9/30/01379110QSB
9/7/0193
9/4/0156
8/31/015992
8/29/0192
8/20/0192
8/19/0192
8/16/0192
8/10/0192
8/9/0192
8/4/013086
8/1/015291
7/28/0152
7/27/0191
7/9/0191
6/30/01598710QSB
6/26/015986
6/14/0135
6/2/0134
5/24/0159
5/1/013089
4/18/0191
3/6/0156
12/31/00409810KSB,  NT 10-K
12/29/00859
12/27/0091
11/21/00816
10/20/008
10/10/0056
10/6/002986
9/30/005910QSB
9/25/0056
8/11/005910QSB
7/25/0059
7/21/0088
7/1/0080
6/30/00585910QSB
6/28/008
6/15/00598-K
6/2/0058888-K
5/2/0016
4/11/0059DEF 14A
1/25/0056
1/1/0052
12/31/99579610KSB
12/22/9958
11/18/9952
11/8/9958
10/18/995258
10/8/99782
9/1/995158
7/31/998
7/30/995882
7/28/995258
7/14/997
7/1/9952424B3
6/1/9958
5/4/9959DEF 14A,  SB-2
5/3/9959
4/28/9956
4/8/991581
3/31/9978210-Q,  4,  NT 10-K,  NT 10-Q
2/19/9956
1/12/9957
12/31/98598710KSB,  NT 10-K
11/30/9859
9/16/9859SB-2
6/11/9870
5/14/9870
4/16/9870
4/1/9870
3/31/9878110QSB,  NT 10-K,  NT 10-Q
3/1/9857
2/12/9870
12/31/97428710KSB,  10KSB/A,  NT 10-K
7/9/976987
6/30/976910KSB40/A,  10QSB,  NT 10-Q
5/28/9756
4/30/9769
4/10/9769PRE 14A
3/31/976910QSB
2/28/9769
2/14/9769
1/31/9769
12/31/96596910KSB,  10KSB40,  10KSB40/A,  NT 10-K
9/21/9669
8/15/9669
6/30/966910QSB
4/18/965257
3/1/9657
2/15/9669
2/9/9657
2/1/9657
1/15/9669
1/13/966987
1/1/9652
12/31/955969
12/13/955768
9/21/9568
7/31/955967
7/15/9567
5/15/9567
11/30/9467
11/16/9481
7/31/945967
7/29/9467
5/16/9457
1/28/9467
7/31/935967
7/2/9366
12/2/9266
10/2/9266
9/30/9256
9/11/926566
8/1/9266
7/31/9265
 List all Filings 
Top
Filing Submission 0001001277-02-000352   –   Alternative Formats (Word / Rich Text, HTML, Plain Text, et al.)

Copyright © 2024 Fran Finnegan & Company LLC – All Rights Reserved.
AboutPrivacyRedactionsHelp — Fri., Apr. 19, 7:52:26.2pm ET