Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the past 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ý   No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files.  Yes ý   No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer,  smaller  reporting  company,  or an emerging  growth company.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐ 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ☐   No ý

As of August 14,November 13, 2017, there were 3,255,887 shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments necessary to present fairly the financial position of Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp. (the “Company” or “TIC”) as of JuneSeptember 30, 2017, the results of operations for the three and six months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and JuneSeptember 30, 2016, and statements of cash flows for the three and six months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and JuneSeptember 30, 2016.  These results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.  The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Form 10-Q and consequently do not include disclosures normally made in an Annual Report on Form 10-K.  The March 31, 20162017 balance sheet included herein was derived from the audited financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K as of that date.  Accordingly, the financial statements included herein should be reviewed in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on July 14, 2017 (the “Annual Report”)Report).

These condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which contemplates continuation of the Company as a going concern. As discussed in Note 14 to the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company has recorded estimatedtotal damages of $2,800,000$4,900,000 as a result of the jury verdict associated with the Aeroflex litigation.litigation as well as the court’s decision on punitive damages. The jury found no misappropriation of Aeroflex trade secrets but it did rule that the Company tortiously interfered with a prospective business opportunity and awarded damages. The jury also ruled that Tel tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s non-disclosure agreements with two former Aeroflex employees. The jury also found that the former Aeroflex employees breached their non-disclosure agreements with Aeroflex. The court will conductconducted further hearings inon the next few weeksCompany’s post-trial motions which will include asought to reduce the damages award, as well as the punitive damages claim.  SubsequentThe court denied the Company’s motions and awarded Aeroflex an additional $2.1 million of punitive damages, which brings the total Tel damages awarded in this case to approximately $4.9 million. No judgment has yet been entered by the jury verdict, the Companycourt, and we have filed a motion with the court that these changes are duplicative and not supported by Kansas court seeking to reduce the damages award. The court conducted the hearings on these motions and the Company is awaiting the decision of the court.

The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to raise additional capital to support the appeal process or pay any final damages amount and achieve profitable operations. In November 2017, the Company signed a subscription agreement in which the Company received $3 million for Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (See Note 16 to the Notes to the Condensed Financial Statements). These funds will be used to finance an appeal and provide funds for operations. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

 

During the threesix months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2017, there have been no material changes in the Company’s significant accounting policies to those previously disclosed in the Annual Report.

 

The following table sets forth the components of accounts receivable:

Inventories consist of:

Net income (loss) per share has been computed according to Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC 260”), “Earnings per Share,” which requires a dual presentation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share (“EPS”). Basic EPS represents net income (loss) divided by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during a reporting period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities, including warrants and options, were converted into common stock. The dilutive effect of outstanding warrants and options is reflected in earnings per share by use of the treasury stock method. In applying the treasury stock method for stock-based compensation arrangements, the assumed proceeds are computed as the sum of the amount the employee must pay upon exercise and the amounts of average unrecognized compensation costs attributed to future services. 

 

The following table summarizes securities that, if exercised, would have an anti-dilutive effect on earnings per share:

 

In November 2014, the Company entered into a term loan in the amount of $1,200,000 with Bank of America. The term loan is for three years, and matures in November 2017. Monthly payments are at $36,551 including interest at 6%. The term loan is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of the Company. At JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017, the outstanding balances were $179,999$72,552 and $285,810, respectively. At JuneSeptember 30, 2017, $179,999$72,552 was classified as current. This term loan is scheduled to be fully paid in November 2017.

In July 2015, the Company entered into a term loan in the amount of $18,000 with Bank of America. The term loan is for three years, and matures in July 2018. Monthly payments are at $536 including interest at 4.5%. The term loan is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of the Company. At JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017, the outstanding balances were $6,787$5,250 and $8,305, respectively. At JuneSeptember 30, 2017, $6,253$5,250 was classified as current.

 

On March 21, 2016, the Company entered into a line of credit agreement with Bank of America, which expired March 31, 2017. In March 2017, the line of credit was renewed and the expiration date extended until March 31, 2018.  The new line provides a revolving credit facility with borrowing capacity of up to $1,000,000. There are no covenants or borrowing base calculations associated with this line of credit. Interest on any outstanding balances is payable monthly at an annual interest rate equal to the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rates) Daily Floating plus 3.75 percentage points. The Company’s interest rate was 4.974%4.985% at JuneSeptember 30, 2017.   The line is collateralized by substantially all of the assets of the Company.  During the threesix months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2017, the Company borrowed $200,000$800,000 from this line of credit. As of JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017, the outstanding balances were $400,000$1,000,000 and $200,000, respectively.  As of JuneSeptember 30, 2017 the remaining availability under this line is $600,000.$-0-.

In June 2016, the Company negotiated a settlement with a customer in the amount of $679,935 for price increases due to delays on a production release. Deferred revenues are recognized based upon the shipment of units under this contract. During the threesix months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2017, the Company recognized the remaining balance of $73,302 as compared to $214,396$342,836 for the threesix months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2016. As of JuneSeptember 30, 2017, the remaining deferred revenues related to the above-mentioned settlement was $-0- as compared to $73,302 at March 31, 2017. 

In accordance with FASB ASC 280, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and related information”, the Company determined it has two reportable segments - avionics government and avionics commercial. There are no inter-segment revenues.

 

The Company is organized primarily on the basis of its avionics products.  The avionics government segment consists primarily of the design, manufacture, and sale of test equipment to the U.S. and foreign governments and militaries either directly or through distributors.  The avionics commercial segment consists of design, manufacture, and sale of test equipment to domestic and foreign airlines, directly or through commercial distributors, and to general aviation repair and maintenance shops. The Company develops and designs test equipment for the avionics industry and as such, the Company’s products and designs cross segments.

 

Management evaluates the performance of its segments and allocates resources to them based on gross margin. The Company’s general and administrative costs and sales and marketing expenses, and engineering costs are not segment specific. As a result, all operating expenses are not managed on a segment basis.  Net interest includes expenses on debt and income earned on cash balances, both maintained at the corporate level. Segment assets include accounts receivable and work-in-process inventory. Asset information, other than accounts receivable and work-in-process inventory, is not reported, since the Company does not produce such information internally.  All long-lived assets are located in the U.S.

FASB ASC 740-10, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes” (“ASC 740-10”) prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return.  The Company has analyzed filing positions in all of the federal and state jurisdictions where it is required to file income tax returns, as well as all open tax years in these jurisdictions.  The Company does not have any unrecognized tax benefits.

The tax effect of temporary differences, primarily net operating loss carryforwards, asset reserves and accrued liabilities, gave rise to the Company’s deferred tax asset.  Deferred income taxes are recognized for the tax consequence of such temporary differences at the enacted tax rate expected to be in effect when the differences reverse. Given the uncertainty involving the final damages amount and the ability of the Company to secure adequate financing to support an appeal or satisfy the judgment, theThe Company has provided a 100% valuation allowance against its deferred tax asset at JuneSeptember 30, 2017 and March 31, 2017, until such time as the final damages amount is resolved, and an assessment made based upon the final damages of the valuation allowance.2017.

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

The Company adopted the guidance of ASC 815 “Derivative and Hedging”, which requires that we mark the value of our warrant liability to market and recognize the change in valuation in our statement of operations each reporting period. Determining the warrant liability to be recorded requires us to develop estimates to be used in calculating the fair value of the warrant.  

 

The following table provides a summary of the changes in fair value of our Level 3 financial liabilities from March 31, 2017 through JuneSeptember 30, 2017, as well as the portion of gains or losses included in income attributable to unrealized gains or losses related to the liability held at JuneSeptember 30, 2017:

The Company has remaining warrants with an outside investor to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.35 per share or exercising the “put option” to the Company.  As of the June 30, 2017, the market price of the stock was below the exercise price of the warrant and there is no positive value for the “put option”. The warrant liability of the 50,000 warrants was $-0-$5,000 at JuneSeptember 30, 2017 as compared to $95,000 at March 31, 2017.

Contingencies are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable, or otherwise disclosed, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, when applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss or if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made.

On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court located in Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. 09 CV 1141 (the “Aeroflex Action”), alleging that the Company and its two employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in connection with the Company winning a substantial contract from the U.S. Army, to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5 (the “Award”). Aeroflex’s petition, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleges that in connection with the Award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s contract. The central basis of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology and confidential information in winning the Award.  In February 2009, subsequent to the Company winning the Award, Aeroflex filed a protest of the Award with the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”). In its protest, Aeroflex alleged, inter alia, that the Company used Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in order to win the Award, the same material allegations as were later alleged in the Aeroflex Action. On or about March 17, 2009, the U.S. Army Contracts Attorney and the U.S. Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed on Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in winning the Award, and concluding that the Company had used only its own proprietary technology. On April 6, 2009, Aeroflex withdrew its protest.

In December 2009, the Kansas District Court dismissed the Aeroflex Action on jurisdiction grounds. Aeroflex appealed this decision. In May 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the Aeroflex Action to the Kansas District Court for further proceedings.

On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment based on Aeroflex’s lack of jurisdictional standing to bring the case. The motion asserts that Aeroflex does not own the intellectual property at issue since it is a bare licensee of Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman has declined to join this suit as plaintiff. Aeroflex lacks standing to sue alone. Also, the motion raises the fact that Aeroflex allowed the license to expire, Aeroflex’s claims are either moot or Aeroflex lacks standing to sue for damages alleged to have accrued after the license ended in 2015 2011. The motion for summary judgment was denied.

The Aeroflex trial on remand in the Kansas District Court began in March 2017. After a six-week trial, the jury rendered its verdict. The jury found no misappropriation of Aeroflex trade secrets but it did rule that the Company tortiously interfered with a prospective business opportunity and awarded damages of $1.3 million for lost profits. The jury also ruled that Tel tortiously interfered with Aeroflex’s non-disclosure agreements with two former Aeroflex employees and awarded damages of $1.5 million for lost profits, resulting in total damages against the Company of $2.8 million. The jury also found that the former Aeroflex employees breached their non-disclosure agreements with Aeroflex and awarded damages against these two individuals totaling $525,000. The jury also decided that punitive damages should be allowed against the Company. The court has not yet entered final judgment on the verdict.

Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which is pending.law. In the motion, the Company renewed its motion for judgment on Aeroflex’s tortious interference with prospective business opportunity claim arguing that such claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim.  Additionally, the motion for judgment addresses inconsistency between the awards against the former Aeroflex employees for breach of the non-disclosure agreements and the award against the Company for interfering with those agreements. Alternatively, the motion asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the lost profit award on that claim. While we believe that this motion has merit, there is no assurance that the judge will reduce the jury awards.

Aeroflex has submitted a motion to the Court requesting that the judge award punitive damages at the maximum $5 million amount. In Kansas, punitive damages are awarded to “punish the wrongdoer for his malicious, vindictive or willful and wanton invasion of another’s rights, with the ultimate purpose being to restrain and deter others from the commission of similar wrongdoings.” Importantly, Kansas courts have ruled that the purpose of punitive damages “is to sting, not to kill”. The Court will also take into consideration the Company’s financial condition in setting the amount of punitive damages. The Company does not believe that punitive damages, in any amount are appropriate. Regardless, the Company will vigorously defend against an award.

In summary, untilOctober 2017, the Court rules oncourt denied the pending mattersCompany’s motions and awarded Aeroflex an additional $2.1 million of punitive damages, which brings the finaltotal Tel damages awarded in this case to approximately $4.9 million. No judgment onhas yet been entered by the verdict is speculative. At this stage,court, and we have filed a motion with the court that these changes are duplicative and not supported by Kansas Law.

Once the court has entered judgment, the Company has recorded a $2.8 million liability but this could materially change based on the judge’s ruling. Punitive damages can also range between $-0- and $5 million.  Depending on the outcome of these hearings, both sides have the ability to appeal the decision or the judge could vacate the jury decision and schedule a new trial. If the judge enters a final damages award, both sides have approximately 30 days to file an appeal or request a new trial. If the Company files the appeal on its own, it will be required to post a bond in the equal to the lesser of: (1) the final damages award; or (2) $1 million plus 25% of the amount of the verdict in excess of $1 million, which would currently total $1.45$1.975 million.

The Company believes it has excellent grounds to appeal this verdict. The appeal process would be expected to take several years to complete.

Other than the matters outlined above, we are currently not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of executive officers of our Company, threatened against or affecting our Company, or our common stock in which an adverse decision could have a material effect.

In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-09 (“Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting”) which simplifies several aspects of accounting for share-based payment transactions including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those fiscal years with early adoption permitted. The Company does not believe that the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02 (“Leases”), which introduces the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases under previous guidance. The new standard establishes a right-of-use (“ROU”) model that requires a lessee to record an ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 and interim periods within those fiscal years with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this ASU will increase assets and liabilities for operating leases. The Company is evaluating the impact that the adoption of this standard will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, which is an update to Topic 740, “Income Taxes”. This update requires that all deferred tax assets and liabilities be classified as non-current. The Company adopted this update in the current year, which is reflected in the accompanying balance sheets. The deferred tax recorded as a current asset for the year ended March 31, 2016 was reclassified as Deferred Tax – Non-Current. The adoption of this update did not have any impact on the Company’s results of operations.

In August 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern to provide guidance about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. The guidance requires management to assess whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. When management identifies such conditions or events, a footnote disclosure is required to disclose their nature, as well as management’s plans to alleviate the substantial doubt to continue as a going concern. The standard became effective for our fiscal year end 2017 and did not have an impact on the consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 that introduces a new five-step revenue recognition model in which an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU also requires disclosures sufficient to enable users to understand the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers, including qualitative and quantitative disclosures about contracts with customers, significant judgments and changes in judgments, and assets recognized from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08 which further clarifies the guidance on the principal versus agent considerations within ASU 2014-09. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10 to expand the guidance on identifying performance obligations and licensing within ASU 2014-09. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12 to improve revenue recognition in the areas of collectability, presentation of sales tax and other similar taxes collected from customers, noncash consideration, contract modifications and completed contracts at transition. This update also amends the disclosure requirements within ASU 2014-09 for entities that retrospectively apply the guidance. The latest amendments are intended to address implementation issues that were raised by stakeholders and discussed by the Revenue Recognition Transition Resource Group, and provide additional practical expedients. These standards are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the new guidance to determine the impact, if any, it will have on its consolidated financial statements.

No other recently issued accounting pronouncements had or are expected to have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.