Warrants | 12. Warrants As of June 30, 2016, warrants to purchase 38,991,904 shares were outstanding, having exercise prices ranging from $ 0.40 to $ 1.50 and expiration dates ranging from July 5, 2016 to September 2, 20 21 . 2016 2015 Number of warrants Weighted average exercise price Number of warrants Weighted average exercise price Balance, January 1 26,491,904 $ 0.80 13,205,871 $ 1.07 Issued during the period 12,500,000 $ 0.42 - $ - Exercised during the period - $ - - $ - Expired during the period - $ - - $ - Balance, June 30 38,991,904 $ 0.68 13,205,871 $ 1.07 At June 30, 2016 the weighted average remaining contractual life of the outstanding warrants was 3. 9 years. The warrants issued to investors in the March 2011, December 2012, November 2015 and March 2016 offerings contain a provision for net cash settlement in the event that there is a fundamental transaction (contractually defined as a merger, sale of substantially all assets, tender offer or share exchange). If a fundamental transaction occurs in which the consideration issued consists principally of cash or stock in a non-public company, then the warrant holder has the option to receive cash, equal to the fair value of the remaining unexercised portion of the warrant. Due to this contingent redemption provision, the warrants require liability classification in accordance with ASC 480 and are recorded at fair value. The warrants issued to investors in the July 2013, October 2013 and January 2014 offerings contain a fundamental transaction provision, but the warrant holders only have an option as to the type of consideration received if the holders of common stock receive an option as to their consideration. In addition, the warrants issued in the March 2011, December 2012, July 2013, October 2013, January 2014, November 2015 and March 2016 contain a cashless exercise provision that is exercisable only in the event that a registration statement is not effective. That provision may not be operative if an effective registration statement is not available because an exemption under the U.S. securities laws may not be available to issue unregistered shares. As a result, net cash settlement may be required, and the warrants require liability classification. ASC 820 provides requirements for disclosure of liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis in periods subsequent to the initial recognition. Fair values for warrants were determined using the Binomial Lattice (“Lattice”) valuation technique. The Lattice model provides for dynamic assumptions regarding volatility and risk-free interest rates within the total period to maturity. Accordingly, within the contractual term, the Company provided multiple date intervals over which multiple volatilities and risk free interest rates were used. These intervals allow the Lattice model to project outcomes along specific paths that consider volatilities and risk free rates that would be more likely in an early exercise scenario. Significant assumptions are determined as follows: Trading market values —Published trading market values; Exercise price —Stated exercise price; Term —Remaining contractual term of the warrant; Volatility —Historical trading volatility for periods consistent with the remaining terms; and Risk-free rate —Yields on zero coupon government securities with remaining terms consistent with the remaining terms of the warrants. Due to the fundamental transaction provision, which could provide for early redemption of the warrants, the model also considered the probability the Company would enter into a fundamental transaction during the remaining term of the warrant. Because the Company is not yet achieving positive cash flow, management believes the probability of a fundamental transaction occurring over the term of the warrant is unlikely and therefore estimates the probability of entering into a fundamental transaction to be 5 %. For valuation purposes, the Company also assumed that if such a transaction did occur, it was more likely to occur towards the end of the term of the warrants. The significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of the warrants include management’s estimate of the probability that a fundamental transaction may occur in the future. Significant increases (decreases) in the probability of occurrence would result in a significantly higher (lower) fair value measurement. The following table summarizes the fair value of the warrants as of the respective balance sheet dates: Fair Value as of: Warrant Issuance: June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 March 31, 2011 financing: Warrants to institutional investors $ - $ 30 December 4, 2012 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 2,540 9,818 Warrants to placement agent - 1,206 July 26, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 27,520 121,420 Warrants to placement agent - 384 October 16, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 39,742 169,349 Warrants to placement agent - 970 January 21, 2014 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 13,762 131,476 November 12, 2015 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 964,750 2,169,375 Warrants to placement agent 54,975 135,135 March 2, 2016 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 1,167,656 - Warrants to placement agent 70,033 - Total: $ 2,340,978 $ 2,739,163 The following table summarizes the number of shares indexed to the warrants as of the respective balance sheet dates: Number of Shares indexed as of: Warrant Issuance June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 March 31, 2011 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 3,333,333 3,333,333 December 4, 2012 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 174,300 174,300 Warrants to placement agent 40,000 40,000 July 26, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 2,000,000 2,000,000 Warrants to placement agent 124,032 124,032 October 16, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 2,317,309 2,317,309 Warrants to placement agent 407,692 407,692 January 21, 2014 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 4,761,905 4,761,905 November 12, 2015 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 12,500,000 12,500,000 Warrants to placement agent 833,333 833,333 March 2, 2016 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 11,718,750 - Warrants to placement agent 781,250 - Total: 38,991,904 26,491,904 The assumptions used in calculating the fair values of the warrants are as follows: June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 Trading market prices $ 0.25 $ 0.36 Estimated future volatility 105 % 105 % Dividend - - Estimated future risk-free rate 0.20 -1.36 % 0.82 -2.38 % Equivalent volatility 43-62 % 44-65 % Equivalent risk-free rate 0.01 -0.63 % 0.22 -1.11 % Changes in the fair value of the warrant liabilities, carried at fair value, as reported as “unrealized gain on fair value of warrants” in the statement of operations: For the Three Months Ended June 30, For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 2015 2016 2015 March 31, 2011 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 33 202,963 30 305,040 December 4, 2012 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 5,911 32,568 7,278 29,671 Warrants to placement agent 529 5,434 1,206 5,577 July 26, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 63,246 289,146 93,900 264,360 Warrants to placement agent 64 15,209 384 19,554 October 16, 2013 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 103,166 323,698 129,607 305,938 Warrants to placement agent 145 48,918 970 64,097 January 21, 2014 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 92,428 640,824 117,714 679,938 November 12, 2015 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 875,913 - 1,204,626 - Warrants to placement agent 58,276 - 80,160 - March 2, 2016 financing: Warrants to institutional investors 860,121 - 1,252,266 - Warrants to placement agent 58,258 - 85,904 - Total: $ 2,118,090 $ 1,558,760 $ 2,974,045 $ 1,674,175 |