On April 7, 2006, ETC entered into a Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Equity Agreement”) with Mr. Lenfest, a Director, significant shareholder and holder of our subordinated debt. The Equity Agreement permits us to unilaterally draw down up to $15 million prior to October 2007 in exchange for shares of our newly-created Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (“Preferred Stock”). The Preferred Stock provides for a dividend equal to six percent per annum. After three years, the Preferred Stock will be convertible, at Mr. Lenfest’s request, into ETC common shares at a conversion price (the “Conversion Price”) which will be set on the day of each draw down. The Conversion Price will be equal to the closing price of our common stock on the trading day immediately preceding the day in which the draw down occurs, subject to a floor price of $4.95 per common share. Drawdowns will not be permitted on any day when the Conversion Price would be less than this floor price. On the sixth anniversary of the Equity Agreement, any issued and outstanding Preferred Stock will be mandatorily converted into ETC common stock at each set Conversion Price. The Equity Agreement also allows us to redeem any outstanding Preferred Stock any time within the six-year term of the Equity Agreement. The Preferred Stock will vote with the ETC common stock on an as converted basis.
In connection with the execution of the Equity Agreement, we drew down $3 million by issuing 3,000 shares of Preferred Stock with a Conversion Price equal to $4.95 per share. The proceeds are being used for general corporate purposes.
In connection with the financing provided by PNC on February 19, 2003, we entered into a Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement with Mr. Lenfest, pursuant to which we issued to Mr. Lenfest (i) a senior subordinated convertible promissory note (the “Note”) in the original principal amount of $10,000,000 and (ii) warrants to purchase 803,048 shares of our common stock. Upon the occurrence of certain events, we will be obligated to issue additional warrants to Mr. Lenfest. The Note accrues interest at the rate of 10% per annum (Mr. Lenfest has reduced the rate to 8% on a temporary basis for the period December 1, 2004 through November 30, 2006) and matures on February 18, 2009. At our option, the quarterly interest payments may be deferred and added to the outstanding principal. The Note entitles Mr. Lenfest to convert all or a portion of the outstanding principal of, and accrued and unpaid interest on, the note into shares of common stock at a conversion price of $6.05 per share. The warrants may be exercised into shares of common stock at an exercise price equal to the lesser of $4.00 per share or two-thirds of the average of the high and low sale prices of the common stock for the 25 consecutive trading days immediately preceding the date of exercise.
Our obligations to Mr. Lenfest under the Convertible Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement are secured by a second lien on all of our assets, junior in rights to the lien in favor of PNC Bank, including all of our real property.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition, continued
Prior to the consummation of the refinancing in February, 2003, Advanced Technology Asset Management, LLC (“ATAM”) (formerly ETC Asset Management, LLC), a shareholder and a holder of warrants to purchase 332,820 shares of our common stock, consented to the transactions contemplated under the Credit Agreement and the financing provided by Mr. Lenfest, including the below market issuance of warrants to Mr. Lenfest. As a result of its consent, ATAM waived, solely in connection with such issuance, the anti-dilution rights contained in its warrant. In exchange for ATAM’s consent, we issued to ATAM warrants to purchase an additional 105,000 shares of common stock. Except for the number of shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants, the new ATAM warrants have substantially the same terms as the warrants issued to Mr. Lenfest. In March 2004, ATAM exercised all its warrants and received a total of 437,820 shares of common stock. We received proceeds of $586,410 from the exercise of these warrants.
As a condition of amending the PNC Agreement on August 24, 2004, Mr. Lenfest agreed to issue to PNC Bank on our behalf a limited guarantee to secure up to $5,000,000 in principal amount of any letters of credit issued under the amended facility. In consideration for issuing this guarantee, Mr.Lenfest receives a fee of 0.75% per annum of the average amount of letters of credit outstanding, payable on a quarterly basis, and received a warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of stock under the same terms and conditions as his existing warrant for 803,048 shares.
On February 14, 2005, Mr. Lenfest exercised all of his outstanding warrants and received 1,003,048 shares of common stock for approximately $3.9 million. Additionally, on February 14, 2005, Mr. Lenfest purchased 373,831 shares of common stock for approximately $2.0 million.
Under the Note, we must meet certain financial covenants including a Leverage Ratio, a Fixed Charge Ratio and a Tangible Net Worth Ratio. At May 26, 2006, we failed to meet any of these financial covenants but have obtained a waiver from Mr. Lenfest. This waiver applies to all periods through May 27, 2007. Except as specified, the waiver does not constitute a modification or alteration of any other terms or conditions in the Note, or a release of any of the lender’s rights or remedies, all of which are reserved, nor does it release us or any guarantor from any duties, obligations, covenants or agreements including the consequences of any event of default, except as specified.
Long-Term Bonds
On March 15, 2000, we issued approximately $5,500,000 of unregistered Taxable Variable Rate Demand/Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds (Series of 2000). Net proceeds from these bonds were used to repay a $4,100,000 advance taken on our revolving credit facility and to finance construction of an addition to our main plant in Southampton, Pennsylvania. The bonds were secured by a $5,000,000 irrevocable direct pay Letter of Credit issued by PNC Bank which was scheduled to expire on February 17, 2006 and which was secured by all assets of the Company. At February 25, 2005 the bonds were fully cash collateralized. The bonds carried a maturity date of April 1, 2020, bore a variable interest rate which adjusted each week to a rate required to remarket the bonds at full principal value with a cap of 17%, and were subject to mandatory redemption of $275,000 per year for 19 years and $245,000 for the 20th year.
On June 30, 2005, we directed the trustee for the bonds to issue a redemption notice for all of our outstanding bonds. On August 1, 2005, the Company utilized the restricted cash held by PNC Bank to redeem all outstanding bonds. As of May 27, 2005, all deferred financing charges associated with this bond issue had been fully amortized to our statement of operations.
29
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition, continued
Operating Capital
Given the Company’s inability to borrow cash under the amended PNC Agreement, the Company may need to obtain additional sources of capital in order to continue growing and operating its business. This capital may be difficult to obtain and the cost of this additional capital is likely to be relatively high. However, because we have established businesses in many markets, significant fixed assets including a building, and other valuable business assets which can be used for security, we believe that we will be able to obtain such additional capital and that the actions by PNC Bank will not have a material adverse effect on our business. As a public entity, the Company potentially has access to equity markets as a source of funding.
Most of the Company’s contracts include stage or milestone payment clauses in which the customer advances funds to facilitate the cost of engineering, purchase of materials and production. These advance funds are a significant source of working capital, especially where the project is high in dollar value and requires multiple years to complete.
The Company is evaluating different business models to generate sales and working capital. These include providing contract training, revenue sharing and leasing. If successful, these alternate approaches may provide a more consistent and predictable cash flow to support operations.
The Company believes that existing cash balances at May 26, 2006, cash expected to be generated from operating activities, and cash available under the Lenfest Equity Line will be sufficient to meet its future obligations through at least May 27, 2007.
In reference to the Company’s outstanding claims with the U.S. Navy, to the extent the Company is unsuccessful in recovering a significant portion of recorded claim contract costs, and to the extent that significant additional legal expenses are required to bring the dispute to resolution, such events could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity and results of operations. Historically, the Company has generally had a favorable experience in that recoveries have exceeded recorded claims, including significant settlement agreements in fiscal 2003, 2004 and 2005. (See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Accounts Receivable).
The following table presents our contractual cash flow commitments on long-term debt and operating leases.
| | Payments Due by Period | |
| |
| |
| | Total | | Less Than 1 Year | | 1-3 Years | | 4-5 Years | | After 5 Years | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | (in thousands) | |
Long-term debt, including current maturities | | $ | 8,482 | | $ | — | | $ | 8,482 | | $ | — | | $ | — | |
Operating leases | | | 663 | | | 128 | | | 338 | | | 197 | | | — | |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Total | | $ | 9,145 | | $ | 128 | | $ | 8,820 | | $ | 197 | | $ | — | |
Long-term debt is reported net of unamortized discount of $1,518,000 on the Company’s subordinated debt.
30
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition, continued
Liquidity
At any particular time, our cash position is affected by the timing of cash receipts for milestone payments on open orders, product sales and maintenance services and our payments for inventory and operating expenses, including legal expenses, resulting in significant quarter-to-quarter, as well as within a quarter, fluctuations in our cash balances. Our principal sources of liquidity are our cash, operations and the Lenfest Equity Line. Most of our contracts include stage or milestone payment clauses in which the customer advances funds to facilitate the cost of engineering, purchase of materials and production. These advance funds are a significant source of working capital, especially where the project is high dollar value and requires multiple years to complete.
The Company is evaluating different business models to generate sales and working capital. These include providing contract training, revenue sharing and leasing. If successful, these alternate approaches may provide a more consistent and predictable cash flow to support general operations.
Given our inability to borrow cash under the amended PNC Agreement and certain restrictions in the Lenfest Equity Agreement, we may need to obtain additional sources of capital in order to continue growing and operating our business. This capital may be difficult to obtain and the cost of this additional capital is likely to be relatively high. However, because we have established businesses in many markets, significant fixed assets including a building, and other valuable business assets which can be used for security, we believe that we will be able to locate such additional capital and that the actions by PNC Bank will not have a material adverse effect on our business.
We believe that existing cash balances at May 26, 2006, cash generated from operating activities as well as future availability under our Equity Agreement will be sufficient to meet our future obligations through at least May 27, 2007.
As of May 26, 2006, claims recorded against the U.S. Government totaled $3,004,000. To the extent the Company is unsuccessful in recovering a significant portion of recorded claim contract costs, and to the extent that significant additional legal expenses are required to bring the dispute to resolution, such events could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity and results of operations. Historically, the Company has had a favorable experience in that recoveries have exceeded recorded claims, including significant settlement agreements in fiscal 2003, 2004 and 2005. However, there is no assurance that the Company will continue to have positive experience with regard to recoveries for its contract claims. (See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Accounts Receivable).
Claim costs have been incurred in connection with customer caused delays, errors in specifications and designs, other out-of-scope items and exchange losses and may not be received in full during fiscal 2007. In conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, revenue recorded for a claim may not exceed the incurred contract costs related to the claim.
In November 2003, the U.S. Government completed an audit of the submarine rescue decompression chamber project claim, rejecting most of the items due to audit or engineering reasons. The Company was not provided a copy of the Government’s Technical Report which questioned approximately half of the claim costs. The Company has submitted a written rebuttal to the draft report and formally requested a copy of the Technical Report. On July 22, 2004 the U.S. Government’s contracting officer issued a final decision on the claim, basically denying the claim in full. The Company has updated the claim for additional costs expended on claimable items since the original submission and has converted the claim to a complaint which was filed in the Court of Federal Claims in July 2005. On November 7, 2005, the Government filed its response to the Company’s complaint, contesting each of the items. This claim is currently in the discovery phase, specifically the mutual exchange of documents. The Company and the U.S. Government plan to hold a settlement conference in September 2006.
31
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition, continued
This U. S. Government claim has followed the typical process of claim notification, preparation, submittal and government audit and review by the contracting officer. Historically, the Company’s experience has indicated that most claims are initially denied in part or in full by the contracting officer (or no decision is forthcoming, which is then taken to be a deemed denial) which then forces the Company to seek relief in a court of law.
The Company considers the recorded costs to be realizable due to the fact that the costs relate to customer caused delays, errors and changes in specifications and designs, disputed liquidated damages and other out of scope items. The U.S. Government, citing failure to deliver the product within contract terms, has assessed liquidated damages but has not offset or withheld any progress payments due to the Company under the contract. The Company disputes the basis for these liquidated damages, noting that applicable U.S. Government purchasing regulations allow for a waiver of these charges if the delay is beyond the control and not due to the fault or negligence of the Company. However, following accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the Company has reduced contract values and corresponding revenue recognition by an estimated amount of $330,000 to cover a delay through the extended delivery period.
The open balance of $700,000 due on the RTAF contract represents the total gross exposure to the Company on this contract. On June 16, 2003, the Company filed for arbitration in Thailand seeking recovery of the open balance of $700,000 due on this contract. On March 23, 2006, the Arbitration panel awarded the Company $314,813 plus interest from March 1, 2006 in full settlement of this dispute. Although the award is final, the RTAF may challenge the court to withdraw the award with certain grounds within 90 days. The Company does not believe the RTAF has any legal grounds to challenge the award and was in the process of determining the status of the payment as of the date of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. If the RTAF does not honor the decision, the award will have to be enforced through the court system in Thailand, a process which may take a significant amount of time. The assets of the RTAF are not subject to enforcement. At this point, the Company is not able to determine what the ultimate result of this dispute will be. However, the Company has established sufficient receivable reserves so that any resolution will not have a material impact on the financial position or results of operations of the Company.
Historically, the Company has had positive experience with regard to its contract claims in that recoveries have exceeded the carrying value of claims. However, there is no assurance that the Company will always have positive experience with regard to recoveries for its contract claims.
32
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition, continued
Backlog
Our sales backlog at May 26, 2006 and February 24, 2006, for work to be performed and revenue to be recognized under written agreements after such dates, was $6,033,000 and $8,132,000, respectively. In addition, our training, maintenance and upgrade contracts backlog at May 26, 2006 and February 24, 2006, for work to be performed and revenue to be recognized after such dates under written agreements, was $2,235,000 and $1,774,000, respectively. Of the May 26, 2006 backlog, we have contracts for approximately $5,121,000 for aircrew training systems and maintenance support, including $2,050,000 for the Japanese Defense Agency and $543,000 for Pakistan.
The Company’s order flow does not follow any seasonal pattern as the Company receives orders in each fiscal quarter of its fiscal year.
33
Item 3. | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk |
We are exposed to various market risks, including changes in interest rates. Market risk is the potential loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and prices, such as interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. We do not enter into derivatives or other financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. We also have not entered into financial instruments to manage and reduce the impact of changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates although we may enter into such transactions in the future. Although currently none of our debt bears interest at rates that vary with the prime rate of interest, it is expected that any additional debt which we might incur would carry a floating rate. If this were the case, any increases in the applicable prime rate of interest would reduce our earnings. With respect to currency risk, where we have a contract which is denominated in a foreign currency, we often establish local in-country bank accounts and fund in-country expenses in the local currency, thus creating a “natural” currency hedge for a portion of the contract.
Item 4. | Controls and Procedures |
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, we have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of May 26, 2006 (the “Evaluation Date”), and, based on this evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that these controls and procedures were effective as of the Evaluation Date. There were no significant changes in our internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the Evaluation Date.
Disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-14(c) and 15(d)-14(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) are our internal controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information we are required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the internal control system are met. Because of the inherent limitations of any internal control system, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues, if any, within a company have been detected.
34
Part II – OTHER INFORMATION
In April 2003, Boenning & Scattergood, Inc. (“B&S”) filed suit against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seeking payment of $901,843.46 for financing fees allegedly due to B&S pursuant to the terms of an agreement for investment banking services, which was entered into with a predecessor of B&S (the “B&S Agreement”). B&S alleged that it contacted the investors in the Company’s February 2003 financing transaction and that it earned the claimed financing fees pursuant to the terms of the B&S Agreement. On August 17, 2005 the Company entered into an agreement to settle this litigation. The agreement was entered into for the purpose of resolving contested claims and disputes as well as avoiding the substantial costs, expenses and uncertainties associated with protracted and complex litigation, and was not an admission of fault or liability by either party. Under the guidance of FASB Statement No.5, an amount representing a probable settlement had been accrued in a prior period, so the payment under the settlement had no material impact on the Company’s results of operations for the fiscal second quarter of fiscal 2006.
In June 2003, Entertainment Technology Corporation (“EnTCo”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, filed suit against Walt Disney World Co. and other entities (“Disney”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging breach of contract for, among other things, failure to pay all amounts due under contract for the design and production of the amusement park ride “Mission: Space” located in Disney’s Epcot Center. In response, in August 2003, Disney filed counterclaims against both EnTCo and us (under a guarantee) for, among other things, alleged failures in performance and design in the contract. Disney is seeking damages in excess of $65 million plus punitive damages. Both EnTCo and we believe that we have valid defenses to each of Disney’s counterclaims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these counterclaims. Discovery has been completed and the parties participated in a structured mediation in early December 2005, with no agreement forthcoming as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The case is not currently scheduled for trial. Neither EnTCo nor we are able to predict the outcome of this matter.
Certain other claims, suits, and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us.
In our opinion, after consultation with legal counsel handling these specific maters, all such matters are reserved for or adequately covered by insurance or, if not so covered, are without merit or are of such kind, or involve such amounts, as would not have a significant effect on our financial position or results of operations if disposed of unfavorably.
Item 2. | Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds |
Please see Note 4 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company, together with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 6, 2006 for further information regarding the Company’s sale of Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock to H.F. Lenfest.
Item 3. | Defaults Upon Senior Securities |
None.
35
Item 4. | Submission of Matters to Vote of Security Holders |
None.
None.
Number | | Item | |
| |
| |
3.1 | | Registrant’s Articles of Incorporation, as amended, were filed as Exhibit 3.1 to Registrant’s Form 10—K for the year ended February 28, 1997 and are incorporated herein by reference. | |
| | | |
3.2 | | Registrant’s amended and restated By-Laws were filed as Exhibit 3.2 to Registrant’s Form 8-K dated May 25, 2005, and are incorporated herein by reference.
| |
31.1 | | Certification dated July 10, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made by William F. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer.
| |
31.2 | | Certification dated July 10, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made by Duane D. Deaner, Chief Financial Officer.
| |
32 | | Certification dated July 10, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made by William F. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, and Duane D. Deaner, Chief Financial Officer. | |
36
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
| ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION (Registrant) |
Date: July 10, 2006
| | By: | /s/ William F. Mitchell
|
| | |
|
| | | William F. Mitchell President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
Date: July 10, 2006
| | By: | /s/ Duane Deaner
|
| | |
|
| | | Duane Deaner, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |