Quarterly report pursuant to sections 13 or 15(d)

2. Summary of significant accounting policies

v2.3.0.11
2. Summary of significant accounting policies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Accounting Policies [Abstract]  
Note 2. Summary of significant accounting policies

Development stage enterprise

 

The Company is a development stage enterprise.  All losses accumulated since the inception of the Company have been considered as part of the Company’s development stage activities.

 

The Company’s focus is on product development and marketing of proprietary devices that are designed to reduce operation costs of petrochemical pipeline transport and fuel efficiency of diesel engines and has not yet generated meaningful revenues.  The technologies are called “AOT” and “ELEKTRA”.  The Company is currently in the mid-late stages of developing its AOT™ and ELEKTRA™ technologies for commercial applications.  Expenses have been funded through the sale of company stock, convertible notes and the exercise of warrants.  The Company has taken actions to secure the intellectual property rights to the AOT™ and ELEKTRA™ technologies and is the worldwide exclusive licensee for patent pending technologies associated with the development of ELEKTRA™.

 

Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Certain significant estimates were made in connection with preparing the Company’s financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Loss per share

 

Basic loss per share is computed by dividing net loss available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted loss per share reflects the potential dilution, using the treasury stock method that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock or resulted in the issuance of common stock that then shared in the loss of the Company. In computing diluted loss per share, the treasury stock method assumes that outstanding options and warrants are exercised and the proceeds are used to purchase common stock at the average market price during the period. Options and warrants may have a dilutive effect under the treasury stock method only when the average market price of the common stock during the period exceeds the exercise price of the options and warrants. For the six month period ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the dilutive impact of outstanding stock options of 28,899,558 and 22,177,892 respectively, and outstanding warrants of 51,690,896 and 37,701,079 have been excluded because their impact on the loss per share is anti-dilutive.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

The Company periodically issues stock options and warrants to employees and non-employees in non-capital raising transactions for services and for financing costs. The Company accounts for stock option and warrant grants issued and vesting to employees based on the authoritative guidance provided by the Financial Accounting Standards Board whereas the value of the award is measured on the date of grant and recognized over the vesting period. The Company accounts for stock option and warrant grants issued and vesting to non-employees in accordance with the authoritative guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board whereas the value of the stock compensation is based upon the measurement date as determined at either a) the date at which a performance commitment is reached, or b) at the date at which the necessary performance to earn the equity instruments is complete. Non-employee stock-based compensation charges generally are amortized over the vesting period on a straight-line basis. In certain circumstances where there are no future performance requirements by the non-employee, option grants are immediately vested and the total stock-based compensation charge is recorded in the period of the measurement date.

   

The fair value of the Company's common stock option grant is estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which uses certain assumptions related to risk-free interest rates, expected volatility, expected life of the common stock options, and future dividends. Compensation expense is recorded based upon the value derived from the Black-Scholes option pricing model, and based on actual experience. The assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option pricing model could materially affect compensation expense recorded in future periods.

 

Accounting for Warrants and Derivatives

 

The Company evaluates all of its financial instruments to determine if such instruments are derivatives or contain features that qualify as embedded derivatives. For derivative financial instruments that are accounted for as liabilities, the derivative instrument is initially recorded at its fair value and is then re-valued at each reporting date, with changes in the fair value reported in the consolidated statements of operations.  For stock-based derivative financial instruments, the Company uses a probability weighted average series Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing models to value the derivative instruments at inception and on subsequent valuation dates.

 

The classification of derivative instruments, including whether such instruments should be recorded as liabilities or as equity, is evaluated at the end of each reporting period.  Derivative instrument liabilities are classified in the balance sheet as current or non-current based on whether or not net-cash settlement of the derivative instrument could be required within 12 months of the balance sheet date.

 

Fair value of financial instruments

 

Effective January 1, 2008, fair value measurements are determined by the Company's adoption of authoritative guidance issued by the FASB, with the exception of the application of the statement to non-recurring, non-financial assets and liabilities as permitted. The adoption of the authoritative guidance did not have a material impact on the Company's fair value measurements.  Fair value is defined in the authoritative guidance as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy was established, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value into three broad levels as follows:

 

Level 1—Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

 

Level 2—Inputs, other than the quoted prices in active markets, are observable either directly or indirectly.

 

Level 3—Unobservable inputs based on the Company's assumptions.

 

The Company is required to use observable market data if such data is available without undue cost and effort

 

The following table presents certain investments and liabilities of the Company’s financial assets measured and recorded at fair value on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets on a recurring basis and their level within the fair value hierarchy as of June 30, 2012 and 2011.

 

    Level 1       Level 2     Level 3     Total  
Fair value of Derivative Liability-June 30, 2012 -0-     -0-     $ 1,725,138     $ 1,725,138  
Fair value of Derivative Liability-December 31, 2011 -0-     -0-     $ 1,643,139     $ 1,643,139  

  

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs”. ASU No. 2011-4 does not require additional fair value measurements and is not intended to establish valuation standards or affect valuation practices outside of financial reporting. The ASU is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted ASU No. 2011-04 effective January 1, 2012 and it did not affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

 

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income”. The ASU eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity, and instead requires consecutive presentation of the statement of net income and other comprehensive income either in a continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. ASU No. 2011-5 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted ASU 2011-05 effective January 1, 2012 and it did not affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

 

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment”, an update to existing guidance on the assessment of goodwill impairment. This update simplifies the assessment of goodwill for impairment by allowing companies to consider qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount before performing the two step impairment review process. It also amends the examples of events or circumstances that would be considered in a goodwill impairment evaluation. The amendments are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted ASU 2011-08 effective January 1, 2012. We do not believe that the adoption of this new accounting guidance will have a significant effect on our goodwill impairment assessments in the future.

 

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” This ASU requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. ASU No. 2011-11 will be applied retrospectively and is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. The Company does not expect adoption of this standard to have a material impact on its consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.

 

Other recent accounting pronouncements issued by the FASB (including its Emerging Issues Task Force), the AICPA, and the Securities Exchange Commission (the "SEC") did not or are not believed by management to have a material impact on the Company's present or future consolidated financial statements.