Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
| x | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
| ¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 001-35944.
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
| Delaware | 33-0963637 | |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
| 201 Mittel Drive Wood Dale, IL |
60191 | |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code) | |
Registrant’s telephone number: (630) 350-9400
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. YES ¨ NO x
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to be file reports pursuant Section 13 and Section 15(d) of the Act. YES ¨ NO x
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 preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant 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 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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES x NO ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not 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-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. (Check one):
| Large accelerated filer | ¨ | Accelerated filer | x | |||
| Non-accelerated filer | ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | Smaller Reporting Company | ¨ | |||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). ¨ YES x NO
The aggregate market value of the common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the registrant held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 28, 2013 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was $75,719,955 based on the last reported sale price on The NASDAQ Capital Market on June 28, 2013 (although the total market capitalization of the registrant as of such date was approximately $311,965,580). Shares of the registrant’s common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each person who holds 10% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
As of February 24, 2014, there were 10,562,139 outstanding shares of the common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the registrant.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This report includes forward-looking statements that reflect our expectations and projections about our future results, performance, prospects and opportunities. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. We have tried to identify forward-looking statements by using words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “contemplate,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “potential,” “should,” “will,” “will be,” “would” and similar expressions, but this is not an exclusive way of identifying such statements. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements relating to our future financial performance, our business prospects and strategy, anticipated financial position, liquidity and capital needs and other similar matters. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions about future events, which are inherently subject to uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Our actual results, performance and achievements may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in this report as a result of various risks, uncertainties and other factors, including those described above under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, you should read this report with the understanding that our actual results may be materially different from what we expect.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. Except as expressly required under federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the SEC, we do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after the date of this report, whether as a result of new information or future events or otherwise. You should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements included in this report or that may be made elsewhere from time to time by us, or on our behalf. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements.
Except where the context otherwise requires or where otherwise indicated, references in this Form 10-K to “we,” “us,” “our” and “our company” refer to Power Solutions International, Inc. and its subsidiaries.
1
Table of Contents
PART I
| Item 1. | Business |
Company Overview
We are a global producer and distributor of a broad range of high performance, certified low-emission, power systems that primarily run on alternative fuels such as natural gas and propane and are designed to meet emission standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Our customers include large, multinational original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of off-highway industrial equipment, and we are a sole source provider of alternative fuel power systems for most of these customers. Our power systems are currently used by OEMs in a wide range of industries with a diversified set of applications, including, stationary electricity generators, oil and gas equipment, forklifts, aerial work platforms, industrial sweepers, arbor equipment, agricultural and turf equipment, aircraft ground support equipment, construction and irrigation equipment, and other industrial equipment. In addition to our primary focus on the industrial market, we are introducing a range of alternative fuel power systems designed for the on-road market.
Our power systems are highly engineered, comprehensive systems customized to meet specific industrial OEM application requirements and technical specifications, as well as requirements imposed by environmental regulatory bodies. Our power system configurations range from a basic engine block integrated with appropriate fuel system components to completely packaged power systems. We purchase engines from third party suppliers and produce an internally-designed engine, both of which are then integrated into our power systems. We are also conducting research and development for the purpose of designing, developing and manufacturing other engines in-house. A substantial portion of the components we integrate into our power systems consist of internally designed components and components for which we coordinate significant design efforts with third party suppliers, with the remainder consisting largely of parts that we source off the shelf from third party suppliers. We are able to provide our customers with a comprehensive, emission-certified power system which can be incorporated, using a single part number, directly into a customer’s specified application.
For industrial applications, our alternative fuel power systems meet or exceed emission standards of the EPA and the CARB and represent a cleaner, and typically less expensive, alternative to diesel fuel power systems. While our power systems primarily run on alternative fuels, we also supply EPA and CARB emission-certified standard fuel power systems, and we are one of the largest suppliers of Perkins and Caterpillar diesel power systems under 275 horsepower. We expect that growth in domestic sales of our low-emission power systems will be driven by the substantial breadth of our emission-certified products, as well as increasing U.S. demand for alternative fuel power systems resulting from the adoption of increasingly stringent engine emission regulations. We are also experiencing increasing demand for our power systems from international industrial OEMs that manufacture industrial equipment for the U.S. import market.
In addition to our emission-certified power systems, we produce and distribute nonemission-certified power systems for industrial OEMs for particular applications in markets without emission standards (for example, oil and gas equipment used in Canada). Approximately 69% of our net sales for 2013 consisted of sales of emission-certified products, with approximately 59% of our 2013 net sales consisting of sales of emission certified products for which we hold the applicable regulatory certification and 10% of our 2013 net sales consisting of sales of diesel power systems for which the diesel engine supplier holds the applicable regulatory certification. Approximately 15% of our net sales in 2013 consisted of sales of aftermarket parts, and the remaining approximately 16% of our net sales in 2013 consisted of sales of our nonemission-certified power systems.
Industry and Market Overview
Industrial OEM Market
The off-highway industrial OEM market represents a diversified set of applications and industry categories that include power generation, oil and gas, material handling, aerial work platforms, sweepers, arbor, welding,
2
Table of Contents
airport ground support, agricultural, turf, construction and irrigation. While the power system requirements for the industrial OEM market bear similarities to the requirements for power systems used in automotive applications, there are substantial application differences between automotive and industrial equipment applications. Torque, start, stop, low speed and, with respect to certain applications, indoor use requirements, make direct use of an automotive power system impractical for use in most industrial equipment applications. Recognizing these differences, the EPA and CARB have issued distinct emission standards and regulations for industrial applications, as compared to those for automotive applications. As a result, there is not a direct cross-over of available automotive power systems into the industrial OEM market. Power systems used in the industrial OEM market must satisfy these emission standards through a certification process with the EPA and CARB that includes durability testing of the engine emission system at zero and 5,000 hours, production line testing on a quarterly basis and field compliance audit testing. Given the level of engineering and financial resources that automotive engine manufacturers would need to dedicate to supply emission-certified product into the industrial OEM market, and given this market does not represent a core business for these manufacturers, it is generally impractical for automotive engine manufacturers to compete in the industrial OEM market.
Industrial OEM power systems use internal combustion engines (both diesel and spark-ignited), as well as electric motors. Diesel engine systems, which use compression to initiate ignition to burn fuel, in contrast to spark-ignited engine systems which use a spark plug to initiate the combustion process, currently represent the dominant power systems, depending on the specific industrial application involved. For example, diesel powered equipment is generally used in outdoor industrial applications, while electric motors and alternative fuel, spark-ignited power systems are used for indoor industrial applications where carbon monoxide and air quality issues must be addressed. Both diesel power systems and electric motors have significant limitations. Diesel power systems present unique emission compliance challenges, while electric motors are often not feasible alternatives in industrial applications as a result of limitations on battery storage capacity. These challenges present opportunities to increase demand for spark-ignited power systems within the industrial OEM marketplace.
Market Trends
The market for our power systems is continuing to grow globally as a result of several key drivers.
Increasingly Stringent Regulations and Growing Efforts to Reduce Emissions
Concerns regarding climate change and other environmental considerations have led to the implementation of laws and regulations that restrict, cap or tax emissions in the automotive industry and throughout other industries. In particular, EPA Tier 4 emission standards, CARB regulations, and policies in Europe, generally referred to as Stage I, II, III and IV regulations, are requiring a significant reduction in the level of emissions and particulate matter produced by diesel power systems. OEMs have experienced pressure to redesign their products to address these emission regulations, as products that are unable to meet emission standards may not be sold in the marketplace. However, we believe few suppliers to industrial OEMs have been capable of providing, or are willing to make the investments of time, financial, and other resources necessary to provide products that meet new emission regulations.
Increased EPA and CARB emission regulations associated with diesel power systems are taking effect and are increasing both the cost and product footprint (in other words, the size of the power system) of diesel power products. Internal combustion engines generally produce emissions of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons (organic compounds consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon that can be emitted as a result of incomplete fuel combustion and fuel evaporation), and oxides of nitrogen (highly reactive gases formed when oxygen and nitrogen in the air react with each other during combustion), and diesel engines produce particularly high levels of these pollutants. In addition, diesel engines produce particulate matter, which is among the areas of focus of these emission regulations. In 2004, the EPA adopted rules introducing Tier 4 emission standards which significantly reduce permitted emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, and restrict hydrocarbon emissions, for off-road diesel engines of various sizes. The most recent standards adopted were initially
3
Table of Contents
implemented in 2008 and will continue to be phased in through 2015. As an example of the increasingly stringent standards to which diesel engines are subject, the most recent permitted levels, which began in 2012, of particulate matter for on-road diesel engines were reduced by approximately 90% from 2009 permitted levels. As a result, manufacturers and suppliers of diesel power systems, in comparison to spark-ignited and hybrid power systems, face greater challenges in complying with the new emission regulations. A manufacturer of diesel power systems must expend significant resources to develop a compliant power system, often through incorporation of additional components into a power system to reduce levels of particulate and other emissions. These additional components increase the footprint of the diesel engine, as well. This can be a lengthy and expensive process. Based upon our experience with customers and suppliers, and on additional information provided by Power Systems Research, Inc., industrial OEMs are experiencing cost increases of between 30% and 100% for a comprehensive diesel power system with combustion and aftertreatments incorporated to satisfy the new requirements. Furthermore, these emission regulations created not only a cost but also a footprint disadvantage for a diesel power system, when compared to a spark-ignited, emission-certified power system.
Additionally, countries outside of the United States have historically adopted emission regulations aligned with those of the U.S., and accordingly, it is anticipated that regulations comparable to current and future EPA and CARB emission regulations will be implemented internationally. For example, as previously noted, policies implemented in Europe, generally referred to as Stage I, II, III and IV regulations, regulate emissions of off-road mobile equipment. Similar to emission regulations in the U.S., these regulations in Europe call for reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, to be phased in over a period of time. If foreign jurisdictions continue to adopt emission regulations consistent with those of the U.S., it is expected that the international industrial OEM market will experience similar pressures to use cost effective, emission-certified power systems.
Increased Use of Alternative Fuels
A variety of market factors are contributing to the increased use of alternative fuels and growth of alternative fuel technology, including economics, energy independence, environmental concerns, and the widespread availability of alternative fuels. The price of alternative fuels such as natural gas or propane is substantially less than diesel or gasoline, and alternative fuels produce lower amounts of toxic greenhouse gases. In the United States, significant domestic alternative fuel reserves have been identified, and it is believed these reserves could satisfy much of the energy needs of the U.S. for many years. According to a 2013 report published by the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), a nonprofit organization composed of experts working in the natural gas field, the U.S. future natural gas supply at the end of 2012 was 2,688 trillion cubic feet (consisting of PGC’s assessments of technically recoverable resources combined with the U.S. Department of Energy’s latest determination of proved reserves), which represents an increase of 22.1% from 2010 levels as determined by PGC. The abundance of domestic natural gas resources is expected to increase U.S. energy independence by reducing oil imports from foreign countries. As a result of these market factors, we believe the use of alternative fuels will continue to grow and providers of equipment in industrial OEM categories, such as power generation, that rely significantly on coal, diesel fuel and gasoline, will face increasing pressure to use alternative fuel power systems.
Additionally, the infrastructure supporting alternative fuels in the United States continues to expand. Further, the United States and some other countries have taken action to increase demand and support for alternative fuels, in an effort to reduce dependence on imported oil, capitalize on domestic natural gas reserves and reduce emissions from diesel engines. For example, the EPA has provided subsidies in the form of grants and other financing programs for the advancement of alternative fuel technologies (to date directed primarily towards on-road vehicles). Additionally, industry organizations, such as the Propane Education and Research Council, an organization authorized by the U.S. Congress with the passage of the Propane Education and Research Act, award grants to a wide variety of institutions, businesses, universities and government organizations for the continued research, development, demonstration and commercialization of alternative fuel technologies.
4
Table of Contents
Industrial OEM Trend Toward Outsourcing
Industrial OEMs have been following the broader marketplace trend of outsourcing non-core functions. The dynamics of global sourcing and the need for cost competitiveness have led, and should continue to lead, industrial OEMs to assess what operations and system components are core to their business model and what they should outsource to their suppliers and partners. In particular, to comply with frequently changing environmental regulations while remaining competitive, industrial OEMs have been increasingly more reliant on outsourcing to third party suppliers and partners with specialized regulatory and design expertise. This is especially true for international OEMs seeking access to the U.S. market. By outsourcing power system design and production, OEMs are able to focus their resources on overall design and functionality of their products, rather than on developing the sophisticated technology associated with emission-certified power systems. We expect increasingly more industrial OEMs to outsource power systems, system components and subsystems to third party suppliers with the requisite experience and technology.
Penetration by International Suppliers into Regulated Markets
The implementation of emission regulations domestically and in non-U.S. markets also impacts international suppliers of industrial equipment products outside these regulated markets. International industrial OEMs that supply into regulated industrial OEM markets, including those already doing so and those recognizing emerging opportunities to sell their products into these markets, must meet applicable emission requirements, like those imposed by the EPA and CARB in the U.S. For example, Chinese and other Asian suppliers have recognized that, in order to effectively penetrate and sell into emission regulated industrial OEM markets like North America and Western Europe, their products must be emission-certified. These international industrial OEMs historically have lacked the regulatory and design expertise necessary to develop their own emission-certified power systems. Furthermore, they recognize that, even if they had or could acquire the relevant expertise, it can be much less time consuming and much more cost-effective for them to acquire compliant power systems from third-party suppliers, rather than internally developing and manufacturing their own solutions. Accordingly, just as domestic industrial OEMs are outsourcing this function, so too are international industrial OEMs, and we expect this trend to continue.
Growing Demand for Sophisticated Electronic Technology and Automotive Grade Quality Standards
Demanding automotive grade quality, as well as on-time delivery, has become standard practice in the industrial OEM marketplace. Consistent with the trend in the automotive industry, the level of technology and sophistication, including electronic controls, associated with industrial OEM power systems has advanced significantly to meet the growing demand for improved quality, reliability and performance. This has led to an ongoing reduction in the number of suppliers capable of supporting such product requirements.
Our Competitive Strengths
For nearly 30 years we have had a history and reputation as a proven supplier of cost-effective, technologically advanced products to the industrial OEM marketplace. We believe that our technological superiority and the comprehensive nature of our product offerings position us to capitalize on developing trends in the industrial OEM markets and drive significant future growth.
Broad Range of Alternative Fuel Power Systems
Our power systems represent a broad range of emission-certified, alternative fuel products for industrial applications. We are one of only a few providers of industrial OEM products that meet, and in many cases produce emissions at levels significantly lower than the emission standards of the EPA and CARB. Our alternative fuel engines range in size from under 1 liter to 22 liters and our power system configurations include any combination of cooling systems, electronic systems, air intake systems, fuel systems, housings, power
5
Table of Contents
takeoff systems, exhaust systems, hydraulic systems, enclosures, brackets, hoses, tubes and other assembled componentry. We provide standardized fuel system and component technology across our entire range of emission-certified power systems. As a result, our OEM customers are able to focus internal engineering and technical support resources, and train their personnel, on one standardized fuel system and one set of electronic controls employed throughout the range of power systems they acquire from us, and are able to reduce their product design and ongoing product support costs.
We believe our broad range of emission-certified, alternative fuel products strategically positions us to capitalize on the cost and packaging disadvantages associated with diesel power systems that are resulting from increased EPA and CARB emission regulations that are taking effect. Given the existing dominance of diesel power systems in the industrial OEM marketplace, even a minor shift in the marketplace from diesel to spark-ignited, alternative fuel power systems will represent a significant growth opportunity for us. Additionally, as international OEMs desire to supply industrial equipment products into the United States and must meet EPA and CARB emission requirements, we provide a fast, certain, cost-effective route for these foreign industrial OEMs to meet these emission requirements because we hold compliance certificates specific to our power systems. We have already secured commercial sales relationships with some of Asia’s largest industrial OEMs, and have begun supplying EPA and CARB compliant power systems to these industrial OEM customers for incorporation into their product lineups.
Leverageable, OEM-Focused Business Model
We are able to take advantage of opportunities for component standardization across industry categories, while still providing each industrial OEM with the flexibility to customize as required for particular design and application specifications. We aggregate our product development efforts, and can amortize associated costs, over our large and diverse OEM customer base and across industry categories. Furthermore, we capitalize on volume, economies of scale and global supply opportunities when sourcing component products. We can, therefore, provide our OEM customers with lower cost structures than they would otherwise be able to achieve and help them reduce their part numbers and supply base by consolidating their procurement and assembly efforts down to a single part number product supplied by us. Our component sourcing relationships further enable our OEM customers to recognize resource reductions, inventory reductions and engineering support advantages.
Additionally, our relationships with international OEM customers that supply their industrial equipment into the United States generate opportunities for us to further supplement our business. We believe that once one of our emission-certified power systems is engineered into a foreign industrial OEM’s product, that OEM is likely to also incorporate our power systems into its products that do not require emission-compliant power systems. This use by foreign industrial OEMs of our power systems for both their emission-certified and non-emission-compliant power system needs reduces ongoing engineering, aftermarket and field service support requirements, while supporting a product strategy that can easily be adjusted to any future worldwide changes in emission requirements. These relationships further provide us with growth opportunities beyond those dependent upon U.S. demand for emission regulated products, and solidify our supplier and partnership position with our foreign industrial OEM customers. Moreover, even if our relationship with an international OEM customer is limited to United States compliant power systems, we are in an opportune position to provide additional emission-
6
Table of Contents
compliant power systems in the future as emission regulations for industrial equipment begin to emerge in other countries around the world.
Superior Technology
We are a recognized leader in providing industrial OEMs with highly engineered, technologically superior, emission-certified power systems that cover a wide range of possible fuel alternatives. Our power system development and manufacturing processes are supported by in-house design, prototyping, testing and engineering capabilities. We believe our customers are able to realize significant costs savings by leveraging our proven power system technology, our application engineering expertise, the broad range of our EPA and CARB emission-certified power systems and our industrial equipment testing and certification processes. They are also able to focus their efforts on the development of operations and system components core to their business, without having to expend considerable resources associated with the emission certification process, which may require years to perform durability testing of the engine emission system at zero and 5,000 hours, production line testing on a quarterly basis and field compliance audit testing, each of which is mandated and regulated by the EPA and CARB.
The level and range of our EPA and CARB emission-certified products offering further demonstrates the strength of our technology. Our emission-certified products meet all current existing emission standards of the EPA and CARB. We are able to maintain and enhance our position as a supplier of technologically sophisticated, emission-certified power systems through our experienced and technologically savvy team of application engineers. This team gives us the ability to support and integrate our power systems into a significant number of industrial OEM applications. We believe that our continued recruitment and development of talented personnel will augment our ability to stay ahead of emerging technologies in the industrial OEM marketplace.
Further, we are not captive to our own internal manufactured components and technology. Unlike some of our competitors that focus on developing and manufacturing most of their own product technology and components, we believe that superior technology is derived from having the flexibility to incorporate the best proven technology available in the marketplace. This affords us the flexibility to capitalize on current and emerging technology that best meets the requirements of any given application, as opposed to only using internally-developed technology that might not provide the best solution. As a result, we believe we have access to the best proven technology in the marketplace. We believe this strategy puts us in a strong position to benefit from our significant OEM customer base and aggregation capabilities in order to provide the best available product and technology solutions for our OEM customers.
Dedicated Customer-Centric Product and Application Expertise
We have a customer-centric business focus, and we continually strive for customer satisfaction at all levels of customer interaction. We commit our attention and efforts to nurturing and expanding relationships with our customers by staying connected with them, being aware of challenges they face and understanding their evolving needs. From production personnel to our customer support staff, our entire team is highly experienced in both the products we sell and the OEM customer applications into which they are integrated. Through our extensive experience in the industrial OEM marketplace and our adaptive technology strategy that we use in developing our power systems, we are able to accept the specific requests of individual customers and provide tailored power systems to meet their needs. We assign a dedicated engineer to each OEM customer for application support and to provide a direct line of communication between the OEM’s manufacturing line and our production operations. Our quality, field service support and service operations provide knowledgeable and responsive support to our OEM customers at every point of customer interface.
7
Table of Contents
Growth Strategy
Our core strategy is to develop comprehensive power systems for the global industrial OEM marketplace. We believe that, with our competitive advantages, our continued pursuit of our core strategy will drive growth in our business. More specifically, we intend to seek future growth as follows:
Expand Products and Services Provided to Existing OEM Customers
We continually work to capitalize on organic growth opportunities and build upon our strong existing customer relationships, which in many cases are on a sole source basis. We plan to expand our business with existing customers by supporting their growth initiatives as they expand their product lines, enter new markets, and adapt to changing emission standards. We also intend to develop and sell new products to our OEM customers as we broaden our range of emission-certified, alternative fuel power systems.
Establish New Industrial OEM Relationships
We expect to strengthen our OEM customer base by developing new relationships with industrial OEMs. We seek to acquire new clients and gain new business from OEMs that we do not presently serve by focusing our marketing efforts toward these potential customers and capitalizing on our strong reputation; the depth, breadth and technological sophistication of our power systems; our commitment to customer service; and the cost savings we can offer. Emphasizing our experience and reputation in market categories in which our power systems are already well-established, such as power generation, we are focused on establishing new industrial OEM relationships and capturing a greater portion of the market share. We are also targeting new OEM customers in high-growth market categories, such as on-road, material handling and oil and gas applications, while maintaining and enhancing our penetration in market categories that are growing more slowly. As we gain traction in emerging and high growth markets that did not previously represent significant opportunities for our power systems, we plan to further focus our efforts on potential customers in those categories.
Expand Into New Geographic Markets
We are focused on expanding our business internationally with OEM customers that require EPA and CARB compliant power systems to access the U.S. market and for non-compliant systems used in products sold outside the U.S. In 2012, we entered into a China-based joint venture with MAT Holdings, Inc. for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling certain engines into the Asian market, initially focusing on the forklift market. Furthermore, because we expect countries outside of the United States to implement emission regulations that are aligned with U.S. standards, we anticipate an opportunity to expand our relationships with industrial OEMs that supply emission-compliant products outside of the U.S. If such emission regulations are implemented consistent with our expectation, we anticipate being able to provide power systems to industrial OEMs that meet applicable foreign emission standards by leveraging our existing technology and experience in developing our EPA and CARB emission-certified products.
Develop New Products
By leveraging the deep industry experience of our engineering and new product development teams, we are working to broaden the range of our power system product offerings, including, with respect to engine classes and the industrial OEM market categories into which we supply our products. We capitalize on our technologically sophisticated, in-house design, prototyping, testing and application engineering capabilities to further refine our superior spark-ignited power system technology. We plan to apply our experience and expertise in developing comprehensive, integrated green power systems to expand our spark-ignited alternative fuel offerings.
8
Table of Contents
Expand Into On-Road Market
We have developed an internally designed, state-of-the-art, 8.8-liter fuel flexible engine that we currently sell into the industrial market and we plan to sell to truck and bus OEMs which will be a fully-integrated on-road drop-in solution. We expect this engine to have a wide range of applications, including school buses, waste-hauling trucks and medium-duty delivery trucks. Furthermore, we have recently expanded our on-road product line by entering a multi-year supply agreement with General Motors for 4.8-liter and 6.0-liter fuel engines. We believe we now have a comprehensive range of alternative fuel powertrains for vehicle OEMs in the Class 4 through Class 7 truck and bus market.
Selectively Pursue Complementary Strategic Transactions
We may enter into strategic transactions, such as acquisitions of, or joint ventures or partnerships with, companies that present complementary non-organic growth opportunities. Specifically, we will seek opportunities that extend or supplement our presence into new geographic markets or industrial OEM market categories, expand our customer base, add new products or service applications or provide significant operating synergies. We believe that there may be domestic or international strategic opportunities available to us as the sophistication of technology and amount of resources necessary to develop and supply power systems that meet increasingly stringent emission standards continue to increase.
Company History
Founded in 1985, we sought to break the then-prevalent OEM focus on the diesel engine as a commodity by providing value-added engineering, procurement and packaging of products and services to the industrial OEM marketplace. Because of our expanded product and service offerings, we played a significant role in moving the industrial OEM marketplace from a simple, engine-centric model to a more comprehensive model. This comprehensive power system model includes engineering, procurement and packaging solutions for cooling, electronics, air intake, fuel systems, power takeoff, exhaust, hydraulics and packaging application requirements. Through implementation of our strategy, we grew our diesel power system sales and became one of the largest Perkins diesel power system distributors in the world, a position we still maintain today.
Our desire to expand our product and service offerings, coupled with the success of our strategy in the diesel marketplace, motivated us to move into the marketplace for spark-ignited power systems. From the mid-1990s going forward, we have applied our strategy to spark-ignited gasoline and alternative fuel products. In applying our extensive, prior experience developing power systems for our diesel power system OEM customers to the spark-ignited industrial OEM marketplace, and addressing the growing demand for diesel alternatives as a result of environmental and economic considerations, we have developed a comprehensive range of alternative fuel power systems. As a result, we have become a significant supplier of power systems to prominent OEM customers located throughout North America, with sales to OEM customers located (with location determined based upon the continent to which we ship a product) throughout North America representing approximately 93% of our net sales in 2013. We also sell our power systems to OEM customers located throughout Asia (approximately 6% of our net sales in 2013) and Europe (approximately 1% of our net sales in 2013).
On April 29, 2011, The W Group, Inc. completed a reverse acquisition transaction with Format, Inc. (which is now Power Solutions International, Inc.), in which PSI Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was newly-created as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Format, merged into The W Group, and The W Group remained as the surviving corporation of the merger. In that transaction, The W Group became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Power Solutions International, Inc.
Format was incorporated in the state of Nevada on March 21, 2001 for the purpose of providing EDGARizing services to various commercial and corporate entities. Immediately prior to the consummation of the reverse acquisition transaction, Format was engaged, to a limited extent, in EDGARizing corporate
9
Table of Contents
documents for filing with the SEC, and providing limited commercial printing services, and had assets that included cash, rights under a services agreement with Format’s sole customer (which agreement was terminated in connection with the reverse recapitalization), a real property lease pursuant to which Format leased its sole office space (which lease was transferred to Ryan Neely, Format’s sole director and executive officer immediately prior to the closing of the reverse recapitalization, in connection with the reverse recapitalization) and depreciated office equipment located in Format’s transferred, leased office space. Due to the nominal operations and assets of Format immediately prior to the consummation of the reverse recapitalization and related transactions, this reverse acquisition transaction was accounted for as a recapitalization.
The reverse recapitalization transaction was consummated under Delaware corporate law pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger. Upon completion of the reverse recapitalization, Format changed its name to Power Solutions International, Inc. All of the outstanding shares of common stock of The W Group held by the three stockholders of The W Group at the closing of the reverse recapitalization converted into an aggregate of 10,000,000 shares of our common stock and 95,960.90289 shares of preferred stock. These shares represented a substantial majority of the shares of our common stock and shares of preferred stock outstanding immediately following the consummation of the reverse recapitalization transaction.
In connection with the reverse recapitalization transaction, Format entered into a stock repurchase and debt satisfaction agreement with Ryan Neely and his wife, Michelle Neely. Pursuant to this agreement, at the time the reverse recapitalization transaction was completed, (1) Format repurchased 3,000,000 shares of Format common stock, representing approximately 79.57% of the shares of Format common stock outstanding immediately prior to the consummation of the reverse recapitalization transaction, from Ryan and Michelle Neely, and (2) Ryan Neely and Michelle Neely terminated all of their interest in, and released Format from all obligations it had with respect to, the loans made by Ryan Neely and Michelle Neely to Format from time to time, in exchange for aggregate consideration of $360,000. In addition, Ryan and Michelle Neely released Format from any obligations Format had to them in respect of any other amounts (including any accrued compensation) that may have been at any time owed from Format prior to the closing of the reverse recapitalization. In connection with, but prior to, the closing of the reverse recapitalization, Format used all of its available cash to settle remaining liabilities that Format had prior to the completion of the reverse recapitalization. These included amounts owed to Format’s accountants, independent auditors and legal counsel; provided that Format’s legal counsel agreed to release Format from its obligation to pay a portion of legal fees incurred by Format in connection with the reverse recapitalization and related transactions. Further, in connection with, but prior to, the closing of the reverse recapitalization, Format entered into a termination agreement, pursuant to which Format terminated its services agreement with its sole customer. In connection with, but prior to, the closing of the reverse recapitalization, Format also transferred to Ryan Neely all of its rights and obligations under the real property lease relating to Format’s sole office space.
As a result of the reverse recapitalization, Power Solutions International, Inc. succeeded to the business of The W Group.
Pursuant to the terms of the private placement, we also agreed to consummate, and Format’s board of directors approved, a migratory merger of our company into a Delaware corporation. On August 25, 2011, we held a special meeting of our stockholders at which our stockholders approved the reverse split, the migratory merger and related matters. On August 26, 2011, Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, merged into its wholly-owned subsidiary, Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, continued as the surviving entity of the migratory merger. Pursuant to the migratory merger, we changed our state of incorporation from Nevada to Delaware and each 32 shares of common stock of Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, converted into one share of common stock of the surviving entity in the migratory merger, thereby effecting a 1-for-32 reverse stock split of our common stock. As a result of the migratory merger, (1) Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, acquired all of the rights, privileges and powers, and became subject to all restrictions and duties, of Power Solutions International, Inc., the previously existing Nevada corporation, (2) all liabilities and
10
Table of Contents
obligations of Power Solutions International, Inc., the previously existing Nevada corporation, became the liabilities and obligations of Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as the surviving corporation of the migratory merger and (3) Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, succeeded to the business of Power Solutions International, Inc., the previously existing Nevada corporation.
Further, pursuant to the Certificate of Designation for the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock and the agreement and plan of merger for the migratory merger, and upon the effective date of the migratory merger, each share of preferred stock automatically converted into a number of shares of our common stock equal to $1,000 divided by $12.00, the conversion price then in effect as adjusted for the migratory merger and the reverse split. Any stockholder of our company that was otherwise entitled to a fraction of a share of our common stock (after aggregating all fractional shares of our common stock to be received by such holder) as a result of the migratory merger, received an additional share of our common stock (in other words, the aggregate number of shares of our common stock of a stockholder resulting from the migratory merger was rounded up to the nearest whole number). The authorized shares of our capital stock and the par value of our common stock immediately following the consummation of the migratory merger are identical to the authorized shares of capital stock of Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and the par value of its common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the migratory merger.
Our Products and Industry Categories
Power Systems for Off-Highway Industrial Equipment
Our power systems are customized to meet specific industrial OEM application requirements. Power system configurations range from a basic engine block integrated with appropriate fuel system components to completely packaged power systems that include any combination of cooling systems, electronic systems, air intake systems, fuel systems, housings, power takeoff systems, exhaust systems, hydraulic systems, enclosures, brackets, hoses, tubes and other assembled componentry.
Our power systems include (1) EPA and CARB emission-certified spark-ignited water-cooled internal combustion engines ranging from 0.97 liters to 21.9 liters, which use alternative fuels and gasoline, (2) non-certified spark-ignited water-cooled internal combustion engines ranging up to 22 liters, which similarly use alternative fuels and gasoline, and (3) emission-certified Perkins engines ranging from 0.5 liters to 7.1 liters, which use diesel fuel. Our diesel and alternative fuel power systems use water-cooled (as opposed to air-cooled), multi-cylinder engines.
Our products are sold into a diversified set of markets within the industrial OEM industry, including power generation, oil and gas, material handling, aerial work platforms, sweepers, arbor, welding, airport ground support, agricultural, turf, construction and irrigation. Different types of power systems are used within different industry categories (from which we receive varying, unequal amounts of revenues).
Power Generation
We offer EPA and CARB emission-certified power systems, including 0.97 liter to 21.9 liter power systems that use alternative fuels, for stationary emergency and non-emergency power generation products. Emergency engines are stationary engines which operate solely in emergency situations and during required periodic testing and maintenance. Examples include engines used in generators to produce power for critical networks when electrical power from the local utility provider is interrupted, and stand-by engines that pump water in the event of a fire or flood. Non-emergency products include prime power generation products, which produce continuous generation of power for an extended period of time, and peak shaving products, which generate power at times of maximum power demand.
We currently supply our power systems to a substantial number of manufacturers of power generation products. We believe that our customers choose our power systems because of our broad range of emission-
11
Table of Contents
certified, spark-ignited power systems for this industry category. Additionally, by using a common fuel system and electronic controls across our range of power systems, we provide our customers with the opportunity to support and train their personnel on one standardized fuel system and one set of electronic controls employed throughout the range of products they acquire from us.
Material Handling — Forklift Trucks
The material handling market category includes forklift trucks and other mobile products used for movement, handling and storage of materials within a facility or at a specific location. We provide spark-ignited power systems into the high volume 1.5, 3.5 and 5 ton capacity forklift markets, and may expand production in the future to support the 8 and 10 ton forklift markets in connection with anticipated increases in diesel prices resulting from regulations on diesel engines taking effect through 2015.
Demand is currently strong in the United States for our material handling power systems as a result of emission and OSHA regulations. Based upon data supplied by Power Systems Research, Inc., we believe that, in the United States, nearly 100% of the indoor forklift market uses spark-ignited liquid propane gas or electric powered units (with approximately equal market shares), in contrast to Asian and European forklift markets which currently use diesel in excess of 80% of all applications. In connection with the implementation of EPA Tier 4 and European Stage IV regulations, and the resulting price increases related to the compliance of diesel engines with these regulations, we expect foreign markets for spark-ignited liquid propane gas power systems to grow. We expect this growth to drive increased international demand for our power systems.
Oil and Gas
The oil and gas market category includes oil field pumps, progressing cavity pumps, and other components and machines used in drilling, evaluation, completion and production of oil and gas assets. Previously, OEMs competing in these markets were generally not concerned about fuel economy, cost of repair or efficiency of operation. Today, however, there is a growing focus in this market category on, and understanding of, the costs associated with down time, the value of fuel savings with more economical solutions and the benefits of using product portfolios with consistent fuel systems and aftermarket support. We believe that these factors will create significant opportunities for our power systems in this market category. Furthermore, we believe that recent discoveries of oil and gas reserves in North America will drive domestic demand for the products of oil and gas OEMs, enhancing our growth opportunities.
We are continuing to develop relationships with oil and gas companies for their well head jacks, compressors and power generators. We believe we are the only provider in this market that supplies pre-certified, as opposed to site-certified, power systems. Site certification is a tedious and costly process for oil and gas equipment OEMs that can take many hours to source components and integrate them into existing fuel system hardware (if even possible).
Aerial Work Platforms
The aerial work platforms market category consists of aerial work platforms, or machines used to provide access to areas typically inaccessible because of their height. Rental companies represent a majority of all purchasers in this industry category. We currently sell our liquid propane gas/gasoline dual fuel power systems to aerial work platform OEMs.
As a result of the increase in diesel engine pricing related to the implementation of EPA Tier 4 regulations, we expect to see an increase in the number of OEMs in the aerial work platforms market which consider our liquid propane gas and gasoline powered power systems as an alternative to diesel powered power systems.
12
Table of Contents
Industrial Sweepers
The industrial indoor sweeper market category consists of machines that clean and sweep various indoor surfaces. The power systems for this market category use both spark-ignited and diesel engines, as well as electric motors. We currently sell our 30 to 80 horsepower liquid propane gas and gasoline power systems to industrial indoor sweeper OEMs.
Arbor Products
The arbor products market category includes wood chippers and grinders. We currently provide engines to four of the largest OEMs of wood chippers in the United States. We also design and manufacture our own proprietary power take-off clutch, which may be applied to any of our arbor product power systems. See “— Other Engine Power Products — Power Take Off (“PTO”) Clutch Assemblies for Industrial Applications.”
We believe that our diesel power systems maintain a leading position in the market for wood chippers that use water-cooled engines. We believe the diesel regulations that are taking effect will cause EPA Tier 4 diesel engine packages to become more expensive and, as a result, open the market for consideration of our gasoline and other alternative fuel engine packages.
Other Industry Categories
We provide power systems within other industrial OEM markets, including welding, airport ground support, agricultural, turf, construction and irrigation.
Other Engine Power Products
Power Take Off (PTO) Clutch Assemblies for Industrial Applications
We design and manufacture our own proprietary PTO clutch assemblies, which are mechanical components that drive separate power to various parts of a given piece of industrial equipment, for industrial applications. Our PTO clutch assemblies are designed for heavy duty industrial applications.
Customized OEM Subsystems, Kits and Componentry
Through our global sourcing capabilities, we supply engine packaging, subsystems, kits and componentry associated with cooling systems, electronic systems, air intake systems, fuel systems, housings and power takeoff systems, exhaust systems, hydraulic systems and enclosures to industrial OEMs for incorporation into their applications, in addition to the complete engine power systems we provide to these OEMs.
Connected Asset Services
We offer connected asset services through MasterTrak, our telematics tool, which consists of a hardware unit and related services. This hardware unit is integrated into OEM equipment, collects critical data from this equipment and transmits this data back to an OEM, service provider or end-user through wireless telecommunications technology. The services allow our customers to see the data and monitor the performance of their equipment. We provide services to our OEM customers that allow these OEMs and their customers to remain connected to their equipment, even as the equipment is being operated in the field. These capabilities and services are in many respects similar to General Motors Company’s “ONSTAR®” (a registered trademark of OnStar LLC) service. Our MasterTrak offering includes:
| • | GPS for location monitoring, geofencing and directions for rapid service dispatching; |
| • | Automated and continuous remote asset monitoring with automatic alerts and notifications that can be transmitted via e-mail and text messaging; |
| • | Maintenance management, which provides the ability to monitor and provide notice of impending equipment maintenance requirements based on actual equipment utilization (as opposed to random time intervals); |
13
Table of Contents
| • | Real-time, bi-directional communication capability for remote testing and troubleshooting; and |
| • | Extensive web-based monitoring and reporting capability with multi-tiered system security available at all times. |
Through MasterTrak, we provide our OEM customers and their customers the ability to track the location and functional status (including maintenance requirements) of their assets in real-time via web access and automated alerts. These monitoring capabilities provide information regarding the specific utilization characteristics of a connected asset, and allow our customers and their customers to efficiently and proactively schedule service maintenance. These attributes help reduce unexpected equipment failures, which can further reduce the total cost of ownership of a given piece of equipment, and may generate additional sale and service opportunities for the OEM customer.
We offer MasterTrak with our engine power systems as a bundled offering, and also on a stand-alone basis both to our OEM customers and to other businesses to which we do not currently supply our power systems. We have also developed a relationship with SmartEquip, based in Norwalk, Connecticut, to incorporate MasterTrak into SmartEquip’s aftermarket service platform for industry suppliers. This product pairs data regarding failures and faults generated by MasterTrak with OEM-provided recommendations to remedy these faults, and produces a corrective or preventative maintenance solution.
Service and Support
Aftermarket and Service Parts
We have extensive aftermarket and service parts programs. These programs consist of: (1) internal aftermarket service parts programs with worldwide sales and distribution capabilities, and (2) internal OEM developed service parts programs for components and products supplied by us. We continue to focus on, and invest in, the aftermarket portion of our business. We have grown our industrial spark-ignited engine parts business by employing experts in the gas engine aftermarket field, increasing our investment in global sourcing of parts and expanding parts books and online ordering capabilities. We have also developed stocking programs and maintenance kits that enable OEMs, service dealers and distributors to reduce downtime and increase product use.
We have focused on capturing the aftermarket sales of the value added components that we include in our power systems. With a significant portion of the selling prices of our power systems coming from value added components, this is a large, continuing growth opportunity for our aftermarket business.
Product and Warranty Support
We provide technical support and training to our OEM customers. These services include in-plant training and support through web — and phone — based field service. Our dedicated team of product and application engineers delivers high quality, responsive technical support to our OEM customers. We further support our OEM customers by engaging regional providers to perform warranty service and offer support for our power systems. In general, we reimburse these third-party regional providers for the warranty services that they perform for our power systems.
Customers
Our customers include companies that are large, industry-leading and/or multinational organizations that demand first class engineering support, automotive grade product quality and on-time delivery. We believe that the number of competitors capable of supporting not just the sophisticated technology requirements, but also that the world class automotive engineering, quality and delivery requirements emphasized by industrial OEMs is limited. We are solidly positioned to capitalize on the diminishing base of suppliers capable of meeting these
14
Table of Contents
increasingly stringent customer expectations. In almost every industrial OEM category, we maintain a supplier relationship with two or more of the largest OEMs in that category.
Our depth of expertise, technical superiority and broad range of product offerings is the underlying basis for our position as a sole source provider of products to a majority of our OEM customers. We estimate that over 70% of the power systems that we supply are provided to our major OEM customers on a sole-source basis. Our strong customer base, which includes a diversity of customers across industry categories, provides a broad range of opportunities for continued growth.
Our arrangements with our customers, including our relationships with our industrial OEM customers in Asia, generally do not fix, on other than a short-term basis, pricing terms or quantities of our power systems to be purchased and sold and typically do not mandate exclusivity. Purchases are made by customers on a purchase order basis, with pricing of our power systems driven in large part by the volume of power systems purchased by a particular customer and market-based factors, including the price of raw materials and other components incorporated into our power systems, as well as prices for comparable power systems, if any, offered by our competitors.
Our largest customers, based upon our consolidated revenues in 2013, include Bandit, Kohler, Moser Energy Systems, Nacco and Taylor Power Systems, of which Kohler was the only one that represented more than ten percent of our 2013 consolidated revenues. Our relationships with these customers are all pursuant to terms and conditions substantially similar to the arrangements described above, including the manner in which prices are determined. Our largest customers change from time to time as a result of various factors, including prevailing market conditions, our customers’ strategies (such as their focus on marketing and sales efforts with respect to products into which our power systems are incorporated as compared to their other products) and our customers’ existing inventory of our power systems.
Operations and Research and Development
Design and Engineering / Research and Development
Our research and development efforts are market driven. Our sales team first meets to identify and define market requirements and trends and then communicates that vision to our engineering and new product development groups. Our engineering and new product development groups then review our existing power system portfolio and develop new solutions that build upon the technology within that portfolio. We maintain in-house design, prototyping, testing and application engineering capability, including specialists in EPA and CARB certification, fuel systems, electronics, cooling systems, mechanical engineering and application engineering. Our design and application engineering expertise and capabilities include expertise in (1) emissions compliance, (2) design and development of standardized and customized products for incorporation into industrial equipment, (3) three-dimensional solid modeling and finite element analysis, (4) computer-based modeling and testing, (5) rapid OEM product prototyping, (6) industrial OEM product retrofitting and testing and (7) support for application engineering and system integration.
We also rely upon engineering outsourcing relationships for design, development and product testing that allow us to fulfill demands for specialty services and satisfy fluctuating workload requirements. In particular, since 2009, we have used outside engineering relationships to supplement product design, development and testing services as dictated by demands from our industrial OEM customers. We require these third-party engineering service providers to treat all design, development and testing information provided to them as confidential. In addition to these engineering outsourcing relationships, where applicable, we also benefit from the design, development and testing capabilities of our supplier base.
We provide the design, durability testing, validation testing and compliance with other engineering and administrative requirements necessary to meet and obtain EPA and CARB certification for a range of spark-
15
Table of Contents
ignited engines. As a result, we provide our OEM customers with emission-certified power systems, without these OEMs having to expend considerable research and development time and resources related to obtaining power system certification. We further provide the tools and services necessary to support revalidation and other EPA and CARB requirements that exist beyond the initial emission compliance requirements. As a result of such revalidation, we become the “manufacturer of record,” which is the entity that holds the applicable regulatory certifications for a power system, for the emission-certified power system.
We staff our engineering support activities associated with released product and component sourcing programs with dedicated internal engineering personnel, separate from our product and application development engineering team. This allows us to provide committed engineering and technical attention to internal operational support, customer production support and component sourcing activities, thereby helping to buffer the demands placed on our product and application development engineering group. Through such attention and support, we are able to maximize the focus of our product and application development engineering group on current and future design, prototyping, testing and application development activities resulting in shorter design, prototyping and testing cycles for our OEM customer base.
Our research and development expenditures for our fiscal years 2013, 2012 and 2011 were approximately $9.4 million, $6.8 million and $4.0 million, respectively.
Manufacturing
We currently manufacture our products at our facilities in Wood Dale, Illinois. We customize our power systems to meet specific requirements of industrial OEM applications and the needs of our industrial OEM customers. We have recently invested in machining equipment to hone and finish our internally designed engine blocks, which are initially cast at a supplier’s foundry. Our production operations encompass all aspects of manufacturing our power systems, which range from fitting a basic engine block with appropriate fuel system components to building a comprehensive power system that includes any combination of cooling systems, electronic systems, air intake systems, fuel systems, housings, power takeoff systems, exhaust systems, hydraulic systems, enclosures, brackets, hoses, tubes and other assembled componentry.
The manufacturing lines in our production facilities are technologically sophisticated and flexible, and we allocate production capacity on our manufacturing lines to accommodate the demand levels and product mix required by our OEM customers. Our manufacturing lines are equipped with display screens, through which our production personnel are able to monitor design and other technological specifications for each product being assembled on the manufacturing line at that time. The information displayed on these screens is supplied from a central server, which is updated in real-time with all current product information. Through this process, we ensure that the product manufacturing and other specifications used by our production personnel represent the most current information available. We have also developed efficient in-line methods to support specialized product testing, as required by a specific customer or product application.
Our engineering and manufacturing systems use sophisticated, paperless, integrated, software-based management and control systems. Our warehouse systems include computerized management systems and high speed infrastructure such as wire guided racking systems and high density automated carousel systems. We use a dynamic, software-driven inventory management system, which allows us to accurately monitor inventory levels for our comprehensive power systems, subsystems and individual components. We also incorporate within our manufacturing process, software, that enables us to identify and deliver components and other parts to our OEM customers.
We focus on safety, quality and on-time delivery in our manufacturing operations. We are 9001-2008 ISO Certified, the highest ISO certification available. The ISO 9000 family of quality management standards, which must be met in order to become ISO certified, is designed to help organizations monitor and improve the delivery of products and/or services to their customers. We also use Six Sigma, a business management strategy designed
16
Table of Contents
to minimize variability in manufacturing and business processes, 5S, a workplace organization methodology designed to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, and other disciplines in our goal of continuous improvements in quality and on-time delivery. Structured staff training is a constant priority and includes closed-loop quality monitoring and feedback systems.
Supplier Relationships
Engine and Component Suppliers
We have established relationships with suppliers for the engines to be integrated into our comprehensive power systems, the most significant of which are Doosan, General Motors and Perkins/Caterpillar. We also source our other power system components from third party suppliers. We coordinate design efforts with suppliers for some of our key components. In addition, we internally design other parts and components for our products, own the tooling for such parts and components and globally source them from a variety of domestic and global suppliers. Because we design many of our parts and components in-house, we are generally not limited in our choice of suppliers. As such, we are able to select our supplier relationships based upon a supplier’s reliability and performance.
We aggregate our product sourcing efforts across our large and diverse OEM customer base and across industry categories, capitalizing on volume, economies of scale and global supply opportunities. Our OEM customers benefit from the aggregation of our global sourcing, procurement, assembly and packaging services, obtaining cost benefits that they might not obtain if they were to rely on their own internal resources, capabilities and more limited demand requirements. Through this process, industrial OEMs are able to reduce their part numbers and supply base by consolidating their procurement and assembly efforts down to a single part number product supplied by us. We deliver this single assembly to an industrial OEM’s production line as an integrated drop-in to the OEM’s end product.
Arrangements with Key Suppliers
We enter into various arrangements with suppliers from which we source engines and other components which are incorporated into our power systems. These arrangements generally govern the terms and conditions upon which we purchase engines, components and other raw materials for use in our power systems. In general, the prices at which we purchase engines, components and other raw materials are based on market factors, including the prices offered by other suppliers operating in the same market and the prevailing market prices of raw materials. The terms of each of the individual arrangements are negotiated with each supplier on an individual basis, but are generally consistent with typical arrangements between manufacturers and suppliers in our industry.
Under our distribution agreement with Perkins, we are the exclusive distributor of specified Perkins engines within a territory consisting of the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, and all but the southern tip of Illinois. We are a non-exclusive distributor of specified Perkins engines within a territory consisting of the states of Nebraska and Kansas, as well as, portions of the state of Missouri. In exchange for this exclusive territory, we are required to purchase from Perkins all of our requirements for the same or similar engines covered by the agreement. As described in further detail below under “Sales and Marketing; Value-Added Resellers; Distribution — Sales and Marketing; Value-Added Resellers,” under the distribution agreement with Perkins, we are also required to establish a service and support network that provides various services to our customers that purchase power systems which use Perkins engines. This distribution agreement with Perkins is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014.
We are also party to a supply agreement with Doosan, under which we purchase and distribute, on a semi-exclusive basis, specified Doosan engines within a territory consisting of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Under this supply agreement, we are required to purchase from Doosan all of our requirements for the same or
17
Table of Contents
similar engines covered by the agreement. We are also required to purchase a minimum number of engines from Doosan during each year that the agreement is in effect and, if we do not meet these purchase requirements, then Doosan may terminate the exclusivity granted under the agreement. This supply agreement with Doosan automatically renews annually for successive one-year periods but may be terminated with six months’ written notice by either party prior to the end of the then-current term.
Unlike our arrangements with Perkins and Doosan, we do not maintain an exclusive relationship with GM. We receive a pricing package each year (or sometimes more frequently) containing applicable price quotations, as if we operate as an OEM that uses GM engines as a key component of our power systems. Purchases of engines from GM are executed through purchase orders at prices listed in the pricing package under the general terms of sale that GM offers to its OEM customers.
Sales and Marketing; Value-Added Resellers; Distribution
Sales and Marketing; Value Added Resellers
We employ a direct sales and marketing approach to maintain maximum interface with, and service support for, our OEM customers. This direct interface incorporates our internal technical sales representatives. In Asia, we currently complement our direct OEM relationships with a local, independent sales and product support organization. This local sales and support organization provides the necessary knowledge of local customs and requirements, while also providing immediate sales assistance and customer support. In general, we engage third parties to provide local service and support functions for our power systems sold to our domestic OEM customers on a case by case basis, as necessary. Further, as required by our agreement with Perkins, we have also established a service and support network in our 12-state territory that provides various services to our customers that purchase power systems using Perkins engines, including warranty support, servicing of Perkins engines, technical support and parts support (including support for aftermarket parts).
In Europe, we enter into arrangements with third parties, pursuant to which these third parties resell our power systems (in some cases sold with add-on power system components) to European OEM customers. These value-added resellers also provide application and engineering support for these power systems sold in Europe. We currently sell our power systems to value-added resellers in Europe on a similar basis as our sales to our OEM customers. At any particular point in time, we are typically selling our power systems to between one and five value-added resellers in Europe.
Aftermarket Distribution
Our aftermarket and service parts distribution organization consist of three main sales and distribution programs:
| • | OEM Customers With an In-House, Spark-Ignited Product Service Parts Program: For our OEM customers that maintain their own service parts distribution and product support programs, we supply them with the information and component products required to support an effective global OEM customer service parts program. |
| • | OEM Customers Without an In-House, Spark-Ignited Product Service Parts Program: For our OEM customers that do not maintain their own service parts distribution and product support programs, we maintain a web-based and internal sales-oriented global aftermarket and service parts distribution system for our spark-ignited product and ancillary components. Through this product support program that we provide on behalf of our OEM customers, we capitalize on market opportunities that exist outside of those associated with our OEM customer base. |
| • | Perkins Diesel Service Parts Program: We provide Perkins diesel service parts through a network of established service and parts organizations located throughout our 12-state distributor territory, as described above under “Arrangements with Key Suppliers”. |
18
Table of Contents
Intellectual Property
Our business depends, in substantial part, upon our proprietary technology, processes, know-how and other confidential and proprietary information. In particular, we consider portions of our emission certification process to be confidential and proprietary trade secrets. In addition to putting our OEM customers’ engines through initial emission compliance testing, including durability testing, production line testing and field compliance audit testing, we also provide the tools, and perform sophisticated testing and other services, on these engines to comply with EPA and CARB requirements. As a result of the lengthy and technologically sophisticated testing we perform to revalidate these engines, we become the “manufacturer of record” for the emission-certified power system that is incorporated into our OEM customers’ equipment. As the manufacturer of record, we are responsible for compliance with regulations as they relate to our emission-certified power systems (as more fully discussed below under “Government Regulation”). We incur the costs of certification of our power systems, as well as the risk of making sure that these systems remain compliant. Additionally, we use technologically sophisticated development, testing, launching and other manufacturing processes in connection with the manufacturing of our power systems, as well as in coordinating design efforts with power system component suppliers.
In addition, many of the components we source from our suppliers and which are integrated into our power systems embody proprietary intellectual property of such suppliers. To a limited extent, we also license proprietary software, much of which is “off the shelf,” from third parties for use in our manufacturing processes, and we also license and rely upon third party technology included in our telematics tool. We rely on a combination of trademark, trade secret and other intellectual property laws and various contract rights to protect our proprietary rights, as well as to protect the intellectual property rights of our suppliers and third party licensors. We do not currently own any material patents, but believe that the policies and safeguards we have in place, together with the costs associated with the development, testing, launch and marketing of competitive products, adequately protect our valuable trade secrets and other intellectual property rights.
Competition
We believe we are one of the few providers of comprehensive power systems to the industrial OEM market. However, the market for our products and related services is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and sensitive to new product and service introductions and changes in technical requirements. Some competitors have longer operating histories, strong name recognition and significant financial and marketing resources. Competition in our markets may become more intense as additional companies enter them and as new technologies are adopted. Generally, we believe that the principal competitive factors for our business include the following:
| • | Completeness and comprehensiveness of power systems; |
| • | Range of power systems employing a common technology platform; |
| • | Emissions regulation (EPA and CARB) compliance and certification; |
| • | Ease of installation; |
| • | Pricing and cost effectiveness; |
| • | Breadth of product offerings, including system power and fuel alternatives; |
| • | Ability to tailor power systems to specific customer needs; |
| • | Performance and quality; and |
| • | Customer support and service. |
We believe that, with our current product lineup and our ongoing research and product development efforts, as well as our global procurement capabilities, we are able to compete effectively based on each of these factors.
19
Table of Contents
Among our competitors are fuel system providers such as Westport Innovations, Inc., Fuel System Solutions and Woodward Governor, Inc. These companies supply engines and engine system componentry into the industrial OEM marketplace. However, we do not believe that any of the other fuel system providers with which we compete are able to provide the single assembly, integrated, comprehensive power systems that our OEM customers demand and that we provide on a cost-effective basis. Further, some of our competitors do not have the internal resources or capabilities to enable them to meet these customer requirements and, in their efforts to compete, sometimes rely upon third party logistic companies to fit and dress engine systems with specific engine parts and components which these competitors are unable to provide themselves. As a result of the changing environment of the marketplace, some fuel system providers have been forced into non-core competency areas and some have exited the marketplace entirely.
Other competitors have been automotive engine companies, but a number have ceased directly supplying power systems to industrial OEMs (although they continue to supply their standard engines and components to producers of power systems for this market). They have left this market primarily because production of emission-compliant and certified industrial engines is not in their core competency areas and because the changing regulations create difficulties for them, as engine life spans are short. More generally, we believe that the significant costs associated with developing and certifying emission-compliant power systems as applicable regulations change have led some companies to exit our markets and have deterred others from entering them.
Government Regulation
Our Power Systems
Our power systems are subject to extensive statutory and regulatory requirements that directly or indirectly impose standards governing exhaust emissions and noise. Our power systems are subject to compliance with all current exhaust emissions standards imposed by the EPA, state regulatory agencies in the United States, including CARB, and other regulatory agencies around the world and established for power systems used in off-highway industrial equipment. EPA and CARB regulations imposed on engines used in industrial off-highway equipment generally serve to restrict exhaust emissions, with a primary focus on oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Exhaust emission regulations for engines used in off-highway industrial equipment vary based upon the use of the equipment into which the engine is incorporated (such as stationary power generation or mobile off-highway industrial equipment), and the type of fuel used to drive the power system. Further, applicable exhaust emission thresholds differ based upon the gross power of an engine used in industrial off-highway equipment.
The first EPA emissions regulations adopted for diesel engines, known as Tier 1, applied to diesel engines used in mobile off-highway applications in the U.S., and similar standards for diesel engines, known as Stage I regulations, were implemented thereafter in Europe. The EPA and applicable agencies in Europe have continued to develop emission regulations for diesel engines in the U.S. and Europe, respectively, and have adopted more restrictive standards, with Tier 3 and Stage III regulations currently in effect in the U.S. and Europe, respectively. Recently, the EPA adopted Tier 4 diesel emission requirements, applicable to non-road diesel engines used in industrial equipment. Similarly, Europe has adopted more restrictive standards under its Stage IV regulations. Tier 4 and Stage IV regulations call for reductions in levels of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen (by approximately 90% from current levels in a majority of power categories under the Tier 4 requirements). The phase-in of Tier 4 regulations commenced for the smallest engines (based on horsepower) at the beginning of 2008, and the final phase-in of Tier 4 regulations for engines of all sizes will be completed in 2015. The phase-in of the Stage IV regulations will commence in 2014 and be completed in 2015. Because we do not sell diesel power systems in Europe, only the Tier 4 regulations will directly impact any of our power systems. With respect to our diesel power systems, Perkins/Caterpillar is responsible for the testing and other manufacturing processes associated with obtaining emission certification for its diesel engines (as well as making sure that these engines remain compliant) which are incorporated into our power systems and, accordingly, is the holder of the applicable regulatory emission certification. As a result, Perkins/Caterpillar is ultimately responsible for
20
Table of Contents
modifications to its engines necessary to meet these, and any future, emissions regulations. In part due to the anticipated larger footprint of these modified diesel engines, we will need to make corresponding adjustments to our power systems into which they will be integrated, including through the selection and design of componentry to be incorporated into these power systems.
The EPA and CARB have similarly adopted regulations to reduce pollutant exhaust emissions for spark-ignited engines used in off-road equipment. In 2004, the EPA fully introduced Tier 1 exhaust emission regulations for mobile off highway large spark ignited engines to control hydrocarbon, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide following a phase in program that started in 2001. In 2007, the EPA introduced Tier 2 exhaust emission regulations for off highway large spark ignited engines which further reduced hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions by approximately 33% and carbon monoxide emissions by 91% over Tier 1. In 2010, the CARB enacted new exhaust emission regulations for off-highway large spark-ignited engines, for California only, that further reduced hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions by 68% over EPA Tier 2. In 2008, the EPA finalized and enacted New Source Performance Standards to regulate emission for stationary off-highway spark-ignited engines to control hydrocarbon, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound.
All of our emission-certified power systems meet existing exhaust emission standards of the EPA and CARB. Failure to comply with these standards could result in adverse effects on our future financial results.
The initial and on-going certification requirements vary by power system application. The process for certain of our exhaust emission certifications is described below.
Pursuant to the regulations of the EPA and CARB, we are presently required to obtain emission compliance certification from the EPA and CARB to sell our power systems generally throughout the United States and in California. The emission compliance and certification process begins with the planning and development of a base fuel and emission control system technology, which may be used as a platform that can be applied to the range of power systems requiring certification. The development of this platform generally begins approximately 18 months prior to the onset of the exhaust emission standard implementation date. A complete fuel and emission controls system platform consists of fuel handling, trimming and transport components, electronic engine controller, sensors and exhaust after-treatment technology. The process involves developing the system to meet the requirements of the environmental regulatory agencies, as well as industry expected quality standards and other commercial expectations, all at a cost that will allow us to sell our power system at a competitive market price.
After the base technology has been developed, the next step in the certification process is long-term emission durability testing. This testing involves configuring an engine and testing it for the regulated emission useful life as established by the regulatory agencies. Currently, this useful life is 5,000 hours of use. The test is conducted by installing a power system on a dynamometer, a machine that measures power, and testing its exhaust emissions at zero hours (when an engine produces stabilized emissions at an undeteriorated emission level) and then every 500 hours over a regulatory specified test cycle for the complete useful life. The deterioration of emissions (in other words, the change in emissions from zero hour to the end of an engine’s useful life) is established by this test which takes approximately six to nine months to complete. Applicable regulations require a manufacturer of record to predict emission levels at the end of the engine’s useful life. Accordingly, we develop the base technology and system to ensure that the end of useful life requirements will be met, as the lead time between the issuance of the new regulations and the effective date does not allow for multiple testing due to a failure in the development process. Regulatory agencies require that tests be repeated in the event of a test failure. Accordingly, anticipated results are thoroughly modeled during the base technology and system development program.
After the base system technology has been developed and while the emission deterioration factor testing is in process, the development of the application technology commences. Application technology involves the
21
Table of Contents
development and sourcing of brackets, adapters, exhaust after-treatment packaging, wiring and other ancillary systems of the comprehensive power system based, in part, on specifications of our customers. During this work, we take efforts to strictly adhere to guidelines established during base fuel and emission control system development. Once this work is complete, a model from each certified category of power systems is calibrated and tested for zero hour exhaust emissions in order to submit for exhaust emission certificates from the regulatory agencies. The process involves the creation of designs, testing of prototype samples, release of final design, development of tooled components and ultimately the zero hour exhaust emission testing.
When the deterioration factor testing and zero hour testing are complete, the applications for emission certification are prepared, as applicable, for the respective power systems and filed with appropriate regulatory agencies. The application process differs between regulatory agencies. The required documentation must be meticulously completed and the filing requirements for each applicable power system must be fully satisfied for the application to be successfully accepted by the agencies; that process may take several weeks to complete. Once an application is filed, the regulatory agencies can take up to 90 days per power system to review and respond to the application, which often includes requests for additional information. Once an application is approved, an emission certificate is valid for 12 months (usually in conjunction with a calendar year). Each certification is renewed annually. Certified power systems cannot be sold without approved certificates from applicable regulatory agencies. Failure to perform and submit the required periodic compliance testing would result in the termination of the power system certification.
Once a power system is certified, regulatory agencies impose ongoing compliance requirements on us, which include our testing newly produced power systems on a regular quarterly schedule to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. In addition, there are field audit requirements, which require the removal of power systems from service at specified stages of their useful lives to perform confirmatory exhaust emissions testing.
Our Telematics Tool
We are also subject to various laws and regulations relating to our telematics tool and connected asset services. Among other things, wireless transceiver products are required to be certified by the Federal Communications Commission and comparable authorities in foreign countries where they are sold. We currently maintain applicable certifications from governmental agencies in each of the jurisdictions in which our telematics tool is required to be so certified.
Our Operations
Our operations are also subject to numerous federal, state and local laws relating to such matters as safe working conditions, manufacturing practices, environmental protection, fire hazard control and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. We may be required to incur significant costs to comply with such laws and regulations in the future. Any failure to comply with these laws or regulations could have a material adverse effect upon our ability to do business.
Employees
As of February 24, 2014, our workforce consisted of approximately 455 persons, including 2 part-time staff. Of this total, approximately 126 persons are individuals whose services we obtain through an arrangement with a professional employer organization and 158 persons are from individuals whose services we obtain through a temporary employment agency.
None of the members of our workforce are represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe we have a good relationship with the members of our workforce.
22
Table of Contents
| Item 1A. | Risk Factors |
Our business, financial condition and results of operations are subject to various risks, including those described below, which in turn may affect the value of our securities. In addition, other risks not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects, perhaps materially. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and actual results and events may differ substantially from those discussed or highlighted in these forward-looking statements. Before making an investment decision with respect to any of our securities, you should carefully consider the following risks and uncertainties described below and elsewhere in this report. See also “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”
Risks Related to our Business and our Industry
The market for alternative fuel spark-ignited power systems may not develop according to our expectations and, as a result, our business may not grow as planned and our business plan may be adversely affected.
Our future growth is dependent upon the market for efficient alternative fuel spark-ignited power systems (including natural gas and propane) expanding as a result of our customers and potential customers substituting alternative fuel power systems for diesel power systems. Part of our business plan is dependent on our market forecasts with respect to this expected substitution trend. However, there can be no assurance that we can accurately predict the potential impact of new diesel emission regulations, which we assume will help drive this trend by increasing the cost and product footprint of diesel power systems, nor can we assure that customers or potential customers would substitute natural gas and propane powered power systems for diesel power systems in response to these regulations. In addition, to the extent that diesel power system manufacturers develop the ability to design and produce emission-compliant diesel power systems that they can sell at a lower price and have smaller product footprints than we currently expect, diesel power systems will be more competitive with our alternative fuel power systems, and customers and potential customers may be less likely to substitute alternative fuel power systems for diesel power systems. Furthermore, even if alternative fuel power systems are substituted for diesel power systems, there can be no assurance that our power systems would capture any portion of this potential market size increase. If the industrial OEM market generally, or more specifically any of the industrial OEM categories which represent a significant portion of our business or in which we anticipate significant growth opportunities for our power systems, fails to develop or develops more slowly than we anticipate, the growth of our business and our business plan could be materially adversely affected.
Our new 8.8 liter engine block is the first engine block manufactured in-house by our company, and may not be successful.
We have introduced a newly designed 8.8 liter, fuel flexible engine block that we have internally developed to replace an engine that we previously purchased from a third party engine supplier. This is our first engine produced in-house by us. We may not be successful in obtaining acceptance of this product in the marketplace, particularly given that it is in part the replacement for an engine block produced by a well-known and long-time engine manufacturer. Even if this product is accepted in the marketplace, we do not have sufficient history with this engine to assess whether it will succeed without significant performance issues.
The discovery of any significant problems with the engine, or any of the engines we develop, could result in recall campaigns, increased warranty costs, potential product liability claims, reputational risk and brand risk. More specifically, sales of our own internally developed engine could lead to significantly higher warranty costs to service this engine if it does not perform to expectations, as we would be unable to rely on a warranty provided by a third-party engine manufacturer. Additionally, any performance issues with our internally developed engine could also result in increased product liability claims, and we would be unable to rely on any indemnification provided by a third-party engine manufacturer. Potential losses could also arise from other unforeseen issues associated with the internal production of our own base engine block. For additional detail regarding the risk of introducing a new product such as our 8.8 liter engine, see “— New products, including new engines we develop,
23
Table of Contents
may not achieve widespread adoption.” For additional detail regarding the risk of warranty costs and product liability claims, see “— We could suffer warranty claims that could materially and adversely affect our business” and “— We could become subject to product liability claims.”
We may not succeed with the expansion of our product into the on-road market.
Our current products have historically been sold and used in the off-road industrial markets. We have announced our intention to expand our product line to on-road markets into which we have not previously sold. The costs and regulations involved with certifying an engine for on-road applications may be more than expected, which could affect our ability to successfully expand our product line into these markets. Additionally, the stresses and demands on engines and power systems used for on-road applications could result in unexpected issues. Not only are we attempting to expand into markets into which we have not previously sold, we are attempting to do so using our newly designed and internally developed 8.8 liter engine. This unproven engine for on-road applications (and other additional applications) may not gain acceptance as an alternative to proven engines already used in on-road applications, and our company may not generally gain acceptance as a supplier to on-road markets. For additional detail regarding the risks related to our newly developed 8.8 liter engine, see “— Our new 8.8 liter engine block is the first engine block manufactured in-house by our company, and may not be successful.”
Even if we are able to gain on-road certification and sell into these markets, we may expose ourselves to additional costs associated with on-road engine failures. These costs could be significant, not only if the vehicle into which the engine is installed becomes damaged, but because of the increased potential for injuries or fatalities that could arise from a malfunction or manufacturing defect in an engine used for on-road applications. Finally, we may face significantly increased competition in the on-road markets from competitors with longer operating histories, greater name recognition and greater financial and marketing resources than our current competitors in the off-road markets. For additional detail regarding the competition faced by our company, see “— We currently face, and will continue to face, significant competition, which could result in a decrease in our revenue.”
We have recently expanded our on-road product line by entering a multi-year supply agreement with General Motors for 4.8-liter and 6.0-liter alternative fuel engines. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in expanding our on-road product line which could have an effect on our on-road supply agreement with General Motors.
New products, including new engines we develop, may not achieve widespread adoption.
Our growth may depend on our ability to develop and/or acquire new products, and/or refine our existing products and power system technology, to complement and enhance the breadth of our power system offering with respect to engine class and the industrial OEM market categories into which we supply our products. We are currently in the process of developing new 2.0 liter and 2.4 liter engines, and we offer, but have not had material sales of, connected asset services through our telematics tool, MasterTrak, to our OEM customers and other businesses to which we do not supply our power systems. We will generally seek to develop or acquire new products, or enhance our existing products and power system technology, if we believe they will provide significant additional revenues and favorable profit margins. However, we cannot know beforehand whether any new or enhanced products will successfully penetrate our target markets. There can be no assurance that newly developed or acquired products will perform as well as we expect, or that such products will gain widespread adoption among our customers.
Additionally, there are greater design and operational risks associated with new products. The inability of our suppliers to produce technologically sophisticated components for our new engines and power systems, the discovery of any product or process defects or failures associated with production of any new products and any related product returns could each have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
24
Table of Contents
of operations. If new products for which we expend significant resources to develop or acquire are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.
Changes in environmental and regulatory policies could hurt the market for our products.
Our business is affected by government environmental policies, mandates and regulations around the world, most significantly with respect to emission standards in the United States. Examples of such regulations include those that (1) restrict the sale of power systems that do not meet emission standards, (2) impose penalties on sellers of non-compliant power systems, and (3) require the use of more expensive ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. There can be no assurance that these policies, mandates and regulations will be continued or expanded as assumed in our growth strategy. Incumbent industry participants with a vested interest in gasoline and diesel, many of which have substantially greater resources than we do, may invest significant resources in an effort to influence environmental regulations in ways that delay or repeal requirements for more stringent carbon, particulate matter (a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air that contain a variety of chemical components, such as dust, dirt, soot or smoke) and other emissions.
We generally must obtain product certification from both the EPA and CARB to sell our products in the United States. We may attempt to expand sales of our power systems to industrial OEMs that sell their products in Europe, which also has stringent emissions requirements. Accordingly, future sales of our product will depend upon their being certified to meet the existing and future air quality and energy standards imposed by the relevant regulatory agencies. While we incur significant research and developments costs to ensure that our products comply with emission standards and meet certification requirements in the regions where our products are sold, we cannot assure you that our products will continue to meet these standards. The failure to comply with certification requirements would not only adversely affect future sales but could result in the recall of our products or civil or criminal penalties.
The adoption of new, more stringent and burdensome government emission regulations, whether at the foreign, federal, state, or local level, in markets in which we supply our power systems, may require modification of our emission certification and other manufacturing processes for our power systems. Thus, we might incur unanticipated expenses in meeting future compliance requirements, and may be required to increase our research and product development expenditures. Increases in such costs and expenses could necessitate increases in the prices we charge our OEM customers for our power systems, which could adversely affect demand for them.
We currently face, and will continue to face, significant competition, which could result in a decrease in our revenue.
The market for our products and related services is highly competitive, subject to rapid change and sensitive to new product and service introductions and changes in technical requirements. New developments in power system technology may negatively affect the development or sale of some or all of our power systems or make our power systems uncompetitive or obsolete. Other companies, some of which have longer operating histories, greater name recognition and greater financial and marketing resources than us, are currently engaged in the development of products and technologies that are similar to, or may be competitive with, certain of our products and power system technologies. If the markets for our products (including particular industrial OEM market categories) grow as we anticipate, competition may intensify, as existing and new competitors identify opportunities in such markets.
We face competition from companies that employ current power system technologies, and may face competition in the future from additional companies as new power system technologies are adopted. Among our competitors are fuel system providers such as Westport Innovations, Inc., Fuel System Solutions and Woodward Governor, Inc., which supply engines and engine system components to the industrial OEM marketplace. Additionally, we may face competition from companies developing technologies such as cleaner diesel engines, bio-diesel, fuel cells, advanced batteries and hybrid battery/internal combustion power systems. We may not be
25
Table of Contents
able to incorporate such technologies into our product offerings, or may be required to devote substantial resources to do so. The success of our business depends in large part on our ability to provide single assembly, integrated, comprehensive, technologically sophisticated power systems to our customers. The development or enhancement by our competitors of similar capabilities could adversely affect our business.
Our industrial OEM customers may not continue to outsource their power system needs.
The purchasers of our power systems are industrial OEMs that manufacture industrial equipment. As a result of the significant resources and expertise required to develop and manufacture emission-certified power systems, these customers have historically chosen to outsource production of power systems to us. Our business depends in significant part on our industrial OEMs continuing to outsource design and production of power systems, power system components and subsystems. However, there can be no assurance that our OEM customers will continue to outsource, or outsource as much of, their power system production in the future. Industrial OEMs that otherwise might use our power systems may instead seek to internalize the production of these power systems and related components. Increased levels of OEM vertical integration could result from a number of factors, such as shifts in our customers’ business strategies, acquisition by a customer of a power system manufacturer or the emergence of low-cost production opportunities in foreign countries.
We are dependent on certain products and industrial OEM market categories for a significant share of our revenues and profits.
During fiscal 2013, a significant portion of our revenues were derived from sales of our power systems to be incorporated into equipment used in the power generation and forklift market categories, and we anticipate that sales of power systems in these market categories will continue to represent a significant portion of our revenues for the foreseeable future. We further believe that our growth may depend in a significant part upon our ability to increase sales of our power systems in the material handling and oil and gas market categories, as well as certain other industrial OEM categories. There can be no assurance that the material handling and oil and gas market categories, or any other industrial market category into which we sell our power systems, will grow as quickly or as significantly as we expect (if at all), or that the current, or any future, demand for our power systems in any of these market categories will not decrease.
Failure to raise additional capital or to generate the significant capital necessary to continue our growth could reduce our ability to compete and could harm our business.
We may need to raise additional capital in the future, and we may not be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing on favorable terms, if at all. Our current credit facility contains covenants restricting our ability to enter into additional debt financing. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and capital resources — Credit agreement” for a description of our credit facility. We may offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depositary shares, warrants, subscription rights, stock purchase contracts and units under a universal shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on February 14, 2014. If we raise additional equity financing, our stockholders may experience significant dilution of their ownership interests, and the per share value of our common stock could decline. Furthermore, if we engage in additional debt financing, the holders of debt would have priority over the holders of common stock, and we may be required to accept terms that restrict our ability to incur additional indebtedness, and take other actions that would otherwise be in the interests of our stockholders and force us to maintain specified liquidity or other ratios. If we need additional capital and cannot raise it on acceptable terms, we may not, among other things, be able to:
| • | continue to expand our research and product development operations and sales and marketing organization; |
| • | expand operations both organically and through acquisitions; or |
| • | respond to competitive pressures or unanticipated working capital requirements. |
26
Table of Contents
We are dependent on relationships with our OEM customers and any change in our relationships with any of our key OEM customers could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.
Our power systems are integrated into our OEM customers’ equipment for subsequent sales and distribution to end-users of off-highway industrial equipment. One of our customers represented more than 10% of our sales in each of the last three fiscal years. We do not currently have formal, written agreements with this customer or some of our other largest customers. There can be no assurance that our current material customers, or industrial OEMs in general, will continue manufacturing equipment that uses our power systems or, if they do manufacture such equipment, that the end-users of our OEM customers will choose to purchase products into which our power systems are incorporated. Any integration, design, manufacturing or marketing problems encountered by our OEM customers could adversely affect the demand for our power systems and the ability of our OEM customers to timely pay us amounts due for our products and services. Any change in our relationships with any of our key OEM customers, whether as a result of economic or competitive pressures or otherwise, including any decision by our OEM customers to reduce their commitments to purchase our power systems in favor of competing products, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.
In addition, we may be subject to disputes arising from agreements and other arrangements with our OEM customers. Disputes with our OEM customers could lead to termination of arrangements with our OEM customers and delays in collaborative development or commercialization of power systems that we design for, and supply to, these customers. Moreover, disagreements may arise with our OEM customers over rights to proprietary technology and other intellectual property incorporated in our power systems and our customers’ products into which our power systems are integrated. Significant disagreements with our OEM customers could result in costly and time-consuming litigation. Any such conflicts with our OEM customers could negatively impact our relationships, reduce the number of power systems which we supply, and negatively impact our ability to obtain future business, in each case with these and other OEM customers.
We are dependent on relationships with our material suppliers, and the partial or complete loss of one of these key suppliers, or the failure to find replacement suppliers or manufacturers in a timely manner, could adversely affect our business.
We have established relationships with third party engine suppliers and other suppliers from which we source our components for our power systems. We are substantially dependent on our three key engine suppliers, General Motors, Perkins/Caterpillar and Doosan. Sales of our power systems incorporating engines from General Motors, Perkins/Caterpillar and Doosan represented approximately 50%, 10% and 25% of our total sales for fiscal 2013, respectively, and represented approximately 57%, 13% and 15% of our total sales for fiscal 2012, respectively. If any of these three engine suppliers were to fail to provide engines in a timely manner or to supply engines that meet our quality, quantity or cost requirements, or were to discontinue manufacturing any engines we source from them or providing any such engines to us, and we were unable to obtain substitute sources in a timely manner or on terms acceptable to us, our ability to manufacture our products could be materially adversely affected. In addition, we currently source other important components used in our power systems, such as catalysts, engine controllers, fuel mixers, wiring harnesses, engine sensors and intake manifolds, from a limited number of suppliers. Much of the technology incorporated into these components that we source from a limited number of suppliers is technologically sophisticated, and we do not believe that our competitors have access to some of this sophisticated technology. Our business could be harmed by adverse changes in our relationships with our non-engine component suppliers, or if our competitors gain access to the technology. Further, if our suppliers are unable to provide components to us in a timely manner, or are unable to meet our quality, quantity or cost requirements, we may not in all cases be able to promptly obtain substitute sources. Any extended delay in receiving engines or other critical components could impair our ability to deliver products to our OEM customers.
We do not have formal, written agreements with many of our component suppliers. Most of our non-engine component supply agreements do not extend past the end of 2014. In any event, a component supplier may fail to
27
Table of Contents
provide components on a timely basis, or fail to meet our specifications or other requirements for a component, regardless of whether we have a written contract with such supplier.
The quality and performance of our power systems are, in part, dependent on the quality of their component parts that we obtain from various suppliers, which makes us susceptible to performance issues that could materially and adversely affect our business, reputation and financial results.
Our power systems are sophisticated and complex, and the success of our power systems is dependent, in part, upon the quality and performance of key components, such as engines, fuel systems, generators, breakers, and complex electrical components and associated software. There can be no assurance that the power system parts and components will not have performance issues from time to time, and the warranties provided by our suppliers may not always cover the potential performance issues. We may face disputes with our suppliers with respect to those performance issues and their warranty obligations, and our customers could claim damages as a result of such performance issues.
If any of the component parts we obtain from our suppliers are defective, we may incur liabilities for warranty claims. The supplier in any such case may not fully compensate us for any such liabilities. We may also be responsible for obtaining replacement parts and incur liability related thereto.
We maintain a significant investment in inventory, and a decline in our customers’ purchases could lead to a decline in our sales and profitability and excess inventory.
We cannot always predict the timing, frequency or size of the future orders of our OEM customers. Our ability to accurately forecast our sales is further complicated by the continuing global economic uncertainty. We maintain significant inventories in an effort to ensure that our OEM customers have a reliable source of supply. If we fail to anticipate the changing needs of our customers and accurately forecast our customer demands, our customers may not continue to place orders with us, and we may accumulate significant inventories of products that we will be unable to sell or return to our suppliers. This may result in a significant decline in the value of our inventory and a decrease in our future gross profit.
Changes in our product mix could materially and adversely affect our business.
The margins on our revenues from some of our product and service offerings are higher than the margins on some of our other product and service offerings. In particular, the margins vary between sales of our power systems as compared to sales of our aftermarket parts and components. A decrease in demand for our higher margin products and service offerings, such as our heavy duty power systems, could have a negative impact on our profitability. Our margins can also fluctuate based upon competition, alternative products and services, operating costs and contractual factors. In addition, we may not be able to accurately estimate the margins of some of our new and developing products and services due to our limited operating history with sales of these products. Our new products and services may have lower margins than our current products and services.
While margins differ across the range of our power systems, prices for our power systems generally vary based on the relative sizes in terms of horsepower of the power systems. For example, if a greater proportion of our revenues are generated from sales of our lower-power power systems, our total revenues and profits may be lower than what they would be if we sold a comparable number of larger power systems, even if margins on these smaller power systems are greater.
We derive a substantial majority of our diesel power systems revenues from our relationships with Perkins and Caterpillar.
We derive a significant portion of our diesel power systems business from our distribution agreement with Perkins, our packaging and distribution agreements with Caterpillar engine dealers and our association with Caterpillar. Our business with Perkins and Caterpillar represented approximately 13% and 16% of our revenues
28
Table of Contents
in fiscal 2013 and 2012, respectively. Any material change in our relationships with Perkins and Caterpillar, including the termination of our distribution agreement with Perkins, could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.
Our financial position, results of operations and cash flows have been, and may in the future be, negatively impacted by challenging global economic conditions.
Challenging global economic conditions, which can have a particularly severe impact on industrial markets, have had, and may in the future have, a material adverse effect on our business. More specifically, such conditions resulted in significantly reduced demand in 2009 for our power systems and other products from our industrial OEM customers, as those customers faced sharp declines in market demand for their products into which our power systems are incorporated. Our net sales decreased 34% from 2008 to 2009, primarily due to lower power system shipment volumes and aftermarket parts sales resulting from this reduced demand. This sales decrease was reflected across our base of customers in all of the OEM categories in which our power systems are used. Difficult market conditions can also cause us to experience pricing pressure, negatively impacting our margins.
Future economic downturns may materially impact our OEM customers, as well as suppliers and other parties with which we do business. Economic conditions that adversely affect our customers may cause them to terminate existing supply agreements or to reduce the volume of power systems they purchase from us in the future. In the case of another economic downturn, we may have significant receivables owing from customers that face liquidity issues. Failure to collect a significant portion of amounts due on those receivables could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Similarly, with adverse market conditions, our key suppliers from which we source power system components may be unable to provide components to us or extend us credit. Furthermore, we may not be able to successfully anticipate, plan for and respond to changing economic conditions, and our business could be negatively affected.
Fuel price differentials are hard to predict and may have an adverse impact on the demand for our products in the future.
The prices of various fuel alternatives are subject to fluctuation, based upon many factors, including changes in resource bases, pipeline transportation capacity for natural gas, refining capacity for crude oil and government excise and fuel tax policies. The price differential among various fuel alternatives can impact OEMs and their decisions to buy power systems from us. For example, if fossil fuel prices increase significantly, OEMs may choose to seek power systems powered by electric motors instead of ones that use fossil fuels. Furthermore, if OEMs do decide to purchase power systems from us, relative fuel prices may affect which power systems they purchase from us. The margins on our sale of certain of our power systems are higher than the margins on other power systems that we sell to our OEM customers. See “Changes in our product mix could materially and adversely affect our business.”
Price increases in some of the key components in our power systems could materially and adversely affect our operating results and cash flows.
The prices of some of the key components of our power systems are subject to fluctuation due to market forces beyond our control, including changes in the costs of raw materials incorporated into these components. Such price increases occur from time to time due to spot shortages of commodities, increases in labor costs or longer-term shortages due to market forces. In particular, the prices of certain precious metals used in our emissions control systems fluctuate frequently and often significantly. Substantial increases in the prices of raw materials used in components which we source from our suppliers may result in increased prices charged by our suppliers. If we incur price increases from our suppliers for key components in our power systems, our production costs will increase. Given competitive market conditions, we may not be able to pass all or any of those cost increases on to our OEM customers in the form of higher sales prices. To the extent our competitors do not suffer comparable component cost increases to our customers, we may have even greater difficulty passing along price increases and our competitive position may be harmed. As a result, increases in costs of key
29
Table of Contents
components may adversely affect our margins and otherwise adversely affect our operating results and cash flows.
Many of our power systems involve long and variable design and sales cycles, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations for any given quarter or year.
The design and sales cycle for our customized power systems, from initial contact with our potential OEM customer to the commencement of shipments of our power systems, may be lengthy. Customers generally consider a wide range of issues before making a decision to purchase our power systems. Before an industrial OEM commits to purchase our power systems, they often require a significant technical review, assessment of competitive products and approval at a number of management levels within their organization. During the time our customers are evaluating our products, we may incur substantial sales and marketing, engineering and research and development expenses to customize our power systems to the customer’s needs. We may also expend significant management efforts, increase manufacturing capacity, order long-lead-time components or purchase significant amounts of power system components and other inventory prior to receiving an order. Even after this evaluation process, a potential customer may not purchase our products.
The product development time after an industrial OEM customer agrees to purchase our power systems can be considerable. Our process for establishing technical specifications and developing a customized, integrated power system requires use of significant engineering resources, including design, prototyping, modeling, testing and application engineering. The length of this cycle is influenced by many factors, including the difficulty of the technical specification, the novelty and complexity of the design and the customer’s procurement processes.
Our design, development and sales cycle may vary based on the specific power system and the industrial OEM market category in which our customer’s product will compete, and it is difficult to predict for any particular transaction. The length and variability of our sales cycle can make it difficult to predict whether particular sales commitments will be received in any given period. As a result, a significant period may elapse between our investment of time and resources in designing and developing a custom power system for an OEM customer and our revenue from sales of that power system.
The length of this process may increase the risk that an OEM customer will decide to cancel or change its plans related to its equipment into which our power system is integrated. Such a cancellation or change in plans by a customer could cause us to lose anticipated sales. In addition, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected if a customer curtails, materially reduces or delays a significant order during our sales cycle, chooses not to release its equipment that contains our custom power system, or is not successful in the sale and marketing of its equipment that contains our custom power system.
The loss of one or more key members of our senior management, or our inability to attract and retain qualified personnel could harm our business.
Our success and future growth depends to a significant degree on the skills and continued services of our management team, in particular Gary Winemaster, our Chief Executive Officer and President, Eric Cohen, our Chief Operating Officer and Daniel Gorey, our Chief Financial Officer. The loss of any of our key members of management could inhibit our growth prospects. Our future success also depends in large part on our ability to attract, retain and motivate key management, engineering, manufacturing and operating personnel. As we develop additional capabilities, we may require more skilled personnel. Given the highly specialized nature of our power systems, these personnel must be highly skilled and have a sound understanding of our industry, business and our technology. The market for such personnel is highly competitive. As a result, we may not be able to continue to attract and retain the personnel needed to support our business.
Our existing debt or new debt that we incur could adversely affect our business and growth prospects.
As of February 24, 2014, we had approximately $15.1 million in principal amount of outstanding debt under our credit line with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides an
30
Table of Contents
initial maximum $75.0 million revolving line of credit to us, which, at our request and subject to the terms of the credit agreement, may be increased up to $100.0 million during the term of the credit agreement. Failure or inability to meet our obligations under our current credit agreement or any new credit facility could materially and adversely affect our business. In addition, our debt obligations could make us more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions and could limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industries in which we operate. Our indebtedness, the cash flow needed to satisfy our debt and the covenants contained in current and potential future credit agreements have important consequences, including:
| • | limiting funds otherwise available for financing our capital expenditures by requiring us to dedicate a portion of our cash flows from operations to the repayment of debt and the interest on this debt; |
| • | limiting our ability to incur additional indebtedness; |
| • | limiting our ability to capitalize on significant business opportunities, including mergers, acquisitions and other strategic transactions; |
| • | placing us at a competitive disadvantage to those of our competitors that are less indebted than we are; |
| • | making us more vulnerable to rising interest rates; and |
| • | making us more vulnerable in the event of a downturn in our business. |
More specifically, pursuant to our current loan and security agreement with our senior lender, we have agreed to certain financial covenants, including maintaining certain ratios between our adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and our fixed charges. In addition, our current loan and security agreement places limitations on our ability to make acquisitions of other companies. Any failure by us to comply with the financial covenants set forth in our current loan and security agreement in the future, if not cured or waived, could result in our senior lender accelerating the maturity of our indebtedness or preventing us from accessing availability under our credit facility. If the maturity of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not have sufficient cash resources to satisfy our debt obligations and we may not be able to continue our operations as planned.
Furthermore, we may incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. If new debt or other liabilities are added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face, as described above, could intensify.
Our quarterly operating results are subject to variability from quarter to quarter.
Our quarter-to-quarter and quarter-over-quarter operating results (including our sales, gross profit and net income) and cash flows have been, and in the future may be, impacted by a variety of internal and external events associated with our business operations, many of which are outside of our control. Examples of such events include (1) changes in regulatory emission requirements (which generally occur on January 1 of the year in which they become effective), (2) customer product phase-in/phase-out programs, (3) supplier product (i.e. a specific engine model) phase-in/phase-out programs, (4) changes in pricing by suppliers to us of engines, components and other parts (typically effective January 1 of any year), and (5) changes in our pricing to our customers (typically effective January 1 of any year), which may be related to changes in the pricing by suppliers to us.
In order to mitigate potential availability or pricing issues, customers may adjust their demand requirements from traditional patterns. We may also extend special programs to customers in advance of such events, and we are more likely to offer such programs in our fourth quarter of a year in anticipation of events expected to occur in the first quarter of the next year. The occurrence of any of the events discussed above may result in fluctuations in our operating results (including sales and profitability) and cash flows between and among reporting periods.
31
Table of Contents
If we fail to adequately protect our intellectual property rights, we could lose important proprietary technology, which could materially and adversely affect our business.
We believe that the success of our business depends, in substantial part, upon our proprietary technology, information, processes and know-how. The unauthorized use of our intellectual property rights and proprietary technology by others could materially harm our business. We do not own any material patents and rely on a combination of trademark and trade secret laws, along with confidentiality agreements, contractual provisions and licensing arrangements, to establish and protect our intellectual property rights. Although certain of our employees have entered into confidentiality agreements with us to protect our proprietary technology and processes, not all of our employees have executed such agreements, nor can we ensure that employees who have executed such agreements will not violate them.
Despite our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights, existing laws afford only limited protection, and our actions may be inadequate to protect our rights or to prevent others from claiming violations of their proprietary rights. Unauthorized third parties may attempt to copy, reverse engineer or otherwise obtain, use or exploit aspects of our products and services, develop similar technology independently, or otherwise obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. We cannot assure you that our competitors will not independently develop technology similar or superior to our technology or design around our intellectual property.
In addition, the laws of some foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights as fully or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. In particular, we sell our power systems to industrial OEM customers, and source certain components from suppliers, in China, where commercial laws are relatively underdeveloped compared to other geographic markets into which we sell our products. Protection of intellectual property is limited under Chinese law, and the sale of our products and the local sourcing of components may subject us to an increased risk of infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property. As a result, we cannot be certain that we will be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights in China.
We may need to resort to litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights to protect our trade secrets and to determine the validity and scope of other companies’ proprietary rights in the future. However, litigation could result in significant costs or in the diversion of financial resources and management’s attention. We cannot assure you that any such litigation will be successful or that we will prevail over counterclaims against us.
In addition, many of the components we source from our suppliers and which are incorporated into our power systems use proprietary intellectual property of our suppliers. We also license or rely upon certain intellectual property from third parties, including the “back office” software and functionality for our telematics tool, MasterTrak. For a description of MasterTrak, our telematics tool, see “Business — Our Products and Industry Categories — Connected Asset Services.” Any of these third parties from which we source our power system components, from which we license intellectual property or on whose intellectual property we rely, may also supply these components (or other components that incorporate the same intellectual property) or license or provide such intellectual property, as applicable, to others, including our competitors, or terminate our access to such intellectual property.
If we face claims of intellectual property infringement by third parties, we could encounter expensive litigation, be liable for significant damages or incur restrictions on our ability to sell our products and services.
We cannot be certain that our products, services and power system technologies, including any intellectual property licensed from third parties for use therein or incorporated into components that we source from our suppliers, do not, or in the future will not, infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of third parties. We are not aware of all of the proprietary technology incorporated into, or used in developing, the components that we source and integrate into our power systems, nor are we familiar with all of the technology included in, or used in developing, products that are competitive with these components. Furthermore, the design, prototyping, testing and engineering capabilities we use to manufacture our power systems are technologically
32
Table of Contents
sophisticated, and we consider the processes by which we develop our power systems to be confidential and proprietary trade secrets. To compete in the industrial OEM market, our competitors likely also use proprietary development processes to manufacture their products. Given that neither we nor our competitors make information regarding such manufacturing and development processes available to the public, we cannot know the extent to which there may be any commonality between our respective processes and cannot be certain that we are not infringing on any intellectual property rights of others. In addition, for the above reasons, we cannot assure you that third parties will not claim that we have infringed their intellectual property rights.
A third party alleged, and asserted those allegations in proceedings against us (which proceedings were subsequently settled), that certain technology related to our telematics tool, MasterTrak, infringed upon the intellectual property rights of that party. As such, we may in the future be subject to similar infringement claims that may result in litigation. Successful infringement claims against us could result in substantial monetary liability, require us to enter into royalty or licensing arrangements, or otherwise materially disrupt the conduct of our business. In addition, even if we prevail in the defense of any such claims, any such litigation could be time-consuming and expensive to defend or settle, and could result in the diversion of the time and attention of management and of operational resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business. Any potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:
| • | stop selling and/or using the specific products and/or services incorporating the allegedly infringing technology and/or stop incorporating the allegedly infringing technology into such products and/or services; |
| • | obtain from the owner of the infringed intellectual property right a license to sell and/or use the relevant technology, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all; or |
| • | redesign the products and/or services that incorporate the allegedly infringing technology. |
We could suffer warranty claims that could materially and adversely affect our business.
From time to time, we may incur liabilities for warranty claims as a result of defective products or components, including claims arising from defective products or components provided by our suppliers that are integrated into our power systems. Provisions we make for warranty accrual may not be sufficient or we may be unable to rely on a warranty provided by a third-party manufacturer, and we may recognize additional expenses as a result of warranty claims in excess of our current expectations. Such warranty claims may necessitate a redesign, re-specification, a change in manufacturing processes, and/or recall of our power systems, which could have an adverse impact on our finances and on existing or future sales of our power systems and other products. Even in the absence of any warranty claims, a product deficiency such as a manufacturing defect or a safety issue may necessitate a product recall, which could have an adverse impact on our finances and on existing or future sales.
We could become subject to product liability claims.
Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims that are inherent to natural gas, propane, gasoline and diesel, and products that use these fuels. Natural gas, propane and gasoline are flammable and are potentially dangerous products. Any accidents involving our power systems could materially impede widespread market acceptance and demand for our power systems. In addition, we may be subject to a claim by end-users of our OEM customers’ products or others alleging that they have suffered property damage, personal injury or death because our power systems or the products of our customers into which our power systems are integrated did not perform adequately. Such a claim could be made whether or not our power systems perform adequately under the circumstances. From time to time, we may be subject to product liability claims in the ordinary course of business, and we carry a limited amount of product liability insurance for this purpose. However, our current insurance policies may not provide sufficient or any coverage for such claims, and we cannot predict whether we will be able to maintain our insurance coverage on commercially acceptable terms.
33
Table of Contents
Our telematics tool, MasterTrak, may not be successful.
Our telematics tool does not currently provide a material portion of our revenues. There can be no assurance that our telematics tool will gain widespread acceptance among customers or generate meaningful revenues or profits.
We are subject to various laws and regulations relating to our telematics tool. Among other things, wireless transceiver products are required to be certified by the Federal Communications Commission and comparable authorities in foreign countries where they are sold. If we fail to obtain product certifications for our telematics product, or otherwise fail to successfully comply with applicable regulations in this area, we may be required to make significant unanticipated expenditures to bring our telematics tool within compliance with such regulations, and future sales of our telematics tool may be adversely affected. Furthermore, through our telematics tool, we transmit and store information of customers, including equipment-specific information such as performance data. Equipment-specific information may also reveal customer-identifiable information. A growing body of laws designed to protect the privacy of personally-identifiable information, as well as to protect against its misuse, and the judicial interpretations of such laws, may adversely affect the growth of our telematics business. In particular, such laws could limit our ability to collect information related to users of our telematics tool, to store or process that information in what would otherwise be the most efficient manner, or to commercialize new telematics services based on emerging technologies. In addition, we could become subject to third party claims based upon allegations of loss or misuse of customer information.
See also “— If we face claims of intellectual property infringement by third parties, we could encounter expensive litigation, be liable for significant damages or incur restrictions on our ability to sell our products and services,” for a discussion of a third party intellectual property infringement claim with respect to technology related to our telematics tool, which matter has been settled.
We may have difficulty managing the expansion of our operations.
Our organization and our facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support our future growth. In order to effectively manage our operations and any significant growth, including any significant growth in the sales of, and services related to, our power systems, we may need to:
| • | scale our internal infrastructure, including establishing additional facilities, while continuing to provide technologically sophisticated power systems on a timely basis; |
| • | attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented personnel, including application engineers, customer support staff and production personnel; |
| • | continue to enhance our compliance and quality assurance systems; and |
| • | continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls and reporting systems and procedures. |
Rapid expansion of our operations could place a significant strain on our senior management team, support teams, manufacturing lines, information technology platforms and other resources. In addition, we may be required to place more reliance on our strategic partners and suppliers, some of whom may not be capable of meeting our production demands in terms of timing, quantity, quality or cost. Difficulties in effectively managing the budgeting, forecasting and other process control issues presented by any rapid expansion could harm our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.
If we do not properly manage the sales of our products into foreign markets, our business could suffer.
A significant portion of our future revenues could be derived from sales outside of the United States, particularly in Asia. We have sales and distribution activities in Asia and Europe where we may lack sufficient
34
Table of Contents
expertise, knowledge of local customs or contacts. In Asia, we depend upon an independent sales and support organization to complement our OEM relationships and provide knowledge of local customs and requirements, while also providing immediate sales assistance and customer support. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our current relationship with this independent sales and support organization, or that we will be able to develop effective, similar relationships in foreign markets into which we supply our products in the future.
Growing the market for our products in Asia and other markets outside of the United States may take longer and cost more to develop than we anticipate and is subject to inherent risks, including unexpected changes in government policies, trade barriers restricting our ability to sell our products in those countries, longer payment cycles, exposure to currency fluctuations, and foreign exchange controls that restrict or prohibit repatriation of funds. As a result, if we do not properly manage foreign sales, our business could suffer.
In addition, our foreign sales subject us to numerous stringent U.S. and foreign laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and comparable foreign laws and regulations which prohibit improper payments or offers of payments to foreign governments and their officials and political parties by U.S. and other business entities for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Safeguards that we may implement to discourage these practices could prove to be ineffective, and violations of the FCPA and other laws may result in severe criminal or civil sanctions, or other liabilities or proceedings against us, including class action lawsuits and enforcement actions from the SEC, Department of Justice and overseas regulators. Any of these factors, or any other international factors, could impair our ability to effectively sell our power systems, or other products or services that we may develop, outside of the U.S.
If our production facilities become inoperable, our business, including our ability to manufacture our power systems, will be harmed.
We operate our business, including all of our production and manufacturing processes, out of facilities that are all located in Wood Dale, Illinois. If damaged, our facilities, our manufacturing lines, the equipment we use to perform our emission certification and other tests and our other business process systems would be costly to replace and could require substantial time to repair or replace. We are particularly subject to this risk because of our current geographic concentration of our facilities. During 2012, we completed the consolidation of our facilities that are all located in Wood Dale, Illinois. This consolidation further exacerbates this risk. Our facilities may be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including inclement weather, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, acts of terrorism or other criminal activities, infectious disease outbreaks and power outages, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to efficiently operate our business for some period of time. In addition, such events may temporarily interrupt our ability to receive engines, fuel systems or other components for our power systems from our suppliers and to have access to our various production systems necessary to operate our business. Our insurance covering damage to our properties and the disruption of our business may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.
In the event our facilities are damaged or destroyed, we may need to find another facility into which we can move our operations. Finding a facility that meets the criteria necessary to operate our business would be time-consuming and costly and result in delays in our ability to provide our sophisticated power systems or to provide the same level of quality in our services as we currently provide.
We may be adversely impacted by work stoppages and other labor matters.
Our workforce consists of full-time and part-time employees, as well as, members of our production team whose services we obtain through an arrangement with a professional employer organization. While none of the members of our workforce are currently represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, there have been unsuccessful efforts to unionize our manufacturing employees in the past, and there can be no
35
Table of Contents
assurance that members of our workforce will not in the future join a union. If our employees organize and join a union in the future, there can be no assurance that future issues with our workforce will be resolved favorably or that we will not encounter future strikes, work stoppages or other types of conflicts with labor unions or our employees. Any of these consequences may have an adverse effect on us or may limit our flexibility in dealing with our workforce.
In addition, many of our suppliers have unionized work forces. Work stoppages or slow-downs experienced by our material suppliers could result in slow-downs or closures at the manufacturing facilities of our suppliers from where our power system components are sourced. If one or more of our key suppliers experience a material work stoppage, it could have a material adverse effect on our operations.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have an adverse impact on our financial results
Our full-time staff has the opportunity to participate in healthcare coverage subsidized by us. For various reasons, certain eligible staff choose not to participate in our healthcare plans. However, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, changes that become effective in 2014 may increase our payroll costs significantly. Other changes in the law, including the imposition of a penalty on individuals who do not obtain healthcare coverage, may result in staff participating in our healthcare plans when, in the past, such staff had elected not to participate in our healthcare plans. Such additional participation in our healthcare plans may increase our healthcare costs. It is also possible that making changes or failing to make changes in the healthcare plans we offer will make us less attractive to our current or potential staff. The costs and other effects of these new healthcare requirements, including the administrative costs to carry out these requirements, may have a material adverse effect on our financial results.
Our business could be adversely affected by increased compensation costs or difficulties in attracting staff for our business
Compensation is a significant component of our operating costs, and we believe talented and hardworking staff are a key part of our success. We devote significant resources to training our staff. Increased compensation costs due to factors like additional taxes or benefit costs, including the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as competition, increased minimum wage requirements, and other benefit mandates that may be required in the future could adversely impact our operating results. Our success depends in part on our ability to hire, motivate, and retain qualified staff. As we continue to expand, we will need to promote or hire additional staff, and it may be difficult to attract or retain such individuals as a result of these increased compensation and benefit mandates without incurring significant additional costs.
Governmental regulation in one or more of the following areas may adversely affect our existing and future operations and financial results, including harming our ability to expand or by increasing our operating costs
We are subject to various federal and state laws governing our relationship with and other matters pertaining to our staff, including wage and hour laws, requirements to provide meal and rest periods or other benefits, family leave mandates, requirements regarding working conditions and accommodations to certain employees, citizenship or work authorization and related requirements, insurance and workers’ compensation rules and anti-discrimination laws. Complying with these rules can be cumbersome and subjects us to substantial expense. These rules can also expose us to liabilities arising from claims for non-compliance. We could suffer losses from, and we could incur legal costs to defend lawsuits or claims, and the amount of such losses or costs could be significant. In addition, several states and localities in which we operate and the federal government from time to time have enacted minimum wage increases, paid sick leave and mandatory vacation accruals, and similar requirements and such changes, when enacted, could increase our compensation costs and have an adverse impact on our operating results.
We are subject to state and federal immigration laws, and the U.S. Congress and Department of Homeland Security from time to time consider or implement changes to Federal immigration laws, regulations or
36
Table of Contents
enforcement programs. Changes in immigration or work authorization laws may increase our obligations for compliance and oversight, which could subject us to additional costs and make our hiring process more cumbersome, or reduce the availability of potential qualified staff. Although we require all workers to provide us with government-specified documentation evidencing their employment eligibility, some of our staff may, without our knowledge, be unauthorized workers. Ineligible staff may subject us to fines or penalties, and we could experience adverse publicity that negatively impacts our business, disrupted operations and difficulty hiring and retaining qualified staff.
Claims arising from inadequate documentation of the eligibility of our staff as a result of not fully complying with all recordkeeping obligations of federal and state immigration compliance laws could result in other penalties and costs that could have a material adverse effect our operating results.
We are also audited from time to time for compliance with citizenship or work authorization requirements. Unauthorized staff may subject us to fines or penalties, and if any of our staff are found to be unauthorized our business may be disrupted as we try to replace lost staff with other qualified individuals. On the other hand, in the event we wrongfully reject work authorization documents, or if our compliance procedures are found to have a disparate impact on a protected class, such as a racial minority or based on the citizenship status of applicants, we could be found to be in violation of anti-discrimination laws. We could experience adverse publicity arising from enforcement activity related to work authorization compliance, anti-discrimination compliance, or both, that negatively impacts our business, adversely impacts our operating results, and may make it more difficult to hire and retain qualified staff.
Our joint venture for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling certain power systems into the Asian market may not be successful.
In 2012, we entered into a joint venture with another entity for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling certain power systems into the Asian market, and specifically to distribute such power systems from the joint venture’s manufacturing facility in China. The facility in China was completed in 2013. Manufacturing is due to commence in 2014. There can be no assurances that the joint venture will be successful. The formation of the venture and establishment of its business will require significant management and capital resources and there can be no assurances that such resources will be available. Operations at the joint venture could expose us to risks inherent in such activities, such as protection of our intellectual property, economic and political stability, labor matters, language and cultural differences, including cultural differences that could be construed as violations of U.S. or other anti-bribery laws; and the need to manage product development, operations and sales activities that are located a long distance from our headquarters. The management of new product development activities, the sharing or transfer of technological capabilities to the joint venture will expose us to risks. In addition, from time to time in the future, our joint venture partner may have economic or business interests or goals that are different from ours. In addition, the joint venture documents will require us to make equity contributions from time to time up to specified amounts. If the joint venture business does not progress according to our plans and anticipated timing, our investment in the joint venture may not be considered successful.
We could be adversely affected by risks associated with acquisitions and joint ventures.
From time to time, we may seek to expand our business through investments in, joint ventures with or acquisitions of, complementary businesses, technologies, services or products, subject to our business plans and management’s ability to identify, acquire and develop suitable investments or acquisition targets in both new and existing industrial OEM market categories and geographic markets. In certain circumstances, acceptable investments or acquisition targets might not be available. Acquisitions involve a number of risks, including: (1) difficulty in integrating the operations, technologies, products and personnel of an acquired business, including consolidating redundant facilities and infrastructure; (2) potential disruption of our ongoing business and the distraction of management from our day-to-day operations; (3) difficulty entering markets in which we have limited or no prior experience and in which competitors have a stronger market position; (4) difficulty
37
Table of Contents
maintaining the quality of services that such acquired companies have historically provided; (5) potential legal and financial responsibility for liabilities of acquired businesses; (6) overpayment for the acquired company or assets or failure to achieve anticipated benefits, such as cost savings and revenue enhancements; (7) increased expenses associated with completing an acquisition and amortizing any acquired intangible assets; (8) challenges in implementing uniform standards, accounting policies, customs, controls, procedures and policies throughout an acquired business; (9) failure to retain, motivate and integrate key management and other employees of the acquired business; and (10) loss of customers and a failure to integrate customer bases. In addition, under the terms of our credit facility, we may be restricted from engaging in certain acquisition transactions. See “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and capital resources — Credit agreement” for a description of our credit facility.
If we were to pursue acquisition or investment opportunities, these potential risks could disrupt our ongoing business, result in the loss of key customers or personnel, increase expenses and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We are and will continue to be subject to foreign laws, rules and regulations as our business expands into these foreign markets and cannot be certain as to our continued compliance and costs related thereto.
We are subject to, and may become subject to additional, state, federal and international laws and regulations governing our environmental, labor, trade and tax practices. These laws and regulations, particularly those applicable to our international operations, are or may be complex, extensive and subject to change. We will need to ensure that we and our OEM customers and suppliers timely comply with such laws and regulations, which may result in an increase in our operating costs. For example, in August 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted final rules to implement Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act intended to improve transparency and accountability concerning the supply of minerals originating from the conflict zones of the Democratic Republic of Congo or adjoining countries, which obligates us to conduct a reasonable country of origin inquiry with respect to conflict minerals included in components of products we directly manufacture, contract to manufacture and purchase to include in products. Other legislation has been, and may in the future be, enacted in other locations where we manufacture or sell our products. In addition, climate change and financial reform legislation in the United States is a significant topic of discussion and has generated and may continue to generate federal or other regulatory responses in the near future. If we or our component suppliers fail to timely comply with applicable legislation, our customers may refuse to purchase our products or we may face increased operating costs as a result of taxes, fines or penalties, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. In connection with our compliance with such environmental laws and regulations, as well as our compliance with industry environmental initiatives, the standards of business conduct required by some of our customers, and our commitment to sound corporate citizenship in all aspects of our business, we could incur substantial compliance and operating costs and be subject to disruptions to our operations and logistics. In addition, if we were found to be in violation of these laws or noncompliant with these initiatives or standards of conduct, we could be subject to governmental fines, liability to our customers and damage to our reputation and corporate brand which could cause our financial condition or operating results to suffer.
We could become liable for damages resulting from our manufacturing activities.
The nature of our manufacturing operations exposes us to potential claims and liability for environmental damage, personal injury, loss of life and damage to, or destruction of, property. Our manufacturing operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations that govern environmental protection and human health and safety. These laws and regulations have changed frequently in the past and it is reasonable to expect additional and more stringent changes in the future. Our manufacturing operations may not comply with future laws and regulations, and we may be required to make significant unanticipated capital and operating expenditures to bring our operations within compliance with such regulations. If we fail to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations, manufacturing guidelines, and workplace safety requirements, governmental authorities may seek to impose fines and penalties on us or to revoke or deny the issuance or renewal of operating permits, and private
38
Table of Contents
parties may seek damages from us. Under such circumstances, we could be required to curtail or cease operations, conduct site remediation or other corrective action, or pay substantial damage claims for which we may not have sufficient or any insurance coverage for claims.
We may have unanticipated tax liabilities that could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.
We are subject to various types of taxes in the U.S., as well as foreign jurisdictions into which we supply our products. The determination of our provision for income taxes and other tax accruals involves various judgments, and therefore the ultimate tax determination is subject to uncertainty. In addition, changes in tax laws, regulations, or rules may adversely affect our future reported financial results, may impact the way in which we conduct our business, or may increase the risk of audit by the Internal Revenue Service or other tax authority. Although we are not subject to any audits currently, we may be in the future subject to an Internal Revenue Service audit or other audit by state, local and foreign tax authorities. The final determinations of any tax audits in the U.S. or abroad could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. If any taxing authority disagrees with the positions taken by us on our tax returns, we could incur additional tax liabilities, including interest and penalties.
Changes in accounting standards or inaccurate estimates or assumptions in applying accounting policies could adversely affect us.
Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the reported value of our assets or liabilities and results of operations and are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. If those assumptions, estimates or judgments were incorrectly made, we could be required to correct and restate prior-period financial statements.
Variability in self-insurance liability estimates could significantly impact our results of operations.
We self-insure for employee health insurance coverage up to a predetermined level, beyond which we maintain stop-loss insurance from a third-party insurer. Our aggregate exposure varies from year to year based upon the number of participants in this health insurance plan. We estimate our self-insurance liabilities using an analysis provided by our claims administrator and our historical claims experience. Our accruals for insurance reserves reflect these estimates and other management judgments, which are subject to a high degree of variability. Any significant variation in these estimates and judgments could cause a material change to our reserves for self-insurance liabilities, as well as our earnings.
Risks Related to the Shell Company
We may have contingent liabilities related to Format, Inc.’s operations prior to the reverse recapitalization transaction of which we are not aware and for which we have not adequately reserved.
Format, Inc. may be deemed to have been a shell company with nominal operations and assets prior to the reverse recapitalization transaction. Upon completion of the reverse recapitalization, we acquired all of the operations of The W Group and its subsidiaries. Immediately prior to the consummation of the reverse recapitalization, Format, Inc. was engaged, to a limited extent, in EDGARizing corporate documents for filing with the SEC, and providing limited commercial printing services. We cannot assure you that there are no material claims outstanding, or other circumstances of which we are not aware, that would give rise to a material liability relating to those prior operations, even though we do not record any provisions in our financial statements related to any such potential liability. If we are subject to past claims or material obligations relating to our operations prior to the consummation of the reverse recapitalization, such claims could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
39
Table of Contents
Risks Related to the Ownership of our Common Stock
We incur significant costs and demands upon management and accounting and finance resources as a result of complying with the laws and regulations affecting public companies; any failure to establish and maintain adequate internal control over financial reporting or to recruit, train and retain necessary accounting and finance personnel could have an adverse effect on our ability to accurately and timely prepare our financial statements.
As a public operating company, we incur significant administrative, legal, accounting and other burdens and expenses beyond those of a private company, including those associated with corporate governance requirements, public company reporting obligations and NASDAQ listing requirements. In particular, we have needed to enhance and supplement our internal accounting resources with additional accounting and finance personnel with the requisite technical and public company experience and expertise, as well as refine our quarterly and annual financial statement closing process, to enable us to satisfy such reporting obligations.
Furthermore, we are required to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In order to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are required to document and test our internal control procedures and prepare annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. These assessments must include disclosure of identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. The existence of one or more material weaknesses could affect the accuracy and timing of our financial reporting. Testing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting involves significant costs and could divert management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business. Additionally, we cannot provide any assurances that we will be successful in remediating any deficiencies that may be identified. If we are unable to remediate any such deficiencies or otherwise fail to establish and maintain adequate accounting systems and internal control over financial reporting, or we are unable to continue to recruit, train and retain necessary accounting and finance personnel, we may not be able to accurately and timely prepare our financial statements and otherwise satisfy our public reporting obligations. Any inaccuracies in our financial statements or other public disclosures (in particular if resulting in the need to restate previously filed financial statements), or delays in our making required SEC filings, could have a material adverse effect on the confidence in our financial reporting, our credibility in the marketplace and the trading price of our common stock.
In the prior year, we identified material weaknesses in our internal controls, and we cannot provide assurances that these weaknesses or that additional material weaknesses will not occur in the future. Specifically, under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, our management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in the framework in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). Based on this assessment, our management concluded that as of December 31, 2012, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective based on those criteria. Based on management’s assessment, controls over the business system software used within our aftermarket parts group were not adequate. Our management has been engaged in successfully developing and implementing a remediation plan to address the material weakness, but we cannot assure that our internal control over financial reporting, as modified, will enable us to identify or avoid material weaknesses in the future. See “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures”, for Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
In prior periods, as a “smaller reporting company,” we were able to take advantage of an exemption from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As we no longer qualify as a smaller reporting company, compliance with these auditor attestation requirements have required additional costs and significant time and resources from our management and finance and accounting personnel. See “Item 9A. Controls and Procedures,” for Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
40
Table of Contents
Furthermore, we are now deemed to be an “accelerated filer” and are subject to time restraints with respect to our financial and public reporting obligations. While we used every effort to plan accordingly for this reporting obligation and NASDAQ listing requirements we cannot be certain that our planning will continue to be effective and timely. The reporting obligations pertain not only to the finance and accounting departments, but impact almost all employees, processes and technology throughout our company.
In addition, our management team must continue to adapt to other requirements of being a public company. We need to devote significant resources to address these public company-associated requirements, including compliance programs and investor relations, as well as our financial reporting obligations. We incur substantial legal and financial compliance costs as a result of complying with these rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC.
Concentration of ownership among our existing executive officers may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions.
As of February 24, 2014, Gary Winemaster, our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Kenneth Winemaster, our Senior Vice President and Secretary, beneficially owned in the aggregate approximately 57% of our outstanding shares of common stock. On a fully-diluted basis, assuming the exercise of all outstanding warrants and outstanding stock appreciation rights, such individuals beneficially owned in the aggregate approximately 55% of our outstanding shares of common stock. As of February 24, 2014, Gary Winemaster alone beneficially owned approximately 37% of our outstanding shares of common stock. On a fully diluted basis, assuming the exercise of all outstanding warrants and outstanding stock appreciation rights, Gary Winemaster alone beneficially owned approximately 35% of our outstanding shares of common stock.
As a result of Gary Winemaster’s and Kenneth Winemaster’s beneficial ownership of a significant majority of our outstanding shares of common stock, these stockholders can exercise control over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, amendment of our articles of incorporation and approval of significant corporate transactions. This control could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of our company or changes in management and will make the approval of certain transactions impossible without the support of these stockholders.
A liquid and orderly trading market for our common stock may not fully develop, and the price of our stock may be volatile and may decline in value.
An active, liquid public trading market may not fully develop or may not be sustained. While the level of trading volume will vary each day, the typical trading volume represents only a small percentage of our total shares of common stock outstanding. The lack of an active, liquid public trading market may impair your ability to sell your shares of common stock at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. The lack of an active, liquid public trading market for our common stock may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares of common stock and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or assets by using shares of our common stock as consideration.
The trading price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. The stock market in general has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies with securities traded in those markets. Broad market and industry factors may seriously affect the market price of companies’ stock, including ours, regardless of actual operating performance. In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. This litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.
41
Table of Contents
Future sales by us or our existing stockholders could depress the market price of our common stock.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of common stock, or the perception that sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. On July 16, 2013, we closed an underwritten offering of 1,050,000 shares of our common stock, and certain selling stockholders sold 955,000 shares of our common stock in this offering. In addition, we may offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depositary shares, warrants, subscription rights, stock purchase contracts and units under a universal shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on February 14, 2014. Finally, a significant number of shares of our common stock were registered for sale in 2011 and are eligible for sale in the public market. If we or our existing stockholders sell a large number of shares of our common stock, or if we sell additional securities that are convertible into common stock, in the future, the market price of our common stock similarly could decline. Further, even the perception in the public market that we or our existing stockholders might sell shares of common stock could depress the market price of our common stock.
Our actual operating results may differ significantly from our guidance.
From time to time, we release guidance regarding our future performance that represents our management’s estimates as of the date of release. This guidance, which consists of forward-looking statements, is prepared by our management and is qualified by, and subject to, the assumptions and the other information contained or referred to in the release. Our guidance is not prepared with a view toward compliance with published guidelines of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and neither our independent registered public accounting firm nor any other independent expert or outside party compiles or examines the guidance and, accordingly, no such person expresses any opinion or any other form of assurance with respect thereto. Guidance is based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while presented with numerical specificity, is inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control and are based upon specific assumptions with respect to future business decisions, some of which will change. The principal reason that we release this data is to provide a basis for our management to discuss our business outlook with analysts and investors. We do not accept any responsibility for any projections or reports published by any such persons. Guidance is necessarily speculative in nature, and it can be expected that some or all of the assumptions of the guidance furnished by us will not materialize or will vary significantly from actual results. Accordingly, our guidance is only an estimate of what management believes is realizable as of the date of release. Actual results will vary from the guidance and the variations may be material. Investors should also recognize that the reliability of any forecasted financial data diminishes the farther in the future that the data is forecast. In light of the foregoing, investors are urged to put the guidance in context and not to place undue reliance on it. Any failure to successfully implement our operating strategy or the occurrence of any of the events or circumstances set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could result in the actual operating results being different than the guidance, and such differences may be adverse and material.
We have broad discretion in the use of borrowings under our revolving line of credit and may use them in a manner in which our stockholders would not consider appropriate.
Our management has broad discretion in the application of the borrowings under our revolving line of credit. Our stockholders may not agree with the manner in which our management chooses to allocate and spend these funds. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Anti-takeover provisions contained in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could impair a takeover attempt.
In addition to the concentration of ownership described under “Concentration of ownership among our existing executive officers and their affiliates may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions” above, which will prevent any attempt to acquire control of our company not supported by these
42
Table of Contents
significant stockholders, our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions which could have the effect of rendering more difficult, delaying or preventing an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. Our organizational documents include provisions:
| • | authorizing “blank check” preferred stock, which may be issued by our board of directors without stockholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock; and |
| • | limiting the liability of, and providing indemnification to, our directors and officers. |
These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management. Provisions of Delaware law may also have anti-takeover effects. Any provision of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.
Our stockholders may experience significant dilution if future equity offerings are used to fund operations or acquire complementary businesses.
If we engage in capital raising activities in the future, including issuances of common stock, to fund the growth of our business, our stockholders could experience significant dilution. In addition, securities issued in connection with future financing activities or potential acquisitions may have rights and preferences senior to the rights and preferences of our common stock.
During 2012, we adopted the 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, which was amended in 2013 to increase the number of shares available for awards pursuant to this plan. This plan and the related amendment were each approved by our stockholders. The adoption of this plan pursuant to which equity awards have been, and may continue to be, granted to eligible employees (including our executive officers), directors and consultants, and the related issuance of shares of our common stock upon the exercise of any such equity awards may result in dilution to our stockholders and adversely affect our earnings. See “Executive Compensation — 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan” for a description of this plan.
We also may offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depositary shares, warrants, subscription rights, stock purchase contracts and units under a universal shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on February 14, 2014. The issuance of securities into the market pursuant to the shelf registration statement may be dilutive to existing stockholders and have an adverse effect on the price of our securities.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish, or cease publishing, research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the extent to which industry or securities analysts publish research and reports about us, our business, our market or our competitors and what they publish in those reports. Any analysts that do cover us may make adverse recommendations regarding our stock, adversely change their recommendations from time to time, and/or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors. If any analyst who covers us were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, or if analysts fail to cover us or publish reports about us at all, we could lose, or never gain, visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.
43
Table of Contents
We do not anticipate paying any dividends in the foreseeable future.
The payment of dividends is currently restricted by our credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. We intend to retain our future earnings to support operations and to finance expansion and, therefore, we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends to holders of our common stock in the foreseeable future. Because we do not anticipate paying dividends in the future, the only opportunity to realize the value of our common stock will likely be through an appreciation in value and a sale of those shares. There is no guarantee that shares of our common stock will appreciate in value or even maintain the price at which a stockholder purchased his, her or its shares.
A research report, which did not reflect our views, was published by one of our underwriters prior to the filing of our registration statement in connection with our public offering, which closed on July 16, 2013. We could be subject to potential liability as a result of the publication of this research report.
Prior to the filing of our registration statement in connection with our recent public offering, a research report regarding our quarterly financial results was written and published by Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC, one of our underwriters, which publishes and distributes research reports on our company in the regular course of its business.
We were not involved in any way in the preparation of this research report and had no knowledge of this research report until after it was released. Such report does not reflect our views, and we disclaimed all responsibility for its contents. Potential investors in our recent public offering were advised to disregard the contents of this research report entirely when making any investment decision with respect to our common stock.
The research report may be deemed a prospectus not meeting the requirements of the Securities Act, and the publication of the report could be found to be a violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act. If the publication of this research report were to be held by a court to be a violation by us of Section 5 of the Securities Act, we could be required to repurchase the shares sold to certain purchasers in our recent offering at the original purchase price, or, if such purchasers had already sold the securities, could be liable to them for damages. We could be subject to other claims for damages and costs as a result of the publication of the research report.
| Item 1B. | Unresolved Staff Comments. |
Not applicable.
| Item 2. | Properties. |
We operate within approximately an aggregate of 440,000 square feet of space in four facilities located in the Chicago, Illinois area. The following table lists the location of each of our three facilities materially important to our business (one of which we own, and the others of which are leased by us), that facility’s principal use, the approximate square footage of that facility, and the current lease expiration date (to the extent applicable):
| Location |
Principal Use |
Square Footage | Lease Expiration | |||
| Wood Dale, Illinois |
Research & Development | 42,000 | Owned | |||
| Wood Dale, Illinois |
Executive Offices; Production; Warehousing & Distribution; Sales Support | 261,000 | July 31, 2018 | |||
| Wood Dale, Illinois |
Corporate Offices; Finance; Human Resources; Production Warehousing | 116,000 | July 31, 2018 |
The facilities collectively house our manufacturing operations. As noted above, we have expanded the square footage in which we operate and believe our newly expanded facilities are adequate to meet our current and future needs.
44
Table of Contents
| Item 3. | Legal Proceedings. |
From time to time, in the normal course of business, we are a party to various legal proceedings. We do not currently expect that any currently pending proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
| Item 4. | Mine Safety Disclosures. |
Not applicable.
45
Table of Contents
PART II
| Item 5. | Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. |
Our common stock is listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol PSIX. Prior to listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market on May 28, 2013, our common stock was quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and the OTC Markets — OTCQB tier under the symbol PSIX. The table below sets forth the high and low sale prices per share of our common stock on The NASDAQ Capital Market, and the high and low bid prices per share of our common stock as quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and the OTC Markets — OTCQB tier for the periods indicated, as applicable.
| High | Low | |||||||
| Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012 |
||||||||
| First Quarter |
$ | 17.75 | $ | 10.00 | ||||
| Second Quarter |
$ | 20.95 | $ | 14.00 | ||||
| Third Quarter |
$ | 17.15 | $ | 15.10 | ||||
| Fourth Quarter |
$ | 18.00 | $ | 14.35 | ||||
| Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2013 |
||||||||
| First Quarter |
$ | 26.08 | $ | 16.18 | ||||
| Second Quarter |
$ | 38.25 | $ | 24.00 | ||||
| Third Quarter |
$ | 59.26 | $ | 33.00 | ||||
| Fourth Quarter |
$ | 78.96 | $ | 52.30 | ||||
As of February 24, 2014, the last reported sale price for our common stock on The NASDAQ Capital Market was $71.32 per share.
Holders
As of February 24, 2014, there were approximately 11 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders is significantly greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.
Dividend Policy
We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date. The payment of dividends is currently restricted by our credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. We intend to retain our future earnings to support operations and to finance expansion. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Credit Agreement” below for a further discussion regarding restrictions on the payment of dividends under our new credit facility.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Compensation Plans
On May 30, 2012, the Board of Directors approved and adopted our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2012 Plan”). Under the 2012 Plan, 830,925 shares of our common stock were initially made available for awards pursuant to the 2012 Plan. On July 31, 2013, the Board of Directors of the Company, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee, adopted an amendment to the 2012 Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2012 Plan by 700,000 shares. This amendment was approved by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders held on August 28, 2013. Of the Company’s 1,530,925 shares reserved for awards under the 2012 Plan, 543,872
46
Table of Contents
shares were originally underlying a SAR award granted to the Company’s Chief Operating Officer on June 6, 2012 and 162,993 shares of restricted stock have been granted to date to eligible employees.
As of December 31, 2013, 824,060 shares of our common stock were available for awards pursuant to the 2012 Plan.
| Plan Category |
Number of securities to |
Weighted-average |
Number of securities | |||
| (a) |
(b) |
(c) | ||||
| Equity compensation plans approved by security holders |
525,574 | $22.07 | 824,060 | |||
| Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders |
N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
| Total |
525,574 | $22.07 | 824,060 |
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
During the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2013, we did not make any repurchases of equity securities.
| Item 6. | Selected Financial Data. |
As we are transitioning from smaller reporting company status, we are not yet required to provide this information.
| Item 7. | Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. |
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion and analysis includes forward-looking statements about our business, financial condition and results of operations, including discussions about management’s expectations for our business. These statements represent projections, beliefs and expectations based on current circumstances and conditions and in light of recent events and trends, and you should not construe these statements either as assurances of performance or as promises of a given course of action. Instead, various known and unknown factors are likely to cause our actual performance and management’s actions to vary, and the results of these variances may be both material and adverse. A description of material factors known to us that may cause our results to vary, or may cause management to deviate from its current plans and expectations, is set forth under “Risk Factors.” See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” The following discussion should also be read in conjunction with our financial statements and the related notes included in this report.
Overview
Organization
We design, manufacture, distribute and support power systems for industrial OEMs across a broad range of industries including stationary electricity power generation, oil and gas, material handling, aerial work platforms,
47
Table of Contents
industrial sweepers, arbor, welding, airport ground support, turf, agricultural, construction and irrigation. Our engineering personnel design and test power system solutions and components supporting those solutions. Our major engine suppliers include Perkins/Caterpillar, General Motors, and Doosan, and we source components from a variety of domestic and global suppliers. We operate as one business and geographic segment. Accordingly, the following discussion is based upon this presentation.
Net sales
We generate revenues and cash primarily from the sale of off-highway industrial power systems and aftermarket parts to industrial OEMs. Our products are sold globally. Net sales are derived from gross sales less sales returns and or sales discounts.
Cost of sales
We manufacture and assemble our products at our facilities in Wood Dale, Illinois. The most significant component of our cost of sales is the engine cost. The remainder of our cost of sales primarily includes the cost of additional materials utilized in our finished goods, labor, freight, depreciation and other inventoriable costs such as allocated overhead.
Operating expenses
Operating expenses include research & development and engineering, selling and service and general and administrative expenses. Research & development and engineering expenses include both internal personnel costs and expenses associated with outsourced third party engineering relationships. Research & development and engineering activities are staff intensive. Costs incurred primarily consist of wages and benefits for professional engineers, materials used in the development of new products and applications, and amounts paid to third parties under contractual engineering agreements. Research & development and engineering staff focus on advanced product development, application design, customer product support and other engineering related activities. Our advanced product development and application design staff primarily focuses on current and future product design, prototyping, testing and application development activities. Our customer product support group provides dedicated engineering and technical attention to customer production support, including a direct communication link with our internal operations.
Selling and service expenses represent the costs of our OEM sales team, an aftermarket sales group and certain costs associated with field service and support of our products. We utilize a direct sales and marketing approach to maintain maximum customer interface and service support. Wages and benefits, together with expenses associated with travel, account for the majority of the costs in this category.
General and administrative expenses principally represent costs of our corporate office and personnel that provide management, accounting, finance, human resources, information systems and related services which support the organization. In addition to wages and benefits, costs include public company expenses, professional services fees, insurance premiums, banking fees and other general facility and administrative support costs.
Other expense (income)
Other expense (income) includes interest expense on our revolving line of credit and other obligations upon which we pay interest, changes in the valuation of the warrants issued in the private placement that closed on April 29, 2011, and other pre-tax transactions which require classification in non-operating results. The change in the valuation of our private placement warrants is subject to change based upon fluctuations in the market price of our common stock which can vary significantly from period to period. Other expense (income) may also include other non-operating expenses from time to time, such as a loss on debt extinguishment and other matters which are not otherwise considered operating income or expense.
48
Table of Contents
2013 significant developments
Underwritten public offering
During 2013, we closed an underwritten public offering of 2,005,000 shares of our common stock at a price to the public of $35.00 per share. We sold 1,050,000 shares of our common stock, and certain selling stockholders sold 955,000 shares of common stock, in the offering. We received proceeds, net of the underwriter’s fees and expenses, of approximately $34,530,000 before deducting offering expenses of approximately $514,000 that have been paid. We did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares by the selling stockholders. We used $25.0 million of the net proceeds to repay outstanding borrowings under our revolving line of credit. Our offering has a significant effect on the comparability of recent results as compared to past results.
New credit agreement
During 2013, we entered into a credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, which replaced our credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. The Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement increases our revolving line of credit to an initial maximum $75.0 million, which, at our request and subject to the terms of the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement, may be increased up to $100.0 million during the term of the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Agreements” for further discussion of the credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.
2012 significant developments
Facility consolidation
During 2012, we exited two of our leased facilities. We consolidated our diesel engine production and a portion of our spark engine production with our primary component parts and aftermarket inventories into a newly leased 261,000 square foot facility. We moved our heavy duty power system production into a separately leased facility with our base engine block production. We converted our owned facility from production to a research and development facility. We capitalized approximately $2.0 million in leasehold improvements associated with the facilities consolidation. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the assets’ useful economic life or the period from the date the assets are placed in service to the end of the lease term including renewal periods that are considered to be reasonably assured of being exercised. In addition, we incurred approximately $509,000 in moving and related costs during 2012 which have been classified as general and administrative expenses in our statement of operations.
Amendment to credit agreement
We completed two amendments to our prior credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. in 2012. On March 20, 2012, our prior credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. was amended to increase the total credit facility from $35.0 million to $50.0 million and to extend the maturity date to March 20, 2017. In addition, this amendment also resulted in a reduction of the LIBOR margin and unused line fee, and under certain circumstances, we are no longer required to report our fixed charge coverage ratio. On November 8, 2012, we amended our prior credit agreement with BMO Harris N.A. to (i) increase our acquisition limit up to an aggregate value of $2.0 million; (ii) enter into joint ventures up to an aggregate value of $2.0 million, up from $500,000, and (iii) make annual capital expenditures up to an aggregate of $8.0 million, up from $4.0 million. These thresholds were subject to certain limitations as set forth in the November 8, 2012, amended agreement.
49
Table of Contents
Factors affecting comparability
We have set forth below selected factors that we believe have had, or can be expected to have, a significant effect on the comparability of recent or future results of operations:
Private placement warrants
Our year-to-year and year-over-year results can be impacted by our private placement warrant liability. The change in estimated fair value of the liability associated with the private placement warrants is primarily attributable to fluctuations in the value of our common stock during a period.
Stock-based and other executive compensation
On June 6, 2012, we granted a stock appreciation rights award to our Chief Operating Officer. As a result, we have incurred non-cash, stock-based compensation expense for the full year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to approximately 6 months of such expense for the same period in 2012. Further, as explained below, the recognition of the expense for the stock appreciation rights was accelerated in 2013 as a result of achieving certain market conditions earlier than originally contemplated in the initial assumptions used to determine the expense and related recognition period for those stock appreciation rights.
In addition, during 2013, we granted restricted stock awards under our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan to certain employees of the Company. As a result, we have incurred additional non-cash, stock-based compensation expense in the year ended December 31, 2013 that was not present in 2012.
On July 31, 2013, our Board, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee, adopted an amendment to increase the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan by 700,000 shares, which amendment was approved by our stockholders on August 28, 2013. We may consider making additional share-based awards to our directors, officers and other employees and possibly to consultants, and if we do, we will incur additional non-cash, stock-based compensation expenses in future periods.
Public company expenses
As a result of the reverse recapitalization taking place in 2011, we became a public company. Based on this fact, our general and administrative expenses have increased as we pay our employees, legal counsel and accountants to assist us in, among other things, establishing and maintaining a more comprehensive compliance and board governance function, establishing, maintaining and assessing internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and preparing and distributing periodic public reports under the federal securities laws. In addition, as a public company the cost of director and officer liability insurance has increased. We have also incurred additional costs associated with compensation of non-employee directors.
Loss on debt extinguishment
We recognized a loss on debt extinguishment of $270,000 and $485,000 in the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2011, respectively, due to the write-off of remaining unamortized loan fees associated with our then prior credit facility. This item was not present in 2012.
Events affecting sales and profitability comparisons
Our year-to-year and year-over-year operating results (including our sales, gross profit and net (loss) income) and cash flows can be impacted by a variety of internal and external events associated with our business
50
Table of Contents
operations. Examples of such events include (1) changes in regulatory emission requirements (which generally occur on January 1 of the year in which they become effective), (2) customer product phase-in/phase-out programs, (3) supplier product (e.g., a specific engine model) phase-in/phase-out programs, (4) changes in pricing by suppliers to us of engines, components and other parts (typically effective January 1 of any year), and (5) changes in our pricing to our customers (typically effective January 1 of any year), which may be related to changes in the pricing by suppliers to us. In order to mitigate potential availability or pricing issues, customers may adjust their demand requirements from traditional patterns. We may also extend special programs to customers in advance of such events, and we are more likely to offer such programs in our fourth quarter of a year in anticipation of events expected to occur in the first quarter of the next year. The occurrence of any of the events discussed above may result in fluctuations in our operating results (including sales and profitability) and cash flows between and among reporting periods.
Results of operations
Year ended December 31, 2013 compared with the year ended December 31, 2012
Net sales
Our net sales increased $35,500,000 (17.5%) to $237,842,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to $202,342,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, of which power system sales accounted for $30.0 million of the increase, with the remaining increase attributable to sales of aftermarket parts. The increase in power system sales principally arose from an increase in sales of our heavy duty power systems in 2013 over the prior year. Sales unit volume (as opposed to price increases) accounted for $32.7 million of the increase in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the same period in 2012.
Gross profit
Our gross profit increased $10,609,000 (31.3%) to $44,526,000 for the year ended December 31, 2013, from $33,917,000 in the same period in 2012. Our gross profit increased primarily due to the previously discussed increase in sales unit volumes and an expansion of our gross margin over the prior year. As a percentage of net sales, gross margin was 18.7% for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to 16.8% in the same period in 2012. The higher gross margin during 2013 was principally attributable to an increase in sales of our heavy duty power systems.
Research & development and engineering
Research & development and engineering expense increased $3,062,000 (41.5%) to $10,439,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to $7,377,000 for the same period in 2012. Research & development and engineering activities are staff intensive; thus, significant costs are incurred for the salaries and benefits of our professional engineers and amounts paid to third parties for contract services associated with our research & development activities, including the design of our proprietary engines. Compensation and benefits increased $1,704,000 as we increased headcount in connection with our engineering development and support activities, including development activities associated with pursuing on-road applications for our products. Consulting and professional fees increased $395,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the same period in 2012 and was due to third-party resources used by us to support our in-house engineering staff as needed from time to time. Emission certification expenses increased $243,000 in 2013 due to an increase in sales and the certification of additional engines to meet the EPA and CARB emissions requirements. Materials and related costs incurred for product development, design and application engineering also increased $231,000 in 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. The remaining increase in other research & development and engineering expenses in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the same period in 2012, principally related to supplies, expendable items and travel costs in support of our research and development and engineering activities. As a percentage of net sales, research & development and engineering expenses were 4.4% in the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to 3.6% for the same period in 2012.
51
Table of Contents
Selling and service
Selling and service expenses increased $1,620,000 (27.3%) to $7,545,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, from $5,925,000 in the comparable period of 2012. Compensation and benefits increased $469,000 and travel expenses increased $124,000 in the twelve month period ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the same period in 2012 to support our sales growth. Warranty expenses and product allowances increased $383,000 and $336,000, respectively on higher sales activity in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to the same period in 2012. Trade show and other promotional expenses increased $195,000 in support of our higher sales activity. As a percentage of net sales, selling and service expenses increased to 3.2% in the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to 2.9% for the same period in 2012.
General and administrative
General and administrative expenses increased $3,276,000 (39.5%) to $11,575,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, from $8,299,000 in the comparable period of 2012. Compensation and benefits increased $1,784,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. The increase was primarily attributable to the addition of staff to support our growth and expenses incurred in connection with our incentive and performance compensation. Specifically, compensation expense associated with the stock appreciation right granted to our Chief Operating Officer in June 2012 increased $429,000 in 2013 over 2012. This additional expense arose from (i) a full twelve month’s expense in 2013 as compared to seven months in 2012 and (ii) an acceleration of the stock compensation expense arising from the achievement of the market condition earlier than contemplated in the stock appreciation right assumptions made at the time the stock appreciation right was granted.
NASDAQ listing fees, investor relations expenses, market research, SEC related costs, franchise taxes and other similar costs increased $871,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. In addition, accounting, consulting and legal expenses increased $637,000, primarily relating to (i) tax consulting fees and (ii) fees incurred in 2013 for the additional internal control testing and reporting required under Sarbanes-Oxley to which we are now subject beginning in 2013. We also incurred approximately $312,000 of additional IT and human resources expenses, other than wages and benefits, to support our staff as we grow our business. We incurred $509,000 in costs in 2012 to consolidate our facilities and no such costs were incurred in 2013. The remaining net increase in general and administrative expenses supported our continued growth year over year. As a percentage of net sales, general and administrative expenses increased to 4.9% in the year ended December 31, 2013, from 4.1% for the same period in 2012.
Other (income) expense
Interest expense decreased $366,000 (35.8%) to $657,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to $1,023,000 for the same period in 2012. The decrease in interest expense was primarily attributable to a $5.4 million, or 19.0%, decrease in average borrowings outstanding in the year ended December 31, 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012, which decrease was due to the aforementioned paydown of our revolving line of credit arising from proceeds received in a public offering of our common stock that was completed in July 2013. In addition, our weighted average borrowing rate on our bank debt decreased to 2.21% in the year ended December 31, 2013, from 2.41% for the same period in 2012.
We recognized a loss on debt extinguishment of $270,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, due to the write-off of remaining unamortized loan fees associated with our prior credit facility with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. The remaining unamortized loan fees were required to be expensed when we replaced our credit facility effective June 28, 2013, and repaid the balance outstanding under our prior credit agreement. See “Liquidity and Capital Resources — Credit Agreements” below for further discussion regarding the refinancing of our prior credit facility with a new lender.
Private placement warrant expense was $28,031,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to expense of $448,000 for the same period in 2012. We are required to recognize changes in the estimated fair
52
Table of Contents
value of unexercised private placement warrants in our consolidated statement of operations. The change in estimated fair value of the private placement warrants was attributable to an increase in the trading price of our common stock from 2012 to 2013.
Income tax expense
Our income tax expense increased $616,000 to $4,759,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, as compared to $4,143,000 for the same period in 2012. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we reported a pre-tax loss. The pre-tax loss was attributable to the expense recognized from a change in the valuation of the private placement warrants during the year, which amount is permanently excluded in the computation of taxable income. As we reported a loss before incomes taxes in 2013, an effective income tax rate is not a meaningful calculation in the year ended December 31, 2013. Our effective income tax rate was 38.2% in the year ended December 31, 2012.
Excluding the expenses associated with the change in the private placement warrants, our effective income tax rates were 33.9% and 36.7%, for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. This lower effective income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2013, was favorably impacted by the federal research tax credits realized for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. We recognized the federal research tax credits for both years in 2013 because the enactment of the legislation providing the federal research tax credits for 2012 was not signed into law until January 2, 2013, and generally accepted accounting principles prohibit retroactive application of tax law changes. The research tax credits were partially offset by unrecognized tax benefits as we made the determination that it is more likely than not that the full benefit of the research tax credits will not be sustained upon examination. Additionally, our 2013 and 2012 effective tax rate was favorably impacted by an allowable deduction for our domestic production activities.
Year ended December 31, 2012 compared with the year ended December 31, 2011
Net sales
Our net sales increased $47,373,000 (30.6%) to $202,342,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $154,969,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011, of which an increase in sales volume (as opposed to price increases) accounted for approximately $43.9 million of the year over year increase.
Our power systems and related sales increased approximately $45.1 million and parts sales accounted for the remaining $2.3 million increase. The sales increase occurred across all power systems product categories. In addition, the sales increase also increased across a majority of our customer base.
Gross profit
Our gross profit increased $7,489,000 (28.3%) to $33,917,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $26,428,000 in the year ended December 31, 2011. Our gross profit increased primarily due to the previously discussed increase in sales volume. As a percentage of net sales, gross margin was 16.8% for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to 17.1% in 2011. The lower gross margin during 2012 was principally attributable to an increase in materials costs in excess of price increases.
Research & development and engineering
Research & development and engineering expense increased $2,664,000 (56.5%) to $7,377,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to $4,713,000 in 2011, due to an increase in customer product support activities associated with the increase in sales and product development. Compensation and benefits increased $1,170,000 as we increased headcount to support our production development and engineering applications with respect to new and existing products, including efforts to build proprietary engines. Materials used in connection
53
Table of Contents
with these activities also increased $1,289,000 from 2011. The remaining $205,000 increase was attributable to other research & development and engineering expenses, none of which was individually significant. As a percentage of net sales, research & development and engineering expenses increased to 3.6% for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to 3.0% for 2011.
Selling and service expense
Selling and service expenses decreased $741,000 (11.1%) to $5,925,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $6,666,000 in 2011. Warranty expense decreased $497,000 as we realized lower than expected claims for the covered periods. The remaining $244,000 decrease was attributable to various fluctuations in other expense categories, none of which was individually significant. As a percentage of net sales, selling and service expenses decreased to 2.9% in 2012 compared to 4.3% in 2011.
General and administrative expense
General and administrative expenses increased $3,055,000 (58.3%) to $8,299,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, from $5,244,000 in 2011. Compensation and benefits increased $1,462,000 and was primarily due to compensation and benefits of our new Chief Operating Officer hired in 2012 and the transition of our prior Chief Operating Officer who subsequently retired in early 2013. We also incurred $509,000 of costs to consolidate our facilities to accommodate our sales growth. Public company and consulting expenses increased $544,000 principally due to a full year operating as a public company. Other general and administrative expenses increased $540,000, none of which was individually significant. As a percentage of net sales, general and administrative expenses increased to 4.1% in the year ended December 31, 2012, from 3.4% in 2011.
Other (income) expense
Interest expense decreased $317,000 (23.7%) to $1,023,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to $1,340,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in interest expense was attributable to a decrease in the weighted average borrowing rate on our bank debt from 4.11% in 2011 to 2.41% in 2012 and a decrease in bank loan fees accounted for as interest expense year over year. These decreases were partially offset by additional interest incurred due to a $5.0 million increase in average outstanding bank borrowings principally arising from an increase in working capital requirements in support of our higher level of sales activity in 2012 over 2011.
We recognized a loss on debt extinguishment of $485,000 in the year ended December 31, 2011, due to the write off of unamortized loan fees associated with our prior credit facility with Fifth Third Bank. The remaining unamortized loan fees were required to be expensed when we refinanced a prior credit facility with a new lender and repaid the balances outstanding under a prior credit agreement. See “Liquidity and capital resources — credit agreement” below for a further discussion regarding the refinancing of our prior credit facility.
Private placement warrant expense was $448,000 in the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to expense of $382,000 for the same period in 2011.
Also, in the year ended December 31, 2011, we had $762,000 of other expense which consisted of non-capitalizable transaction costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the warrants in the $18.0 million private placement. See “Reverse recapitalization, private placement and stock repurchase” for further discussion of these costs.
Income tax expense
Our income tax expense increased $1,370,000 to $4,143,000, as compared to $2,773,000 in 2011. Our effective income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2012, was 38.2% as compared with 40.6% for the
54
Table of Contents
prior year. Our income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2012, increased principally due to the higher taxable income realized in 2012 as compared with 2011. In addition, our income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2012, did not include any benefit for federal research tax credits because the enactment of the legislation providing the federal research tax credits for 2012 was not signed into law until January 2, 2013. The federal research tax credit included in our 2011 federal income tax provision was $240,000.
Our income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2012, decreased due to a lower effective state rate as compared to 2011, which was principally attributable to estimated state tax credits. In addition, the 2011 estimated tax rate was adversely impacted by non-deductible expenses associated with certain transaction costs incurred in connection with the reverse recapitalization. See “Reverse recapitalization, private placement and stock repurchase” for further discussion of these transactions.
Liquidity and capital resources
Our cash requirements are dependent upon a variety of factors, foremost of which is the execution of our strategic plan. We expect to continue to devote substantial capital resources to running our business. Our primary sources of liquidity have been and continue to be cash flows from operations, principally collections of customer accounts receivable and borrowing capacity under our credit facility. On June 28, 2013, we replaced our existing $50.0 million credit facility with BMO Harris Bank N.A. with a $75.0 million credit facility with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. Our new and prior credit facilities are described further below under “Credit agreements.” On July 16, 2013, we completed a public offering in which we sold 1,050,000 shares of our common stock at $35.00 per share that resulted in net proceeds to us of approximately $34.0 million after underwriters’ fees and expenses associated with the sale of these shares. We used a portion of our net proceeds to reduce the outstanding balance on our revolving line of credit, and the remaining proceeds are being used for working capital and other general corporate purposes, which may include capital expenditures and acquisitions.
Based on our current forecasts and assumptions, we believe that our sources of cash, namely the sales of our power systems and aftermarket products and access to borrowings on our existing or future credit facilities, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash needs for working capital and capital expenditures over at least the next year. Although we believe our existing sources of liquidity will also be sufficient on a longer-term basis, that will depend on numerous factors, including the following: the continuation of our existing customer relationships and our development of new customer relationships; market acceptance of our existing and future products; the success of our product development and commercialization efforts and the costs associated with those efforts; and the costs associated with any future acquisitions, joint ventures or other strategic transactions. Accordingly, in the future we may pursue various financing alternatives, including a larger credit facility, other debt financing and/or additional equity financing. We have filed a universal shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on February 14, 2014, pursuant to which we may offer, issue and sell, from time to time, in one or more offerings, common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depositary shares, warrants, subscription rights, stock purchase contracts and units.
As of December 31, 2013, we had working capital of $77,621,000 compared to $49,413,000 as of December 31, 2012. Our working capital increase of $28,208,000 was primarily attributable to three items; (i) a $16,018,000 increase in our inventory principally arising from the continued growth in our business and strategic engine block purchases; (ii) a $5,250,000 increase in our accounts receivable, net, arising from higher year over year sales and more specifically, higher fourth quarter sales in 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012; and (iii) a $5,763,000 increase in cash at December 31, 2013 as compared to December 31, 2012. The increase in cash was attributable to the public offering discussed above.
A limited number of our customers have payment terms which may extend up to 150 days. As of December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, our trade receivables included $8.2 million and $7.3 million of trade receivables which represented aggregate customer account balances subject to these terms. Of these amounts, $3.7 million and $3.3 million at December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, respectively, represented the portion of the
55
Table of Contents
balance outstanding with these extended trade terms. Under our revolving line of credit, which funds our working capital as needed, these receivables represent eligible collateral on the same basis as our other trade receivables and remain eligible as collateral upon which we may borrow up to their extended due date of 150 days.
Cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2013
Operating activities
Net income and changes in working capital are the primary drivers of our cash flows from operations. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we used $12,435,000 to fund our operations.
We had a reported net loss of $18,760,000, which, after adjustment for non-cash items of $30,791,000, resulted in net cash generated of $12,031,000 before considering changes in our operating assets and liabilities. Our non-cash adjustments in the year ended December 31, 2013, primarily included expenses of (i) $28,031,000 arising from a change in the valuation of our private placement warrants, (ii) $1,568,000 of depreciation and amortization expense and (iii) $1,268,000 of share-based compensation expense. Non-cash adjustments also included $270,000 arising from the loss on debt extinguishment arising from the write-off of unamortized loan financing fees as a result of the replacement of our prior credit facility with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. with a new credit facility with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
The net loss adjusted for non-cash expenses of $12,031,000, was offset by $24,466,000 of cash used in operating activities in the year ended December 31, 2013, principally arising from increases in inventories and accounts receivable. Our inventories increased $16,018,000 to support our growth and as a result of making strategic engine block purchases during 2013. Our accounts receivable increased $5,260,000 arising from higher year over year sales and more specifically, higher fourth quarter sales in 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. Further increasing our operating cash used in 2013 was a $3,687,000 reduction in trade accounts payable as a result of payments to suppliers. We also incurred increases in prepaid expenses and other assets of $1,785,000 which also contributed to the increase in cash used. These increases were partially offset by a $2,763,000 increase in accrued liabilities representing obligations incurred for which we had not yet remitted payment. We also had $479,000 of other increases which also contributed to the use of cash from operations.
Investing activities
Net cash used in investing activities was $6,514,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013, of which $6,007,000 related primarily to the acquisition of property and equipment, and $500,000 related to our investment in a joint venture in China. In December 2012, we entered into a joint venture with MAT Holdings, Inc. for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling certain engines into the Asian market. The joint venture agreement initially provides for an investment of $1.2 million from each joint venture partner. We made the initial $500,000 investment in the joint venture during the year ended December 31, 2013.
Financing activities
We generated $24,712,000 of cash from financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2013.
We generated $36,750,000 of gross proceeds, prior to $2,734,000 of transaction fees (classified in “Cash paid for financing and transaction fees” in our consolidated statement of cash flows), from the completion of a public offering of our common stock in July 2013, and we generated $4,412,000 of cash from the exercise of private placement warrants by our investors. We also realized an income tax benefit of $1,642,000 from compensation costs deductible only for income tax purposes and arising from the issuance of our common stock under our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan.
We replaced our existing credit facility with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. on June 28, 2013 with another credit facility from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as more fully discussed in “Credit agreements” below. We
56
Table of Contents
repaid $38,945,000 representing the outstanding principal balance on the BMO Harris Bank, N.A. facility through an initial advance from the Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, credit facility of $38,995,000. We incurred $286,000 in financing fees in connection with our new credit facility, which are included in “Cash paid for financing and transaction fees” in our consolidated statement of cash flows.
Partially offsetting the cash generated were net repayments under our credit facilities of $13,059,000 in the year ended December 31, 2013 principally due to a paydown of our revolving line of credit from a portion of the proceeds generated from the public offering discussed above. In addition, we used $2,063,000 in cash as payment of withholding taxes on behalf of our Chief Operating Officer in connection with his exercise of a portion of the SAR, and we withheld shares upon such exercise to satisfy his withholding tax obligations.
Cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012
Operating activities
For the year ended December 31, 2012, we used $2,941,000 to fund our operations. We generated cash flow from net income of $6,702,000 plus $1,426,000 in net non-cash adjustments principally from depreciation and amortization, equity-based compensation expense, and an increase in the liability associated with the valuation of private placement warrants.
We generated cash from a $2,473,000 increase in accounts payable arising from the timing of payments to suppliers and a $924,000 increase in accrued liabilities. These increases in cash were offset by a $7,957,000 increase in accounts receivable due to an increase in our sales volume for which we had not yet collected the cash and a $6,575,000 increase in inventories purchased to support the sales activity. We also had other net cash generated of $66,000, none of which was individually significant.
Investing activities
Net cash used in investing activities of $3,898,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012, related primarily to the acquisition of property, equipment and other assets.
Financing activities
We generated $7,382,000 of cash from financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2012. Of this net amount, $11,276,000 was generated from an increase in borrowings on our revolving line of credit. This amount was partially offset by a $3,780,000 decrease in our cash overdraft balance. Prior to an amendment of our credit facility with BMO Harris Bank N.A. on March 20, 2012, our credit facility agreement required that our cash be applied against our revolving line of credit. As such, we did not maintain a cash balance, and we borrowed on the revolving line of credit to fund outstanding checks as they cleared our bank. Our cash overdrafts fluctuated based on the timing of checks issued which had not yet cleared our bank as of a given date. Other net financing activities used cash of $114,000, none of which was individually significant.
Cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2011
Operating activities
For the year ended December 31, 2011, we used $973,000 to fund our operations. We generated cash flow from net income of $4,061,000 plus $574,000 in non-cash adjustments, principally depreciation, loss on debt extinguishment and an increase in the liability associated with the valuation of private placement warrants.
We also generated cash from a $7,365,000 increase in accounts payable arising from the timing of purchases from suppliers and a $1,609,000 increase in accrued liabilities arising from incremental costs to support the higher level of sales activities. These increases in cash were offset by a $12,992,000 increase in accounts
57
Table of Contents
receivable due to an increase in our sales volume for which we had not yet collected the cash and a $1,225,000 increase in inventories purchased to support the sales activity. We also had other net cash uses of $365,000, none of which was individually significant.
Investing activities
Net cash used in investing activities of $1,570,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011, related primarily to the acquisition of property, equipment and other assets.
Financing activities
We generated $2,543,000 of cash from financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2011. In connection with the private placement for which we issued preferred stock and warrants to purchase our common stock, we generated gross proceeds of $18.0 million. In addition, in 2011 we refinanced our a revolving line of credit with Fifth Third Bank to a credit facility with BMO Harris Bank N.A. under which our initial proceeds from borrowings were $18,338,000. The terms of the revolving line of credit with BMO Harris Bank N.A. are discussed below under “Credit agreement.” The proceeds from the private placement and revolving line of credit were used to pay off our existing term loans and our revolving line of credit with our prior lender, Fifth Third Bank. We used $21,633,000 in cash to payoff the prior revolving line of credit and $7,880,000 in cash to pay off other scheduled debt payments. We used $4,654,000 million of cash to pay transaction and financing costs associated with the private placement and refinancing of our revolving line of credit.
We also had a $3,251,000 increase in our cash overdraft balance as of December 31, 2011, over December 31, 2010, which offset the cash used. In addition, $1,328,000 in cash was provided by net borrowings for the year ended December 31, 2011, under our current revolving line of credit. Offsetting these increases was $4,250,000 used to repurchase shares of our common stock. Other financing activities generated $43,000 of cash, none of which was individually significant.
Credit agreements
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association credit agreement
On June 28, 2013, we entered into a credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, which replaced our credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. The Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement enables us to borrow under a revolving line of credit which is secured by substantially all of our tangible and intangible assets (other than real property). The Wells Fargo Credit Agreement (a) provides an initial maximum $75.0 million revolving line of credit to us, which, at our request and subject to the terms of the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement, may be increased up to $100.0 million during the term of the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement; (b) bears interest at the Wells Fargo Bank’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50%; or at our option, all or a portion of the revolving line of credit can be designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.00%; (c) has an unused line fee of 0.25%; and (d) requires us to report our fixed charge coverage ratio when our excess availability as defined in the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement is less than the threshold amount, (as defined in the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement) for a period of 60 consecutive days until our availability is greater than or equal to the threshold amount. The threshold amount is defined in the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement as the greater of (i) $9,375,000 or (ii) 12.5% of the maximum revolver amount of $75.0 million or as it may be increased during the term of the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement up to $100.0 million.
Under the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement, the amount that we may borrow is limited to the lesser of the maximum available amount and our borrowing base. The borrowing base is calculated as a percentage of our eligible accounts receivable and eligible inventory (as defined in the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement). We are required to meet certain financial covenants, including a minimum monthly fixed charge coverage ratio of not
58
Table of Contents
less than 1.0 to 1.0, the testing of which commences on the last day of the month prior to the date our excess availability as defined in the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement is less than the threshold amount and continuing for a period of 60 consecutive days, until our availability is greater than or equal to the threshold amount. The Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement also contains customary covenants and restrictions applicable to us, including agreements to provide financial information, comply with laws, pay taxes and maintain insurance, restrictions on the incurrence of certain indebtedness, guarantees and liens, restrictions on mergers, acquisitions and certain dispositions of assets, and restrictions on the payment of dividends and distributions. In addition, the Wells Fargo Bank Credit Agreement requires our cash accounts to be held with Wells Fargo Bank subject to an interim period during which our cash accounts and activities are transitioned from BMO Harris Bank N.A. to Wells Fargo Bank. The Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on June 28, 2018.
BMO Harris Bank N.A. credit agreement
Prior to June 28, 2013, we had a credit facility with BMO Harris Bank N.A. that we had entered into on April 29, 2011. Our initial credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. provided for borrowings of up to $35.0 million under a revolving line of credit, which revolving line of credit was scheduled to mature on April 29, 2014, and had a variable interest rate as described below. Borrowings under this credit agreement were collateralized by substantially all of our assets. Except as modified and discussed under the amended credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. below: (a) Power Solutions International, Inc. was a party to the credit agreement and pledged the equity interests of The W Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries to BMO Harris Bank N.A.; (b) there were no term loans; (c) the revolving line of credit bore interest at BMO Harris Bank N.A.’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50% or, at our option, a portion of the revolving line of credit could have been designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging from 2.00% to 2.50%; (d) there was a limit on annual capital expenditures; and (e) we were required to meet a minimum monthly fixed charge coverage ratio (as defined in the credit agreement) of not less than 1.10 to 1.0.
This credit agreement also contained customary covenants and restrictions applicable to us, including agreements to provide financial information, comply with laws, pay taxes and maintain insurance, restrictions on the incurrence of certain indebtedness, guarantees and liens, restrictions on mergers, acquisitions and certain dispositions of assets, and restrictions on the payment of dividends and distributions. In addition, the credit agreement required our cash accounts to be held with BMO Harris Bank N.A. Prior to the March 20, 2012 amendment of the credit facility, our cash balances were swept by BMO Harris Bank N.A. daily and applied against the outstanding balance on our revolving line of credit. As a result, we maintained a zero cash balance in our bank deposit accounts, and we borrowed on the revolving line of credit on a daily basis to fund our cash disbursements.
On March 20, 2012, the credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. was amended to increase the total credit facility from $35.0 million to $50.0 million and to extend the maturity date to March 20, 2017. Under the terms of the amended agreement: (a) the revolving line of credit bore interest at BMO Bank’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50%; or, at our option, all or a portion of the revolving line of credit could have been designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging from 1.75% to 2.25%; (b) the unused revolving line fee was reduced to 0.25%; and (c) we were only required to report our compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio for any month when our excess availability, as defined in the amended agreement, was less than the liquidity threshold. The liquidity threshold was defined as the greater of (i) $7.5 million or (ii) 12.5% of the total credit facility of $50.0 million, as may have been reduced from time to time pursuant to the terms of the amended agreement. When required to report our compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio, we would have had to continue to report our compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio until we had exceeded the liquidity threshold for 60 consecutive days. Additionally, under our amended agreement, cash balances were no longer automatically swept by BMO Harris Bank N.A., and, as a result, from time to time, we have carried cash balances on our consolidated balance sheet.
59
Table of Contents
On November 8, 2012, the credit agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A. was further amended to increase our thresholds for certain transactions, which allowed us to: (i) make acquisitions up to an aggregate of $2.0 million, (ii) enter into joint ventures up to an aggregate of $2.0 million, up from $500,000, and (iii) make annual capital expenditures up to an aggregate of $8.0 million, up from $4.0 million. These thresholds were subject to certain limitations as set forth in the November 8, 2012 amended agreement.
Outstanding borrowings under the credit agreements
As of December 31, 2013, $8.9 million of our outstanding borrowings under our revolving line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank National Association bore interest at the prime rate, which equaled 3.25% with the applicable margin included. The remaining balance, $9.0 million, had been designated to bear interest at the LIBOR rate, plus an applicable margin, which equaled an aggregate interest rate of 1.67%. The unused and available revolving line of credit balance was approximately $47.9 million at December 31, 2013.
As of December 31, 2012, $5.9 million of our outstanding borrowings under our revolving line of credit with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. bore interest at the prime rate, which equaled 3.25% with the applicable margin included. The remaining outstanding balance as of December 31, 2012, of $25.0 million had been designated to bear interest at the LIBOR rate, plus an applicable margin, which equaled an aggregate interest rate of 1.96%. The unused and available revolving line of credit balance was $19.1 million at December 31, 2012.
Off-balance sheet arrangements
We do not have any material off-balance sheet arrangements (as defined in Item 303(a) (4) of Regulation S-K).
Critical accounting policies and estimates
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, assumptions and judgments, including those related to revenue recognition, bad debts, inventories, warranties, private placement warrants and income taxes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities and our revenue recognition. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
Revenue recognition
We recognize revenue upon transfer of title and risk of loss to the customer, which is typically when products are shipped, provided there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the sales price is fixed or determinable and management believes collectability is reasonably assured.
We classify shipping and handling charges billed to customers as revenue. Shipping and handling costs paid to others are classified as a component of cost of sales when incurred.
Allowance for doubtful accounts
The carrying amount of accounts receivable is reduced by a valuation allowance that reflects our management’s best estimate of the amounts that will not be collected. Our management specifically reviews all past due accounts receivable balances and, based on historical experience and an assessment of current creditworthiness, estimates the portion, if any, of the balance that will not be collected.
60
Table of Contents
Inventories
Our inventories consist primarily of engines and parts. Engines are valued at the lower of cost plus estimated freight-in, as determined by specific serial number identification, or market value. Parts are valued at the lower of cost (first-in, first out) or market value.
We write down inventory for an estimated amount equal to the difference between the cost of the inventory and the estimated realizable value. Additionally, an inventory reserve is provided for based upon our estimation of future demand for the quantity of inventory on hand. In determining an estimate of future demand, multiple factors are taken into consideration including (i) customer purchase orders and customer forecasted demand; (ii) historical sales/usage for each inventory item; and (iii) utilization within a current or anticipated future power system. These factors are primarily based upon quantifiable information and therefore, we have not experienced significant differences in inventory valuation due to variances in our estimation of future demand. We estimate that, in 2013, a 10% variance in the estimated net realizable value of our inventory and its original cost would have had a less than $100,000 effect on our cost of goods sold and the value of our inventory.
Warranty programs
We offer a standard limited warranty on the workmanship of our products that in most cases covers defects for a defined period. Warranties for certified emission products are mandated by the EPA and/or the CARB and are longer than our standard warranty on certain emission related products. Our products also carry limited warranties from suppliers. Costs related to supplier warranty claims are borne by the supplier; our warranties apply only to the modifications we make to supplier base products. We estimate and record a liability, and related charge to income, for our warranty program at the time products are sold to customers. Our estimates are based on historical experience and reflect management’s best estimates of expected costs at the time products are sold. We make adjustments to our estimates in the period in which it is determined that actual costs may differ from our initial or previous estimates. In 2013, we estimate that, a 10% change in the amount of historical warranty expense would have increased our warranty liability and related costs by approximately $120,000.
Private Placement Warrants
Our private placement warrants are accounted for as a liability, in accordance with ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. ASC 480 states that, if an entity must or could settle an instrument by issuing a variable number of its own shares, and, as in this case, the obligation’s monetary value is based solely or predominantly on variations in the fair value of the company’s equity shares, but moves in the opposite direction, then the obligation to issue shares is to be recorded as a liability at the inception of the arrangement, and is adjusted with subsequent changes in the fair value of the underlying stock. Our private placement warrants were measured at fair value under ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures of the Accounting Standards Codification. Our liability for the private placement warrants is measured at fair value based on unobservable inputs, and thus is considered a Level 3 financial instrument. If all other assumptions are held constant, we estimate that, the recorded liability of the private placement warrants would increase or decrease by approximately $2,452,000 due to a 10% change in the enterprise value of our company based on the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
Equity-based compensation
Our equity-based compensation expense for awards granted to employees for service is accounted for over the service period based on the grant date fair value. Furthermore, the stock appreciation right granted is accounted for as equity, in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation.
Income taxes
We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in
61
Table of Contents
the financial statements. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial statements and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The effect of a change in tax rates on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
We record net deferred tax assets to the extent we believe the assets will more likely than not be realized. In making such a determination, we consider all available positive and negative evidence, including future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, projected future taxable income, tax-planning strategies, and results of recent operations. As of December 31, 2013, and 2012, we had not recorded a tax asset valuation allowance.
We record uncertain tax positions in accordance with ASC 740, Income Taxes, on the basis of a two-step process whereby (1) we determine whether it is more likely than not that the tax positions will be sustained based on the technical merits of the position and (2) for those tax positions that meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, we recognize the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with the related tax authority. As of December 31, 2013, we had an unrecognized tax benefit of $570,000 for uncertain tax positions. As of December 31, 2012, we had not recorded any unrecognized tax benefit.
Impact of recently issued accounting standards
We evaluate the pronouncements of various authoritative accounting organizations, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the SEC, to determine the impact of new pronouncements on GAAP and our consolidated financial statements. There are no new accounting pronouncements that have been issued or adopted during the year ended December 31, 2013, that we expect will have a significant effect on our consolidated financial statements.
| Item 7A. | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. |
As we are transitioning from smaller reporting company status, we are not yet required to provide this information.
| Item 8. | Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. |
See Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule on page F-1.
| Item 9. | Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure. |
None.
| Item 9A. | Controls and Procedures. |
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain a system of disclosure controls and procedures that is designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the “Exchange Act”) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that such that information 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.
As of the end of the period covered by this report and pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
62
Table of Contents
Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness and design of our disclosure controls and procedures (as that term is defined in Rule 13a-15(b) of the Exchange Act). Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of the end of the period covered under this report.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by our board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the financial statements for external purposes in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”). Internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:
| • | Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect our transactions and dispositions of assets. |
| • | Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and that our receipts and expenditures are made in accordance with authorization of our management and our board of directors. |
| • | Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. |
Under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, our management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in the framework in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”). Based on this assessment, our management has concluded that as of December 31, 2013, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Management reviewed the results of its assessment with our Audit Committee. The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 has been reviewed by McGladrey LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in its attestation report which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Changes In Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2013, we implemented internal control procedures to address a previously identified material weakness related to the business system software used within our aftermarket parts group. These internal controls included (a) assigning detailed security rights to the software including periodic password changes, and (b) implementing a database monitoring tool to monitor key transactions within the software. After completing our testing of design and operating effectiveness of these new procedures, we concluded that we had remediated the previously identified material weakness as of December 31, 2013.
Inherent Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls
Our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system,
63
Table of Contents
no controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur, and no evaluation of any such controls can provide absolute assurance that control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected.
These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of controls’ effectiveness to future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies and procedures.
| Item 9B. | Other Information. |
Not applicable.
64
Table of Contents
PART III
| Item 10. | Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance. |
Management
The following table sets forth information concerning our executive officers and directors, including their ages and their position(s) with us and, with respect to our directors, the expiration of their current terms. For purposes of the discussion below, unless the context otherwise requires, “we,” “our,” “us,” “our company” and similar expressions used in this section refer to The W Group prior to the closing of the reverse recapitalization on April 29, 2011, Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, from the closing of the reverse recapitalization through the consummation of the migratory merger on August 26, 2011 as successor to the business of The W Group and Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, following the closing of the migratory merger. In other words, references below to service on our board of directors or as one of our executive officers prior to the reverse recapitalization means service on the board of directors, or as an executive officer, as applicable, of The W Group.
| Name |
Position |
Age | Executive Officer Since |
Director Since |
Term Expires |
|||||||||||||
| Gary Winemaster |
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President | 56 | 2001 | 2001 | 2014 | |||||||||||||
| Eric Cohen |
Chief Operating Officer | 44 | 2012 | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||
| Daniel Gorey |
Chief Financial Officer | 62 | 2012 | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||
| Kenneth Winemaster |
Senior Vice President | 50 | 2001 | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||||
| Kenneth Landini |
Director | 57 | N/A | 2001 | 2014 | |||||||||||||
| H. Samuel Greenawalt |
Director | 85 | N/A | 2001 | 2014 | |||||||||||||
| Jay J. Hansen |
Director | 50 | N/A | 2011 | 2014 | |||||||||||||
| Mary Vogt |
Director | 57 | N/A | 2011 | 2014 | |||||||||||||
Executive Officers/Directors
The following information pertains to our executive officers who also serve as directors, their principal occupations, and other public company directorships for at least the last five years and information regarding their specific experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills.
Gary Winemaster has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President and as a director since 2001, and served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Power Great Lakes (which, prior to the incorporation of our company in 2001, was the parent operating company of our business, and is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary) from 1992 until our incorporation in 2001. In connection with the reverse recapitalization, Mr. Winemaster was also appointed as the Chairman of the Board. Mr. Winemaster is a co-founder of our company, and has played a significant role in developing and expanding our presence as a distributor of alternative fuel spark-ignited and diesel power systems. Prior to serving in his role as Chief Executive Officer and President of our company and of Power Great Lakes, Mr. Winemaster served as the Vice President of Sales for Power Great Lakes. Prior to founding our company, Mr. Winemaster worked in sales management for the European operations, with territory responsibility for the German, Scandinavian and Benelux markets, of Guardian Industries, a United States glass manufacturer. Mr. Winemaster holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Our Board believes that Mr. Winemaster, as our Chief Executive Officer and President and as a co-founder of our company, should serve as a director because of Mr. Winemaster’s unique understanding of the opportunities and challenges that we face and his in-depth knowledge about our business, including our customers, products, operations and key business drivers, and our long-term growth strategies, derived from his long service as our Chief Executive Officer and President.
65
Table of Contents
Non-Director Executive Officers
Eric Cohen has served as our Chief Operating Officer since April 2012. From January of 2011 through March of 2012, Mr. Cohen served as the President of Power Plant Services, a manufacturer of standard and custom aftermarket parts for turbines, generators, valves and coal handling equipment. From 2004 through 2010, Mr. Cohen was a managing partner of WHI Capital Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm that invests in mid-size companies. Mr. Cohen earned a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Wisconsin and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Daniel Gorey has served as our Chief Financial Officer since April, 2012, and served as our Senior Vice President of Finance from July 2011 to April 2012. Before joining the company, Mr. Gorey served as the Chief Financial Officer and on the board of directors of Quixote Corporation, a publicly-traded provider of highway crash safety systems. Mr. Gorey joined Quixote Corporation in 1985, and served as its chief financial officer from 1995 until February 2010. From March 2010 until he joined the company, Mr. Gorey was an independent financial consultant. Mr. Gorey also serves on the board of directors of American Roller Company, a privately-held manufacturer of industrial rollers. Mr. Gorey earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from the University of Illinois and is a certified public accountant.
Kenneth Winemaster has served as our Senior Vice President since 2011 and served as Secretary from 2001 to July 23, 2013. In addition, Mr. Winemaster served as a director from 2001 through November 21, 2011. Mr. Winemaster has primary responsibility for our relationships and operations with Caterpillar and Perkins. Mr. Winemaster has expertise in raw material procurement, assembly and shipping.
Other Directors
The following information pertains to our non-employee directors, their principal occupations and other public company directorships for at least the last five years and information regarding their specific experiences, qualifications, attributes and skills.
H. Samuel Greenawalt has served as a director since 2001. Mr. Greenawalt has over 50 years of experience in the banking industry. Over the past 25 years, Mr. Greenawalt has served an instrumental advisory role in helping us achieve our growth initiatives and address our financial requirements. Since 2000, Mr. Greenawalt has served as a vice president of Sulfo Technologies, LLC, an automotive component service-provider, for which Mr. Greenawalt is also a partner and owner. From 1959 to 1995, Mr. Greenawalt served as executive vice president at Michigan National Bank, a mid-sized Midwestern bank. Prior to its acquisition in 2012, Mr. Greenawalt served as a director of Williams Controls, Inc., a publicly held manufacturer of electronic throttle controls for commercial vehicles, and also as the chairman of the audit committee and as a member of the governance and nominating committee of the board of directors of Williams Controls. Mr. Greenawalt holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Banking School.
Our board of directors believes that Mr. Greenawalt should serve as a director because of his prior experience on the board of directors of another public company, which our board of directors believes is beneficial to us as we continue to move forward as a public company, as well as Mr. Greenawalt’s relevant business experience and his extensive financial expertise, which he has acquired through his years of experience in the banking industry.
Kenneth Landini has served as a director since 2001 and assisted in the development and growth of the business of our company since 1985. Mr. Landini previously served as the Vice President of Finance for our subsidiary, Power Great Lakes, Inc., from December 1985 to March 1988, and assisted us in establishing distributor relationships and expanding the territories into which we provide our power systems. Mr. Landini is a partner and co-founder of Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C., a certified public accounting and consulting firm in
66
Table of Contents
southeastern Michigan, which was established in 1988. Mr. Landini has served as a certified public accountant for Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C. since its inception. Mr. Landini holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Albion College and is a licensed certified public accountant in the state of Michigan.
Our Board believes that Mr. Landini should serve as a director because of his significant knowledge of our industry, his prior experience with our business and his financial expertise.
Jay Hansen has served as a director since 2011. Mr. Hansen is the co-founder of O2 Investment Partners, LLC, a private equity investment group focusing on small and middle market manufacturing, niche distribution, select service and technology businesses, and has served as the President and Managing Partner of O2 Investment Partners, LLC since 2010. Prior to forming O2 Investment Partners, LLC, Mr. Hansen provided consulting services in the financial and manufacturing industries. From May 2003 through February 2006, Mr. Hansen served as the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and in 2006 he served as the Chief Operating Officer, of Noble International, Ltd., a publicly traded supplier of automotive parts, component assemblies and value-added services to the automotive industry. Mr. Hansen holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Since 2005, Mr. Hansen has served as a member of the board of directors, and as the chairman of the audit committee of Flagstar Bancorp, a publicly held savings and loan holding company.
Our board of directors believes that Mr. Hansen should serve as a director because of his experience on the board of directors of another public company, which our board of directors believes is beneficial to us as we continue to move forward as a public company, as well as Mr. Hansen’s significant knowledge of our industry and relevant business and financial expertise, which is important as our board of directors exercises its oversight responsibility regarding the quality and integrity of our accounting and financial reporting processes and the auditing of our financial statements.
Mary Vogt has served as a director since 2011. Ms. Vogt has served as the President of Home Access Health Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and specialty laboratory serving the disease management, wellness, managed care and consumer markets with its suite of laboratory self-testing products, since 2008, and served as the Chief Financial Officer of Home Access from 2003 to 2008. From 1999 to 2003, Ms. Vogt served as an independent consultant assisting businesses in the manufacturing and e-commerce industries. Ms. Vogt also served, from 1995 to 1998, as the worldwide director of internal audit for the Leo Burnett Company, a full-service, multi-national advertising and marketing firm, and, from 1992 to 1995, as the Treasurer for Harley-Davidson Financial Services, a subsidiary of Harley-Davidson, Inc. and provider of wholesale and retail financing and insurance and insurance-related programs primarily to Harley-Davidson dealers and their retail customers. Ms. Vogt holds a degree in Economics and Management from Albion College.
Our board of directors believes that Ms. Vogt should serve as a director because of her relevant business experience and knowledge of our industry, as well as her financial expertise, which is important as our board of directors exercises its oversight responsibility regarding the quality and integrity of our accounting and financial reporting processes and the auditing of our financial statements.
Terms of Office
Our board of directors consists of five directors. Each director will continue to serve as a director until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified.
Family Relationships
Gary Winemaster, our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Kenneth Winemaster, our Senior Vice President, are brothers. There are no other family relationships among the members of our board of directors or our executive officers.
67
Table of Contents
Corporate Governance
As we are listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market, we are subject to the applicable independence requirements for directors of The NASDAQ Stock Market. Our Board has determined that each of Mr. H. Samuel Greenawalt, Mr. Jay J. Hansen and Ms. Mary E. Vogt is a non-employee director who meets the applicable independence requirements for directors of The NASDAQ Stock Market. In addition, the Board has carefully reviewed the corporate governance rules adopted by the Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) and other corporate governance recommendations. The Board adopted the corporate governance documents described below.
| • | Corporate Governance Guidelines. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines address, among other things, our board’s composition, qualifications and responsibilities, independence of directors, stock ownership guidelines, director compensation and communications between stockholders and our directors. |
| • | Audit Committee Charter. The charter for our Audit Committee addresses, among other things, the purpose, organization and responsibilities of our Audit Committee. |
| • | Compensation Committee Charter. The charter for our Compensation Committee addresses, among other things, the purpose, organization and responsibilities of our Compensation Committee. |
| • | Code of Ethics for Principal and Senior Financial Officers. Our Code of Ethics for Principal and Senior Financial Officers articulates standards of business and professional ethics applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and all other senior financial officers of our company. This Code functions as our “code of ethics for senior financial officers” under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and our “code of ethics” within the meaning of Item 406 of Regulation S-K. |
| • | Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applies to all of the members of our Board, our officers and our employees and strives to ensure that all such individuals observe the highest standards of ethics in the conduct of our business, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, and conduct themselves with the highest regard and respect for others. |
The full text of the Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board Committee charters, our Code of Ethics for Principal and Senior Financial Officers and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are available on our website at www.psiengines.com in the “Corporate Governance” section. Our website also provides information on how to contact us and other items of interest to investors. We make available on our website, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to these reports, as soon as practical after we file these reports with the SEC. In addition, we will describe on our website any amendments to, or waivers from, the provisions of our Code of Ethics for Principal and Senior Financial Officers.
68
Table of Contents
| Item 11. | Executive Compensation. |
Power Solutions International, Inc.
The table below summarizes the compensation earned for the fiscal years indicated for services rendered to our company, in all capacities, by (i) our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and (ii) our three other executive officers as of the end of our last fiscal year (collectively, the “named executive officers”).
Summary Compensation Table
| Name and Principal Position |
Year | Salary | Bonus | Stock Awards |
All Other Compensation |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||
| Gary Winemaster |
2013 | $ | 540,000 | $ | 400,000 | $ | — | $ | 49,058 | (1) | $ | 989,058 | ||||||||||||
| Chairman of the Board, |
2012 | 540,000 | — | — | 54,805 | 594,805 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
2011 | 500,000 | — | — | 52,407 | 552,407 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Eric Cohen |
2013 | 500,064 | 200,000 | — | — | 700,064 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Chief Operating Officer |
2012 | 254,648 | 262,500 | 1,800,000 | (2) | — | 2,317,148 | (3) | ||||||||||||||||
| Daniel Gorey |
2013 | 285,000 | 100,000 | 119,988 | (4) | — | 504,988 | |||||||||||||||||
| Chief Financial Officer |
2012 | 275,000 | 75,000 | — | — | 350,000 | (5) | |||||||||||||||||
| Kenneth Winemaster |
2013 | 272,500 | 200,000 | — | 33,680 | (1) | 516,180 | |||||||||||||||||
| Senior Vice President |
2012 | 272,500 | — | — | 35,233 | 307,733 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 250,000 | — | — | 35,102 | 285,102 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | The amount reported includes the following: with respect to Gary Winemaster, reimbursement for automobile payments in the amount of $13,338 and $6,374 for related insurance, $8,571 for gasoline, and $17,378 for sporting event tickets; with respect to Kenneth Winemaster, reimbursement for automobile payments in the amount of $13,323 and $17,378 for sporting event tickets. |
| (2) | On June 6, 2012, the Compensation Committee approved, and we granted, a stock appreciation right (“SAR”) to Mr. Cohen pursuant to our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan and a Stock Appreciation Rights Award Agreement. The SAR granted to Mr. Cohen covers an aggregate of 543,872 shares of our common stock and is exercisable only in whole shares at a price per share of $22.07. The SAR granted to Mr. Cohen vests and becomes exercisable ratably on each of the first three anniversaries of the grant date. However, the SAR did not become exercisable until the date that was the last of any seven valuation dates (as defined within the SAR award agreement) within any period of ten of fewer consecutive valuation dates that commenced after the grant date and prior to the expiration date on each of which the market value per share of our common stock was at least $22.07, which market condition has been satisfied. Please see the disclosure of assumptions made in the valuation of the SAR included in Note 9 of the Notes to the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report. |
| (3) | Eric Cohen was appointed to the position of Chief Operating Officer by the Board on April 9, 2012. His compensation for 2012 reflects compensation from April 9, 2012 until December 31, 2012. |
| (4) | Grant of 3,333 shares of restricted stock on June 17, 2013 that vests in three equal installments on each of the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date. The grant date fair value of the award is based on the closing price of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market on June 17, 2013, the grant date of the award. |
| (5) | Daniel Gorey was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer by the Board on April 9, 2012. His compensation for 2012 reflects compensation for his service as Chief Financial Officer from April 9, 2012 until December 31, 2012 and compensation for his service as the Senior Vice President of Finance from January 1, 2012 until April 8, 2012. |
69
Table of Contents
Grants of Plan-Based Awards
| Name |
Grant Date |
Estimated Future Payouts Under Non- Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) |
All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (#) |
Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards ($/Sh) |
Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Daniel P. Gorey |
June 17, 2013(1) | — | — | 3,333 | — | — | $ | 119,998 | (2) | |||||||||||||||||
| (1) | The shares of restricted stock granted to Mr. Gorey pursuant to the Power Solutions International, Inc. 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, will vest in three equal installments on each of the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date. |
| (2) | The grant date fair value of the award is based on the closing price of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market on June 17, 2013, the grant date of the award. |
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2013 Fiscal Year-End
The table below presents information relating to the awards granted under our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, our only equity incentive plan as of December 31, 2013.
| OPTION AWARDS | STOCK AWARDS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name |
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable |
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercised |
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Numbers of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options (#) |
Option Exercise Price ($) |
Option Expiration Date |
Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested |
Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($) |
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) |
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Rights That Have Not Vested ($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Eric Cohen |
— | 362,581 | (1) | — | $ | 22.07 | 06/06/22 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Daniel Gorey |
— | — | — | — | — | 3,333 | (2) | $ | 250,308 | (3) | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | See note 2 to the Summary Compensation Table above for information relating to the SAR granted to Mr. Cohen in 2012. |
| (2) | See note 4 to the Summary Compensation Table above for information relating to the restricted stock granted to Mr. Gorey in 2013. |
| (3) | Computed using the closing price of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market on December 31, 2013. |
Option Exercises
| OPTION | AWARDS | |||||||
| Name |
Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) |
Value Realized on Exercise ($) |
||||||
| Eric Cohen |
181,291 | (1) | $ | 4,836,844 | (2) | |||
| (1) | See note 2 to the Summary Compensation Table above. |
| (2) | Amount reflects value realized on a pre-tax basis as of August 15, 2013. |
2012 Incentive Compensation Plan
On May 30, 2012, our Board of Directors approved and adopted our 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2012 Plan”) and the 2012 Plan was approved by our stockholders at the annual meeting held on August 29,
70
Table of Contents
2012. The 2012 Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, which consists only of independent, non-employee directors.
The 2012 Plan is a broad-based plan which allows for a variety of different types of awards, including (but not limited to) non-qualified stock options, incentive stock options, SAR, restricted stock, deferred stock and performance units, to be made to our executive officers, employees, consultants and directors. The 2012 Plan is intended to assist us in attracting and retaining exceptionally qualified employees, consultants and directors to support the sustained progress, growth and profitability of the Company.
Under the 2012 Plan, 830,925 shares of common stock were initially made available for awards pursuant to the 2012 Plan. On July 31, 2013, the Board of Directors, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee, adopted an amendment to the 2012 Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2012 Plan by 700,000 shares. This amendment was approved by our stockholders at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders held on August 28, 2013. Of 1,530,925 shares reserved for awards under the 2012 Plan, 543,872 shares were originally underlying a SAR award granted to our Chief Operating Officer on June 6, 2012 and 162,993 shares of restricted stock have been granted to date to eligible employees. As of December 31, 2013, we had 824,060 shares of common stock available for future issuance under the 2012 Plan.
Employment Agreements
Mr. Cohen entered into an employment agreement with us dated June 6, 2012. The employment agreement expires on April 1, 2016; however, it automatically renews for an additional one-year period unless either we or Mr. Cohen notifies the other party in writing of the intention not to renew the employment agreement by no later than January 2, 2016. The employment agreement provides for an annual base salary of $350,000, subject to increase from time to time, and a discretionary annual bonus, to be paid at the discretion of the Board of Directors. In addition, as contemplated by the employment agreement Mr. Cohen was granted a stock appreciation right pursuant to the 2012 Plan whereby Mr. Cohen has the right to receive, when exercised, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement pursuant to which the stock appreciation right was granted, 543,872 shares of our common stock, par value $0.001 per share, with a strike price of $22.07.
In the event that Mr. Cohen’s employment is terminated by us without Cause (as defined in the employment agreement) during the employment term, he will be entitled to receive, among other things, (i) continued payments of his base salary for 12 months and (ii) an amount equal to the annual bonus earned by Mr. Cohen in the prior period, pro-rated for the number of calendar days of the current period during which Mr. Cohen was employed by us or our subsidiaries. The employment agreement also restricts Mr. Cohen from competing with us during the term of the agreement and for 18 months after termination of his employment with us, and restricts Mr. Cohen from soliciting our customers or employees during the term of the agreement and for 24 months after termination of his employment with us.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control
Pursuant to our employment agreement with Eric Cohen entered into on June 6, 2012; Mr. Cohen is entitled to certain payments upon termination of his employment. See “— Employment Agreements” above for a description of the payments to which Mr. Cohen is entitled pursuant to his employment agreement. Other than these arrangements, we currently do not have any compensatory plans or arrangements that provide for any payments or benefits upon the resignation, retirement or any other termination of any of our current executive officers, as the result of a change in control, or from a change in any executive officer’s responsibilities following a change in control.
71
Table of Contents
The table below provides a quantitative analysis of the amount of compensation payable to Mr. Cohen in each situation involving a termination of employment, assuming that each had occurred as of December 31, 2013.
Fiscal 2013 Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
| Name and Benefit (1) |
Termination w/o Cause (2) | Termination with Cause (3) | ||||||
| Eric Cohen |
$ | 500,064 | $ | — | ||||
| (1) | Benefit equates to Mr Cohen’s base salary. |
| (2) | Amount presented was determined in accordance with the employment agreement of Mr. Cohen and assumes that Mr. Cohen executed and delivered a general release in favor of us. |
| (3) | In the event Mr. Cohen’s employment was terminated for “Cause,” we would have no further obligations with respect to Mr. Cohen’s employment (except for the payment of any base salary accrued through the date on which Mr. Cohen’s employment was terminated). |
Director Compensation
During fiscal 2013, no directors who were employees of our company were entitled to receive any compensation for serving as members of our board of directors, other than an annual retainer. In 2012, we adopted a program for director compensation which entitles each non-employee director to receive an annual retainer of $30,000 for their service on the board of directors. In addition, pursuant to our 2012 Plan, equity awards may be granted to our non-employee directors under such plan, but no such awards have yet been granted. Pursuant to these new compensation policies, we will not pay additional compensation to our executive officers for their services as directors. The table below summarizes the compensation earned by each non-employee director for service on our board of directors for the last fiscal year.
| Name |
Fees Earned or Paid in Cash |
Stock Awards |
Options Awards |
Non-Equity Incentive Plan compensation |
Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings |
All Other Compensation |
Total | |||||||||||||||||||||
| H. Samuel Greenawalt |
$ | 19,066 | — | — | — | — | 10,934 | (1) | $ | 30,000 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Kenneth Landini |
$ | 30,000 | — | — | — | — | — | $ | 30,000 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Jay Hansen |
$ | 30,000 | — | — | — | — | — | $ | 30,000 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Mary Vogt |
$ | 30,000 | — | — | — | — | — | $ | 30,000 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | This amount consists of advancement of expenses related to use of an automobile for H. Samuel Greenawalt, including car payments and insurance premiums, which was provided in lieu of a portion of his annual retainer. |
| Item 12. | Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters. |
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of February 24, 2014, by the following individuals or groups: (1) each person known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, (2) each of our directors, (3) each of the named executive officers, and (4) all of our directors and executive officers as a group.
Unless otherwise indicated, to our knowledge, each person listed below has sole dispositive and voting power with respect to the shares of our common stock shown below as beneficially owned by such person, except
72
Table of Contents
to the extent authority is shared by spouses under applicable law and except for the shares of our common stock set forth next to our directors and executive officers listed as a group. Beneficial ownership and percentage have been determined in accordance with Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act and generally includes voting or investment power with respect to the securities. The information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other purpose.
As of February 24, 2014, 10,562,139 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding.
| Name and Address of Beneficial Owner (1) |
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership of Common Stock |
Percent of Class |
||||||
| Gary Winemaster |
3,872,300 | 36.6 | % | |||||
| Eric Cohen(2) |
— | — | ||||||
| Dan Gorey(3) |
— | — | ||||||
| Kenneth Winemaster |
2,180,545 | 20.6 | % | |||||
| Kenneth Landini |
19,000 | * | ||||||
| H. Samuel Greenawalt |
6,500 | * | ||||||
| Jay Hansen |
— | — | ||||||
| Mary Vogt |
— | — | ||||||
| All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons) |
6,078,345 | 57.6 | % | |||||
| * | Denotes beneficial ownership of less than one percent |
| (1) | Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each person or entity is c/o Power Solutions International, Inc., 201 Mittel Drive, Wood Dale, IL 60191. |
| (2) | Excludes shares Mr. Cohen has the right to acquire upon exercise of a vested portion of the SAR granted to him pursuant to the 2012 Plan, because the number of shares that will be received upon exercise of the SAR is not determinable until the date of exercise. |
| (3) | Excludes 3,333 shares of restricted stock issuable pursuant to an award granted to Mr. Gorey on June 17, 2013 pursuant to the 2012 Plan. |
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our officers and directors and persons who own greater than 10% our common stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC. Based solely on a review of the forms we have received and on written representations from certain reporting persons that no such forms were required for them, we believe that all Section 16 filing requirements applicable to our officers, directors and 10% beneficial owners were complied with on a timely basis during our fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, except that Gary Winemaster inadvertently failed to timely file Form 4’s reporting two transactions, and Eric Cohen inadvertently failed to timely file a Form 4 with respect to his SAR award.
| Item 13. | Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. |
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions
Transactions discussed in this section may relate to The W Group and its consolidated subsidiaries, collectively, prior to the closing of the reverse recapitalization transaction on April 29, 2011, Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as successor to the business of The W Group, and its consolidated subsidiaries, collectively, following the closing of the reverse recapitalization transaction, and Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as the surviving corporation of the migratory merger, following the consummation of the migratory merger on August 26, 2011.
73
Table of Contents
Purchase and Sale Transaction
Thomas Somodi, who previously served as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, entered into with The W Group (i) a subscription agreement, dated as of April 16, 2005, as amended by the amendment to the subscription agreement, effective January 1, 2008, and (ii) an employment agreement dated as of April 16, 2005, as amended by the amendment to the employment agreement, effective January 1, 2008. Pursuant to the subscription agreement entered into with Mr. Somodi, Mr. Somodi acquired shares of The W Group which represented 10% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of The W Group as of the date of such agreement and immediately prior to the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization, and the subscription agreement provided that, upon any issuance or change in the structure of capital stock, The W Group would make an equitable adjustment to the shares held by Mr. Somodi so that Mr. Somodi would maintain an interest equal to 10% of the fully-diluted capital stock of The W Group. The subscription agreement further provided (i) Mr. Somodi with the right to require The W Group to purchase his shares, and (ii) The W Group with the right to require Mr. Somodi to sell his shares to The W Group, upon The W Group’s achievement of certain thresholds relating to the valuation of The W Group. Also, Mr. Somodi agreed to sell his shares, if requested by The W Group, to a third party in connection with the sale of The W Group.
On April 28, 2011, Gary Winemaster, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Somodi entered into a purchase and sale agreement which was subsequently amended on October 31, 2011, as described below, whereby Mr. Winemaster agreed to purchase all of Mr. Somodi’s shares of preferred and common stock in The W Group, which shares converted into an aggregate of 830,925 shares of Company common stock upon the consummation of the Reverse Recapitalization, as adjusted for the Reverse Split as described in Note 3 “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger” to the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report.
On October 31, 2011, Mr. Winemaster and Mr. Somodi amended the purchase and sale agreement to provide that Mr. Winemaster would purchase the 830,925 shares of the Company’s common stock then held by Mr. Somodi at an initial closing upon delivery by Mr. Winemaster of $4.25 million, by delivery of a full-recourse promissory note therefore, and to modify the terms upon which Mr. Winemaster was required to transfer shares of the Company’s common stock to Mr. Somodi upon the Company’s achievement of certain common stock value thresholds set forth in the purchase and sale agreement as follows: (a) an aggregate of 112,530 shares of Company common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $22.2162; (b) an additional aggregate of 135,036 shares of Company common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $27.7717; and (c) an additional aggregate of 90,024 shares of the Company’s common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $33.3244. All share and per share numbers in the foregoing provisions were subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations and similar events.
Messrs. Winemaster and Somodi consummated the sale of the 830,925 shares of Company common stock from Mr. Somodi to Mr. Winemaster pursuant to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, on October 31, 2011, and, thereafter on October 31, 2011, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement between the Company and Mr. Winemaster, the Company purchased the 830,925 shares of the Company’s common stock from Mr. Winemaster in exchange for delivery by the Company to Mr. Winemaster of $4.25 million, representing a price per share of $5.11. The promissory note delivered by Mr. Winemaster to Mr. Somodi in exchange for the shares at the closing of the transactions contemplated by the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, was paid in full by Mr. Winemaster on October 31, 2011. Promptly following the purchase of the shares by the Company from Mr. Winemaster pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, the shares were returned to the Company’s treasury as authorized and issued, but not outstanding, shares of Company common stock.
Pursuant to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, Mr. Winemaster had the right to elect to make a payment to Mr. Somodi equal to the product of the number of shares Mr. Winemaster would otherwise be required to deliver to Mr. Somodi upon achievement of a common stock value threshold, multiplied by the
74
Table of Contents
applicable threshold price. The first common stock value threshold was achieved on or about March 27, 2013, the second common stock value threshold was achieved on or about May 7, 2013, and the third common stock value threshold was achieved on or about May 28, 2013. On June 24, 2013, Mr. Somodi transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the first common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $2.5 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $2.5 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the first common stock value threshold. On August 5, 2013, Mr. Somodi again transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the second common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $3.75 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $3.75 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the second common stock value threshold. On August 26, 2013, Mr. Somodi transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the third common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $3.0 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $3.0 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the third common stock value threshold. These transactions were all approved by the Audit Committee prior to being entered into and consummated.
Other Transactions with Our Company and/or The W Group
The W Group engaged (and we continue to engage) Landini, Reed & Dawson, a certified public accounting and consulting firm, to prepare tax returns and to provide other tax advice and consultation services, including in respect of the reverse recapitalization, the private placement and related transactions. Kenneth Landini, who was a director of The W Group prior to the consummation of the reverse recapitalization and is a member of our board of directors, is a partner and co-founder of Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C. During our fiscal years ended December 31, 2013 (“fiscal 2013”) December 31, 2012 (“fiscal 2012”), Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C. charged $126,695 and $124,866, respectively, for its services provided to our company during such periods. It is expected that Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C. will continue to provide such services going forward, and that the amounts paid in our fiscal year ending December 31, 2014 (“fiscal 2014”) will be consistent with the amounts paid in fiscal 2013.
For each of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, William Winemaster (the father of Gary Winemaster and Kenneth Winemaster, our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President and our Senior Vice President and Secretary, respectively), serving as an employee performing consulting and advisory type services for The W Group and its subsidiaries, received (1) annual salaries of $153,709 and $148,084, respectively, (2) payments for automobiles and related auto insurance premiums equal to $12,498 and $12,539, respectively, and (3) payments related to mobile telephone service equal to $1,141 and $1,560, respectively. It is anticipated that William Winemaster will continue to serve as an employee of The W Group performing consulting and advisory type services going forward, and that Mr. Winemaster’s compensation for fiscal 2014 will be consistent with his compensation for such services in fiscal 2013.
Related Party Transaction Policy
On December 20, 2013, the board of directors adopted a formal Related Party Transaction Policy (the “Policy”) whereby all transactions required to be reported pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K are reviewed and approved. The Policy calls for the general counsel or the Audit Committee, as applicable and in accordance with the Policy, to review each related person transaction (as defined below) and determine whether it will approve or ratify that transaction. Any Audit Committee member who has any interest (actual or perceived) will not be involved in the consideration of the Audit Committee.
For purposes of the policy, a “related party transaction” is, subject to certain limited exceptions, any transaction, arrangement or relationship in which we are a participant, the related person (defined below) had, has or will have a direct or indirect material interest. “Related person” includes (a) any person who is or was (at
75
Table of Contents
any time during the last fiscal year) an executive officer, director or nominee for election as a director; (b) any person or group who is a beneficial owner of more than 5% of our voting securities; (c) any immediate family member of a person described in provisions (a) or (b) of this sentence; or (d) any entity in which any of the foregoing persons is employed, is a partner or is in a similar position, or in which such person, together with all other “related persons,” have in the aggregate 10% or greater beneficial ownership interest.
Any related party transaction where the amount involved is less than $5,000 may be approved by our general counsel. Any related party where the amount involved is in excess of $5,000 shall be submitted to the Audit Committee for consideration. In determining whether a related person transaction will be approved or ratified, the general counsel or the Audit Committee, as applicable in accordance with the Policy, will consider a multitude of factors including (a) the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction; (b) the availability of other sources of comparable products or services; (c) whether the terms are competitive with terms generally available in similar transactions with persons that are not related persons; (d) the benefit to the Company; and (e) the aggregate value of the transaction.
Composition of the Board of Directors and Director Independence
Pursuant to the purchase agreement for the private placement, we agreed to take action such that, no later than 180 days following the closing of the private placement, our board of directors would consist of five or greater directors, a majority of whom will constitute “independent directors” as defined by the marketplace rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market. We are now also subject to the corporate governance rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, which require that a majority of our board of directors consists of “independent directors” as defined in such corporate governance rules. Our board of directors has determined that Mr. H. Samuel Greenawalt, Mr. Jay Hansen and Ms. Mary Vogt are each a non-employee director who meets the applicable independence requirements for directors of The NASDAQ Stock Market.
The current members of our Audit Committee are H. Samuel Greenawalt, Jay Hansen and Mary Vogt. Mr. Hansen is the Chairman of our Audit Committee and qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in SEC rules under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Mr. Greenawalt and Ms. Vogt also each qualify as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in SEC rules under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Our board of directors has determined that each of Mr. Greenawalt, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Vogt meet the independence requirements for audit committee members of The NASDAQ Stock Market.
The current members of our Compensation Committee are Jay Hansen and Mary Vogt. Ms. Vogt is the chairman of our Compensation Committee. Our board of directors has determined that each of Mr. Hansen and Ms. Vogt meet the independence requirements for compensation committee members of the NASDAQ Stock Market.
We do not currently have a separately designated nominating committee. Therefore, in accordance with NASDAQ rules, a majority of our independent directors recommend each nominee for the Board’s consideration. Our board has determined that each of H. Samuel Greenawalt, Jay Hansen and Mary Vogt meet the applicable independence requirements of The NASDAQ Stock Market for nominating committee members and compensation committee members, and has determined that Gary Winemaster and Kenneth Landini do not meet such standards.
In addition to the NASDAQ independence requirements, we also apply the independence guidelines set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are available on our website at www.psiengines.com in the “Corporate Governance” Section and are substantially similar to the NASDAQ director independence requirements.
In evaluating the composition of our board of directors, we may consider such factors as diversity of backgrounds, experience and competencies that our board of directors desires to have represented. These competencies may include independence; adherence to ethical standards; the ability to exercise business judgment, industry knowledge and experience and/or other relevant business or professional experience and the ability to offer our management meaningful advice and guidance based on that experience; and ability to devote
76
Table of Contents
sufficient time and effort to serve as a director. We believe that each of the members of our board of directors possesses these qualities and has demonstrated business acumen and an ability to exercise sound judgment, as well as a commitment of service to our company and to our board of directors.
| Item 14. | Principal Accounting Fees and Services. |
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR FEES
On June 12, 2012, the board of directors replaced Deloitte & Touche LLP and their respective affiliates (collectively “Deloitte”) with McGladrey LLP (“McGladrey”) as its independent registered public accounting firm for the year ended December 31, 2012. As a result, certain accounting related fees were incurred by both Deloitte and McGladrey for their services during 2013 and 2012 as provided below. The following table sets forth the aggregate fees incurred for professional services rendered by both Deloitte and McGladrey for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (“fiscal 2013”) and 2012 (“fiscal 2012”), respectively:
| Description of Fees |
December 31, 2013 | December 31, 2012 | ||||||
| Audit Fees |
$ | 253,050 | $ | 224,317 | ||||
| Audit-Related Fees |
254,960 | 14,375 | ||||||
| Tax Fees |
— | — | ||||||
| All Other Fees |
2,000 | 7,821 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total |
$ | 510,010 | $ | 246,513 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Audit Fees. Consists of fees incurred for professional services rendered for the audit of our annual consolidated financial statements and review of the interim consolidated financial statements included in our quarterly reports.
Audit-Related Fees. Consists of fees incurred for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our consolidated financial statements that are not reported under “Audit Fees.” These fees for fiscal 2013 were incurred for professional services rendered in conjunction with the issuance of a consent for registration statements we filed on Form S-1 and Form S-8. These fees for fiscal 2012 were incurred for professional services rendered in conjunction with the issuance of a consent and related services for registration statements we filed on Form S-8.
Tax Fees. Consists of fees incurred for professional services for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning. These services include tax planning, assistance with the preparation of various U.S. federal and state tax returns, and advice on other tax-related matters.
All Other Fees. Represents fees incurred for services provided to us other than those included in the categories above, which could include, but are not limited to, non-audit related fees.
In accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee will approve in advance all audit and non-audit services to be provided by our independent auditors. In certain cases, the Chairman of the Audit Committee may be delegated the authority by the Audit Committee to pre-approve certain additional services, and such pre-approvals will be communicated to the full Audit Committee at its next meeting.
77
Table of Contents
PART IV
| Item 15. | Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules. |
15(a) Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedules
The following financial statements are filed as a part of this report.
78
Table of Contents
| Financial Statements of Power Solutions International, Inc. |
||||
| F-2 | ||||
| F-4 | ||||
| Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 |
F-5 | |||
| Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 |
F-6 | |||
| F-7 | ||||
| Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 |
F-8 | |||
| F-9 |
F-1
Table of Contents
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Power Solutions International, Inc.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Power Solutions International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years then ended. We also have audited Power Solutions International, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 1992. Power Solutions International, Inc.’s management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (a) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (b) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (c) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Power Solutions International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, Power Solutions
F-2
Table of Contents
International, Inc. and Subsidiaries maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 1992.
/s/ McGladrey LLP
Chicago, Illinois
February 28, 2014
F-3
Table of Contents
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Power Solutions International, Inc.
WoodDale, Illinois
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows of Power Solutions International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Power Solutions International, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 2012
F-4
Table of Contents
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31,
| (Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts) | 2013 | 2012 | ||||||
| ASSETS |
||||||||
| Current assets |
||||||||
| Cash |
$ | 6,306 | $ | 543 | ||||
| Accounts receivable, net |
42,730 | 37,480 | ||||||
| Inventories, net |
55,986 | 39,968 | ||||||
| Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
2,173 | 1,910 | ||||||
| Deferred income taxes |
2,811 | 2,176 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total current assets |
110,006 | 82,077 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Property, plant & equipment, net |
13,104 | 7,145 | ||||||
| Other noncurrent assets |
3,509 | 1,543 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| TOTAL ASSETS |
$ | 126,619 | $ | 90,765 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
||||||||
| Current liabilities |
||||||||
| Accounts payable |
$ | 24,444 | $ | 26,579 | ||||
| Income taxes payable |
167 | 1,074 | ||||||
| Accrued compensation and benefits |
3,758 | 2,396 | ||||||
| Accrued liabilities |
4,016 | 2,615 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total current liabilities |
32,385 | 32,664 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS |
||||||||
| Revolving line of credit |
17,933 | 30,942 | ||||||
| Deferred income taxes |
304 | 136 | ||||||
| Private placement warrants |
24,525 | 3,666 | ||||||
| Other noncurrent liabilities |
1,051 | 623 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| TOTAL LIABILITIES |
76,198 | 68,031 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
— | — | ||||||
| STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
||||||||
| Series A convertible preferred stock — $0.001 par value. Authorized: 114,000 shares. Issued and outstanding: -0- shares at December 31, 2013 and 2012. |
— | — | ||||||
| Common stock — $0.001 par value. Authorized: 50,000,000 shares. Issued: 11,352,812 and 9,909,212 shares at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Outstanding: 10,521,887 and 9,078,287 shares at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. |
11 | 10 | ||||||
| Additional paid-in-capital |
57,308 | 10,862 | ||||||
| (Accumulated deficit) retained earnings |
(2,648 | ) | 16,112 | |||||
| Treasury stock, at cost, 830,925 shares at December 31, 2013 and 2012. |
(4,250 | ) | (4,250 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
50,421 | 22,734 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
$ | 126,619 | $ | 90,765 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-5
Table of Contents
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
| (Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts) | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| Net sales |
$ | 237,842 | $ | 202,342 | $ | 154,969 | ||||||
| Cost of sales |
193,316 | 168,425 | 128,541 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Gross profit |
44,526 | 33,917 | 26,428 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Operating expenses: |
||||||||||||
| Research & development and engineering |
10,439 | 7,377 | 4,713 | |||||||||
| Selling and service |
7,545 | 5,925 | 6,666 | |||||||||
| General and administrative |
11,575 | 8,299 | 5,244 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Total operating expense |
29,559 | 21,601 | 16,623 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Operating income |
14,967 | 12,316 | 9,805 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Other expense: |
||||||||||||
| Interest expense |
657 | 1,023 | 1,340 | |||||||||
| Loss on debt extinguishment |
270 | — | 485 | |||||||||
| Private placement warrant expense |
28,031 | 448 | 382 | |||||||||
| Other expense, net |
10 | — | 764 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Total other expense |
28,968 | 1,471 | 2,971 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| (Loss) income before income taxes |
(14,001 | ) | 10,845 | 6,834 | ||||||||
| Income tax provision |
4,759 | 4,143 | 2,773 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Net (loss) income |
$ | (18,760 | ) | $ | 6,702 | $ | 4,061 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Undistributed (loss) earnings |
$ | (18,760 | ) | $ | 6,702 | $ | 4,061 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Undistributed earnings allocable to Series A convertible preferred shares |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | 2,513 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Undistributed (loss) earnings allocable to common shares |
$ | (18,760 | ) | $ | 6,702 | $ | 1,548 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Weighted-average preferred shares outstanding: |
||||||||||||
| Basic |
— | — | — | |||||||||
| Diluted |
— | — | — | |||||||||
| Weighted-average common shares outstanding: |
||||||||||||
| Basic |
9,779,457 | 9,068,846 | 3,512,534 | |||||||||
| Diluted |
9,779,457 | 9,068,846 | 3,512,534 | |||||||||
| Undistributed (loss) earnings per share — basic |
||||||||||||
| Series A convertible preferred shares |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||
| Common shares |
$ | (1.92 | ) | $ | 0.74 | $ | 0.44 | |||||
| Undistributed (loss) earnings per share — diluted |
||||||||||||
| Series A convertible preferred shares |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||
| Common shares |
$ | (1.92 | ) | $ | 0.74 | $ | 0.44 | |||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-6
Table of Contents
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
| (Dollar amounts in thousands) | Preferred stock |
Common stock |
Common stock warrant |
Additional paid-in capital |
Treasury stock |
(Accumulated deficit) retained earnings |
Total stockholders’ equity |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance at December 31, 2010, as originally stated |
$ | — | $ | 10 | $ | — | $ | (3 | ) | $ | — | $ | 5,349 | $ | 5,356 | |||||||||||||
| 1 for 32 reverse split |
— | (10 | ) | — | 10 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Balance at December 31, 2010, restated for the reverse split |
— | — | — | 7 | — | 5,349 | 5,356 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Net income |
— | — | — | — | — | 4,061 | 4,061 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Reverse recapitalization |
(389 | ) | — | — | 9 | — | — | (380 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Net proceeds from private placement |
10,138 | — | 399 | — | — | — | 10,537 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Conversion of preferred stock |
(9,749 | ) | 10 | — | 9,739 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Exercise of private placement warrants |
— | — | (399 | ) | 399 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Repurchase of common stock |
— | — | — | — | (4,250 | ) | — | (4,250 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Balance at December 31, 2011 |
— | 10 | — | 10,154 | (4,250 | ) | 9,410 | 15,324 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Net income |
— | — | — | — | — | 6,702 | 6,702 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Share-based compensation expense |
— | — | — | 478 | — | — | 478 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Exercise of private placement warrants |
— | — | — | 230 | — | — | 230 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Balance at December 31, 2012 |
— | 10 | — | 10,862 | (4,250 | ) | 16,112 | 22,734 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Net loss |
— | — | — | — | — | (18,760 | ) | (18,760 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Net proceeds from stock offering |
— | 1 | — | 34,015 | — | — | 34,016 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Share-based compensation expense |
— | — | — | 1,268 | — | — | 1,268 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Payment of withholding taxes for net settlement of share-based awards |
— | — | — | (2,063 | ) | — | — | (2,063 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Excess tax benefit from exercise of share-based awards |
— | — | — | 1,642 | — | — | 1,642 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Exercise of private placement warrants |
— | — | — | 11,584 | — | — | 11,584 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Balance at December 31, 2013 |
$ | — | $ | 11 | $ | — | $ | 57,308 | $ | (4,250 | ) | $ | (2,648 | ) | $ | 50,421 | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-7
Table of Contents
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
| (Dollar amounts in thousands) | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |||||||||
| Cash flows from operating activities |
||||||||||||
| Net (loss) income |
$ | (18,760 | ) | $ | 6,702 | $ | 4,061 | |||||
| Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash (used in) provided by operating activities: |
||||||||||||
| Depreciation and amortization |
1,568 | 1,105 | 820 | |||||||||
| Deferred income taxes |
(467 | ) | (716 | ) | (870 | ) | ||||||
| Share-based compensation expense |
1,268 | 478 | — | |||||||||
| Increase (decrease) in accounts receivable allowances |
10 | — | (249 | ) | ||||||||
| Increase in valuation of private placement warrants liability |
28,031 | 448 | 382 | |||||||||
| Loss on investment in joint venture |
39 | — | — | |||||||||
| Loss on disposal of assets |
72 | 111 | 6 | |||||||||
| Loss on debt extinguishment |
270 | — | 485 | |||||||||
| (Increase) decrease in operating assets: |
||||||||||||
| Accounts receivable |
(5,260 | ) | (7,957 | ) | (12,992 | ) | ||||||
| Inventories |
(16,018 | ) | (6,575 | ) | (1,225 | ) | ||||||
| Prepaid expenses and other assets |
(1,785 | ) | (535 | ) | (237 | ) | ||||||
| Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities: |
||||||||||||
| Accounts payable |
(3,687 | ) | 2,473 | 7,365 | ||||||||
| Accrued liabilities |
2,763 | 924 | 1,609 | |||||||||
| Income taxes payable |
(445 | ) | 510 | (55 | ) | |||||||
| Other noncurrent liabilities |
(34 | ) | 91 | (73 | ) | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Net cash used in operating activities |
(12,435 | ) | (2,941 | ) | (973 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Cash flows from investing activities |
||||||||||||
| Purchases of property, plant, equipment and other assets |
(6,007 | ) | (3,890 | ) | (1,557 | ) | ||||||
| Investment in joint venture |
(500 | ) | — | — | ||||||||
| Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance |
(7 | ) | (8 | ) | (13 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Net cash used in investing activities |
(6,514 | ) | (3,898 | ) | (1,570 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Cash flows from financing activities |
||||||||||||
| (Decrease) increase in cash overdraft |
— | (3,780 | ) | 3,251 | ||||||||
| Proceeds from stock offering |
36,750 | — | — | |||||||||
| Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock with warrants |
— | — | 18,000 | |||||||||
| Initial proceeds from borrowings under revolving line of credit |
38,995 | — | 18,338 | |||||||||
| Advances from revolving line of credit – noncurrent obligation |
74,841 | 72,062 | — | |||||||||
| Repayments of revolving line of credit – noncurrent obligation |
(87,900 | ) | (65,035 | ) | — | |||||||
| Repayment of prior revolving line of credit |
(38,945 | ) | — | (21,633 | ) | |||||||
| Net change in revolving line of credit – current obligation |
— | 4,249 | 1,328 | |||||||||
| Proceeds from exercise of private placement warrants |
4,412 | 178 | — | |||||||||
| Proceeds from long-term debt |
— | — | 43 | |||||||||
| Payments on long-term debt and capital lease obligations |
— | (64 | ) | (7,880 | ) | |||||||
| Repurchase of common stock |
— | — | (4,250 | ) | ||||||||
| Payment of withholding taxes from net settlement of share-based awards |
(2,063 | ) | — | — | ||||||||
| Excess tax benefit from exercise of share-based awards |
1,642 | — | — | |||||||||
| Cash paid for financing and transaction fees |
(3,020 | ) | (228 | ) | (4,654 | ) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Net cash provided by financing activities |
24,712 | 7,382 | 2,543 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Increase in cash |
5,763 | 543 | — | |||||||||
| Cash at beginning of the year |
543 | — | — | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Cash at end of the year |
$ | 6,306 | $ | 543 | $ | — | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information |
||||||||||||
| Cash paid for interest |
$ | 660 | $ | 912 | $ | 1,163 | ||||||
| Cash paid for income taxes |
$ | 4,869 | $ | 4,353 | $ | 3,695 | ||||||
| Supplemental disclosures of noncash transactions |
||||||||||||
| Unpaid property, plant, equipment and other assets |
$ | 1,552 | $ | 928 | $ | 164 | ||||||
| Fair value of private placement warrants exercised |
$ | 7,172 | $ | 52 | $ | — | ||||||
| Dividends |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | 224 | ||||||
| Common stock issued due to exercise of warrant |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | 399 | ||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
F-8
Table of Contents
POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Tabular dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)
1. Description of the company and summary of significant accounting policies
Description of the company
Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the successor in a migratory merger to Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Power Solutions International” and “PSI” refer to Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, prior to the consummation of the migratory merger, and Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, following the consummation of the migratory merger). Power Solutions International, Inc., a Nevada corporation, was formerly known as Format, Inc. (“Format”), and prior to the consummation of a reverse recapitalization, was engaged, to a limited extent, in EDGARizing corporate documents for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and in providing limited commercial printing services. On April 29, 2011, Format consummated a reverse acquisition transaction with The W Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“The W Group”), and in connection with this transaction, Format changed its corporate name to Power Solutions International, Inc. The W Group remained as the surviving corporation of the reverse acquisition, becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Power Solutions International.
The W Group was the accounting acquirior in the reverse recapitalization with Format, Inc. Accordingly, with respect to the period prior to the reverse recapitalization, it is The W Group’s historical financial position and results of operations that are presented in the consolidated financial statements, with The W Group’s historical equity restated to reflect the originally issued and outstanding equity of Format, plus the equity issued by Power Solutions International, pursuant to the reverse recapitalization.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the “Company” refers to The W Group prior to the closing of the reverse recapitalization on April 29, 2011, and Power Solutions International, Inc. as successor to the business of The W Group, following the completion of the reverse recapitalization.
Refer to Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger,” for further description of these transactions.
Nature of business operations
The Company is a global producer and distributor of a broad range of high performance, certified low emission, power systems, including alternative fuel power systems, for original equipment manufacturers of off-highway industrial equipment (“industrial OEMs”). The Company’s customers include companies that are large, industry-leading and/or multinational organizations. The Company’s products and services are sold predominantly to customers throughout North America, as well as, to customers located throughout Asia and Europe. The Company operates as one business and geographic segment.
The Company’s power systems are highly engineered, comprehensive systems which, through its technologically sophisticated development and manufacturing processes, including its in-house design, prototyping, testing and engineering capabilities and its analysis and determination of the specific components to be integrated into a given power system (driven in large part by emission standards and cost restrictions required, or desired, to be met), allow the Company to provide to its customers power systems customized to meet specific industrial OEM application requirements, other technical specifications of customers, and requirements imposed by environmental regulatory bodies. The Company’s power system configurations range from a basic engine integrated with appropriate fuel system components to completely packaged power systems that include any combination of cooling systems, electronic systems, air intake systems, fuel systems, housings, power takeoff
F-9
Table of Contents
systems, exhaust systems, hydraulic systems, enclosures, brackets, hoses, tubes and other assembled componentry. The Company purchases engines from third party suppliers and produces an internally-designed engine, all of which engines are then integrated into the Company’s power systems. Additionally, the Company is designing and developing other engines in-house. Of the other components that the Company integrates into its power systems, a substantial portion consist of internally designed components and components for which the Company coordinates significant design efforts with third party suppliers, with the remainder consisting largely of parts that are sourced off-the-shelf from third party suppliers. Some of the key components (including purchased engines) embody proprietary intellectual property of the Company’s suppliers. As a result of its design and manufacturing capabilities, the Company is able to provide to its customers a comprehensive power system which can be incorporated, using a single part number, directly into a customer’s specified application. Capitalizing on its expertise in developing and manufacturing emission-certified power systems and its access to the latest power system technologies, the Company believes that it is able to provide complete “green” power systems to industrial OEMs at a low cost and with fast design turnaround. In addition to the certified products described above, the Company sells diesel and non-certified power systems and aftermarket components.
Basis of presentation
The consolidated financial statements of Power Solutions International, Inc. present information in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (“GAAP”), have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC and, in the opinion of management present fairly the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries for the periods presented, including retroactive restatement to reflect the 1-for-32 Reverse Split approved by the stockholders in their vote on the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split which were effective August 26, 2011 (and described below in Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger”), as required in accordance with SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) Topic 4C Equity Accounts — Change in Capital Structure, and Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 260, Earnings Per Share. The consummation of the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split, effective on August 26, 2011, also triggered the automatic conversion of the shares of the Company’s preferred stock to the Company’s common stock. In accordance with ASC 260, the conversion of the Company’s preferred stock is presented prospectively from August 26, 2011, in the Company’s results as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011, resulting in a $9.7 million increase in additional paid in capital and elimination of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2011, detailed in Note 12, “Stockholders’ equity.” Earnings per share is calculated based upon the weighted average shares which reflect the conversion of the preferred shares to shares of the Company’s common stock effective August 26, 2011, as restated for the Reverse Split.
Principles of consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Power Solutions International, Inc., and its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries, The W Group, Inc., Power Production, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., XISync, LLC, PSI International, LLC, and Power Properties, L.L.C. Collectively, these entities produce and distribute off-highway industrial engines and provide aftermarket support for the industrial engine market. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Use of estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires that management make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could materially differ from those estimates.
F-10
Table of Contents
Revenue recognition
The Company recognizes revenue upon transfer of title and risk of loss to the customer, which is typically when products are shipped, provided there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the sales price is fixed or determinable and management believes collectability is reasonably assured.
The Company classifies shipping and handling charges billed to customers as revenue. Shipping and handling costs paid to others are classified as a component of cost of sales when incurred.
Inventories, net
Inventories consist primarily of engines and parts. Engines are valued at the lower of cost, plus estimated freight-in, as determined by specific serial number identification, or market value. Parts are valued at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market value. When necessary, the Company writes down inventory for an estimated amount equal to the difference between the cost of the inventory and the estimated realizable value. Additionally, an inventory reserve is provided for based upon the Company’s estimation of future demand for the quantity of inventory on hand. In determining an estimate of future demand, multiple factors are taken into consideration, including (i) customer purchase orders and customer forecasted demand; (ii) historical sales/usage for each inventory item; and (iii) utilization within a current or anticipated future power system.
Inventories consisted of the following as of December 31:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Raw materials |
$ | 53,538 | $ | 36,006 | ||||
| Finished goods |
2,448 | 3,962 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total |
$ | 55,986 | $ | 39,968 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts
Accounts receivable are due under normal trade terms generally requiring payment within 30 to 45 days from the invoice date. A limited number of customers have terms which may extend up to 150 days from the invoice date. The carrying amount of accounts receivable is reduced by a valuation allowance that reflects management’s best estimate of the amounts that will not be collected. Management specifically reviews all past due accounts receivable balances and, based on historical experience and an assessment of current creditworthiness, estimates the portion, if any, of the balance that will not be collected.
The activity in the Company’s allowance for doubtful accounts as of December 31, was as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Balance at beginning of year |
$ | 70 | $ | 140 | ||||
| (Reduction of) charged to expense |
(15 | ) | (72 | ) | ||||
| (Write-offs), net of recoveries |
25 | 2 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Balance at end of year |
$ | 80 | $ | 70 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Cash overdrafts
Prior to the March 20, 2012 amendment of the Company’s prior loan and security agreement with BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (“BMO Bank”), cash received was automatically swept and applied against the Company’s revolving line of credit. Accordingly, the Company did not maintain cash on its consolidated balance sheet, but instead funded its operations through borrowings under its revolving line of credit. Under this cash management
F-11
Table of Contents
system, cash overdraft balances existed for the Company’s primary disbursement accounts and such cash overdraft balances were classified within accounts payable on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and changes in the cash overdraft balances were presented as financing activities on the Company’s consolidated statement of cash flows. These overdrafts represented uncleared checks in excess of cash balances in the related bank accounts. As a result of the amendment and as provided in the Company’s current loan and security agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, cash balances are no longer automatically applied against the revolving line of credit, and as a result, the Company carries cash balances on its consolidated balance sheet from time to time.
Under ASC 470-10-45, Debt, the elimination of the automatic sweeping of the Company’s cash and application of such cash against the revolving line of credit resulted in a change in the presentation of the revolving line of credit from a current liability to a long-term obligation on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. Accordingly, the Company presented the revolving line of credit as a long-term obligation on its consolidated balance sheet subsequent to March 20, 2012.
Warranty costs
The Company offers a standard limited warranty on the workmanship of its products that in most cases covers defects for a defined period. Warranties for certified emission products are mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and/or the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) and are longer than the Company’s standard warranty on certain emission related products. The Company’s products also carry limited warranties from suppliers. Costs related to supplier warranty claims are borne by the supplier; the Company’s warranties apply only to the modifications made to supplier base products. The Company’s management estimates and records a liability, and related charge to income, for the warranty program at the time products are sold to customers. Estimates are based on historical experience and reflect management’s best estimates of expected costs at the time products are sold. The Company makes adjustments to estimates in the period in which it is determined that actual costs may differ from initial or previous estimates.
The activity in the Company’s warranty accrual as of December 31 was as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Balance at beginning of year |
$ | 690 | $ | 803 | ||||
| Charged to expense |
1,195 | 148 | ||||||
| Payments |
(611 | ) | (261 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Balance at end of year |
$ | 1,274 | $ | 690 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Private placement warrants
The Company’s private placement warrants are accounted for as a liability, in accordance with ASC 480-10-25-14, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. ASC 480-10-25-14 states that, if an entity must or could settle an instrument by issuing a variable number of its own shares, and, as in this case, the obligation’s monetary value is based solely or predominantly on variations in the fair value of the company’s equity shares, but moves in the opposite direction, then the obligation to issue shares is to be recorded as a liability at the inception of the arrangement, and is adjusted with subsequent changes in the fair value of the underlying stock. The effect of the change in value of the obligation is reflected as “Private placement warrant expense” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations. See Note 6, “Fair value of financial instruments,” for detail describing the valuation approach for the Private Placement Warrants.
Long-lived assets
Long-lived assets, such as property, plant and equipment and land, are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. If such review
F-12
Table of Contents
indicates that the carrying amount of long-lived assets is not recoverable, the carrying amount of such assets is reduced to fair value. There were no adjustments to the carrying values of long-lived assets during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Research & development and engineering costs
The Company expenses research & development and engineering costs when incurred. Research & development costs classified within research & development and engineering expenses in the consolidated statements of operations, consist primarily of wages and materials related to engineering work and approximated $9.4 million, $6.8 million and $4.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
Share-based compensation
The Company accounts for share-based compensation expense for awards granted to employees for service over the service period based on the grant date fair value.
Fair value of financial instruments
The Company’s financial instruments include accounts receivable, accounts payable, revolving line of credit, notes payable and private placement warrants. The carrying amounts of accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair value because of their short-term nature. The carrying value of the revolving line of credit approximates fair value because the interest rates fluctuate with market interest rates or the fixed rates are based on current rates offered to the Company for debt with similar terms and maturities. Based upon the Company’s current credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, using the Company’s balances and interest rates as of December 31, 2013, and holding other variables constant, a 10% increase in the interest rates for the next 12 month period charged by the bank to the Company would have decreased the Company’s pre-tax earnings and cash flow by less than $100,000. The fair value of the private placement warrants is described below in Note 6, “Fair value of financial instruments.”
Self-funded insurance
The Company is self-insured for certain costs of its employee health insurance plan, although the Company obtains third-party insurance coverage to limit its exposure. The Company maintains a stop-loss insurance policy with individual and aggregate stop-loss coverage.
Income taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial statements and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The effect of a change in tax rates on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
The Company records net deferred tax assets to the extent it believes these assets will more likely than not be realized. In making such a determination, the Company considers all available positive and negative evidence, including future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, projected future taxable income, tax-planning strategies, and results of recent operations. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company had not recorded a deferred tax asset valuation allowance.
The Company records uncertain tax positions in accordance with ASC 740, Income Taxes , on the basis of a two-step process whereby (1) it determines whether it is more likely than not that the tax positions will be sustained based on the technical merits of the position and (2) for those tax positions that meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, the Company recognizes the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than
F-13
Table of Contents
50 percent likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with the related tax authority. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had an unrecognized tax benefit of $570,000 for uncertain tax positions including interest and penalties. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had not recorded any unrecognized tax benefit for uncertain tax positions. The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.
Concentrations
The Company generally maintains cash balances in various accounts at one financial institution in the Midwest. During 2013 and as of December 31, 2013, the Company maintained cash in non-interest bearing accounts at two financial institutions while transitioning its accounts from one financial institution to another financial institution. At December 31, 2013, cash accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000 per institution and per depositor. The Company’s cash balances exceeded the FDIC maximum insured amounts. At December 31, 2012, the Company had no uninsured cash balances.
The Company is exposed to potential credit risks associated with its accounts receivable. The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers and generally does not require collateral on its accounts receivable. For certain non-U.S. trade receivables, the Company obtains trade credit insurance or requires letters of credit for those non-U.S. accounts for which trade credit insurance is not available or is insufficient. The Company has not experienced significant credit-related losses to date.
One customer (“Customer A”) individually accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s sales during one or more years from 2011 through 2013 and represented 16%, 16% and 15% of consolidated net sales in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
Three customers (“Customer A” referred to above, and “Customer B” and “Customer C”) individually accounted for more than 10% of consolidated accounts receivable at December 31, 2013 and 2012. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Customer A represented 11% and 15% of consolidated accounts receivable, respectively. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Customer B represented 18% of consolidated accounts receivable. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Customer C represented 13% and 11% of consolidated accounts receivable, respectively.
Three vendors (“Vendor A,” “Vendor B” and “Vendor C”) individually accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s purchases during one or more years from 2011 through 2013. Vendor A accounted for 30%, 30% and 37% of the Company’s purchases in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Vendor B accounted for 16% of the Company’s purchases in 2012, and less than 10% of the Company’s purchases in 2013 and 2011. Vendor C accounted for 15% of the Company’s purchases in 2013, and less than 10% of the Company’s purchases in 2012 and 2011.
2. Recently issued accounting pronouncements
The Company evaluates the pronouncements of various authoritative accounting organizations, including the FASB and the SEC, to determine the impact of new pronouncements on GAAP and the Company. There are no new accounting pronouncements that have been issued or adopted during the year ended December 31, 2013, that are expected to have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
3. Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger
On April 29, 2011, Power Solutions International, Inc. (formerly known as Format, Inc.) completed a reverse acquisition transaction (“Reverse Recapitalization”) in which PSI Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation that was newly-created as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Power Solutions International, Inc., merged with and into The W Group. The W Group remained as the surviving corporation of the reverse acquisition transaction and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Power Solutions International, Inc. Pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger, all of the outstanding shares of common stock of The W Group held by the three
F-14
Table of Contents
stockholders of The W Group at the closing of the reverse acquisition transaction converted into, and Power Solutions International, Inc. issued to the three stockholders of The W Group, an aggregate of 10,000,000 shares of common stock (share amount prior to the Reverse Split (as defined below)) and 95,960.90289 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (both share amounts prior to the Reverse Split defined below).
In accordance with ASC 805, Business Combinations, The W Group was considered the accounting acquiror for accounting purposes, and accounted for the transaction as a reverse recapitalization because (1) The W Group’s former stockholders received the greater portion of the voting rights in the combined entity, (2) The W Group’s senior management represented all of the senior management of the combined entity and (3) immediately prior to the transaction, Format, Inc., was a company with nominal operations and assets. Consequently, the assets and liabilities and the historical operations that are reflected in Power Solutions International, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements are those of The W Group and have been recorded at the historical cost basis of The W Group, with a recapitalization adjustment to report the issued equity of PSI. However, PSI has accounted for the reverse acquisition as a reverse recapitalization of The W Group, and no goodwill or other intangible assets have been recorded because immediately prior to, and at the time of, the reverse acquisition, Format Inc., the accounting acquiree, was a company with nominal assets and nominal operations, engaged to a limited extent in EDGARizing corporate documents for filing with the SEC and limited commercial printing services.
The results of operations of Format, Inc. have not been included in the consolidated statements of operations from the date of the Reverse Recapitalization, April 29, 2011, because Format had nominal operations and assets, which consisted mostly of cash immediately prior to consummation of the Reverse Recapitalization transaction. In accordance with the accounting for an entity with nominal operations and assets under a reverse recapitalization transaction, the net income and equity of Format immediately prior to the Reverse Recapitalization were reclassified to preferred equity. The related party obligations owed by Format immediately prior to the Reverse Recapitalization were settled through the terms of a repurchase agreement, while the remaining obligations were settled with the available cash on Format Inc.’s balance sheet. Immediately prior to the reverse acquisition transaction, Format had assets with a net book value of $5,000 which were written off in connection with the transaction.
Concurrent with the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization, Power Solutions International, Inc. and The W Group entered into a purchase agreement (“Private Placement”) whereby Power Solutions International, Inc. completed the sale of an aggregate of 18,000 shares of PSI preferred stock together with warrants (“Private Placement Warrants”) representing the right to purchase an aggregate of 24,000,007 shares of PSI common stock (share amount prior to the Reverse Split (as defined below)), subject to certain limitations on exercise. The shares of PSI preferred stock issued in the Private Placement were initially convertible into an aggregate of 48,000,007 shares of PSI common stock (share amount prior to the Reverse Split), subject to certain limitations. In consideration, Power Solutions International, Inc. and The W Group received proceeds of $18.0 million before transaction fees, costs and expenses of approximately $5.1 million in connection with the Reverse Recapitalization and Private Placement.
In connection with the Private Placement, the Company also issued to Roth Capital Partners, LLC (“Roth”) a warrant (“Roth Warrant”) to purchase initially 3,360,000 shares of PSI common stock (share amount prior to the Reverse Split (as defined below)), subject to certain limitations on exercise set forth in the Roth Warrant. On September 1, 2011, the Roth Warrant was exercised.
In connection with, and prior to the consummation of, the Reverse Recapitalization, the board of directors of Format approved a 1-for-32 reverse stock split of issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock (“Reverse Split”), immediately following the effectiveness of which each 32 issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock would automatically convert into one share of Company common stock. Any stockholder of the Company that would otherwise be entitled to a fraction of a share of the Company’s common stock (after aggregating all fractional shares of the Company’s common stock to be received by such holder) as a
F-15
Table of Contents
result of the Reverse Split, would receive an additional share of the Company’s common stock (i.e., the aggregate number of shares of the Company’s common stock of a stockholder resulting from the Reverse Split would be rounded up to the nearest whole number).
Further, in connection with the Reverse Recapitalization and the Private Placement, the board of directors of Format approved a migratory merger (“Migratory Merger”) of the Company with and into a Delaware corporation that was newly-created as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, which Migratory Merger would be effected for the purpose of changing the Company’s jurisdiction of incorporation from Nevada to Delaware. The parties agreed that the Reverse Split would be effected through the consummation of the Migratory Merger, whereby each 32 shares of the Company’s common stock would be converted into one share of common stock of the surviving entity in the Migratory Merger. The consummation of the Migratory Merger would constitute the Reverse Split for all purposes, as contemplated by the transaction documents entered into in connection with the consummation of the Reverse Recapitalization and the Private Placement. The consummation by the Company of the Migratory Merger, including the Reverse Split to be effected thereby, was subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders.
The Migratory Merger and Reverse Split were approved by the stockholders at a special meeting of the Company’s stockholders held on August 25, 2011, and the Migratory Merger and the Reverse Split were effective on August 26, 2011. The Reverse Split did not affect the number of authorized shares of common stock of the Company or the par value per share of the Company’s common stock. Immediately following the effectiveness of the Reverse Split, each issued and outstanding share of Company preferred stock automatically converted into a number of shares of Company common stock equal to $1,000 divided by the conversion price then in effect.
The impact of the above transactions on the Company’s issued capital is further described in Note 12, “Stockholders’ equity.”
4. Earnings per share
The Company computes earnings (loss) per share by applying the guidance stated in ASC 260, Earnings per Share, to determine the net income (loss) available per share of its common stock. Prior to the conversion of the shares of Company preferred stock to Company common stock as described in Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger,” earnings per share was calculated using the two-class method because the convertible preferred shares participated in any undistributed earnings with the common stockholders, specifically, on a one-to-one, as-if converted basis, without giving effect to the limitations on conversion of the preferred stock. Thus, under the two-class method, earnings allocated to preferred shares were based upon the proportion of the “as-if converted” preferred shares to the combined total of common shares, plus the “as-if converted” shares. Basic and diluted EPS under the two-class method were then calculated as earnings allocated to common shares divided by the weighted average of the actual common shares outstanding during the reporting period after giving effect to the adjustment for the Reverse Split.
Though the Company did not pay dividends prior to the Reverse Split, because the preferred stock granted the right to participate in undistributed earnings with Company common stock, it was considered a participating security, and the Company applied the two-class method to calculate per share amounts for distributed and undistributed earnings required under ASC 260, until all of the shares of preferred stock were converted into shares of Company common stock. Upon the effectiveness of the Reverse Split on August 26, 2011, all shares of the Company’s preferred stock automatically converted into shares of the Company’s common stock. Effective upon, and at all times since, the conversion of the Company preferred stock to Company common stock, the treasury stock method has been used to compute earnings (loss) per share.
Computation of undistributed earnings and allocation of undistributed earnings to participating securities
The undistributed earnings were allocable to the participating securities (i.e., common shares and the convertible preferred shares) on a pro rata basis under the two-class method until August 26, 2011, the effective
F-16
Table of Contents
date of the Migratory Merger, through which the Reverse Split was consummated (including the automatic conversion of preferred stock effected thereby). Through August 26, 2011, the allocation of undistributed earnings to each class of participating stock was based upon the proportionate ratio of average outstanding shares of each class of stock to the total average shares outstanding as adjusted for the Reverse Split, on an as-if converted basis. Upon the effectiveness of the Migratory Merger, each of the preferred shares was automatically converted into a number of shares of common stock of the surviving entity in the Migratory Merger, equal to one-thousand dollars divided by $12.00, the per share conversion price for the preferred stock, as adjusted for the Reverse Split, and thereafter, no PSI preferred shares existed. Accordingly, all undistributed earnings were allocated to shares of common stock after conversion of the shares of preferred stock into shares of common stock on August 26, 2011.
Computation of dilutive common shares
The Company utilizes the treasury stock method described in ASC 260-10-55 to determine the number of treasury shares assumed to be purchased, with any residual shares representing the incremental common shares to be issued and included in diluted EPS. The Roth Warrant (until exercised), the Company’s Private Placement Warrants, the stock appreciation rights (“SAR” as described in Note 9, “2012 Incentive compensation plan”) and restricted stock (as also described in Note 9, “2012 Incentive compensation plan) were evaluated for their potentially dilutive effect under the treasury stock method.
As of December 31, 2013, due to the loss reported in the consolidated statements of operating results, any potentially issuable shares of Company common stock associated with the Private Placement Warrants, SAR and restricted stock granted are not included in the dilutive EPS calculation. These potential shares were excluded from the diluted EPS calculation because they have an anti-dilutive effect under the treasury stock method.
The Company’s average closing market price of the Company’s common stock for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $15.51 per share. Although the exercise price of the Private Placement Warrants was $13.00 per share, all of the remaining potentially issuable shares of common stock associated with the Private Placement Warrants were determined to be anti-dilutive due to warrant valuation expenses that were included in the consolidated statement of operating results, but such expenses were required to be excluded from operating results in the fully dilutive computation. As of December 31, 2012, based on the Company’s estimated average fair value as noted above and the SAR strike price of $22.07 per share, as well as certain other requirements as defined in the stock appreciation rights award agreement, the SAR was not dilutive to the Company’s earnings per share. Accordingly, all potentially issuable shares of Company common stock associated with the SAR were excluded from the diluted EPS calculation.
Due to the Company’s limited trading volume during the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company estimated the average fair value of its common shares using the estimated fair value derived in the periodic valuations of its Private Placement Warrants liability. Based upon an average estimated fair value of $9.55 per share of the Company’s common stock for the year ended December 31, 2011, and an exercise price of $13.00 per share, all of the potentially issuable shares of common stock were excluded from the diluted EPS calculation.
During the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, portions of the Private Placement Warrants were exercised, resulting in the issuance of 339,410 and 13,750 shares of Company common stock, respectively. The Roth Warrant was cashlessly exercised in full on September 1, 2011, for an aggregate of 62,116 shares of common stock based upon the value of the Company’s common stock as determined pursuant to the Roth Warrant. See Note 12, “Stockholders’ equity” for further detail of these transactions.
F-17
Table of Contents
5. Property, plant and equipment, net
The components of property, plant and equipment as of December 31, were as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Land |
$ | 260 | $ | 260 | ||||
| Building and improvements |
4,125 | 3,882 | ||||||
| Office furniture and equipment |
2,723 | 2,172 | ||||||
| Tooling and equipment |
7,595 | 5,505 | ||||||
| Transportation equipment |
203 | 223 | ||||||
| Construction in progress |
4,844 | 594 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Property, plant and equipment, at cost |
19,750 | 12,636 | ||||||
| Accumulated depreciation |
(6,646 | ) | (5,491 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Property, plant and equipment, net |
$ | 13,104 | $ | 7,145 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost. The Company computes depreciation using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the assets’ useful economic lives or the period from the date the assets are placed in service to the end of the lease term including renewal periods that are considered by the Company to be reasonably assured of being exercised. Depreciation expense totaled $1,528,000, $1,074,000, and $785,000, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
Repairs and maintenance costs are charged directly to expense as incurred. Major renewals or replacements that substantially extend the useful life of an asset are capitalized and depreciated.
Estimated useful lives by major asset category are as follows:
| Life (in years) | ||
| Buildings and improvements |
39 Lesser of (i) 39 years, (ii) expected useful life of improvement or (ii) life of lease (including likely extension thereof) | |
| Tooling and equipment |
Up to 10 years | |
| Office furniture and equipment |
5 – 10 | |
| Transportation equipment |
3 – 5 |
6. Fair value of financial instruments
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company measured its financial assets and liabilities under the amended ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures of the Accounting Standards Codification, which defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It also establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosures of fair value measurement as follows:
Level 1 — quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;
Level 2 — other significant observable inputs for the assets or liabilities through corroborations with market data at the measurement date; and
F-18
Table of Contents
Level 3 — significant unobservable inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use to price the assets or liabilities at the measurement date.
Private placement warrants liability
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s Private Placement Warrants were measured at fair value under ASC 820. The Company’s liability for the Private Placement Warrants is measured at fair value based on unobservable inputs, and thus is considered a Level 3 financial instrument. The Company analyzes financial instruments with features of both liabilities and equity under ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity and ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company estimated the fair value of its Private Placement Warrants with a publicly traded stock pricing approach using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The inputs of the Black-Scholes option pricing model as of December 31, were as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Market value of the Company’s common stock |
$ | 75.10 | $ | 16.18 | ||||
| Exercise price |
$ | 13.00 | $ | 13.00 | ||||
| Risk-free interest rate |
0.51 | % | 0.42 | % | ||||
| Estimated price volatility |
42.50 | % | 45.00 | % | ||||
| Marketability discount |
— | 15.00 | % | |||||
| Contractual term |
2.33 years | 3.33 years | ||||||
| Dividend yield |
— | — | ||||||
The market value of the Company’s common stock was based on its closing price on December 31, 2013 and 2012, the date of each valuation. The volatility factors noted above represented the upper end of the range of implied volatility of publicly traded call options of benchmark companies. During 2013, there was a significant increase in the Company’s stock price and daily average trading volume and additional Private Placement Warrants were exercised. Additionally, as described further under Note 12, “Stockholders’ equity,” the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its common stock, which significantly increased the Company’s public float. In consideration of these factors, the Company no longer believes the Private Placement Warrants to be burdened by a lack of marketability. Accordingly, the warrant valuation as of December 31, 2013, was not discounted. As of December 31, 2012, the warrant valuation was discounted by 15%, reflecting the fact that the Private Placement Warrants were not directly traded and, at the time, were burdened by a lack of marketability. If all other assumptions were held constant, the recorded liability of the Private Placement Warrants would increase or decrease by approximately $2.5 million due to a 10% change in the enterprise value of the Company based on the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
The following table summarizes fair value measurements by level as of December 31, 2013, for the Company’s level 3 financial liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | ||||||
| Private placement warrants liability |
$ | 24,525 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
The following table summarizes fair value measurements by level as of December 31, 2012, for the Company’s level 3 financial liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | ||||||
| Private placement warrants liability |
$ | 3,666 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
F-19
Table of Contents
The following table summarizes the change in the estimated fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial instrument as of December 31:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Balance at beginning of year |
$ | 3,666 | $ | 3,270 | ||||
| Fair value of private placement warrants exercised |
(7,172 | ) | (52 | ) | ||||
| Increase in the value of private placement warrants |
28,031 | 448 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Balance at end of year |
$ | 24,525 | $ | 3,666 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
For the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized expenses of $28,031,000, $448,000 and $382,000, respectively, due to an increase in the estimated fair value of the Company’s Private Placement Warrants. These expenses were recorded as “Private placement warrant expense” on the Company’s consolidated statements of operations for the respective periods.
Financial assets and liabilities not measured at fair value
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company’s revolving line of credit, including accrued interest, recorded on the consolidated balance sheets were carried at cost. The carrying value of the revolving line of credit approximates fair value because the interest rates fluctuate with market interest rates or the fixed rates approximate current rates offered to the Company for debt with similar terms and maturities, and the Company’s credit profile has not changed significantly since the origination of these financial liabilities. Under ASC 825, Financial Instruments, these financial liabilities are defined as Level 2 in the three-level valuation hierarchy, as the inputs to their valuation are market observable.
7. Revolving line of credit
On April 29, 2011, in connection with the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization, The W Group and Power Solutions International, Inc. entered into a loan and security agreement (“Harris Agreement”) with BMO Harris Bank N.A. (“BMO Bank”), which replaced the existing loan and security agreement that The W Group had with a senior lender.
The Harris Agreement, prior to its March 20, 2012 amendment, provided for borrowings up to $35.0 million under a revolving line of credit and was scheduled to mature on April 29, 2014. The Harris Agreement was collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets. The Company was required to meet certain financial covenants, including a minimum monthly fixed charge coverage ratio and a limitation on annual capital expenditures. The Harris Agreement contained customary covenants and restrictions, including agreements to provide financial information, comply with laws, pay taxes and maintain insurance, restrictions on the incurrence of certain indebtedness, guarantees and liens, restrictions on mergers, acquisitions and certain dispositions of assets, and restrictions on the payment of dividends and distributions. In addition, the Harris Agreement required cash accounts to be held with BMO Bank. Historically, the Company’s financing arrangements, including the Harris Agreement, required that cash received be applied against the Company’s revolving line of credit. Accordingly, the Company did not maintain cash on its consolidated balance sheet during the term of the Harris Agreement and the loan and security agreement immediately preceding the Harris Agreement, but instead funded its operations through borrowings under its revolving line of credit.
Under the Harris Agreement, prior to its amendment on March 20, 2012: (a) the Company was a party to the Harris Agreement and pledged all of its shares of The W Group to BMO Bank as collateral for the revolving line of credit; (b) there were no term loans; (c) the revolving line of credit bore interest at BMO Bank’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50%; or, at the Company’s option, all or a portion of the revolving line of credit could have been designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging
F-20
Table of Contents
from 2.00% to 2.50%; (d) the Company had a limitation on annual capital expenditures; and (e) a fixed charge coverage ratio was included, except that this fixed charge coverage ratio excluded certain historical debt service costs and certain other one-time expenses (each as defined in the Harris Agreement).
On March 20, 2012, the loan and security agreement with BMO Bank was amended (the Harris Agreement, as so amended, the “Amended Harris Agreement I”) to increase the total credit facility from $35.0 million to $50.0 million and to extend the maturity date to March 20, 2017. Under the terms of the Amended Harris Agreement I: (a) the revolving line of credit bore interest at BMO Bank’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50%; or, at the Company’s option, all or a portion of the revolving line of credit could have been designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging from 1.75% to 2.25%; (b) the unused revolving line fee was reduced to 0.25%; and (c) the Company was only required to report its compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio for any month when the Company’s Excess Availability, (as defined in the Amended Harris Agreement I), was less than the Liquidity Threshold. The Liquidity Threshold was defined in the Amended Harris Agreement I as the greater of (i) $7.5 million or (ii) 12.5% of the total credit facility of $50.0 million, as may have been reduced from time to time pursuant to the terms of the Amended Harris Agreement I. When required to report its compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio, the Company would have had to continue to report its compliance with the fixed charge coverage ratio until it had exceeded the Liquidity Threshold for 60 consecutive days. Additionally, under the Amended Harris Agreement I, cash balances were no longer automatically swept by BMO Bank, and, as a result, from time to time, the Company carried cash balances on its consolidated balance sheet since the date of the Amended Harris Agreement I.
On November 8, 2012, the loan and security agreement with BMO Bank was further amended (the Harris Agreement, as so amended, “Amended Harris Agreement II”). The Amended Harris Agreement II increased the Company’s thresholds for certain transactions, allowing the Company to: (i) make acquisitions up to an aggregate of $2.0 million, (ii) enter into joint ventures up to an aggregate of $2.0 million, up from $500,000, and (iii) make annual capital expenditures up to an aggregate of $8.0 million, up from $4.0 million. These thresholds were subject to certain limitations as set forth in the Amended Harris Agreement II.
On June 28, 2013, the Company entered into a credit agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, (the “Wells Credit Agreement”) which replaced the Amended Harris Agreement II with BMO Bank. The Wells Credit Agreement enables the Company to borrow under a revolving line of credit which is secured by substantially all of the Company’s tangible and intangible assets (other than real property). The Wells Credit Agreement (a) provides an initial maximum $75.0 million revolving line of credit to the Company, which, at the Company’s request and subject to the terms of the Wells Credit Agreement, may be increased up to $100.0 million during the term of the Wells Credit Agreement; (b) bears interest at the Wells Fargo Bank’s prime rate plus an applicable margin ranging from 0% to 0.50%; or at the Company’s option, all or a portion of the revolving line of credit can be designated to bear interest at LIBOR plus an applicable margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.00%; (c) has an unused line fee of 0.25% and (d) requires the Company to report its fixed charge coverage ratio, when its Excess Availability (as defined in the Wells Credit Agreement) is less than the Threshold Amount (as defined in the Wells Credit Agreement), for a period of 60 consecutive days, until the Company’s availability is greater than or equal to the Threshold Amount. The Threshold Amount is defined in the Wells Credit Agreement as the greater of (i) $9,375,000 or (ii) 12.5% of the maximum revolver amount of $75.0 million or as it may be increased during the term of the Wells Credit Agreement up to $100.0 million.
Under the Wells Credit Agreement, the amount that the Company may borrow is limited to the lesser of the maximum available amount and borrowing base. The borrowing base is calculated as a percentage of the Company’s eligible accounts receivable and eligible inventory (as defined in the Wells Credit Agreement). The Company is required to meet certain financial covenants, including a minimum monthly fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.0 to 1.0, the testing of which commences on the last day of the month prior to the date the Company’s Excess Availability (as defined in the Wells Credit Agreement) is less than the Threshold Amount and continuing for a period of 60 consecutive days, until the Company’s availability is greater than or equal to the Threshold Amount. The Wells Credit Agreement also contains customary covenants and restrictions applicable to
F-21
Table of Contents
the Company, including agreements to provide financial information, comply with laws, pay taxes and maintain insurance, restrictions on the incurrence of certain indebtedness, guarantees and liens, restrictions on mergers, acquisitions and certain dispositions of assets, and restrictions on the payment of dividends and distributions. In addition, the Wells Credit Agreement requires the Company’s cash accounts to be held with Wells Fargo Bank subject to an interim period during which the Company’s cash accounts and activities are transitioned from BMO Bank to Wells Fargo Bank. The Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on June 28, 2018.
In connection with the refinancing, the Company recognized a $270,000 loss on extinguishment of debt for the unamortized deferred financing costs related to the BMO Bank agreement, in the year ended December 31, 2013.
As of December 31, 2013, $8.9 million of the Company’s outstanding borrowings under its revolving line of credit bore interest at the prime rate, which equaled 3.25% with the applicable margin included. The remaining outstanding balance of $9.0 million as of December 31, 2013, had been designated to bear interest at the LIBOR rate, plus an applicable margin, which equaled 1.67%. The unused and available revolving line of credit balance was $47.9 million at December 31, 2013.
As of December 31, 2012, $5.9 million of the Company’s outstanding borrowings under its revolving line of credit bore interest at the prime rate, which equaled 3.25% with the applicable margin included. The remaining outstanding balance of $25.0 million as of December 31, 2012, had been designated to bear interest at the LIBOR rate, plus an applicable margin which equaled 1.96%. The unused and available revolving line of credit balance was $19.1 million at December 31, 2012.
8. Leases
The Company leases certain buildings and equipment under various noncancelable operating lease agreements that contain renewal provisions. Rent expense under these leases approximated $2.7 million, $2.5 million and $1.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
The future minimum lease payments due under operating leases as of December 31, 2013, were as follows:
| 2014 |
$ | 2,556 | ||
| 2015 |
2,529 | |||
| 2016 |
2,352 | |||
| 2017 |
1,916 | |||
| 2018 |
1,010 | |||
|
|
|
|||
| $ | 10,363 | |||
|
|
|
9. 2012 Incentive compensation plan
On May 30, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Company approved and adopted the Company’s 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2012 Plan”), and the 2012 Plan was approved by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s annual meeting held on August 29, 2012. The 2012 Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, which consists only of independent, non-employee directors.
The 2012 Plan is a broad-based plan which allows for a variety of different types of awards, including (but not limited to) non-qualified stock options, incentive stock options, SAR, restricted stock, deferred stock and performance units, to be made to the Company’s executive officers, employees, consultants and directors. The 2012 Plan is intended to assist the Company in attracting and retaining exceptionally qualified employees, consultants and directors to support the sustained progress, growth and profitability of the Company.
Under the 2012 Plan, 830,925 shares of the Company’s common stock were initially made available for awards pursuant to the 2012 Plan. On July 31, 2013, the Board of Directors of the Company, upon
F-22
Table of Contents
recommendation of the Compensation Committee, adopted an amendment to the 2012 Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the 2012 Plan by 700,000 shares. This amendment was approved by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders held on August 28, 2013. Of the Company’s 1,530,925 shares reserved for awards under the 2012 Plan, 543,872 shares were originally underlying a SAR award granted to the Company’s Chief Operating Officer on June 6, 2012 and 162,993 shares of restricted stock have been granted to date to eligible employees (both of which are further described below). As of December 31, 2013, the Company had 824,060 shares of common stock available for future issuance under the 2012 Plan.
SAR award agreement
On June 6, 2012 (the “SAR Grant Date”), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved, and the Company granted, a SAR to the Company’s Chief Operating Officer (“Grantee”), pursuant to the 2012 Plan and a Stock Appreciation Rights Award Agreement (“SAR Award Agreement”), dated as of the SAR Grant Date. The SAR granted to the Grantee covers an aggregate of 543,872 shares of Company common stock and is exercisable only in whole shares at a price per share of $22.07. The SAR expires on the tenth anniversary of the SAR Grant Date.
The SAR granted to the Grantee vests and becomes exercisable ratably on each of the first three anniversaries of the SAR Grant Date (“graded vesting”). In addition, the SAR did not become exercisable until the date that was the last of any seven Valuation Dates (as defined in the SAR Award Agreement) within any period of ten or fewer consecutive Valuation Dates that commenced after the Grant Date and prior to the expiration date on each of which the market value per share of Company common stock is at least $22.07. This market condition was met during the year ended December 31, 2013.
The SAR entitles the Grantee to receive, upon any exercise, a number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to (i) the number of shares for which the SAR is being exercised multiplied by the value of one share of the Company’s common stock on the date of exercise (determined as provided in the SAR Award Agreement), (ii) less the number of shares for which the SAR is being exercised multiplied by $22.07, (iii) divided by the value of one share of the Company’s common stock on the date of exercise (determined as provided in the SAR Award Agreement). The exercised SAR is to be settled only in whole shares of the Company’s common stock, and the value of any fractional share of the Company’s common stock will be forfeited.
The SAR is accounted for as equity, in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation, and states that options or similar instruments on shares shall be classified as liabilities if either the underlying shares are classified as liabilities or the entity can be required under any circumstance to settle the option or similar instrument by transferring cash or other assets. The Company’s underlying shares are classified as equity, and under the terms of the SAR Award Agreement, the Company must settle the exercised portion of the SAR in shares of the Company’s common stock. As such, the Company has accounted for the SAR as equity.
As of the SAR Grant Date, the fair value of the SAR was estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The inputs of the Black-Scholes option pricing model included the fair value of the Company’s common stock, exercise price, risk-free interest rate, estimated price volatility, term and dividend yield. Due to the limited trading activity in the Company’s common stock at the date of issuance of the SAR, the fair value of the Company’s common stock (i.e. equity) was established through multiple valuation techniques, including (a) the income approach in the form of the discounted cash flow method and (b) the market approach in the form of (i) the guideline public company method and (ii) the merger and acquisition method. After the equity was determined it was then allocated to the SAR using the Option Pricing Method. In addition to that described above, other assumptions used in the Black-Scholes method included the following as of the SAR Grant Date: an expected term of 6.0 years, a risk-free interest rate of 0.92%, an anticipated volatility factor of 55.0% and a zero dividend yield. The resulting valuation as of the SAR Grant Date, was discounted by 15%, reflecting an
F-23
Table of Contents
assessment of the trading activity of the Company’s common stock (and by extension the SAR). The suggested value from the Black-Scholes method reflected a fully marketable security that was not burdened by limited marketability; however, at that time, the Company’s common stock (and by extension the SAR) did not have regular trading activity. Therefore, the Company considered it necessary to incorporate a discount to reflect the limited liquidity associated with the SAR. This approach was consistent with that utilized to value the Company’s Private Placement Warrants at that time. The resulting fair value of the SAR granted was $3.31 per underlying share.
ASC 718, Compensation — Stock Compensation, was utilized in order to estimate the fair value of the SAR. The term “fair value” has been defined in Note 6, “Fair value of financial instruments.” ASC 718 requires an entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the fair value of the award as of the grant date. That cost is then recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. ASC 718-10-55-72 provides that, if vesting (or exercisability) of an award is based on satisfying both a market condition and a performance or service condition and it is probable that the performance or service condition will be satisfied, the initial estimate of the service period is the longest of the explicit, implicit or derived service period. The Company has computed compensation expense by applying the guidance stated in ASC 718, on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for each separately vesting portion of the award as if the award was, in-substance, multiple awards (graded vesting attribution method). Since, as noted above, the SAR granted by the Company includes both a market and service condition, the Company used the longest of the periods to define its requisite service period in each separately vesting portion or tranche. To determine the derived service period associated with the SAR’s market condition, the Company performed a Monte Carlo analysis in order to estimate the likely timeframe until the Company’s public equivalent value would exceed its aggregate exercise price over a period of seven days within a period of 10 or fewer trading days (i.e. the value at which the per share value of the Company’s equity exceeds $22.07). Based on the results of this analysis, the derived service period associated with the SAR’s market condition was determined to be 1.78 years. Thus, compensation expense for the first tranche was computed on a straight-line basis over the derived service period of 1.78 years. The second and third tranches were computed on a straight-line basis over the explicit service period. In the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recognized $907,000 and $478,000, respectively, of expense for the SAR granted. There was no similar expense recorded as of December 31, 2011.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Grantee exercised the vested portion of his SAR. The impact of this transaction on the Company’s issued capital is described in Note 12, “Stockholders’ equity.”
As of December 31, 2013, there was $415,000 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to the SAR granted under the Plan. The Company expects the SAR expense to continue to be recognized over approximately the next eighteen months.
Restricted stock awards
On June 17, 2013, (the “June Restricted Stock Grant Date”), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved, and the Company granted, 136,661 shares of Company restricted stock (“Restricted Stock”) to various employees pursuant to the 2012 Plan and subject in each case to a Restricted Stock Award Agreement (“Restricted Stock Award Agreement”). The fair value of the Restricted Stock was $36.00 on the June Restricted Stock Grant Date.
On August 28, 2013 and August 29, 2013, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved, and the Company granted, 3,000 shares and 4,833 shares, respectively, of Restricted Stock to certain employees pursuant to the 2012 Plan and subject to a Restricted Stock Award Agreement. The fair value of the Restricted Stock was $51.91 and $52.28 on August 28, 2013, and August 29, 2013, respectively.
On October 1, 2013, October 14, 2013 and December 10, 2013, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved, and the Company granted, 6,999 shares, 10,000 shares and 1,500 shares, respectively, of
F-24
Table of Contents
Restricted Stock to certain employees pursuant to the 2012 Plan and subject to a Restricted Stock Award Agreement. The fair value of the Restricted Stock was $57.81, $56.28 and $71.81 on October 1, 2013, October 14, 2013 and December 10, 2013, respectively.
These shares of Restricted Stock vest in various increments and periods over a maximum of ten years from the date the stock was granted as defined under the applicable Restricted Stock Award Agreement. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recognized approximately $361,000, of compensation expense in connection with the Restricted Stock granted under the 2012 Plan. As of December 31, 2013, there was approximately $6,043,000 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to the Restricted Stock granted under the 2012 Plan. The total Restricted Stock expense is expected to be approximately $6,404,000, and the weighted-average period over which total unrecognized compensation cost is expected to be recognized is approximately 8 years. As there were no restricted stock awards prior to 2013, the Company did not incur any restricted stock expense in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.
10. Defined contribution plan
The Company sponsors a retirement savings plan for employees meeting certain eligibility requirements. Participants may choose from various investment options and can contribute an amount of their eligible compensation annually as defined by the plan document, subject to Internal Revenue Code limitations. The plan was amended in 2013, to enable employees to invest in a fund which exclusively invests in the Company’s stock. The plan is funded by participant contributions and discretionary Company contributions. The Company made no discretionary contributions during 2013, 2012 or 2011.
11. Income taxes
The expense (benefit) for income taxes for the years ended December 31, was as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||
| Current tax expense |
||||||||||||
| Federal |
$ | 2,629 | $ | 3,806 | $ | 2,816 | ||||||
| State |
955 | 1,053 | 827 | |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| 3,584 | 4,859 | 3,643 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Deferred tax expense (benefit) |
||||||||||||
| Federal |
967 | (542 | ) | (809 | ) | |||||||
| State |
208 | (174 | ) | (61 | ) | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| 1,175 | (716 | ) | (870 | ) | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Total tax expense |
$ | 4,759 | $ | 4,143 | $ | 2,773 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
A reconciliation between the Company’s effective tax rate on income from continuing operations and the statutory tax rate for the years ended December 31, was as follows:
| 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Amount | Percent | Amount | Percent | Amount | Percent | |||||||||||||||||||
| Income tax (benefit) expense at federal statutory rate |
$ | (4,760 | ) | 34.0 | % | $ | 3,687 | 34.0 | % | $ | 2,324 | 34.0 | % | |||||||||||
| State income tax, net of federal benefit |
848 | (6.1 | ) | 581 | 5.4 | 506 | 7.4 | |||||||||||||||||
| Non-deductible transaction expenses |
— | — | — | — | 259 | 3.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Non-deductible private placement warrant expense |
9,531 | (68.0 | ) | 152 | 1.4 | 130 | 1.9 | |||||||||||||||||
| Domestic production activity |
(376 | ) | 2.7 | (221 | ) | (2.0 | ) | (216 | ) | (3.1 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Research tax credits |
(1,054 | ) | 7.5 | (44 | ) | (0.4 | ) | (240 | ) | (3.5 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Tax reserve reassessment |
570 | (4.1 | ) | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
| Other, net |
— | — | (12 | ) | (0.2 | ) | 10 | 0.1 | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Income tax expense |
$ | 4,759 | (34.0 | )% | $ | 4,143 | 38.2 | % | $ | 2,773 | 40.6 | % | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
F-25
Table of Contents
The Company recognized a pre-tax loss of $14,001,000 which included $28,031,000 of permanently excludable expenses associated with the Company’s private placement warrants for the year ended December 31, 2013. Excluding this expense, the Company’s pre-tax income was $14,030,000. This adjusted pre-tax income compares to $11,293,000 of pre-tax income after excluding $448,000 of expenses associated with the Company’s private placement warrants for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company’s income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2013, increased principally due to the higher taxable income realized in 2013 as compared with 2012. Partially offsetting the increase in income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2013 were federal research tax credits recorded in 2013 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013, net of unrecognized tax benefits, as described above. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (“Act”) was signed into law. Some of the provisions of the Act were retroactive to January 1, 2012, including the Research and Experimentation Credit, which was extended through the end of 2013. Because a change in tax law is accounted for in the period of enactment, certain provisions of the Act benefiting the Company’s 2012 federal taxes, including R&D credit, were not recognized in the Company’s financial results until 2013. As the Act was signed into law in 2013, this federal research tax credit for the year ended December 31, 2012 of $413,000, along with the federal research tax credit estimated for 2013 of $641,000, were recorded in the Company’s financial results in the year ended December 31, 2013.
The Company generates research tax credits as a result of its research & development activities which reduce the Company’s effective income tax rate. In general, these credits are general business credits and may be carried forward up to 20 years to be offset against future taxable income.
As the Company reported a loss before income taxes in the year ended December 31, 2013, an effective income tax rate is not a meaningful calculation. The Company’s effective income tax rate was 38.2% in the year ended December 31, 2012. Excluding the expenses associated with the change in the private placement warrants in 2013 and 2012, the Company’s effective income tax rates were 33.9% and 36.7%, respectively.
The Company’s effective income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2011, was 40.6%. The Company’s effective income tax rate in 2011 was adversely impacted by non-deductible expenses associated with certain transaction costs incurred in connection with the Reverse Recapitalization.
Changes in tax laws and rates may affect recorded deferred tax assets and liabilities and our effective tax rate in the future.
On September 19, 2013, the US Department of Treasury finalized tangible property regulations and reissued in proposed form the regulations addressing accounting for the disposal of components of tangible property. These proposed regulations generally apply to taxable years beginning in 2014, with the option for early adoption. Because changes in tax law are accounted for in the period of enactment, certain provisions of the legislation could impact the Company’s classification of its deferred tax assets and liabilities on the balance sheet and are not expected to have an impact to the Company’s effective tax rate. The impact of adopting these regulations is expected to be primarily timing in nature and is not likely to have a material effect on the financial statements.
F-26
Table of Contents
Components of the deferred income tax assets and liabilities consisted of the following as of December 31:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Deferred tax assets |
||||||||
| Inventory |
$ | 1,630 | $ | 862 | ||||
| Allowances and bad debts |
196 | 184 | ||||||
| Accrued warranty |
496 | 276 | ||||||
| Accrued wages and benefits |
359 | 331 | ||||||
| Stock compensation |
490 | 192 | ||||||
| Deferred revenue |
— | 512 | ||||||
| Other |
302 | 54 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total deferred tax assets |
3,473 | 2,411 | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Deferred tax liabilities |
||||||||
| Tax depreciation in excess of book |
(966 | ) | (371 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Total deferred tax liabilities |
(966 | ) | (371 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Net deferred tax assets |
$ | 2,507 | $ | 2,040 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
The Company’s net deferred tax assets and liabilities are presented as follows in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets as of December 31:
| 2013 | 2012 | |||||||
| Current deferred tax assets, net |
$ | 2,811 | $ | 2,176 | ||||
| Non-current deferred tax liabilities, net |
(304 | ) | (136 | ) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Net deferred tax assets |
$ | 2,507 | $ | 2,040 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
In preparing the Company’s consolidated financial statements, management has assessed the likelihood that its deferred income tax assets will be realized from future taxable income. In evaluating the ability to recover its deferred income tax assets, management considers all available evidence, positive and negative; including the Company’s operating results, ongoing tax planning and forecasts of future taxable income on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. A valuation allowance is established if it is determined that it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the net deferred income tax assets will not be realized. Management exercises significant judgment in determining the Company’s provisions for income taxes, its deferred income tax assets and liabilities and its future taxable income for purposes of assessing its ability to utilize any future tax benefit from its deferred income tax assets.
Although management believes that its tax estimates are reasonable, the ultimate tax determination involves significant judgments that could become subject to audit by tax authorities in the ordinary course of business. As of each reporting date management considers new evidence, both positive and negative, that could impact management’s view with regards to future realization of deferred tax assets. As of December 31, 2013, management believes that is it more likely than not that all of the Company’s deferred income tax assets will be realized and no valuation allowance is required on its US deferred tax assets.
The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had $15,000 accrued for the payment of interest and penalties. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had no amounts accrued for interest or penalties.
F-27
Table of Contents
The change in unrecognized tax benefits excluding interest and penalties for the year ended December 31, 2013 was as follows:
| Balance at December 31, 2012 |
$ | — | ||
| Gross increases — current period tax positions |
555 | |||
|
|
|
|||
| Balance at December 31, 2013 |
$ | 555 | ||
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2013, Management believes the liability for unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by approximately $148,000 in 2014 due to lapses in the statute of limitations. Due to the various jurisdictions in which the Company files tax returns, it is possible that there could be other significant changes in the amount of unrecognized tax benefits in 2014, but the amount cannot be estimated.
In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to examination by taxing authorities. The Company believes that it is no longer subject to U.S. federal and state income tax examinations for years prior to 2010. The Company has not been notified by any jurisdiction that it will be subject to examination.
12. Stockholders’ equity
The statements of changes in stockholders’ equity for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, present the changes giving effect to the Company’s common stock issued in its underwritten public offering, stock compensation activity and Private Placement Warrant exercises, each of which is described below. In addition, as described in Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger” the statement of changes in stockholders equity in the year ended December 31, 2011, reflects the impact of the Private Placement in which the Company received gross proceeds of $18.0 million before transaction fees, costs and expenses in exchange for the issuance of shares of Company preferred stock as described below under Series A Convertible preferred stock.
August 26, 2011 Reverse Split
The aggregate value of the shares of common stock issued and outstanding was reduced by $10,000, with a corresponding increase to additional paid-in capital as of December 31, 2010 associated with the retroactive adjustment for the Reverse Split. The shares of Company common stock prior to the Reverse Split were 10,000,000 shares of common stock as of December 31, 2010, and upon the Reverse Split, such shares of Company common stock automatically converted into 312,500 shares of common stock. Shares held by the former stockholders of Format, Inc., the legal acquiror in the April 29, 2011, Reverse Recapitalization, were also retroactively adjusted from 770,083 common shares (without giving effect to the Reverse Split) to 24,093 common shares (giving effect to the Reverse Split). The shares issuable upon exercise by Roth of the Roth Warrant were 3,360,000 prior to the Reverse Split and were adjusted to 105,000 shares of common stock (giving effect to the Reverse Split). On August 26, 2011, the effective date of the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split, 113,961 shares of the Company preferred stock, representing all then-issued and outstanding shares of preferred stock, were automatically converted into 9,496,753 shares of Company common stock. Upon the consummation of the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split, each share of the Company’s preferred stock automatically converted into a number of shares of common stock equal to one-thousand dollars divided by $12.00 per share, the conversion price for the preferred stock giving effect to the adjustment resulting from the Reverse Split. Accordingly, preferred equity was eliminated and additional paid-in capital was increased by $9.7 million, while the aggregate value of the shares of common stock issued and outstanding was increased by $10,000.
Common stock
The Company has authorized 50,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. At December 31, 2013, 11,352,812 shares of Company common stock were issued and 10,521,887 shares of
F-28
Table of Contents
Company’s common stock were outstanding. At December 31, 2012, 9,909,212 shares of Company common stock were issued and 9,078,278 shares of Company’s common stock were outstanding. Each holder of a share of the Company’s common stock is entitled to one vote per share held on each matter to be considered by holders of the Company’s common stock. Holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to receive ratably such dividends, if any, as may be declared by the Company’s board of directors. The Company’s current policy is to retain earnings for operations and growth. Upon any liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, the holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to share ratably in all assets available for distribution, after payment of, or provision for, all liabilities and the preferences of any then outstanding shares of Company preferred stock. The holders of the Company’s common stock have no preemptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights.
Underwritten public offering
On July 16, 2013, the Company closed an underwritten public offering of 2,005,000 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $35.00 per share. The Company sold 1,050,000 shares of its common stock, and certain selling stockholders, sold 955,000 shares of common stock in the offering. The proceeds to the Company, net of the underwriter’s fees and expenses, were $34,530,000 before deducting offering expenses of approximately $514,000 paid by the Company. The Company did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares by the selling stockholders.
SAR exercise for shares of Company common stock
On August 15, 2013, the Grantee exercised the SAR with respect to 181,291 shares of common stock, which was the then vested portion of the SAR. Upon such exercise, the Company initially issued 96,504 shares of the Company’s common stock. Under the terms of the plan, at the option of the Grantee, the Company then withheld 42,314 of the shares issued to satisfy his income tax obligations. The cash equivalent of the shares withheld was $2,063,000, representing the Grantee’s income tax withholding obligation that was remitted by the Company to the applicable taxing authorities. The payment of the income tax withholding obligation was recorded as a reduction in additional paid-in-capital during the year ended December 31, 2013.
In connection with this exercise, the excess of the underlying value of the shares of common stock issued over the amount recognized as compensation expense in the Company’s financial statements is a cost that is deductible for income tax purposes by the Company. As such, the Company realized an income tax benefit of $1,642,000 for this incremental amount that was recorded as a reduction in the Company’s income tax liability and an increase in additional paid-in-capital during the year ended December 31, 2013.
Series A Convertible preferred stock
The Company has authorized 114,000 shares of Series A Convertible preferred stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, no shares of Series A Convertible preferred stock of the Company were issued or outstanding. Series A Convertible preferred stock was convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at any time at the election of its holder, subject to limitations on conversion set forth in the certificate of designation and automatically converted into shares of the Company’s common stock on August 26, 2011, the effective date of the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split. The preferred stock conversion price was $12.00 per share giving effect to the Reverse Split and was subject to adjustment for non-cash dividends, distributions, stock splits or other subdivisions or reclassifications of Company common stock. The Series A Convertible preferred stock was also subject to full-ratchet anti-dilution protection whereby, upon the issuance (or deemed issuance) of shares of the Company’s common stock, subject to specified exceptions, the conversion price of the Company’s preferred stock would have been reduced to the effective price of its common stock so issued (or deemed to be issued). The Company preferred stock did not have a stated maturity date, and upon the occurrence of the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company each holder of preferred stock would have been entitled to be paid before any distribution or payment was made upon the Company’s common stock. The Company preferred stock could only have been converted to shares of its common stock and was not
F-29
Table of Contents
redeemable for cash upon the occurrence of any other events. The Company preferred stock was not within the scope of ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, as the preferred stock was not a mandatorily redeemable financial instrument; it did not embody an obligation to repurchase the Company’s equity shares by transferring assets; and it did not embody an unconditional obligation to issue a variable number of the Company’s equity shares. Accordingly, the Company’s preferred stock did not meet the conditions in paragraph 2 of ASC 480-10-S99-3A (as interpreted in paragraph 3f) that would require temporary equity classification. Therefore, the preferred stock was classified as permanent equity on the Company’s balance sheet.
The allocation of the $18.0 million Private Placement proceeds to Company preferred stock and Private Placement Warrants is described below. The respective values of the preferred stock and Private Placement Warrants were separately estimated and applied to these respective securities for purposes of applying the appropriate accounting guidance to each security. The value assigned to the shares of preferred stock was computed on an “as-if” converted basis and derived through an estimation of the fair value of the Company’s common stock as of April 29, 2011, the date upon which the Reverse Recapitalization and Private Placement occurred, and represented the residual amount of the $18.0 million Private Placement proceeds after determining the value of the Private Placement Warrants as discussed further below under Private placement warrants. The Company estimated the fair value of its common stock using the “Backsolve Method,” as described in the current working draft of the AICPA Practice Aid. The Backsolve Method, a form of the market approach to valuation, derives the implied equity value for one type of equity security (e.g. common equity) from a contemporaneous transaction involving another type of equity security (e.g., preferred stock). In this case, the Company solved for the common equity value ($10.08 per share as adjusted for the Reverse Split) in an option pricing model such that the aggregate value of the securities issued in the Private Placement, considering both the Company’s preferred stock component and Private Placement Warrant’s component, equaled $18.0 million. That is, the sum of (i) $10.08 per common share, multiplied by 1,500,009 shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the shares of the Company’s preferred stock issued in the Private Placement (as adjusted for the Reverse Split, on an as-if converted basis) plus (ii) $3.85 per share multiplied by 750,002 shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants (as adjusted for the Reverse Split) equals $18.0 million. Accordingly, the value assigned to the Company preferred stock was $15.1 million of the $18.0 million gross proceeds received in the Private Placement. After reflecting the costs associated with the Reverse Recapitalization and allocation of the transaction costs associated with the Private Placement, as described below under Transaction costs, the value of the Company’s preferred equity was $9.7 million immediately prior to its elimination upon the automatic conversion of the shares of the preferred stock to shares of Company common stock on August 26, 2011, the effective date of the Migratory Merger and Reverse Split.
Immediately following the effectiveness of the Reverse Split, each issued and outstanding share of the Company’s preferred stock automatically converted into a number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to $1,000 divided by $12.00, the per share conversion price for the preferred stock giving effect to the adjustment resulting from the Reverse Split. At issuance, no portion of the proceeds of the Company preferred stock was assigned to the conversion feature as a separate derivative instrument under ASC 815 because the economic characteristics and risks of the conversion option were clearly and closely related to those characteristics of the Company’s preferred stock as further discussed below.
The accounting for the embedded conversion option of the Company’s preferred stock was determined by ASC 815, which required that an embedded derivative be separated from the host contract (i.e., the Company’s preferred stock in this case) and accounted for as a derivative instrument if all of the following criteria were met: (a) the economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivative were not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics and risks of the host contract; (b) the hybrid instrument (i.e., the Company preferred stock and its embedded conversion option) was not remeasured at fair value under otherwise applicable generally accepted accounting principles with changes in fair value reported in earnings as they occur; and (c) a separate instrument with the same terms as the embedded derivative would, pursuant to ASC 815, be a derivative instrument subject to the requirements of ASC 815.
F-30
Table of Contents
The host contract (i.e., the Company preferred stock), absent the conversion option, did not provide the holders with principal protection, and it encompassed a residual interest in the Company. Therefore, the host contract was more analogous to equity. The conversion option enabled the holders to convert the Company preferred stock into shares of Company common stock, subject to certain adjustments and limitations on conversion. Since the host contract was an equity host and the conversion option was to convert the preferred stock into Company common stock and both possessed principally equity characteristics related to the same entity, the economic characteristics and risks of the conversion option were clearly and closely related to those of the Company preferred stock host contract. Therefore, the requirements in paragraph ASC 815(a) were not met. Accordingly, the embedded conversion option was not required to be separately classified and accounted for apart from the Company preferred stock.
Private placement warrants
Each investor in the Private Placement as described in Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger,” received a number of Private Placement Warrants equal to one-half the number of shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon conversion of the shares of the Company’s preferred stock purchased by such investor. At issuance, the Private Placement Warrants represented the right to purchase a total of 750,002 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $13.00 per share, as adjusted for the Reverse Split, subject to further adjustment for non-cash dividends, distributions, stock splits or other reorganizations or reclassifications of the Company’s common stock. The Private Placement Warrants are also subject to full ratchet anti-dilution protection whereby, upon the issuance (or deemed issuance) of shares of the Company’s common stock at a price below the then-current exercise price of the Private Placement Warrants, subject to specified exceptions, the exercise price of the Private Placement Warrants will be reduced to the effective price of the Company’s common stock so issued (or deemed to be issued). The Private Placement Warrants will expire on April 29, 2016.
At any time beginning six months after the closing of the Private Placement at which the Company is required to register the shares issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants pursuant to the registration rights agreement entered into in connection with the Private Placement, but such shares may not be freely sold to the public, the Private Placement Warrants may be “cashlessly” exercised by their holders. In such circumstances, the warrant holders may “cashlessly” exercise the Private Placement Warrants by causing the Company to withhold a number of shares of its common stock otherwise issuable upon such exercise having a value, based upon the market price of the Company’s common stock (such market price as defined in the purchase agreement for the Private Placement), equal to the aggregate exercise price associated with such exercise. In other words, in such circumstances, the exercise of the Private Placement Warrants will occur without any cash being paid by the holders of the Private Placement Warrants. Because the shares issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants are currently available for resale pursuant to effective registration statements filed by the Company with the SEC, the Private Placement Warrants may not be “cashlessly” exercised at this time. The Private Placement Warrants further include a requirement that, from and after the effective date of the Reverse Split, the Company will keep reserved out of the authorized and unissued shares of its common stock sufficient shares to provide for the exercise of the Private Placement Warrants.
The Company’s Private Placement Warrants are accounted for as a liability, in accordance with ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. ASC 480 states that, if an entity must or could settle an instrument by issuing a variable number of its own shares, and, as in this case, the obligation’s monetary value is based solely or predominantly on variations in the fair value of the company’s equity shares, but moves in the opposite direction, then the obligation to issue shares is to be recorded as a liability at the inception of the arrangement, and is adjusted with subsequent changes in the fair value of the underlying stock. The effect of the change in value of the obligation is reflected as “Private placement warrant expense” in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations.
The Private Placement Warrants issued with the 18,000 shares of the Company’s preferred stock had an estimated fair value of $2,887,000 at the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization transaction and the Private
F-31
Table of Contents
Placement on April 29, 2011, determined based upon an agreed-upon exercise price of the Private Placement Warrants; the purchase price for (value of) the Company’s preferred stock and Private Placement Warrants, in the aggregate as agreed upon with the investors in the Private Placement; an assessment of an appropriate risk-free interest rate of 2.1%, an anticipated volatility factor of 50.0%, and a zero percent dividend yield, all incorporated into a valuation using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Company determined that the five-year Treasury Bond yield was a reasonable assumption for a risk-free rate, and that an appropriate volatility rate would represent the upper end of the range of implied volatility of publicly traded call options of benchmark companies, which reflects the mid-range of their historical volatility. The Company’s past history of not paying dividends and management’s intentions to continue such a dividend policy resulted in a zero dividend yield assumption. The five-year term of the Private Placement Warrants, the stated warrant exercise price of $13.00 per share (as adjusted for the Reverse Split), when the Private Placement Warrants became exercisable, and the Company’s common stock valuation of $10.08 per share (as adjusted for the Reverse Split), when the Private Placement Warrants became exercisable, comprise the balance of the inputs into the Black-Scholes pricing model for the warrant valuation.
See Note 6, “Fair value of financial instruments,” for detail describing the valuation approach for the Private Placement Warrants as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, a portion of the Private Placement Warrants were exercised, resulting in the issuance of 339,410 and 13,750 shares of the Company’s common stock, respectively. There were no exercises of the Private Placement Warrants in the year ended December 31, 2011.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, 396,842 shares and 736,252 shares of Company common stock, respectively, remained reserved for the exercise of the Private Placement Warrants, in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement for the Private Placement.
Roth warrant
The Company issued to Roth, the Roth Warrant to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock, as compensation for its role as placement agent in connection with the Private Placement. Prior to its exercise in full on September 1, 2011, as described below, the Roth Warrant represented the right to purchase an aggregate of 105,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at an exercise price of $13.20 per share, subject to further adjustment for non-cash dividends, distributions, stock splits, or other reorganizations or reclassifications of the Company’s common stock. The Roth Warrant was originally scheduled to expire on April 29, 2016. At any time following the effectiveness of the Reverse Split, the Roth Warrant could have been “cashlessly” exercised by its holder by causing the Company to withhold a number of shares of its common stock otherwise issuable upon such exercise having a value, based upon the market price of the Company’s common stock (such market price as defined in the Roth Warrant), equal to the aggregate exercise price associated with such exercise. In other words, in such circumstances, the exercise of the Roth Warrant would occur without any cash being paid by the holder of the warrant to the Company. The Roth Warrant included a requirement that the Company reserve a sufficient number of shares of its common stock solely for the purpose of effecting the exercise of the Roth Warrant into shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the terms (and subject to the limitations) thereof.
The estimated fair value of the Roth Warrant of $0.4 million as of the consummation of the Private Placement on April 29, 2011 was determined using the same assumptions used to value the Private Placement Warrants described above, and by using the same inputs, but for its specific exercise price of $13.20 per share as adjusted for the Reverse Split. The Roth Warrant was classified as equity and was recorded as an adjustment between the Roth Warrant and the Company’s preferred stock equity. Unlike the Private Placement Warrants, the Roth Warrant did not contain, and was not otherwise subject to, any price-based anti-dilution provisions and could only be settled by the Company with a fixed number of shares of the Company’s common stock (subject to customary adjustments for non-cash dividends, distributions, stock splits or other reorganizations or reclassifications of the Company’s common stock). Under ASC 815, this lack of price-based anti-dilution
F-32
Table of Contents
provisions was the distinctive attribute as compared to the Private Placement Warrants that required the Roth Warrant to be classified as equity on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. The valuation of the Company’s preferred stock, common stock and Private Placement Warrants employed the Black-Scholes option pricing model and incorporated the purchase price of the Company’s preferred stock and Private Placement Warrants, including the Roth Warrant, and the Company’s assessment relative to the interest rate, volatility factor, and other inputs utilized in the model. The Roth Warrant represented compensation to Roth for its services in its capacity as placement agent for the Private Placement, and the Roth Warrant’s $0.4 million estimated fair value ($3.80 per share of common stock issuable upon exercise of the Roth Warrant as adjusted for the Reverse Split) was recorded as a reduction of capital from the preferred stock issuance.
In accordance with its terms, on September 1, 2011, Roth “cashlessly” exercised, in full, the Roth Warrant, receiving 62,116 shares of the Company’s common stock on a net basis, with 42,884 of the 105,000 warrant shares issuable upon exercise thereof withheld by the Company in lieu of payment by Roth to the Company of an amount in cash equal to the aggregate exercise price thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the Roth Warrant.
Treasury stock
The Company and Gary S. Winemaster, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which, on October 31, 2011, the Company purchased from Mr. Winemaster 830,925 shares of Company common stock for $4.25 million, or $5.11 per share. These shares were returned to the Company’s treasury as authorized and issued, but not outstanding, shares of common stock of the Company.
Transaction costs from reverse recapitalization and the private placement
The transaction costs incurred in connection with the Reverse Recapitalization and the Private Placement consist of cash costs of approximately $5.7 million, and the issuance to Roth, as placement agent for the Private Placement, of the Roth Warrant (with an estimated fair value of approximately $0.4 million). The cash costs consisted of fees to the placement agent in the Private Placement, legal and accounting fees, consulting fees, fees for the repurchase of shares of Format stock from the former sole director and executive officer of Format and termination of his interest in and obligations owed by Format to him, and other expenses associated with the Reverse Recapitalization and Private Placement transactions. The cash transaction costs were required to be allocated between equity (approximately $4.9 million) for the costs allocated to the Company’s preferred stock, plus subsequent registration costs of the Company’s common stock, and operating results (approximately $0.8 million) for the costs allocated to the Private Placement Warrants.
Included in the transaction costs above were costs for filing registration statements with the SEC covering the resale of shares of common stock issued upon conversion of shares of preferred stock and exercise of the Roth Warrant and issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants, which totaled approximately $0.6 million as of December 31, 2011, and were recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in capital, as the Company was obligated to register all such shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement for the Private Placement.
Registration rights agreement
In connection with the Private Placement, the Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement”) with the investors in the Private Placement and Roth Capital Partners, LLC, pursuant to which it agreed to file a registration statement on Form S-1, with the SEC, covering the resale of “Registrable Securities” (as defined below) (which includes the shares of the Company’s common stock that were issuable upon conversion of shares of the Company’s preferred stock originally issued in the Private Placement and shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon exercise of the Private
F-33
Table of Contents
Placement Warrants and shares of the Company’s common stock that were issuable upon exercise of the Roth Warrant), on or before the date which is 30 days after the closing date of the Private Placement, and to use its commercially reasonable efforts to have such registration statement declared effective by the SEC as soon as practicable. The Company further agreed, within 30 days after it becomes eligible to use a registration statement on Form S-3 to register the Registrable Securities for resale, to file a registration statement on Form S-3 covering the Registrable Securities. On June 27, 2013, within 30 days after the Company became eligible to use a registration statement on Form S-3, in accordance with the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement, it filed a registration statement on Form S-3 (as a post-effective amendment to the registration statement on Form S-1) covering the Registrable Securities, which was declared effective on June 27, 2013.
The Company is obligated to maintain the effectiveness of the registration statement until the earliest of (1) the first date on which all Registrable Securities covered by such registration statement have been sold, (2) the first date on which all Registrable Securities covered by such registration statement may be sold without restriction pursuant to Rule 144 or (3) the first date on which none of the securities included in the registration statement constitute Registrable Securities.
Pursuant to the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement, the holders of Registrable Securities are also entitled to certain piggyback registration rights if the Registrable Securities are not covered by one or more effective registration statements. As of December 31, 2013, and as of the time of the closing of the public offering on July 16, 2013, all of the Registrable Securities were covered by an effective registration statement. “Registrable Securities,” as contemplated by the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement, means certain shares of the Company’s common stock, including those shares that were issuable upon conversion of shares of Company preferred stock issued in the Private Placement and shares of the Company’s common stock issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants and the shares of the Company’s common stock that were issued upon exercise of the Roth Warrant; provided, that, any such share shall cease to be a Registrable Security upon (A) sale pursuant to the registration statement or Rule 144 under the Securities Act, (B) such share becoming eligible for sale without restriction by the selling securityholder holding such security pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act or (C) such share otherwise becoming eligible for sale without restriction pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Securities Act, provided that, any restrictive legend on any certificate or other instrument representing such shares has been removed or there has been delivered to the transfer agent for such shares irrevocable documentation (including any necessary legal opinion) to the effect that, upon submission by the applicable selling securityholder of the certificate or instrument representing such security, any such restrictive legend shall be removed.
In addition, at any time beginning six months after the closing of the Private Placement at which the Company was required to register the shares issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants, but such shares may not be freely sold to the public, the warrants may be “cashlessly” exercised by the holders thereof. In such circumstances, the warrant holders may “cashlessly” exercise the Private Placement Warrants by causing the Company to withhold a number of shares of its common stock otherwise issuable upon such exercise having a value, based upon the market price (such market price as defined in the purchase agreement for the Private Placement) of the Company’s common stock, equal to the aggregate exercise price associated with such exercise. In other words, in such circumstances, the exercise of the Private Placement Warrants will occur without any cash being paid by the holders of the Private Placement Warrants to the Company. Because the shares issuable upon exercise of the Private Placement Warrants are currently available for resale pursuant to effective registration statements filed by the Company with the SEC, the Private Placement Warrants may not be “cashlessly” exercised as of December 31, 2013.
In connection with the consummation of the Reverse Recapitalization, the Company also entered into a registration rights agreement with the former stockholders of The W Group, pursuant to which it agreed to provide to such persons certain piggyback registration rights with respect to shares of the Company’s capital stock, including shares issuable upon exercise, conversion or exchange of securities, held by such persons at any time on or after the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization. The piggyback registration rights under this
F-34
Table of Contents
registration rights agreement are subject to customary cutbacks and are junior to the piggyback registration rights granted to investors in the Private Placement and to Roth pursuant to the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement.
The Company had a commitment to file a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC as described above. If a registration statement was not filed with the SEC on or prior to the date which was 30 days after the closing date of the Private Placement, or if (1) a registration statement covering the Registrable Securities was not declared effective by the SEC prior to the earlier of (A) five business days after the SEC informed the Company that no review of such registration statement would be made or that the SEC had no further comments on such registration statement, or (B) the 120th day after the closing of the Private Placement, or (2) after a registration statement had been declared effective by the SEC, sales could not be made pursuant to such registration statement for any reason, but excluding any period for which the use of any prospectus included in a registration statement has been suspended if and so long as certain conditions exist (which period may not be for more than 20 consecutive days or for a total of more than 45 days in any 12-month period), then the Company would have been required to pay amounts representing liquidated damages to each of the investors. Specifically, in any such case the Company would have been required to pay each investor 1.5% of the aggregate amount invested by such investor for each 30-day period (or pro rata for any portion thereof) following the date by which such registration statement should have been filed with the SEC or been declared effective, or was unavailable, as applicable. Thus, liquidated damages to investors could have amounted to approximately $0.3 million every 30 days. The terms of the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement did not specify a maximum potential amount of liquidated damages and settlement alternatives were not provided. As the payment of liquidated damages did not appear probable at inception of the Private Placement, and remained so as of the date that any subsequent financial statements were issued, the Company did not record any contingent liability as an allocation of the gross proceeds from the Private Placement, nor subsequently, as an expense in accordance with ASC 450-20, Loss Contingencies. A registration statement covering the Registrable Securities was declared effective on August 26, 2011 by the SEC, which resolved the contingency regarding the registration statement being declared effective.
The Company had a commitment to file a registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC as described above. If a registration statement on Form S-3 was not filed with the SEC within 30 days after the Company became eligible to use a registration statement on Form S-3, then the Company would have been required to pay amounts representing liquidated damages to each of the investors. Specifically, in any such case the Company would have been required to pay each investor 1.5% of the aggregate purchase price paid by such investor that was attributable to those Registrable Securities that remained unsold at that time each 30-day period (or pro rata for any portion thereof) following the date by which such registration statement should have been filed with the SEC. The terms of the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement did not specify a maximum potential amount of liquidated damages and settlement alternatives were not provided. As the payment of liquidated damages did not appear probable at inception of the Private Placement, and remained so as of the date that any subsequent financial statements were issued, the Company did not record any contingent liability as an allocation of the gross proceeds from the Private Placement, nor subsequently, as an expense in accordance with ASC 450-20, Loss Contingencies. A registration statement on Form S-3 (as a post-effective amendment to the registration statement on Form S-1) covering the Registrable Securities was filed with the SEC on June 27, 2013, which resolved the contingency regarding the registration statement on Form S-3 being filed with the SEC.
In addition, the Company filed a universal shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on February 14, 2014, pursuant to which the Company may offer, issue and sell, from time to time, in one or more offerings, common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, depositary shares, warrants, subscription rights, stock purchase contracts and units.
13. Commitments and contingencies
The Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement provides, among other things, that if, after such registration statement has been declared effective by the SEC, sales cannot be made pursuant to such registration
F-35
Table of Contents
statement for any reason, but excluding any period for which the use of any prospectus included in a registration statement has been suspended if and so long as certain conditions exist (which period may not be for more than 20 consecutive days or for a total of more than 45 days in any 12-month period), then the Company is required to pay amounts representing liquidated damages to each of the investors, on the same basis as the liquidated damages the Company could have been required to pay in connection with the initial registration statement filed pursuant to the Private Placement Registration Rights Agreement. See also Note 12, “Stockholders Equity” for a discussion of a contingency related to the filing of a registration statement on Form S-3.
The Company is involved in various legal proceedings from time to time arising in the normal course of doing business. The Company is required to record a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated; however, based upon a review of information currently available to the Company regarding the potential impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to the legal proceedings in which the Company is currently involved, the resolution of these legal proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
On December 7, 2012, the Company signed an agreement to enter into a joint venture with another entity for the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling certain engines into the Asian market. As of December 31, 2013, the production facility was completed and manufacturing has been scheduled to commence during 2014. In connection with this agreement, the Company has committed up to $1.2 million toward the joint venture. As of December 31, 2013, and absent any changes in facts and circumstances, the Company intends to account for this joint venture under the equity method as prescribed by ASC 323, Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures.
14. Related party transactions
Thomas Somodi, who previously served as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, entered into with The W Group (i) a subscription agreement, dated as of April 16, 2005, as amended by the amendment to the subscription agreement, effective January 1, 2008, and (ii) an employment agreement dated as of April 16, 2005, as amended by the amendment to the employment agreement, effective January 1, 2008. Pursuant to the subscription agreement entered into with Mr. Somodi, Mr. Somodi acquired shares of The W Group which represented 10% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of The W Group as of the date of such agreement and immediately prior to the closing of the Reverse Recapitalization, and the subscription agreement provided that, upon any issuance or change in the structure of capital stock, The W Group would make an equitable adjustment to the shares held by Mr. Somodi so that Mr. Somodi would maintain an interest equal to 10% of the fully-diluted capital stock of The W Group. The subscription agreement further provided (i) Mr. Somodi with the right to require The W Group to purchase his shares, and (ii) The W Group with the right to require Mr. Somodi to sell his shares to The W Group, upon The W Group’s achievement of certain thresholds relating to the valuation of The W Group. Also, Mr. Somodi agreed to sell his shares, if requested by The W Group, to a third party in connection with the sale of The W Group.
On April 28, 2011, Gary Winemaster, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Somodi entered into a purchase and sale agreement which was subsequently amended on October 31, 2011, as described below, whereby Mr. Winemaster agreed to purchase all of Mr. Somodi’s shares of preferred and common stock in The W Group, which shares converted into an aggregate of 830,925 shares of Company common stock upon the consummation of the Reverse Recapitalization, as adjusted for the Reverse Split as described in Note 3, “Reverse recapitalization of The W Group, private placement, reverse split and migratory merger.”
On October 31, 2011, Mr. Winemaster and Mr. Somodi amended the purchase and sale agreement to provide that Mr. Winemaster would purchase the 830,925 shares of the Company’s common stock then held by Mr. Somodi at an initial closing upon delivery by Mr. Winemaster of $4.25 million, by delivery of a full-recourse promissory note therefore, and to modify the terms upon which Mr. Winemaster was required to transfer shares
F-36
Table of Contents
of the Company’s common stock to Mr. Somodi upon the Company’s achievement of certain common stock value thresholds set forth in the purchase and sale agreement as follows: (a) an aggregate of 112,530 shares of Company common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $22.2162; (b) an additional aggregate of 135,036 shares of Company common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $27.7717; and (c) an additional aggregate of 90,024 shares of the Company’s common stock within 90 days of such time as the value per share of the Company’s common stock was at least $33.3244. All share and per share numbers in the foregoing provisions were subject to adjustment for stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations and similar events.
Messrs. Winemaster and Somodi consummated the sale of the 830,925 shares of Company common stock from Mr. Somodi to Mr. Winemaster pursuant to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, on October 31, 2011, and, thereafter on October 31, 2011, pursuant to the terms of a purchase agreement between the Company and Mr. Winemaster, the Company purchased the 830,925 shares of the Company’s common stock from Mr. Winemaster in exchange for delivery by the Company to Mr. Winemaster of $4.25 million, representing a price per share of $5.11. The promissory note delivered by Mr. Winemaster to Mr. Somodi in exchange for the shares at the closing of the transactions contemplated by the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, was paid in full by Mr. Winemaster on October 31, 2011. Promptly following the purchase of the shares by the Company from Mr. Winemaster pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, the shares were returned to the Company’s treasury as authorized and issued, but not outstanding, shares of Company common stock.
Pursuant to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, Mr. Winemaster had the right to elect to make a payment to Mr. Somodi equal to the product of the number of shares Mr. Winemaster would otherwise be required to deliver to Mr. Somodi upon achievement of a common stock value threshold, multiplied by the applicable threshold price. The first common stock value threshold was achieved on or about March 27, 2013, the second common stock value threshold was achieved on or about May 7, 2013, and the third common stock value threshold was achieved on or about May 28, 2013. On June 24, 2013, Mr. Somodi transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the first common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $2.5 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $2.5 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the first common stock value threshold. On August 5, 2013, Mr. Somodi again transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the second common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $3.75 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $3.75 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the second common stock value threshold. On August 26, 2013, Mr. Somodi transferred to the Company his right to receive shares or a cash payment from Mr. Winemaster as a result of the achievement of the third common stock value threshold, in exchange for a cash payment by the Company to Mr. Somodi of $3.0 million. Mr. Winemaster contemporaneously paid the Company $3.0 million in full satisfaction of Mr. Winemaster’s obligations to the Company as a result of the achievement of the third common stock value threshold. These transactions were all approved by the Audit Committee prior to being entered into and consummated.
During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company incurred fees for tax return and other consulting services with a professional services firm that is affiliated with a stockholder and member of the board of directors. Fees incurred during 2013, 2012 and 2011, were $127,000, $125,000 and $156,000, respectively.
F-37
Table of Contents
EXHIBITS
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
| Exhibit Number |
Exhibit Description | |
| 2.1† | Agreement and Plan of Merger between Format, Inc., PSI Merger Sub, Inc. and The W Group, Inc. (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 2.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission May 5, 2011). | |
| 3.1 | Certificate of Incorporation of Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on August 12, 2011 (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.4 to Amendment No. 2 to the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-174543, filed August 19, 2011). | |
| 3.2 | Bylaws of Power Solutions International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, adopted August 12, 2011 (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.5 to Amendment No. 2 to the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-174543, filed August 19, 2011). | |
| 10.1 | Termination Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2011, between The W Group, Inc. and Thomas Somodi, including the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2011, between Gary Winemaster and Thomas Somodi referenced therein (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission May 5, 2011). | |
| 10.2 | Purchase Agreement, dated April 29, 2011, among Format, Inc. and the investors in the private placement (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.4 to Amendment No. 3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission May 5, 2011). | |
| 10.3 | Form of Warrant, dated April 29, 2011, issued by Power Solutions International, Inc. to the investors in the private placement (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.6 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission May 5, 2011). | |
| 10.4 | Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, among Power Solutions International, Inc., the investors in the private placement and ROTH Capital Partners, LLC (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.9 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission May 5, 2011). | |
| 10.5 | Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, among Power Solutions International, Inc. and Gary Winemaster, Kenneth Winemaster and Thomas Somodi (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.10 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, as amended, dated April 29, 2011). | |
| 10.6†† | Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, by and among Harris N.A., as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.11 to Amendment No. 3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission August 1, 2011). | |
| 10.7†† | Supply Agreement, dated December 11, 2007, by and between PSI International, LLC and Doosan Infracore Co., Ltd., as amended (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.12 to Amendment No. 4 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission August 12, 2011). | |
| 10.8 | Distribution Agreement for Perkins Products, dated January 1, 2004, by and between Perkins Engines Inc. and Power Great Lakes, Inc., as amended (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.13 to Amendment No. 3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated April 29, 2011, filed with the Commission August 1, 2011). | |
1
Table of Contents
| Exhibit Number |
Exhibit Description | |
| 10.9 | Industrial Lease Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2011, by and between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and Centerpoint Properties Trust (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.12 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, filed August 15, 2011). [Note: Delete leases for old facilities, if any.] | |
| 10.10 | Industrial Space Lease Agreement, dated as of January 11, 2011, by and between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and Dickal 770 L.L.C. (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.16 to Amendment No. 2 to the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-174543, filed August 19, 2011). | |
| 10.11 | Lease Agreement, dated as of August 28, 2006, as amended, by and between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and AMB Partners II Local, L.P. (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.17 to Amendment No. 2 to the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333-174543, filed August 19, 2011). | |
| 10.12 | Lease Agreement, dated as of July 20, 2004, as amended, by and between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and Gateway Jefferson, Inc. (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.18 to Amendment No. 2 to the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1, Registration No. 333—174543, filed August 19, 2011). | |
| 10.13 | Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 31, 2011, between Power Solutions International, Inc. and Gary S. Winemaster (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated October 31, 2011, filed with the Commission November 4, 2011). | |
| 10.14 | Industrial Building Lease, dated as of February 28, 2012, between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and Centerpoint Properties Trust (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated February 28, 2012, filed with the Commission March 2, 2012). | |
| 10.15 | Industrial Building Lease, dated as of March 13, 2012, between Power Great Lakes, Inc. and Centerpoint Properties Trust (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated March 13, 2012, filed with the Commission March 16, 2012). | |
| 10.16†† | Amendment No. 1, dated as of March 20, 2012, to Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, by and among BMO Harris Bank N.A., as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync, LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated March 20, 2012, filed with the Commission March 23, 2012). | |
| 10.17 | Amendment No. 1, dated as of March 20, 2012, to Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, by and among BMO Harris Bank N.A., as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync, LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A, dated April 20, 2012, filed with the Commission on April 20, 2012 and contains previously redacted portions of this exhibit). | |
| 10.18* | Employment Agreement, dated as of June 6, 2012, between Power Solutions International, Inc. and Eric A. Cohen (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 6, 2012, filed with the Commission June 7, 2012). | |
2
Table of Contents
| Exhibit Number |
Exhibit Description | |
| 10.19* | Stock Appreciation Rights Agreement, dated as of June 6, 2012, by and between Power Solutions International, Inc and Eric Cohen (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 6, 2012, filed with the Commission on June 7, 2012). | |
| 10.20* | Power Solutions International, Inc. 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, as adopted by the Board of Directors on May 30, 2012 (subject to stockholder approval) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 6, 2012, filed with the Commission on June 7, 2012). | |
| 10.21 | Amendment No. 2, dated as of November 8, 2012, to Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2011, by and among BMO Harris Bank N.A., as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync, LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 10-Q for quarterly period ended September 20, 2012, filed with the Commission November 13, 2012). | |
| 10.22* | Amendment No. 1 to the Power Solutions International, Inc. 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended by the Board of Directors on July 31, 2013 (approved by stockholders on August 28, 2013) (incorporated by reference from Appendix A to the registrant’s Proxy Statement on Form DEF 14A, dated August 1, 2013, filed with the Commission on August 2, 2013). | |
| 10.23* | Form of Restricted Stock Agreement by and between Power Solutions International, Inc. and each eligible employee (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 17, 2013, filed with the Commission on June 20, 2013). | |
| 10.24 | Credit Agreement, dated as of June 28, 2013, by and among Wells Fargo, N.A. as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 28, 2013, filed with the Commission on July 2, 2013). | |
| 10.25 | Security Agreement dated as of June 28, 2013 by and among Wells Fargo, N.A. as agent for itself and other lenders party thereto, each of the lenders party thereto, Power Solutions International, Inc., The W Group, Inc., Power Solutions, Inc., Power Great Lakes, Inc., Auto Manufacturing, Inc., Torque Power Source Parts, Inc., Power Properties, L.L.C., Power Production, Inc., Power Global Solutions, Inc., PSI International, LLC and XISync LLC, and related documents (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 28, 2013, filed with the Commission on July 2, 2013). | |
| 10.26* | Indemnification Agreement by and between Power Solutions International, Inc. and certain Indemnitees (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated January 7, 2014, filed with the Commission on January 9, 2014). | |
| 21.1 | Subsidiaries of Power Solutions International, Inc. (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 21.1 to registrants’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Commission on March 12, 2013). | |
| 23.1 | Consent of McGladrey LLP | |
| 23.2 | Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP | |
| 31.1 | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) | |
| 31.2 | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) | |
3
Table of Contents
| Exhibit Number |
Exhibit Description | |
| 32.1 | Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. | |
| 32.2 | Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. | |
| 101.INS | XBRL Instance Document. | |
| 101.SCH | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document. | |
| 101.CAL | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document. | |
| 101.LAB | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document. | |
| 101.PRE | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document. | |
| 101.DEF | XBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase Document. | |
| * | Indicates management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement |
| † | Exhibits and schedules omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(2) of Regulation S-K. The registrant agrees to furnish a supplemental copy of an omitted exhibit or schedule to the SEC upon request. |
| †† | Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions of this exhibit. Omitted portions have been separately filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
4
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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, on the 28th day of February 2014.
| POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. | ||
| By: | /s/ DANIEL P. GOREY | |
| Daniel P. Gorey | ||
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | ||
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated on the 28th day of February 2014.
| Signature |
Titles | |
| /s/ GARY S. WINEMASTER Gary S. Winemaster |
Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer), President and Director | |
| /s/ DANIEL P. GOREY Daniel P. Gorey |
Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) | |
| /s/ KENNETH W. LANDINI Kenneth W. Landini |
Director | |
| /s/ H. SAMUEL GREENAWALT H. Samuel Greenawalt |
Director | |
| /s/ JAY J. HANSEN Jay J. Hansen |
Director | |
| /s/ MARY E. VOGT Mary E. Vogt |
Director | |