Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
|Accounting Policies [Abstract]
|Significant Accounting Policies [Text Block]
Note 3 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars and have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”), and pursuant to the accounting and disclosure rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods.
The Company’s significant estimates and assumptions include the valuation of the Company’s common stock, the valuation of stock-based compensation instruments and the valuation of derivative financial instruments, the amortization of deferred financing costs, the useful lives of long-lived assets, and income tax expense. Some of these judgments can be subjective and complex, and, consequently, actual results may differ from these estimates. Although the Company believes that its estimates and assumptions are reasonable, they are based upon information available at the time the estimates and assumptions were made. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Research and Development
Research and development expenses are charged to operations as incurred. For internally developed patents, all patent application costs are expensed as incurred as research and development expense. Patent application costs, generally legal costs, are expensed as research and development costs until such time as the future economic benefits of such patents become more certain. The Company incurred research and development costs of $12,511,647 and $2,109,890 for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Tax benefits are recognized only for tax positions that are more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by tax authorities. The amount recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely to be realized upon settlement. A liability for “unrecognized tax benefits” is recorded for any tax benefits claimed in the Company’s tax returns that do not meet these recognition and measurement standards. As of December 31, 2014, no liability for unrecognized tax benefits was required to be reported. The guidance also discusses the classification of related interest and penalties on income taxes. The Company’s policy is to record interest and penalties on uncertain tax positions as a component of income tax expense. No interest or penalties were recorded during the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013.
Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share
Basic net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed using the weighted average number of common shares and, if dilutive, potential common shares outstanding during the period. Potential common shares consist of the incremental common shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options and warrants (using the treasury stock method), the vesting of restricted stock units (“RSUs”), the exercise and/or conversion of the Company’s convertible notes (using the if-converted method). The computation of diluted loss per share excludes potentially dilutive securities of 3,261,360 and 3,525,904 for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, because their inclusion would be antidilutive.
Potentially dilutive securities outlined in the table below have been excluded from the computation of diluted net income (loss) per share because the effect of their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.
Fair Value Measurements
The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts payable and accrued expenses, approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. Fair value is defined as an exit price, representing the amount that would be received upon the sale of an asset or payment to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Fair value is a market-based measurement that is determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. A three-tier fair value hierarchy is used to prioritize the inputs in measuring fair value as follows:
The assets or liability’s fair value measurement within the fair value hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The following table provides a summary of the liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis.
As of December 31, 2014, the Company no longer had financial instruments which were derivative liabilities.
The following table sets forth a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
The conversion feature of the Convertible Notes immediately prior to conversion was measured at fair value using a Monte Carlo simulation (which also represented the intrinsic value of the conversion feature) and was classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. The warrant liabilities for the Financing Warrant and the Consulting Warrant, immediately prior to modification were measured at fair value using a Monte Carlo simulation and were classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. The significant assumptions and valuation methods that the Company used to determine fair value and the change in fair value of the Company’s derivative financial instruments are discussed in Note 6 Private Placement.
Level 3 liabilities are valued using unobservable inputs to the valuation methodology that are significant to the measurement of the fair value of the derivative liabilities. For fair value measurements categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the Company’s Interim Chief Financial Officer determined its valuation policies and procedures. The development and determination of the unobservable inputs for Level 3 fair value measurements and fair value calculations are the responsibility of the Company’s Interim Chief Financial Officer with support from the Company’s consultants and which are approved by the Interim Chief Financial Officer.
Level 3 financial liabilities consist of the derivative liabilities for which there is no current market for these securities such that the determination of fair value requires significant judgment or estimation. Changes in fair value measurements categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy are analyzed each period based on changes in estimates or assumptions and recorded as appropriate.
The Company used a Monte Carlo model to value Level 3 financial liabilities at inception and on subsequent valuation dates, except that the conversion feature of the convertible notes immediately prior to conversion was valued at intrinsic value. This simulation incorporates transaction details such as the Company’s stock price, contractual terms, maturity, risk free rates, as well as, volatility. The Company also used a binomial simulation and Black-Scholes economic model as supplemental valuation tools in order to validate the reasonableness of the results of the Monte Carlo simulation when measuring the Financing Warrant and the Consulting Warrant.
A significant increase in the volatility or a significant increase in the Company’s stock price, in isolation, would result in a significantly higher fair value measurement. Changes in the values of the derivative liabilities were recorded in Change in Fair Value of Derivative Liabilities within Other Expense (Income) on the Company’s Statements of Operations.
As of December 31, 2014, there were no transfers in or out of level 3 from other levels in the fair value hierarchy.
In accordance with the provisions of ASC 815, the Company presented the conversion feature and warrant liabilities at fair value on its balance sheet, with the corresponding changes in fair value recorded in the Company’s statement of operations for the applicable reporting periods.
Management determined that the results of its valuations are reasonable.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers" (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in ASC Topic 605, "Revenue Recognition," and most industry-specific guidance. This ASU is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The ASU also requires additional disclosure about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments, and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. The amendments in the ASU must be applied using one of two retrospective methods and are effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is not permitted. The Company will evaluate the effects, if any, that adoption of this guidance will have on its financial statements.
In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-10, “Development Stage Entities (Topic 915): Elimination of Certain Financial Reporting Requirements, Including an Amendment to Variable Interest Entities Guidance in Topic 810, Consolidation." This ASU removes the definition of a development stage entity from the ASC, thereby removing the financial reporting distinction between development stage entities and other reporting entities from GAAP. In addition, the ASU eliminates the requirements for development stage entities to (1) present inception-to-date information in the statements of operations, cash flows, and stockholders’ equity, (2) label the financial statements as those of a development stage entity, (3) disclose a description of the development stage activities in which the entity is engaged, and (4) disclose in the first year in which the entity is no longer a development stage entity that in prior years it had been in the development stage. This ASU is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014, and interim periods therein. Early adoption is permitted. The Company elected to adopt this ASU effective with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2014 and its adoption resulted in the removal of previously required development stage disclosures.
The FASB has issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period. This ASU requires that a performance target that affects vesting, and that could be achieved after the requisite service period, be treated as a performance condition. As such, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant date fair value of the award. This update further clarifies that compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. The amendments in this ASU are effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. The Company elected to adopt this ASU effective with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on November 10, 2014 and its adoption did not have a material effect on its financial statements.
In August 2014, FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial StatementsGoing Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This standard is intended to define management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an organization’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. Under U.S. GAAP, financial statements are prepared under the presumption that the reporting organization will continue to operate as a going concern, except in limited circumstances. Financial reporting under this presumption is commonly referred to as the going concern basis of accounting.
The going concern basis of accounting is critical to financial reporting because it establishes the fundamental basis for measuring and classifying assets and liabilities. Currently, U.S. GAAP lacks guidance about management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the organization’s ability to continue as a going concern or to provide related footnote disclosures. This ASU provides guidance to an organization’s management, with principles and definitions that are intended to reduce diversity in the timing and content of disclosures that are commonly provided by organizations today in the financial statement footnotes. The amendments are effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016. Early application is permitted for annual or interim reporting periods for which the financial statements have not previously been issued. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
Management’s Evaluation of Subsequent Events
The Company evaluates events that have occurred after the balance sheet date of December 31, 2014, through the date which the financial statements are issued. Based upon the review, other than as disclosed in Note 12, the Company did not identify any subsequent events that would have required adjustment or disclosure in the financial statements.