Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
(1) Organization and basis of presentation
Peak International Limited (the Company)
was incorporated as an exempted company with limited liability in Bermuda under the Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda (as amended) on January 3, 1997. The subsidiaries of the Company are principally engaged in the manufacture and sale of
precision-engineered packaging products, such as matrix and disk drive trays, reels and carrier tapes used in the storage, transportation and automated handling of disk drive components, semiconductor devices as well as wafer fab and precision
medical products. The Companys principal production facilities are located in the Peoples Republic of China (the PRC). The Company maintains sales offices in Hong Kong, the PRC, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United
States, whereby direct sales are made to customers, and representative offices in the PRC, the Philippines, South Korea, and Italy, that provide customers with technical information.
The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries. All significant intra-group balances
and transactions have been eliminated on consolidation.
The accompanying condensed consolidated financial information has been prepared by
the Company without being audited, in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and therefore does not include all information and footnotes necessary for a fair presentation of financial position, results of operations and cash flows in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, consistent in all material respects with those applied in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires the use of estimates and
assumptions that affect reported amounts of certain assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses as of and for the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Differences from those estimates are reported in the period they
become known.
The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (including normal recurring adjustments)
which in the opinion of management are required for a fair presentation of the Companys interim results. The results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved in the entire year. These condensed
consolidated financial statements and notes thereto should be read together with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007.
New Accounting Standards
In February 2007, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, which permits entities to
choose to measure many financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value option has been elected are reported in earnings. SFAS No. 159 is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007. The Company is currently assessing the impact of SFAS No. 159 on its consolidated financial position and results of operations.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements. SFAS
No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is currently evaluating the impact, if any, that the adoption of SFAS
No. 157 will have on its consolidated financial statements.
In June 2006, the FASB ratified the provisions of Emerging Issues Task
Force (EITF) Issue No. 06-3, How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement (That Is, Gross versus Net Presentation). EITF Issue No. 06-3
requires that the presentation of taxes within revenue-producing transactions between a seller and a customer, including but not limited to sales, use, value added, and some excise taxes, should be on either a gross (included in revenue and cost) or
a net (excluded from revenue) basis. In addition, for any such taxes that are reported on a gross basis, a company should disclose the amounts of those taxes in interim and annual financial statements for each period for which an income statement is
presented if those amounts are significant. The disclosure of those taxes can be done on an aggregate basis. The adoption of EITF Issue No. 06-3 during the first six months of the Companys 2008 fiscal year did not have a material impact
on its consolidated results of operations or financial position.
5
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
New Accounting Standards(continued)
In June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxesan interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48) which prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute, as well as criteria for subsequently recognizing,
derecognizing and measuring uncertain tax positions for financial statement purposes. FIN 48 also requires expanded disclosure with respect to the uncertainty in income tax assets and liabilities. The Company adopted FIN 48 on April 1, 2007. On
that date, the Company had no uncertain tax positions. The Company recognizes interest and penalties, if any, as part of its provision for income taxes in its Consolidated Statements of Operations. In May 2007, the FASB issued FASB Staff
Position, or FSP, No. FIN 48-1, Definition of Settlement in FASB Interpretation No. 48 to amend FIN No. 48 by providing that previously unrecognized tax benefits can be recognized when the tax positions are effectively
settled upon examination by a taxing authority. According to FSP FIN 48-1, an enterprises tax position will be considered effectively settled if the taxing authority has completed its examination, the enterprise does not plan to appeal, and it
is remote that the taxing authority would reexamine the tax position in the future. FSP FIN 48-1 must be applied upon the initial adoption of FIN No. 48. Enterprises that did not apply FIN No. 48 in a manner consistent with the provisions
of FSP FIN 48-1 would be required to retrospectively apply its provisions to the date of the initial adoption of FIN No. 48. FSP FIN 48-1 did not have a material impact on the Companys initial adoption of FIN No. 48.
(2) Inventories
The components of inventories
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
2007
|
|
March 31,
2007
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Audited)
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
4,734
|
|
$
|
5,146
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
4,839
|
|
|
5,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,573
|
|
$
|
10,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Other Deposit
This represents the security bond placed at a Taiwanese court in order to obtain an anti-injunction order in respect of a potential patent dispute in Taiwan. See Note 9(a) Litigation. Management of the Company does not expect
the case to be settled within 12 months and therefore the amount was classified as a non-current asset as at September 30, 2007.
(4) Non-cash
Share-based Compensation
Prior to April 1, 2006, the Company accounted for share-based employee compensation, including stock
options, using the method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees
and related Interpretations (APB 25). Under APB 25, stock options are granted at market price and no
compensation cost is recognized, and a disclosure is made regarding the pro forma effect on net earnings assuming compensation cost had been recognized in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123,
Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation
(SFAS 123). In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS 123R, which requires companies to measure and recognize compensation expense for all share-based payments at fair value. SFAS 123R eliminates the ability to
account for share-based compensation transactions using APB 25, and generally requires that such transactions be accounted for using prescribed fair-value-based methods. SFAS 123R permits public companies to adopt its requirements using one of two
methods: (a) a modified prospective method in which compensation costs are recognized beginning with the effective date based on the requirements of SFAS 123R for all share-based payments granted or modified after the effective
date, and based on the requirements of SFAS 123 for all awards granted to employees prior to the effective date of SFAS 123R that remain unvested on the effective date or (b) a modified retrospective method which includes the
requirements of the modified prospective method described above, but also permits companies to restate based on the amounts previously recognized under SFAS 123 for purposes of pro forma disclosures either for all periods presented or prior interim
periods of the year of adoption. Effective April 1, 2006, the Company adopted SFAS 123R using the modified prospective method. No share-based employee compensation cost has been reflected in net income prior to the adoption of SFAS 123R.
Results for prior periods have not been restated.
6
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
The following table presents the share-based compensation expense recognized in accordance with SFAS 123R during the quarters and the six months ended
September 30, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
Six Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
The components of non-cash share-based compensation were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling and Marketing
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
51
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
121
|
General and Administrative
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
261
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
$
|
232
|
|
$
|
382
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total value of the stock options awards is expensed ratably over the service period of the
employees receiving the awards. As of September 30, 2007, total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock-based options and awards was $0.8 million and the related weighted-average period over which it is expected to be recognized is
approximately 2.1 years.
Stock Option Plans
At September 30, 2007, the Company had two active share-based employee compensation plans, the 1997 Share Option Plan and the 1998 Share Option Plan. Stock option awards granted from these plans are granted at
the fair market value on the date of grant, and vest over a period determined at the time the options are granted, generally ranging from zero to three years, and generally have a maximum term of ten years. During the quarter and the six months
ended September 30, 2007, the Company issued options for an aggregate of 385,000 shares under the 1998 Share Option Plan at weighted-average exercise price of $2.49 per share to directors and employees of the Company. The Company did not issue
any shares under the 1997 Share Option Plan during the quarter and the six months ended September 30, 2007.
For all stock options,
the Company recognizes compensation cost on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. When the options are exercised, the Company issues common stock from its treasury shares.
7
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
The following is a summary of stock option activity within the Companys share-based compensation plans and charges for the quarter and the six
months ended September 30, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
Options
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
|
|
Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
|
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value (In
Thousands)
|
Options outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at April 1, 2007
|
|
1,448,065
|
|
|
$
|
4.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
385,000
|
|
|
$
|
2.49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
(201,359
|
)
|
|
|
5.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at September 30, 2007
|
|
1,631,706
|
|
|
|
3.72
|
|
2.98
|
|
$
|
87
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at September 30, 2007
|
|
887,457
|
|
|
$
|
4.46
|
|
2.61
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value (the
difference between the Companys closing stock price on the last trading day of the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the exercise price, multiplied by the number of in-the-money options) that would have been received by the option holders had
all option holders exercised their options on September 30, 2007. This amount changes based on the fair market value of the Companys stock.
No options were exercised during the quarter and the six months ended September 30, 2007.
The
weighted average fair value of stock option awards granted and the key assumptions used in the Black-Scholes valuation model to calculate the fair value are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Six Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Weighted average fair value of options granted
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
0.88
|
|
|
$
|
1.32
|
|
Key assumptions used in determining the fair value:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.15
|
%
|
|
|
5.01
|
%
|
|
|
4.15
|
%
|
|
|
5.02
|
%
|
Expected life of options (in years)
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
Expected volatility of underlying stocks
|
|
|
46.3
|
%
|
|
|
57.0
|
%
|
|
|
46.3
|
%
|
|
|
58.1
|
%
|
Expected dividend yield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury zero-coupon yield with a maturity that approximates the expected life of options.
|
**
|
The expected life of options represents the weighted average period for option contractual terms.
|
***
|
The expected volatility of underlying stocks is measured using historical daily price changes of the Companys common stock over the expected life of options.
|
8
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options which have no vesting restrictions and are
fully transferable. In addition, option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected volatility of underlying stocks. Because changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair
value estimate, in managements opinion, the existing models do not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of its employee stock options.
(5) Loss Per Share
The following is a reconciliation of the numerator and the denominator of the basic loss per
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Six Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
|
(unaudited)
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(3,370
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,143
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,101
|
)
|
|
$
|
(205
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
12,423,306
|
|
|
|
12,420,389
|
|
|
|
12,423,306
|
|
|
|
12,420,389
|
|
Assumed exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
12,423,306
|
|
|
|
12,420,389
|
|
|
|
12,423,306
|
|
|
|
12,420,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the quarter and for the six months ended September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006,
exercise of all outstanding stock options would have been anti-dilutive and such stock options were therefore not included in the computation of diluted loss per share.
9
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
(6) Comprehensive Loss
Comprehensive loss is defined as the aggregate change in
shareholders equity excluding changes in ownership interests. The Companys comprehensive loss consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
Six Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(3,370
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,143
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,101
|
)
|
|
$
|
(205
|
)
|
Other comprehensive (loss) income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
$
|
(3,382
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,136
|
)
|
|
|
(6,004
|
)
|
|
|
(105
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7) Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Under SFAS 123R, the Companys 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan is considered compensatory. During the quarter and the six months ended
September 30, 2007, the Company did not issue any shares under the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
(8) Share Repurchase
In September 2000, the Board of Directors authorized the repurchase, at managements discretion, of up to $10,000 of the Companys common stock
at prices not to exceed 150% of the Companys net asset value per share. Common stock repurchased will be cancelled immediately. The excess of purchase price over par value is charged to additional paid-in capital.
There was no repurchase of shares for the quarter and for the six months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006.
10
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
(9) Commitments and Contingencies
(a) Litigation
R.H. Murphy Co., Inc. (Murphy) is the owner of U.S. Re-examined Patent 5,400,904 C1 and certain corresponding foreign patents, which are
directed to specific features in trays used to carry integrated circuits. Murphy has notified the Company and certain of the Companys customers that it believes these patents are infringed by certain integrated circuit trays that the Company
provided to the Companys customers, and indicated that licenses to these patents are available. The Company does not believe that any valid claim of these patents is infringed, and is proceeding consistent with that belief. Below is a summary
of the Companys actions taken against Murphy.
The Company applied for a preliminary injunction order so that the Company can
continue to sell trays in Taiwan without being interrupted by Murphy and its three distributors in Taiwan and the Taiwan Taichung District Court granted the preliminary injunction order in June 2002. On July 8, 2002, the Company placed a
security bond of approximately $301 at the Taiwan Taichung District Court for a compulsory execution of the preliminary injunction order. Murphy and its three local distributors filed an appeal with the Taiwan High Court, Taichung Branch against the
grant of the order by the district court, and in December 2002, the High Court revoked the order issued by the district court. In January 2003, the Company filed a re-appeal with the Taiwanese Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court revoked the High
Courts ruling and dismissed Murphy and its local distributors appeal filed with the High Court. The grant of the preliminary injunction order has now become final and, accordingly, it is unlikely that Murphy or its local distributors
will be able to obtain preliminary injunctive relief against the Company or its Taiwan customers while the underlying litigation is pending. In October 2002, the Company filed a civil suit against Murphy with the Taiwan Taichung District Court
seeking permanent relief in connection with the preliminary injunction order. The Taiwan High Court, Taichung Branch dismissed the Companys claims on January 2, 2007. The Company filed an appeal on January 26, 2007 with the Supreme
Court to contest the decision issued by the Taiwan High Court, which is still pending with the Supreme Court. A security bond for the court cost of approximately $13 was placed with the Taiwan Taichung District Court in connection with the
underlying civil suit. If the Companys effort to receive permanent relief is not successful, the Company may be required to forfeit the bonds and Murphy and its distributors in Taiwan may assert patent infringement claims against the Company,
which, if successful, could prevent the Company from selling certain of its products in Taiwan and could result in monetary damages. In December 2001 and July 2003, the Company also filed two cancellation actions with the Taiwanese Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) to invalidate Murphys patent. The IPO rejected the cancellation actions, and the Company filed an administrative appeal and further filed an administrative suit for each of the cases, one of which is pending
before the Taipei High Administrative Court and the other was pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. In February 2002, the Company also filed a complaint for unfair competition with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) against
Murphy. The FTC dismissed the action and the Company has filed an administrative appeal. That appeal was dismissed and the Company filed an administrative suit. The Taipei High Administrative Court rendered a judgment favorable to the Company,
ruling that Murphy violated the Fair Trade Act. The FTC then filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court. On March 16, 2007, the FTC filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme Administrative Court. At
present, the outcome of this patent dispute cannot be predicted with reasonable particularity and no impact to the financial statements has been reflected in this respect.
(b) Commitments
At September 30, 2007, the Company had commitments for capital expenditures of
approximately $227.
11
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
(10) Segment Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006
|
|
Hong Kong
& the PRC
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
|
Other
Asian countries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Quarter ended September 30, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales to third parties
|
|
$
|
7,058
|
|
|
$
|
496
|
|
|
$
|
4,632
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,186
|
|
Transfer between geographic areas
|
|
|
5,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194
|
|
|
|
(5,334
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$
|
12,198
|
|
|
$
|
496
|
|
|
$
|
4,826
|
|
|
$
|
(5,334
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Income before tax
|
|
$
|
(3,256
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(215
|
)
|
|
$
|
78
|
|
|
$
|
(3,396
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter ended September 30, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales to third parties
|
|
$
|
8,255
|
|
|
$
|
756
|
|
|
$
|
6,806
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
15,817
|
|
Transfer between geographic areas
|
|
|
7,298
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,458
|
|
|
|
(8,756
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$
|
15,553
|
|
|
$
|
756
|
|
|
$
|
8,264
|
|
|
$
|
(8,756
|
)
|
|
$
|
15,817
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Income before tax
|
|
$
|
(1,530
|
)
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
$
|
(1,246
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006
|
|
Hong Kong
& the PRC
|
|
|
United
States
|
|
|
Other
Asian countries
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
Six months ended September 30, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales to third parties
|
|
$
|
13,758
|
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
|
$
|
9,359
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
24,187
|
|
Transfer between geographic areas
|
|
|
10,293
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
839
|
|
|
|
(11,132
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$
|
24,051
|
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
|
$
|
10,198
|
|
|
$
|
(11,132
|
)
|
|
$
|
24,187
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Income before tax
|
|
$
|
(5,786
|
)
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
(649
|
)
|
|
$
|
294
|
|
|
$
|
(6,126
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended September 30, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales to third parties
|
|
$
|
17,375
|
|
|
$
|
3,264
|
|
|
$
|
13,831
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
34,470
|
|
Transfer between geographic areas
|
|
|
15,695
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,866
|
|
|
|
(18,561
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales
|
|
$
|
33,070
|
|
|
$
|
3,264
|
|
|
$
|
16,697
|
|
|
$
|
(18,561
|
)
|
|
$
|
34,470
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Income before tax
|
|
$
|
(828
|
)
|
|
$
|
437
|
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
(40
|
)
|
|
$
|
(226
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11) Cash Held in an Escrow for Terms of Sale Agreement for Disposal of a Subsidiary
A former subsidiary of the Company (Warden) owned certain land use rights and an incomplete industrial building in Shenzhen, the PRC. The
incomplete industrial building was originally purchased with the intention of completing the facility for expansion of the Companys existing production facilities, but this plan was subsequently abandoned. During the fourth quarter of the year
ended March 31, 2001, management reassessed the fair value of the building given the downturn in the industrial property market in which the building was located and a provision of $759 was recorded to reduce the carrying value of the building.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2002, the incomplete industrial building and the related land use rights in the PRC, which had an
assigned period for 50 years commencing May 1993, were reclassified as asset to be disposed of by sale following managements decision to dispose of the property as a general purpose industrial building. As a result, the property
was written down to its fair market value less costs to sell pursuant to SFAS No. 144 Accounting for the Impairment of Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, resulting in an asset impairment charge of $13,378 during the year ended
March 31, 2003. The net book value of the property and the land use rights were $4,071 and $1,159 respectively as of March 31, 2005 and 2004.
12
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
The Company entered into a contract with an independent third party for the sale of Warden. The sale was completed on April 13, 2005 for
approximately $7,692 in cash, with approximately $1,282 of the sale proceeds held in escrow as restricted cash. A net gain on disposal of approximately $2,189 was recognized in the first quarter of fiscal 2006.
The escrow fund extended over two consecutive years, commencing with the completion of the sale on April 13, 2005, as follows:
|
|
|
The year ended April 13, 2006; and
|
|
|
|
The year ended April 13, 2007.
|
In accordance with the terms of the sale agreement, immediately following the years ended April 13, 2006 and 2007, approximately $641 and $641, respectively, each representing one half of the full amount established and held in escrow
and classified as restricted cash, were released to the Company without any reduction or offsets.
13
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(continued)
(in thousands of United States Dollars, except share and per share data, unaudited)
(12) Restricted Cash
On October 14, 2005, the Company entered into escrow arrangements
appointing an independent third party as an escrow agent (Escrow Agent) for a total of $2,501 deposited as restricted cash by the Company. In September 2005, a shareholder of the Company stated its intention to replace the Companys
senior management and effect a merger of the Company with another corporation. The escrows were set up to ensure that obligations of the Company to the officers under their employment contracts would be honored in the future. The Company deposited
an amount equal to estimated severance payments and anticipated administrative costs in the escrows. During fiscal 2006, severance payments of $1,600 were paid to the former Chief Executive Officer and the former Vice President and General Counsel.
During fiscal 2007, severance payments of $170 were paid to two other former senior executives of the Company and $243 was released back to the Company as free cash as a result of the resignation of a former senior executive of the Company. The
remaining funds of $487 in these escrows, which were due to be available for use by the Company on March 15, 2007, were extended beyond March 31, 2007. On April 16, 2007, the Company entered into escrow arrangements with Escrow Agent
to increase the funds by $496 to $983 as top-up adjustments for increases in compensations of the remaining senior executives and to include three senior executives who had not been covered in the remaining funds.
14