Note 1—Description of Business

 

Netlist, Inc. (the “Company” or “Netlist”) designs and manufactures a wide variety of high performance, logic-based memory subsystems for the global datacenter, storage and high-performance computing and communications markets. The Company’s memory subsystems consist of combinations of dynamic random access memory integrated circuits (“DRAM ICs” or “DRAM”), NAND flash memory (“NAND”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”) and other components assembled on printed circuit boards (“PCBs”). Netlist primarily markets and sells its products to leading original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) customers, hyperscale datacenter operators and storage vendors. The Company’s solutions are targeted at applications where memory plays a key role in meeting system performance requirements. The Company leverages a portfolio of proprietary technologies and design techniques, including efficient planar design, alternative packaging techniques and custom semiconductor logic, to deliver memory subsystems with high memory density, small form factor, high signal integrity, attractive thermal characteristics, reduced power consumption and low cost per bit. Our NVvault™ product is the first to offer both DRAM and NAND in a standard form factor memory subsystem as a persistent DIMM in mission critical applications.

 

Netlist was incorporated in June 2000 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. In 2007, the Company established a manufacturing facility in the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”), which became operational in July 2007 upon the successful qualification of certain key customers.

 

Liquidity

 

The Company incurred net losses of approximately $15.4 million and $10.8 million for the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, respectively.

 

On February 11, 2014, the Company completed a registered firm commitment underwritten public offering (the “2014 Offering”) of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2014 Offering, the Company issued and sold to Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC (the “Underwriter”) 8,680,775 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 6, 2014, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.2115 per share, including 1,132,275 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2014 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2014 Offering were approximately $10.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

On February 3, 2014, the Company issued 750,000 shares of common stock upon exercise of warrants at a purchase price of $0.89 per share, resulting in proceeds to the Company of $667,500.

 

On February 24, 2015, the Company completed a registered firm commitment underwritten public offering (the “2015 Offering”) of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2015 Offering, the Company issued and sold to the Underwriter 8,846,154 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 19, 2015, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.209 per share, including 1,153,846 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2015 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2015 Offering were approximately $10.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

If adequate working capital is not available when needed, the Company may be required to significantly modify its business model and operations to reduce spending to a sustainable level. Insufficient working capital could cause the Company to be unable to execute its business plan, take advantage of future opportunities, or respond to competitive pressures or customer requirements. It may also cause the Company to delay, scale back or eliminate some or all of its research and development programs, or to reduce or cease operations. While there is no assurance that the Company can meet its revenue forecasts, management anticipates that it can continue operations for at least the next twelve months.

 

Reclassifications

 

Intellectual property legal fees for the year ended December 28, 2013 are now reported under their own caption, separate from research and development expenses, in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 28, 2013, in order to conform to the current period presentation.

Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S.”).

 

Principles of Consolidation

 

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Netlist, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

Fiscal Year

 

The Company operates under a 52/₅₃-week fiscal year ending on the Saturday closest to December 31. The 2014 and 2013 fiscal years ended on December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, respectively. Fiscal years 2014 and 2013 each consisted of 52 weeks.

 

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of net sales and expenses during the reporting period. By their nature, these estimates and assumptions are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty.  Significant estimates made by management include, among others, provisions for uncollectible receivables and sales returns, warranty liabilities, valuation of inventories, fair value of financial instruments, recoverability of long-lived assets, stock-based transactions and realization of deferred tax assets. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience, knowledge of current conditions and the Company’s belief of what could occur in the future considering available information.  The Company reviews its estimates on an on-going basis. The actual results experienced by the Company may differ materially and adversely from its estimates. To the extent there are material differences between the estimates and the actual results, future results of operations will be affected.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

The Company’s revenues primarily consist of product sales of high performance memory subsystems to original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”).

 

The Company recognizes revenues in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605. Accordingly, the Company recognizes revenues when there is persuasive evidence that an arrangement exists, product delivery and acceptance have occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured.

 

The Company generally uses customer purchase orders and/or contracts as evidence of an arrangement. Delivery occurs when goods are shipped for customers with shipping point terms and upon receipt for customers with destination terms, at which time title and risk of loss transfer to the customer. Shipping documents are used to verify delivery and customer acceptance. The Company assesses whether the sales price is fixed or determinable based on the payment terms associated with the transaction and whether the sales price is subject to refund. Customers are generally allowed limited rights of return for up to 30 days, except for sales of excess component inventories, which contain no right-of-return privileges. Estimated returns are provided for at the time of sale based on historical experience or specific identification of an event necessitating a reserve. The Company offers a standard product warranty to our customers and has no other post-shipment obligations. The Company assesses collectability based on the creditworthiness of the customer as determined by credit checks and evaluations, as well as the customer’s payment history.

 

All amounts billed to customers related to shipping and handling are classified as revenues, while all costs incurred by the Company for shipping and handling are classified as cost of sales.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less, other than short-term investments in securities that lack an active market.

 

Restricted Cash

 

Restricted cash of $0.7 million, as of December 27, 2014, consists of cash to secure three standby letters of credit.  On January 13, 2015, the Company restricted an additional $0.9 million to secure a bond associated with a lawsuit. 

 

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

The Company’s financial instruments consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, investments in marketable securities, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued expenses and debt instruments. The fair value of our cash equivalents and investments in marketable securities is determined based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or Level 1 inputs.  The Company recognizes transfers between Levels 1 through 3 of the fair value hierarchy at the beginning of the reporting period.  The Company believes that the carrying values of all other financial instruments approximate their current fair values due to their nature and respective durations.

 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

 

The Company evaluates the collectability of accounts receivable based on a combination of factors. In cases where the Company is aware of circumstances that may impair a specific customer’s ability to meet its financial obligations subsequent to the original sale, the Company will record an allowance against amounts due, and thereby reduce the net recognized receivable to the amount the Company reasonably believes will be collected. For all other customers, the Company records allowances for doubtful accounts based primarily on the length of time the receivables are past due based on the terms of the originating transaction, the current business environment and its historical experience. Uncollectible accounts are charged against the allowance for doubtful accounts when all cost effective commercial means of collection have been exhausted.  Generally, the Company’s credit losses have been within expectations and the provisions established. However, the Company cannot guarantee that it will continue to experience credit loss rates similar to those experienced in the past.

 

Concentration of Credit Risk

 

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to significant concentrations of credit risk consist principally of cash and cash equivalents, and accounts receivable.

 

The Company invests its cash equivalents primarily in money market mutual funds.  Cash equivalents are maintained with high quality institutions, the composition and maturities of which are regularly monitored by management. At times, deposits held with financial institutions may exceed the amount of insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

 

The Company’s trade accounts receivable are primarily derived from sales to OEMs in the computer industry. The Company performs credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and limits the amount of credit extended when deemed necessary, but generally requires no collateral. The Company believes that the concentration of credit risk in its trade receivables is moderated by its credit evaluation process, relatively short collection terms, the high level of credit worthiness of its customers (see Note 10), foreign credit insurance and letters of credit issued in its favor.  Reserves are maintained for potential credit losses, and such losses historically have not been significant and have been within management’s expectations.

 

Inventories

 

Inventories are valued at the lower of actual cost to purchase or manufacture the inventory or the net realizable value of the inventory. Cost is determined on an average cost basis which approximates actual cost on a first-in, first-out basis and includes raw materials, labor and manufacturing overhead. At each balance sheet date, the Company evaluates its ending inventory quantities on hand and on order and records a provision for excess quantities and obsolescence. Among other factors, the Company considers historical demand and forecasted demand in relation to the inventory on hand, competitiveness of product offerings, market conditions and product life cycles when determining obsolescence and net realizable value. In addition, the Company considers changes in the market value of components in determining the net realizable value of its inventory. Once established, lower of cost or market write-downs are considered permanent adjustments to the cost basis of the excess or obsolete inventories.

 

Property and Equipment

 

Property and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, which generally range from three to seven years. Leasehold improvements are recorded at cost and amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their estimated useful lives or the remaining lease term.

 

Deferred Financing Costs, Debt Discount and Detachable Debt-Related Warrants.

 

Costs incurred to issue debt are deferred and included in debt issuance costs in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company amortizes debt issuance costs over the expected term of the related debt using the effective interest method. Debt discounts related to the relative fair value of any warrants issued in conjunction with the debt are recorded as a reduction to the debt balance and accreted over the expected term of the debt to interest expense using the effective interest method.

 

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

 

The Company evaluates the recoverability of the carrying value of long-lived assets held and used by the Company for impairment on at least an annual basis or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. When such factors and circumstances exist, the Company compares the projected undiscounted future net cash flows associated with the related asset or group of assets over their estimated useful lives against their respective carrying amount. If the carrying value is determined not to be recoverable from future operating cash flows, the asset is deemed impaired and an impairment loss is recognized to the extent the carrying value exceeds the estimated fair value of the asset. The fair value of the asset or asset group is based on market value when available, or when unavailable, on discounted expected cash flows. The Company’s management believes there is no impairment of long-lived assets as of December 27, 2014. There can be no assurance, however, that market conditions will not change or demand for the Company’s products will continue, which could result in future impairment of long-lived assets.

 

Warranty Reserve

 

The Company offers product warranties generally ranging from one to three years, depending on the product and negotiated terms of any purchase agreements with customers. Such warranties require the Company to repair or replace defective product returned to the Company during such warranty period at no cost to the customer. Warranties are not offered on sales of excess component inventory. The Company records an estimate for warranty‑related costs at the time of sale based on its historical and estimated product return rates and expected repair or replacement costs (see Note 3). Such costs have historically been within management’s expectations and the provisions established, unexpected changes in failure rates could have a material adverse impact on the Company, requiring additional warranty reserves, and could adversely affect the Company’s gross profit and gross margins. 

 

Stock‑Based Compensation

 

The Company accounts for equity issuances to non-employees in accordance with ASC Topic 505.  All transactions in which goods or services are the consideration received for the issuance of equity instruments are accounted for based on the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instrument issued, whichever is more reliably measurable. The measurement date used to determine the fair value of the equity instrument issued is the earlier of the date on which the third-party performance is complete or the date on which it is probable that performance will occur.

 

In accordance with ASC Topic 718, employee and director stock-based compensation expense recognized during the period is based on the value of the portion of stock-based payment awards that is ultimately expected to vest during the period.  Given that stock-based compensation expense recognized in the consolidated statements of operations is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for estimated forfeitures. ASC Topic 718 requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. The Company’s estimated average forfeiture rates are based on historical forfeiture experience and estimated future forfeitures.

 

The estimated fair value of common stock option awards to employees and directors is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes model requires subjective assumptions regarding future stock price volatility and expected time to exercise, along with assumptions about the risk-free interest rate and expected dividends, all of which affect the estimated fair values of the Company’s common stock option awards.  The expected term of options granted is calculated as the average of the weighted vesting period and the contractual expiration date of the option.  This calculation is based on the safe harbor method permitted by the SEC in instances where the vesting and exercise terms of options granted meet certain conditions and where limited historical exercise data is available.  The expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s common stock.  The risk-free rate selected to value any particular grant is based on the U.S. Treasury rate that corresponds to the expected term of the grant effective as of the date of the grant. The expected dividend assumption is based on the Company’s history and management’s expectation regarding dividend payouts.  The Company evaluates the assumptions used to value their common stock awards on a quarterly basis.  If factors change and the Company employs different assumptions, stock-based compensation may differ significantly from what has been recorded in prior periods.  Compensation expense for common stock option awards with graded vesting schedules is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the last separately vesting portion of the award, provided that the accumulated cost recognized as of any date at least equals the value of the vested portion of the award.

 

The Company recognizes the estimated fair value of restricted stock awards issued to employees and outside directors as stock-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period for the last separately vesting portion of the awards. Estimated fair value is determined as the difference between the closing price of our common stock on the grant date and the purchase price of the restricted stock award, if any, reduced by expected forfeitures.

 

If there are any modifications or cancellations of the underlying vested or unvested stock-based awards, the Company may be required to accelerate, increase or cancel any remaining unearned stock-based compensation expense, or record additional expense for vested stock-based awards.  Future stock-based compensation expense and unearned stock- based compensation may increase to the extent that the Company grants additional common stock options or other stock-based awards.

 

Income Taxes

 

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized to reflect the estimated future tax effects, calculated at currently effective tax rates, of future deductible or taxable amounts attributable to events that have been recognized on a cumulative basis in the consolidated financial statements. A valuation allowance related to a net deferred tax asset is recorded when it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized.

 

ASC Topic 740 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement requirement for the financial statement recognition of a tax position that has been taken or is expected to be taken on a tax return and also provides guidance on de-recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition. Under ASC Topic 740 the Company may only recognize or continue to recognize tax positions that meet a “more likely than not” threshold.

 

The application of tax laws and regulations is subject to legal and factual interpretation, judgment and uncertainty. Tax laws and regulations themselves are subject to change as a result of changes in fiscal policy, changes in legislation, the evolution of regulations and court rulings. Therefore, the actual liability for U.S. or foreign taxes may be materially different from the Company’s estimates, which could result in the need to record additional tax liabilities or potentially reverse previously recorded tax liabilities.

 

Research and Development Expenses

 

Research and development expenditures are expensed in the period incurred.

 

Risks and Uncertainties

 

The Company is subject to certain risks and uncertainties including its ability to obtain profitable operations due to the Company’s history of losses and accumulated deficits, the Company’s dependence on a few customers for a significant portion of revenues, risks related to intellectual property matters, market development of and demand for the Company’s products, and the length of the sales cycle.  Such risks could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

The Company invested a significant portion of its research and development budget into the design of ASIC and hybrid devices, including the HyperCloud® memory subsystem and NVvault family of products. These designs and the products they are incorporated into are subject to increased risks as compared to the Company’s legacy products. The Company may be unable to achieve customer or market acceptance of its products, or achieve such acceptance in a timely manner. The Company experienced a longer qualification cycle than anticipated with its HyperCloud® memory subsystems, and has experienced supply chain disruption and a shortage of DRAM and flash required to create the HyperCloud® memory subsystem and NVvault products.  As of December 27, 2014, Hypercloud has not generated significant revenue relative to the Company’s investment in the product.

 

The Company’s operations in the PRC are subject to various political, geographical and economic risks and uncertainties inherent to conducting business in the PRC. These include, but are not limited to, (i) potential changes in economic conditions in the region, (ii) managing a local workforce that may subject the Company to uncertainties or certain regulatory policies, (iii) changes in other policies of the Chinese governmental and regulatory agencies, and (iv) changes in the laws and policies of the U.S. government regarding the conduct of business in foreign countries, generally, or in the PRC, in particular. Additionally, the Chinese government controls the procedures by which its local currency, the Chinese Renminbi (“RMB”), is converted into other currencies and by which dividends may be declared or capital distributed for the purpose of repatriation of earnings and investments. If restrictions in the conversion of RMB or in the repatriation of earnings and investments through dividend and capital distribution restrictions are instituted, the Company’s operations and operating results may be negatively impacted. The liabilities of the Company’s subsidiaries in the PRC exceeded its assets as of December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013.

 

Foreign Currency Remeasurement

 

The functional currency of the Company’s foreign subsidiary is the U.S. dollar. Local currency financial statements are remeasured into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect as of the balance sheet date for monetary assets and liabilities and the historical exchange rate for nonmonetary assets and liabilities. Expenses are remeasured using the average exchange rate for the period, except items related to nonmonetary assets and liabilities, which are remeasured using historical exchange rates. All remeasurement gains and losses are included in determining net loss.  Transaction gains and losses were not significant in 2014 and 2013.

 

Net Loss Per Share

 

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted-average common shares outstanding during the year, excluding unvested shares issued pursuant to restricted share awards under the Company’s share-based compensation plans.  Diluted net loss per share is calculated by dividing the net loss by the weighted-average shares and dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the year. Dilutive potential shares consist of dilutive shares issuable upon the exercise or vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards, respectively, computed using the treasury stock method.  In periods of losses, basic and diluted loss per share are the same, as the effect of stock options and unvested restricted share awards on loss per share is anti-dilutive.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”). ASU 2014-09 supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in FASB Topic 605, Revenue Recognition. The ASU implements a five-step process for customer contract revenue recognition that focuses on transfer of control, as opposed to transfer of risk and rewards. The amendment also requires enhanced disclosures regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenues and cash flows from contracts with customers. Other major provisions include the capitalization and amortization of certain contract costs, ensuring the time value of money is considered in the transaction price, and allowing estimates of variable consideration to be recognized before contingencies are resolved in certain circumstances. The amendments in this ASU are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is prohibited. Entities can transition to the standard either retrospectively or as a cumulative-effect adjustment as of the date of adoption. Management has not yet selected a transition method and is currently assessing the impact the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern. The amendments in this update provide guidance in accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America about management’s responsibilities to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide related footnote disclosures. The main provision of the amendments are for an entity’s management, in connection with the preparation of financial statements, to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known or reasonably knowable at the date the consolidated financial statements are issued. When management identifies conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going  concern, the entity should disclose information that enables users of the consolidated financial statements to understand all of the following: (1) principal conditions or events that raised substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (before consideration of management’s plans); (2) management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations; and (3) management’s plans that alleviated substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern or management’s plans that are intended to mitigate the conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. The amendments in this update are effective for interim and annual reporting periods after December 15, 2016 and early application is permitted. The Company is currently assessing this guidance for future implementation. 

Note 3—Supplemental Financial Information

 

Inventories

 

Inventories consist of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

Property and Equipment

 

Property and equipment consist of the following (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

---

*Estimated useful life is generally 7 years, or the remaining lease term, whichever is shorter.

 

Warranty Liability

 

The following table summarizes the activity related to the warranty liability (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The allowance for warranty liabilities expected to be incurred within one year is included as a component of accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.  The allowance for warranty liabilities expected to be incurred after one year is classified as long-term warranty liabilities and in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

 

Computation of Net Loss Per Share

 

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share, including the reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share (in thousands, except per share data):

 

 

 

The following table sets forth potentially dilutive common share equivalents, consisting of shares issuable upon the exercise or vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards, respectively, and the exercise of warrants, computed using the treasury stock method.  These potential common shares have been excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculations above as their effect would be anti-dilutive for the years then ended (in thousands):

 

 

 

The above common share equivalents would have been included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share had the Company reported net income for the years then ended.

 

Cash Flow Information

 

The following table sets forth supplemental disclosures of cash flow information and non-cash investing and financing activities (in thousands):

 

 

Note 4—Credit Agreements

 

Silicon Valley Credit Agreement

 

On October 31, 2009, the Company entered into a credit agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”), which was most recently amended on July 18, 2013 (as amended, the “SVB Credit Agreement”). Currently, the SVB Credit Agreement provides that the Company can borrow up to the lesser of (i) 80% of eligible accounts receivable, or (ii) $5.0 million.

 

Pursuant to the September 2010 amendment to the SVB Credit Agreement, SVB extended a $1.5 million term loan, bearing interest at a rate of prime plus 2.00%. The Company was required to make monthly principal payments of $41,666 over the 36 month term of the loan, or $0.5 million annually. In May 2011, SVB extended an additional $3.0 million term loan, bearing interest at a rate of prime plus 2.75%. The Company was required to make monthly principal payments of $125,000 over the 24 month term of the loan, or $1.5 million annually. In May 2012, SVB consolidated both term loans and extended additional credit, resulting in a combined balance of $3.5 million as of May 2012 (the “Consolidated Term Loan”). The Consolidated Term Loan was payable in 36 installments of $97,222, beginning December 2012, with interest at a rate of prime plus 2.50%. Interest was payable monthly from the date of funding through final payoff of the loan.  On July 18, 2013, as part an amendment to the SVB Credit Agreement entered into with SVB and following the Company’s receipt of additional loan financing from Fortress Credit Opportunities I LP, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, LLC (“Fortress”) and successor to DBD Credit Funding, LLC, the Consolidated Term Loan and outstanding interest was paid in full.

 

On July 18, 2013, the Company and SVB entered into a loan amendment (“SVB Amendment”) to the Company’s loan and security agreement with SVB.  Pursuant to the SVB Amendment, SVB allowed for the financing and security interests contemplated under the loan agreement entered into with Fortress and released certain patents and related assets relating to the NVvault™ product line from the collateral subject to SVB’s security interest under the SVB Credit Agreement.  Additionally, pursuant to the SVB Amendment, advances under the revolving line now accrue interest at a rate equal to SVB’s most recently announced “prime rate” plus 2.75%.  The SVB Amendment also relaxed the Company’s tangible net worth covenant under the SVB Credit Agreement and waived certain events of default in connection therewith.  Certain reporting requirements under the SVB Credit Agreement were modified while certain reserves with respect to the borrowing base and the availability of revolving loans were removed pursuant to the SVB Amendment. Under the terms of the SVB Credit Agreement, the Company may draw revolving advances in an aggregate outstanding principal amount of up to the lesser of $5 million or the available borrowing base, subject to reserve amounts.  The Company’s borrowing base under the SVB Credit Agreement is subject to certain adjustments and up to the lesser of 80% of eligible accounts receivable.

 

SVB Amendment requires letters of credit to be secured by cash, which is classified as restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. At December 27, 2014, letters of credit in the amount of $0.7 million were outstanding.

 

The following tables present details of interest expense related to borrowings on the line of credit with SVB, along with availability under our credit line with SVB (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The following table presents details of the Company’s outstanding borrowings and availability under our line of credit with SVB:

 

 

 

 

All obligations under the SVB Credit Agreement are secured by a first priority lien on the Company’s tangible and intangible assets, other than its intellectual property, which is subject to a first priority lien held by Fortress. The SVB Credit Agreement subjects the Company to certain affirmative and negative covenants, including financial covenants with respect to the Company’s liquidity and tangible net worth and restrictions on the payment of dividends. As of December 27, 2014, the Company was in compliance with its debt covenants.

 

Fortress Credit Opportunities I LP Loan and Security Agreement and Related Agreements

 

On July 18, 2013, the Company, entered into a loan agreement (“Loan Agreement”) with Fortress, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC and successor to DBD Credit Funding, LLC, providing for up to $10 million in term loans and up to $5 million in revolving loans.  The term loans are available in an initial $6 million tranche (the “Initial Term Loan”) with a second tranche in the amount of $4 million becoming available upon achievement of certain performance milestones relating to intellectual property matters (the “IP Monetization Milestones” and such second tranche loan, “IP Milestone Term Loan”). The $5 million in revolving loans are available at Fortress’s discretion and subject to customary conditions precedent.  The $6 million Initial Term Loan was fully drawn at closing on July 18, 2013. Proceeds from the Initial Term Loan were used in part to repay the Company’s existing Consolidated Term Loan with SVB. The remainder of such funds will be used to fund the Company’s ongoing working capital needs.  On February 17, 2015, subsequent to the Company’s fiscal year end, the Loan Agreement was amended to accelerate the availability of the term loan and the Company borrowed the remaining $4 million in term loans.

 

The loans bear interest at a stated fixed rate of 11.0% per annum.  Until the last business day of February 2015, the payments on the term loans are interest-only at a cash rate of 7.0% per annum and a payment-in-kind deferred cash interest rate of 4.0%, which payment-in-kind interest is capitalized semi-annually, beginning with December 31, 2013.  Beginning with the last business day of February 2015, the term loans are amortized with 65% of the principal amount due in equal monthly installments over the following seventeen (17) months with a balloon payment equal to 35% of the remaining principal amount of the term loans, plus accrued interest, being payable on July 18, 2016 (the "Maturity Date").  Term loan payments, including the $4 million borrowed on February 17, 2015, of approximately $370,000 are due monthly through June 18, 2016, with the remaining amount of approximately $4.3 million due on July 18, 2016.

 

The Company’s obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by a first-priority security interest in the Company’s intellectual property assets (other than certain patents and related assets relating to the NVvault™ product line) pursuant to an intellectual property security agreement with  (the “IP Security Agreement”) and a second-priority security interest in substantially all of the Company’s other assets.

 

In connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company paid certain facility, due diligence and legal fees of Fortress on the closing date and is obligated to pay a conditional facility fee upon satisfaction of the IP Monetization Milestones.  If the Company repays or prepays all or a portion of the term loans prior to maturity, the Company is obligated to pay Fortress a prepayment fee based on a percentage of the then outstanding principal balance being prepaid, equal to 2.0% if the prepayment occurs between July 18, 2015, or 0.0% if the prepayment occurs after July 18, 2015.

 

The Loan Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and indemnification provisions.  The Loan Agreement also contains affirmative and negative covenants that, among other things restrict the ability of the Company to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Loan Agreement also includes events of default, including, among other things, payment defaults, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants, certain bankruptcy events, the failure to maintain the Company’s listing on a nationally recognized securities exchange or alternatively for its shares to be qualified for trading on the OTC Bulletin Board and certain material adverse changes, including an impairment of the perfection or priority of the lender’s lien. Upon the occurrence of an event of default and following any applicable cure periods, a default interest rate of an additional 5.0% per annum may be applied to the outstanding loan balances, and Fortress may declare all outstanding obligations immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Company and Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP (“Drawbridge”) entered into a Monetization Letter Agreement (as amended, the “Letter Agreement”).  In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement, the Company also amended the Letter Agreement on February 17, 2015.  The Letter Agreement provides, among other things, that DBD may be entitled to share in certain monetization revenues that we may derive in the future related to our patent portfolio (the “Patent Portfolio”).  The Patent Portfolio does not include certain patents relating to the NVvault™ product line.  Monetization revenues subject to this arrangement include revenues recognized during the seven year term of the Letter Agreement from amounts (whether characterized as settlement payments, license fees, royalties, damages, or otherwise) actually paid to the Company or its subsidiaries in connection with any assertion of, agreement not to assert, or license of, the Patent Portfolio (in whole or in part) either (A) in consideration of the grant of a license or covenant not sue, or other immunity with respect to the Patent Portfolio, or (B) as a damages award with respect to such assertion of the Patent Portfolio, less certain legal fees and expenses (subject to a cap on such fees and expenses).  Monetization revenues also include the value attributable to the Patent Portfolio in any sale of the Company during the seven year term, subject to a maximum amount payable to Drawbridge.  The Letter Agreement also requires that the Company use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue opportunities to monetize the Patent Portfolio during the term of the Letter Agreement, provided the Company are under no obligation to pursue any such opportunities that it do not deem to be in its best interest.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these efforts, and it may expend resources in pursuit of monetization revenues that may not result in any benefit to the Company.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Company issued to an affiliate of DBD a seven-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase an aggregate of 1,648,351 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share, of all warrants  are exercisable, as amended, immediately on a cash or cashless basis in whole or in part. In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement on February 17, 2015, the Company cancelled the Warrant and issued a new warrant in substantially the same form. The Warrant was issued in a private placement transaction that was exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).

 

The Company accounted for the warrants as a debt discount and has valued them based on the relative fair value at approximately $1,215,000, to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.  For the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company amortized approximately $487,000 and $203,000 respectively, as interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Company issued to an affiliate of DBD a seven-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase an aggregate of 1,648,351 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share, of all warrants  are exercisable, as amended, immediately on a cash or cashless basis in whole or in part. The Warrant was issued in a private placement transaction that was exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 

 

The Company accounted for the warrants as a debt discount and has valued them based on the relative fair value at approximately $1,215,000, to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.  For the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company amortized approximately $487,000 and $203,000 respectively, as interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.

 

Also in connection with the Loan Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to a consultant a consulting fee equal to (i) $300,000 to the consultant in connection with the Company’s receipt of the Initial Term Loan and (ii) 5% of any additional principal amount loaned to the Company as an IP Milestone Term Loan.  The initial $300,000 has been recorded as debt issuance cost to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.

 

In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement on February 17, 2015, the Company modified their agreement with a consultant and agreed to pay a consulting fee of 3.5% of the $4,000,000 of additional principal loaned the Company.

 

During the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company amortized approximately $316,000 and $135,000 respectively, as interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.

 

Note 5—Debt

 

Debt consists of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

As of December 27, 2014, maturities of long-term debt were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

Interest expense related to the Company’s long-term debt is presented in the following table (in thousands):

 

 

 

Note 6—Income Taxes

 

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities are as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

The Company evaluates whether a valuation allowance should be established against its deferred tax assets based on the consideration of all available evidence using a “more likely than not” standard. In making such judgments, significant weight is given to evidence that can be objectively verified.  As of December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, a valuation allowance of $33.0 million and $28.1 million, respectively, has been provided based on the Company’s assessment that it is more likely than not, that sufficient taxable income will not be generated to realize the tax benefits of the temporary differences. The valuation allowance increased by approximately $4.9 million and $2.5 million during the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, respectively, primarily related to the increase in the net operating loss carryforward.

 

At December 27, 2014, the Company had approximately $63.6 million of federal net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards which begin to expire in year 2029, and approximately $37.7 million of state net operating loss carryforwards which begin to expire in year 2017, and federal and state tax credit carryforwards of approximately $1.5 million and $1.6 million, respectively at December 27, 2014.  Federal tax credit carryforwards begin to expire in 2026 and state tax credits carry forward indefinitely.  In addition, the Company has approximately $6.4 million of operating loss carryforwards in the PRC and Taiwan and had $2.0 million of net operating losses expire at the end of the current year.

 

The deferred tax asset at December 27, 2014 does not include approximately $1.6 million and $1.8 million of excess tax benefits from employee stock option exercises that are a component of the federal and state net operating loss carryover, respectively. The Company’s stockholders’ equity balance will be increased if and when such excess tax benefits are ultimately realized.

 

For financial reporting purposes, loss before provision for income taxes includes the following components (in thousands):

 

 

 

The Company’s income tax provision consists of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

A reconciliation of income taxes computed by applying the statutory U.S. income tax rate to the Company’s loss before income taxes to the income tax provision is as follows:

 

 

 

The Company files tax returns with federal, state and foreign jurisdictions. The Company is no longer subject to IRS or state examinations for periods prior to 2009 although certain carryforward attributes that were generated prior to 2009 may still be adjusted by the IRS.

 

The Company follows the policy to classify accrued interest and penalties as part of the accrued tax liability in the provision for income taxes. For the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company did not recognize any interest or penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits.

 

The Company’s continuing practice is to recognize interest and/or penalties related to income tax matters in income tax expense. As of December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company had no accrued interest and penalties related to uncertain tax matters.

 

As of December 27, 2014, the Company had no uncertain tax positions that would be reduced as a result of a lapse of the applicable statute of limitations.

Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies

 

Leases

 

The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under non‑ cancelable operating leases that expire at various dates through 2017. Rental expense, net of amortization of deferred gain and sublease income, is presented in the following table (in thousands):

 

 

 

A summary of future minimum payments under operating lease commitments as of December 27, 2014 is as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

Litigation and Patent Reexaminations

 

The Company owns numerous patents and continues to enlarge and strengthen its patent portfolios, which cover different aspects of the Company’s technology innovations with various claim scopes. The Company plans to generate revenue by selling or licensing its technology, and intends to vigorously enforce its patent rights against infringers of such rights. The Company dedicates substantial resources in protecting its intellectual property, including its efforts to defend its patents against challenges made by way of reexamination proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). These activities are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, without any guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection and litigation activities will be successful. The Company is also subject to litigation claims that it has infringed on the intellectual property of others, against which the Company intends to defend vigorously.

 

Litigation, whether or not eventually decided in the Company’s favor or settled, is costly and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention and resources. Because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of any of such actions be unfavorable, the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. Additionally, the outcome of pending litigation, and the related patent reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect the Company’s ability to license its intellectual property in the future or to protect against competition in the current and expected markets for its products.

 

Google Litigation

 

In May 2008, the Company initiated discussions with Google, Inc. (“Google”) based on information and belief that Google had infringed on a U.S. patent owned by the Company, U.S. Patent No. 7,289,386 (“the ‘386 patent”), which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication in memory modules. Preemptively, Google filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”), seeking a declaration that Google did not infringe the ‘386 patent and that the ‘386 patent was invalid. The Company filed a counterclaim for infringement of the ‘386 patent by Google. Claim construction proceedings were held in November 2009, and the Company prevailed on every disputed claim construction issue. In June 2010, the Company filed motions for summary judgment of patent infringement and dismissal of Google’s affirmative defenses. In May 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. The Northern District Court granted Google’s request to stay the litigation pending result of the reexamination, and therefore has not ruled on the Company’s motions for summary judgment.

 

In December 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the Northern District Court, seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Google’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (“the ‘912 patent”), which is related to the ‘386 patent and relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication. In February 2010, Google answered the Company’s complaint and asserted counterclaims against the Company seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid and not infringed, and claiming that the Company committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract based on the Company’s activities in the JEDEC standard-setting organization. The counterclaim seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Accruals have not been recorded for loss contingencies related to Google’s counterclaim because it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated. In October 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination request, the Northern District Court granted the Company and Google’s joint request to stay the ‘912 patent infringement lawsuit against Google until the completion of the reexamination proceedings.

 

Inphi Litigation

 

In September 2009, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Inphi Corporation (“Inphi”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”). The complaint, as amended, alleges that Inphi is contributorily infringing and actively inducing the infringement of U.S. patents owned by the Company, including the ‘912 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (“the ‘537 patent”), which relates generally to memory modules with load isolation and memory domain translation capabilities, and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (“the ‘274 patent”), which is related to the ‘537 patent and relates generally to load isolation and memory domain translation technologies. The Company is seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Inphi’s use of the Company’s patented technology. Inphi denied infringement and claimed that the three patents are invalid. In April 2010, Inphi requested but was later denied Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted new requests and was later granted Inter Partes Reexaminations of the ‘912, ‘537 and ‘274 patents by the USPTO. The reexamination proceedings are described below. In connection with the reexamination requests, Inphi filed a motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit with the Central District Court, which was granted. The Central District Court has requested that the Company notify it within one week of any action taken by the USPTO in connection with the reexamination proceedings, at which time the Central District Court may decide to maintain or lift the stay.

 

SanDisk, Smart Modular, Smart Worldwide, and Diablo Litigations

 

In September 2012, Smart Modular, Inc. (“Smart Modular”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the “Eastern District Court”). The complaint alleges that the Company willfully infringes and actively induces the infringement of six claims of a U.S. patent newly issued to Smart Modular, U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295 (“the ‘295 patent”), and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Smart Modular also filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support of the motion on the same day of the complaint. The Company promptly filed a request for reexamination of the ‘295 patent with the USPTO setting forth six different combinations of prior art that would render the six asserted claims of the ‘295 patent unpatentable. The Company also filed an answer to Smart Modular’s complaint with the Eastern District Court in October 2012 to deny infringement of the ‘295 patent, assert that the ‘295 patent is invalid and unenforceable, and bring a set of counterclaims against Smart. Smart Modular filed various motions on the pleadings on November 1, 2012, which were opposed by the Company in its briefs filed in late November 2012.

 

In December 2012, the USPTO granted the Company’s request for the reexamination of the ‘295 patent, and issued an Office Action rejecting all of the six asserted claims over the six different combinations of prior art set forth by the Company in its request. The Company promptly moved to stay litigation pending result of reexamination. On February 19, 2013, a few days after Smart Modular filed replies in support of its motions, the Eastern District Court issued a Minute Order, in which the court on its own motion took the preliminary injunction; the motion to dismiss and the motion to stay under submission without oral argument and vacated the hearing dates.

 

On February 7, 2013, Smart Modular filed a response to the Office Action in the reexamination of the ‘295 patent. Thereafter, the Company and Smart Modular made various filings to address certain apparent defects contained in Smart Modular’s response. On March 13, 2013, the USPTO issued a Notice of Defective Paper, in which the USPTO found Smart Modular’s responses, both the initial filing and a supplemental filing, to be improper, and both responses were expunged from the record. The USPTO gave Smart Modular 15 days to submit another response, which Smart Modular submitted on March 26, 2013. The Company timely filed its comments on Smart Modular’s corrected response on April 25, 2013. The USPTO ultimately accepted Smart Modular’s corrected response on July 17, 2013.  On April 29, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution (“ACP”), confirming some claims and rejecting others.  Smart Modular filed a response to the ACP on May 29, 2014, and Netlist filed comments related to Smart Modular’s response on June 30, 2014.  Thus, the reexamination of the ‘295 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for reexamination proceedings.

 

On May 30, 2013, the Eastern District Court issued an order granting Netlist’s motion to stay pending results of the reexamination of the ‘295 patent and denied Smart Modular’s motion for preliminary injunction.

 

On July 1, 2013, Netlist filed a complaint against Smart Modular in the Santa Ana Division of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District Court”), seeking, among other things, relief under federal antitrust laws for Smart Modular’s violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and damages and other equitable relief under California statutory and common law for Smart Modular’s unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and fraud.

 

On August 23, 2013, Netlist filed an amended complaint for patent infringement, antitrust violations and trade secret misappropriation against Smart Modular, Smart Storage Systems (“Smart Storage”), Smart Worldwide Holdings (“Smart Worldwide”) and Diablo Technologies (“Diablo”) in the Central District Court. Smart Storage was acquired by SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) on August 22, 2013.  Netlist’s amended complaint alleges infringement of five Netlist patents by the defendants based on the manufacture and sale of the ULLtraDIMM memory module. Netlist’s complaint also alleges antitrust violations by Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide, contending that Smart Modular procured a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,250,295) with blatant inequitable conduct at the USPTO, withheld the patent application leading to the patent from relevant JEDEC committees for more than eight years, sought to improperly enforce that patent against Netlist’s JEDEC-compliant HyperCloud® product by seeking a preliminary injunction against Netlist based on the patent, which was denied by the Eastern District Court, and made deceptive statements to the public about its lawsuit against Netlist. Netlist’s complaint also alleges trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement against Diablo, claiming that Diablo misused Netlist trade secrets to create the ULLtraDIMM product for Smart Storage (now SanDisk), and that Diablo used Netlist’s HyperCloud® technology to create competing products.

 

On the same day Netlist filed its amended complaint, Smart Modular and Diablo each filed a complaint in the San Francisco Division of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California (“Northern District Court”), seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents asserted in the Netlist’s amended complaint. On September 9, 2013, Netlist filed a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer these declaratory judgment complaints to the Central District Court. This motion was denied by the Northern District Court on October 10, 2013.

 

In the Central District Court, Smart Modular and Smart Worldwide filed motions on September 13, 2013, to dismiss or sever various counts related to the ‘295 patent. On September 26, 2013, Diablo filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and unfair competition. On October 29, 2013, Smart Modular and Diablo filed motions to dismiss or transfer the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module. On November 26, 2013, the Central District Court: (i) severed and transferred the claims related to the ‘295 patent to the Eastern District Court, which were stayed by the Eastern District Court on March 7, 2014, along with the other ‘295 related claims pending results of the ‘295 reexamination; (ii) severed and transferred to the Northern District Court the patent claims related to the ULLtraDIMM memory module; (iii) issued an order to show cause why the remaining claims should not also be transferred to the Northern District Court; and (iv) held in abeyance Diablo’s pending motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties filed briefs in response to the order to show cause, and then on December 23, 2013, the Central District Court ordered the remaining claims to be transferred to the Northern District Court. All of the claims from the amended complaint filed on August 23, 2013, in the Central District Court have now been transferred to either the Northern District Court or the Eastern District Court.

 

As reported in its Form 8-K filed on December 13, 2013, Netlist received a whistleblower letter postmarked from Canada (where Diablo is based) on November 13, 2013, and obviously written by a current or former Diablo employee. The letter begins by bluntly stating that Diablo stole Netlist’s architecture and design, and goes on to explain that Diablo used Netlist’s HyperCloudTM product to create the ULLtraDIMM product, which it then used in demonstrations to major customers including IBM and Hewlett-Packard. The letter further states that Diablo’s management conspired to hide this theft by instructing its employees not to speak to customers about the fact that Netlist’s product was incorporated into ULLtraDIMM. The letter includes diagrams showing how Diablo implemented the theft of Netlist’s trade secrets, as well as the names of former Diablo employees, customers and suppliers who can verify the theft. The Form 8-K included as an exhibit a partially redacted copy of the whistleblower letter. On December 13, 2013, Diablo filed an ex parte application in the Northern District Court requesting that the Court issue an order to show cause why Netlist should not be sanctioned for attaching the redacted copy of the whistleblower letter to the Form 8-K. The Northern District Court heard the parties’ arguments on December 16, 2013, and on January 3, 2014, issued an order denying Diablo’s application for sanctions, finding that Diablo had not established a basis for finding the information in the Form 8-K and its attachments “confidential” and therefore had not shown why it should be granted the relief sought.

 

On January 21, 2014, Netlist filed a motion for leave to file a second amended answer and counterclaims in the Northern District Court to assert two additional patents, bringing the total to seven patents asserted against the ULLtraDIMM. Diablo did not oppose Netlist’s motion, and the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order on February 3, 2014, requesting an additional two months be added to the case schedule to account for the additional patents. On February 5, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion to add the two patents and entered a new case schedule.  On February 12, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Smart Modular without prejudice.  On April 7, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in the patent case.

 

On March 21, 2014, Netlist filed a Second Amended Complaint against Diablo in the Northern District Court, Case No. 4:13-CV-05962 (the “trade secret case”), alleging, among other things, that in stealing Netlist’s proprietary HyperCloud® and DxD and LRD technologies, Diablo breached its contracts with Netlist, committed trademark violations, and misappropriated Netlist’s trade secrets.  Also on March 21, 2014, Netlist served Diablo with its Amended Trade Secret Disclosure, detailing approximately 60 trade secrets Netlist taught to Diablo in connection with the contracted and confidential work on the HyperCloud® project.  On April 9, 2014, Diablo filed a motion to dismiss Netlist’s Second Amended Trade Secret Complaint, as well as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  That motion was heard by the Northern District Court on May 13, 2014, and on September 4, 2014, denied the motion with respect to all grounds except one, which Netlist did not contest.

 

On April 1, 2014, the Northern District Court denied Diablo’s motion to strike Netlist’s infringement contentions, finding that Netlist’s contentions did indeed satisfy the relevant requirements and, on April 7, 2014, granted Netlist’s motion to compel defendants to produce certain discovery materials related to the ULLtraDIMM.  Diablo filed a motion for relief from these two rulings, which was denied on April 8, 2014.  Also on April 7, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion for issuance of Letters Rogatory to the Canadian courts requesting that summons be issued for two former Diablo employees living in Canada and named in the whistleblower letter to produce documents and to be deposed.  These depositions occurred in late August 2014.

 

On April 8, 2014, the Northern District Court granted Netlist’s motion to consolidate the patent related cases (Case Nos. 4:13-CV-05889-YGR and 4:13-CV-03901-YGR) and to coordinate discovery with the trade secret case (4:13-CV-05962-YGR), and denied Diablo’s motion to further consolidate the patent and trade secret cases.  On April 15, 2014, the Northern District Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation dismissing Smart Worldwide without prejudice.  On April 30, 2014, the Northern District Court denied Diablo’s request that Netlist’s Amended Trade Secret Disclosure and exhibits thereto be re-designated as “Confidential” from the current designation of “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only”.

 

Between June 18 and June 24, 2014, SanDisk filed petitions in the USPTO requesting Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the five Netlist patents asserted in the August 23, 2013 amended complaint.  Diablo similarly filed petitions requesting IPR of the two Netlist patents added in the second amended answer filed on January 21, 2014.  Netlist filed patent owner preliminary responses to all of the petitions associated with the seven asserted Netlist patents.  The USPTO issued decisions on the petitions in December, 2014, denying the petitions in their entirety as to three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,516,187; 8,301,833; 8,516,185), granting a partial institution on one patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,001,434), and instituting a review of all claims in three patents  (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,150; 8,081,536; 8,359,501).  Reviews will therefore proceed related to four Netlist patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,001,434; 7,881,150; 8,081,536; 8,359,501) in accordance with established procedures.

 

On August 23, 2014, Smart Modular also filed petitions in the USPTO requesting IPR of the five Netlist patents asserted in the August 23, 2013 amended complaint.  Netlist filed patent owner preliminary responses to all of the Smart Modular petitions in December, 2014.  On March 13, 2015, the USPTO issued decisions on the Smart Modular petitions, denying the petitions in their entirety as to the same three patents that survived the petitions filed by SanDisk in June, 2014 (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,516,187; 8,301,833; 8,516,185), and instituted additional reviews of the two other patents already under review (U.S. Patent No. 8,001,434; 8,359,501) that will proceed in accordance with established procedures.

 

SanDisk filed a motion on June 24, 2014, to stay the Northern District patent cases pending completion of the IPRs (Diablo later joined this motion).  Netlist filed its opposition to the motion to stay on July 10, 2014.  The Northern District Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay in early August 2014, and issued an order on August 21, 2014, denying the motion without prejudice.  SanDisk renewed its motion to stay on January 20, 2015, which is currently being briefed by the parties. 

 

On October 6, 2014, Netlist filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Northern District Court trade secret suit, asking that Diablo and its partner SanDisk be immediately enjoined from any further manufacture or sale of the ULLtraDIMM module.  The Court granted in part Netlist’s motion on January 6, 2015, and entered a preliminary injunction halting the manufacture, use, sale, or distribution of the Diablo Rush and Bolt chips and any ULLtraDIMM module containing those chips, and advanced the trial date to March 9, 2015 on the trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other related claims (4:13-CV-05962-YGR).  The trial commenced on schedule and continued for two weeks, with closing arguments on March 23, 2015.  Two days later the jury came back with a verdict finding for the defendant on the breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secret and inventorship counts, while finding for Netlist on the trademark and false advertising counts.  After the verdict, the court ordered briefing to determine the effect of the jury verdict on the preliminary injunction entered on July 6, 2015, and set a tentative date of April 10, 2015, to hear oral arguments on this issue.  Remaining post-verdict motions are to be filed within a month of the jury verdict. 

 

SanDisk and Diablo filed motions with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appealing the January 6, 2015, preliminary injunction and asking for expedited briefing and a stay of the preliminary injunction during the pendency of the appeals.  The Federal Circuit denied both requests for expedited briefing, denied Diablo’s request for a stay, but granted SanDisk’s narrower request for a stay of the preliminary injunction as to SanDisk’s existing inventory of enjoined products.  SanDisk’s and Diablo’s appeals of the preliminary injunction are proceeding in accordance with established procedures.  Diablo filed additional papers following the jury verdict in the trade secret case asking the Federal Circuit to transfer jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction back to the trial court in conjunction with the briefing ordered by the trial court on the issue of what effect the jury verdict will have on the preliminary injunction.  The Federal Circuit has not yet responded to this request. 

 

On March 25, 2015, a jury returned an unfavorable verdict in the Northern District Court trade secret suit. As a result, Netlist may forfeit the $900,000 bond posted earlier in the litigation.

 

‘386 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in May 2010, Google requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent by the USPTO. In October 2010, Smart Modular requested and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘386 patent. The reexaminations requested by Google and Smart Modular were merged by the USPTO into a single proceeding. In April 2011, a Non-Final Action was issued by the USPTO, rejecting all claims in the patent. In July 2011, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of cited references. Both Google and Smart Modular filed their comments to the Company’s response in October 2011. In October 2012, the USPTO issued an ACP rejecting all 60 claims. The Company filed a response to the ACP on December 3, 2012. On June 21, 2013, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”) in which the examiner maintained his rejection of the claims. Netlist filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013. Google filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 2, 2013, and a cross-appeal brief on October 1, 2013. The Company filed an appeal brief and an amendment canceling some of the remaining claims on October 2, 2013 to further focus the issues on appeal. On February 24, 2014, the examiner entered the amendment canceling claims, withdrew the rejections related to those claims, but otherwise maintained the positions previously set forth in the RAN.  On September 24, 2014, the USPTO set a hearing date of November 19, 2014.  After the hearing, on February 25, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections of the pending claims.  The Company has until March 25, 2015 to request for rehearing of the PTAB’s decision and can thereafter appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Thus, the reexamination of the ‘386 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for merged reexamination proceedings and judicial appeals therefrom.

 

‘912 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested but was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘912 patent by the USPTO. In September 2010, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of all fifty-one claims of the ‘912 patent. In October 2010, Google and Smart Modular each filed and were later granted requests for reexamination of the ‘912 patent. In February 2011, the USPTO merged the Inphi, Google and Smart Modular ‘912 reexaminations into a single proceeding. In an April 2011 Non-Final Action in the merged reexamination proceeding, the USPTO rejected claims 1-20 and 22-51 and confirmed the patentability of claim 21 of the ‘912 patent. In July 2011, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi, Google, and Smart Modular filed their comments on the Company’s response in August 2011. In October 2011, the USPTO mailed a second Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of twenty claims of the ‘912 patent, including claims that were added in the reexamination process. In January 2012, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Google, Inphi and Smart Modular filed their comments to the Company’s response in February 2012. The USPTO determined that Smart Modular’s comments were defective, and issued a notice to Smart Modular to rectify and resubmit its comments. Smart Modular filed corrected comments and a petition for the USPTO to withdraw the notice in March 2012. The USPTO issued a non-final Office Action on November 13, 2012 maintaining the patentability of many key claims while rejecting some claims that were previously determined to be patentable. The Company filed a response to the Office Action on January 14, 2013. The requesters filed their comments on February 13, 2013.  On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an ACP, confirming the patentability of 92 claims and maintaining the rejection of 11 other claims.  On June 18, 2014, the USPTO issued a RAN, maintaining the substantive positions taken by the examiner in the ACP.  Smart Modular, Inphi and Google filed notices of appeal on July 16, July 18 and July 18, 2014, respectively.  Netlist filed a notice of cross-appeal on July 30, 2014.  Smart Modular, Inphi and Google filed their respective appeal briefs on September 16, September 30 and September 30, 2014.  Netlist filed its cross-appeal brief on September 30, 2014.  On January 14, 2015, the examiner maintained his positions previously set forth in the RAN.  The parties filed respective rebuttal briefs in February 2015.  The reexamination of the ‘912 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for merged reexamination proceedings.

 

‘627 Patent Reexamination

 

In September 2011, Smart Modular filed a request for reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,627 (“the ‘627 patent”) issued to the Company on January 4, 2011. The ‘627 patent is related to the ‘912 patent. In November 2011, the USPTO granted Smart Modular’s request for reexamination of the ‘627 patent and concurrently issued a Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of three claims. In February 2012, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Smart Modular filed its comments to the Company’s response in March 2012. The USPTO determined that Smart Modular’s comments were defective and issued a notice in April 2012 to Smart Modular to rectify and resubmit its comments. Smart Modular filed corrected comments and a petition for the USPTO to withdraw the notice in April 2012. The USPTO posted an Office Action on December 19, 2012, confirming one claim and rejecting the rest of the claims in the ‘627 patent. The Company filed a response to the Office Action on March 19, 2013. Smart Modular filed its comments on the Office Action on April 24, 2013. The USPTO issued another Non-Final Office Action on September 26, 2013, withdrawing certain rejections while adopting new rejections for certain of the pending claims. The Company responded to the Non-Final Office Action on November 26, 2013, by amending some of the claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. On March 27, 2014, the USPTO issued an ACP, maintaining the claim rejections.  On June 27, 2014, the USPTO issued a RAN, maintaining the substantive positions taken by the examiner in the ACP.  Netlist filed a notice of appeal on July 28, 2014.  On October 14, 2014, the Company filed its appeal brief and, on November 13, 2014, Smart Modular filed its respondent’s brief. The reexamination of the ‘627 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures.

 

‘537 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested and was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘537 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘537 patent by the USPTO. In September 2010, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Action confirming the patentability of four claims. In October 2010, the Company responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments on the Company’s response in January 2011. In June 2011, the USPTO issued an ACP, which reconfirmed the patentability of the four claims. In August 2010, the Company responded by amending some of the claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments to the Company’s response in September 2011. The USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice in February 2012, in which the claim rejections were withdrawn, thus confirming the patentability of all sixty (60) claims in view of all the previously submitted comments by both Inphi and the Company. Inphi filed a notice of appeal in March 2012 followed by an appeal brief in May 2012. In response, the USPTO issued a Notice of Defective Appeal Brief. Inphi filed a corrective appeal brief in late May 2012, and the Company filed its reply brief to the corrected Inphi appeal brief in early July 2012. The examiner responded to Inphi’s corrected appeal brief as well as the Company’s reply brief by Examiner’s Answer on April 16, 2013, in which he maintained his position confirming all sixty (60) claims. Inphi filed a rebuttal brief on May 16, 2013. Netlist filed a request for oral hearing on June 14, 2013. The Company and the examiner jointly defended the ‘537 patent in a hearing on November 20, 2013 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the USPTO. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision upholding the validity of all 60 claims, dismissing every single validity challenge raised by Inphi and affirming the examiner’s decision to allow the claims. On August 13, 2014, the PTAB denied Inphi’s request for rehearing and made its decision final for judicial review to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).  On October 15, 2014, Inphi filed a Notice of Appeal to the CAFC.  On February 3, 2015, Inphi filed an appellant’s brief in its appeal to the CAFC.  The reexamination of the ‘537 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination and judicial appeals therefrom.

 

‘274 Patent Reexamination

 

As noted above, in April 2010, Inphi requested and was later denied an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. In June 2010, Inphi submitted a new request and was later granted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘274 patent by the USPTO. In September 2011, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Action, confirming the patentability of six claims. The Company has responded by amending or canceling some of the claims, adding new claims, and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims. Inphi filed its comments on the Company’s response in November 2011. The USPTO issued an ACP in March 2012, which confirmed the patentability of one hundred and four (104) claims in view of all the previously submitted comments by both Inphi and the Company. The USPTO subsequently issued a RAN in June 2012. This RAN triggered Inphi’s right as the losing party to file a notice of appeal and corresponding appeal brief, which Inphi filed when due. The Company responded to Inphi’s appeal brief by filing a reply brief in October 2012. The examiner responded to Inphi’s appeal brief and the reply brief by Examiner’s Answer on April 16, 2013, in which he maintained his position confirming the one hundred and four (104) claims. Inphi filed a rebuttal brief on May 16, 2013. Netlist filed a request for oral hearing on June 14, 2013. The Company and the USPTO examiner jointly defended the ‘274 patent in a hearing on November 20, 2013 before the PTAB, in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination. On January 16, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the examiner in part, but reversing the examiner on new grounds and rejecting the one hundred and four (104) claims.  On March 28, 2014, Netlist filed a Patent Owner’s Response Requesting to Reopen Prosecution along with certain claim amendments and arguments.  On June 26, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision granting-in-part Inphi’s request to modify the January 16, 2014, decision as to two of the rejected claims. The reexamination of the ‘274 patent remains pending and will continue in accordance with established procedures for Inter Partes Reexamination.

 

Other Contingent Obligations

 

During its normal course of business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include (i) intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers and licensees in connection with the use, sales and/or license of Company products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to Fortress Credit Opportunities I IP, successor to DBD Credit Funding LLC, and SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the loan documents; and (vi) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities, and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments the Company could be obligated to make. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Note 8—Stockholders’ Equity

 

Serial Preferred Stock

 

The Company’s authorized capital includes 10,000,000 shares of Serial Preferred Stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share.  No shares were outstanding at December 27, 2014 or December 28, 2013.

 

Common Stock

 

In November 2011, the Company entered into a sales agreement with Ascendiant Capital Markets, LLC (“Ascendiant”), whereby shares with a total value of up to $10.0 million may be released for sale to the public at the discretion of management at a price equal to the current market price in an “at-the-market” offering as defined in Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933. During 2013, the Company received net proceeds of approximately $0.2 million raised through the sale of 240,373 shares of common stock. The sales agreement with Ascendiant expired on November 21, 2013.

 

On July 17, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive securities purchase agreement for the sale of common stock and warrants in a registered public offering (“2013 Offering”) of its securities for gross proceeds of $1.0 million.  The 2013 Offering closed on July 19, 2013, and the Company received net proceeds of $960,000 after deducting commissions and offering costs.  The 2013 Offering resulted in the issuance 1,098,902 shares of the Company’s common stock and a warrant to purchase up to an aggregate of 1,098,902 shares of the Company’s common stock. The warrant is exercisable as of the date of its issuance, has a term of seven years, and an exercise price of $1.00 per share.  The exercise price and the number of warrant shares issuable upon exercise of warrant is subject to adjustment in the event of, among other things, certain transactions affecting the Company’s common stock (including without limitation stock splits and stock dividends), and certain fundamental transactions (including without limitation a merger or other sale-of-company transaction).  On February 3, 2014, the Company issued 750,000 shares of common stock upon exercise of such warrants at a purchase price of $0.89 per share, resulting in proceeds to the Company of $667,500.

 

Sale of Common Stock Pursuant to Securities Purchase Agreements

 

On February 11, 2014, the Company completed the 2014 Offering of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2014 Offering, the Company issued and sold to Underwriter 8,680,775 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 6, 2014, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.2115 per share, including 1,132,275 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2014 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2014 Offering were approximately $10.3 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

On February 24, 2015, the Company completed the 2015 Offering of shares of the Company’s common stock. In the 2015 Offering, the Company issued and sold to the Underwriter 8,846,154 shares of common stock pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated as of February 19, 2015, by and between the Company and the Underwriter, at a price of $1.209 per share, including 1,153,846 shares resulting from the Underwriter’s exercise in full of its option to purchase additional shares of Common Stock to cover over-allotments. The price per share to the public in the 2015 Offering was $1.30 per share. The net proceeds from the 2015 Offering were approximately $10.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

 

Cancellation of Shares of Common Stock

 

During the fiscal years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company cancelled 10,015 and 19,575 shares of common stock, respectively, valued at approximately $21,000 and $14,000, respectively, in connection with its obligation to holders of restricted stock to withhold the number of shares required to satisfy the holders’ tax liabilities in connection with the vesting of such shares.

 

The Company is incorporated in the state of Delaware, and as such, is subject to various state laws which may restrict the payment of dividends or purchase of treasury shares.

 

Stock-Based Compensation

 

The Company has stock-based compensation awards outstanding pursuant to the Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”) and the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”), under which a variety of option and direct stock-based awards may be granted to employees and nonemployees of the Company. Further grants under the 2000 Plan were suspended upon the adoption of the 2006 Plan. In addition to awards made pursuant to the 2006 Plan, the Company periodically issues inducement grants outside the 2006 Plan to certain new hires.

 

Subject to certain adjustments, as of December 27, 2014, the Company was authorized to issue a maximum of 7,805,566 shares of common stock pursuant to awards under the 2006 Plan. That maximum number will automatically increase on the first day of each subsequent calendar year by the lesser of (i) 5.0% of the number of shares of common stock that are issued and outstanding as of the first day of the calendar year, and (ii) 1,200,000 shares of common stock, subject to adjustment for certain corporate actions. At December 27, 2014, the Company had 244,698 shares available for grant under the 2006 Plan.  Options granted under the 2000 Plan and the 2006 Plan equity incentive plans primarily vest at a rate of at least 25% per year over four years and expire 10 years from the date of grant. Restricted stock awards vest in eight equal increments at intervals of approximately six months from the date of grant.

 

A summary of the Company’s common stock option activity is presented below (shares in thousands):

 

 

 

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding and exercisable at December 27, 2014:

 

 

A summary of the Company’s restricted stock awards is presented below (shares in thousands):

 

 

The following table presents details of the assumptions used to calculate the weighted-average grant date fair value of common stock options granted by the Company:

 

 

At December 27, 2014, the amount of unearned stock-based compensation currently estimated to be expensed from 2015 through 2017 related to unvested common stock options and restricted stock awards is approximately $2.8 million, net of estimated forfeitures. The weighted-average period over which the unearned stock-based compensation is expected to be recognized is approximately 2.5 years. If there are any modifications or cancellations of the underlying unvested awards, the Company may be required to accelerate, increase or cancel any remaining unearned stock-based compensation expense or calculate and record additional expense.  Future stock-based compensation expense and unearned stock-based compensation will increase to the extent that the Company grants additional common stock options or other stock-based awards.

 

Concurrently with the execution of the Loan Agreement (see Note 4), the Company issued to Fortress as successor to an affiliate of DBD, a seven-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase an aggregate of 1,648,351 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share, of which all warrants are exercisable, as amended, on a cash or cashless basis in whole or in part. The Warrant was issued in a private placement transaction that was exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  In connection with the amendment to the Loan Agreement on February 17, 2015, we cancelled the Warrant and issued a new warrant in substantially the same form. The Company accounted for the warrants as a debt discount and has valued them based on the relative fair value of approximately $1,215,000, to be amortized over the term of the debt instrument, or three years, using the effective interest method.  For the years ended December 27, 2014 and December 28, 2013, the Company amortized approximately $487,000 and $203,000 respectively, as interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.

 

A summary of the warrant activity is presented below: