Note 1 - Organization and summary of significant accounting policies (Policies)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Notes to Financial Statements

Organization

Lattice Incorporated (the “Company”) was incorporated in the State of Delaware May 1973 and commenced operations in July 1977. The Company began as a provider of specialized solutions to the telecom industry. Throughout its history Lattice has adapted to the changes in this industry by reinventing itself to be more responsive and open to the dynamic pace of change experienced in the broader converged communications industry of today. Currently Lattice provides advanced solutions for several vertical markets. The greatest change in operations is in the shift from being a component manufacturer to a solution provider focused on developing applications through software on its core platform technology. To further its strategy of becoming a solutions provider, the Company acquired a majority interest in “SMEI” in February 2005. In September 2006 the Company purchased all of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock of Lattice Government Services, Inc., (“LGS”) (formerly Ricciardi Technologies Inc. (“RTI”)). LGS was founded in 1992 and provides software consulting and development services for the command and control of biological sensors and other Department of Defense requirements to United States federal governmental agencies either directly or through prime contractors of such governmental agencies. LGS’s proprietary products include SensorView, which provides clients with the capability to command, control and monitor multiple distributed chemical, biological, nuclear, explosive and hazardous material sensors. In December 2009 we changed RTI’s name to Lattice Government Services Inc. In January 2007, we changed our name from Science Dynamics Corporation to Lattice Incorporated. On May 16, 2011 we acquired 100% of the shares of Cummings Creek Capital, a holding Company which itself owns 100% of the shares of CLR Group Limited. (“CLR”). CLR is a government contractor which compliments our Government Services business by expanding markets and service offerings.

Basis of Presentation going concern

At December 31, 2012 the Company had a working capital deficiency of $3,561,000. This compared to a working capital deficiency of $2,643,000 at December 31. 2011. The Company’s working capital deficiency and constrained liquidity raises substantial doubt regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is highly dependent upon (i) management’s ability to achieve its planned operating cashflows (ii), maintain continued availability on its line of credit and the ability to obtain alternative financing to fund capital requirements and/or debt obligations coming due. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The financial statements include all normal and recurring adjustments that are necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s financial position and operating results.

Principles of consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and all of its subsidiaries in which a controlling interest is maintained. All significant inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. For those consolidated subsidiaries where Company ownership is less than 100%, the outside stockholders’ interests are shown as non-controlling interest. Investments in affiliates over which the Company has significant influence but not a controlling interest are carried on the equity basis of accounting.

Use of estimates

The preparation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (US GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes. These estimates form the basis for judgments made about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Estimates and judgments are based on historical experience and on various other assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable under the circumstances. However, future events are subject to change and the best estimates and judgments routinely require adjustment. US GAAP requires estimates and judgments in several areas, including those related to impairment of goodwill and equity investments, revenue recognition, recoverability of inventory and receivables, the useful lives, long lived assets such as property and equipment, the future realization of deferred income tax benefits and the recording of various accruals. The ultimate outcome and actual results could differ from the estimates and assumptions used.  

Fair Value Disclosures

Management believes that the carrying values of financial instruments, including, cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities approximate fair value as a result of the short-term maturities of these instruments. As discussed in Note 1(m), below, derivative financial instruments are carried at fair value.

The carrying values of the Company’s long term debts and capital lease obligations approximates their fair values based upon a comparison of the interest rates and terms of such debt to the rates and terms of debt currently available to the Company.

Cash

The Company maintains its cash balances with various financial institutions. Balance at various times during the year may at time exceed Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limits.

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market, with cost determined on a first-in, first-out basis.

Income Taxes

Deferred income tax balances reflect the effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and their tax bases and are state at enacted tax rates expected to be in effect when taxes are actually paid or recovered.  At December 31, 2012 and 2011, deferred tax liabilities were $94,184 and $223,771, respectively.      

We account for uncertain tax positions using a two-step process. The first step is to evaluate the tax position for recognition by determining if the weight of available evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained on audit, including resolution of related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits. The second step requires us to estimate and measure the tax benefit as the largest amount that is more than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement. It is inherently difficult and subjective to estimate such amounts, as we have to determine the probability of various possible outcomes. We re-evaluate these uncertain tax positions on a quarterly basis. This evaluation is based on factors including, but not limited to, changes in facts or circumstances, changes in tax law, effectively settled issues under audit, and new audit activity. Such a change in recognition or measurement would result in the recognition of a tax benefit or an additional charge to the tax provision.  We did not recognize any additional tax benefit or additional charges to our tax provision during 2012 and 2011. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company has no liability related to uncertain tax positions.

The Company’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns remain subject to examination by the respective taxing authorities.  In addition, net operating losses and research tax credits arising from prior years are also subject to examination at the time that they are utilized in future years. Neither the Company’s federal or state tax returns are currently under examination.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue is recognized when all significant contractual obligations have been satisfied and collection of the resulting receivable is reasonably assured. Revenue from product sales is recognized when the goods are shipped and title passes to the customer.

The company applies the guidance of SOP-97-2 with regards to its software products sold. Under this guidance, the Company determined that its product sales do not contain multiple deliverables for an extended period beyond delivery where bifurcation of multiple elements is necessary. The software is embedded in the products sold and shipped. Revenue is recognized upon delivery, installation and acceptance by the customer. PCS (post-contract support) and upgrades are billed separately and when rendered or delivered and not contained in the original arrangement with the customer. Installation services are included with the original customer arrangement but are rendered at the time of delivery of the product and invoicing.

In our Government Services segment, our revenues are derived from IT and business process outsourcing services under cost-plus, time-and-material, and fixed-price contracts, which may extend up to 5 years. Under our fixed-price contracts, revenues are generally recorded as delivery is made. For time-and-material contracts, revenues are computed by multiplying the number of direct labor-hours expended in the performance of the contract by the contract billing rates and adding other billable direct costs. Under cost-plus contracts, revenues are recognized as costs are incurred and include an estimate of applicable fees earned. Services provided over the term of these arrangements may include, network engineering, architectural guidance, database management, expert programming and functional area expert analysis   Revenue is generally recognized when the service is provided and the amount earned is not contingent upon any further event.

Our fixed price contracts are primarily based on unit pricing (labor hours) or level of effort. The Company recognizes revenue for the number of units delivered in any given fiscal period. Accordingly, these contracts do not fall within the scope of SOP 81-1, Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and Certain Production-Type Contracts , where revenue is recognized on the percentage-of-completion method using costs incurred in relation to total estimated costs.

Under cost reimbursable contracts, the Company is reimbursed for allowable costs, and paid a fee, which may be fixed or performance-based. Revenues on cost reimbursable contracts are recognized as costs are incurred plus an estimate of applicable fees earned. The Company considers fixed fees under cost reimbursable contracts to be earned in proportion of the allowable costs incurred in performance of the contract. For cost reimbursable contracts that include performance based fee incentives, the Company recognizes the relevant portion of the expected fee to be awarded by the customer at the time such fee can be reasonably estimated, based on factors such as the Company’s prior award experience and communications with the customer regarding performance.

The allowability of certain costs under government contracts is subject to audit by the government.  Certain indirect costs are charged to contracts using provisional or estimated indirect rates, which are subject to later revision based on government audits of those costs.  Management is of the opinion that costs subsequently disallowed, if any, would not be significant.

Revenues related to collect and prepaid calling services generated by the communication services segment are recognized during the period in which the calls are made. In addition, during the same period, the Company records the related telecommunication costs for validating, transmitting, billing and collection, and line and long distance charges, along with commissions payable to the facilities and allowances for uncollectible calls, based on historical experience.

Government claims: Unapproved claims relate to contracts where costs have exceeded the customer’s funded value of the task ordered on our cost reimbursement type contract vehicles. The unapproved claims are considered to be probable of collection and have been recognized as revenue in previous years. Unapproved claims included as a component of our Accounts Receivable totaled approximately $1,555,000 and $1,555,000 as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Consistent with industry practice, we classify assets and liabilities related to these claims as current, even though some of these amounts may not be realized within one year.

Share-based payments

On January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification 718-10, Accounting for Share-based payment , to account for compensation costs under its stock option plans and other share-based arrangements.  ASC 718 requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values.

For purposes of estimating fair value of stock options, we use the Black-Scholes-Merton valuation technique. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, there was approximately $10,248 and $15,932 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based compensation awards granted under the equity compensation plans which do not include the effect of future grants of equity compensation, if any. The $10,248 will be amortized over the weighted average remaining service period.

Depreciation, amortization and long-lived assets

Long-lived assets include:

Property, plant and equipment - These assets are recorded at original cost. The Company depreciates the cost evenly over the assets’ estimated useful lives. For tax purposes, accelerated depreciation methods are used as allowed by tax laws.

 Goodwill- Goodwill represents the difference between the purchase price of an acquired business and the fair value of the net assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition. Goodwill is not amortized. The Company tests goodwill for impairment annually ( or in interim periods if events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable) by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit, as measured by discounted cash flows, to the carrying value to determine if there is an indication that potential impairment may exist. Absent an indication of fair value from a potential buyer or similar specific transactions, the Company believes that the use of this income approach method provides reasonable estimates of the reporting unit’s fair value. Fair value computed by this method is arrived at using a number of factors, including projected future operating results, economic projections and anticipated future cash flows. The Company reviews its assumptions each time goodwill is tested for impairment and makes appropriate adjustments, if any, based on facts and circumstances available at that time. There are inherent uncertainties, however, related to these factors and to management’s judgment in applying them to this analysis. Nonetheless, management believes that this method provides a reasonable approach to estimate the fair value of the Company’s reporting units.

The income approach, which is used for the goodwill impairment testing, is based on projected future debt-free cash flow that is discounted to present value using factors that consider the timing and risk of the future cash flows. Management believes that this approach is appropriate because it provides a fair value estimate based upon the reporting unit’s expected long-term operating and cash flow performance. This approach also mitigates most of the impact of cyclical downturns that occur in the reporting unit’s industry. The income approach is based on a reporting unit’s five year projection of operating results and cash flows that is discounted using a buildup approach. The projection is based upon management’s best estimates of projected economic and market conditions over the related period including growth rates, estimates of future expected changes in operating margins and cash expenditures. Other significant estimates and assumptions include terminal value growth rates, future capital expenditures and changes in future working capital requirements based on management projections.

Identifiable intangible assets - The Company amortizes the cost of other intangibles over their useful lives unless such lives are deemed indefinite. Amortizable intangible assets are tested for impairment based on undiscounted cash flows and, if impaired, written down to fair value based on either discounted cash flows or appraised values. Intangible assets with indefinite lives are not amortized; however, they are tested annually for impairment and written down to fair value as required.

At least annually, The Company reviews all long-lived assets for impairment. When necessary, charges are recorded for impairments of long-lived assets for the amount by which the fair value is less than the carrying value of these assets. (See Note 8 for 2011 impairment charges)

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

In accordance with FASB ASC 820, fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., the “exit price”) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

In determining fair value, the Company uses various valuation approaches.  In accordance with GAAP, a fair value hierarchy for inputs is used in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that the most observable inputs be used when available.  Observable inputs are those that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Fund.  Unobservable inputs reflect the Fund’s assumptions about the inputs market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.  The fair value hierarchy is categorized into three levels based on the inputs as follows:

● Level 1 — inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or  liabilities in active markets.

● Level 2 — inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the assets or liability, either directly or indirectly, for  substantially the full term of the financial instruments.

● Level 3 — inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value.

As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the derivative liabilities amounted to $57,634 and $96,366.  In accordance with the accounting standards the Company determined that the carrying value of these derivatives approximated the fair value using the level 3 inputs.

Derivative Financial Instruments and Registration Payment Arrangements

Derivative financial instruments, as defined in Financial Accounting Standard, consist of financial instruments or other contracts that contain a notional amount and one or more underlying (e.g. interest rate, security price or other variable), require no initial net investment and permit net settlement. Derivative financial instruments may be free-standing or embedded in other financial instruments. Further, derivative financial instruments are initially, and subsequently, measured at fair value and recorded as liabilities or, in rare instances, assets. The Company generally does not use derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to cash-flow, market or foreign-currency risks. However, the Company has entered into various types of financing arrangements to fund its business capital requirements, including convertible debt and other financial instruments indexed to the Company’s own stock. These contracts require careful evaluation to determine whether derivative features embedded in host contracts require bifurcation and fair value measurement or, in the case of freestanding derivatives (principally warrants) whether certain conditions for equity classification have been achieved. In instances where derivative financial instruments require liability classification, the Company is required to initially and subsequently measure such instruments at fair value. Accordingly, the Company adjusts the fair value of these derivative components at each reporting period through a charge to income until such time as the instruments acquire classification in stockholders’ equity. See Note 10 for additional information.

As previously stated, derivative financial instruments are initially recorded at fair value and subsequently adjusted to fair value at the close of each reporting period. The Company estimates fair values of derivative financial instruments using various techniques (and combinations thereof) that are considered to be consistent with the objective measuring fair values. In selecting the appropriate technique, management considers, among other factors, the nature of the instrument, the market risks that it embodies and the expected means of settlement. For less complex derivative instruments, such as free-standing warrants, the Company generally uses the Black-Scholes-Merton option valuation technique because it embodies all of the requisite assumptions (including trading volatility, dividend yield, estimated terms and risk free rates) necessary to fair value these instruments. For complex derivative instruments, such as embedded conversion options, the Company generally uses the Flexible Monte Carlo valuation technique because it embodies all of the requisite assumptions (including credit risk, interest-rate risk and exercise/conversion behaviors) that are necessary to fair value these more complex instruments. For forward contracts that contingently require net-cash settlement as the principal means of settlement, the Company projects and discounts future cash flows applying probability-weightings to multiple possible outcomes. Estimating fair values of derivative financial instruments requires the development of significant and subjective estimates that may, and are likely to, change over the duration of the instrument with related changes in internal and external market factors. In addition, option-based techniques are highly volatile and sensitive to changes in the trading market price of our common stock, which has a high-historical volatility. Since derivative financial instruments are initially and subsequently carried at fair values, our income (loss) will reflect the volatility in these estimate and assumption changes.

Segment Reporting

FASB ASC 280-10-50, “Disclosure about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information” requires use of the “management approach” model for segment reporting.  The management approach model is based on the way a company’s management organizes segments within the company for making operating decisions and assessing performance.  Reportable segments are based on products and services, geography, legal structure, management structure, or any other manner in which management disaggregates a company.  The Company operates in two segments during the year ended December 31, 2012 (Government services and Telecom services).

Basic and diluted income (loss) per common share

The Company calculates income (loss) per common share in accordance with Statements on Financial Accounting Standards ASC Topic 260, Earnings Per Share (“ASC 260”). Basic and diluted income (loss) per common share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Common share equivalents (which consist of convertible preferred stock,  options and warrants) are excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share since the effect would be anti-dilutive. Common share equivalents which could potentially dilute basic earnings per share in the future, and which were excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share, totaled approximately 83 million shares at December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Recent accounting pronouncements

In July 2012, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2012-02, “Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment” (“ASU 2012-02”). ASU 2012-02 gives entities an option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicate that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired. If based on its qualitative assessment an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that the fair value of an indefinite lived intangible asset is less than its carrying amount, quantitative impairment testing is required. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, quantitative impairment testing is not required. ASU 2012-02 is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012, with early adoption permitted. ASU 2012-02 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities” (“ASU 2011-11”). ASU 2011-11 enhances current disclosures about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset on the statement of financial position or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset on the statement of financial position. Entities are required to provide both net and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to facilitate comparability between financial statements prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP and financial statements prepared on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). ASU 2011-11 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. ASU 2011-11 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08 Intangibles – Goodwill & Other (“ASU 2011-08”), which updates the guidance in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 350, Intangibles – Goodwill & Other (“ACS Topic 350”). The amendments in ASU 2011-08 permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than the carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in ASC Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than fifty percent. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two step impairment test is unnecessary. The amendments in ASU 2011-08 include examples of events and circumstances that an entity should consider in evaluating whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. However, the examples are not intended to be all-inclusive and an entity may identify other relevant events and circumstances to consider in making the determination. The examples in this ASU 2011-08 supersede the previous examples under ASC Topic 350 of events and circumstances an entity should consider in determining whether it should test for impairment between annual tests, and also supersede the examples of events and circumstances that an entity having a reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount should consider in determining whether to perform the second step of the impairment test. Under the amendments in ASU 2011-08, an entity is no longer permitted to carry forward its detailed calculation of a reporting unit’s fair value from a prior year as previously permitted under ASC Topic 350. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of ASU 2011-08 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Update No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurements (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS (“ASU No. 2011-04”).  ASU No. 2011-04 provides a uniform framework for fair value measurements and related disclosures between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) and requires additional disclosures, including: (i) quantitative information about unobservable inputs used, a description of the valuation processes used, and a qualitative discussion about the sensitivity of the measurements to changes in the unobservable inputs, for Level 3 fair value measurements; (ii) fair value of financial instruments not measured at fair value but for which disclosure of fair value is required, based on their levels in the fair value hierarchy; and (iii) transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.  ASU No. 2011-04 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011.  The adoption of this update on January 1, 2012 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

We do not believe there would have been a material effect on the accompanying financial statements had any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards been adopted in the current period.

Reclassification

Certain amounts in the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 have been reclassified for comparative purposes to conform to the presentation in the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012.