XML 52 R7.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
NOTE 2 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Accounting Policies [Abstract]  
Significant Accounting Policies [Text Block]
NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS

Cash and cash equivalents include cash deposits and highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased.

RESTRICTED CASH

Restricted cash represents a certificate of deposit held in a cash collateral account as required by JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (“Bank”), to secure our obligations under our credit card line with the Bank.

LIQUIDITY

On April 11, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) notified us that we had failed to maintain a minimum market value of listed securities (“MVLS”) of $35,000 over the previous 30 consecutive business days as required by The NASDAQ Capital Market set forth in Listing Rule 5550(b)(2). NASDAQ also advised us in its letter that we did not meet the requirements under NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5550(b)(1), which requires maintenance of $2,500 of stockholders’ equity, and Rule 5550(b)(3), which requires net income from continuing operations of $500 or more in 2012 or in two of the three years 2010, 2011 and 2012.  Under Rule 5550, we could regain compliance and avoid the potential for delisting of our common stock by satisfying any one of the minimum MVLS test, the minimum equity test or the minimum net income test. In order to meet the minimum equity requirement, we increased stockholders’ equity by selling 662,000 shares for net proceeds of $3,400 in May 2013. On August 21, 2013, NASDAQ notified us that since the May 2013 sale of securities, which was at a discount to the then current market price, included certain officers and directors, the private placement required shareholder approval under Listing Rule 5635(c).We held a special meeting held on September 30, 2013 at which our stockholders voted to ratify this sale of shares to our officers and directors.  On October 4, 2013, we received notification from NASDAQ that we have regained compliance with Listing Rule 5635(c) and Listing Rule 5550(b) and that this matter is now closed.

As of September 30, 2013, Asure’s principal source of liquidity consisted of $3,106 of current cash and cash equivalents as well as future cash generated from operations.  We believe that we have and/or will generate sufficient cash for our short- and long-term needs, including meeting the requirements of our amended Notes Payable, and the related debt covenant requirements. We are continuing to reduce expenses as a percentage of revenue and thus may utilize our cash balances in the short-term to reduce long-term costs. Based on current internal projections, we believe that we currently have and/or will generate sufficient cash for our operational needs, including any required debt payments, for at least the next twelve months.

Management is focused on growing our existing product offering as well as our customer base to increase our recurring revenues. We are also exploring additional strategic acquisitions in the near future, although we have no agreements to make any acquisition at this time.   We would fund any acquisitions with equity, available cash, future cash from operations, or debt from outside sources.  

We cannot assure that we can grow our cash balances or limit our cash consumption and thus maintain sufficient cash balances for our planned operations or future acquisitions. Future business demands may lead to cash utilization at levels greater than recently experienced. We may need to raise additional capital in the future. However, we cannot assure that we will be able to raise additional capital on acceptable terms, or at all. Subject to the foregoing, management believes that we have sufficient capital and liquidity to fund and cultivate the growth of our current and future operations for at least the next 12 months and to maintain compliance with the terms of our debt agreements and related covenants or to obtain compliance through debt repayments made with the available cash on hand or anticipated for receipt in the ordinary course of operations.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance on disclosures of additional information with respect to changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) balances by component and significant items reclassified out of AOCI. Expanded disclosures for presentation of changes in AOCI involve disaggregating the total change of each component of other comprehensive income as well as presenting separately for each such component the portion of the change in AOCI related to (1) amounts reclassified into income and (2) current-period other comprehensive income. Additionally, for amounts reclassified into income, we are required to disclose in one location, based upon each specific AOCI component, the amounts impacting individual income statement line items. We are required to disclose the income statement line item impacts only for components of AOCI reclassified into income in their entirety. We would make the disclosures required with respect to income statement line item impacts in either the notes to the consolidated financial statements or parenthetically on the face of the financial statements. For us, this Accounting Standards Update was effective beginning January 1, 2013. Because this standard only impacts presentation and disclosure requirements, its adoption did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition. 

In July 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2013-11 (ASU 2013-11), which updated the guidance in ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes. The amendments in ASU 2013-11 generally provide guidance for the presentation of unrecognized tax benefits when a net operating loss carryforward, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward exists at the reporting date. The guidance requires an unrecognized tax benefit to be presented as a decrease in a deferred tax asset where a net operating loss, a similar tax loss, or a tax credit carryforward exists and certain criteria are met. This guidance will become effective for us as of January 1, 2014 and is consistent with our present practice.

CONTINGENCIES

In December 2012, we demanded a purchase price adjustment from PeopleCube Holding B.V. and Meeting Maker Holding B.V., the sellers of the capital stock of Meeting Maker – United States, Inc. (dba PeopleCube) that we purchased in July 2012, based on matters we discovered after closing.  Both parties agreed for the post-closing adjustment to be resolved by an independent accountant consistent with the purchase agreement.  In January 2013, we filed a claim in federal court in Texas seeking to compel the sellers to comply with the working capital adjustment process.  The sellers simultaneously filed a claim in the state court of Massachusetts alleging that we did not comply with the working capital adjustment process.  Our claim was amended in April 2013 to add contractual indemnification claims for the sellers’ breach of warranties and representations made in the purchase agreement. In May 2013, the sellers amended their original complaint to allege misrepresentations and omissions by us in connection with the purchase transaction.  The sellers seek an unspecified amount of damages and the trebling of such damages once calculated. We have filed a counterclaim in Massachusetts for contractual indemnification claims for the sellers’ breach of their warranties and representations.  

In September 2013, we reached an agreement (based upon the determination by the independent accountant) to settle our purchase price post-closing adjustment dispute with the sellers. The parties agreed to a post-closing adjustment due to us with accrued interest of $540. The parties agreed to reduce the original $3,000 deferred purchase payment by the post-closing adjustment amount. This also had the effect of reducing our long-term debt by a like amount. The remaining deferred purchase price balance is now $2,460.

The parties also agreed to dismiss the litigation and claims in Texas in favor of consolidating all remaining disputes in the Massachusetts state court. We will continue to seek contractual indemnification for the sellers’ breach of warranties and representations made in the purchase agreement in Massachusetts as a counterclaim to the sellers’ complaint. The litigation is currently in discovery. We continue to believe that the sellers' claims for damages against us are without merit and are continuing to defend them vigorously.