XML 79 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Note 3 - Supplemental Balance Sheet Information
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]  
Supplemental Balance Sheet Disclosures [Text Block]
Note 3 - Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

a.             Inventory

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market with cost determined under the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method.  The composition of inventories was:

   
December 31,
 
   
2013
   
2012
 
             
Raw materials
  $ 16,239     $ 15,023  
Work in process
    2,412       4,863  
Finished products
    7,402       10,484  
    $ 26,053     $ 30,370  

b.             Property, Plant and Equipment

Major classes of property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

   
December 31,
 
   
2013
   
2012
 
             
Land
  $ 123     $ 123  
Buildings and Leasehold Improvements
    7,412       7,381  
Machinery and Equipment
    47,405       46,606  
Furniture and Fixtures
    1,866       1,810  
Computer Hardware and Software
    4,247       4,103  
Construction in Progress
    1,073       1,275  
      62,126       61,298  
Less:  Accumulated Depreciation
    51,924       48,883  
    $ 10,202     $ 12,415  

Estimated costs to complete construction in progress as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 were approximately $472 and $1,154, respectively.

Depreciation expense was $2,957 and $3,306 for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

c.             Impairment of Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Long-Lived Assets

We applied the provisions of FASB ASC Topics 350-20 and 820 during the annual goodwill impairment analysis performed in October 2013. The first, optional, step of the goodwill analysis is to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of the identified reporting units exceeds the respective carrying value. This qualitative analysis includes but is not limited to, an evaluation of the macroeconomic, industry or market, and cost factors relevant to the reporting unit as well as financial performance and entity or reporting unit events that may affect the value of the reporting unit.  We elected to forego the qualitative assessment on all three of the identified reporting units. If the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds its carrying value cannot be supported, or if the reporting unit is not subjected to the qualitative assessment, the fair value of the reporting unit is determined using a quantitative assessment. The fair value for our reporting units subjected to this quantitative test could not be determined using readily available quoted Level 1 inputs or Level 2 inputs that were observable in active markets.  Therefore, we used an income approach, to estimate the fair value of the reporting units, using Level 3 inputs.  To estimate the fair value of the reporting unit, we used significant estimates and judgmental factors.  The key estimates and factors used in the valuation model included revenue growth rates and profit margins based on internal forecasts, as well as industry and market based terminal growth rates, inputs to the weighted-average cost of capital used to discount future cash flows, and earnings multiples.  As a result of the goodwill impairment tests performed during 2013 and 2012, no impairment was indicated.

Similar to goodwill, we applied the provisions of FASB Topics 350-30 and 820, during the annual indefinite-lived intangible asset analysis performed in September and October 2013. The first, optional, step of the analysis is to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of the indentified indefinite-lived intangible assets exceeds the respective carrying values. This qualitative analysis includes but is not limited to, an evaluation of the macroeconomic, industry or market, and other factors relevant to the indefinite-lived intangible asset.  We elected to forego the qualitative assessment on all four identified indefinite-lived intangible assets. If a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the indefinite-lived intangible asset cannot be supported or if this optional step is not applied to the indefinite-lived intangible asset, the fair value of the indefinite-lived intangible asset is determined using a quantitative assessment. The fair value for our indefinite-lived intangible assets subjected to this quantitative test could not be determined using readily available quoted Level 1 inputs or Level 2 inputs that were observable in active markets.  Therefore, we used a royalty relief approach, to estimate the fair value of the indefinite-lived intangible assets, using Level 3 inputs.  To estimate the fair value of the indefinite-lived intangible asset, we used significant estimates and judgmental factors.  The key estimates and factors used in the valuation model included revenue growth rates, as well as industry and market based terminal growth rates, inputs to the weighted-average cost of capital used to discount future cash flows, and determined royalty rates.  As a result of the impairment tests performed during 2013 and 2012, no impairment was indicated.

During 2013 and 2012, we also evaluated certain fixed assets for impairment utilizing valuation methods that are classified as Level 3 inputs. Based upon the results of this evaluation, no material impairment was indicated.

d.             Goodwill

The following table summarizes the goodwill activity by segment for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012:

   
Battery &
Energy Products
   
Communications
Systems
   
Discontinued
Operations
   
Total
 
                         
Balance at December 31, 2011
  $ 4,838     $ 11,493     $ 2,025     $ 18,356  
                                 
Sale of RedBlack Communications
                    (2,025 )     (2,025 )
Effect of foreign currency translations
    13       -       -       13  
                                 
Balance at December 31, 2012
  $ 4,851     $ 11,493     $ -     $ 16,344  
Effect of foreign currency translations
    75       -       -       75  
                                 
Balance at December 31, 2013
  $ 4,926     $ 11,493     $ -     $ 16,419  

e.              Other Intangible Assets

The composition of intangible assets was:

   
December 31, 2013
 
   
Gross Assets
   
Accumulated
Amortization
   
Net
 
                   
Trademarks
  $ 3,568     $ -     $ 3,568  
Patents and technology
    4,511       3,941       570  
Customer relationships
    4,033       3,562       471  
Distributor relationships
    393       356       37  
Non-compete agreements
    218       218       -  
                         
Total intangible assets
  $ 12,723     $ 8,077     $ 4,646  

   
December 31, 2012
 
   
Gross Assets
   
Accumulated
Amortization
   
Net
 
                   
Trademarks
  $ 3,564     $ -     $ 3,564  
Patents and technology
    4,495       3,702       793  
Customer relationships
    3,998       3,366       632  
Distributor relationships
    380       330       50  
Non-compete agreements
    217       217       -  
                         
Total intangible assets
  $ 12,654     $ 7,615     $ 5,039  

Amortization expense for intangible assets was $402 and $497 for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The change in the cost value of total intangible assets is a result of the effect of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations.