Add
ARWD.OB to Portfolio
Set Alert
Email to a
Friend
| |||
|
|
Quotes & Info
|
| ARWD.OB > SEC Filings for ARWD.OB > Form 10-Q on 17-Nov-2008 | All Recent SEC Filings |
17-Nov-2008
Quarterly Report
GENERAL
We are a holding company whose only operating subsidiary as of September 30, 2008 is Arrow Ltd. The principal business of Arrow is to provide marketing, sales, distribution, corporate operations and corporate finance services for the commercial exploitation of natural resources around the world. Prior to November 2005, we used to be a telecommunications and recruiting company formally known as CNE Group, Inc. The company elected to shift its business focus to the worldwide commercial exploitation of natural resources.
ARROW RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, LTD.
In August 2005, Arrow entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("the Agreement") with its wholly-owned subsidiary, Arrow Ltd., in which Arrow (formerly CNE) was required to issue 10 million shares of Series AAA convertible preferred stock ("the Preferred Stock") to Arrow Ltd.'s designees, representing 96% of all outstanding equity of CNE on a fully diluted basis in exchange for the Marketing and Distribution Agreement provided to the Company by Arrow. Under the Agreement, the Company discontinued all former operations (CareerEngine, Inc., SRC and US Commlink.) and changed its name to Arrow Resources Development, Inc.
On August 1, 2005, Arrow Ltd. entered into the Marketing Agreement with Arrow Pte. and its subsidiaries in consideration for Arrow issuing a non-interest bearing note (the "Note") in the principal amount of $125,000,000 to Empire Advisory, LLC, ("Empire"), acting as agent, due on or before December 31, 2005. Empire is Arrow Pte.'s merchant banker. The Note permitted the Company, as Arrow's sole stockholder, to cause Arrow to repay the Note in cash or with 10,000,000 shares of the Company's non-voting Series AAA Preferred Stock. However, in December 2007, Arrow Pte. assessed that it would be unable to harvest the timber products in Papua, New Guinea due to the fact that the widely accepted international guidelines of the World Wildlife Federation had not been adopted by Papua, New Guinea.
This fact is adverse to the economic, social and environmental goals of Arrow Pte. because with the amount of land that the project was allotted combined with the agreed upon previous guidelines of the marketing and distribution agreement, yields would be significantly reduced. Given the significant change in the economics of the harvesting of the timber in Papua, New Guinea, Arrow Pte. has decided not to pursue any further operations in Papua, New Guinea given that the above restrictions cause a significant reduction in the volume of harvesting, which results in a disproportionate cost to yield ration at the Papua, New Guinea site which makes the project not economically feasible in the foreseeable future.
Based on the fact that Arrow Pte. is unable to fulfill their part of the agreement, the Company has reached the conclusion that the marketing and distribution agreement has no value. Therefore, the Company has fully impaired the value of the agreement and recorded a loss on write-off of the marketing and distribution agreement of $125,000,000 at December 31, 2007. (See Note 6.)
On April 4, 2006 Arrow Resource Development Ltd. (the Company's Bermuda subsidiary) entered into an agency agreement with APR in which the Company will provide financial consultancy services to APR for an annual fee, payable as collected, equal to 10% of APR's gross revenue payable commencing upon execution. This agreement provides for the company to collect all revenues from all operations, retain its 10% fee and disperse the remaining 90% to APR and its subsidiaries. The term of the agreement is effective upon execution, shall remain in effect for ninety-nine (99) years and shall not be terminated until the expiration of at least ten (10) years. As of September 30, 2008, the Company has not recovered any revenue from this agreement.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net revenue and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to our allowance for doubtful accounts, inventory reserves, and goodwill and purchased intangible asset valuations, and asset impairments. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe the following critical accounting policies, among others, affect the significant judgments and estimates we use in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.
ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS, REVENUE RECOGNITION
We evaluate the collectibility of our accounts receivable based on a combination of factors. In circumstances where we are aware of a specific customer's inability to meet its financial obligations to us, we record a specific allowance to reduce the net receivable to the amount we reasonably believe will be collected. For all other customers, we record allowances for doubtful accounts based on the length of time the receivables are past due, the prevailing business environment and our historical experience. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate or if economic conditions were to worsen, additional allowances may be required in the future.
We recognize product revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the sales price is fixed, the service is performed or products are shipped to customers, which is when title and risk of loss transfers to the customers, and collectibility is reasonably assured.
VALUATION OF GOODWILL, PURCHASED INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND LONG-LIVED ASSETS
The Company's only intangible asset was comprised of a marketing and distribution agreement with Arrow Pte. In accordance with SFAS 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" this intangible agreement is no longer amortized; instead the intangible is tested for impairment on an annual basis. The Company assesses the impairment of identifiable intangibles and goodwill whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors the Company considers to be important which could trigger an impairment review include the following:
· Significant inability to achieve expected projected future operating results;
· Significant changes in the manner in which the work is able to be performed what increases costs;
· Significant negative impact on the environment.
We perform goodwill impairment tests on an annual basis and on an interim basis if an event or circumstance indicates that it is more likely than not that impairment has occurred. We assess the impairment of other amortizable intangible assets and long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors we consider important that could trigger an impairment review include significant underperformance to historical or projected operating results, substantial changes in our business strategy and significant negative industry or economic trends. If such indicators are present, we evaluate the fair value of the goodwill. For other intangible assets and long-lived assets we determine whether the sum of the estimated undiscounted cash flows attributable to the assets in question is less than their caring value. If less, we recognize an impairment loss based on the excess of the carrying amount of the assets over their respective fair values.
Fair value of goodwill is determined by using a valuation model based on market capitalization. Fair value of other intangible assets and long-lived assets is determined by future cash flows, appraisals or other methods. If the long-lived asset determined to be impaired is to be held and used, we recognize an impairment charge to the extent the anticipated net cash flows attributable to the asset are less than the asset's carrying value. The fair value of the long-lived asset then becomes the asset's new carrying value, which we depreciate over the remaining estimated useful life of the asset.
RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 163, "Accounting for Financial Guarantee Insurance Contracts-an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 60." Diversity exists in practice in accounting for financial guarantee insurance contracts by insurance enterprises under FASB Statement No. 60, Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises. This results in inconsistencies in the recognition and measurement of claim liabilities. This Statement requires that an insurance enterprise recognize a claim liability prior to an event of default (insured event) when there is evidence that credit deterioration has occurred in an insured financial obligation. This Statement requires expanded disclosures about financial guarantee insurance contracts. The accounting and disclosure requirements of the Statement will improve the quality of information provided to users of financial statements. The adoption of FASB 163 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial position.
In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, "The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." The current GAAP hierarchy, as set forth in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 69, The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, has been criticized because (1) it is directed to the auditor rather than the entity, (2) it is complex, and (3) it ranks FASB Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts. The FASB believes that the GAAP hierarchy should be directed to entities because it is the entity (not its auditor) that is responsible for selecting accounting principles for financial statements that are presented in conformity with GAAP. Accordingly, the FASB concluded that the GAAP hierarchy should reside in the accounting literature established by the FASB and is issuing this Statement to achieve that result. This Statement is effective 60 days following the SEC's approval of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board amendments to AU Section 411, The Meaning of Present Fairly in Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The adoption of FASB 162 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial position.
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, "Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133." Constituents have expressed concerns that the existing disclosure requirements in FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, do not provide adequate information about how derivative and hedging activities affect an entity's financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 requires enhanced disclosures about an entity's derivative and hedging activities and thereby improves the transparency of financial reporting. This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early application encouraged. This Statement encourages, but does not require, comparative disclosures for earlier periods at initial adoption. The adoption of FASB 161 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial position.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No.160, "Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements - an amendment of ARB No. 51". SFAS No.160 requires that the ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent be clearly identified, labeled, and presented in the consolidated statement of financial position within equity, in the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest on the face of the consolidated statement of income, and that Entities provide sufficient disclosures that clearly identify and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the interests of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS No.160 is effective for fiscal years, beginning on or after December 15, 2008 and cannot be applied earlier.
In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141(revised 2007), "Business Combinations," ("FASB 141R"). This standard requires that entities recognize the assets acquired, liabilities assumed, contractual contingencies and contingent consideration measured at their fair value at the acquisition date for any business combination consummated after the effective date. It further requires that acquisition-related costs are to be recognized separately from the acquisition and expensed as incurred. FASB 141R is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008.
The Company does not anticipate that the adoption of SFAS No. 141R and No. 160 will have an impact on the Company's overall results of operations or financial position, unless the Company makes a business acquisition in which there is a noncontrolling interest.
In December 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 110, "Use of a Simplified Method in Developing Expected Term of Share Options" ("SAB 110"). SAB 110 expresses the current view of the staff that it will accept a company's election to use the simplified method discussed in Staff Accounting Bulletin 107, Share Based Payment , ("SAB 107"), for estimating the expected term of "plain vanilla" share options regardless of whether the company has sufficient information to make more refined estimates. SAB 110 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2008. The adoption of SAB 110 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's financial position.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
In November 2005, we discontinued and disposed of our subsidiaries except for Arrow Ltd. in conjunction with the recapitalization of the Company. The Company had no revenue during this period as Arrow Ltd. is still in the development stage. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, we incurred consulting fees of $1,031,772 and $3,124,065, of which, $956,967 and $2,734,192 was related to services provided by the Management Agreement with Empire under which Empire provides the services of Chief Executive Officer and administrative services to the Company and consulting services provided by Hans Karundeng and Rudolph Karundeng under Engagement and Consulting Agreements. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, we incurred consulting fees of $899,311 and $2,611,020, of which, $858,508 and $2,473,835 was related to services provided by the Management Agreement with Empire under which Empire provides the services of Chief Executive Officer and administrative services to the Company and consulting services provided by Hans Karundeng and Rudolph Karundeng under Engagement and Consulting Agreements.
REVENUES
There was no revenue for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 as the Company is in development stage.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
There was no cost of goods sold for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 as the Company is in development stage.
OTHER EXPENSES
Compensation, consulting and related costs increased to $1,031,772 and $3,124,065 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to $899,311 and $2,611,020 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, $7,955,066 for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to December 31, 2007, and $11,079,131 for the accumulated during the development stage for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to September 30, 2008. The increase was mostly due to consulting fees for services provided by the Management Agreement with Empire under which Empire provides the services of Chief Executive Officer and administrative services to the Company and consulting services provided by Hans Karundeng and Rudolph Karundeng under Engagement and Consulting Agreements.
General and administrative expenses increased to $29,022 and $180,525 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to $44,356 and $98.761 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, $554,177 for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to December 31, 2007, and $734,702 for the accumulated during the development stage for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to September 30, 2008. This was primarily due to an increase in advertising and accounting expense.
Directors' compensation increased to $65,000 and $205,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, none for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, $260,178 for the year ended December 31, 2007 as compared to $465,178 accumulated during the development stage for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to September 30, 2008. The increase was due to a December 3, 2007 resolution to compensate all members of the Board of Directors on an annualized basis of $50,000 in cash and 250,000 shares in the Company's restricted common stock, effective January 1, 2007.
Delaware franchise taxes amount decreased to $105 and $315 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 compared to $14,413 and $43,239 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, $185,001 for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to December 31, 2007 and $185,316 for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to September 30, 2008. The Company is delinquent in its filing and payment of the Delaware Franchise Tax report and, accordingly, is not in good standing. At September 30, 2008, the Company has estimated unpaid Delaware franchise taxes for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 in the amount of $57,650, $57,650 and $69,699, respectively. The Company did not file their tax returns on time due to an administrative oversight. The Company hopes to file the delinquent tax returns in the third quarter of 2008 and pay the amount owned in full during the fourth quarter of 2008.
Total operating expenses during the development stage increased to $1,125,899 and $3,509,905 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 as compared to $958,080 and $2,753,020 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, $8,954,422 for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to December 31, 2007, and $12,464,327 accumulated during the development stage for the period from inception (November 15, 2005) to September 30, 2008.
On March 31, 2008, the Company received a $150,000 non-interest bearing advance from John Marozzi, which is due on demand. As payment for his services, the Company will repay the full amount of the note plus 1,000,000 shares of unregistered restricted common stock. The Company recorded $40,000 of debt issue costs related to the 1,000,000 shares of common stock that are now issuable John Marozzi as of March 31, 2008 (See Note 5). On May 5, 2008, John Marozzi received repayment of $50,000 from the Company leaving a balance of $100,000 unpaid principal as of September 30, 2008.
On April 8, 2008, the Company received a $50,000 non-interest bearing advance from Barry Weintraub, which was due on demand. In repayment, the Company repaid the full amount of the note on April 30, 2008 and is obligated to issue 2,000,000 shares of the Company's unregistered restricted common stock to Barry Weintraub. The Company recorded $120,000 in debt issue costs related to the 2,000,000 shares of common stock that were issuable to Barry Weintraub as of September 30, 2008 (See Note 5).
On April 24, 2008, the Company received a $38,000 non-interest bearing advance from Christopher T. Joffe, which is due on demand. In repayment, the Company will repay the full amount of the note plus 304,000 shares of the Company's unregistered restricted common stock. The Company recorded $24,320 in debt issue costs related to the 304,000 shares of common stock that are issuable to Christopher T. Joffe as of September 30, 2008 (See Note 5).
On April 24, 2008, the Company received another $38,000 non-interest bearing advance from James R. McConnaughy, which is due on demand. In repayment, the Company will repay the full amount of the note plus 304,000 shares of the Company's unregistered restricted common stock. The Company recorded $24,320 in debt issue costs related to the 304,000 shares of common stock that are issuable to James R. McConnaughy as of September 30, 2008 (See Note 5).
On April 25, 2008, the Company received a $12,000 non-interest bearing advance from John E. McConnaughy, III, which is due on demand. In repayment, the Company will repay the full amount of the note plus 96,000 shares of unregistered restricted common stock. The Company recorded $7,680 in debt issue costs related to the 96,000 shares of common stock that are issuable to John E. McConnaughy, III as of September 30, 2008 (See Note 5).
On September 10, 2008, the Company received a $100,000 non-interest bearing advance from John Frugone, which is due on demand. In repayment, the Company will repay the full amount of the note in cash over two years from the date the note is executed. John Frugone is a relative of Peter Frugone, the Company's CEO and also a Company Director.
In December 2007, Arrow Pte. assessed that it would be unable to harvest the timber products in Papua, New Guinea due to the fact that the widely accepted international guidelines of the World Wildlife Federation had not been adopted by Papua, New Guinea. This fact is adverse to the economic, social and environmental goals of Arrow Pte. because with the amount of land that the project was allotted combined with the agreed upon previous guidelines of the marketing and distribution agreement, yields would be significantly reduced. Given the significant change in the economics of the harvesting of the timber in Papua, New Guinea, Arrow Pte. has decided not to pursue any further operations in Papua, New Guinea given that the above restrictions cause a significant reduction in the volume of harvesting, which results in a disproportionate cost to yield ration at the Papua, New Guinea site which makes the project not economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Based on the fact that Arrow Pte. is unable to fulfill their part of the agreement, the Company has reached the conclusion that the marketing and distribution agreement has no value. Therefore, the Company has fully impaired the value of the agreement and recorded a loss on write-off of the marketing and distribution agreement of $125,000,000 at December 31, 2007. (See Note 6.)
The Company was a party to a lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to $60,000 and 1,300,000 of common stock based upon CNE's failure to compensate him for services related to identifying financing for CNE, based upon an agreement that was entered into between CNE and the plaintiff in April 2005. On November 28, 2007, the Company settled the lawsuit with the plaintiff. In full and final settlement of the claims asserted in the action, the Company has paid the plaintiff $10,000 in cash and issued the plaintiff 200,000 shares of the Company's common stock having a fair value of $12,000, based on the public traded share price on December 21, 2007. The settlement resulted in a loss on debt conversion of $2,000 during the year ended December 31, 2007 because an estimated liability had been recognized prior to 2007.
In May 2006, the Company was advised that it was alleged to be in default of a settlement agreement entered into in January of 2005 by CNE, its predecessor company, related to the release of unrestricted, freely-tradable, non-legend shares of stock. In August 2006, the plaintiffs, alleging the default, obtained a judgment in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court Broward County, Florida for approximately $1,000,000. On November 13, 2007, legal counsel engaged by Management commenced an action on the Company's behalf in the above Circuit Court seeking to vacate and set aside the 2006 judgment asserting claims under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Our counsel's evaluation is that the Company has only a limited chance of having the 2006 judgment opened by the Court because Florida law provides very narrow grounds for opening a judgment once a year has passed from its entry. The Courts are generally reluctant to disturb final judgments and the Company's grounds for opening the judgment depend on the Court's adopting a somewhat novel argument regarding such matters. If, however, the Court does open the default judgment, the Company will then have the opportunity to defend the 2006 action and, in such event, our counsel believes that the Company has a reasonable chance of succeeding in defending that claim, at least in part, based on the documents he has reviewed. As of December 31, 2007, the Company has accrued $1,053,385 related to this matter.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
In November 2005, we discontinued and disposed of our subsidiaries except for Arrow Ltd. in conjunction with the recapitalization of the Company. The Company was recapitalized by the conversion of $125,000,000 preferred convertible note related to the purchase of the Marketing Agreement. As part of the recapitalization plan, the Company settled all outstanding debt except for $220,000. As of September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007 the Company had $16 and $1,040 of cash, respectively. We had losses of $1,125,899 and $3,776,225 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, and do not currently generate any revenue. We had losses of $958,080 and $2,753,020 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007. In order for us to survive during the next twelve months we will need to secure approximately $350,000 of debt or equity financing. We expect to raise the additional financing in the future but there can be no guarantee that we will be successful.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
At September 30, 2008, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements.
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
We used $1,787,062 of cash in our operating activities during the nine months ended September 30, 2008. We had a net loss of $3,776,225. We had an increase in stock-based directors' compensation to be issued of $55,000, accounts payable and accrued expenses payable of $1,334,342 mostly related to compensation and management fees, debt issue costs related to note payables of $216,321, common stock to be issued for consulting and marketing services of $87,501, common stock to be issued for cash received by the Company of $50,000, and common stock to be issued for consulting and marketing services of $245,999. In addition, we had a working capital deficiency of $11,746,821 at September 30, 2008. We did not have any material commitments for capital expenditures as of September 30, 2008.
INFLATION
We believe that inflation does not significantly impact our current operations.
RECENT TRANSACTIONS
On November 20, 2007, the Board of Directors approved a private placement offering (the "Offering") approximating $2,000,000 to accredited investors at $1.00 per share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The Offering will consist of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Stock that will be convertible into our common stock. These securities are not required to be and will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933. Shares issued under . . .
|
|