Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Accounting Policies [Abstract]  
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation: The information presented as of September 30, 2014 and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 is unaudited, but includes all adjustments (which consist only of normal recurring adjustments) that the management of Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Navidea, the Company, or we) believes to be necessary for the fair presentation of results for the periods presented. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The balances as of September 30, 2014 and the results for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the year. The consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with Navidea’s audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013, which were included as part of our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Navidea and our wholly owned subsidiaries, Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Limited and Cardiosonix Ltd. All significant inter-company accounts were eliminated in consolidation.

Financial Instruments and Fair Value: In accordance with current accounting standards, the fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value, giving the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

Level 1 – Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities;

Level 2 – Quoted prices in markets that are not active or financial instruments for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly; and

Level 3 – Prices or valuations that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable.

A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. In determining the appropriate levels, we perform a detailed analysis of the assets and liabilities whose fair value is measured on a recurring basis. At each reporting period, all assets and liabilities for which the fair value measurement is based on significant unobservable inputs or instruments which trade infrequently and therefore have little or no price transparency are classified as Level 3. See Note 2.

The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instruments:
Cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities: The carrying amounts approximate fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments.
Notes payable: The carrying value of our debt at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 primarily consists of the face amount of the notes less unamortized discounts. See Note 8. At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, certain notes payable were also required to be recorded at fair value. The estimated fair value of our debt was calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis as well as a probability-weighted Monte Carlo simulation. These valuation methods include Level 3 inputs such as the estimated current market interest rate for similar instruments with similar creditworthiness. Unrealized gains and losses on the fair value of the debt are classified in other expenses as a change in the fair value of financial instruments in the consolidated statements of operations. At September 30, 2014, the fair value of our notes payable is approximately $36.7 million.
Derivative liabilities: Derivative liabilities are related to certain outstanding warrants which are recorded at fair value. The assumptions used to calculate fair value as of September 30, 2014 include volatility, a risk-free rate and expected dividends. In addition, we considered non-performance risk and determined that such risk is minimal. Unrealized gains and losses on the derivatives are classified in other expenses as a change in the fair value of financial instruments in the consolidated statements of operations. See Notes 2 and 9.

Revenue Recognition: We currently generate revenue primarily from sales of Lymphoseek. Our standard shipping terms are FOB shipping point, and title and risk of loss passes to the customer upon delivery to a carrier for shipment from Cardinal Health’s national distribution center to another point of destination. We generally recognize sales revenue related to sales of our products when the products are shipped. Our customers have no right to return products purchased in the ordinary course of business.

We earn additional revenues based on a percentage of the actual net revenues achieved by Cardinal Health on sales to end customers made during each fiscal year. The amount we charge Cardinal Health related to end customer sales of Lymphoseek are subject to a retroactive annual adjustment. To the extent that we can reasonably estimate the end-customer prices received by Cardinal Health, we record sales based upon these estimates at the time of sale. If we are unable to reasonably estimate end customer sales prices related to products sold, we record revenue related to these product sales at the minimum (i.e., floor) price provided for under our distribution agreement with Cardinal Health.

We also earn revenue related to milestones as defined in our distribution agreements. Such revenue is recognized when the milestones are achieved with no future obligations and payments under the agreements become contractually due.

We generate additional revenue from grants to support various product development initiatives. We generally recognize grant revenue when expenses reimbursable under the grants have been paid and payments under the grants become contractually due.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The core principle of ASU 2014-09 is built on the contract between a vendor and a customer for the provision of goods and services. It attempts to depict the exchange of rights and obligations between the parties in the pattern of revenue recognition based on the consideration to which the vendor is entitled. To accomplish this objective, ASU 2014-09 requires five basic steps: (i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. Entities will generally be required to make more estimates and use more judgment than under current guidance, which will be highlighted for users through increased disclosure requirements. ASU 2014-09 is effective for public entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods therein. Three basic transition methods are available - full retrospective, retrospective with certain practical expedients, and a cumulative effect approach. Early adoption is prohibited. We are currently evaluating the impact of our pending adoption of ASU 2014-09 on our consolidated financial statements and have not yet determined the method by which we will adopt the standard in 2017.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation-Stock Compensation. ASU 2014-12 requires that a performance target included in a share-based payment award that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition. Therefore, under the existing stock compensation guidance in Topic 718, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant-date fair value of the award. Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. If the performance target becomes probable of being achieved before the end of the requisite service period, the remaining unrecognized compensation cost should be recognized prospectively over the remaining requisite service period. The total amount of compensation cost recognized during and after the requisite service period should reflect the number of awards that are expected to vest and should be adjusted to reflect those awards that ultimately vest. The requisite service period ends when the employee can cease rendering service and still be eligible to vest in the award if the performance target is achieved. ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods therein. Earlier adoption is permitted. Entities may apply the amendments in ASU 2014-12 either (a) prospectively to all awards granted or modified after the effective date or (b) retrospectively to all awards with performance targets that are outstanding as of the beginning of the earliest annual period presented in the financial statements and to all new or modified awards thereafter. If retrospective transition is adopted, the cumulative effect of applying ASU 2014-12 as of the beginning of the earliest annual period presented in the financial statements should be recognized as an adjustment to the opening retained earnings balance at that date. Additionally, if retrospective transition is adopted, an entity may use hindsight in measuring and recognizing the compensation cost. We do not expect the adoption of ASU 2014-12 to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements-Going Concern. ASU 2014-15 defines when and how companies are required to disclose going concern uncertainties, which must be evaluated each interim and annual period. ASU 2014-15 requires management to determine whether substantial doubt exists regarding the entity's going concern presumption. Substantial doubt about an entity's ability to continue as a going concern exists when relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that the entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued). If substantial doubt exists, certain disclosures are required; the extent of those disclosures depends on an evaluation of management's plans (if any) to mitigate the going concern uncertainty. ASU 2014-15 is effective prospectively for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and to annual and interim periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We do not expect the adoption of ASU 2014-15 to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements; however, it may affect our disclosures.