UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

OR

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 000-28467

TRINSIC, INC.

601 SOUTH HARBOUR ISLAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 220
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
(813) 273-6261
(Address, including zip code, and
telephone number including area code, of
Registrant’s principal executive offices)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(B) OF THE ACT: NONE

      SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(G) OF THE ACT: COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE, PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE RIGHTS

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12B-2 of the Exchange Act)

Yes o No þ

The number of shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of May 13, 2005 was approximately 55,184,402.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

TRINSIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

TRINSIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

4

TRINSIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements

5

TRINSIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

1. NATURE OF BUSINESS

DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Trinsic, Inc. and subsidiaries (“we” or “us”) is an emerging provider of advanced, integrated telecommunications services targeted to residential and business subscribers. We provide local and long distance telephone services in combination with enhanced communication features accessible through the telephone, the Internet and certain personal digital assistants. We provide these services in forty-nine states, but our customers are primarily concentrated in six states. We recently began providing services utilizing Internet protocol, often referred to as "IP telephony," "voice over Internet protocol" or "VolP." We also provide long-distance telecommunications services to customers on a nationwide basis.

We introduced our services on a wholesale basis during the first quarter of 2002. This provides other companies with the opportunity to provide local, long-distance and enhanced telephone service to their own residential and business end user customers on a private label basis by utilizing our telephone exchange services, enhanced services platform, infrastructure and back-office operations.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

The accompanying consolidated financial statements were prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business is dependent on, among other things, the company’s ability to operate profitably, to generate cash flow from operations and to obtain funding adequate to fund its business.

We have a limited operating history and our operations are subject to material risks and uncertainties, particularly related to the evolution of the regulatory environment, which impacts our access to and cost of the network elements that we utilize to provide services to our customers.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception as a result of developing our business, performing ongoing research and development, building and maintaining our network infrastructure and technology, the sale and promotion of our services, and ongoing administrative expenditures. As of March 31, 2005, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $409.5 million and $5.1 million in cash and cash equivalents. We have funded our expenditures primarily through operating revenues, private securities offerings, various working capital facilities, our standby credit facility and an initial public offering.

For the three months ended March 31, 2005, net cash used in operating activities was $2.7 million as compared to net cash provided by operating activities of $3.2 million in the prior year period. The decrease is largely due to the increase in our accounts receivable balance.

In April 2004, the company secured an asset based loan facility with Textron Financial Corporation (“Textron”), which provided up to $25 million to fund operations. We utilized $13.9 million as of March 31, 2005, which was approximately the maximum loan availability at that time. Effective January 27, 2005, we entered into a Modification and Termination Agreement with Textron. Among other things the Modification and Termination Agreement provided that Textron would forbear from exercising default rights and remedies until May 31, 2005, would waive the early termination fee and modify the annual facility fee. We agreed to pay a modification fee of $150,000.

On April 4, 2005, we entered into an accounts receivable financing agreement with Thermo Credit, LLC (“Thermo”). The agreement provides for the sale of up to $22 million of our accounts receivable on a continuous basis to Thermo, subject to selection criteria as defined in the contract. We plan to use this facility to fully replace our credit facility with Textron. Expected proceeds from this facility will approximate the year end Textron loan balance. On May 6, 2005, we used proceeds from this accounts receivable financing facility to pay off our loan balance with Textron.

By letter dated May 6, 2005, the Nasdaq Stock Market has notified us that the market value of our common stock remains below the minimum of $35 million required by Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(B)(ii) and accordingly our shares will be delisted from the Nasdaq SmallCap Market at the opening of business on May 17, 2005. We have appealed the decision. The appeal will stay the delisting pending a hearing before a hearing panel. At the hearing we will be required to provide a definitive plan for regaining compliance. We have no definitive plan at this time.

6

Our net cash used in investing activities decreased by $1.2 million to $1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, compared to $2.4 million the prior year period. The reduction was attributable to the purchasing of less property and equipment during the first quarter of 2005 as compared to the first quarter of 2004.

For the three months ended March 31, 2005, net cash provided by financing activities was $7.7 million as compared to net cash used in financing activities of $1.0 million for the prior year period. This change is primarily the result of funds drawn on our standby credit facility. As discussed in Note 4, as of May 9, 2005, the standby credit facility is fully drawn.

Management closely monitors liquidity and updates its forecast regularly. While the current regulatory climate makes the cash forecast very difficult to predict, the most recent forecast for the remainder of 2005 reflects positive cash flow from operations before interest charges. There can be no assurance that the forecasted cash flow will occur.

The company’s inability to operate profitably and to consistently generate cash flows from operations, its reliance therefore on external funding either from loans or equity raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

2. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared by us in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and are in the form prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes for complete financial statements as required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The interim unaudited financial statements should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on April 15, 2005. In the opinion of management, all adjustments considered necessary for a fair statement have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2005.

RECLASSIFICATION

Certain amounts in the consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004 have been reclassified to conform to the presentation for the three months ended March 31, 2005.

3. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

(a) Significant Accounting Policies

Our significant accounting policies are included in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Effective January 1, 2005, we have deferred the fee charged to us by the Independent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILECs”) in the activation of our business VoIP customers. This fee and any acquisition revenue received from the customers are being deferred and amortized over the life of each customer’s signed contract At March 31, 2005, unamortized deferred set up fees amounted to $0.5 million.

(b) Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In March 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Interpretation Number 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143” (“FIN47”). FIN 47 clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,” and also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement. FIN 47 is effective no later than the end of fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005. We do not anticipate that the implementation of FIN 47 will have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payments” (“SFAS No. 123R”). SFAS No. 123R requires the recognition of the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments in the financial statements and measurement based on the grant-date fair value of the award. It requires the cost to be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. Additionally, compensation expense will be recognized over the remaining employee service period for the outstanding portion of any awards for which compensation expense had not been previously recognized or disclosed under SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” (“SFAS No. 123”). SFAS No. 123R replaces SFAS No. 123 and supersedes Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” (“APB No. 25”), and its related interpretations.

7

SFAS No. 123R was originally required to be adopted beginning no later than the third quarter of 2005. However, in April 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the adoption of a new rule that amends the compliance dates for SFAS No. 123R. Accordingly, we are required to adopt SFAS No. 123R no later than January 1, 2006. We are currently assessing the timing and impact of adopting SFAS No. 123R.

4. STANDBY CREDIT FACILITY AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGREEMENT

During the first quarter of 2005, we received advances of $3.5 million, $2.5 million and $1.2 million on February 14, 2005, March 4, 2005 and March 24, 2005, respectively, from our standby credit facility with The 1818 Fund III, LP. We also received an additional advance of $1.3 million on May 9, 2005. As a result of the advance received on May 9, 2005, the standby credit facility is fully drawn.

On April 4, 2005, we entered into an accounts receivable financing agreement with Thermo Credit, LLC (“Thermo”) to replace our Textron credit facility. The agreement provides for the sale of up to $22 million of our accounts receivable on a continuous basis to Thermo, subject to selection criteria as defined in the contract. The discount rate is 2.5%. Purchase of the receivables is at the option of Thermo. On May 6, 2005, we used proceeds from this accounts receivable financing facility to pay off our loan balance with Textron.

5. RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

The following table shows the restructuring charges and related accruals recognized under the restructuring plans described in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 and the effect on our consolidated financial position:

6. STOCK BASED COMPENSATION

For employee stock options, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” requiring entities to recognize as an expense, over the vesting period, the fair value of the options or utilize the accounting for employee stock options used under APB 25. We apply the provisions of APB 25 and consequently recognize compensation expense over the vesting period for grants made to employees and directors only if, on the measurement date, the market price of the underlying stock exceeds the exercise price. We provide the pro forma net income and earnings per share disclosures as required under SFAS No. 123 for grants made as if the fair value method defined in SFAS No. 123 had been applied. We recognize expense over the vesting period of the grants made to non-employees utilizing the Black-Scholes stock valuation model to calculate the value of the option on the measurement date.

The following table illustrates, in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure, an Amendment of SFAS 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” the effect on net income (loss) and earnings per share if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, to stock-based employee compensation.

8

We calculated the fair value of each grant on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. In addition to there being no payments of dividends on our common stock, the following assumptions were used for each respective period:

There were no stock option grants in the first quarter of 2005, so the discount rate and volatility are shown as “Not Applicable.” Incremental shares of common stock equivalents are not included in the calculation of net loss per share for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as the inclusion of such equivalents would be anti-dilutive.

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We have disputed billings and access charges from certain inter-exchange carriers (“IXCs”) and incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”). We contend that the invoicing and billings of these access charges are not in accordance with the interconnection, service level, or tariff agreements between us and certain IXCs and ILECs. We have not paid these disputed amounts and management believes that we will prevail in these disputes. At March 31, 2005, the total disputed amounts were approximately $16.9 million. We have accrued for the access charges that we believe, in our judgment, are valid or that may be deemed valid.

We currently have agreements with two long-distance carriers to provide transmission and termination services for all of our long distance traffic. These agreements generally provide for the resale of long distance services on a per-minute basis and contain minimum volume commitments. As a result of not fulfilling all of our volume commitments as outlined in one of these contracts we agreed to pay an increased per minute charge for minutes until the achievement of certain minimum minute requirements. Once we meet the new agreed upon minimum minutes we will revert to the terms of our original agreement. All other terms of the original agreement continue in full force.

On April 15, 2005, Trinsic entered into a Wholesale Advantage Services Agreement with Verizon Services Company on behalf of Verizon’s Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Verizon ILECs). The Wholesale Advantage Services Agreement will act as a replacement for Trinsic’s existing Interconnection Agreements for the provision of UNE-P services in Verizon service areas. As long as Trinsic meets certain volume commitments, Verizon will continue to provide a UNE-P “like” service at gradually increasing rates for a five year period.

In connection with certain of our wholesale services agreements, a portion of customers are provisioned using our company code. Therefore, we are the customer of record for the Regional Bell Operating Companies’ wholesale billing. It is very likely that the state commissions would require us to continue providing services to our wholesale customers for at least a 90-day period, regardless of whether our wholesale relationships continue.

We have agreed to certain service level agreements (“SLA”s) for providing service under our wholesale agreements. If we were to not fulfill the SLAs after the phase-in period there are certain remedies including but not limited to financial compensation. We have not had to pay or accrue any financial compensation as a result of any SLAs since our inception.

9

8. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

We paid interest on our related party debt in the amount of $0.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2005. No related party interest was paid during the quarter ended March 31, 2004.

On September 29, 2004, we signed an agreement with SipStorm, Inc., a company owned by two of our shareholders and former officers of our company; we transferred selected computer hardware, software and intellectual property rights to SipStorm. Relative to the purchase, SipStorm assumed responsibility for certain accounts payable, future maintenance payments and provided a promissory note in the amount of $2.8 million. The promissory note is collateralized by shares of our common stock owned by the directors of SipStorm. We have reserved $2.5 million of the note as of March 31, 2005 to reflect its estimated realizable value.

9. COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

Basic net income (loss) per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Incremental shares of common stock equivalents are not included in the calculation of diluted net loss per share for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as the inclusion of such equivalents would be anti-dilutive.

Net income (loss) per share is calculated as follows:

For the three months ended March 31, 2004, basic and diluted net loss per share are the same. The following table includes potentially dilutive items that were not included in the computation of diluted net loss per share for the three months ended March 31, 2004 because to do so would be anti-dilutive. The items shown for the three months ended March 31, 2005 were included in the computation of diluted net income per share:

10. LEGAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS

During June and July 2001, three separate class action lawsuits were filed against us, certain of our current and former directors and officers (the “D&Os”) and firms engaged in the underwriting (the “Underwriters”) of our initial public offering of stock (the “IPO”). The lawsuits, along with approximately 310 other similar lawsuits filed against other issuers arising out of initial public offering allocations, have been assigned to a Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for pretrial coordination. The lawsuits against us have been consolidated into a single action. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on

10

April 20, 2002. A Second Corrected Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), which is the operative complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.

The Amended Complaint is based on the allegations that our registration statement on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading by failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly had received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from, and allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated shares in the IPO. The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against us and the D&Os pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC there under. The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against the D&Os pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC there under. The plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and other costs and disbursements. Initial discovery has begun. We believe we are entitled to indemnification from our Underwriters.

A settlement has been reached by the respective lawyers for plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers. The principal terms of the proposed settlement are (i) a release of all claims against the issuers and their officers and directors, (ii) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuers may have against the Underwriters and (iii) an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs receive not less than $1 billion in connection with claims against the Underwriters. Hence, under the terms of the proposed settlement our financial obligations will likely be covered by insurance. The court has given preliminary approval of the settlement subject to certain modifications. A revised settlement agreement has been submitted to the court. To be binding, the settlement must be executed by the parties and thereafter submitted to and approved by the court. The settlement will not be binding upon any plaintiffs electing to opt-out of the settlement.

On October 9, 2003, Trinsic Communications, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, formerly known as Z-Tel Communications, Inc., filed a lawsuit against SBC Communications, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries (collectively, “SBC”) in federal court in Texas, where both SBC and Trinsic do business. The lawsuit alleges SBC’s violation of the federal antitrust laws, the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, and other federal and state laws. The complaint sought damages and an injunction against SBC. On March 30, 2005, the lawsuit against SBC was settled and dismissed with prejudice. In conjunction with the settlement, our subsidiary Trinsic Communications, Inc. (formerly Z-Tel Communications, Inc.) received proceeds of $14 million and the parties mutually resolved certain outstanding billing disputes. From our proceeds, we will be responsible for expenses and attorneys’ fees approximating $8 million. The net $6 million is included in interest and other income in this report.

Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against Trinsic Communications, Inc. (formerly known as Z-Tel Communications, Inc.), our wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, on May 13, 2004. The lawsuit alleges that our subsidiary has engaged in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees when in fact they were not. The complaint seeks to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons or entities who contracted with Trinsic for telecommunications services and were billed for particular taxes or regulatory fees. The complaint asserts a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs. On June 22, 2004, we filed a notice of removal in the state circuit court action, removing the case to the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187. On July 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the state circuit court. On January 12, 2005, the federal court granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court. Although we believe the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation with any certainty.

On November 19, 2004, the landlord of our principal Tampa, Florida facility sued us a seeking a declaration of its rights and obligations under the lease and damages for breach of contract. We assert that the landlord has failed to provide certain services in accordance with the lease, including maintenance of air conditioning and emergency electrical generating systems crucial to our operations. We have taken steps necessary to provide this maintenance and have offset the costs of these measures against the rent, which we believe we are entitled to do under the lease. Thus far we have withheld approximately $180,000. We also believe we are entitled to reimbursement from the landlord for approximately $23,000 in costs associated with improvements to the leased space.

On November 19, 2004, a provider of parking spaces for our Tampa facilities sued us for parking fees in excess of $334,300. Pursuant to our lease we are entitled to a number of free spaces and we are obligated to pay for additional usage of parking spaces. We believe the provider has substantially overstated our use of the spaces. We expect to resolve this dispute.

11. SEGMENT REPORTING

We have two reportable operating segments: Retail Services and Wholesale Services.

The retail services segment includes our residential and business services that offer bundled local and long-distance telephone services in combination with enhanced communication features accessible, through the telephone, the Internet and certain personal digital

11

assistants. We provide these services in forty-nine states, but our customers are concentrated primarily in metropolitan areas within six states. This segment also includes our Touch 1 residential long-distance offering that is available on a nation wide basis.

The wholesale services segment allows companies to offer telephone exchange and enhanced services on a private label basis to residential and small business customers. Sprint is our primary customer within this segment of our business.

Management evaluates the performance of each business unit based on segment results, after making adjustments for unusual items. Special items are transactions or events that are included in our reported consolidated results but are excluded from segment resu