UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(MARK ONE)
x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the transition period from ______ to______
	Commission file number 0-52396
CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

Nevada		20-2889663
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
1015 W. Newport Center, Suite 105 Deerfield Beach, Florida		33442
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code ( 954) 573-1709

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act: Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.o Yes x No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act. o Yes x No

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 x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (of for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). x Yes o No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o	Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o	Smaller reporting company x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

The issuer’s revenues for its most recent fiscal year were $3,710.59.

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of December 30, 2010 (based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the OTCBB on December 30, 2009) was approximately $49,470.

At March 31, 2010, there were 27,483,210 outstanding shares of CX2 Technologies, Inc. Common Stock, $0.001 par value.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: None

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (check one) Yes o No x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I	3
Item 1. Business	3
Item 1A. Risk Factors	14
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments	21
Item 2. Properties	21
Item 3. Legal Proceedings	21
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	21
PART II	21
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	21
Item 6. Selected Financial Data	22
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	22
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	24
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	24
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	24
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures	24
Item 9B. Other Information	25
PART III	25
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	25
Item 11. Executive Compensation	26
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	27
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	27
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services	28
PART IV	29
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	29
Signatures	31
Financial Statements	F-1

 

 

 

2

PART I

ITEM 1: BUSINESS

Historical Overview

CX2 Technologies, Inc. (the “Company” or “CX2”) (formerly Brook-view Institute, Inc.) was incorporated on May 21, 2002 in Nevada. It was formed to develop and engage in operations and management of digital wireless data communications services of 220 MHz digital wireless data communications.

On November 16, 2005, the Company changed its name to CX2 Technology, Inc. (later modified to “CX2 Technologies, Inc.”) and increased the Company’s authorized capital to 200,000,000 common shares (par value $.001) and 5,000,000 preferred shares (par value $.001).

On March 6, 2006 (and subsequently revised on September 27, 2006), the Company circulated a private placement memorandum (“PPM”) to sell 5,000,000 shares of common stock at an offer price of $1.00 per share for total maximum gross offering proceeds of $5,000,000 (the “Maximum Proceeds”). Approximately $1.2 million was ultimately raised under the terms of the PPM before it was terminated in June 2008.

On March 5, 2006 the Company entered into an agreement with Biz.Com U.S.A., Inc. (“Biz.com”), for the purchase of certain of its 220 MHz Phase 2 Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licenses and related equipment. The initial planned operation of such licenses was expected at that time to be in certain geographical areas of Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Texas. As part of this transaction the Company issued 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock with a fair value of $5,000,000 (based on a recent cash offering price) to Bi.com. Due to certain security covenants placed on the sale of these licenses, Biz.com was unable to conclude the sale to the Company.

On March 6, 2006, the Company executed a ten year 200-220 MHz Airtime Agreement, which was subsequently amended effective March 19, 2007 (as amended, the “Air Time Agreement”), for the non-exclusive use of five hundred million minutes on all of the Biz.com FCC licenses. The Air Time Agreement required payment by CX2 of a monthly user fee of $4,000, which was subsequently eliminated when the Air Time Agreement was amended in March 2007, and also provided for the retention of the 5 million previously issued shares by Biz.com.

On February 26, 2007, CX2 and Biz.com entered into a Licensing Agreement & Asset Sale (the “Licensing Agreement”), pursuant to which CX2 acquired from Biz.com a non-exclusive license to its wireless digital data intellectual property for cash payments and 1,500,000 shares of common stock, which were not issued. This license granted the Company the right to use Biz.com proprietary technologies without restriction, including rights to further develop the existing technology or new technology which new development would be owned by CX2. In addition, CX2 bought from Biz.com all of its digital base station equipment and associated assets both deployed on the Chicago network and in inventory. The inventory included all digital base stations, RRM boards and connective cabling, combiners, racks, antennas, maintenance equipment, lab equipment, and office equipment at the Company’s former Burr Ridge offices in Illinois, together with any such equipment in any Biz.com storage facility in Illinois. In late 2008, the Company learned that Biz.com no longer owned its FCC licenses and therefore misrepresented to the Company when it in fact did not have any of the rights to use the minutes under those licensing agreements.  Although, the Company continued seeking the licenses Biz.com misrepresented that it claimed had minutes and intellectual property from a third party, but in actuality it didn’t.  

On January 28, 2008, the Company entered into a Consulting Agreement with GEO Command, Inc., a developer of Homeland Security software for emergency responders. Under the agreement, CX2 and GEO Command have agreed to mutually design and develop software that uses the CX2 wireless, IP-based narrowband network and CX2 data modems to integrate weather, radiation, chemical, and biological sensor data with the GEO Command Dynamic Server ™ technology. GEO Command will also provide other services, including assistance with regulatory filings, marketing and sales services, as part of the Agreement, and will be compensated $10,000 per month in the first three months (to be paid in months 13-15), $15,000 per month in months 4 through 6, and $25,000 per month for months 7 through 12 of the Agreement’s term, in addition to performance based equity compensation to be negotiated between the parties. The Agreement’s term began on January 25, 2008 and will continue until terminated by either party upon 15 days prior written notice.

On February 29, 2008, Adam Reiser, sole director, President and CEO of CX2 Technologies, Inc. resigned from all positions held with the Company, including resigning from Board service.  The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Reiser and related parties in exchange for the cancellation of 10 million shares, among other matters. There was no disagreement in accordance with by-law 17 CFR 240.3b-7 between the Registrant and Mr. Reiser at the time of Mr. Reiser’s resignation from the Board of Directors. On February 29, 2008, the Company appointed Michael Rand as President, CEO and the sole director to replace Mr. Reiser.

On March 18, 2008, the Company along with GEO Command and other members of the Coalition for Integrated Data Emergency Response Solutions (CIDERS) co-sponsored a conference on the Public Safety Interoperable Communication (PSIC) Grant program for Public Safety organizations in the State of Massachusetts. Several dozen fire chiefs from the State of Massachusetts attended along with Congressman Jim McGovern (Worcester) and Julliette Kayyam, Massachusetts’s First Undersecretary for Homeland Security. The members of CIDERS are companies who are pooling their expertise to design and develop interoperable data communication systems.

 

 

3

On March 24, 2008, the Company entered into an Agreement with ESP Wireless Technology Group, Inc. whereby CX2 agreed to make a one time payment of $9,787 in exchange for access to the Sears Tower network site and static IP address used to control the CX2 transmitter located at the Sears Tower. In addition, CX2 will pay ESP a monthly payment of $939 for site rent at Sears Tower and the static IP address. Both companies will split recurring revenues from the sales of CX2 data modems.

On June 2, 2008, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Halody Consulting and its President Peter Kirschner, whereby Halody resigned from its position as a consultant with the Company. Among other terms, Halody agreed to forgive $440,568 due under debentures previously issued by the Company and the $27,142 in accrued interest due therewith.

On August 1, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company dismissed Webb & Company, P.A as its registered independent accounting firm and approved the engagement of Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates to serve as its registered independent accounting firm for the year ended March 31, 2009 and 2010.

Due to the action brought on in early 2009 by The Stillwater Asset-Backed Fund, LP who now owns the licenses and intellectual property named Biz.com and CX2 Technologies, Inc. as defendants for misrepresentation, prevailed with a “Writ of Garnishment” in the State of New York, and successfully filed their Writ in West Palm Beach County, FL in June of 2010.  Notwithstanding, this action unfortunately inoculated the surety that the Company will ever be successful in obtaining the licenses on behalf 200-220 MHz Airtime after all. Although, the Company has conducted business as of the date of this report selling the inventory it previously purchased from Biz.com as described above, and management believed that the Company’s existing inventory was sufficient enough to meet its customer demand at current levels for approximately one more year, at which time the Company will begin seeking an alternative source for newer innovative products it can market.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company has technically discontinued operations in the emergency telemetry software-mapping and design business due to changes in the technology and marketability for its CX2 Technologies, Inc. branded devices and its intellectual properties per se, but will try and continue competing in this industry partnering with its related affiliate known as Geo Command.  Since March 31, 2010, the Company has entered into a definitive stock purchase agreement and established a selling price for the remaining control of [50%] the Company’s treasury stock and its financial affairs that was unavailable to the general public in the open market.  

Business of the Issuer

The Company was engaged in the operation and sale of 220 MHz digital wireless data communications technologies in both the commercial and public safety/emergency disaster relief sectors.

The Company was marketing CX2 branded data technology and services for use by various commercial/industrial applications and the Homeland Security/Public Safety sector. Management believed that advances in 220 MHz technology and equipment along with the integration with the GEO Command ™ software products and the lower costs generally associated with lower frequency band usage in comparison to cellular telephone and other wireless communications services, a broad spectrum of potential commercial and public safety/ emergency disaster relief end-users may find the Company’s technology to be as competitive and efficient as newer and more advanced technology  prevailed.

Furthermore, the Company believed it was able to pursue acquiring additional selected assets, including 220 MHz FCC licenses and related equipment for purposes of expanding and marketing its services and capabilities even though it wasn’t in the name of CX2 Technologies any longer.

Development of the 220 MHz Radio Market

In 1988, due in part by a request from United Parcel Service, the FCC reallocated the 220 MHz-222 MHz part of the radio spectrum band for commercial use. Since this was a small frequency band and the FCC was promoting bandwidth efficiency, this band was regulated into very narrow channels spaced only 5 kHz apart.  In other commercial bands, the narrowest bandwidths used are 12.5 kHz up to 30 kHz.  As a result, new radio designs were necessary which needed digital signal processors (“DSP”) to help achieve the efficiency needed to work at this smaller bandwidth.  DSP also made it easier to adapt the radios for sending and receiving data signals.

However, due to the imminent advancement in digital technology since, new radio designs, and various regulatory delays, the 220 MHz industry development slowly phased-out. Digital technology increased the efficiency of existing 800 and 900 MHz networks and decreased the interest in developing products to utilize the 220 MHz spectrum.  Today, 220 MHz channels are largely unused over much of the United States. However, the 220 MHz spectrum is potentially still attractive for data transmission because the spectrum has little interference as a result of underutilization.  The significantly larger coverage footprint in the 220 MHz band as compared to cellular technologies and resulted in lower costs of infrastructure that brought additional benefits, but unsustainable to the overall competitive market.

 

 

4

220 MHz networks use a collection of base stations deployed over a geographic region.  A base station is typically deployed on top of tall buildings or on communication transmission towers and can extend the range of the terminal units as much as 30 or 40 miles from their base site depending on the location. This large coverage area or range means that a single base station can cover a large geographic area at very low infrastructure cost.  Many telemetry applications require a low operating cost structure.  By combining 220 MHz propagation characteristics, range and low infrastructure cost, management believed that using the 220 MHz Spectrum would prove to be much more cost effective than competing services such as cellular.

The Company believed that it had a competitive advantage over other network operators offering telemetry, data devices and services because the data technology CX2 utilized as a patented, proprietary design.  The third party patented data technology used a data transmission protocol specifically designed for the efficient servicing of thousands of endpoint users.  The Company had access to personnel and strategic partners with experience in interfacing telemetry into our wireless systems, but no longer does.

Developments in Homeland Security/Emergency Management

In view of the current United States and worldwide security alert concerns and the need by various local, state, and federal authorities for reliable, low cost emergency management services, the Company believed the 220 MHz spectrum could have offered a timely, reliable low cost solution to augment the problem.

For many years, various governmental agencies have found attaining and maintaining a state of preparedness in the emergency management area to be laborious and complex.  Many emergency managers have relied on a combination of limited computer input and manual tracking systems.  Attempts at handling massive numbers of messages and requests for help in emergency operations centers (“EOC”) and compiling information into situation reports have often failed using manual methods.  Locally developed or other installed commercial software systems have often been too complex or rigid in design to handle information received by EOC in various formats.

On January 28, 2008, the Company entered into a Consulting Agreement with GEO Command, Inc., a developer of Homeland Security software for emergency responders. Under the agreement, CX2 and GEO Command designed and developed software that used the CX2 wireless, IP-based narrowband network and CX2 data modems to integrate weather; radiation; chemical; and biological sensor data with the GEO Command Dynamic Server ™ technology.  CX2 Technologies, Inc. developed the electrical circuitry and firmware used in frequency-efficient data radios that operate in the narrowband 220-222 MHz spectrum that GEO Command, Inc. now develops the emergency response software suite which integrates with the data receiving radios.  The CX2 wireless narrowband network and data radios that integrate with GEO Command’s Dynamic Server™ technology to provide GPS-based vehicle location information and relay data from GPS, weather, radiation and other sensors to emergency responders in the field.  The GEO Command emergency response information system gives first responders the critical information they needed on site or en route to an emergency.

GEO Command integrated an advanced mobile Geographic Information System (GIS) with GPS, Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), cross-referenced emergency handbooks, and other devices and data. The GEO Command solution:

	•	Protected and assisted first responders in their effort to save lives
	•	Supported interoperability with existing infrastructure
	•	Contained costs by operating with existing data formats (e.g., ESRI datasets and existing record management systems)
	•	Consumed minimal spectrum when combined with CX2 Technologies narrowband radio
	•	Facilitated information sharing between jurisdictions.

The GEO Command suite of applications included GEO Command Mobile, an in-vehicle unit; an Administration Module, generally deployed at the command center; and an optional Dynamic Server Module that relays real-time information from sensors and GPS-equipped radios to the command center and responders in the field.

The CX2 DATA Lynx ™ digital radios used a licensed third party patent over-the-air protocol (OTAP) to tap the largely unused potential of this narrowband spectrum.  The Company’s spectrum-efficient use of 5 kHz narrowband channels represented a quick deployable, relatively inexpensive method to gain critical wireless data capabilities for public safety and emergency response organizations in the short term.  In addition, the CX2 system could have integrated with the future wireless systems even though supplying redundancy, but relieving broadband network congestion.

 

 

5

CX2 used a data-only protocol that augmented, but did not replace the two-way voice, paging, and cellular networks used by law enforcement, fire-rescue, EMS, and other emergency responders.

	•	CX2’s licensed third-party patented over-the-air protocol made optimum use of the 220-222 MHz spectrum.
	•	Coverage from a single radio tower could reliably extend over 1,200 square miles, even over difficult terrain.
	•	Unlike overused high-frequency bandwidths, 220-222 MHz channels experienced little or no interference.

Moved Toward a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network

The stated long-term goal of the Federal Government is to create a nationwide, interoperable 700 MHz broadband wireless network for public safety.  This network will have wide coverage, use common protocols, and allow cost reductions through economies of scale in acquiring mobile equipment.  The network’s structure will provide horizontal intercommunication (e.g., between municipalities) and vertical intercommunication (e.g., among municipalities, states, and federal entities).  In addition, the network will allow emergency responders to cross jurisdictional boundaries without losing voice and data capabilities.

With very few exceptions, every community has existing plans for dealing with emergencies. These plans may reside in special purpose record management systems, in other computer file structures, or on paper.  Across and within jurisdictions, the plans may differ significantly both in their level of detail and in the form in which they are stored.

In a mutual aid environment, these plans can be of very limited utility.   The value of maps, pictures and floor plans is obvious, but sharing these large data sets requires considerable bandwidth.  Until a Public Service Broadcasting Network is built, the wireless connectivity required to share these data sets will be available in very few areas.  As a result, emergency plan information must reside on each field terminal in the same format and version.

CX2 Technologies, in partnership with GEO Command, offered a technology that supported a multi-phase, integrated approach, incremental implementation costs and demonstrable gains at each stage.  We believed that public safety entities could make quick, cost-effective strides toward interoperability by combining data sharing with an inexpensive wireless network.

The GEO Command emergency information system consisted of (1) an Administration Module, which it used to author and update the database; (2) Mobile Modules which are used in the field, and where applicable; and (3) the GEO Command Dynamic Server which brokers real-time information to and from units such as weather and mobile stations.  This form of administration of Mobile Modules, together with a Geographic Information System (GIS) and the emergency response preplan database, would have provided responders with the best possible situational awareness en route and at the site of an emergency.

GEO Command provides easy-to-use tools for standardizing plan formats.  The software’s intuitive interface makes the transition to more accessible and better organized emergency response plans straightforward.  The ease of entering information also encourages archiving the knowledge of key personnel, ensuring that this knowledge is available to others on demand.

GEO Command uses existing GIS data sets that are freely available across the nation and makes it available in a convenient “one-stop” format. Common map data maintained by local governments includes building footprints, aerial photography, and utility network data.  The current technology available maps data instantly and provides responders with a detailed graphic representation of an incident site.  The responder can select an individual map feature for more information.  For example, the software permits the user to click on a virtual hydrant to display the hydrant’s status and flow rate, critical information at the scene of a fire.

In addition to existing GIS data sets, GEO Command users can enter site contact information, hazards, building construction details, and digital photos, and can scan existing paper documents into the system.  GEO Command is also able to automatically import electronic record management data from legacy systems. Imported emergency data can be referenced by address or name (e.g., “Walker Elementary School”) or accessed by clicking on a map location. The software’s flexible structure can accommodate data from other departments and organizations, and the configurable preplans organize and display any amount of critical data.

GEO Command’s scalable software offers value in any implementation, whether the organization chooses to install the software on a single desktop or on hundreds of mobile computers. The database resides on one computer, the Administration Module, generally located at the command center. Mobile Modules (in-vehicle computers) manually or automatically update map and preplan information, ensuring that the data on all Modules remains synchronized.

 

 

6

Each GEO Command Module makes map and preplan data available in the field regardless of connectivity. Some emergency response software packages use a Web-based scheme that does not work when connectivity is compromised, a common occurrence in major incidents. With these systems, data is often inaccessible precisely when it is needed most. Because GEO Command’s Mobile Modules can operate independently of the Administration Module, data availability remains uncompromised.

Wireless connectivity, although not necessary, is an enhancement to GEO Command’s capabilities. It allows current data to be moved not just to the command center, but to the field. The GEO Command Dynamic Server™ brokers data from a variety of sources and forwards it as directed. The Dynamic Server is designed to interface with a wide variety of data networks, both wired and wireless. It is designed to be flexible and to scale to network expansions without requiring reinstallation or upgrades.

Management believed that CX2 is the only company in the world to have developed a narrowband wireless data solution at 220 MHz. This solution’s advantages include spectrum efficiency, extraordinary coverage footprint, readily available dedicated public safety spectrum, and generally interference-free operation. The limitation is that its 5 kHz bandwidth is not suited to transferring large data packets. Nevertheless, the bandwidth serves extremely well for dispatch, vehicle location, remote sensor monitoring, and other short message applications.

A wide area network reserved for these vital functions would have an important impact on interoperable public safety communications. Assuming a PSBN or other broadband network is built-out, if ever, the CX2 network could be used to relay sensor data only.  Management believed that the CX2 network would ensure that sensor data kept flowing during times of heavy broadband loading, allowing continued vigilance even under the intense conditions of a large-scale terrorist attack or catastrophic natural disaster.

The coverage footprint at VHF (1,200 square miles is common) makes large area build-outs practical. The existing system is extremely reliable, and redundancy options are available at several levels. The system is also secure over the air, with built-in encoding and a patented proprietary protocol.  The interface from the base station up is IP-based, and data can travel over secured private networks. Data routing is user configurable.

CX2 base stations are FCC type accepted. They were designed to operate autonomously in conjunction with CX2’s Local Site Server (LSS) software.  One LSS can control 35 base stations.  Transmitters could’ve been de-keyed and keyed remotely.  Lost contacts with the control software resulted in automatic rerouting of connected modems that can also have been configured for de-key or broadcast warnings.  The interval call sign broadcast was automatic.

CX2’s DATA Lynx ™ radio modems operated on 12-18 VDC and were built for difficult environments.  These modems have operated in diverse locations ranging from natural gas fields in southern Texas to bulldozer cabins in northern Illinois.  They required no user input, connected to the network automatically, and switch base stations as needed.  The modems are equipped with an integral GPS receiver and an onboard computer chip running the embedded Automatic Vehicle Location code.

CX2 offered network planning, installation, integration, and testing as a normal part of its service.  The Interface with GEO Command was preconfigured and automatic.  The system was designed to be turnkey and maintenance free.

Emergency responders used the integrated CX2 and GEO Command solution to plan and strategize prior to an emergency; retrieve critical information en route or at an incident site; exchange real-time data critical to emergency responses and management; and posted a review of incident responses.

GEO Command ties critical emergency data to a location, such as a landmark, address, event location, or GPS coordinates. Their intuitive software interface allows a user to visualize, explore, and analyze emergency and incident-related information, and to make an informed decision.

Advocating for Public Safety

In the past decade, both CX2 and GEO Command have strongly advocated for a fully interoperable nationwide public safety network.  The companies provided testimony in Washington, D.C. before the Katrina Panel and, more recently, participated in several proceedings at the FCC examining the need for public safety spectrum and the best use for such spectrum.  For example, in April of 2005, CX2 commented on the FCC’s Report on the Spectrum Needs of Emergency Responders.  More recently, GEO Command analyzed competing proposals for a combined commercial/ public safety broadband nationwide network put forth by Cyren Call, Frontline Wireless and the FCC in proceedings leading up to the 700 MHz auction.  

 

 

7

Although, the auction for the 700 MHz license failed to attract a qualified bid for the D Block public safety spectrum, the FCC had indicated its intent to continue its efforts to license a nationwide network for public safety.  CX2 and GEO Command intended to be actively involved in the FCC’s revised proposal for such a network if one is ultimately constructed and believed that this partnership would benefit from vertical and horizontal integration.

Compliance with Federal Legislation

The CX2 and GEO Command collaboration created an interdependent data communications platform that met the goals set forth by the Assured Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This bill was introduced in response to communication breakdowns during recent crises and natural disasters.

From the start, CX2 and GEO Command developed their technologies and solutions with a clear vision of the future for public safety communications – a future also clearly envisioned by the First Responders Act of 2005.

The CX2 and GEO Command integrated solutions adhered to all current applicable guidelines as well as those set forth in this forward-thinking legislation.

Because CX2 and GEO Command products are in full compliance with this legislation, public safety entities working to improve their equipment and networks with CX2 and GEO Command ensured that they would receive government support for their projects.  In addition, agencies could be confident that they were implementing a state-of-the-art solution system that will remain as an integral part of a national public safety program.

FCC Licenses

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues 220 MHz licenses for specific local and regional areas as well as on a nationwide basis.  Two of the nationwide 220 MHz licenses are reserved for public safety and the federal government.  Qualified organizations can obtain access to 220 MHz spectrum in their area for little or no cost.  Because CX2’s narrowband 5 kHz wireless data technology made optimal use of these narrowband channels, the operating costs of a CX2 network were a fraction of the costs required to operate competitors’ two-way communication offerings.

Business Strategy

The Company intends to derive revenues from sales and leasing of communication equipment and to a lesser extent, construction, engineering and other miscellaneous services. The Company’s current strategy is to focus on the sale of data radios with Automatic Vehicle Location (“AVL”) applications to 220-222 MHZ FCC licenses and to aid them with managing their service organizations and provide access to the Company’s network operation center (“NOC”) at a monthly cost per radio. Also, the Company believes many of these users will need wireless point of sale (“POS”) credit card processing applications, which will increase the average revenue per user (“ARPU”) of users on the network if the Company offers POS products in the future.

To a lesser extent, the Company intends to take advantage of opportunities to expand by purchasing select assets, including 220 MHz licenses and related equipment and to sell their technology and such assets to already existing FCC 220-222 MHz license holders. Any such asset acquisitions are anticipated to be made, if at all, with Company securities and to a substantially lesser extent, cash, if available.

Products and Services

The Company offers flexible data service packages and configurations customized to fit subscribers’ needs and location within our geographic “footprint” as it may develop. The Company will target customers who will benefit from wireless data delivery suitable to the capabilities of 220 MHz network communication. The Company’s data radios work equally well for mobile, remote and fixed site applications. Examples of viable applications include, but are not limited to, telemetry for oil or gas well automation (fixed application) and automatic vehicle location for fleet management customers (mobile application) and field deployable sensors (remote application).

The target customers are those with access to the 220 MHz spectrum seeking to purchase enabling technology for this particular frequency band. Examples include utility companies and municipalities.

The Company offers the following data applications and communications products:

 

 

8

Telemetry and Data Applications

Automatic Vehicle Location (“AVL”) : AVL involves installing a locating device, typically a GPS transceiver, on a vehicle and linking such device with a wireless data radio. The vehicle’s location is transmitted over a radio network back to a central control point such as an emergency operation center or dispatcher’s office. Users of AVL systems include fire, police, ambulances, heavy equipment operators, and other fleet operators. The radio product the Company offers has an AVL feature, and the Company offers this feature to prospective customers. The Company is currently marketing to FCC licensees and public safety organizations as a niche market in which the Company believes it will have a significant competitive advantage because of the Company’s ability to offer a low cost solution.

Transmit wireless data for new customers presently using 800 or 900 MHz band : On August 8, 2002, the FCC set a five-year “sunset” period for elimination of CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data) services in the United States. CDPD was designed in the early days of cellular and fits data “around” voice traffic and only works in analog cellular systems, which have been converting to digital. Digital cellular services have the ability to carry data, but not at the lower costs of an analog network. Therefore, users of CDPD equipment will be forced to either switch to more expensive digital cellular service or find an alternative. The Company offers 220 MHz wireless digital data services as a low cost alternative to digital cellular. Its range, capacity, low-interference and low-cost characteristics make the Company’s digital data services an attractive alternative to digital cellular service. Current users of CDPD include the public safety, utilities, and various industry and transportation sectors. The Company’s digital solutions can also be marketed to such customers because of their lower recurring costs and higher reliability than competing cellular solutions.

Transmit sensor data to incident management software: The Company believes an opportunity exists to play a role in an eventual Department of Homeland Security National Incident Response Plan. Our capabilities relative to transmitting low speed data efficiently and in a cost-effective manner present an opportunity to possibly fill a niche in such an eventual solution.

Pricing of 220 MHz Products and Services

The Company offers wireless data products and services. The Company also intends to sell its data radios to end users for an average price of approximately $500. The Company’s profit margins on radios will vary depending upon the specific type of radio and the designated subsidy structure, if any, for that radio in a particular market, and the Company’s cost for such products.

The Company offers base stations for sale and other infrastructure to end-users or dealer customers who have their own 220 MHz spectrum. Proprietary, digital database stations currently sell for $ 20,000 to $40,000 for a single channel system. In the future, the Company may offer project management, training, and installation services at prices per diem to be determined.

Prices for equipment for the Company’s public safety and critical infrastructure customers will be based upon the specific configuration and their needs. Certain state and local agencies including public safety agencies own their own 220 MHz spectrum. In those circumstances, the Company plans to sell such customers its radio products and the sensor integration products and services to use on their own systems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues 220 MHz licenses for specific local and regional areas as well as on a nationwide basis. Two of the nationwide 220 MHz licenses are reserved for public safety and the federal government. Qualified organizations can obtain access to 220 MHz spectrum in their area for little or no cost. Because CX2’s narrowband 5 kHz wireless data technology makes optimal use of these narrowband channels, the operating costs of a CX2 network are a fraction of the costs required to operate competitors’ two-way communication offerings.

Sales and Marketing

Subject to raising sufficient capital, in the future the Company intends to employ its own direct sales, marketing and service staff, utilize independent contractors and establish dealer networks. While local dealers are capable of establishing and servicing wireless customers, they often have their own local spectrum and therefore have incentive to load their systems first. The Company does not employ any sales staff as of the date of this filing but is a part of an advertising campaign through its consulting agreement with GEO Command.

 

 

9

Competition in the 220 MHz Radio Service

Management believes that the Company faces no other competition from companies that design or manufacture data modems for mobile, fixed or remote sensor integration with GPS/AVL in the 220 MHz frequency band. The wireless communications industry is highly competitive and is characterized by constant technological innovation. The Company’s competitors include manufacturers in several markets - mobile wireless communications, PCS and cellular, narrowband PCS and emerging technology platforms, many of which have substantially greater financial and other resources than the Company. Four companies currently dominate the mobile wireless communications market: Motorola, Samsung, Nokia and Apple. Although we do not anticipate competing in the mobile wireless voice communications market, these companies also serve the data communications markets the Company plans to serve.

The Company intends to devote most of its resources to marketing and selling of telemetry and data services. These services include SCADA for utilities and other critical infrastructure, AVL, as well as providing digital data services to customers currently serviced in the 800 MHz band. While there are other companies that provide SCADA and AVL products and services, the Company believes that it offers a low cost, reliable competitive product from a hardware cost and monthly service fee standpoint.

The ownership of the 220 MHz spectrum is highly fragmented, except for several owners of 220 MHz nationwide licenses, and does not currently have the critical mass to attract large numbers of users. Therefore, very few competitors exist in this market.

New Technologies

The Company may also face competition from other technologies and services, which are currently being introduced and may be introduced in the future. The continued acceptance of the services the Company offers and anticipates offering may be adversely affected by the developments and availability of new technology.

However, the Company believes its integrated solution with the GEO Command suite of software products offer a unique public safety communications solution.

Regulation

The licensing, operation, and acquisition of specialized mobile radio systems in the United States, which includes 220-222 MHz systems, is regulated by the FCC under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”) and pursuant to the FCC’s rules and related regulations.

Radio service utilizing the 800 MHz and 900MHz band was first licensed in 1974. The FCC authorized the current 220 MHz service in 1991, seeking to introduce a spectrum efficient “narrowband” service on one-fifth of the frequency of conventional radio services, for example 5 kHz per channel, for such services as dispatch and fleet communications. The FCC conducted this “Phase I” licensing of frequencies by lotteries and by 1993, approximately 3,800 5-channel local and nationwide site specific FCC licenses had been awarded through random selection. A Phase I licensee’s service area is defined by the predicted service contour of its authorized base station or fixed station, transmitting on frequencies in the 220-222 MHz band.

In 1997, the FCC restructured the licensing framework governing the 220 MHz Service by replacing the original Phase I lottery-licensing system with a Phase II auction licensing process. Unlike the site specific Phase I licenses, the service area for Phase II licenses to be awarded by auction were comprised of defined geographic areas, which were based on Economic Areas (“EA”) developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. In addition to the EA, the Phase II auctions would include licenses for larger, regional areas called Economic Area Groupings (“EAG”), which were comprised of groupings of EA and encompassed the sum total of all EA. Nationwide Phase II licenses also were awarded. In addition, the Phase II licenses included more frequencies than the Phase I licenses, with EA licenses receiving 10 channels each, EAG licenses receiving 15 channels, and nationwide licenses comprised of 10 channels each. In all, the Phase II auction offered 3 nationwide licenses, 30 regional licenses (EAG) and 875 EA licenses. These licenses would “overlay” the existing Phase I licenses and would be subject to certain interference protection criteria with the Phase I licenses.

In 1998, the FCC commenced the auction for Phase II 220 MHz licenses. The Phase II auction was conducted in two tiers: the first auction, completed in October 1998, resulted in the award of 908 220 MHz licenses; the second auction, completed in June 1999, resulted in the award of 225 220 MHz licenses.

 

 

10

Legislative Trends in the 220 MHz Radio Service

In 1993, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“Budget Act”) that amended the Act to categorize all mobile radio services as either commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) or private mobile radio service (“PMRS”). The FCC was then instructed to adopt consistent regulations for all CMRS licensees and PMRS licenses, respectively. Previously, mobile wireless services were regulated based on the title of the service, such as cellular or SMR, and the associated frequencies utilized, and whether the service was being offered by a “common carrier.” By categorizing mobile radio services more precisely, Congress believed that similar services would be regulated in a similar manner, thereby promoting competition in the marketplace.

The regulations relating to classification as a PMRS or a CMRS are complex, and it is not certain at this time how the Company’s future operations will be classified. However, management does not believe that the CMRS and PMRS regulations will have a material impact on our operations regardless of how we are classified.

Regulatory Trends in the 220 MHz Radio Service

In the late 1990’s, the FCC initiated several rulemakings designed to increase the use of 220 MHz spectrum and to expand the flexibility of licensees in the 220 MHz service. In 1997, for example, the FCC revised its rules to permit Phase II licensees to enter agreements for partitioning a licensee’s geographical service area and/or disaggregating a licensee’s spectrum. Partitioning contemplates dividing the service area between two geographic areas, for example county lines, whereas disaggregation contemplates assigning a portion of the licensed spectrum in the same geographic area to a third-party. The partitioning and disaggregation rules were intended to encourage use of the frequencies. The FCC believed these revisions would encourage new competitors to enter the market, which in turn would spur a more efficient use of the spectrum, and increase service to the public. The FCC launched several rulemaking proceedings through the year 2000 to clarify the rules and steps for partitioning and disaggregation.

In 1998, the FCC relaxed certain technical restrictions in the 220 MHz band, to permit increased types of wireless services and business options in the band. Thus, for example: the FCC provided that all 220 MHz nationwide and non-nationwide Phase I and Phase II, government and non-governmental licensees, including non-CMRS providers, would be permitted to operate fixed stations and provide fixed communications and one-way and two-way paging services on a co-primary basis, that is, not ancillary to primary land mobile operations. By permitting fixed as well as mobile operations in the 220 MHz service, the FCC sought to encourage 220 MHz licensees to compete more effectively in the wireless communications marketplace and to broaden the array of services available to consumers, while still providing for additional applications of narrowband technology. Also as part of this effort to increase use of the 220 MHz band and improve competition in the marketplace, the FCC expanded the eligibility rules for licensees in the 220 MHz band to include wire line providers.

In keeping with this trend, in 1999, the FCC relaxed the filing requirements for Phase I nationwide licensees, removing the requirement that such licensees file applications or obtain separate licenses for individual base stations within their nationwide systems, provided they maintain site information in their station records and make such information available to other licensees or the FCC on request.

Another regulatory trend has been reallocating and re-farming of spectrum to resolve interference issues. Re-farming is an effort by the FCC to achieve spectrum efficiency by reducing the allowable channel size used by radios. The current radio bands are set up so frequencies used by different services are interleaved within the band, which historically had resulted in interference between the various services authorized by the band. In 2001, the FCC launched an effort to re-farm spectrum in the 800 MHz band, to reduce interference between public safety and commercial systems in that band.

Business Trends in the 220 MHz Radio Service

The radio industry has undergone a tremendous level of consolidation in the past decade, with Nextel Communications acquiring significant amounts of 800 MHz radio and 900 MHz radio spectrum. With respect to the newer 220-222 MHz service, many licensees have focused on identifying customers and loading them onto the 220 MHz systems to support system build-outs in accordance with FCC service requirements. Certain 220 MHz service providers have focused on acquiring licenses to complement their current authorized service area, either through partitioning and disaggregation, or through the outright purchase of FCC 220 MHz radio licenses.

Current Regulations in the 220 MHz Radio Service

Phase I and Phase II licensees have different requirements with respect to system construction and commencement of service operations. Phase I nationwide licensees are required to construct their base stations and place those base stations into operation in all geographic areas specified with the application (including base stations in at least 28 urban areas specified by the FCC) within 10 years of the initial license grant. All Phase I non-nationwide licensees were required to construct their systems and place them in operation no later than August 16, 1996 (if systems modifications were requested) or 12 months from their initial grant date. Any non-nationwide Phase I Licenses that were not timely constructed are subject to forfeiture and their associated frequencies are incorporated into the applicable overlaid Phase II EA or EAG license. Phase I and Phase II licensees may be renewed on the expiration of their respective license term upon showing that, during their license term, they provided “substantial service” and they substantially complied with applicable FCC rules and regulations.

 

 

11

With respect to Phase II licenses, the FCC requires licensees to meet certain benchmarks of service tied to issuing the license. Specifically, within five years of the grant of a Phase II EA or EAG license, the licensee is required to provide service to one-third of the population. Within the initial license term, for example 10 years, the licensee must provide service to two -thirds of the population within its geographic area. With respect to Phase II nationwide licenses, within five years of license issuance, the licensee must provide coverage to a composite area of at least 750,000 square kilometers or serve at least 37.5% of the United States population. Within 10 years, the Phase II nationwide licensee must provide coverage to a composite area of at least 1,500,000 square kilometers or serve at least 75% of the United States population. In the event the Phase II nationwide licensee does not construct its system to meet these respective thresholds, the FCC will automatically cancel the entire license, and will not credit the licensee for any of the sites that it may have already constructed. All 220 MHz licensees are also required to comply with the technical requirements specified in the FCC’s rules to ensure that their systems do not cause unauthorized levels of interference to other licensees. These Phase II licenses are issued for a period of ten years and are subject to construction and operational requirements within five years and ten years from the date of issuance.

Modem Regulation

For operation in the United States, the Company’s modems and base stations require FCC acceptance prior to their sale. The FCC type acceptance is granted for devices that demonstrate operation within mandated and tested performance criteria. All of the Company’s products requiring FCC type acceptance have been granted such acceptance, other than the Company’s 20 watt base stations. Certain of our radio modems that operate in the FCC licensed frequency band require licensing under Part 90 of the FCC Rules and Regulations, which must be applied for by the end user of the Company’s products. The Company cannot assure customers will receive FCC licenses in the frequency spectrum for any particular application, although all of the Company’s current modems and base stations have received all required licenses under Part 90.

700 MHz Spectrum

In August 1998, the FCC adopted rules for licensing the largest block of spectrum ever allocated at one time for public safety. The FCC established rules for licensing 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band and established a band plan for use of this spectrum. In accordance with this rule, in January 1999, the FCC established a Public Safety National Coordination Committee, or the NCC, to advise it on issues relating to the use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum. The NCC was responsible for formulating a national interoperability plan, recommending technical standards to achieve interoperability, and providing policy recommendations on an advisory basis to the regional planning committees in order to facilitate the development of coordinated plans.

The NCC recommended that Project 25 be established as the interim interoperability mode for digital voice communications in this new band. During January of 2001, the FCC released its Fourth Report and Order in which Project 25 was chosen as the interoperability standard. Subsequent FCC rulings established a timetable for mandating the use of narrower channels in order to promote better spectrum utilization. Specifically, the date of January 1, 2007 was established as the date after which all radios that are FCC type certified, and all radios that are sold for use in the 700 MHz band must include a mode that has an equivalent 6.25 kHz channel efficiency. This date was also established as the date after which no 12.5 kHz licenses could be applied for. In 2005, the FCC delayed that date until January 1, 2015. Legislation known as the Digital Television Transition Act of 2005, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, was expected to set the date of February 17, 2009 as the date by which all incumbent television broadcast stations must evacuate the 700 MHz spectrum, thus freeing the spectrum for the exclusive use of public safety users. This date once set (as February 17, 2009 was not ultimately used) will ensure the opening of that spectrum for use in public safety systems. Management believed the delay may improve opportunities for CX2 and others by providing an immediate solution for a public safety network and when and if a broadband public safety network is implemented it could have improved the network’s performance from offloading small data packets to allow more efficient use of the network.

Following the FCC’s adoption of rules for the establishment of a mandatory public/private partnership between the D Block Licensee and the Public Safety Broadband Licensee (the “700 MHz Public/Private Partnership”), Auction 73 failed to elicit a bid equal to or in excess of the reserve price. The FCC is revisiting the rules governing the D Block spectrum in the 700 MHz band. GEO Command believed that incorporation of, and reliance upon, other frequency networks increased the support for of their services even more because they improved the distribution of and cost efficiencies, and the competition provided by the 700 MHz broadband public safety network improved the business model of our public/ private partnership and enhanced the quality, delivery and speed of these public safety services.

 

 

12

The technology exists now for public safety services to be provided initially over other frequency networks and then linked to the 700 MHz broadband public safety network as needed, when and if that network is up and operating. The key is for the other networks either to operate with a common IP base (characteristic of most modern networks), or to incorporate products (such as the GEO Command Dynamic Server) which are capable of translating data from a legacy network to the 700 MHz broadband network.

Management believed it also may be more cost effective to utilize other networks for certain public safety services. The more narrowband frequency bands -- such as 220 MHz -- have superior propagation and coverage, in management’s opinion. As a result, the antenna and base stations for a narrowband network are more widely spaced (and less expensive) than in a 700 MHz network.

Moreover, it may be more spectrum efficient to deploy certain public safety services in more suitable narrowband frequency networks. Short message applications, such as AVL and sensor data, for example, can be deployed over a narrowband network and must be “always on” to be effective. If these services are provided over the broadband 700 MHz network, the licensee has less flexibility to manage the network and must divert other uses of the network to permit the “always on” services to proceed with continuous monitoring. This result is not as spectrum efficient, particularly when commercial access to the 700 MHz network is contemplated in the absence of “emergencies.”

In order to derive the benefits from utilizing other networks, the performance and coverage factors associated with such networks should count toward the performance and coverage requirements imposed on the 700 MHz D Block licensee. While precautions may be necessary to ensure that these benefits are not abused, if threshold requirements are adopted and eligibility criteria defined, the D Block licensee would have the proper incentives to make use of these other networks without undermining the ultimate success of the nationwide 700 MHz broadband public safety network. On June 18, 2008, GEO Command filed comments with the FCC in WT Docket No. 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229 stating how it believes CX2’s technology would enhance the PSBN, and GEO Command’s comments have since been cited by the FCC in a public notice.

Summary

The majority of the systems operated by our private customers will need to comply with the rules and regulations governing what have traditionally been characterized as “private radio” or private carrier communications systems. Licenses are issued to use frequencies on either a shared or exclusive basis, depending upon the frequency band in which the system operates. Some of the channels designated for exclusive use are employed on a for-profit basis, and other channels are used to satisfy internal communications requirements.

The regulatory environment is inherently uncertain and changes in the regulatory structure and laws and regulations can adversely affect us and our customers. Such changes could make existing or planned products obsolete or unusable in one or more markets, which could have a material adverse effect on us. The FCC, through the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, has considered regulatory measures to facilitate a transition by public safety agencies to a more competitive, innovative environment so that the agencies may gain access to higher-quality transmission, emerging technologies, and broader services, including interoperability. Depending on which of these proposed measures are ultimately adopted, our operations may be favorably or adversely impacted.

Costs of Compliance with Environmental Laws

We are not presently affected by and do not have any costs associated with compliance with environmental laws.

Customers and Suppliers

For the year ended March 31, 2009, three customers accounted for all of the Company’s sales(Kennedy Wireless Partners, L.L.P., Miami-Metro Wireless Partners, L.L.P., and GEO Command, Inc.). The Company purchases its modem boards from Connor Winfield and boards for the base station from Diversified Systems. Assembly is done internally by the Company. As such, the Company believes that it has a concentration of credit risk within its receivables because of the limited customer base.

 

 

13

Intellectual Property and Research and Development

The Company has no registered patents, trademarks or copyrights and no applications for patents, trademarks or copyrights are pending. The Company utilizes intellectual property licensed from GEO Command pursuant to its agreement with GEO Command described above.

The Company had research and development expenses of approximately $21,000 in fiscal year 2009 for development of sensor integration with CX2 data modems and integration with the GEO Command Dynamic Server.

The Company utilized intellectual property licensed from Biz.com pursuant to an agreement with Biz.com, which subsequently forfeited their IP to Stillwater Asset Backed Funds. Thus, CX2 no longer believes it has any right to use this IP, and management is seeking to negotiate a license with Stillwater Asset Backed Funds to enable the Company to continue to have access to this IP. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in obtaining such a license.

Number of Employees

As of March 31, 2009, we employed one person on a full-time basis, our Chief Executive Officer/President. Successful implementation of our business plan will result in the need to hire additional employees. We currently believe that we will need to hire two sales employees and one engineering employee during fiscal year 2010. Our personnel are not subject to any collective bargaining agreements and management believes that its relationship with the Company’s personnel is good.

ITEM 1A: RISK FACTORS

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide the disclosure required by this item, but has elected to present the following risk factors in this filing.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements and Risk Factors

The Company’s Form 10-K, any Form 10-Q or any Form 8-K of the Company or any other written or oral statements made by or on behalf of the Company may contain forward-looking statements which reflect the Company’s current views with respect to future events and financial performance. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intends,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “project,” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements, including any statements of the plans, strategies and objectives of management for future operations; any statements concerning proposed new products, services, developments or industry rankings; any statements regarding future economic conditions or performance; any statements of belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. Such “forward-looking statements” are subject to risks and uncertainties set forth from time to time in the Company’s SEC reports and include, among others, the Risk Factors below.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements as they speak only of the Company’s views as of the date the statement was made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Risk Factors

You should consider the following discussion of risks as well as other information regarding our common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business could be harmed.

The Company Has Historically Lost Money and Expects Its Losses Will Continue In The Future

Since inception, CX2 has incurred operating losses. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, the Company’s net loss was $565,001. The Company expects that it will incur operating losses for the anticipated future. No assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in reaching or maintaining profitable operations. Accordingly, the Company may experience liquidity and cash flow problems. If the Company’s losses continue, its ability to operate may be severely impacted. The ongoing recession has affected the Company adversely by increasing the difficulty of selling product and services to potential customers who have decreased their overall capital expenses.

The Company’s Auditors Have Expressed Substantial Doubt about the Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is an issue raised as a result of the Company’s $565,001 net loss in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, marginal working capital and accumulated deficit. The Company continues to experience net operating losses. The Company’s ability to continue in existence is dependent on its ability to generate a profit and obtain necessary funding from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of its securities, increasing sales or obtaining loans where possible. The going concern increases the difficulty in meeting such goals and there can be no assurances that such methods will prove successful.

 

 

14

The Company Does Not Have Sufficient Capital For Operations, And A Failure To Obtain Additional Financing Will Preclude Its Ability To Stay In Business And Become Profitable

The Company will require additional capital. The Company currently does not have customers to generate the cash flow needed to pay its general and administrative expenses of approximately $50,000 a month, and will need to obtain a significant number of customers before it will achieve a breakeven level of operations. The Company currently does not have sufficient capital to continue its operations. The Company cannot guarantee that additional financing will be available on favorable terms, or at all. Any additional financings may dilute the value and voting power of the common stock. The Company currently has no bank borrowings or credit facilities, and it cannot guarantee that it will be able to arrange any such debt financing or that such financing, if available, will be on acceptable terms. If the Company cannot obtain adequate funds, it cannot fund its expansion, take advantage of unanticipated opportunities, develop or enhance services or products or otherwise respond to market demands or to competitive pressures or market changes. More importantly, the Company may never realize revenues sufficient to sustain its operations and, the Company may fail in its business and cease operations.

We Are Dependent On Our Relationships With GEO Command And Biz.com For A Substantial Portion Of Our Currently Proposed Products And Licensed Intellectual Property

We have and continue to rely substantially on GEO Command and Biz.com to provide us with licensed intellectual property used in our proposed products, and also to provide us with certain components of our proposed products. Our agreements with GEO Command and Biz.com provide limited terms for our licenses and our ability to obtain components for our products, leading to increased risk for us. If our relationships with GEO Command or Biz.com were terminated, it may be difficult for us to continue operations without locating replacements, which may be costly, time consuming, or impossible to do. As described above, we no longer believe that Biz.com has the right to license its intellectual property to us. As a result, management plans to seek to obtain a new license for this intellectual property from the third party that now owns it, although there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such a license.

Uncertain Demand For The Company’s Products May Cause Revenues To Fall Short Of Expectations And Expenses To Be Higher Than Forecast If The Company Needs To Incur More Marketing Costs

The Company is unable to forecast revenues with certainty because of the unknown demand from consumers for its products. If demand for the Company’s products does not prove to be as great as anticipated, revenues may be lower than expected and/or marketing expenses higher than anticipated, either of which will increase the time and capital the Company needs to achieve a profitable level of operations.

The Company May Acquire Other Companies, Which Will Reduce Its Income In The Event The Company Is Not Able to Integrate Them Into Its Existing Operations

As part of the Company’s business strategy, it may make acquisitions of, or significant investments in, complementary companies, products or technologies. Any such future acquisitions would be accompanied by the risks commonly encountered in acquisitions of companies. The Company cannot guarantee that it would be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered with such acquisitions, and the Company’s inability to overcome such risks could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations.

New And Existing Competition May Gain Market Share And Limit The Company’s Potential Growth

The Company has great concern about competing firms entering its target markets. The Company recognizes value in being the first-to-market in many different geographical areas and market verticals especially since most of its future location contracts are expected to be long-term in nature. There is no assurance that new or existing competitors will not adversely affect the Company’s business.

The Company’s Ability To Achieve Profitable Operations Is Directly Tied To The Company’s Ability To Attract And Retain Customers

The Company has no way of predicting whether its marketing efforts will be successful in attracting customers, and acquiring substantial market share. If the Company’s marketing efforts fail, it may fail to attract customers, which would adversely affect our business and financial results.

 

 

15

Limited Number of Successful Operators Within The 220 MHz Wireless Industry

Although the Company’s initial management team, consultants and dealer partners have, collectively, substantial 220 MHz wireless operational experience, the Company has limited operating experience within the 220 MHz wireless industry.

Many participants within the 220 MHz wireless industry concentrated their efforts and capital expenditures initially on construction of 220 MHz operating systems in advance of FCC construction deadlines and the later acquisition of additional 220 MHz spectrum in subsequent FCC auctions. As such, they have had only limited success to date in their marketing efforts to obtain subscribers to their systems due to their lack of needed additional working capital for marketing purposes and their inability to secure desired radio equipment inventory from a former manufacturer of such equipment due to its own working capital constraints. As a result, while there are a limited number of successful 220 MHz wireless operators within select regional areas, many 220 MHz wireless industry participants have generated only minimal revenues, if any, and have incurred and continue to incur losses.

We Cannot Assure Our Success In Our Planned Business Operations

If we are unable to raise additional capital, the Company will only be able to continue its current operations for approximately one (1) to six (6) months from the date of this filing. We have no current financing sources in place and no assurances are given as to the availability of any financing, or if available, the terms thereof.

We anticipate that even in the event we are able to raise sufficient capital to continue operations, such proceeds will not necessarily assure our success or profitability in view of, among other factors, our limited operating history in this business, the uncertainties associated with marketing emerging technologies, and the capital intensive nature of the wireless data and voice industry. We anticipate that profits, if any, will be derived through the sale of digital base stations, modems and engineering services and support. We are subject to all the substantial risks inherent in the development of a business enterprise within a sector of the wireless data and voice industry that has itself generated only limited revenues to date. Accordingly, no assurances can be given that our business will ever be successful or that we will ever be or remain profitable.

The Company Could Fail To Attract Or Retain Key Personnel, Which Could Hamper Its Ability To Generate Income

The Company has a single key employee who manages the Company’s operations and, if the Company were to lose this individual’s services, it would negatively impact the Company’s operations. In addition, the Company needs to attract additional high quality sales, technical and consulting personnel. To the extent the Company is smaller than its competitors and has fewer resources, the Company may not be able to attract the sufficient number and quality of staff.

The Company may enter into option agreements to acquire select assets of other 220 MHz system owners/operators, which may include 220 MHz licenses

The Company may enter into option agreements on terms to be negotiated to acquire select assets of other 220 MHz system owners/operators, which may include 220 MHz licenses. The FCC requires the licensee of a 220 MHz license must maintain “substantial control” over the use of such license. In the event the Company may desire to acquire a 220 MHz license from a holder thereof and initially obtain an option to acquire such license rather than purchase such license outright. The license holder thereof may, in its sole discretion, fail to cooperate with the Company concerning its intended usage thereof, such as to expand the Company’s networking or roaming capabilities. The Company’s ability to expand its operations and provide for further geographical coverage to its networks’ users could be adversely effected in instances where licenses may be acquired in this manner . We may assist interested parties in acquiring licenses from license holders interested in selling their licenses.

Development Risks Generally

We intend to grow primarily by (a) marketing to and obtaining customers in the commercial and public safety/emergency disaster relief sector s to utilize the data communication products offered and intended to be offered by us, thereby realizing revenues; and (ii) purchasing select assets from 220 MHz network owners and product providers. Development involves substantial risks, further enumerated herein, including the risk: (a) that we will not acquire what we believe to be the minimum “critical mass” of assets so as to develop any meaningful operations; (b) that development costs will exceed budgeted or contracted amounts; (c) that our marketing efforts to obtain customers will not proceed as rapidly as anticipated or otherwise be successful; (d) that our products will not achieve desired revenue or profitability levels; (e) that substantial additional financing, which will be necessary, might not be available or if available, might not be on favorable terms; (f) of changes in applicable laws, rules, regulations and interpretations which may adversely effect our business and operations; (g) that we may not be able to purchase desired select assets to expand our operations due to competition, financial or other considerations or otherwise successfully manage or integrate such asset purchases with our then operations; (h) of competition from other 220 MHz network operators and product providers as well as other providers of wireless communication services, many of the latter of whom have substantially greater financial and other resources than the Company; (i) the Company may not for whatever reason(s) be successful in its marketing efforts to the Homeland Security/Public Safety sector; and (j) of technology changes within the wireless communication industry and our potential inability to adopt such changes to our product and service offerings if so desired by prospective or then current customers either due to technology constraints which may be inherent to 220 MHz band services, financial constraints, or otherwise. There can be no assurances that we will be successful in executing upon our business plan.

 

 

16

Industry Operating History; Uncertainty of Broad Based Market Acceptance

Although numerous 220 MHz networks are operational in the United States, including many “mom and pop” network operators which produce minimal revenues, and fleet operators, many other networks are “operational” in the sense that they were constructed in advance of FCC construction deadlines, are available for subscriber use, but are otherwise producing minimal or no subscriber revenues. The 220 MHz wireless industry should therefore be viewed as having a less than successful operating history subject to uncertainty concerning the operational viability of available technology and its perceived suitability for targeted markets. The success of our business may be affected by matters beyond our control, including but not limited to changes in technology and equipment, equipment costs, competition, future demand for our services and changes in economic conditions, all of which can impact upon market acceptance. While management of the Company believes, based upon its knowledge of the industry generally, that there is a perceived need for the Company’s services, and based upon informal discussions had with certain public safety/emergency disaster relief industry personnel, including within the emergency management services sector, no assurance can be given that such perceived need for the Company’s services is correct.

Competition

The wireless communications industry has been and continues to be highly competitive, influenced by the introduction of new services by, and the marketing and pricing activities of, industry participants. We will compete with numerous other businesses engaged in the telecommunications industry which market the same or similar services and products as those marketed and intended to be marketed by the Company, many of which businesses have or may have substantially greater capital and other resources than the Company.

The greater financial resources of many cellular telephone, as well as 800 MHz, service providers currently permit such entities to offer creative pricing and incentive packages which we cannot presently offer and may not be able to offer in the future. Improvements in technology may adversely impact the demand for our services, which could adversely affect our operations. Other modes of wireless communications such as cellular, specialized mobile radio (800 and 900 MHz), personal communications systems (“PCS”) and one-way paging are examples of current competing technology. While we believe, due to the costs for such services compared to the relatively low cost of 220 MHz service, that 220 MHz service may be ideal for radio dispatch subscribers as well as other potential end-users, no assurances can be given that we are correct in our belief, or that the Company will be able to successfully compete.

We Depend On Third Party Manufacturers And Suppliers For Components Of All Of The Products We Sell

We have a relationship with GEO Command for the supply of a significant portion of the software components of our products, and two manufacturers produce the hardware components of our products. While we also include an internally-developed firmware component in our products, we would be unable to sell certain of our products without the hardware and software provided by the third party manufacturer and GEO Command. Risks associated with our dependence upon a third party manufacturing relationship include: (i) reduced control over delivery schedules; (ii) lack of control over quality assurance; (iii) poor manufacturing yields and high costs; (iv) potential lack of adequate capacity during periods of excess demand; and (v) potential misappropriation of our intellectual property.

We do not know if we will be able to maintain our manufacturing and supply relationships on favorable terms, if at all, or that our third party manufacturers and suppliers will meet our requirements for quality, quantity or timeliness. Our success depends in part on whether our third party manufacturers and suppliers are able to fill the orders we place with them and in a timely manner. If our third party manufacturers and suppliers fail to satisfactorily perform their contractual obligations or fill purchase orders we place with them, we may be required to pursue replacement manufacturer relationships. If we are unable to find replacements on a timely basis, or at all, we may be forced to either temporarily or permanently discontinue the sale of some or all of our products, which could expose us to legal liability, loss of reputation and risk of loss or reduced profit. Finding new manufacturers that offer a similar type of product would be a complicated and time consuming process and we cannot assure you that if we ever need to find a new manufacturer for our products we would be able to do so at all.

 

 

17

We could also be adversely affected by an increase in our third party manufacturers and suppliers’ prices for our product components or a significant decline in our third party manufacturers and suppliers’ financial condition. If the relationships with our third party manufacturers and suppliers are terminated and we are not successful in establishing relationships with one or more alternative manufacturers who offer similar services at similar prices, our costs could increase or we could be forced to cease operations altogether.

We Depend On Our Internally Developed And Licensed Intellectual Property

Our success and ability to compete depends in part on the intellectual property underlying our products, which includes some intellectual property developed by our sole technical employee (who has not assigned his rights in any inventions to the Company and is no longer employed by the Company), and intellectual property licensed from GEO Command under the Consulting Agreement, which does not provide clear terms for this license, and from Biz.com under our agreements with it. As described elsewhere, we no longer believe we have any rights to intellectual property licensed from Biz.com, and are seeking to obtain an alternate license for this intellectual property.

If any of our competitors copy or otherwise gain access to the proprietary technology underlying our products, or develop similar technologies independently, we may not be able to compete as effectively. The measures we, Biz.com and GEO Command take to protect our technologies, and other intellectual property rights, may not be adequate to prevent their unauthorized use.

If we, Biz.com and GEO Command are unable to protect our intellectual property, our competitors could use our intellectual property to market products, services and technologies similar to ours, which could reduce demand for our products, services and technologies. We may be unable to prevent unauthorized parties from attempting to copy or otherwise obtain and use our products or technology. Policing unauthorized use of our technology is difficult, and we may not be able to prevent misappropriation of our technology, particularly in foreign countries where the laws may not protect our intellectual property as fully as those in the United States. Others may circumvent the trade secrets, trademarks and copyrights that we, Biz.com or GEO Command currently or in the future own. GEO Command has patent protection with respect to certain of its technologies, but there can be no assurance that any patents will adequately protect GEO Command’s intellectual property.

We Could Incur Substantial Costs Defending Our Intellectual Property from Infringement by others

Unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our Biz.com and GEO Command proprietary products or to obtain and use our other proprietary information.  Litigation may be necessary to enforce our Biz.com or GEO Command intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets and to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others.  We may not have the financial resources to prosecute any infringement claims that we may have.  Any litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources with no assurance of success.

We Could Incur Substantial Costs Defending Against Claims That Our Products Infringe On the Proprietary Rights of Others

The scope of any intellectual property rights that we, Biz.com or GEO Command have is uncertain and may not be sufficient to prevent infringement claims against us or claims that we have violated the intellectual property rights of third parties. While we know of no basis for any claims of this type, the existence of and ownership of intellectual property can be difficult to verify and we have not made an exhaustive search of all patent filings. Competitors may have filed applications for or may have been issued patents and may obtain additional patents and proprietary rights relating to products or processes that compete with or are related to our products and services. The scope and viability of these patents, the extent to which we may be required to obtain licenses under these patents or under other proprietary rights and the cost and availability of licenses are unknown, but these factors may limit our ability to market our products and services.

Third parties could claim infringement by us with respect to any patents or other proprietary rights that they hold, and we cannot assure you that we would prevail in any such proceeding as the intellectual property status of our current and future competitors’ products and services is uncertain. Any infringement claims against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation or arbitration and diversion of technical and management personnel, or require us to develop non-infringing technology or to enter into royalty or licensing agreements.

 

 

18

We might not be successful in developing or otherwise acquiring rights to non-infringing technologies. Royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all, and could significantly harm our business and operating results. A successful claim of infringement against us or our failure or inability to license the infringed or similar technology could require us to pay substantial damages and could harm our business because we would not be able to continue selling our products without incurring significant additional expense. In addition, to the extent we agree to indemnify customers or other third parties against infringement of the intellectual property rights of others, a claim of infringement could require us to incur substantial time, effort and expense to indemnify these customers and third parties and could disrupt or terminate their ability to use, market or sell our products. Furthermore, GEO Command, Biz.com and any other future suppliers may not provide us with indemnification in the event that their products are found to infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third parties, and if they do not, we would be forced to bear any resulting expense.

Our Sales May Be Concentrated In Public Sector Markets That Inherently Possess Additional Risks That Could Harm Our Business.

A significant portion of our future revenue may be derived from sales to federal, state, and local governments. Sales to these government entities present risks in addition to those involved in sales to commercial customers, including potential disruptions due to appropriation and spending patterns, changes in government personnel, political factors and the government’s reservation of the right to cancel contracts for its convenience. The bidding cycle for a request for proposal and contract award stage can take six months to two years before a contract is awarded and the government funding process for these systems can delay the bidding cycle as well. We expect that sales to government entities will increasingly be subject to competitive bidding requirements. This intensified competition can be expected to result in lower prices, longer sales cycles and lower margins. Further, our future sales to these domestic public safety and public service entities may be substantially tied to Project 25 interoperability mandates and homeland security initiatives. Changes in governmental budget priorities could result in decreased opportunities for us to sell into this market segment.

We May Depend On Federal Government Contracts For A Substantial Portion Of Our Future Revenues, And The Loss Of Federal Government Contracts Or A Decline In Funding Of Existing Or Future Government Contracts Could Adversely Affect Our Future Revenues.

A substantial portion of our future revenues may be dependent upon continued funding of federal government agencies, as well as continued funding of the programs to be targeted by us. U.S. government contracts are subject to termination for convenience by the government, as well as termination, reduction, or modification in the event of budgetary constraints or any change in the government’s requirements. Further, our contract-related costs and fees, including allocated indirect costs, may be subject to audits by the U.S. government that may result in recalculation of contract revenues and non-reimbursement of some contract costs and fees. In addition, if we act as a subcontractor, the failure or inability of the prime contractor to perform its prime contract may result in an inability to obtain payment of fees and contract costs.

In addition, government contract awards can be contested by other competing contractors, which may result in delays in the commencement of our performance and receipt of payments for our work under such contracts.

U.S. government contracts are dependent upon the continuing availability of congressional appropriations. Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though contract performance may take several years. Consequently, at the outset of a major program, the contract is usually incrementally funded and additional funds are normally committed to the contract by the procuring agency as Congress makes appropriations for future fiscal years. Any failure of such agencies to continue to fund such contracts could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. These or other factors could cause federal government agencies to shift their spending priorities, reduce their purchases under contracts, to exercise their right to terminate contracts, or exercise their right not to renew contracts, all of which may limit our ability to obtain or maintain contract awards. Any of the aforementioned actions above could adversely affect our future revenues.

Our Failure To Comply With, Or Changes In, Governmental Regulation Could Adversely Affect Our Business And Operations.

Our wireless communications and secured communications products, and the spectrum within which these products are used, are subject to regulation, as will be our future customers. In particular, our products are regulated by the FCC. The regulatory environment is uncertain. Changes in the regulatory structure, laws or regulations, or in the use or allocation of spectrum, could adversely affect us or our future customers. Such changes could make our existing or planned products obsolete or not sellable in one or more markets, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Further, our failure to comply in the future with applicable regulations could result in penalties on us, such as fines or operational restrictions.

 

 

19

We May Be Unable To Meet The Rapid Technology Requirement Required By Our Market.

Our future products may be subject to development and other delays, and we cannot assure you that we will not encounter difficulties, such as the inability to assign a sufficient number of quality software and hardware engineers to key projects or other unanticipated causes, that could delay or prevent the successful and timely development, introduction and marketing of new products or required product features. In addition, our products may be implemented by certain third-party hardware and software. We cannot assure you that we will be able to design, have manufactured, or procure from third parties, the hardware and software necessary to successfully implement any new products and applications.

Our Future Operations Will Depend Upon Our Ability And The Resources Available To Respond To The Rapidly Evolving Technology And Customer Requirements In The Markets In Which We Will Operate.

The private wireless communications and secured communications markets in which we may compete are rapidly evolving as a result of changing technology, industry standards and customer requirements. Our ability to compete effectively will depend upon our ability to anticipate and react to these changes in a timely manner. We may not have adequate capital or human resources to respond to these changes.

Part of our success will depend on our ability to commercialize our products to enable us to sell such solutions to other customers, including government and commercial users. In addition, the rate of adoption of secure wireless data communications systems by the U.S. Government is not certain. Delays in this rate of adoption could adversely affect our future sales.

The Company’s Common Stock Is A “Penny Stock,” Which May Make It More Difficult For Investors To Sell Their Shares Due To Suitability Requirements

The Company’s common stock is “penny stock” as that term is defined in Rule 3a51-1 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These requirements may reduce the potential market for the Company’s common stock by reducing the number of potential investors and by making broker-dealers less likely to effect trades in the common stock. This may make it more difficult for investors in the Company’s common stock to sell shares to third parties or to otherwise dispose of them. This could cause the Company’s stock price to decline. Penny stocks are stock:

	•	With a price of less than $5.00 a share;
	•	That are not traded on a “recognized” national exchange;
	•	Whose prices are not quoted on the NASDAQ automated quotation system (NASDAQ listed stock must still have a price of not less than $5.00 a share); or
	•	Issuers with net tangible assets less than $2.0 million (if the issuer has been in continuous operation for at least three years) or $5.0 million (if in continuous operation for less than three years), or with average revenues of less than $6.0 million for the last three years.

SEC Rule 15g-9 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers that recommend the purchase or sale of penny stocks to persons other than those who qualify as an “established customer” or an “accredited investor.” This includes the requirement that a broker-dealer must make a determination on the appropriateness of investments in penny stocks for the customer and must make special disclosures to the customer concerning the risks of penny stocks. Application of the penny stock rules to our common stock could affect the market liquidity of the shares, which in turn may affect the ability of holders of our common stock to resell the stock.

The Company Does Not Intend To Pay Any Dividends

The Company has never declared or paid any cash dividends on its common stock. The Company currently intends to retain any future profits from operations to fund growth and does not expect to pay any dividends in the foreseeable future.

 

 

20

ITEM 1B: UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide the disclosure required by this item.

ITEM 2: PROPERTIES

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at 3700 Airport Road, Suite 410B, Boca Raton, FL 33431, where the Company leases approximately 700 square feet of office space. The Company’s monthly payment is paid as part of the payments due under the Consulting Agreement with GEO Command, Inc. who is the lessee. GEO Command’s lease expires in May 2010, and the Company and GEO Command are affiliated as described above. Additional office space will be needed as additional employees are hired and are expected to be available at the Company’s present location. The Company’s management believes that all facilities occupied by the Company are adequate for present requirements, and that the Company’s current equipment is in good condition and is suitable for the operations involved. The Company vacated its Burr Ridge, IL facility in February 2009 due to a lack of customers on the network at that location.

ITEM 3: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not a party to and none of our property is subject to any material pending or threatened legal, governmental, administrative or judicial proceedings.

ITEM 4: SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matter was submitted to a vote of the Company’s security holders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

PART II

ITEM 5: MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation provide that the Company has the authority to issue 205,000,000 shares of capital stock, which are currently divided into two classes as follows: 200,000,000 shares of common stock, par value of $0.001 per share; and 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value of $0.001 per share. As of March 31, 2010, we had 27,483,210 outstanding shares of Common Stock and no outstanding shares of Preferred Stock.

On January 3, 2008, our common stock began being quoted on the OTCBB under the symbol “CXTO.OB”. There is limited trading activity in our securities.

The following table sets forth, for the fiscal quarters indicated, the high and low sales prices for our common stock as reported on the OTCBB. The OTCBB quotations are high and low last reported bid prices representing inter-dealer prices without retail mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions, and may not necessarily represent actual transactions. The quotations may be rounded for presentation. There is an absence of an established trading market for the Company’s common stock, as the market is limited, sporadic and highly volatile, which may have affected the prices listed below.

Year ended March 31, 2010			High			Low
First quarter		$	0.0278		$	.0046
Second quarter		$	0.0120		$	.0013
Third quarter		$	0.0100		$	.0018
Fourth quarter		$	0.0100		$	.0028

The Company has never paid any cash dividends on its stock and does not plan to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

As of March 31, 2010, we had approximately 500 shareholders of record, exclusive of shares held in street name.

Equity Compensation Plans

The Company does not have any equity compensation plans in place as of the date of this report, and had no options, warrants or other convertible securities outstanding as of that date.

 

 

21

Sales of Unregistered Securities

On November 11, 2008, the Company issued 1,000,000 shares to Wall Street Resources, Inc. in exchange for services rendered to the Company pursuant to Wall Street Resources’ Consulting Agreement with the Company. These shares were issued in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

ITEM 6: SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide the disclosure required by this item.

ITEM 7: MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

CX2 Technologies, Inc. is engaged in the development and sale of its 220 MHz digital wireless data communications technologies and related services.

The Company currently markets CX2 branded data technology and services for use by various commercial/industrial applications and the Homeland Security/Public Safety sector. We believe that due to advances in 220 MHz technology and equipment and the lower costs generally associated with lower frequency band usage in comparison to cellular telephone and other wireless communications services, a broad spectrum of potential commercial and public safety/emergency disaster relief end-users may find the Company’s services advantageous and desirable, which could result in fee-based subscribership and/or high margin technology sales. The Company cannot assure, however, that it is correct in such a belief or that it will be successful in any of such efforts.

We intend to grow primarily by (a) marketing efforts to the Homeland Security/Public Safety sector; and (b) through the sale of CX2 data modems and base stations to existing 220 MHz license holders. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in executing our business plan.

We have a working capital shortage, and must continue to seek and secure significant capital from outside funding sources as our cash flow from operations is insufficient to sustain operations. No assurances can be given that we will be successful in obtaining such needed capital. Our inability to promptly secure needed capital will materially adversely affect the Company and its operations, as we believe our current cash position and anticipated receipt of revenues will enable us to sustain current operations for up to approximately one month from the date of this filing.

We have no financing sources in place and no assurances are given as to the availability of any financing, or if available, the terms thereof. We will require additional capital within the next month to continue our operations, the failure of which to obtain could materially adversely affect the Company and its business.

We anticipate that even in the event we are able to raise sufficient capital to continue our operations, such capital will not necessarily assure our success or profitability in view of, among other factors, our limited operating history in this business, the uncertainties associated with marketing emerging technologies, and the capital intensive nature of the wireless data and voice industry. We anticipate that revenues, if any, will be derived through the sale of digital base stations, modems and engineering services and support. We are subject to all the substantial risks inherent in the development of a business enterprise within a sector of the wireless data and voice industry that has itself generated only limited revenues to date. Accordingly, no assurances can be given that our business will ever be successful or that we will ever be or remain profitable.

The Company is in our initial phase of operations with limited assets and capital. For our fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, we had a net loss of $210,606.

We believe that we will have to increase the number of our personnel over the next approximately 6-12 months as our business expands due to the need to increase our networking and marketing efforts.

Results of Operations

Financial Presentation

The following sets forth a discussion and analysis of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations for the two years ended March 31, 2010 and 2009. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The following discussion contains forward-looking statements. Our actual results may differ significantly from the results discussed in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in “Item 1A — Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

22

Year ended March 31, 2010 compared to year ended March 31, 2009

Revenues: Revenues from operations for the year ended March 31, 2010 of $3,711 reflected a decrease of $96,491 over the year ended March 31, 2009, due to decreased sales of equipment, particularly base stations, and engineering/support services in fiscal year 2010. Revenues in both years were minimal as the Company has not yet fully commenced its operations and will not do so until additional capital is raised.

Cost of Sales: There was no cost of sales during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 due to the Company’s decision to adjust inventory that was considered obsolete during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

Operating Expenses: Operating expenses decreased by $456,064 to $194,760 for the year ended March 31, 2010, as compared to $650,824 for the year ended March 31, 2009.

Net Loss: The Company’s net loss was $210,606 in the year ended March 31, 2010, as compared to a net loss of $565,001 in the year ended March 31, 2009.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this report have been prepared on a going concern basis that contemplates the realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. Management realizes that we must generate capital and revenue resources to enable us to achieve profitable operations. To the extent that we are unable to obtain additional working capital from operations and/or other sources as required or otherwise desired, our financial statements will be materially affected and we may be forced to curtail our operations.

We were in a working capital shortage at the fiscal year end of March 31, 2009 and cash flow from operations is insufficient to sustain our operations as of the date of this filing. As of the date of this filing, the Company still requires additional financing to sustain operations until additional subscribers can be obtained. No assurances are given that we will be successful in obtaining additional needed capital. Our inability to secure such additional capital will materially adversely affect the Company and its operations. We believe our current cash position after funding and anticipated receipt of revenues will enable us to sustain current operations for up to approximately one month.

At March 31, 2010, we had stockholders’ deficiency of $1,188,637, total assets of $97,105 and total current liabilities of $1,285,742. For the year ended March 31, 2010, we have incurred losses of $210,606 and for the year ended March 31, 2010, we used cash in operations of $76,060. Our operations and acquisitions have been funded by the sale of equity in private equity financing from accredited investors and by loans from our management. These funds have been used for working capital and general corporate purposes and acquisition and licensing costs in furtherance of our business plan. There are no current arrangements with purchasers for any of our securities.

In the event we are unable to raise additional capital within the next one month, such event will significantly restrict and possibly cause us to cease our operations which would have a substantial adverse effect on the Company and share holders.

We do not currently anticipate any material capital expenditures for our existing operations. We do not currently anticipate purchasing, leasing or selling any plant or significant equipment during approximately the next twelve (12) months. To the extent that we engage in such acquisitions, we plan to utilize shares of the Company’s common stock for such purposes, and may assume certain obligations and debt in such transactions. Such common stock issuance, as well as any common stock issuance for cash to the extent affected, will have the effect of creating further shareholder dilution.

We do not believe that inflation has had a material effect on our results of operations. However, there can be no assurances that our business will not be affected by inflation in the future.

 

 

23

We have no off balance sheet arrangements.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Note 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements, includes a summary of the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our Financial Statements. We consider the following accounting policies and methods to be the most important to our financial position and results of operations, either because of the significance of the financial statement item or because they require the exercise of significant judgment or the use of estimates. In addition, Financial Reporting Release No. 61 requires all companies to include a discussion to address, among other things, liquidity, off-balance sheet arrangements, contractual obligations and commercial commitments.

Inventory

Inventory consists of communication devices which are valued at the lower of cost or market with cost being determined on a first-in, first-out basis. The inventory consisted exclusively of finished and unfinished units purchased from a related party.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue from users for network services is recognized at the time that the services are provided. Revenue from sales of radios and other related equipment is recognized at date of delivery to the customer and collection is reasonably assured. The Company does not believe that this concentration of revenues and related licenses under which it will operate have significant risk inasmuch as the services will be utilized by many unrelated businesses.

ITEM 7A: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide disclosure required by this item.

ITEM 8: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

The Company’s audited financial statements and the notes thereto appear in Part IV, Item 15, of this report.

ITEM 9: CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

On August 1, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company dismissed Webb & Company PA (“Webb & Company”), the registered independent public accounting firm for the Company, as the Company’s independent auditors effective immediately.

In connection with the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, and through August 1, 2008, there were no disagreements between the Company and Webb & Company on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which if not resolved to Webb & Company’s satisfaction, would have caused Webb & Company to make reference the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its audit reports on the Company’s financial statements. None of the reportable events set forth in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-B occurred during the period in which Webb & Company served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

On August 1, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the engagement of Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the Company’s fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. The decision to change the Company’s principal independent accountants was the result of the Board of Directors’ determination that it was in the best interests of the Company.

ITEM 9A: CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive and financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), as of March 31, 2010. Based on that evaluation, our principal executive and financial officer concluded that the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective in timely alerting him to material information required to be included in the Company’s periodic reports filed with the SEC under the Exchange Act. The design of any system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions, regardless of how remote. However, management believes that our system of disclosure controls and procedure is designed to provide a reasonable level of assurance that the objectives of the system will be met.

 

 

24

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the principal executive and financial officer, and effected by the board of directors and management to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with US GAAP, including those policies and procedures that: (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of assets, (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with US GAAP and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and the Board, and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies and procedures may deteriorate.

Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Tread-way Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that internal control over financial reporting was ineffective as of March 31, 2009, in properly accounting for all accounts payable and accrued liabilities.

Management is aware that there is a lack of segregation of duties due to the small number of employees dealing with general administrative and financial matters. However, management has concluded that considering the employees involved and the control procedures in place, the risks associated with such lack of segregation are insignificant and the potential benefits of adding employees to clearly segregate duties do not justify the expenses associated with such increases.

This Annual Report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s current independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s current independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the SEC that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report.

There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls that occurred during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. The Company believes that a control system, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected.

ITEM 9B: OTHER INFORMATION

There were no items required to be disclosed in a report on Form 8-K during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 that have not been already disclosed on a Form 8-K filed with the SEC.

PART III

ITEM 10: DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The following table sets forth as of the date hereof, except as otherwise noted, the names, ages and positions held with respect to each director, executive officer, and significant employee expected to make a significant contribution to the Company:

Name		Age		Position		Term		Period
Michael Rand		48		President, CEO, Secretary, Treasurer, Director		1 yr		February 2008– July 6, 2010

 

 

25

All directors hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. There are no agreements with respect to electing directors. The Board of Directors appoints officers annually and each executive officer serves at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The Company does not have any standing committees at this time and due to its small size does not believe that committees are necessary at this time. As of the date of this filing the Company’s sole director fulfills the duties of an audit committee, and does not qualify as an “audit committee financial expert.”

No director, officer, affiliate or promoter of the Company has, within the past five years, filed any bankruptcy petition, been convicted in or been the subject of any pending criminal proceedings, or is any such person the subject or any order, judgment or decree involving the violation of any state or federal securities laws. There is no family relationship between any of our executive officers and directors.

Mr. Rand, who took office with CX2 on February 29, 2008, has more than 12 years of experience in voice and data systems engineering. He has served as Marketing Director of GEO Command, Inc. since 2006. GEO Command is the provider of GEO Command software, an off-the-shelf application suite for the homeland security market. As part of Mr. Rand’s responsibilities at GEO Command, he has worked with CX2 Technologies on a homeland security and public safety project. From 2004 to 2005, Mr. Rand was a Communications Systems Engineer with Larry Smith Marine Electronics, where he designed voice and data networks and satellite communications systems for luxury yachts. From 1999 to 2004, Mr. Rand was a Senior Systems Engineer with Precision Response Systems, where he engineered and supported a 485-seat call center. Mr. Rand holds a B.A. in Theater Technology from Florida State University.

There have been no material changes to the procedures by which our shareholders may recommend nominees to the Board of Directors during our last fiscal year.

Code of Ethics

The Company has not yet adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions, comprising written standards that are reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote the behavior described in Item 406 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Due to the small size of the Company, management does not believe such a code is needed at this time.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors, executive officers and persons who own more than 10% of the Company’s stock (collectively, “Reporting Persons”) to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership and changes in ownership of the Company’s Common Stock. Reporting Persons are required by SEC regulations to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) reports they file. To the Company’s knowledge, based solely on its review of the copies of such reports received or written representations from certain Reporting Persons that no other reports were required, the Company believes that during its fiscal year ended March 31, 2009; all Reporting Persons complied with all applicable filing requirements.

ITEM 11: EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table sets forth, for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, certain information regarding the compensation earned by the Company’s named executive officers. No other executive officer received an annual salary and bonus for fiscal year 2010 and 2009 in excess of $100,000 with respect to services rendered by any of such persons to the Company. Where columns have been omitted from the Summary Compensation Table below, it is because no such compensation was paid to the named executive officer during the 2009 or 2010 fiscal years.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
Name andPrincipalPosition		FiscalYear			Salary($)			Bonus($)			All OtherCompensation($)			Total($)
Michael Rand,			2010		$	25,000			—			—		$	25,000
President			2009		$	24,000			—			—		$	24,000
and CEO

 

 

26

Employment Agreements

None

Director Compensation

Members of the Board of Directors did not receive any cash or non-cash compensation for their service as Directors during our 2009 and 2008 fiscal years. The Company has no non-employee directors.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide the disclosure required by this item.

Compensation Committee Report

As a smaller reporting company, the Company is not required to provide the disclosure required by this item.

ITEM 12: SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The following table sets forth beneficial ownership information as of March 31, 2010: (i) each of the Company’s officers and directors, (ii) each person who is known by the Company to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding shares of common stock, and (iii) all of the Company’s officers and directors as a group. As of July 31, 2009, the Company had 22,557,210 shares of common stock outstanding.

         (a) Security ownership of certain beneficial owners:

Title of Class		Name and Address		Amount & Nature of Beneficial Ownership		Percentage of Class
Common shares		Biz.Com U.S.A., Inc. 4550 Hazelton Lane Wellington, FL 33449		5,000,000		18.2%

          (b) Security Ownership of directors and executive officers:

          None

ITEM 13: CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

During the past three (3) fiscal years, we have not entered into a transaction, nor are any transactions currently proposed, with a value in excess of $120,000 for our last three fiscal years with an officer, director or beneficial owner of 5% or more of our common stock, or with any member of the immediate family of any of the foregoing named persons or entities, except as follows:

Sam D. Hitner, the former President and CEO, was the Director of Finance for Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. from November 2004 until March 1, 2006 when he became President and CEO of CX2 Technologies Inc. During his service to Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. he was not an officer or Director of Biz.com. Since March 2006, he conducted certain negotiations and transactions with Biz.com, including the 10-year Airtime Agreement and non-exclusive licensing agreement described above. Such negotiations and transactions were effected at “arms’ length” as a representative of a separate and discrete company.

During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company purchased $232,500 of finished goods inventory from Biz.com.

 

 

27

During the year ended March 31, 2008, a stockholder, Halody Consulting, LLC, loaned the Company $546,068 for working capital. The loan bears interest at 8% per annum and is payable on demand. This loan is convertible into common stock at a conversion rate of $0.025 per share, and as of March 31, 2008, $132,000 had been converted. The remaining amounts due under the loan have since been forgiven.

Mr. Rand has loaned the Company $92,000 during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2009 and 2008. This loan is interest free and is due in full six months from the date of issuance.

Using the standards of the NASDAQ Capital Market, which listing standards are not applicable to the Company, the Company’s Board has determined that its sole director would not qualify under such standards as an independent director. The Company did not consider any relationship or transaction between itself and Mr. Rand not already disclosed in this report in making this determination.

ITEM 14: PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

Webb & Company, P.A. served as the Company’s principal accountant from September 1, 2006 through August 1, 2008. Their fees billed to the Company for the past two fiscal years are set forth below:

		2009			2008
Audit Fees		$	17,254		$	39,353
Audit Related Fees			—			—
Tax Fees			—			—
All Other Fees			—			—
Total Fees		$	17,254		$	39,353

Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates have served as the Company’s principal accountant since August 1, 2008. Their fees billed to the Company for the past two fiscal years are set forth below:

		2010			2009
Audit Fees		$	7,500			29,000
Audit Related Fees			—			—
Tax Fees			—			—
All Other Fees			—			—
Total Fees		$	7,500			29,000

•	Audit Fees
	-Including fees for professional services for the audit of our annual financial statements and for the reviews of the financial statements included in each of our quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB and 10-Q.
•	Audit Related Fees
	-Consists of assurance related services by the independent auditors that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit and review of our financial statements and are not included under audit fees.

 

 

28

•	Tax Fees
	-These services included assistance regarding federal, state and local tax compliance and return preparation.
•	All Other Fees
	-Includes time and procedures related to change in independent accountants and research and assistance provided to the Company.

During its fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, the Company did not have an Audit Committee and the Company’s sole director pre-approved all fees of the principal accountant. The Company’s principal accountant did not engage any other persons or firms other than the principal accountant’s full-time, permanent employees.

PART IV

ITEM 15: EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this Report:

1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - beginning on page F-1 of this Report:

- Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates Independent Auditors’ Report

- Balance Sheet at March 31, 2010 and 2009

- Statements of Operations for the Years Ended March 31, 2010 and 2009

- Statements of changes in Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit) for the Years Ended March 31, 2010 and 2009

- Statements of Cash Flows for the Year Ended March 31, 2010 and 2009

- Notes to Financial Statements

2. EXHIBITS –

(except as otherwise indicated, all exhibits were previously filed)

Exhibit #	Description
3.1	Articles of Incorporation, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
3.2	Bylaws, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
3.3	Amendment to Articles of Incorporation, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
3.4	Amendment to Articles of Incorporation, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
10	220-222 MHz Air Time Agreement, dated March 6, 2006, between Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. and CX2 Technologies, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
10.1	Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 5, 2006, between Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. and CX2 Technologies, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
10.2	Licensing Agreement and Asset Sale dated February 26, 2007, between Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. and CX2 Technologies, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-SB on January 11, 2007.
10.3	First Amendment to 220-222 MHz Airtime Agreement dated March 19, 2007, between Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. and CX2 Technologies, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-KSB on December 14, 2007.
10.4	Distributor Agreement with ESP Wireless Agreement dated June 4, 2006, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 10-KSB on December 14, 2007.

 

 

29

10.5	Intentionally Omitted.
10.6	Consulting Agreement, dated January 25, 2008, by and between CX2 Technologies, Inc. and GEO Command, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 8-K on March 19, 2008.
10.7	Release Agreement, dated March 20, 2008, by and between CX2 Technologies, Inc. and ESP Wireless Technology Group, Inc., incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 8-K on June 11, 2008.
10.8	Settlement Agreement, dated as of June 2, 2008 and effective as of March 31, 2008, by and among CX2 Technologies, Inc., GEO Command, Inc., Michael Rand, Albert Koenigsberg, Halody Consulting, LLC and Peter Kirschner, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 8-K on June 11, 2008.
10.9	Redemption, Settlement and Release Agreement, dated June 6, 2008, by and among CX2 Technologies, Inc., Adam and Julie Reiser, Michael Rand, Albert Koenigsberg and Digital Dial, LLC, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 8-K on June 11, 2008.
10.10	Promissory Note dated May 23, 2008 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of Michael Rand in the principal amount of $40,500, filed herewith.
10.11	Promissory Note dated June 5, 2008 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of GEO Command, Inc. in the principal amount of $14,113, filed herewith.
10.12	Promissory Note dated June 27, 2008 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of Les Hahn in the principal amount of $5,000, filed herewith.
10.13	Promissory Note dated July 17, 2008 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of Michael Rand in the principal amount of $23,050, filed herewith.
10.14	Financial Communications Consulting Agreement dated September 10, 2008 by and between Wall Street Resources, Inc. and CX2 Technologies, Inc., filed herewith.
10.15	Promissory Note dated February 27, 2009 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of Michael Rand in the principal amount of $18,450, filed herewith.
10.16	Promissory Note dated March 31, 2009 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of Albert Koenigsberg in the principal amount of $5,000, filed herewith.
10.17	Promissory Note dated March 31, 2009 issued by CX2 Technologies, Inc. in favor of GEO Command, Inc. in the principal amount of $18,961, filed herewith.
16.1	Letter from Webb & Company PA dated August 6, 2008, incorporated by reference, filed with the Company’s Form 8-K on August 7, 2008.
31.1	Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 - Chief Executive and Financial Officer, filed herewith.
32.1	Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith.

Reports on Form 8-K

On June 11, 2008, the Company filed a Form 8-K in which it announced its entry into settlement agreements with ESP Wireless Technology Group, Inc., Peter Kirschner, Halody Consulting, LLC, Adam and Julie Reiser and Digital Dial, LLC.

On August 7, 2008, the Company filed a Form 8-K in which it announced the dismissal of Webb & Company, P.A., as its registered independent accounting firm, and the engagement of Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates as the successor registered independent accounting firm.

 

 

30

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

		CX2 Technologies. Inc.
Date: September 13, 2010		By:  /s/ Michael Rand
		Michael Rand, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive and Financial Officer

 

31

               

          

 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of CX2 Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of CX2 Technologies, Inc., as of March 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

These financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As more fully described in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has an accumulated deficit of approximating $9,550,000 and working capital deficiencies of approximately $1,280,000 as of March 31, 2010. Additionally, the Company is not generating sufficient cash flows to meet its regular working capital requirements. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans as to these matters are also described in Note 2.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.

/s/ Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates

Jewett, Schwartz, Wolfe & Associates

 

 

Hollywood, Florida

August 25, 2010

200 South Park Road, SUITE 150 ● HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33021 ● TELEPHONE (954) 922-5885 ● FAX (954) 922-5957

MEMBER – AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ● FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

PRIVATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA ●REGISTERED WITH THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD OF THE SEC

 

 

 

F-1

                                                                                                                                

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	For The Year Ended	For The Year Ended
BALANCE SHEETS	March 31,	March 31,
	2010	2009
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$                                    -	$                            192
Notes receivable - related party	1,245	1,245
Other current assets	5,000	2,500
Total Current Assets	6,245	3,937
Property and Equipment, net	90,860	141,249
Total Assets	$                       97,105	$                   145,186
Liabilities and Stockholders Equity (Deficit)
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	$                   683,696	$                 646,297
Notes payable – related parties	391,106	391,106
Notes payable - Other	210,941	135,073
Total Liabilities	1,285,743	1,172,476
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 5,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding	-	-
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized, 27,483,960 and 22,957,210 issued and outstanding at March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009, respectively	27,483	22,557
Additional paid-in-Capital	8,334,664	8,290,332
Accumulated Deficit	(9,550,785)	(9,340,179)
Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)	(1,188,638)	(1,027,290)
Total Liabilities and Stockholder’s Equity (Deficit)	$                       97,105	$                  145,186

See accompanying notes to financial statement

 

 

F-2

 

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	For the Year Ended	For the Year Ended
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS	March 31, 2010	March 31, 2009
Revenue	$                        3,711	$               100,202
Cost of sales	-	-
Gross Profit	3,711	100,202
Operating Expenses
Selling, general and administrative	144,371	598,533
Depreciation and amortization	50,389	52,291
Total Operating Expenses	194,760	650,824
Loss from Operations	(191,049)	(550,622)
Other Expense
Interest expense	19,556	(14,379)
Loss on conversion	-	-
Total Other Expense	19,556	(14,379)
NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES	(210,605)	(565,001)
Provision for income taxes	-	-
Net Income	$           (210,605)	$             (565,001)
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding During the Period	23,208,475	23,553,100
Basic and Diluted
Net Loss Per Share - Basic and Diluted	$                 (0.01)	$                 ( 0.02)

See accompanying notes to financial statement

 

 

F-3

 

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY (DEFICIT)	Preferred     Stock		Common    Stock				Total
For the years ended March					Additional		Stockholder's
31, 2010 and March 31,					Paid-in	Accumulated	Equity
2009	Shares	Amount	Shares	Amount	Capital	Deficit	(Deficit)
Balance, March 31, 2008		$   -	23,057,210	$   23,057	$ 9,282,122	$ (10,275,178)	$  (969,999)
			-	-	-	-	-
Common stock issued
in exchange for
services ($0.001 per share)	-	-	1,000,000	1,000	39,000	-	40,000
Forgiveness of loan    6/2/2008					467,710		467,710
Common stock
reversed in			(1,500,000)	(1,500)	(1,498,500)	1,500,000
connection with the
technology license
dated February 26,
2007 ($1.00 per share)
	-	-					-
Conversion of notes
payable – related 3/31/2009			-	-	-
parties to equity	-	-	-	-	-		-
Net loss for the
year ending March 31, 2009						(565,001)	(565,001)
Balance, March 31, 2009	-	$   -	22,557,210	$   22,557	$ 8,290,332	$(9,340,179)	$(1,027,290)
Net loss for the year March 31, 2010						(210,606)	( 210,606)
Common stock issued in exchange for services ($0.01 per share)			4,926,000	4,926	44,332		49,258
Balance, March 31, 2010	-	$   -	27,483,210	$   27,483	$ 8,334,664	$ (9,550,785)	$ (1,188,638)

See accompanying notes to financial statement

 

 

F-4

 

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	For the Year Ended	For the Year Ended
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS	March 31, 2010	March 31, 2009
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:
Net Income (Loss)	$                    (210,605)	$                     (565,001)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in:
Operations
Depreciation	50,389	52,291
Common stock issued in exchange for services	49,259	40,000
Loss on conversion		-
Provision for obsolete inventory		-
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Notes receivable	(2,500)	(1,245)
Prepaid expenses		(2,500)
Deposits		5,448
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	37,398	341,913
Deferred revenue	-	-
Net Cash Used in Operating Activities	(76,060)	(129,094)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:
Proceeds from note payable - related party	-	156,869
Proceeds from notes payable	-	14,000
Repayment of note payable - related party	-	(40,500)
Repayment of notes payable	75,868	(4,000)
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities	75,868	126,369
Net Decrease in Cash	(192)	(2,725)
Cash at Beginning of Period	192	2,917
Cash at End of Period	$                                      0	$                                 192
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information:
Cash paid for:
Interest	$                                      -	$                                   13
Taxes	$                                   -	$                                   -
Supplemental Disclosure of Non-Cash Investing and Financing Activities:
Conversion of account payable to common stock	$                          49,259	$                                   -
Conversion of notes payable - related parties to
Equity	$                                     -	$                       467,710
Stock issued under terms of Airtime agreement	$                                     -	$                          40,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to financial statement

 

 

F-5

 

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As of March 31. 2010 and 2009

	NOTE 1 – ORGANIZATION AND DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
	CX2 Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter the “Company” or “CX2”) was incorporated on May 21, 2002 as Brook-view Institute, Inc., under the laws of the State of Nevada. On November 16, 2005 the Company changed its name to CX2 Technology, Inc. On December 6, 2005, the Company filed articles of correction to change the name to CX2 Technologies, Inc. On May 10, 2006, the Company commenced its operations to the State of Florida.The Company was engaged in the development, operation and management of 220 MHz digital wireless data communications services. In September 2006, the Company entered into a ten year Airtime Agreement for the exclusive use of minutes on 220 MHz Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licenses and the related equipment with a third party.  This agreement allows the Company to operate throughout the entire United States and initially in the geographical areas of Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Texas. However, in late 2008, the Company learned that this third party no longer owned its FCC licenses and therefore the Company does not believe it continues to have any rights to use minutes under these licenses.  The Company is no longer seeking to acquire 220 MHz licenses and related equipment from any other third parties.  As of March 31, 2010, the Company has technically been discontinuing its operations in selling its own branded telemetry modems designed to transmit and mapping data for an emergency incident by partnering its remaining technology and intellectual property with it related affiliate known as GEO Command. The Company by mutual consent of the Board of Directors has been seeking a buyer for the remaining assets and liabilities in the Company.
	NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
	The following summarizes significant accounting policies to assist the reader in understanding and evaluating the financial statements.  These policies are in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and have been applied consistently in all material respects.
	Basis of Accounting
	The financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting where revenues and expenses are recognized in the period in which they were incurred.
	Going Concern
	The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company had a net loss of $210,606 and a negative cash flow from operations of $76,060 for the year ended March 31, 2010.  The Company also had a working capital deficiency of $1,279,497 and a stockholder’s deficiency of $1,188,637 as of March 31, 2010. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  The Company was in the development stage from May 2002 until January 2007, at which time operations began.  The Company has incurred a loss from operations, and its present level of revenues is not sufficient to cover all the Company’s incurred expenses. Management recognizes that the Company must generate additional resources to enable it to pay its obligations as they come due, and that the Company must ultimately achieve profitable operations. Management’s plans in this regard are to divest in its pursuit of its business plan relating to the operation and management of its 220 MHz digital wireless data communications services and to seek an investor interested in acquiring the remaining assets and liabilities of the Company.
	Property and Equipment
	Property and equipment, consisting of communications equipment, office and computer equipment, is recorded at acquisition cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which is presently five years.

 

 

F-6

 

	Use of Estimates
	The preparation of financial statements are in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
	Fair Value of Financial Instruments
	ASC 820 “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures define the fair value of a financial instrument as the amount at which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties. The carrying values of the Company’s financial instruments, which consist of current liabilities, approximate fair values due to the short-term maturities of such instruments.
	Net Loss Per Share
	The Company follows the provisions of ACS 260, “Earnings per Share,” which requires companies with complex capital structures or common stock equivalents to present both basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) on the face of the income statement. Basic EPS is calculated as income available to common stockholders divided by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is calculated using the “if converted” method for common stock equivalents. As of March 31, 2009 there were no common stock equivalents outstanding.
	Reclassifications
	Certain amounts in the fiscal year 2009 financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2010 fiscal year presentation.
	Cash and Cash Equivalents
	The Company considers all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. At March 31, 2010, cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand and cash in the bank.
	Recent Accounting Pronouncements
	Recent accounting pronouncements that the Company has adopted or that it will be required to adopt in the future are summarized below.
	Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
	In January 2010, the FASB has published ASU 2010-01 “Equity (Topic 505) - Accounting for Distributions to Shareholders with Components of Stock and Cash—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force,” as codified in ASC 505. ASU No. 2010-01 clarifies the treatment of certain distributions to shareholders that have both stock and cash components. The stock portion of such distributions is considered a share issuance that is reflected in earnings per share prospectively and is not a stock dividend. The amendments in this Update are effective for interim and annual periods ending on or after December 15, 2009, and should be applied on a retrospective basis.  The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our financial statements; however, it may affect any future stock distributions. In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2010-06 applicable to FASB ASC 820-10, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. The guidance requires entities to disclose significant transfers in and out of fair value hierarchy levels and the reasons for the transfers and to present information about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements separately in the reconciliation of fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). Additionally, the guidance clarifies that a reporting entity should provide fair value measurements for each class of assets and liabilities and disclose the inputs and valuation techniques used for fair value measurements using significant other observable inputs (Level 2) and significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2009 except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in the Level 3 reconciliation, which will be effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2010. As this guidance provides only disclosure requirements, the adoption of this standard did not impact the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial positions.
	In January 2010, the FASB has published ASU 2010-05 “Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) - Escrowed Share Arrangements and the Presumption of Compensation.  ASU No. 2010-01 clarifies the treatment of certain distributions to shareholders that have both stock and cash components. The stock portion of such distributions is considered a share issuance that is reflected in earnings per share prospectively and is not a stock dividend. The amendments in this Update are effective for interim and annual periods ending on or after December 15, 2009, and should be applied on a retrospective basis.  The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our financial statements; however, it may affect any future stock distributions.
	Revenue Recognition
	The Company follows the provisions of Topic ASC 605 “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements”, formerly Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 104 Revenue Recognition. Revenue from users of network services is recognized at the time that the services are provided. Revenue from sales of radios and other related equipment is recognized at the date of delivery to the customer and when collection is reasonably assured. Revenue from consulting services is recognized at the time that the services are provided.

 

 

F-7

 

	NOTE 3 – PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
	Depreciation expense was $50,389 and $52,291 for the years ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.

 

		2010			2009
Communications equipment		$	200,000		$	200,000
Office and computer equipment			61,456			61,456
			261,456			261,456
Less accumulated depreciation			170,596			120,207
Property and equipment, net		$	90,860		$	141,249

 

 

F-8

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As of March 31. 2010 and 2009

	NOTE 4 – USE OF 220 MHz LICENSES AND EQUIPMENT
	On March 5, 2006, the Company agreed to purchase certain 220 MHz FCC licenses and related hardware and software for the initial planned operation of such licenses in certain geographical areas of Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Texas from a third party owner of such assets, Biz.com U.S.A., Inc. (“Biz.com”). As part of this transaction the Company issued 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock with a fair value of $5,000,000 (based on a recent cash offering price) to Biz.com.  Due to certain security covenants placed on the sale of these licenses, Biz.com was unable to conclude the sale to the Company, and therefore, the CX2 no longer had the rights to use nor sell the airtime associated from the failure in ascertaining the 220 MHz license from Biz.com.
	On March 6, 2006, the Company executed a ten year 200-220 MHz Airtime Agreement, which was subsequently amended effective March 19, 2007 (as amended, the “Air Time Agreement”), for the non-exclusive use of five hundred million minutes on all of the Biz.com FCC licenses. The Air Time Agreement required payment by CX2 of a monthly user fee of $4,000, which was subsequently eliminated when the Air Time Agreement was amended in March 2007, and also provided for the retention of the 5 million previously issued shares by Biz.com.
	On February 26, 2007, CX2 and Biz.com entered into a Licensing Agreement & Asset Sale (the “Licensing Agreement”), pursuant to which CX2 acquired from Biz.com a non-exclusive license to its wireless digital data intellectual property for cash payments and 1,500,000 shares of common stock, which were not issued. This license granted the Company the right to use Biz.com proprietary technologies without restriction, including rights to further develop the existing technology or new technology, which new development would be owned by CX2. In addition, CX2 bought from Biz.com all of its digital base station equipment and associated assets both deployed on the Chicago network and in inventory. The inventory included all digital base stations, RRM boards and connective cabling, combiners, racks, antennas, maintenance equipment, lab equipment, and office equipment, at the Company’s Burr Ridge offices in Illinois, together with any such equipment in any Biz.com storage facility in Illinois.
	NOTE 5 – NOTES PAYABLE-RELATED PARTIES
	Debt due to related parties as of March 31, 2010 and 2009 consists of the following:

		2010				2009
Unsecured note to a related party, payable in monthly installments of $25,000. Interest at 5% per annum and maturity			391,106				391,106
Unsecured notes payable to GEO Command, Inc. are non- interest bearing, due on demand and do not follow any specific repayment terms.			104,681				33,073
Unsecured notes payable to Officer are non-interest bearing, due on demand and do not follow any specific repayment terms.			96,260				92,000
Unsecured notes payable to third party are non-interest bearing, due on demand and do not follow any repayment terms.				10,000			10,000
			602,047				526,179
Less current portion of long term notes payable			602,047				526,179
Total			$             -				$           -

	During the year ended March 31, 2010, related parties loaned the Company $84,365 for working capital purposes. These loans are unsecured, due on demand and bear no interest.

 

 

F-9

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As of March 31. 2010 and 2009

	NOTE 6– STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
	Common Stock
	As of March 31, 2010 the Company has 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock authorized; and 27,483,210 issued and outstanding: par value $.001.  Each share of common stock contains the right to one vote or a proxy which is the right to assign one’s vote. Therefore, every shareholder of common stock is entitled to one vote or the right to a proxy for each share of common stock held. On February 2, 2010 the Company issued 4,925,750 common to certain consultants for services rendered.  The Company recognized an expense of $49,259 in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ending March 31, 2010, valued at $.01 per share totaling 49,259. The $0.01 per share was the closing market price on February 2, 2010.
	Preferred Stock
	The Company has 5,000,000 shares of $0.001 par value preferred stock authorized with such preferences as the Board of Directors may designate.
	Private Placements of Common Stock
	The Company previously offered, through its private placement memorandum dated March 6, 2006 and as amended on September 27, 2006 (the “PPM”), up to a maximum of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock par value $.001 per share, at a price of $1.00 per share for total gross offering proceeds of up to $5,000,000. The PPM was terminated in June of 2008.
	NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
	Operating Lease Obligations
	In April 2006, the Company entered into a 60-month operating lease for office space with Wool Bright Professional Office Plaza in Boynton Beach, Florida beginning June 1, 2006 for $4,459 per month, exclusive of recurring utility expenses. The Company vacated this office space in February 2008 and the landlord obtained a $226,562 default judgment and accrued interest which has been included in these financial statements.  Collection is pending.  Recorded interest and rent expense for the years then ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $19,556 and $14,379, respectively. On March 24, 2008, the Company entered into an Agreement with ESP Wireless Technology Group, Inc. whereby CX2 agreed to make a onetime payment of $9,787 in exchange for access to the Sears Tower network site and static IP address used to control the CX2 transmitter located at the Sears Tower. In addition, CX2 will pay ESP a monthly payment of $939 for site rent at Sears Tower and the static IP address. GEO Command and CX2 Technologies were to share revenues from the sales of CX2 data modems.  Airtime rent expense for the years then ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 was $0 and $6,016, respectively.  Since the write-off of obsolete inventories, the Company forfeited its rights to the EPS contract with Wireless Technology and assigned them over to GEO Command, Inc, and discontinued it operations in selling its modems.
	NOTE 7 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
	Biz.com USA, Inc. (“Biz.com”) was a major stockholder of the Company. The Company had non-exclusive access to 500 million minutes of airtime in the 220 MHz frequency band as a result of its Airtime Agreement with Biz.com which was entered into in March 2006.  In addition, the Company has another non-exclusive license agreement with Biz.com which provides for rights to use certain wireless digital data intellectual property, including rights to further develop the existing technology or new technology, which new development would be owned by the Company.  The Company owes Biz.com approximately $391,106 as of March 31, 2010.  In late 2008, the Company learned that Biz.com had lost ownership of its FCC licenses and thus the Company does not believe it continues to have any rights to use minutes or other rights granted to it under its agreements with Biz.com. (See Exhibit I attached hereto.)

 

F-10

CX2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

As of March 31. 2010 and 2009

	NOTE 7 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ( Continued)
	On June 2, 2008, the Company evaluated the conversion of promissory notes and related accrued interest payable to a related party  in accordance with ASC 470-50-40 (Paragraphs 20 of APB 26) “Debt-Modifications and Extinguishments – Derecognized” and recorded and aggregate $467,710 gain representing the value of the extinguished debt.  Since the gain from forgiven debt was from transactions with related parties, the $467,710 was recorded to additional paid-in-capital as a component of Stockholders’ Equity.

	NOTE 8 – INCOME TAXES
	The Company utilizes the liability method of accounting for income taxes as set forth in ASC 740, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” Under the liability method, deferred taxes are determined based on the differences between the financial statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect in the years in which the differences are expected to reverse. Income tax expense for the years ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 are summarized as follows:

2010		Current			Deferred			Total
Federal		$	—		$	—		$	—
State			—			—			—
Foreign			—			—			—
2009		Current			Deferred			Total
Federal		$	—		$	—		$	—
State			—			—			—
Foreign			—			—			—

	Income tax expense for the years ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 computed using the enacted U.S. Federal corporate income tax rate of 34% is equal to the AMT rate before any income tax credits, as a result of the following

		2010			2009
Expected income tax expense (benefit) from operations		$	(71,400)		$	(214,418	)
Permanent differences			—			—
Valuation allowance			71,400			214,418
Total		$	—		$	—

	The effects of the temporary differences that gave rise to significant portions of deferred tax assets and liabilities at March 31, 2010 and 2009 are as follows:

		2010			2009
Deferred tax assets:
Net operating loss carry forwards (benefit)		$	(4,291,573)		$	(4,080,967)
Total gross deferred tax assets			4,291,573			4,080,967
Less valuation allowance			4,291,573			4,080,967
Net deferred tax assets		$	—		$	—

 

 

F-12

 

	NOTE 9 – INCOME TAXES (Continued)
	The Company has net operating loss carry forwards of $9,355,763 and $10,275,178 as of March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  These carry forwards begin to expire in 2025.  The valuation allowance at March 31, 2009 was $4,291,573. The net change in the valuation allowance for the year ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 increased by $210,606 and $214,418, respectively.

 

	NOTE 10 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
	On April 29, 2010, the company entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with Fusion Capital Investments Corp., in which the Company agreed to sell, via a new issuance of stock, an aggregate of the majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company consisting of not less than 51%.  The Company will issue a total of 29,000,000 shares for a purchase price of $55,100.
	On May 4, 2010, the Company received $30,100 cash payment upon the full execution of the stock purchase agreement.  The remaining $25,000 will be paid at the closing date.
	On July 1, 2010, pursuant to joint written consent of the Board of Directors and Majority of the Common Stockholders amended the Articles of Incorporation with “the name change” to Green Equity Holdings, Inc. and (1) increased the authorized common stock of the company to 500,000,000; par value .0001 and (2) Authorized the company to issue 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock.  The Company is also authorized to designate Series A and B of the preferred stock as outlined in the amendment.
	The Company had no other material subsequent events to disclose from the balance sheet date to the filing date.  The Company evaluated subsequent events through June 1, 2010.

 

 

F-13