TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

As used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the terms “CDTi” or the “Company” or “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, adopted pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions, which could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “may,” “will,” “project,” “might,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “strategy,” “plan,” “continue,” “pursue,” or the negative of these words or other words or expressions of similar meaning. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on information available to us, are current only as of the date on which the statements are made, and are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results, performance, prospects or opportunities to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements. For examples of such risks and uncertainties, please see the discussion under the caption “Risk Factors” contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2014 and important factors discussed in this report and our other filings with the SEC, including without limitation the following:

·       We have incurred losses, have not experienced positive cash flows from operations in the past and our independent registered public accounting firm expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern in their report on our financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2013. Our ability to achieve profitability and positive cash flows from operations, or finance negative cash flow from operations, could depend on reductions in our operating costs, which may not be achievable, or from increased sales, which may not occur;

·       We could require additional working capital to maintain our operations in the form of funding from outside sources which may be limited, difficult to obtain, or unavailable on acceptable terms or not available at all, or in the case of an offering of common stock or securities convertible into common stock, may result in dilution to our existing stockholders;

·       The pursuit of opportunities relating to special government mandated retrofit programs requires cash investment in operating expenses and working capital such as inventory and receivables prior to the realization of profits and cash from sales and, if we are not successful in accessing cash resources to make these investments, we may miss out on these opportunities; further, if we are not successful in generating sufficient sales from these opportunities, we will not realize the benefits of the investments in inventory, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations;

·       We cannot assure you that we will be successful in realigning our strategic path to pursue aggressive development of our unique materials science platform or that those efforts will have the intended effect of increasing profitability;

·       Historically, we have been dependent on a few major customers, particularly Honda, for a significant portion of our revenue and our revenue would decline if we are unable to maintain those relationships, if customers reduce their orders for our products, or if we are unable to secure new customers. In addition, we have an agreement with Honda that could limit our rights to commercialize certain technology which could adversely affect our technology licensing strategy;

·      We are not able to sell our current catalyst products in certain countries in Asia since such products are based on technology which we sold to a third party;

·      We have entered into contractual agreements in connection with the sale of certain of our assets, which may expose us to liability for claims for indemnification under such agreements; and

·      We depend on intellectual property and the failure to protect our intellectual property could adversely affect our future growth and success.

You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by federal securities laws, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changed circumstances or any other reason. If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to other forward-looking statements.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

        e.    Net Loss per Share

The Company measures certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value in accordance with a hierarchy which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs which reflect market data obtained from independent sources and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. There are three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

·  Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

·  Level 2: Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are either directly or indirectly observable including quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets and quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and

·  Level 3: Unobservable inputs in which little or no market activity exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing.

The Company records its liability-classified warrants at fair value in accordance with the fair value measurement framework. See Note 10 for further information on these liability-classified warrants. The valuation inputs hierarchy classification for the warrant liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis is summarized as follows (in thousands):

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

         g.   Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 825, “Financial Instruments,” requires disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments for which the determination of fair value is practicable. The fair values of the Company’s cash, trade accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and other current assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses and other current liabilities approximate carrying values due to the short maturity of these instruments. The fair value of borrowings under the line of credit approximates their carrying value due to the variable interest rates. The fair value of shareholder notes payable calculated using level 3 inputs, using a Black-Scholes option-pricing model to value the debt’s conversion factor and a net present value model was $7.5 million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.

h.   Reclassifications

Certain prior-period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. These changes had no impact on the previously reported consolidated results of operations or stockholders' equity.

i.   Recent Accounting Pronouncements  

In April 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-08, "Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity." ASU 2014-08 raises the threshold for a disposal to qualify as a discontinued operation and requires new disclosures of both discontinued operations and certain other disposals that do not meet the definition of a discontinued operation. It is effective for annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2014. Early adoption is permitted but only for disposals that have not been reported in financial statements previously issued. The Company does not expect the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-08 to be material to its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers." ASU 2014-09 supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in "Revenue Recognition (Topic 605)", and requires entities to recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early adoption is not permitted. The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09 on its consolidated financial statements.

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets consist of the following (in thousands):

The Company recorded amortization expense related to amortizable intangible assets of $0.2 million during each of the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013. The Company recorded amortization expense related to amortizable intangible assets of $0.4 million during each of the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013.

Estimated amortization expense for each of the next five years is as follows (in thousands):

5.    Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities

Accrued expenses and other current liabilities consist of the following (in thousands):

6.     Severance and Other Charges

        Severance and other charges consist of the following (in thousands):

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Line of Credit with FGI

The Company has a $7.5 million secured demand facility with FGI backed by its receivables and inventory (as amended, the “FGI Facility”). The FGI Facility expires on August 15, 2015 and may be extended at the Company’s option for additional one-year terms. However, FGI can cancel the facility at any time.

Under the FGI Facility, FGI can elect to purchase eligible accounts receivables from the Company and certain of its subsidiaries at up to 80% of the value of such receivables (retaining a 20% reserve). Purchased receivables are subject to full recourse to the Company in the event of nonpayment by the customer. FGI becomes responsible for the servicing and administration of the accounts receivable purchased. The Company is not obligated to offer accounts in any month and FGI has the right to decline to purchase any accounts. At FGI’s election, FGI may advance the Company up to 80% of the value of any purchased accounts receivable, subject to the $7.5 million limit. Reserves retained by FGI on any purchased receivable are expected to be refunded to the Company net of interest and fees on advances once the receivables are collected from customers. The Company may also borrow against eligible inventory up to the inventory sublimit, as determined by FGI, subject to the aggregate $7.5 million limit under the FGI Facility and certain other conditions. At June 30, 2014, the inventory sublimit amount was the lesser of $1.5 million or 50% of the aggregate purchase price paid for accounts receivable purchased under the FGI facility. While the overall credit limit and the inventory sublimit were not changed, in the second quarter of 2014, borrowing against the Company’s significant OEM customer’s inventory has been limited to $0.2 million by FGI due to their concerns about customer concentration.

The interest rate on advances or borrowings under the FGI Facility is the greater of (i) 6.50% per annum and (ii) 2.50% per annum above the prime rate, as defined in the FGI Facility and was 6.50% at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Any advances or borrowings under the FGI Facility are due on demand. The Company also agreed to pay FGI collateral management fees of 0.30% per month on the face amount of eligible receivables as to which advances have been made and 0.38% per month on borrowings against inventory, if any. At any time outstanding advances or borrowings under the FGI Facility are less than $2.4 million, the Company agreed to pay FGI standby fees of (i) the interest rate on the difference between $2.4 million and the average outstanding amounts and (ii) 0.44% per month on 80% of the amount by which advances or borrowings are less than the agreed $2.4 million minimum.   

At June 30, 2014, the Company had $3.2 million of gross accounts receivable pledged to FGI as collateral for short-term debt in the amount of $2.6 million. At June 30, 2014, the Company also had $0.8 million in borrowings outstanding against eligible inventory. The Company was in compliance with the terms of the FGI Facility at June 30, 2014. However, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to borrow to the full limit of $7.5 million if FGI chooses not to finance a portion of its receivables or inventory.

$1.5 Million, 8% Shareholder Note Due 2015

On December 30, 2010, the Company executed a Loan Commitment Letter with Kanis S.A., a shareholder of the Company, pursuant to which Kanis S.A. loaned the Company $1.5 million. The unsecured loan, as amended, bears interest on the unpaid principal at a rate of 8%, with interest only payable quarterly in arrears. In addition to principal and accrued interest, the Company is obligated to pay Kanis S.A. “Payment Premium” of $250,000 with $100,000 paid on June 30, 2013 and the remaining amount payable on the June 30, 2015 maturity date. There is no prepayment penalty.

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

As amended, the outstanding principal balance of the Notes, and accrued and unpaid interest are convertible, at the option of Kanis S.A., at any time upon written notice given not less than 75 calendar days prior to the date of conversion, into no more than 250,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $4.00 per share.

$3.0 Million, 8% Shareholder Note Due 2015

On July 27, 2012, the Company executed a Loan Commitment Letter with Kanis S.A., pursuant to which the Company issued an unsecured promissory note in the principal amount of $3.0 million, which bears interest at 8% per annum, payable quarterly in arrears. The promissory note matures on July 27, 2015. There is no prepayment penalty or premium.

9.    Stockholders’ Equity

Significant Changes in Stockholders’ Equity  

During the six months ended June 30, 2014, additional paid-in capital increased by $9.0 million. $8.2 million of this increase is attributable to (i) $4.7 million in proceeds, net of costs, from a recent registered offering, (ii) $1.0 million in proceeds received from the exercise of warrants to purchase a total of 800,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and (iii) $2.5 million being the fair value of these warrants reclassified from liabilities. Refer to the April 2014 Offering discussion below and Note 10 for additional information.  

Shelf Registration

On May 15, 2012, the Company filed a Shelf Registration which was declared effective by the SEC on May 21, 2012. The Shelf Registration permits the Company to sell, from time to time, up to an aggregate of $50.0 million of various securities, including common stock, preferred stock, warrants to purchase common stock or preferred stock and units consisting of one or more shares of common stock, shares of preferred stock, warrants, or any combination of such securities. However, the Company may not sell its securities in a primary offering pursuant to the Shelf Registration or any other registration statement on Form S-3 with a value exceeding one-third of its public float in any 12-month period (unless the Company’s public float rises to $75.0 million or more). The Shelf Registration is intended to provide the Company with additional flexibility to access capital markets for general corporate purposes, subject to market conditions and the Company's capital needs.

April 2014 Offering

On April 1, 2014, the Company entered into a placement agent agreement with Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC related to the registered direct offering (the “Offering”) of an aggregate of 2,030,000 shares of the Company’s common stock together with warrants to purchase up to 812,000 shares of common stock. The Offering was made pursuant to the Company’s Shelf Registration discussed above. On April 4, 2014, the Company closed the Offering in which it sold 2,030,000 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase 812,000 shares of common stock. The shares of common stock and warrants were sold in units at $3.40 per unit, with each unit consisting of one share of common stock and 0.4 of one warrant to purchase one share of common stock at an exercise price of $4.20 per share.

The Company received gross proceeds of $6.9 million and net proceeds of $6.1 million after deducting placement agent fees and other offering expenses. The Offering warrants are within the scope of ASC 815-40 and are required to be recorded as liabilities (see note 10). Accordingly, of the $6.1 million in net proceeds, $4.6 million was allocated to the common stock and included in additional paid-in capital and $1.5 million was allocated to the warrant liability based on the fair value of the warrants on the issuance date. Additionally, $0.2 million of the placement agent fees and other offering costs were allocated to the Offering warrants, based on the relative fair value of the Offering warrants and the common stock on the issuance date, and is included in other expense, net in the accompanying statement of comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. The Company intends to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, which may include working capital, general and administrative expenses, capital expenditures and implementation of its strategic priorities. The Company may also use a portion of the net proceeds to acquire or invest in businesses, products and technologies that are complementary to its current business, although there are no present commitments or agreements for any such transactions.

11

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Common Stock Purchase Agreement with Lincoln Park Capital ("LPC")

On October 7, 2011, the Company signed a Purchase Agreement with LPC, together with a Registration Rights Agreement, whereby LPC agreed to purchase up to $10.0 million of the Company’s common stock over a 30-month period ending April 24, 2014. This expired unused in April 2014.

10.  Warrants

From time to time, the Company issues warrants to purchase its common stock. These warrants have been issued for consulting services, in connection with the Company’s issuance of debt and sales of its common stock.

Warrant activity is summarized as follows:  

Warrant Liability

The Company evaluates warrants on issuance and at each reporting date to determine proper classification as equity or as a liability. The Company’s warrant liability is carried at fair value and is classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy because the warrants are valued based on unobservable inputs.

The Company determines the fair value of its warrant liability using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model unless the awards are subject to market conditions, in which case it uses a Monte Carlo simulation model, which utilizes multiple input variables to estimate the probability that market conditions will be achieved. These models are dependent on several variables such as the instrument’s expected term, expected strike price, expected risk-free interest rate over the expected term of the instrument, expected dividend yield rate over the expected term and the expected volatility. The expected strike price for warrants with full-ratchet down-round price protection is based on a weighted average probability analysis of the strike price changes expected during the term as a result of the full-ratchet down-round price protection. Due to the significant change in the Company following its business combination with Catalytic Solutions, Inc. (the “Merger”), CDTi’s pre-Merger historical price volatility was not considered representative of expected volatility going forward. Therefore, the Company has used an estimate based upon a weighted average of implied and historical volatility of a portfolio of peer companies and CDTi’s post-Merger historical volatility for the valuation of its warrants. The expected life is equal to the remaining contractual life of the warrants.

The Offering warrants require physical settlement by delivering registered shares. In addition, while the relevant warrant agreement does not require cash settlement if the Company fails to maintain registration of the warrant shares, it does not specifically preclude cash settlement. Accordingly, the Company’s agreement to deliver registered shares without express terms for settlement in the absence of continuous effective registration is presumed to create a liability to settle these warrants in cash, requiring liability classification. The assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of the warrant liability for these warrants are as follows:

12

Table of Contents

CLEAN DIESEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

The assumptions used in the Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the fair value of the warrant liability for warrants with full-ratchet down-round protection are as follows:

The warrant liability, included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, is re-measured at the end of each reporting period with changes in fair value recognized in other expense in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. Upon the exercise of a warrant that is classified as a liability, the fair value of the warrant exercised is re-measured on the exercise date and reclassified from warrant liability to additional paid-in capital. The Company recorded other income of $0.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2014 as a result of the change in fair value of the warrant liability, which was primarily due to a decrease in the Company’s stock price during this period. The Company recorded other expense of $1.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2014 as a result of the change in fair value of the warrant liability which was primarily due to an increase in the Company’s stock price during the reporting period. During the six months ended June 30, 2014, as a result of the exercise of warrants to purchase 800,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, the warrant liability decreased $2.5 million, excluding the effects of remeasurement, with an offsetting increase to additional paid-in capital.

11.  Stock-Based Compensation

 The Clean Diesel Technologies, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), provides for the awarding of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted shares, performance awards, bonuses or other forms of share-based awards, or combinations of these to the Company’s directors, officers, employees, consultants and advisors (except consultants or advisors in capital-raising transactions) as determined by the Board of Directors. As of June 30, 2014, there were 136,936 shares available for future grants under the Plan.

 Total stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 was $0.2 million. Total stock-based compensation expense for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 was $0.3 million and $0.4 million, respectively. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for all stock-based awards made to employees and directors in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

13

On February 19, 2013, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with Pirelli & C. Ambiente SpA (“Pirelli”) to form a joint venture entity, Eco Emission Enterprise Srl under the laws of Italy (the “Joint Venture”), through which the Company and Pirelli would jointly sell their emission control products in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States countries. The Joint Venture commenced operations in April 2013.

On November 8, 2013, as a result of slower than anticipated progress in achieving sales objectives initially established for the Joint Venture, the Company and Pirelli agreed to voluntarily dissolve the Joint Venture in accordance with the Joint Venture Agreement. The Joint Venture ceased operations on November 30, 2013 and commenced liquidation on December 9, 2013. The dissolution was finalized in April 2014. The majority of its investment balance of $0.1 million, included in other assets in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets December 31, 2013, was received in April 2014, with a small balance to be collected following the receipt of VAT due from the Swedish and Italian governments. The Company has resumed its operations in Europe in a similar manner as conducted prior to the Joint Venture.

13.   Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On April 30, 2010, the Company received notice of an administrative complaint filed by its former chief financial officer. The complaint was filed with the Hartford, Connecticut office of the U.S. Department of Labor (“U.S. DOL”) under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) and alleged, among other things, that the Company’s termination of her employment on April 19, 2010 was retaliatory and due to her alleged protected activity associated with comments she made to the Company’s Board of Directors at their meeting on March 26, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Company filed its response to the complaint denying the allegations and requesting a dismissal of the matter. On September 27, 2013, the U.S. DOL issued preliminary findings on the matter concluding there was reasonable cause to support the former employee’s claims and ordering the Company to pay damages in excess of $1.9 million and take certain other actions. On October 22, 2013, the Company filed its Objections and Request for Hearing with the U.S. DOL which triggered the appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and the scheduling of a hearing on the merits of the matter. Thereafter, the parties agreed to participate in a U.S. DOL mediation process on February 7, 2014. On March 13, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for payment of a one-time lump sum amount of $0.4 million to the former employee, along with issuance of 75,000 shares of Company stock. The settlement was formally approved by the ALJ. As a result, there were mutual releases of all claims and a dismissal of the SOX complaint. The Company reserved $0.6 million at December 31, 2013, which included the lump sum amount, the market value of the common stock and accrued legal expenses incurred. The settlement was paid and stock issued in April 2014, and the Company recorded an additional $0.1 million related to the increase in the fair value of its common stock at the time of issuance.

On November 15, 2013, BP Products North America (“BP”) instituted claims against Johnson Matthey (“JM”) as the parent company of and purchaser of Applied Utility Systems, Inc. (“AUS”), a former subsidiary of the Company. On May 12, 2010, JM tendered to the Company a claim for indemnification under the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 1, 2009, (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”), among JM, the Company and AUS. On June 11, 2013, BP, JM and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which they settled all claims. The settlement agreement had no material impact on the Company. Under the indemnification clauses of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company may be liable for legal expenses incurred by JM. These legal costs may be offset against funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS.

In connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement, on October 1, 2009, JM presented the Company with an indemnification claim seeking recovery of the net amount of $0.9 million after offsetting the funds withheld by JM from the acquisition of AUS. These claims are for matters relating to various customer contracts that JM purchased, including the BP contract discussed above. The Company and JM have entered into discussions relating to the application of offsets and the validity of the claims presented. The Company has offered a settlement amount of $0.2 million and has reserved for this amount since the fourth quarter of 2013. Since the discussions are ongoing, the ultimate costs associated with this matter cannot be determined at this time.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Management does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it are likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, the Company cannot determine the final amount, if any, of its liability beyond the amount accrued in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2014, nor is it possible to estimate what litigation-related costs will be in the future.

Sales and Use Tax Audit

The Company is undergoing a sales and use tax audit by the State of California (the "State") on AUS for the period of 2007 through 2009. The audit has identified a project performed by the Company during that time period for which sales tax was not collected and remitted and for which the State asserts that proper documentation of resale may not have been obtained and that the Company owes sales tax of $1.4 million. The Company contends and believes that it received sufficient and proper documentation from its customer to support not collecting and remitting sales tax from that customer and is actively disputing the audit report with the State. On August 12, 2013, the Company appeared at an appeals conference with the State Board of Equalization ("BOE"). On July 21, 2014, the Company received a Decision and Recommendation (“D&R”) from the BOE. The D&R’s conclusion was that the basis for the calculation of the aforementioned $1.4 million tax due should be reduced from $12.2 million to $9.0 million with a commensurate reduction in the tax owed to the State. Regardless of this finding, the Company continues to believe that it will prevail in this matter, as it believes that the State did not adequately address the legal arguments related to the Company’s acceptance of the valid resale certificate from its customer. The Company has not agreed to these findings, and therefore, it will be appealing at a higher level at the BOE. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for this matter as the Company does not assess a loss as being probable. Should the Company not prevail in this matter, it will pursue reimbursement from the customer for all assessments from the State.    

15