corresp
[LETTERHEAD OF COMSTOCK HOMEBUILDING COMPANIES, INC.]
November 22, 2006
VIA EDGAR AND BY HAND DELIVERY
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20549
Attention: John Cash, Accounting Branch Chief
Mail Stop-7010
|
|
|
Re:
|
|
Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. |
|
|
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter Ended March 31, 2006 |
|
|
Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2006 |
|
|
File No. 001-32375 |
On behalf of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. (the Company), I submit the following
responses to the comments contained in the letter of comment of the Commission staff (the Staff)
dated November 8, 2006, addressed to me. The Staffs comments, in the original headings and
numbers, are restated below and are set off in bold. The responses correspond to the headings and
numbers noted in such letter.
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2005
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, page F-7
1. Please revise future filings to disclose the amount of interest paid each period as required by
paragraph 29 of SFAS 95, Statement of Cash Flows.
Response: The Company acknowledges the Staffs comment and will revise the Consolidated Statement
of Cash Flows for all future filings, in compliance with paragraph 29 of SFAS 95, Statement of Cash
Flows. Effective with the filing of the 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31st,
2006, the Company undertakes to provide disclosures for the amounts (if any) of interest paid (net
of amounts capitalized) and income taxes paid during the period.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 2
Note 2 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, page F-9
Segment Reporting, page F-13
2. We note that you operated in the Washington, DC. and the Raleigh, North Carolina markets. We
also note the expansion of your geographic presence during the first half of 2006 to the Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia markets. Please tell us how you determined that you
operate in a single extended geographical market. See paragraphs 10-15 of SFAS 131, Disclosures
about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information for guidance.
Response: The Company informs the Staff that it has conducted the appropriate reviews and
determined that it currently operates in a single extended geographical market and is not subject
to segment reporting as defined in SFAS 131, Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and
Related Information at this time. The Company, in analyzing SFAS 131, pars. 10-15, has determined
that its principal operating segments are its individual real estate projects, and that there is no
segmentation created by virtue of geographic market area. In addition, the Company aggregates all
of its operating segments into one reportable segment, Homebuilding, (ref. SFAS 131, par. 17) and
is therefore not subject to the quantitative thresholds test of SFAS 131, par. 18. Please refer to
Exhibit A attached hereto for further analysis on this response.
Exhibit 31 Certifications
3. We note the following errors or omissions related to your certification required by Exchange
Act Rule 13a-14(a):
|
|
|
paragraph two has replaced the word report with annual report; and |
|
|
|
|
paragraph four omits the introductory language referring to internal control over
financial reporting. |
Please file an amendment to your Form 10-K to revise the certification using the exact wording as
provided in Item 301(B)(31)(i) of Regulation S-K. You may provide an abbreviated amendment that
consists of a cover page, explanatory note, signature page and paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the
certification.
Response: The Company acknowledges the Staffs comment and will file an amendment in due
course to reflect the corrections noted in the Staffs comment.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 3
Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter Ended March 31, 2006
Item 4 Controls and Procedures, page 23
4. Your disclosure indicates that you have evaluated the effectiveness of your disclosure controls
and procedures as of December 31, 2005. Please revise your Form 10-Q to state that such evaluation
was made as of the end of the period covered by the report as required by Item 307 of Regulation
S-K.
Response: The Company acknowledges the Staffs comment and will file an amendment in due
course to reflect the corrections noted in the Staffs comment.
Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2006
Note 13 Private Placement
5. We note that you issued warrants in connection with your private placement. Please provide us
an analysis of how you determined that the warrants are appropriately included in equity at June
30, 2006 and September 30, 2006 based on the provisions of EITF 00-19.
Response: The Company informs the Staff that it has concluded that the Companys
freestanding warrants were, and continue to be (as of the date of the Staffs comment),
appropriately classified in stockholders equity, in compliance with EITF No. 00-19, Accounting
for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Companys Own
Stock. The aforementioned warrants require physical or net share settlement. In addition, these
freestanding derivative instruments have been analyzed by the Company and deemed to have met the
criteria established under EITF No. 00-19. Please refer to Exhibit B attached hereto for
further analysis on this response.
Item 4 Controls and Procedures
6. We note that your disclosure controls and procedures are effective. However, your disclosure
does not provide the complete full definition of disclosure controls and procedures as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e). Please confirm to us that your disclosure controls and procedures are
also effective with respect to controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed by you in the reports that you file or submit under the Act are accumulated and
communicated to your
management, including your principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons
performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure. In addition, please revise your future filings to state the full definition of
disclosure controls and procedures. Alternatively, you may simply state that your disclosure
controls and procedures are effective or ineffective.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 4
Response: The Company confirms to the Staff and the Commission that the Companys
disclosure controls and procedures are effective with respect to controls and procedures designed
to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports the Company files
or submits under the Securities Exchange Act are accumulated and communicated to the Companys
management, including its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, or persons
performing similar functions, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure. The Company further undertakes to make sure that its future filings state the full
definition of disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e).
7. We note that in your Form l0-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 you indicated that
there were no changes in your internal controls over financial reporting that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, your internal controls over financial
reporting. However, this disclosure was not provided in your Form 10-K and Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2006. Please confirm to us that there were no changes in your internal
controls over financial reporting for the fiscal quarters ended December 31, 2005 and March 31,
2006.
Response: The Company confirms to the Staff and the Commission that there were no changes
in the Companys internal controls over financial reporting for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2006. On the other hand, the Company would like to bring to the attention of the Staff that it was
not obligated to make the requested representations for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005,
as the Company was not yet then subject to those requirements.
Exhibit 31 Certifications
8. We note the following errors or omissions related to your certification required by Exchange
Act Rule 13a-14(a):
|
|
|
paragraph four omits the introductory language referring to internal control over
financial reporting; and |
|
|
|
|
paragraph 4(a) omits the words including its consolidated subsidiaries. |
Please file amendments to Forms 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 and the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2006 to revise the certification using the exact wording as provided in Item
301 (B)(31)(i) of regulation S-K. Your amendments should include the entire periodic report and
new, corrected certifications.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 5
Response: The Company acknowledges the Staffs comment and will file an amendment in due
course to reflect the corrections noted in the Staffs comment.
On behalf of the Company, I further acknowledge that:
(a) The Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in its filings
with the Commission;
(b) The Staffs comments or changes to disclosure in response to Staff comments do not
foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the Companys filings with the
Commission; and
(c) The Company may not assert the Staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by
the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.
* * * * *
Please do not hesitate to call me or Jason Parikh at (703) 883-1700 should you have any
questions concerning this filing or any of the above responses.
Very truly yours,
|
|
|
/s/ Bruce J. Labovitz |
|
|
Bruce J. Labovitz
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
Exhibit A
Additional Analysis for the Companys Response to Comment No. 2
(SFAS 131, par. 10-15). The Company as a whole engages in business activities that earn
revenue and incur expenses; although for statistical and management purposes there is an
identification of discrete individual construction projects, which must by nature be physically
located in some geographical site, the Company does not segregate these into discrete
geographical areas or any other type of component that can be attributed as an operating
segment.
In the past, and currently, decisions have not been, and are not being, made about
resources to be allocated to the segment by chief operating decision makers to any discrete
components based solely on geography; each construction project is evaluated independently and
resources are allocated to each based on their individually determined future earnings
potential. Although the Company has individuals who oversee discrete groups of projects, it
currently has only one Regional President who has direct oversight of all of Companys existing
projects. The Company does not currently have discrete and autonomous segment management for
the geographic market areas in question.
Discrete financial information is available on a per-unit and per-project (aggregated)
basis given the nature of the homebuilding industry in general and the Companys business
specifically; all projects roll up to a consolidated, decision-making set of data, whereupon
corporate overhead resource and expense allocations are made.
The operating segments of the Company are the individual projects. Based on the preceding
sections that discuss internal reporting, each project earns revenues, incurs expenses, and has
discrete financial information readily available to it. In addition, the financial information
is reviewed by a land committee, which serves as a group of chief decision makers that
includes the Companys Chief Executive Officer, the Regional President, the Chief Financial
Officer and the General Counsel. The financial reporting package reviewed by this group is not
accumulated by regions.
The Companys corporate office provides centralized general and administrative, accounting,
construction management, marketing, and sales services for the Companys homebuilding projects.
The projects are highly dependent on corporate daily support and decision-making at this time
and are not autonomous in any operational functions.
Based on the reference noted in the Staffs comment, please note that in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, the Company owned one plot of land which was acquired through its acquisition of
Parker-Chandler Homes in the first quarter of 2006. This property was sold in the third quarter of
2006 and the Company no longer has a presence in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina area. Due to the
fact that the Company has rapidly expanded its geographic coverage area (in fiscal year 2006, via
acquisitions) into an extended area (Georgia, North
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 7
Carolina and the Washington metro area), the Company is currently in the process of
determining what, if any, future type of segmentation of the business would be warranted, if and
when the Companys organization continues to grow in size and complexity and if the future
operational realities and increased infrastructure would warrant such a determination. Although
given the current market conditions the Company does not foresee heavily investing in such an
infrastructure at this time, this may change in the future.
Exhibit B
Additional Analysis for the Companys Response to Comment No. 5
Generally, EITF No. 00-19 permits freestanding instruments that are indexed to a companys own
stock to be classified in equity if the contract permits (at the option of the Company) or requires
physical or net share settlement. Although the freestanding warrants appear to meet this
criterion, EITF No. 00-19 requires that freestanding derivative instruments be analyzed against 8
additional criteria; in order to ensure that there are not unforeseen circumstances in which the
Company could be required to cash settle the instrument being analyzed.
This analysis, as performed by the Company, is contained below:
|
|
|
|
|
EITF 00-19 Provisions |
|
Contract Terms |
|
Analysis |
|
1. The contracts cannot
include ANY provisions
that could require
net-cash settlement,
other than if the cash
payment is only required
upon the final
liquidation of the
Company. [EITF 00-19.8
and 27-28]
|
|
Warrant Agreement,
Preamble & Section A
Exercise of
Warrant, states
that the warrants
will be physically
settled. If there
is no effective
registration
statement permitting
the sale by the
Company to the
Holder then a
cashless exercise
of the warrants will
occur.
|
|
MET. The warrants
will be either
physically settled
or physically
settled through a
cashless exercise.
Either way the
Company will not
net-cash settle. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. The contract must
permit the Company to
settle in unregistered
shares. [EITF
00-19.14-18]
|
|
Purchase Agreement,
Section 7
Registration of the
Shares and Warrant
Shares, states that
the Company will use
its reasonable best
efforts to cause the
Warrant Shares to be
approved for listing
as soon as
practicable.
Purchase Agreement,
Section 7 (b)
provides for
liquidating damages
if the shares are
not registered by
the effectiveness
date.
|
|
MET. The Company
can settle in
unregistered shares;
however if the
shares are not
registered by the
effectiveness date
then the Company
will have to pay
cash liquidating
damages at the rate
of 2% per month (not
to exceed 10%). The
Company has adopted
View A of EITF
05-04. (see below) |
|
|
|
|
|
3. The Company must have
sufficient authorized and
unissued shares available
to settle the contract
after considering all
other commitments that
may require the issuance
of stock during the
maximum period the
derivative contract could
remain outstanding. [EITF
00-19.19]
|
|
Per the 10Q,
subsequent to the
PIPE transaction
there will be
approximately 63
million shares of
Class A Common Stock
authorized but not
issued or
outstanding. There
are also roughly 1.5
million shares of
potentially dilutive
securities
outstanding. The
settlement of the
warrants calls for
the delivery of
approximately
650,000 shares of
the Companys Class
A Common Stock.
|
|
MET. The Company
has sufficient
authorized and
unissued share
available to settle
the Warrants at both
June 30, 2006 and
September 30, 2006;
the Company will
continue to reassess
at future reporting
dates. |
|
|
|
|
|
4. The contract contains
an explicit limit on the
number of shares to be
delivered in a share
settlement. [EITF
00-19.20-24]
|
|
Purchase Agreement,
Section 1,
explicitly states
699,900 shares to be
delivered, which are
underlying the
Warrants.
|
|
MET. In a written
call option, there
is an inherent cap
in the number of
shares underlying
the award, which is
explicitly stated as
699,900 shares |
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 9
|
|
|
|
|
EITF 00-19 Provisions |
|
Contract Terms |
|
Analysis |
|
5. There are no required
cash payments to the
counterparty in the event
the Company fails to make
timely filings with the
Commission. [EITF
00-19.25]
|
|
N/A. The Purchase &
Warrant Agreements
are silent on this
matter
|
|
MET. N/A. There
are no requirements
for cash payments in
this event. |
|
|
|
|
|
6. There are no required
cash payments to the
counterparty if the
shares initially
delivered upon settlement
are subsequently sold by
the counterparty and the
sales proceeds are
insufficient to provide
the counterparty with
full return of the amount
due (that is, there are
no cash settled top-off
or make-whole
provisions). [EITF
00-19.26]
|
|
N/A. The Purchase &
Warrant Agreements
are silent on this
matter
|
|
MET. N/A. There
are no requirements
for cash payments in
this event. |
|
|
|
|
|
7. There are no
provisions in the
contract that indicate
that the counterparty has
rights that rank higher
than those of a
shareholder of the stock
underlying the contract.
[EITF 00-19.29-31]
|
|
N/A. The Purchase &
Warrant Agreements
does not appear to
contain this or
similar terms.
|
|
MET. N/A. The
Purchase & Warrant
Agreements do not
contain this or
similar terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. There is no
requirement in the
contract to post
collateral at any point
or for any reason. [EITF
00-19.32]
|
|
N/A. The Purchase &
Warrant Agreements
does not appear to
contain this or
similar terms.
|
|
MET. N/A. The
Purchase & Warrant
Agreements do not
contain this or
similar terms. |
For purposes of EITF 05-4 Issue Summary No. 1, the Company has adopted an approach consistent
with View A, where the registration rights have been considered in the EITF 00-19 analysis together
with the warrant agreement under the guidance in EITF 00-19.
EITF 00-19 paragraph 16 discusses settlement alternatives involving unregistered shares and
provides guidance that when a settlement alternative is not economically reasonable, it is not a
valid alternative. If the penalty for settling in unregistered shares is large enough, then a
settlement alternative to deliver unregistered shares and pay the penalty is deemed economically
unreasonable. In this case (i.e. significant penalty) the instrument must be accounted for as a
liability (rather than as an equity instrument) because cash settlement is a presumed alternative
in the absence of an economically reasonable alternative to settlement in unregistered shares
(and pay the penalty). The Companys ability to settle in either registered or unregistered shares
is impacted by the additional liquidation fee of 2% of the purchase price per month, not to exceed
10% of the purchase price. Prevailing practice supports that when the maximum potential
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
November 22, 2006
Page 10
penalty payable in cash is less than a reasonable estimate of the difference in fair value between
registered and unregistered shares, the delivery of unregistered shares and paying the penalty is
considered economically reasonable (typically around 10% of the fair value of the conversion option
is considered reasonable). Consequently, the Companys alternative to deliver unregistered shares
is available as the maximum potential penalty payable in cash is less than a reasonable estimate of
the difference in fair value between registered and unregistered shares. Therefore, the Company
believes that the requirements of EITF 00-19 paragraphs 14-18 have been met.