Basis of Consolidation

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of CNS Response, Inc. (“CNS,” “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company”) have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and include all the accounts of CNS and its wholly owned subsidiaries CNS California and NTC. Certain information and note disclosures, normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of our financial position as of December 31, 2011 and our operating results, cash flows, and changes in stockholders’ equity for the interim periods presented. The September 30, 2011 balance sheet was derived from our audited consolidated financial statements but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and the related notes should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and notes for the year ended September 30, 2011 which are included in our current report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2010.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and revenues and expenses in the financial statements. Examples of estimates subject to possible revision based upon the outcome of future events include, among others, recoverability of long-lived assets and goodwill, stock-based compensation, the allowance for doubtful accounts, the valuation of equity instruments, use and other taxes. In the opinion of management, these unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments, except as otherwise indicated) necessary for fair presentation for the periods presented as required by regulation S-X, Rule 10-01. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The results of operations for the three months ended December 31, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for future periods or for the year ending September 30, 2012.

Offering Costs

The Company applies ASC topic 505-10, “Costs of an Equity Transaction”, for recognition of offering costs. In accordance with ASC 505-10, the Company treats incremental direct costs incurred to issue shares classified as equity, as a reduction of the proceeds. Direct costs incurred before shares classified as equity are issued, are classified as an asset until the stock is issued. Indirect costs such as management salaries or other general and administrative expenses and deferred costs of an aborted offering are expensed.

Derivative Liabilities

The Company applies ASC Topic 815-40, “Derivatives and Hedging,” which provides a two-step model to determine whether a financial instrument or an embedded feature is indexed to an issuer’s own stock and thus able to qualify for the scope exception in ASC 815-10-15-74. This standard triggers liability accounting on all instruments and embedded features exercisable at strike prices based on future equity-linked instruments issued at a lower rate.  Using the criteria in ASC 815, the Company determines which instruments or embedded features that require liability accounting and records the fair values as a derivative liability. The changes in the values of the derivative liabilities are shown in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations as “gain (loss) on change in fair value of derivative liabilities.” 

Effective September 30, 2011 the Company, together with holders of each of a majority in aggregate principal amount outstanding of the October Notes and the January Notes (see Note 3) agreed to extend the maturity date of all the notes to October 1, 2012. The October Notes originally had maturity dates ranging from October 1, 2011 through November 11, 2011 and the January Notes originally had maturity dates starting from January 20, 2012 to April 25, 2012. The notes were also amended to include a mandatory conversion provision under which all these notes would automatically be converted upon the closing of a public offering by the Company of shares of its common stock and/or other securities with gross proceeds to the Company of at least $10 million. Furthermore, the January Notes were amended to have a second-position security interest in all the assets of the Company, but remain subordinated to the October Notes. The interest rate on all these notes remained unchanged at 9% per annum. Subsequently, upon the issuance of $2M Bridge Notes in October, 2011, at a conversion price of $0.10 and the associated warrants to purchase common stock at an exercise price of $0.10, the ratchet provision in the October Notes and January Notes was triggered, with the result that the conversion price of such notes was lowered from $0.30 to $0.10, and the exercise price of the associated warrants was lowered from $0.30 to $0.10 per share, and consequently the number of shares underlying such notes and warrants was proportionately increased. Using the Black Scholes model, we valued the January Notes and the October Notes with their extended maturity dates as of September 30, 2011 and compared that value with the value of these notes with their original maturity dates. The difference of the two valuation calculations of $1,968,000 was booked to Other Expenses as a loss on extinguishment of debt charge. As of September 30, 2011 the derivative liability was $4,801,200, which was comprised of the warrant liability of $2,193,900 and the debt conversion option liability of $2,607,300. As of December 31, 2011 the derivative liability was $6,105,300, which was comprised of the warrant liability of $3,154,500 and the debt conversion option liability of $2,950,800.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

ASC 825-10 (formerly SFAS 107, “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments”) defines financial instruments and requires disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments held by the Company. The Company considers the carrying amount of cash, accounts receivable, other receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, to approximate their fair values because of the short period of time between the origination of such instruments and their expected realization.

The Company also analyzes all financial instruments with features of both liabilities and equity under ASC 480-10 (formerly SFAS 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity”), ASC 815-10 (formerly SFAS No 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”) and ASC 815-40 (formerly EITF 00-19, “Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments Indexed to, and Potentially Settled in, a Company’s Own Stock”).

The Company adopted ASC 820-10 (formerly SFAS 157, “Fair Value Measurements”) on January 1, 2008. ASC 820-10 defines fair value, establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosures of fair value measurement and enhances disclosure requirements for fair value measures. The three levels are defined as follow:

The Company’s warrant liability is carried at fair value totaling $3,154,500 and $2,193,900, as of December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, respectively.  The Company’s conversion option liability is carried at fair value totaling $2,950,800 and $2,607,300 as of December 31, 2011 and September 30, 2011, respectively.  The Company used Level 2 inputs for its valuation methodology for the warrant liability and conversion option liability as their fair values were determined by using the Black-Scholes option pricing model using the following assumptions:

For the three months ending December 31, 2011 the Company recognized a gain of $232,100 on the change in fair value of derivative liabilities.  For the three months ending December 31, 2010 the Company recognized a gain of $4,217,500 on change in fair value of derivative liabilities. As at December 31, 2011 the Company did not identify any other assets or liabilities that are required to be presented on the balance sheet at fair value in accordance with ASC 825-10. 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassification of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05, in order to defer only those changes in ASU 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassification adjustments. The amendments are being made to allow the FASB time to redeliberate whether to present on the face of the financial statements the effects of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income for all periods presented. All other requirements in ASU 2011-05 not affected by this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect the adoption of the standard update to impact its consolidated financial position or results of operations, as it only requires a change in the format of presentation.

In July 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-07: Health Care Entities (Topic 954) — Presentation and Disclosure of Patient Service Revenue, Provision for Bad Debts, and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts for Certain Health Care Entities. This update was issued to provide greater transparency relating to accounting practices used for net patient service revenue and related bad debt allowances by health care entities. Some health care entities recognize patient service revenue at the time the services are rendered regardless of whether the entity expects to collect that amount or has assessed the patient’s ability to pay. These prior accounting practices used by some health care entities resulted in a gross-up of patient service revenue and the provision for bad debts, causing difficulty for outside users of financial statements to make accurate comparisons and analyses of financial statements among entities. ASU 2011-07 requires certain healthcare entities to change the presentation of the statement of operations, reclassifying the provision for bad debts associated with patient service revenue from an operating expense to a deduction from patient service revenue and also requires enhanced quantitative and qualitative disclosures relevant to the entity’s policies for recognizing revenue and assessing bad debts. This update is not designed and will not change the net income reported by healthcare entities. This update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011, with early adoption permitted. The Company does not expect that this update will have any material impact on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In June 2011, FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income, which amends current comprehensive income guidance. This accounting update eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income (loss) as part of the statement of shareholders’ equity. Instead, the Company must report comprehensive income (loss) in either a single continuous statement of comprehensive income (loss) which contains two sections, net income (loss) and other comprehensive income (loss), or in two separate but consecutive statements. This update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect the adoption of the standard update to impact its consolidated financial position or results of operations, as it only requires a change in the format of presentation.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs. The new guidance results in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. While many of the amendments to U.S. GAAP are not expected to have a significant effect on practice, the new guidance changes some fair value measurement principles and disclosure requirements. This new guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect the adoption of the standard update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.