Unassociated Document
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-SB/A

GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES OF SMALL
 
BUSINESS ISSUERS
 
UNDER SECTION 12(B) OR (G) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 0-51696

                       Trulite, Inc.                      
 
Delaware 
24-5711620
(State or other jurisdiction of
(I.R.S. employer
incorporation or formation)
identification number)
 
 
Three Riverway
 
Suite 1050
 
Houston, TX
77056
(Address of Principal
(Zip Code)
Executive Offices)

Issuer's telephone number: (713) 888-0660

Copies to:
Jim Ryan, Esq.
Jackson Walker
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 232-2253
Fax: (512) 391-2126


Securities to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act: none

Securities to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

Title of each class:
Name of Exchange on which to be so
registered each class is to be registered:
   
Common Stock, $.0001 par value per share
N/A
 


ITEM 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS
 
(a) Overview of the Company, Products and Target Markets
 
Trulite, Inc. (“Trulite”, “we”, “us”, “our”, the “Company” or the “Registrant”) is an emerging technology company engaged in the development and production of portable and stationary products that produce hydrogen for the generation of electricity for the commercial and consumer markets. The Company has developed, tested, sold and delivered its first hydrogen storage product - the HydroCell, an environmentally-friendly alternative to battery power. The Company has filed five patent applications for the HydroCell and the fuel cell products.
 
In August 2005, the Company demonstrated its first, complete, commercially packaged, integrated, hydrogen fuel cell power system. In September 2005, the Company introduced its Kitty Hawk system. The product consists of three technologies: one that generates hydrogen gas from powdered chemical compounds (the HydroCell, which is a technology with respect to which the Company has filed patents); one that transforms the hydrogen gas into electricity (the fuel cell stack); and one that controls the flow of hydrogen for the actual generation of electricity (the control technology, which is also a technology with respect to which the Company has filed patents). The Company believes the Kitty Hawk is the least expensive energy source on the market capable of producing 25 watts of power for several hours (as an example, 25 watts of power is sufficient to power a DVD player for several hours while concurrently charging a cell phone). It was Trulite’s integration of its patented technology (the HydroCell) with its patented control program and unpatented fuel cell stack that created an integrated hydrogen fuel cell power system called the Kitty Hawk.
 
In November 2005, the Company received its first orders for twenty-five Kitty Hawk systems. The units were manufactured in its Utah product development facility and were delivered to a selected target audience in February and March 2006. Also in November 2005, the Company received a $25,000 contract from Protonex Technology (“Protonex”) to develop three high energy density prototype HydroCells.
 
The Company has developed an enhanced version of the Kitty Hawk, the KH-3X. We are field testing the unit and plan on selling a small number of the units to obtain customer feedback to enhance the next version. The KH-3X has about twice the power output of the original Kitty Hawk product.
 
Trulite is currently developing the next version of the Kitty Hawk product series, the Kitty Hawk 4. Trulite’s Kitty Hawk 4 system is a more robust and powerful Kitty Hawk system capable of generating over three times the power output of the current KH-3X unit. The Kitty Hawk 4 system is designed to be a 130 watt integrated power system able to generate electricity for up to 4 hours at full output. The Kitty Hawk 4 system is anticipated to be available for field testing by the end of the second quarter of 2007. We anticipate manufacturing approximately 50 units for sale to selected commercial customers for field testing. Field testing is anticipated to take 8 to 10 weeks. Upon completion of field testing of the Kitty Hawk 4 system by the end of the third quarter of 2007, we anticipate units will be available for sale and delivery into selected commercial and consumer markets. The expected development and manufacturing costs of the Kitty Hawk 4 units will be approximately $1,500,000, including capital expenditures of $279,000. Funding for product development and manufacturing are expected to come from (i) bridge loans provided by Standard Renewable Energy Group, LLC (“SREG”), which owns NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership which beneficially ownes 45.2% of the Company’s common stock, (ii) investments in equity and debt made by external investors and (iii) from revenues generated from sales of the Kitty Hawk 3 units.
 



In 2007, we anticipate hiring a Chief Operating Officer and a Vice President of Product Development. The objectives of hiring additional senior management personnel will be to ensure the successful operations of the Company and to ensure the on-going product development of the Kitty Hawk integrated power system.
 
Trulite’s strategy is to leverage its unique hydrogen source technology and fuel cell technology to develop fuel cell products to address end-user applications in three identified markets: Industrial Remote Monitoring, specifically, the pipeline and well head market for remote sensing and monitoring of operating conditions in oil and gas fields; Recreational Off-Site Usage; and Back-up Power Generation for home and commercial applications. The market segment for recreational off-site usage is focused on camping, including a very specific niche target of environmentally conscious campers.
 
Since inception, the Company has sought to develop alternative energy sources to conventional portable and stationary technologies, such as gasoline and diesel generation units, for the commercial and consumer markets. Although the Company is not focused on the military market, the Company anticipates pursuing opportunities in this market through strategic relationships with companies such as Protonex, as well as measuring the risks and rewards to the Company for developing more specialized products for the military market.
 
(b) History of Trulite
 
Trulite was incorporated in Delaware on July 15, 2004. Later that month, Trulite purchased all the membership interests of Trulite Technology, LC (“Trulite Technology”), a Utah limited liability company, and merged with Trulite Technology, whereby Trulite survived the merger.
 
In January 2002, members of Trulite Technology submitted a proposal in response to a Small Business Innovation Research (“SBIR”) solicitation from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (“DTRA”) to research and develop a high energy density hydrogen source to ultimately power nuclear, chemical and biological detection equipment in the field. The intended applications of the hydrogen fuel source were for use by the military as a source of portable power.
 
Trulite Technology was incorporated on May 20, 2002, upon receipt of notification from the DTRA that Trulite Technology would receive a six month $100,000 Phase 1 SBIR award to develop a hydrogen fuel source (that is, a technology for producing hydrogen gas) that could convert hydrogen gas into electricity. All patent, software and other technical rights in any products are retained by Trulite.
 
Work on the project commenced in August 2002, and in January 2003 Trulite Technology built and tested its first dry chemical hydride hydrogen fuel source. In January 2003 Trulite Technology submitted a proposal to the United States Air Force (“USAF”) for a very high energy density hydrogen source for larger fuel cell systems. Trulite Technology received notification from the USAF in May 2003 that it had been selected for another six month $100,000 Phase 1 SBIR award. All patent, software and other technical rights in any products are retained by Trulite.
 
 

2


In January 2004, Trulite Technology received an order from Jadoo Power Systems for two prototype chemical hydride cartridges. These were shipped in March 2004. Trulite Technology also received an order from the Naval Research Laboratory for four larger cartridges. These were shipped in July 2004. In October 2003, Trulite had been introduced to William Jackson Berger (a.k.a. “John Berger”) of Contango Capital Partners, LP (“CCP”) through Jadoo Power Systems. CCP became interested in Trulite Technology’s hydrogen source technology, and Trulite Technology concluded its first round of private funding with CCP in July 2004. Also in July 2004, Trulite Technology merged with, and transferred all if its interests to, the Company, a newly-formed Delaware corporation.
 
In February 2005, the Company entered into a strategic relationship with Synexus Energy, Inc., a supplier of fuel cell stack and control technology ("Synexus"). Synexus, a research and development company was working on a product that can be used in conjunction with Trulite's HydroCell and was primarily funded by CCP. Synexus ceased doing business in June 2006. Receivables or payables between the two companies were settled in July 2006.
 
(c) Overview of the Alternative Fuel Industry
 
There are a number of factors which management believes are creating significant changes in the landscape of the alternative fuel industry, which in turn present significant opportunities for hydrogen generation and fuel cell technologies:
 
1) Users of conventional hydrocarbon energy sources (oil and natural gas) face increasing problems with maintaining supply in the face of growing global demand (Simmons & Co, a Houston based investment bank focused on energy, predicts oil will average $200 per barrel in 2010);
 
2) Power reliability (that is, the electric power provided to commercial and consumer markets through the electrical grid) is becoming an increasing problem in the United States and other countries due to aging infrastructure, necessitating alternative off-grid power sources;
 
3) The increasing proliferation of electronic devices (for example, cell phones, portable digital movie and music players and personal computers) and their power demands are becoming more challenging for conventional battery technology to keep pace;
 
4) Increasing global environmental and regulatory issues are making the use of hydrocarbons ever more difficult; and
 
5) Increasing geopolitical issues are causing global security concerns related to the availability and price of oil and natural gas.
 
Due to these pressures, we believe the energy industry will change dramatically before the end of this decade. Trulite also believes both portable and stationary hydrogen fuel cell products can provide practical, cost efficient solutions to the reliability and longevity demands of today’s high technology devices, as well as providing new solutions to existing power requirement problems by providing reliable alternative power sources.
 
Fuel cell and alternative fuel source technology is still being developed and refined. In many applications applied research and technology development remains a vitally important part of the industry. Reliability, cost and safe deployment of this technology will be key to initial successes.
 
 

3


A fuel cell is a non-mechanical device (it is a very thin membrane similar to a computer chip) which converts hydrogen gas (the fuel source) and oxygen into electricity and water. The water is a non-toxic by-product resulting from the process of generating electricity and is eliminated during the electricity conversion process. Each fuel cell (that is, each “chip”) produces a given amount of power when the hydrogen and oxygen are combined (the power output is measured in watts). When several fuel cells are combined or “stacked”, they create a fuel cell stack. For example, when several fuel cells are combined into a fuel cell stack, the fuel cell stack is capable of producing in excess of 25 watts of power in the KH-3X product. This level of power output is capable, for example, of powering a DVD player and charging a cell phone simultaneously.
 
There will be winners and losers in the commercialization process as the technology develops. However, it is too early to tell which technologies will ultimately dominate in certain applications, although the future direction appears clear in some major application areas, such as Proton Exchange Membrane (“PEM”) fuel cell technology.
 
Products utilizing fuel cell technology include fuel cell buses, numerous military applications, auxiliary power units, remote power and other transportation applications. Broad commercialization of fuel cell usage depends on reducing per unit costs. Products will be commercialized at price points that make sense to both commercial and consumer markets. Stationary and portable applications currently lead the way, as fuel cells replace or recharge batteries in the portable and stationary, light industrial and transportation applications.
 
Portable applications such as premium battery markets, where fuel cells improve run time and can be cost competitive, appear to be leading the early efforts of commercialization. This initial focus should also help demonstrate product performance, reliability and durability, reduce production costs, establish codes and standards for fuel cell technology, build a skilled labor force, develop a hydrogen infrastructure and create public awareness and acceptance.
 
An industry survey indicated that approximately 60% of the companies surveyed are focusing their efforts on PEM fuel cells or the closely related Direct Methanol Fuel Cell technologies. PEM fuel cells continue to be of most interest to fuel cell developers. The survey also suggests that government actions to address fuel costs, supply risks, and the environment could positively and dramatically impact fuel cell industry prospects in the next two to three years.
 
Finally, this survey also indicated that approximately 38 companies are expected to offer pre-commercial (demonstration units) or commercial products in 2006. General trends indicate that, in the next three to five years, delays in product launch might occur due to either fuel cell performance issues or non technical issues such as lack of codification of codes and standards. These delays may result in slow adoption of fuel cell products in both the commercial and consumer markets.
 
(d) Trulite’s Products
 
Trulite has two products: the HydroCell, a hydrogen generation and storage product, and the Kitty Hawk power system, a commercially packaged, integrated, hydrogen fuel cell power system.
 
Trulite’s HydroCell is a technology that utilizes a cartridge filled with a chemical hydride (sodium borohydride) that, when injected with water, produces hydrogen on demand for portable and stationary power devices. Each cartridge can generate about 500 milliliters/minute of hydrogen. Each cartridge is compact and lightweight, weighing only about 175 grams. Power to weight ratio (the ability to generate the same or more energy by cutting the weight of the generating device) is one of many important factors in gaining market acceptance for alternative power sources. The HydroCell technology enables fuel cells to run at least two to three (2-3) times longer than existing fuel cell and battery technology, while weighing significantly less than these technologies. The key to the HydroCell's efficient design is that it uses moist air exiting a PEM fuel cell to produce hydrogen for the PEM fuel cell stack. Water recycling not only enables the HydroCell to produce several liters of hydrogen from a lightweight package, but also means that the HydroCell produces hydrogen only when the fuel cell stack is operating. The proprietary control technology used inside the HydroCell and the cartridges make possible the safe production of hydrogen. The internal cartridge components allow the energy dense chemical hydride to react with the injected water in a controlled manner while providing for complete reactivity of the material.

4


The HydroCell fuel source can be marketed as a separate product and is a metallic cylinder approximately 2 inches in diameter and 6 inches in height which holds the chemical hydride. When water is injected into the cylinder, it creates a chemical reaction which generates hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas is transformed into electricity via the fuel cell, which then powers the product in which it is installed. The container is sealed to prevent moisture from entering the cylinder and to ensure the chemical hydride does not escape the cylinder. The cylinder is robust and will not break if dropped, resulting in a reliable, safe product which is easy to manufacture.
 
Trulite believes the significance of the HydroCell is the proprietary, chemical hydride mixture and chemical reaction process wherein the generation of hydrogen does not occur until water is added to the chemical hydride. Given that the hydride is inert until water is added, a Trulite cartridge can be kept in storage for a minimum of three years without losing its energy density. In other words, the energy level doesn’t get weaker over time. We believe the HydroCell has the highest energy density of any known portable hydrogen source currently available in the market. This is a significant difference from offerings from some of our competitors, as we believe there are no “dry hydride” technologies currently available to the consumer market. Trulite’s dry hydride technology for generating hydrogen makes it possible to build HydroCell cartridges capable of generating hydrogen for over 100 hours continuously by increasing the size of the cartridge and adding more chemical hydride.
 
We believe the HydroCell’s design offers the following advantages:
 
- SAFETY: Hydrogen is produced only as it is needed, resulting in increasing safety;
 
- RELIABILITY: The HydroCell has few moving parts, making it a reliable fuel source;
 
- REUSABILITY AND COST: The HydroCell capsules are inexpensive compared with the costs associated with generating an equal amount of energy from conventional energy sources over the life span of one HydroCell cartridge since the cartridge can be refilled, thus reducing the total cost of ownership to consumer;
 
- DISPOSABILITY: The HydroCell capsules are disposable. The by-product is an inert, solid, chemical oxide with minimal health hazard capable of being discarded in landfills; and
 
5


- SHELF LIFE: The HydroCell can lie dormant for up to thirty-six (36) months without losing its energy density.
 
The Company has submitted two patent applications for the HydroCell.
 
The second product we seek to market is the Kitty Hawk power system, a commercially packaged, integrated hydrogen fuel cell power system. The Kitty Hawk and KH-3X products each consist of three technologies: one that generates hydrogen gas from powdered chemical compounds (the HydroCell); one that transforms the hydrogen gas into electricity (the fuel cell stack,) and one that controls the flow of hydrogen for the actual generation of electricity (the control technology). The Kitty Hawk units are rectangular in shape, weighs about ten pounds and are easily portable.
 
The control technology is an integrated, programmable electronic circuit (that is, the circuit can be programmed to perform specific tasks) that is used to control the flow of hydrogen and oxygen to the fuel stack. The purpose of the control technology is to ensure the proper amount of hydrogen is generated to power the device which is attached to the Kitty Hawk product. If too much or too little hydrogen is generated, the efficiency of the Kitty Hawk is significantly reduced, which results in power loss and the unit’s inability to power the devices attached to the Kitty Hawk.
 
Trulite manufactures the fuel cell stack, develops product enhancements and engages in new product development on the fuel cell stack. The Kitty Hawk power system was introduced by Trulite in September 2005. The Kitty Hawk products use the HydroCell system to generate hydrogen for up to three hours at full power. The initial product is capable of generating 25 watts of power and the KH-3X product (discussed further below) is capable of generating 30 watts of usable power. That is, although the product generates approximately 40 to 50 watts of power, the system requires approximately 15 to 20 watts of power internally to run the unit. The result is 25 to 30 watts of usable power (depending on the product), which is more than sufficient to run a radio while concurrently charging a cell phone. Trulite manufactured and delivered twenty-five units of the initial product to selected customers in February and March of 2006.
 
Although the Kitty Hawk power system is an integrated, hydrogen fuel cell power system, the HydroCell can be marketed and sold separately to companies wanting a dry hydride technology for generating hydrogen. For example, Trulite has sold the HydroCell to Protonex for military applications. Although the fuel cell stack can be marketed and sold separately, Trulite has no plans to either market or sell the fuel cell stack separately. Trulite has no plans to market and sell the control technology separately.
 
(e) Current Status of Projects
 
Trulite has developed the next generation of the Kitty Hawk (the KH-3X), which has a number of enhancements: improved physical design; noise reduction; faster start up cycle (several seconds versus 2 to 3 minutes); fuel level gauge to indicate the level of energy remaining in the cartridge; an attached carrying handle; a status display screen indicating the power output of the unit; interior technical modifications to eliminate hose pinching; and increased power output to 30 watts of power. Each of these enhancements required several steps including designing and building the enhancement; testing the enhancement to ensure it performs as specified; incorporating and testing the enhancement in the Kitty Hawk unit; and testing the Kitty Hawk unit in a customer environment.
 
 

6


The designing, building and testing of the enhancements began in March 2006 and were completed by the third quarter of 2006. The testing of the enhancements is an on-going process. As each enhancement is built, it is tested. Each time a new enhancement is added to the Kitty Hawk unit, the entire KH-3X system is tested to ensure all of the enhancements work as an integrated system. Beginning in mid-July 2006, ten units were manufactured for delivery to selected customers for field testing. If the KH-3X unit successfully completes field testing by the end of October 2006, it is expected to be commercially available for sale and delivery into selected commercial and consumer markets shortly thereafter.
 
Trulite is also developing the Kitty Hawk 4. The product will be designed to have a power output over three times great than the KH-3X. Product enhancements to the Kitty Hawk 4 will include: reducing the overhead required to run the Kitty Hawk 4 power system; increased ruggedness; and enhanced ergonomics and physical design. Each of these enhancements will also require going through the proving process set forth above prior to commercial availability.
 
The design of the Kitty Hawk 4 system is anticipated to commence in September 2006 and is anticipated to be completed by the third quarter of 2007. The Kitty Hawk 4 system is anticipated to be available for field testing by the end of the second quarter of 2007. Field testing is anticipated to take eight to ten weeks. Upon completion of field testing of the Kitty Hawk 4 system, expected to be by the end of the third quarter of 2007, we anticipate units will be available for sale and delivery into selected commercial and consumer markets.
 
In November 2005, Trulite established a manual production line sufficient to meet a five fuel cell per month and 35 HydroCell (the hydrogen cartridge) per month rate. Our near term goal is for the manufacturing facilities to ramp up to meet a potential demand of 20 fuel cells per month and 200 HydroCell per month. At such time as demand reaches a run rate of 80 fuel cells per month and 800 HydroCells per month, we anticipate that manufacturing will transition from manual to automated processes. Thereafter, outsourcing relationships are expected to be established for a few simple, non-proprietary sub-components. Full outsourcing likely will begin once volume demand approaches 250 fuel cells per month and 1,500 HydroCells per month. This outsourcing event will trigger the beginning of the shift to a final assembly and test facility at our own manufacturing site located in Texas.
 
In 2005, Trulite generated $16,667 in revenues from the sale of the HydroCell. During the six months ended June 30, 2006, Trulite generated $8,333 in revenues from the sale of Kitty Hawk and HydroCell units.
 
Management intends to focus its initial efforts on the Industrial Remote Monitoring (the monitoring and remote sensing of oil and gas pipelines, oil wells and gas wells), the Recreational Off-Site Usage, and the Back-up Power Market for home and commercial applications, all of which have a need for a large amount of portable power on demand.
 
(f) Market Opportunities
 
Trulite believes its integrated Kitty Hawk units powered by Trulite’s HydroCell technology provides consumers with a superior alternative energy product. As compared to conventional battery technologies, the HydroCell does not lose the ability to generate electricity even when put in storage for long periods of time (up to three years). By comparison, conventional lithium-ion batteries will lose their ability to generate energy if they are not used before their expiration date. Trulite believes it has the ability to bring this power to numerous kinds of portable electronic devices through its Kitty Hawk power system. The primary markets we currently seek to enter for Trulite’s products are the pipeline and well head market for remote sensing and monitoring of operating conditions in oil and gas fields, the high end recreational camping market, and the back-up power generation market for home and commercial applications. The opportunity in the pipeline market resulted from estimating the number of oil and gas wells in the United States (the data was obtained from available public information from companies such as Shell, ChevronTexaco and British Petroleum), estimating the existing operating and maintenance costs to service and repair these wells, assuming a 20% adoption rate over the next five years for companies implementing a Trulite Kitty Hawk solution and calculating the cost differential between existing operating costs and Trulite’s Kitty Hawk solution. Trulite intends to seek out oil field service companies, trying to identify the most viable operators and influence both large and small energy companies, as well as other providers to the oil and gas industry, to adopt the Kitty Hawk integrated power system as an alternative power source. As currently envisioned, the manufacture and distribution of the Kitty Hawk power system to alliance partners will occur from the Company’s manufacturing facilities, which will most likely be located in Houston, Texas.

7


The anticipated opportunity in the recreational camping market for remote power devices comparable to the Kitty Hawk product was based upon analyzing the available products in this sector such as the Anton Bauer 2702 battery charger, SunWize AC 40/65 40 watt remote power system, the Frezzi M1000P video power charger, the HPC 6624A 40 watt power system as well as several other companies which provide products comparable to the Kitty Hawk power system. Trulite believes the Kitty Hawk product is well suited for recreational camping applications such as providing power for travel refrigerators/coolers, cell phone chargers, portable TVs, portable DVD players, and powering air and water purification units.
 
The anticipated opportunity in the back-up power generation market for consumers and businesses is based on the Company’s perception that with increasing outages in electrical supply to homes and businesses due to weather and peak demand requirements, consumers and businesses are interested in a back-up power supply that can power critical requirements for an extended period of time.
 
The Company plans to distribute its consumer Kitty Hawk products through three different channels: (1) direct to consumer sales (expected to be on a limited basis); (2) bundling; and (3) retail stores. The Company also plans on using the Internet, through sites such as eBay, Amazon, Overstock and Yahoo, to sell directly to consumers on a limited basis in order to test market its products, as well as establish consumer price points. The Company is also targeting original equipment manufacturers (“OEM”) in an attempt to bundle its products with those of the OEM. Advantages to partnering with an OEM include leveraging the OEM’s customer base and cross-selling Trulite’s products with existing OEM products. Lastly, the Company intends to attempt to market the Kitty Hawk to major high-end retail stores, such as REI, Northface, Patagonia, Brookstone, Orvis and Cabela’s in an attempt to attract the high end camping market.

8


(g) Business Strategy
 
The Company believes the HydroCell powered Kitty Hawk is substantially less expensive than comparable energy sources capable of producing 25 to 30 watts of power for several hours in this market segment. Based upon interviews with outside engineers from a major energy company, as well as analysis developed by Trulite’s own engineers, the power output of the Kitty Hawk system is capable of supporting typical user applications in the pipeline and well head markets. Trulite is currently testing a HydroCell capable of powering a Kitty Hawk system for one hundred continuous hours. Product enhancements are planned to develop a HydroCell capable of generating 10,000 watt hours of power which is equivalent to running a Kitty Hawk unit for seven hundred and twenty continuous hours.
 
Trulite’s strategy is to leverage its unique hydrogen generation technology and its fuel stack technology to develop and sell integrated fuel cell products to address end-user applications in three identified markets: Industrial Remote Monitoring, Recreational Off-Site and home and commercial back-up power application. Trulite’s business model is based upon the sale of its product, the Kitty Hawk, to specific target markets as an integrated solution. That is, since Trulite is able to bundle the fuel source with the fuel cell, Trulite is able to sell the integrated unit in line with the price point of competing fuel cell products. Trulite believes it is the only known source of the dry power fuel source and consequently, expects to receive follow up orders for HydroCell replacement cartridges. For example, for each Kitty Hawk unit sold, Trulite estimates a customer will purchase 10 HydroCell cartridges every year in the consumer market. Ongoing sales of replacement cartridges could represent a continuous revenue stream resulting in the generation of profits over the life of the Kitty Hawk unit.
 
Trulite seeks to make its hydrogen source technology the de-facto standard in the industry and, through the sale of its Kitty Hawk integrated power system product, capture a significant percentage of the industrial and consumer markets in which the Company intends to enter. The following are the main components of Trulite’s strategy.
 
Narrow Market Focus
 
Trulite is focusing its initial efforts on three distinct markets:
 
Industrial Remote Monitoring: The primary target market for remote monitoring is the pipeline and well head applications for remote sensing and monitoring of operating conditions in oil and gas fields. Characteristically, these fields tend to be in remote locations with harsh operating environments, making access difficult. The conventional power sources used to operate these facilities are solar panels and batteries. Solar panels turn sunlight into electricity that powers the batteries which, in turn, operate the sensing and monitoring devices. However, there are a number of challenges with solar energy: if the weather is cloudy for three days or more, electricity can’t be generated to power the batteries, making consistent and reliable monitoring of such facilities difficult, if not impossible. Solar panels are also subject to a variety of abuses, from vandalism to roaming animals knocking down the panels, rendering them inoperative. The repair and maintenance of these facilities is time consuming and costly, especially in remote environments. The impact of the lack of monitoring data may result in significant loss of revenue and potentially may create an operational hazard. Trulite seeks to penetrate this market for the following reasons:

9

 
- The major oil producers have indicated an interest in replacing the common lead acid battery/solar panel combination due to high staffing requirements and operating costs required to maintain conventional batteries and a lack of reliability, especially in adverse weather conditions;
 
- As the price of crude oil remains high, formerly abandoned or plugged wells are coming on-line thanks to smaller oil producers, thereby substantially increasing the size of the total available market. It is even more important for these smaller producers to address operational issues such as increased reliability and reduced operating expenses;
 
- We feel this market segment represents one of our best opportunities to implement our existing products (the HydroCell and the Kitty Hawk power system) and generate near-term revenue; and
 
- The management team and Board of Directors of Trulite has knowledge of this segment, as well as numerous industry relationships at the most senior levels of management.
 
The Company believes the HydroCell powered Kitty Hawk is less expensive than comparable sources of energy on the market capable of producing 25 watts of power for several hours. Based upon interviews with engineers from a major energy company, as well as analysis developed by Trulite’s own engineers, the power output of the Kitty Hawk system is capable of supporting typical user applications in the pipeline and well head markets. Trulite is currently testing a HydroCell capable of powering a Kitty Hawk system for over one hundred continuous hours. Product enhancements are planned to develop a HydroCell that is capable of generating 10,000 watt hours of power which is equivalent to running a Kitty Hawk unit for seven hundred and twenty continuous hours.
 
Recreational Off-Site Usage: This market segment is focused on high end recreational camping, including a very specific niche target of environmentally conscious campers. Trulite seeks to enter this market for the following reasons:
 
- Management believes that interest in the environment will continue to rise and that the environmentalist segment of the market is willing to pay a premium for environmentally friendly technology;
 
- We hope that entering this market will broaden the visibility of our products (specifically, the Kitty Hawk power system) to the consumer market, which is the first step to entering the retail market space;
 
- This market segment will provide Trulite with a good test for product performance (e.g., reliability, ease of use, new applications) as well as “new learnings”, which will enable the Company to enhance and adapt its product offerings based on consumer feedback; and
 
- The existing Trulite product has attributes ideally suited to this market segment: compact, portable, significantly lighter than batteries, environmentally friendly (water is the only by-product), high reliability, low maintenance, ease of use and long shelf life.
 
Back-up Power for Home and Commercial Applications: With increasing outages in electrical supply to homes due to weather and peak demand requirements, consumers are interested in a back-up power supply that can power critical requirements (refrigerators, freezers, alarm systems, electronic equipment, fans, etc.) for an extended period of time. Consumers want portable power so that they can decide what devices should be powered under the circumstances. Trulite’s hydrogen fuel cell products can provide a good solution since they can be used indoors and are very portable. The HydroCell fuel cells are small and can be stored for an extended period of time before use. The Trulite products can power devices that need either AC or DC power. The Trulite fuel cells can also recharge batteries and battery powered devices, such as cell phones and laptop computers.
 

10


Commercial applications also exist for the Trulite fuel cells. For example, power is needed on building sites for tools. A Trulite fuel cell is more convenient, quieter and more environmentally friendly than a gasoline generator.
 
Trulite has received numerous comments and feedback from the initial set of Kitty Hawk users related to the performance, design and use of the product. The input from these initial customers was used to develop the product enhancement plan for subsequent versions of the Kitty Hawk power system.
 
·
Utilize Strategic Relationships

Strategic relationships are critical to Trulite for research, product development and volume manufacturing. As used in this context, these relationships are transactions with companies to perform specific activities on Trulite’s behalf and for which Trulite does not have or may not want to develop the competencies to accomplish these activities. In return, Trulite will offer activities or provide competencies that are not available to the companies. It is expected that these relationships will be dissolvable at any time and may be formed for the objective of entering a market or developing a technology. Trulite expects to seek out relationships with companies for product design and product development. As the Company enters into volume production, Trulite intends to seek out strategic relationships for manufacturing, distribution and logistics.
 
Trulite currently does not intend to actively pursue markets other than as set forth herein. However, if opportunities arise through strategic relationships with companies specializing in non-competitive markets, we expect to carefully evaluate the opportunity before making a final determination.
 
·
Continuous Technology and Product Innovation

Trulite is committed to continuous technology and product innovation as a means of achieving and maintaining sustainable competitive advantage. Trulite’s research and product development group in Utah is narrowly focused on new technology innovation. The group’s responsibility is to create a portfolio of emerging technologies specific to the hydrogen generation and fuel cell space. The senior management team reviews the portfolio and those projects which have the highest likelihood of commercialization will be selected for the research agenda. Quarterly milestones, as well as performance and test metrics, are established to determine the viability of commercialization of the technology. If the test criteria are met, the technology is then further developed and optimized for manufacturing.
 
Once the product is tested and optimized, it is turned over to the manufacturing team for volume production. The manufacturing team is responsible for continuous innovation of the product’s performance, as well as design for manufacture. Trulite’s goal is to enhance its existing product line every quarter and develop at least one new product every fiscal year.
 

11


·
Strong Corporate Culture

Trulite believes a strong corporate culture is the foundation for a successful, enduring enterprise. There are two principles which have been imbedded in the culture of the Company since its inception:
 
- Integrity above reproach: All members of the Trulite team and its strategic relationships are committed to conducting business in an ethical manner with its customers, suppliers, partners, employees and the communities in which it operates. There is zero tolerance for behavior at any level that does not adhere to this principle.
 
-Frugality: Both Trulite and its strategic relationships are committed to the prudent allocation of resources. In every aspect of normal business activities, resource allocations are carefully weighed before making a decision. Alternatives are thoroughly discussed to determine if there is a better, more efficient option. Trulite intends to make investments in technology and people in order to retain and enhance its competitive position and return a fair profit to its stakeholders.
 
(h) Intellectual Property
 
We have filed five patent applications for the HydroCell and fuel cell products, and we make every effort to protect our knowledge of our processes and procedures.
 
(i) Competition
 
Trulite has two products: the HydroCell, a hydrogen generation and storage product, and the Kitty Hawk power system, a commercially packaged, integrated, hydrogen fuel cell power system. Trulite’s Kitty Hawk power system is an integrated system consisting of the HydroCell hydrogen generation and storage product; the fuel cell which converts hydrogen into electricity; and the control technology, which controls the flow of hydrogen to the fuel cell.
 
Trulite believes its HydroCell technology to be unique and offers significant advantages over hydrogen generation technology offered by its competitors. The HydroCell is a lightweight, compact fuel cell system that, to the Company’s knowledge, when combined with water recycling, produces more hydrogen for its size and weight than any other hydrogen source currently available on the market.
 
Our primary competition for hydrogen generation technology is Millennium Cell, Inc. (“MCEL”). MCEL, a development stage company, develops hydrogen batteries comprised of a fuel cell and hydrogen storage technology for use in portable electronic devices for the military, medical, industrial, and consumer markets. MCEL primarily utilizes a “wet” sodium hydride technology for the generation of hydrogen. The fuel blends used in the hydrogen battery technology are comprised of a combination of water, sodium borohydride, and other chemicals. As compared to MCEL’s wet hydride technology, the HydroCell does not lose energy density during long periods of storage (up to three years). We believe there are technical limitations with respect to weight and shelf life that limit MCEL’s ability to achieve higher levels of energy density.
 
Although there are a number of competitors that provide fuel cell technologies, most of these competitors do not offer a single vendor, integrated solution consisting of the hydrogen source, the control technology and the fuel cell. We believe Trulite’s HydroCell and the Kitty Hawk integrated power system products have created a business model that gives Trulite a competitive advantage. We believe our business model affords us the opportunity to sell the Kitty Hawk integrated unit in line with the price point of competing fuel cell products.
 
 

12


(j) Employees
 
Trulite currently has 15 full time employees, 13 of whom are involved in research and development. The 14th employee is the President and CEO and the 15th is involved with the financial affairs of Trulite. The Company also hires temporary employees from time to time as needed.
 
(k) Reports to security holders.
 
(1) The Company files reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company is a reporting company and will comply with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).
 
(2) The public may read and copy any materials the Company files with the SEC at the SEC's public reference section at Room 1580, 100 F Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the public reference section by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Additionally, the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC, which can be found at http://www.sec.gov.
 
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION.
 
General
 
The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our audited financial statements for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 and the period from inception (July 15, 2004) to December 31, 2004, with their explanatory notes for the years included as part of the Form 10SB.
 
Overview
 
Trulite Technology was created in May 2002 to develop a hydrogen fuel source for fuel cells. The intended applications were use by the military as a source of portable power and use by consumers as a source of recreational or back up power. This entity was funded by grants from two governmental agencies to conduct fuel cell research and development. In July 2004, following the sale to Trulite of all membership interests in Trulite Technology, Trulite Technology merged with the Company, then a newly-formed Delaware corporation. In the first quarter of 2006, the Company initiated production of demonstration products for sale to selected individuals. The demonstration units were manufactured at the Company’s research facilities in Utah.

13


The Company, from inception (July 15, 2004) through December 31, 2004, had $1,750 in sales and $16,667 in sales for the year ended December 31, 2005. The revenue for both years was with a related party. We believe the main sources of initial revenue will be revenues from the oil and gas pipeline monitoring market, the high end recreational camping consumer market and the back-up power market for home and commercial applications. Management anticipates some revenues in the second half of 2006 as additional demonstration units are provided to selected users. Management estimates that it will begin to have commercially viable products resulting from the ongoing research and development and product development by the fourth quarter of 2007. Research and development expenditures will be made to further enhance the performance of the hydrogen fuel sources, to develop the electronics that control the process to generate electricity, to improve the performance of the fuel cells and other components, to increase the electrical output of the products, and to test the performance and reliability of the products. Management estimates it will spend approximately $1.0 million in research and development in 2006 and $1.0 million in 2007 prior to having the first products commercially available. The Company will have ongoing research and development and product development expenditures for the foreseeable future as products are developed for new applications and markets. The manufacturing operation in Houston is expected to be operational by the second quarter of 2007. The timing, amount and success of the research and development and manufacturing estimates are dependent on a number of factors that are difficult to project, including but not limited to the availability of qualified people, the success of the technologies under development, the cost to implement technologies, the cost of the product, the requirements of the marketplace, regulatory requirements, the availability of funds, and other factors.
 
 

14


Selected statements of operating data for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005
 
Please see the unaudited Financial Statements of the Company for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 set forth on Pages F-2 - F-18.

   
Three Months
Ended
June 30, 2006
 
Three Months
Ended
June 30, 2005
 
Six Months
Ended
June 30, 2006
 
Six Months
Ended
June 30, 2005
 
   
(Unaudited)
 
(Unaudited)
 
(Unaudited)
 
(Unaudited)
 
                   
SALES
 
$
-
 
$
-
 
$
8,333
 
$
-
 
                           
COST OF SALES
   
-
   
-
   
5,912
   
-
 
                           
GROSS MARGIN
   
-
   
-
   
2,421
   
-
 
                           
OPERATING EXPENSES
                         
Research and development
 
 
276,442
   
124,284
   
424,988
   
199,199
 
Depreciation
 
 
2,721
   
1,460
   
5,441
   
2,351
 
General and administrative
   
876,755
   
153,937
   
1,107,556
   
255,477
 
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
   
1,155,918
   
279,681
   
1,537,985
   
457,027
 
                           
LOSS FROM OPERATIONS
   
(1,155,918
)
 
(279,681
)
 
(1,535,564
)
 
(457,027
)
                           
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
                         
Interest expense
   
-
   
(345
)
 
(59
)
 
(345
)
Interest income
   
2,735
   
807
   
3,206
   
807
 
Other
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
 
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
   
2,735
   
462
   
3,147
   
462
 
                           
LOSS BEFORE PROVISION FOR
INCOME TAXES
   
(1,153,183
)
 
(279,219
)
 
(1,532,417
)
 
(456,565
)
                           
INCOME TAXES
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
 
                           
NET LOSS
   
(1,153,183
)
 
(279,219
)
 
(1,532,417
)
 
(456,565
)
                           
Preferred dividends
   
(10,180
)
 
(23,172
)
 
(39,275
)
 
(32,202
)
Deemed dividends on exchange of common stock
for preferred stock
   
(1,586,150
)
 
-
   
(1,586,150
)
 
-
 
                           
NET LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS’
 
$
(2,749,513
)
$
(302,391
)
$
(3,157,842
)
$
( 488,767
)
                           
NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                         
Basic
 
$
(0.12
)
$
(0.07
)
$
(0.22
)
$
(0.13
)
Preferred and deemed dividends
   
(0.18
)
 
(0.01
)
 
(0.23
)
 
(0.01
)
Attributable to common shareholders
 
$
(0.30
)
$
(0.08
)
$
(0.45
)
$
(0.14
)
                           
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES:
                         
Basic
   
9,305,011
   
3,631,500
   
6,942,215
   
3,582,967
 
                           
Diluted
   
9,305,011
   
3,631,500
   
6,942,215
   
3,582,967
 
 
15

 
Three and six months ended June 30, 2006, compared to the three and six months ended June 30, 2005
 
Revenues
 
The Company did not have any revenue for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005.
 
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, revenues totaled $8,333 versus zero for the same period ended June 30, 2005.
 
Gross margin
 
The Company did not have any gross margin for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005.
 
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, gross margin was $2,421 compared to zero for the same six month period in 2005.
 
Operating expenses
 
For the three months ended June 30, 2006, as compared to 2005, operating expenses increased by $876,235. Operating expenses were $1,155,918 for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 as compared to $279,681 for the period ending June 30, 2005. Research and development expenses increased to $276,442 for the three month period ended June 30, 2006, as compared to $124,284 for the corresponding prior year period. This increase was due to development and production of demonstration units in 2006, as compared to 2005 when no demonstration units were produced. Depreciation expense increased $1,261 for the three months ended June 30, 2006, compared to the corresponding prior year period. This increase was due to additions of equipment purchased for research and development. General and administrative costs increased to $876,755 for the three months ended June 30, 2006, as compared to $153,937 for the corresponding prior period in 2005, primarily due to higher personnel related costs as well as increase legal and accounting fees resulting from the level of effort to register the Company’s securities.
 
Operating expenses were $1,537,985 for the six months ended June 30, 2006. This compares to operating expenses of $457,027 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. Research and development expenses increased to $424,988 for the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared to $199,199 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The Company increased its research and development expenditures during 2006 and produced its first demonstration units. Depreciation expense increased $3,090 for the six month period ended June 30, 2006, as compared to the six month period ended June 30, 2005. General and administrative costs increased to $1,107,556 for the six months ended June 30, 2006, as compared to $255,477 for the corresponding prior period in 2005, primarily due to higher personnel related costs as well as increase legal and accounting fees resulting from the level of effort to register the Company’s securities.
 

16


 
Loss from Operations
 
Operating losses were $1,155,918 for the three months ended June 30, 2006, as compared to operating losses of $279,681 for the three months ended June 30, 2005, were primarily due to the increases in operating expenses noted above.
 
Operating losses for the six months ended June 30, 2006 were $1,535,564, as compared to an operating loss of $457,027 during the six months ended June 30, 2005, primarily due to the increases in operating expenses noted above.
 
Other Income
 
Other income, consisting primarily of interest income, for the three months ended June 30, 2006, totaled $2,735, an increase over the $462 of other income for the three months ended June 30, 2005, primarily due to higher average cash balances.
 
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, other income was $3,147 compared to $462 for the six month period ended June 30, 2005, primarily due to having higher average cash balances.
 
Net Loss
 
Net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2006 was $1,153,183 as compared to $279,219 for the three months ended June 30, 2005. The increase was due to increased operating expenses.
 
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the net loss was $1,532,417 as compared to $456,565 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The increased loss was due to increased operating expenses.
 

17


Selected statements of operating data for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 and 2004

Please see the audited Financial Statements of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, set forth on Pages F-19 - F-36.
 

 
 
(Audited)
December 31,
2005
 
(Audited)
December 31,
2004
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SALES
 
$
16,667
 
$
1,750
 
 
         
COST OF SALES
   
12,216
   
650
 
 
           
GROSS MARGIN
   
4,451
   
1,100
 
 
           
OPERATING EXPENSES
         
 
         
Research and development
   
410,958
   
713,109
 
 
         
Depreciation
   
6,823
   
1,140
 
 
         
General and administrative
   
412,877
   
164,873
 
 
         
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
   
830,658
   
879,122
 
 
         
LOSS FROM OPERATIONS
   
(826,207
)
 
(878,022
)
 
         
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
         
Interest expense
   
(663
)
 
-
 
Interest income
   
5,329
   
-
 
Other
   
(4,411
)
 
-
 
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
   
255
   
-
 
 
         
LOSS BEFORE PROVISION FOR
         
INCOME TAXES
   
(825,952
)
 
(878,022
)
 
         
INCOME TAXES
   
-
   
-
 
 
         
NET LOSS
 
$
(825,952
)
$
(878,022
)
 
         
PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
   
(84,074
)
 
(6,624
)
 
         
NET LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
         
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
 
$
(910,026
)
$
(884,646
)
 
         
NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:
         
Basic
 
$
(0.25
)
$
(0.28
)
 
         
Diluted
 
$
(0.25
)
$
(0.28
)
 
         
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES:
         
Basic
   
3,606,195
   
3,157,001
 
Diluted
   
3,606,195
   
3,157,001
 

18


 
Revenues and Gross Margins
 
Revenue for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2005 was $16,667, as compared to $1,750 for the period from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. Gross margin for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2005 was $4,451 as compared to a gross margin of $1,100 for the period July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. During these periods, the Company was a research and development company. In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Company began low volume production of its demonstration products.
 
Operating Expenses
 
Expenses from operations were $830,658 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005. This compares to operating expenses of $879,122 for the period July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. This is an overall decrease of 6%. Operating expenses consisted of research and development, depreciation, and general and administrative expenses. Research and development expenses decreased to $410,958 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 compared to $713,109 for the five and one half month period from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 3l, 2004. The overall decrease of 42% was mainly due to the research and development costs that occurred from the business combination on July 22, 2004, which resulted in a one time expense of $606,098. The decrease was offset by higher research and development costs and the longer period of twelve months for 2005 as compared to five and one half months for 2004. Depreciation increased 500% from 2005 as compared to 2004 and this is mainly attributed to the longer time period of operations in that 2005 was twelve months and 2004 was five and one half months and the purchase of additional equipment. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2005, general and administrative expenses increased to $412,877 from $164,873 as compared to the five and one half month period from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. The overall increase of 154% is attributed to the longer time period and the increase cost of audits and legal fees of $122,434 for the purpose of going public.
 
Loss from Operations
 
Losses from operations were $825,952 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 as compared to operating losses of $878,022 for the period July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. This is a 6% decrease for the twelve months ending December 31, 2005 as compared to the five and half months from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. The decrease was due to decreases in operating expenses.
 
Other Income and Expense
Other income and expenses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 totaled $255, as compared to $0 for the period from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. This increase was due to the Company’s investing part of its proceeds of approximately $950,000 raised from a private placement of its preferred stock in a savings account at a local bank.
 
Net Loss
 
Net loss for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 was $825,952, as compared to $878,022 for the period from July 15, 2004 (inception) through December 31, 2004. The loss decreased due to increased activity in research and development purchase of an insurance policy, hiring of a chief financial officer and the costs of a public offering.
 

19


To date, we have financed operations through the private placement of equity securities. In June 2005, we raised $750,000 through a private placement of 934,725 shares of preferred stock. The Company has since had another private placement of equity securities in April 2006 in which we raised $1,000,000 through a private placement of 1,000,000 shares of common stock and an equal amount of warrants. We have not employed any significant leverage of debt. However, there can be no assurance we will not undertake debt obligations in the future in order to finance our operations.
 
Historical Sources of Cash
 
During the period from July 15, 2004 (inception) though December 31, 2004, the Company financed its operations principally through the sale of an aggregate of $300,000 of preferred stock. The Company, for the year ended December 31, 2005, financed its operations through the sale of an aggregate of $950,000 of preferred stock, along with sale of three Kitty Hawk units. The Company conducted a private placement in April 2006, raising $1,000,000 through the sale of 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock and warrants.
 
Cash position and sources and uses of cash
 
Our cash position at June 30, 2006, was $337,626 as compared to $235,982 at December 31, 2005.
 
Our operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2006, used cash in the amount of $886,942, as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2005 of $449,154. Cash used in operating activities for the six month period ending June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005 reflected a net loss of $1,532,417 and $456,565 respectively. The Company had $11,414 and $15,459 of cash outflows used in investing activities for the purchase of property and equipment for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 respectively. The Company had cash inflows from financing activities of $1,000,000 during 2006 from the issuance of common stock and warrants and $950,000 during 2005 from issuances of preferred stock.
 
Capital Resources Going Forward
 
The Company had $337,626 in cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2006. Our intended plan of operations for the twelve month period beginning July 1, 2006, is to manufacture, sell and distribute limited quantities of our product and to continue to develop our products. In the past, the Company primarily used funds derived from the private placement of its securities to fund its operations.
 
Cash on hand as of June 30, 2006, and cash generated by operations in conjunction with our working capital, will not be sufficient to continue our business for the next twelve months. We continually review our overall capital and funding needs, taking into account current business needs, as well as the Company’s future goals and requirements. Based on our business strategy, we believe we will need to increase our available capital through the sale of additional securities.
 

20


On August 9, 2006, the Company incurred indebtedness of $250,000 pursuant to the terms of two promissory notes. Under the terms of the first promissory note, the Company borrowed $125,000 from Contango Venture Capital Corporation, which beneficially owns approximately 17% of the Company’s common stock. Under the terms of the second promissory note, the Company borrowed $125,000 from Standard Renewable Energy, LP, a wholly owned subsidiary of SREG. Both notes bear interest at a rate of 11.25% until February 8, 2007, at which time the rate will become prime plus 3%. Both notes mature on May 1, 2007 and may be prepaid by the Company at any time without penalty.
 
On September 21, 2006, the Company incurred indebtedness of $250,000 pursuant to the terms of a promissory note. Under the terms of the promissory note, the Company borrowed $250,000 from SREG. The note bears interest at a rate of 11.25% until May 21, 2007 at which time the rate will become prime plus 3%. The note matures June 18, 2007 and may be prepaid at any time without penalty.
 
Should our costs and expenses prove to be greater than we currently anticipate, or should we change our current business plan in a manner that will increase or accelerate our anticipated costs and expenses, the depletion of our working capital would be accelerated. To the extent it becomes necessary to raise additional cash in the future as our cash on hand and working capital resources are depleted, we intend to raise additional capital through the sale of additional equity securities, public or private sale of debt or equity securities, debt financing or short term loans, or a combination of these options. We currently do not have a binding commitment for, or readily available sources of, additional financing. We cannot give any assurance that we will be able to secure the additional cash or working capital that we may require to continue our operations under such circumstances or that it will be on terms that would not hinder our ability to execute our business strategy.
 
Our anticipated costs are estimates based upon our current business plan. Our actual costs could vary materially from these estimates. Further, we could change our current business plans, which may also result in a change in our anticipated costs.
 
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
 
There are no guarantees, commitments, lease and debt agreements or other agreements that would trigger adverse changes in our credit rating, earnings, or cash flows, including requirements to perform under stand by agreements.
 
Critical Accounting Policies
 
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United State of America.
 
On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and impairment of long lived assets. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates, including those for the above described items are reasonable.
 

21


Our accounting policies are more fully described in Note B - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our financial statements. As disclosed in Note B the preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions about future events that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Future events and their effects cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Therefore, the determination of estimates requires the exercise of judgment. Actual results will inevitably differ from those estimates, and such differences may be material to the financial statements.
 
At this stage of our development, we believe that of our significant accounting polices, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment, estimation or complexity than other accounting policies.
 
Impairment of Long Lived Assets
 
The Company reviews the recoverability of its long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, when events or changes in circumstances occur that indicate the carrying value of the asset or asset group may not be recoverable. The assessment of possible impairment is based on the Company’s ability to recover the carrying value of the asset or asset group from the expected future pre-tax cash flows (undiscounted) of the related operations. If these cash flows are less than the carrying value of such asset, an impairment loss is recognized for the difference between estimated fair value and carrying value.
 
Revenue Recognition
 
Although at this stage in our development we have had no significant revenues, we consider revenue recognition a critical accounting policy as it affects timing of earnings recognition. We recognize revenues on delivery and to date our operations have not involved any uncertainty of accounting treatment, subjective judgment or estimates over revenue recognition.
 
Being a new company we are unable to comment on the accuracy of any prior estimates or assumptions, however, we believe that our estimates are based on reasonable judgment.
 

RISK FACTORS
 
An investment in the Company is highly speculative in nature and involves an extremely high degree of risk. If any of the events, contingencies, circumstances or conditions described in this risk factors section actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be seriously harmed.
 
Our business is difficult to evaluate because we are a development stage company.
 
The Company is a development stage company that was formed in July 2004 to further the research and development of fuel source and fuel cell systems. To date, we have manufactured and marketed only twenty-five Kitty Hawk integrated power systems to selected customers and manufactured about thirty KH-3X units. The Kitty Hawk products were delivered to a selected customer in February and March 2006. Accordingly, there is only a limited basis upon which to evaluate our business and prospects. An investor in our Company should consider the challenges, expenses and difficulties we will face as a development stage company seeking to develop and manufacture a new product in a relatively new market.

22


Our independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
 
We received an audit report from our independent registered accounting firm containing an explanatory paragraph expressing substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The Company has no significant operating history as of December 31, 2005, and since inception, the Company has not had significant revenues. Management raised additional equity and debt financing to fund operations and to provide additional working capital. However, there is no assurance that such financing will be in amounts sufficient to meet the Company’s needs. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
 
We expect to have a need for additional capital as we continue to execute our business plan.
 
To achieve and maintain competitiveness and continue our growth, we expect to raise substantial funds. Our forecasts for the period for which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations involves risks and uncertanties and actual results could be better or worse as a result of a number of factors. We anticipate the need to raise additional capital to develop, promote and distribute our product. Such additional funding may be raised through public or private equity or debt financings. Additional funding may not be available under favorable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available, we may be required to curtail operations significantly or to obtain funds on terms not as favorable as we would hope. Trulite hopes to raise an additional $10 million in funding. It is anticipated that Trulite will need to raise an additional $5 million in funds by the end of the fourth quarter of 2006 and an additional $5 million in funds by the end of the second quarter of 2007. These funds will be required for recruiting and hiring additional technical staff, for purchasing materials for the manufacture of KH-3X and Kitty Hawk 4 units, for labor costs associated with manufacturing, for marketing expenses, and for product development and enhancements to the Kitty Hawk product line.
 
Technological changes could force us to drastically alter our business plan.
 
The quest for alternate energy sources is being undertaken by numerous governments, corporations, universities and other institutions and individuals throughout the world. Many of these participants have far greater experience and resources than Trulite and have been engaged in these activities for a longer period of time. In the event that commerically ready applications for alternative energy sources similar in nature to ours are introduced into the marketplace, we may be forced to alter our business plan. This can be expected to be costly and cause substantial delays in, or prevent us entirely from, realizing our objectives.
 
The Company must demonstrate value and reliability in order to gain consumer acceptance.
 
The cost of our fuel cell system is more than that of existing and competing energy providers. If we are unable to reduce our manufacturing and materials costs to produce products that are more cost effective and reliable than those of our competitors, consumers may be unlikely to purchase our products. The price of our fuel cell system depends, in large part, on material and manufacturing costs. We cannot guarantee we will be able to lower these costs without affecting the reliability and performance of our product.
 
 

23


The Company has limited experience manufacturing or selling fuel cells and fuel cell systems.
 
The Company has limited experience in producing, marketing or selling any products or services on a commercial basis. To date, we have focused primarily on research and development and have only limited experience manufacturing fuel cells or fuel source systems on a large volume, commercial basis. We believe in order to make our products profitable we would have to produce our products through a high volume automated process. We do not know whether or when we would be able to develop efficient, automated, low-cost manufacturing capabilities. Even if we are successful in developing such capabilities, we cannot ensure we will do so in time to meet our product commercialization schedule or to satisfy the requirements of our customers or shareholders.
 
We expect that some of our fuel source products will only be commercially viable as a component of other companies’ products, and these companies may choose not to include our fuel source system in their products.
 
Certain of our fuel source products must be integrated into products manufactured by OEM’s. We cannot guarantee that OEMs will manufacture these products. If they manufacture such products, no assurances can be given whether they will choose to incorporate our products or that such integration will be on financial and other business terms acceptable or profitable to us. In addition, any integration, design, marketing, manufacturing or other problems encountered by an OEM could adversely affect the market for our products, and we would have no ability to control the response to such problems.
 
We will need to rely on third parties for the proper execution of our business strategy.
 
Strategic relationships are critical to Trulite for research, product development and volume manufacturing. Trulite will seek out strategic relationships for product design and development. As the Company enters into volume production, Trulite will seek out strategic relationships for manufacturing, distribution and logistics.
 
Outsourcing is expected to happen in phases. First, Trulite will work with raw material and individual component manufacturing. The Company will control all the development, manufacturing and quality internally for the initial small volume ramp up to about 1,000 HydroCell cartridges per month. During this time, the Company will seek to develop relationships with suppliers, which will enable the Company to move some subassemblies out to them and automate the core technology in-house. These relationships will continue to be built as market demand increases. The second phase of outsourcing will begin once volume demand approaches 1,500 cartridges per month. This volume is expected to trigger the beginning of a shift to a final assembly and test facility in Houston, Texas.
 
The Company does not believe it should have difficulty obtaining contractors for any of this work or to supplement or replace existing contractors if any of those relationships were to be insufficient or terminate, or if the sales volume were such that the Company needed additional contractors to support the increases in sales volume. No assurance can be given that a suitable contractor can be found or that once found, it will consistently meet the Company’s demands with regard to timing or quality. It is possible, however, that difficulties in supplementing or replacing current contractors could develop in the future because of factors which the Company cannot predict at this time, creating a potential material adverse effect on the Company. The availability of raw materials may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. Because the Company uses only the highest quality components, any restriction on the availability or use of such raw materials, whether as the result of a reduction in supply, through natural disaster or environmental restrictions, could have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 

24


Although the Company believes it has established a close relationship with its principal manufacturers and distributors, its future success may depend on its ability to maintain these relationships and establish new ones as the Company increases its sales volume and geographic customer base. If relationships with current manufacturers and distributors were to be interrupted for any reason, it may be difficult for the Company to locate other sources with similar or greater production and distribution capacity, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, the establishment of new manufacturing and distribution relationships involves numerous uncertainties including costs, terms of payment and timeliness of delivery, all of which such terms and conditions may be unsatisfactory to the Company and could result in additional costs to the Company.
 
We may be unable to raise additional capital to pursue our commercialization strategy.
 
Our product development and commercialization schedule may be delayed if we are unable to properly fund the Company and execute our business plan. We do not know whether we will be able to secure additional funding or funding on terms that are acceptable to us.
 
If additional capital is raised through the issuance of stock, stockholders’ ownership interest may be diluted.
 
One of the factors which generally affects the market price of publicly traded equity securities is the number of shares outstanding in relationship to assets, net worth, earnings or anticipated earnings. If a public market develops for the Company’s shares, or if the Company determines to register for sale to the public those shares of Common Stock granted in any business combination, a material amount of dilution can be expected to cause the market price of our Common Stock to decline. Furthermore, the public perception of future dilution can have the same effect even if the actual dilution does not occur.
 
In order for us to obtain additional capital, we may find it necessary to issue securities conveying rights senior to those of the holders of Common Stock. Those rights may include voting rights, liquidation preferences and conversion rights. To the extent we convey senior rights, the value of our Common Stock can be expected to decline.
 
If we incur indebtedness, we may become too highly leveraged and would be in risk of default.
 
There is no contractual or regulatory limit to the amount of debt we can take on, although we intend to follow a conservative debt policy. If our policy were to change or be eliminated due to unforeseen circumstances, we could become more highly leveraged, which could adversely affect our ability to meet our obligations and we would then be in risk of default, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, business prospects and long term future viability.
 
 

25


A large scale consumer market for our products may never develop or take longer to develop than we anticipate.
 
A large scale consumer market for our products may never develop or may develop more slowly than we anticipate. Fuel cell technology is an emerging market, and we are unsure whether there will ever be popular demand for such products. The development of a large scale market may be affected by many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
 
- the competitive cost of fuel cell systems,
- the emergence of newer and more competitive technology,
- the future cost of raw materials,
- regulatory requirements,
- consumer perceptions regarding the safety of our product, and
- consumer reluctance to try new products and technologies.
 
If a large-scale consumer market fails to develop or develops more slowly than we anticipate, we may be unable to recover losses incurred in the development of our products.
 
Changes in environmental policies could hurt the market for our products and deter potential investors.
 
Although many governments have made the development of alternative energy sources, fuel cells in particular, a priority, we cannot assure you these governments will not change their environmental policies or that any change would not negatively affect our business. Research for alternative energy is influenced by government regulations and policies concerning energy research or conservation. Depending on the nature of the government regulations, it could be easier and more cost efficient, or more difficult and costly, to raise funds, conduct research, manufacture, market or sell our products in a given country. Government regulations may also impose more stringent requirements for the transport of the hydrogen fuel source, thereby increasing the costs of distribution.
 
Changes in governmental regulation could hurt the market for our products and negatively affect our ability to attract potential consumers.
 
The energy industry is influenced by state and federal regulations and policies. Any change in the present policies could affect additional investment in alternative forms of energy and decrease demand for our products.
 
Fuel cell technology may be subject to future governmental regulation which could affect the market for our product. As our products are introduced to the market, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations. We do not know the extent to which this will affect our ability to distribute our products. In addition, any future regulation may increase our production costs and the cost of our final product.
 
 

26


We currently face and continue to face significant competition.
 
Our products, the HydroCell hydrogen generation system and the Kitty Hawk integrated power system, are expected to face significant competition. Many companies with substantially greater resources are developing similar hydride hydrogen generation technologies and are enhancing their fuel cell technologies. We cannot be sure that customers will use Trulite products in lieu of competitor’s product offerings in the target markets we have identified. Further, the development of new technology may affect the popularity and profitability of our products or render our products obsolete.
 
We depend on our intellectual property, and our failure to protect that technology could adversely affect our future success.
 
We rely in part on our five patent applications to protect our intellectual property. Additionally, we make every effort to protect our knowledge of our processes and procedures. Failure to protect our existing intellectual property could cause the loss of our exclusivity or the right to use the technology we developed. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property rights, we may have to pay others for the right to use their technology.
 
We could face litigation regarding the legitimacy of our patents, and we cannot ensure that we will be successful in such suits. These suits may result in the invalidation of our patent rights or the licensing of these rights to others.
 
We protect our proprietary intellectual property, including intellectual property that may not be patented, through the use of confidentiality agreements. We cannot assure you that these agreements will not be breached or that we will have an adequate remedy in the event that they are breached.
 
The Company may be unable to attract or retain key personnel, which would adversely affect our operations.
 
Our management team consists of several scientists, and we also employ engineers and researchers to help develop our products. Our future success depends on our ability to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce, consisting of scientists, engineers, researchers and marketing professionals. We cannot assure you we will be able to attract and retain such personnel. Our inability to do so could negatively impact our success.
 
On March 24, 2006, Dr. Kevin Shurtleff, the Company’s founder, resigned as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and as an officer of the Company to pursue other interests and opportunities in areas not related to hydrogen fuel source and fuel cell technology. Dr. Shurtleff agreed to continue to work for the Company on a part-time basis for twenty hours per week to assist the Company in developing its control program technology and to transfer his knowledge of its hydrogen source technology.
 
We believe we have taken due care and diligence to capture all intellectual property developed by Dr. Shurtleff during his tenure with the Company. and have taken other measures to ensure the Company’s progress in the area of hydrogen fuel source development will not be impeded if Dr. Shurtleff leaves its employ. The Company also plans to hire a part time chemist to assist in the capture of the hydrogen fuel source technology as well as product development.
 
 

27


We believe the measures taken to ensure the capture of all intellectual property and the competencies of the current staff will not impact the continuation of product development of the hydrogen fuel source or compromise the Company’s ability to continue product development in the hydrogen fuel source area in the future. However, there can be no assurances that we will not be impacted by Dr. Shurtleff’s resignation as director and officer or his possible future departure from the Company.
 
There is currently no trading market for our Common Stock.
 
Outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock cannot be offered, sold, pledged or otherwise transferred unless subsequently registered pursuant to, or exempt from registration under, the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and any other applicable federal or state securities laws or regulations. These restrictions will limit the ability of our stockholders to liquidate their investment.
 
Authorization of Preferred Stock
 
Our Certificate of Incorporation authorizes the issuance of up to 1,500,000 shares of preferred stock with designations, rights and preferences determined from time to time by our Board of Directors. Accordingly, our Board of Directors is empowered, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock with dividend, liquidation, conversion, voting or other rights which could adversely affect the voting power or other rights of the holders of the Common Stock. As of December 31, 2005, there were 1,454,725 outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock. On May 2, 2006, all holders of these preferred shares converted them to shares of Common Stock. If additional shares of preferred stock are issued, such shares could affect the rights of holders of our Common Stock.
 
Forward-looking statements should not be relied on because they are inherently uncertain.
 
This registration statement contains forward-looking statements and information relating to us, our industry and to other businesses. These forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of our management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to our management. When used in this prospectus, the words "estimate," "project," "believe," "anticipate," "intend," "expect" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in our forward-looking statements. We caution you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this prospectus. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this registration form or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
 

28


ITEM 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
 
The Company leases space in Bluffdale, Utah. The facility serves as the Company’s research, product development and manufacturing center. The facility encompasses approximately 5,500 square feet rented by the Company at a monthly rate of $1,350 for a total lease commitment in 2006 of $16,200. The lease expired on May 31, 2006. We renewed the lease for nine months and the extension expires on February 28, 2007. On August 1, 2006, the Company subleased office space from SREG, which is an affiliated company. The monthly rent is $1,905 and the sublease expires in July 2007, with a total future rental commitment of approximately $22,860. The Company has no other leases as of August 31, 2006
 
ITEM 4. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT.
 
 
(a)
Security ownership of certain beneficial owners.

The following table sets forth, as of the date of this Registration Statement, the number of shares of Common Stock owned of record and beneficially by executive officers and directors, and persons who hold 5% or more of the outstanding Common Stock, of the Company. Also included are the shares held by all executive officers and directors as a group.
 
Name and Address
 
Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership
 
Percentage of Class
 
           
NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP (a)
Three Riverway
Suite 1050
Houston, Texas 77056
   
5,331,622
   
45.2
%
               
Kevin Shurtleff (b)
573 East 950 North
Orem, UT 84097
   
2,734,763(c
)
 
21.9
%
               
Andrew Nielson
340 South 800 West
Orem, UT 84058
   
1,120,745(d
)
 
9.5
%
               
Eric Ladd
4987 West Woodbend Road
West Jordan, UT 84084
   
648,794(e
)
 
5.2
%
               
John Berger (f)
Three Riverway  
Suite 1050
Houston, TX 77056
   
6,100,400(g
)
 
48.6
%
 
 
29

 
               
Contango Capital Partners, L.P. (h)
Three Riverway  
Suite 1050
Houston, TX 77056
   
768,778(i
)
 
6.1
%
               
John Sifonis (j)
P.O. Box 201887
Arlington, TX 76006-1887
   
46,113(k
)
 
0.4
%
               
General Randolph House (l)
905 Carmel Place
College Station, TX 77845
   
3,423(m
)
 
0.03
%
               
James A. Longaker (n)
2002 Woodland Valley Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
   
3,700(o
)
 
0.03
%
               
Eric Melvin (p)
Three Riverway  
Suite 1700
Houston, TX 77056
   
768,778(q
)
 
6.1
%
               
William Flores (r)
25 Beacon Hill
Sugar Land, TX 77479
   
500(s
)
 
(t
)
               
Contango Venture Capital Corporation (u)
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
   
2,001,014(v
)
 
17.0
%
               
Richard Hoesterey (w)
7852 La Cosa Drive
Dallas, TX 75248
   
0
   
--
 
               
Jonathan H. Godshall (x)
5360 Spring Park
Houston, TX 77056
   
0
   
--
 
               
All Directors and Officers as a Group (8 individuals)
   
6,922,914
   
54.9
%
               
____________
 
(a)
Standard Renewable Energy Services, GP LLC is the General Partner of NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP. John Berger is the sole member and manager of Standard Renewable Energy Services, GP LLC and in that capacity has voting and dispositive power over these shares.
 
(b)
Dr. Shurtleff resigned from his position as member of the Company’s Board of Directors and Vice President of Technology on March 24, 2006. Dr. Shurtleff continues to work for Trulite as an employee.
 
(c)
Represents 2,035,460 shares of Common Stock and currently exercisable options to purchase up to 699,303 shares of Common Stock at a price of $.88 per share.

30


 
(d)
Effective March 2, 2005, Mr. Nielson gave an option to Eric Ladd to purchase up to 473,968 shares of his Common Stock for an aggregate purchase price of $48,000, exercisable at any time until March 2, 2014.
 
(e)
Represents currently exercisable options to purchase 174,826 shares of Common Stock from the Company and a currently exercisable option to purchase up to 473,968 shares of Common Stock from Andrew Nielson for an aggregate purchase price of $48,000. This option to purchase Mr. Nielson’s Common Stock expires March 2, 2014.
 
(f)
Mr. Berger is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trulite and the managing partner of CCP.
 
(g)
Includes warrants to purchase 592,500 shares of Common Stock and options to purchase 176,278 shares of Common Stock owned by CCP. Although he does not have sole voting or dispositive power over the warrants and options owned by CCP, he may be deemed to be the beneficial owner thereof. Includes 5,331,622 shares owned by NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP. Mr. Berger is the sole member and manager of Standard Renewable Energy Services, GP LLC, the general partner of Newpoint Energy Solutions, LP, and in that capacity has voting and dispositive power over these shares.
 
(h)
The general partners of CCP are John Berger, Kenneth R. Peak, Todd Sullivan, Gerald Sullivan, Eric Melvin and John D. White.
 
(i)
Represents currently exercisable options to purchase up to 176,278 shares of Common Stock at a price of $.88 per share and warrants to purchase 592,500 shares of Common Stock at a strike price of $1.50 per share.
 
(j)
Mr. Sifonis a director of Trulite. Mr. Sifonis resigned as President and CEO effective August 11, 2006.
 
(k)
Represents currently exercisable options to purchase up to 46,113 shares of Common Stock at a price of $.88 per share.
 
(l)
General House is a director of Trulite.
 
(m)
Represents currently exercisable options to purchase up to 3,423 shares of Common Stock at a price of $.88 per share.
 
(n)
Mr. Longaker is the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Trulite.
 
(o)
Represents options to purchase up to 3,700 shares of Common Stock at a price of $.88 per share, which such options vested on July 15, 2006.
 
(p)
Mr. Melvin is a director of Trulite.
 
(q)
Consists of warrants to purchase 592,500 shares of Common Stock and options to purchase 592,500 shares of Common Stock owned by CCP. Although Mr. Melvin does not have sole voting or dispositive power over the shares owned by CCP, as a general partner of CCP he may be deemed a beneficial owner thereof.
 
(r)
Mr. Flores is a director of Trulite.
 
(s)
Represents 500 shares of Common Stock Mr. Flores owns in his individual name.
 
(t)
Less than one-tenth of 1%.
 
(u)
Contango Venture Capital Corporation is owned by Contango Oil & Gas Company, which is managed by Kenneth R. Peak, Lesia Bautina, Sergio Castro and Marc Duncan. The Board of Directors of Contango Oil & Gas Company includes Kenneth R. Peak, Jay D. Brehmer, Darrell W. Williams, Charles M. Reimer and Steven L. Schoonover.
 
(v)
Represents 2,001,014 shares of Common Stock owned by Contango Venture Capital Corporation.
 
(w)
Mr. Hoesterey was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors on May 5, 2006.
 
(x)
Mr. Godshall was appointed President and Chief Operating Officer on August 7, 2006.


 

31


ITEM 5. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, PROMOTERS AND CONTROL PERSONS.
 
(a) Identification of Directors and Executive Officers.
 
A. Identification of Directors and Executive Officers. The current officers and directors will serve for one year or until their respective successors are elected and qualified. They are:
 
Name
Age
Position
     
Jonathan H. Godshall
58
President and CEO
     
John Sifonis
65
Director
     
James A. Longaker
60
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
     
John Berger
32
Chairman of the Board of Directors
     
Richard Hoesterey
63
Director
     
General Randolph House
59
Director
     
Eric Melvin
40
Director

Jonathan Godshall, President and Chief Executive Officer
 
Jonathan Godshall joined the Company in June 2006 as a management consultant. On August 11, 2006 Mr. Godshall became the President and CEO of the Company. Mr. Godshall has extensive management experience in a variety of industries. From 1986 until 2001, Jonathan was the President and CEO of Igloo Products Corp., a position he held for fifteen years. Igloo’s primary product lines are ice chests and beverage coolers, and enjoy great brand recognition. During his tenure, Igloo’s revenues tripled and the company introduced over 100 new products. Prior to joining Igloo, Jonathan was the Vice-President and General Manager of Anderson Clayton Foods, where he was responsible for over $325MM in sales and for manufacturing and operations in six food plants across the U.S. From October 2002 until January 2004, he was the President and CEO of Home Fragrance Holdings, a candle company headquartered in Houston. Jonathan has experience in selling through most retail channels of distribution and through commercial and industrial channels as well. Mr. Godshall received an A.B. degree from the University of North Carolina in 1970, where he was a Morehead Scholar, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School in 1973. He has served on the Board of Directors of two privately-held start-up companies and on the board of four privately-held operating companies.

32


James A. Longaker, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary.
 
James A. Longaker is the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Secretary. Prior to joining Trulite in May 2005, Mr. Longaker worked from December 2001 to May 2005 as a partner at the Forte Group, LLC, a management consulting firm that specialized in emerging businesses. From February 1999 to December 2001, Mr. Longaker worked as a consultant with Glass and Associates serving as an interim Chief Financial Officer for companies in financial difficulty. From 1990 to 1999, he had his own business working with distressed companies. Mr. Longaker received his bachelor’s degree from Louisiana Polytechnic Institute and a Master’s degree in Business Administration in 1969 from Louisiana State University. Mr. Longaker has four certifications: Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice public accounting in Louisiana and Texas, Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified Turnaround Professional and a Certified Insolvency and Restructuring Advisor.
 
William Jackson Berger, Chairman of the Board of Directors.
 
William Jackson Berger (a.k.a. “John Berger”) has more than nine years of experience in the energy industry and has served a Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trulite since July 22, 2004. Mr. Berger is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of SREG and Chief Executive Officer of Standard Renewable Energy, LP. Mr. Berger also serves as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Newpoint Energy Solutions, L.P. and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Galveston Bay Biodiesel, LP. During 1996-2001, Mr. Berger worked as a trader at Enron Corp., an energy trading entity. From January 2002 through December 2003, Mr. Berger was employed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, advising on trading activities in the natural gas and power markets. In addition, he assisted the FERC with regard to how a commercial trading operation is set up with information services and models to predict power loads of utilities. He also helped analyze regulatory issues with distributed generation and interconnection into the power grid. Finally, he was able to show the FERC how to analyze the impact of credit quality of market participants on liquidity in the power and natural gas markets. He also served as an advisor to the drafters of the Standard Market Design regulatory document, which is currently being considered by the United States Congress. Mr. Berger graduated cum laude from Texas A&M University with a B.S. in civil engineering in 1996. In 2003, Mr. Berger graduated from Harvard Business School with an MBA.
 
John Sifonis, Director.
 
John Sifonis joined the Company as its President and Chief Executive Officer and as a director in October 2004. Mr. Sifonis resigned as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company August 11, 2006, but remains a director of the Company. Prior to joining the Company, from July 1998 to October 2004 Mr. Sifonis was the Managing Director of the Internet Business Solutions Group at Cisco Systems, Inc. Prior to joining Cisco Systems, Inc., from December 1991 to July 1998, Mr. Sifonis was the Chief Executive Officer of SAI International, LLC. Prior to forming SAI International, from January 1976 to August 1989 Mr. Sifonis was a Senior Partner in the Management Consulting Group of Ernst & Young. While at Ernst & Young, Mr. Sifonis also served as the National Director of the Strategic Management Consulting Group. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Management Science from Case Institute of Technology in 1963 and has completed additional post graduate studies at Case Institute in Operations Research.
 
 

33


William Flores, Director.
 
William (Bill) Flores, a director of Trulite, is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of Phoenix Exploration Company, a private equity funded oil and gas company focused upon exploration and acquisition operations along the Gulf Coast and in the shallow and medium water depths of the Gulf of Mexico. Prior to forming Phoenix Exploration in January 2006, Mr. Flores was a Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer with Gryphon Exploration Company from January 2002 until August 2006. Gryphon Exploration Company was a private-equity funded (formed in October 2000 by Warburg Pincus) oil and gas company with operations concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico. From August 1999 through October 2002, Mr. Flores was a self-employed investor/consultant. During this period, Mr. Flores managed investments and served as a consultant to two small privately held corporations operating in the oilfield service and e-commerce industries. He also served on the boards of a private company and two non-profit entities. Mr. Flores received an MBA from Houston Baptist University in 1985 and a BBA in Accounting from Texas A &M University in 1976. He is also a Certified Public Accountant (Texas).

Richard K. Hoesterey, Director.
 
Richard (Dick) Hoesterey, a director of Trulite, is an experienced executive with over thirty-five years in general management and manufacturing operations management in a variety of industries including electronics, industrial goods and power regulation. His management experience includes roles as officer and/or board member of private and public companies. Mr. Hoesterey is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of Components Corporation of America, a position he has held since 1997. Components Corporation of America (“CCA”) operates as a holding company and currently has three wholly-owned subsidiary companies which function as self contained, stand-alone companies. These businesses are focused on design, manufacture and sale of electrical control technology components and subsystems for industrial, commercial, military, and government markets. Prior to becoming the CEO of Components Corporation, Mr. Hoesterey was a Senior Partner with Thomas Group, Inc. from 1990 to 1997. In this capacity, he was a Program Results Manager and Change Agent for several clients. From 1986 to 1990, Mr. Hoesterey was an Executive Vice President for EPI Technologies. In the capacity of Executive Vice President, he directed the growth and development of the Component Processing Division. He also directed the corporate level functions of Human Resources, Facilities and Sales. From 1984 to 1986, Mr. Hoesterey was a Director, Material Services with Compaq Telecommunications Corporation, a start-up company in the computer telephone industry. He was responsible for Purchasing, Production Planning & Control and Material Services. From 1978 to 1986, Mr. Hoesterey was employed by Harris Corporation in a number of management positions including Director/Plant Manager, Equipment Refurbishment; Director, Manufacturing Systems Implementation; and, Director, Materials. From 1969 to 1976, Mr. Hoesterey worked for the Xerox Corporation in a number of management positions in the areas of operations, logistics, new product introductions, business improvement programs, and several MRP implementations. From 1966 to 1969, Mr. Hoesterey was a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Mr. Hoesterey received a BBA in Industrial Management from Clarkson University in 1965 and has completed additional post graduate studies for his MBA at Rochester Institute of Technology. He also has an APICS Certification in Production and Inventory management.
 
 

34


General Randolph House, Director.
 
General House, a Director of the Company, is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General. Prior to his retirement in 2003, General House served the Army for thirty-three years. Notably, General House was Deputy Commandant, US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In 1996, General House was assigned to the Pentagon as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Dr. William Perry. In 1997, General House was assigned as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Department of the Army. Later that year, he assumed command of the Eighth United States Army and Chief of Staff, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces in Seoul, Korea. In 1998, General House received his second three star assignment as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief and Chief of Staff, United States Pacific Command. General House earned a Bachelor’s Degree in 1968 from Texas A&M University. He also received a Master’s Degree from Clemson University.
 
Eric Melvin, Director.
 
Eric Melvin, a director of Trulite, is the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mobius Risk Group, a provider of energy risk management outsourcing and advisory services. Prior to forming Mobius Risk Group, from 2000 to 2001, Mr. Melvin worked as the VP, New Business Ventures at Enron Energy Services, a subsidiary of Enron Corp. Mr. Melvin received his BGS from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1985. He also earned a JD from the University of Detroit, School of Law in 1990.
 
The term of office of each director expires at the Company's annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Directors are not compensated for serving as such. Officers serve at the discretion of the board of Directors.
 
Director Resignations
 
Effective July 24, 2006, Thomas Samson resigned as a member of the Company’s Audit and Budget Committee (the “Audit Committee”) and as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. Mr. Samson furnished the Company with a resignation letter, which describes the circumstances of his resignation and is filed as Exhibit 10.49 to this registration statement.
 
On September 24, 2006, William Flores informed the Company that because of time constraints affecting his ability to perform his duties as a director, he intends to resign as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors effective upon the appointment of his successor.
 
Employment Agreements
 
The Company is currently a party to employment agreements with Jonathan Godshall, the Company’s President; James A. Longaker, the Company’s Secretary and Chief Financial Officer; Jerry Metz; Eric Ladd; Dr. Kevin Shurtleff; Christopher Brydon and John Patton. Additionally, portions of the employment agreement between John Sifonis and the Company survive Mr. Sifonis’ resignations as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer.
 
John Sifonis entered into an employment agreement with the Company as of October 20, 2004 (the “Sifonis Agreement”). The Sifonis Agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions that survive the termination of Mr. Sifonis’ employment with the Company, as well as a worldwide non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology that survives the termination of Mr. Sifonis’ employment with the Company for a period of two years.

35


In August 2006, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Jonathan Godshall, pursuant to which Mr. Godshall is employed as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company for a one-year term. Under the employment agreement, Mr. Godshall will receive an annual base salary of $120,000, provided, that such salary will increase to $200,000 per year upon the earlier of (i) November 30, 2006 and (ii) the completion of a financing round. Mr. Godshall will develop a cash incentive bonus plan by February 7, 2006 and submit such plan to the Board for approval. The employment agreement provides that if Mr. Godshall is terminated without cause or he terminates for good reason (as such terms are defined in the employment agreement), then he will be entitled to receive his base salary for six months following such termination and his unexercised stock options will continue to vest for twelve months following such termination. In addition, if the Company does not renew the employment agreement at the end of the one-year term, Mr. Godshall will be entitled to receive his base salary for four months.
 
On August 7, 2006, the Board granted Mr. Godshall a stock option to acquire 676,626 shares of Company common stock, at an exercise price of $1.00 per share and which vests 25% on each of June 15, 2007, June 15, 2008, June 15, 2009, and June 15, 2010. The stock option expires on August 7, 2013. In addition, Mr. Godshall’s employment agreement provides that the Board will grant him additional stock options to acquire a number of shares equal to 5% of any new stock issued and any new stock options granted after August 7, 2006, such grant to occur on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2006 and (ii) the completion of a financing round. The exercise price of such stock options will be the fair market value on the date of grant, and the vesting terms of such stock options will be the same as described above with respect to Mr. Godshall’s stock option to acquire 676,626 shares. All of such stock options will automatically vest upon a change in control, merger, or buyout of the Company.
 
The consulting agreement dated June 15, 2006 between Mr. Godshall and the Company was terminated concurrently with entry by Mr. Godshall and the Company into the employment agreement.
 
James A. Longaker was hired on May 23, 2005, and is responsible for all activities and processes related to financial management and reporting of the Company. These activities include preparing the financial statements of the Company, preparing financial reports for senior management of the Company and working directly with the independent registered public accounting firm in the preparation of all required financial statements. Mr. Longaker is also responsible for assembling the minutes of each Board of Directors meeting for review and approval. Mr. Longaker has a base salary of $65,000 per year and is eligible for $20,000 in bonuses based upon attaining specific performance goals agreed upon by Mr. Longaker and the CEO of the Company. Mr. Longaker received 20,000 options for shares of Common Stock when he became an employee. Employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes “at-will” employment. As a result, both the Company and Mr. Longaker are free to terminate his employment at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Mr. Longaker is entitled, during the term of his employment, to the Company’s standard vacation and benefits covering employees. Mr. Longaker signed the Company’s standard form of Confidential Information, Inventions Assignment, and Non-Competition Agreement.
 
 

36


Jerry Metz is the Vice President, Manufacturing for the Company. He was hired on March 29, 2005, and is responsible for all activities and processes related to the manufacture of the Kitty Hawk product line. He is also responsible for establishing and maintaining vendor relationships, supply chain management, quality control and for formulating the Company’s outsourcing strategy. Mr. Metz receives a base salary of $113,000 per year and is eligible for $20,000 in bonuses based upon attaining specific performance goals agreed upon by Mr. Metz and the CEO of the Company. Mr. Metz received 62,315 options for Common Stock when he became an employee. Employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes “at-will” employment. As a result, both the Company and Mr. Metz are free to terminate his employment at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Mr. Metz is entitled during the term of his employment to the Company’s standard vacation and benefits covering employees. Mr. Metz signed the Company’s standard form of Confidential Information, Inventions Assignment, and non-competition agreement.
 
Eric Ladd entered into an amended employment agreement with the Company as of March 26, 2006 (the “Ladd Agreement”). Mr. Ladd’s position with the Company is a Control and Systems Engineer. The Ladd Agreement continues until January 31, 2007, whereupon the employment of Mr. Ladd will become a month to month, at will employment, but otherwise still subject to the Ladd Agreement. Mr. Ladd agrees to work full time in service to the Company and receives an annual salary of $80,000. In addition, Mr. Ladd received an $11,000 sign-on bonus and is also eligible to receive a one time bonus of $5,000 on or before December 22, 2006. The Ladd Agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions, as well as a two year, worldwide non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology.
 
Dr. Kevin Shurtleff entered into a second amended employment agreement with the Company as of March 27, 2006 (the “Shurtleff Agreement”). Dr. Shurtleff’s employment continues until January 1, 2007, whereupon the employment of Dr. Shurtleff will become a month to month, at will employment, but otherwise still subject to the Shurtleff Agreement. Dr. Shurtleff agrees to spend 20 hours a week in service to the Company and receives an annual salary of $65,000. The Shurtleff Agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions, as well as a one year, worldwide non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology.
 
Christopher Brydon entered into an employment agreement (the “Brydon Agreement”) on April 5, 2006. Mr. Brydon is employed as a Senior Design Engineer and Team Leader. The Brydon Agreement continues until April 30, 2007, whereupon the employment of Mr. Brydon will become a month to month, at will employment, but otherwise still subject to the Brydon Agreement. Mr. Brydon is a full time employee and receives an annual salary of $76,000. The Brydon Agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions, as well as a one year, worldwide non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology.
 
John Patton entered into an employment agreement (the “Patton Agreement”) on April 5, 2006. Mr. Patton is employed as a Senior Design Engineer and Team Leader. The Patton Agreement continues until April 30, 2007, whereupon the employment of Mr. Patton will become a month to month, at will employment, but otherwise still subject to the Patton Agreement. Mr. Patton is a full time employee and receives an annual salary of $58,000. The total commitment on behalf of the Company is approximately $63,000. The Patton Agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions, as well as a one year, worldwide non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology.

37


Consulting Agreements
 
Effective June 1, 2006, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Ken Pearson (the “Pearson Agreement”), pursuant to which Mr. Pearson shall perform certain services. Mr. Pearson’s roles and responsibilities shall include: product development, regulatory and government regulations, strategic product and technology alliances and acquisitions, advanced supply chain agreements and alliances, research and development, intellectual property management and strategy formulation and operational responsibilities. In exchange for his services, the Company shall pay Mr. Pearson compensation equal to a prorated fee of $115,000 per year ($9,583 per month). Additionally, the Company paid Mr. Pearson a $15,000 signing bonus. Mr. Pearson shall be eligible for a $15,000 performance bonus payable on or before November 30, 2006 to be based on agreed upon performance goals. Pursuant to the Pearson Agreement, Mr. Pearson received an option on August 7, 2006 to purchase 15,000 shares of Common Stock, as previously agreed upon in a consulting agreement dated November 9, 2005, at an option price of $1.00 per share, which option is fully vested. Mr. Pearson also received an option to purchase 300,000 shares of Common Stock at an option share price of $1.00 effective August 7, 2006. The grant of the options is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Company’s Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan. According to the Pearson Agreement, Mr. Pearson is also eligible for a bonus equal to options to purchase 40,000 shares of Common Stock, where such bonus shall be awarded based on criteria established by Mr. Pearson, the CEO and the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The term of this agreement is for seven months beginning June 1, 2006 and ending on December 31, 2006. The Company and Mr. Pearson may terminate this consulting at any time for any reason during the term; however the circumstances of such termination affect the salary and stock options owed to Mr. Pearson. This agreement contains customary confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions to be in effect during and following the termination of the agreement, as well as a one year, non-compete provision with respect to any business that competes in whole or in part with the services, products or activities of the Company relating to its hydrogen fuel technology.
 
B. Significant Employees. Dr. Kevin Shurtleff is the co-founder of Trulite Technology, LC, predecessor to Trulite, Inc.
 
C. Family Relationships. None.
 
D. Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings.
 
There have been no events under any bankruptcy act, no criminal proceedings and no judgments, injunctions, orders or decrees material to the evaluation of the ability and integrity of any director, executive officer, promoter or control person of Registrant during the past five years. 
 

38

 
E. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

The Board of Directors has established an Audit Committee. Currently, William Flores serves as the only member of the Audit Committee.
 
In April, 2006, Trulite formed a compensation committee. The committee has three members: Mr. John Berger, General Randolph House and Mr. Richard Hoesterey. Mr. Hoesterey is the Chairman of the compensation committee.
 
ITEM 6. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
 
The following table sets forth the cash compensation paid by the Company to its President and all other executive officers for services rendered during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the compensation expected to be paid for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.
 
Name and Position
Year
Salary
Bonus
Other Compensation
         
Jonathan H. Godshall, President
2006
$120,000 (1)
--
--
 
Options to purchase 676,626 shares of Common Stock at $1.00 per share. Also a cash incentive bonus plan will be developed by February 7, 2007 and submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. (3)
 
Kevin Shurtleff, Employee
2006
2005
2004
$65,000
$42,500
$42,500
 
--
--
Options to purchase 699,303 shares of Common Stock at $.88 per share (4).
John Sifonis, Former
President and CEO
2006
2005
2004
$120,000 (2)
$42,000
$12,000
--
--
Options to purchase 291,478 shares of Common Stock at $.88 per share (5); And options to purchase 20,000 shares of Common Stock at $1.00 per share (6).
 
James A. Longaker, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary
 
2006
2005
2004
$65,000
$65,000
$20,000
Option to purchase 20,000 shares of Common Stock at $.88 per share. (5) and another 35,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.88 per share (6).

39

 
(1) Mr. Godshall’s employment as President and CEO of the Company commenced in August 2006. His annual base salary is $120,000, increasing to $200,000 on the earlier of November 30, 2006 and the completion of a financing round.
(2) Mr. Sifonis’ employment as President and CEO terminated in August 2006 and the Company ceased making salary payments to Mr. Sifonis at that time. Actual salary paid to Mr. Sifonis in 2006 was $54,000.
(3) All listed options vest over a four year period beginning in 2007 with 25% vesting each year.
(4) All listed options vested in April 2006.
(5) All listed options vest over a four year period as follows: 18.5% in 2006, 22.50% in 2007, 26.50% in 2008 and 32.50% in 2009.
(6) All listed options vest over a four year period as follows: 18.5% in 2007, 22.50% in 2008, 26.50% in 2009 and 32.50% in 2010.

ITEM 7. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS.
 
The initial investor in the Company was Trulite Energy Partners, L.P., which invested $100,000 and received 100,000 shares of preferred stock on July 28, 2005. Trulite Energy Partners, L.P. merged with and into CCP. John Berger, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trulite, is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CCP and the managing partner of Contango Capital Partnership Management LLC (“CCPM”), an entity which is the general partner of CCP. The Company had a management agreement with CCPM, which was transferred to CCP. In exchange for managing the day-to-day operations of the Company, CCP received 68,770 shares of Common Stock (343,850 shares of common stock, post stock split) on July 28, 2004, and six months later received an additional 65,070 shares of Common Stock (325,350 shares of common stock, post stock split). The management agreement with CCP ended on January 28, 2005, and no further payments are due or owing from Trulite.
 
Trulite had revenue in 2004 of $1,750 and in 2005 of $16,667 and $8,333 in the first six months of 2006. All of the revenue was obtained from Protonex. CCP owns approximately 6.4% of Protonex’s stock. The revenues derived from Protonex were from military contracts obtained by Protonex and the Company was chosen through a competitive bidding process as a sub-contractor on the projects.
 
On March 31, 2006, the Company entered into lock-up agreements (the “Lock-Up Agreements”) with each of CCP, Dr. Kevin Shurtleff, James Longaker, John Sifonis and Eric Ladd (for purposes of this paragraph only, the “Stockholders”). Pursuant to the Lock-Up Agreements, the Stockholders shall not, without the prior written consent of the Company or the managing underwriter, if any, during the period commencing on the date of the final prospectus relating to a public offering of the Company’s equity securities and ending on the date specified by the Company or the managing underwriter, if any, enter into certain transactions with respect to the equity securities of the Company.
 
In August 2006, Trulite entered into a revised consulting agreement with Boru Enterprises, Inc. (“Boru”). The agreement contemplates that Boru will (i) assist in the Company identifying an NASD member to make a Rule 15c2-11 filing; (ii) coordinate with the Company and its counsel in filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a Registration Statement on Form SB-2; (iii) after the Registration Statement on Form SB-2 is declared effective, introduce the Company to NASD member firms that may have an interest in helping the Company raise capital in the public markets; (iv) identify potential investors to the Company so that the Company or NASD member firms engaged by the Company may discuss a potential investment directly with the potential investors; and (v) provide other general consulting advice regarding the process for going public. The term of the agreement has not been determined, though both Boru and the Company anticipate such services to be provided by Boru for at least two years. In exchange for these services, the Company (i) issued to Boru or to Boru designees 250,000 shares of Common Stock, which shall be included in the Company’s anticipated filing of a registration statement on Form SB-2 and (ii) issued to Boru 250,000 five-year warrants to purchase Common Stock at a strike price of $3 per share. Boru shall pay all of its reasonable expenses. Of the 250,000 shares of Common Stock and the 250,000 warrants issued as compensation, Boru is retaining 200,000 shares of Common Stock and 250,000 warrants. The remaining 50,000 shares of Common Stock were issued to five different charities, 10,000 shares to each.
 

40


John Moran is the President of Boru. Mr. Moran owns stock in Empire Financial Group, Inc., which the Company has approved for future engagement as its market maker. In 1991, Mr. Moran pled guilty to charges of securities fraud and mail fraud.
 
On April 25, 2006, Trulite entered into a consulting agreement with Jelco, Inc. (“Jelco”) for investment banking services. Pursuant to the agreement, Jelco shall (i) assist in the Company identifying an NASD member to make the 15c2-11 filing; (ii) assist the Company in raising additional capital; (iii) facilitate the Company’s registration of its securities; and (iv) provide the Company with other consulting services. The term of the agreement has not been determined, though both Jelco and the Company anticipate such services to be provided by Jelco for at least two years. In exchange for these services, the Company issued to Jelco 50,000 shares of Common Stock, which shall be included in the Company’s anticipated filing of a registration statement on Form SB-2 and 150,000 five-year warrants to purchase Common Stock at a strike price of $3 per share. Jelco shall pay all of its reasonable expenses. Separately, the son of Jelco’s owner, John Ligums, John Ligums, Jr., purchased 50,000 shares of Common Stock in April 2006, as discussed in Part II Item 4, and Mr. Ligums’ daughter, Jenny Ligums, owns options to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock. Jenny Ligums was formerly employed by CCP and now works with an affiliate of CCP.
 
On May 5, 2006, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the future engagement of Empire Financial Group, Inc. (“Empire”) as its market maker. Empire will assist the Company in its filing of its 15c-211, which is expected occur in the near future. No written agreement has yet been entered into. John Ligums, who entered into the consulting agreement with Trulite on behalf of Jelco, owns stock in Empire. Further, John Moran, the President of Boru, which Trulite has also engaged as a consultant, also owns stock in Empire.
 
On August 9, 2006, the Company incurred indebtedness pursuant to the terms of a $125,000 promissory note payable to Contango Venture Capital Corporation, the owner of approximately 17% of the Company’s common stock. The note bears interest at a rate of 11.25% per annum until February 8, 2007, at which time the rate will become the prime rate plus 3%. The note matures on May 1, 2007 and may be prepaid without penalty.
 
On August 9, 2006, the Company incurred indebtedness pursuant to the terms of a $125,000 promissory note payable to Standard Renewable Energy, LP, a subisidiary of SREG. John Berger, the Chairman of the Board of the Company, is the Chief Executive Officer of SREG. SREG owns NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP, which is the owner of approximately 45% of the Company’s common stock. The note bears interest at a rate of 11.25% per annum until February 8, 2007, at which time the rate will become the prime rate plus 3%. The note matures on May 1, 2007 and may be prepaid without penalty.
 

41

 
On September 21, 2006, the Company incurred indebtedness of $250,000 pursuant to the terms of a promissory note. Under the terms of the promissory note, the Company borrowed $250,000 from SREG. The note bears interest at a rate of 11.25% until May 21, 2007 at which time the rate will become prime plus 3%. The note matures June 18, 2007 and may be prepaid at any time without penalty. SREG wholly owns NewPoint Energy Solutions, LP, the owner of approximately 45% of the Company’s Common Stock.
 
ITEM 8. DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES.
 
(a) Common and Preferred Stock.
 
The Company is authorized by its Certificate of Incorporation to issue an aggregate of 21,500,000 shares of capital stock, comprised of 20,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.0001 per share (the "Common Stock") and 1,500,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.0001 per share (the “Preferred Stock”). As of August 31, 2006, 11,785,491 shares of Common Stock and no shares of Preferred Stock were issued and outstanding.
 
Common Stock
 
All shares of Common Stock are of the same class and have equal rights and attributes. The holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders of the Company. All stockholders are entitled to share equally in dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Company’s Board of Directors out of funds legally available. In the event of liquidation, the holders of Common Stock are entitled to share ratably in all assets remaining after payment of all liabilities. The stockholders do not have cumulative or preemptive rights.
 
On April 10, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a five for one split on all Common Stock issued prior to that date. The Preferred Stock outstanding as of April 10, 2005 would also split five for one if any preferred holder prior to that time converted the preferred to Common Stock at some later date.
 
Preferred Stock
 
Trulite is authorized by its Certificate of Incorporation to designate and issue up to 1,500,000 shares of Preferred Stock. The Company has designated Series A 8% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). The Series A Preferred Stock ranks, as to the payment of dividends and the distribution of assets upon liquidation or winding up of the Company, (i) senior to or on parity with all other classes and series of the Preferred Stock and (ii) senior to the Common Stock. Holders of Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to receive preferential cumulative dividends at an annual rate of 8% of the original issue price, payable at the option of the Company in cash or in shares of Series A Preferred Stock. Any dividends declared by the Company’s Board of Directors are payable quarterly. Upon any liquidation, winding up or dissolution of the Company, holders of the Series A Preferred Stock receive $1.00 per share (the original issue price) plus any dividends, whether or not declared by the Company’s Board of Directors, accrued and unpaid.
 

42

 
Each share of the Series A Preferred Stock may be converted, in whole or part, at the option of the holder, at any time, into a number of duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non assessable shares of Common Stock, as is determined by dividing the original issue price of the Series A Preferred Stock by the conversion price, which is subject to adjustment, but which was $1.00 per share upon issuance. Each share of the Series A Preferred Stock automatically converts into shares of Common Stock on or after (i) the closing of a underwritten, public sale of Common Stock, at a price per share which results in the Company having a market value of at least $50,000,000 or (ii) the date specified by written consent by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred Stock.
 
Each holder of shares of the Series A Preferred Stock is entitled to the number of votes equal to the number of whole shares of Common Stock into which the shares of Series A Preferred Stock held by such holder are convertible.
 
The conversion price of the Series A Preferred Stock is subject to adjustment: (i) upon any stock split, dividend or other distribution (whether of Common Stock or other form of distribution), (ii) if the Common Stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock shall be changed to the same or different number of shares of any class or classes of stock, whether by reclassification, exchange, combination, substitution or otherwise, (iii) upon any capital reorganization of the Company or a merger or consolidation of the Company with or into another corporation or other business entity, or the sale of all or substantially all of the Company’s properties or assets, (iv) if the Company issues any securities convertible into or exchangeable for, directly or indirectly, Common Stock (“Convertible Securities”), other than the Series A Preferred Stock, or any rights or warrants or options to purchase any such Common Stock or Convertible Securities, shall be issued or sold (collectively, the “Common Stock Equivalents”) and the price per share for which additional shares of Common Stock may be issuable thereafter pursuant to such Common Stock Equivalent shall be less than the applicable conversion price of the Series A Preferred Stock then in effect or if, after any such issuance of Common Stock Equivalents, the price per share for which additional shares of Common Stock may be issuable thereafter is amended or adjusted, and such price as so amended shall be less than the applicable conversion price of the Series A Preferred Stock, (v) upon any merger or consolidation, dependent on the price paid by or to the Company in such transaction or (vi) if the Company, at any time, issues any options to purchase Common Stock to any employees of the Company (up to options to purchase a total of 1,721,665 shares of Common Stock).
 
The Company cannot amend, alter or repeal the preferences, rights, powers or other terms of the Series A Preferred Stock to adversely affect the Series A Preferred Stock without the written consent or affirmative vote of at least 66.6% of the then-outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred Stock.
 
As of December 31, 2005, there were three record holders of 1,454,725 outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock. On May 2, 2006, these three holders converted their shares of Series A Preferred Stock into 6,562,630 shares of Common Stock. As of the date hereof, there are no shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued and outstanding. In addition, the cumulative accreted dividends of $129,973 were converted to 291,361 shares of common stock to the individual partners. After this conversion, CCP as an entity no longer owned any Trulite preferred or common stock.
 

43

 
The description of certain matters relating to the securities of the Company is a summary and is qualified in its entirety by the provisions of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and bylaws, copies of which have been filed as exhibits to this Form 10-SB/A.
 
(b) Debt Securities. None.
 
(c) Other Securities To Be Registered. None.
 
PART II
 
ITEM 1. MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.
 
(a) Market Information. The Company's Common Stock is not trading on any stock exchange. The Company is not aware of any market activity in its stock during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, or during the current fiscal year.
 
The Company has issued and outstanding options to purchase 2,647,493 shares of its Common Stock and warrants to purchase 1,400,000 shares of Common Stock.
 
Additionally, the Company has 11,785,491 shares of Common Stock deemed restricted stock for purposes of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and, accordingly, may not be sold absent their registration under the Securities Act or pursuant to Rule 144 following their being held for the applicable holding periods set forth in Rule 144. In general, under Rule 144 as currently in effect, a person or group of persons whose shares are aggregated, who has beneficially owned restricted shares for at least one year, including the holding period of any prior owner except an affiliate of ours, would be entitled to sell, within any three month period, a number of shares that does not exceed the greater of:
 
 
·
1% of the number of then outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock, or
 
·
the average weekly trading volume of the Company’s Common Stock during the four calendar weeks preceding the sale;

provided, that public information about the Company as required by Rule 144 is available and the seller complies with manner of sale provisions and notice requirements.
 
The Company has zero shares of Common Stock being publicly offered for sale to the public.
 
(b) Holders. As of July 27, 2006, there were 55 record holders of 11,785,491 shares of Common Stock. There are no shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued and outstanding.
 
(c) Dividends. On April 13, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the issuance of dividends equal to an aggregate of $113,138, to be paid in the form of Common Stock to all of the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock. This dividend had accrued from July 28, 2004 to March 31, 2005. On May 5, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors approved an additional dividend, which had accrued from April 1, 2006 to May 2, 2006 but had not been paid, to be paid in the form of Common Stock to all the previous holders of the Series A Preferred Stock. Accordingly, 291,361 shares of Common Stock were issued: 283,118 shares to CCP; 2,576 shares to Dr. Kevin Shurtleff; and 5,667 shares to Andrew Nielson. The stock certificates evidencing these dividends have been issued. The holders of the Series A Preferred Stock have since converted their shares to shares of Common Stock, and no more dividends shall be declared and paid on those shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

44

 
(d) Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans. As of August 28, 2006.
 
Plan Category
 
Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights
 
(a)
 
Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights
 
 
(b)
 
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
 
(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
 
0
 
0
 
0
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders (1)
 
1,582,867 (1)
1,091,626 (2)
 
$.88
$1.00
 
 
436,312
Total
 
2,674,493 (3)
 
$.89
 
436,312

-----------
(1) The Company’s Board of Directors adopted the Trulite, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) on April 11, 2005. In April 2005, the Company granted options to Randolph House, Evan Hughes, Jerry Metz and John Sifonis. Options were granted again in July 2005 to Howard, Paul and Stephen Anderson, Chris Brydon and Jim Longaker. In October 2005, options were granted to Randolph House, Evan Hughes, Tom Samson, Jerry Metz and John Sifonis. In January 2006, options were granted to Jenny Ligums. In April 2006, options were granted to Chris Brydon, CCP, Evan Hughes, Eric Ladd, Jim Longaker, John Patton and Kevin Shurtleff. During the second quarter of 2006, Mr. Steven Anderson and Mr. Tom Samson forfeited their options
 
(2) In May 2006, options to purchase 20,000 shares of Common Stock were granted to Bill Flores, Richard Hoesterey, John Berger, Eric Melvin and John Sifonis. In August 2006, Mr. Jonathan Godshall received options to purchase 676,626 and Mr. Ken Pearson received options of 315,000 shares of Common Stock. The options were granted at $1.00 per share.
 
(3) All of the options were pursuant to the Plan. These options have an exercise price of $.88 or $1.00 per share. 1,070,407 options granted under the Plan vest immediately, and the remaining 1,604,086 vest so long as the employee remains employed by the Company, within four years of the grant, according to a vesting schedule contained therein. The options granted under the Plan may not be exercised more than seven years after the date of the grant.
 
The Plan is to be administered by the Company’s Board of Directors and consists of up to 3,110,805 shares of Common Stock in a stock option pool which may be granted in the form of options to employees, directors, consultants and advisors to the Company. The number of options, option price, vesting and exercise schedules and the duration of all options shall all be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors at the time of grant; provided, however, that the option price of any options granted under the Plan shall be not less than fair market value at the time of grant. Incentive stock options expire no later than seven years after the date of grant.

45


ITEM 2. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
 
There are not presently any material pending legal proceedings to which the Registrant is a party or as to which any of its property is subject, and no such proceedings are known to the Registrant to be threatened or contemplated against it.
 
ITEM 3. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
 
There are not and have not been any disagreements between the Registrant and its accountants on any matter of accounting principles, practices or financial statement disclosure.
 
ITEM 4. RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES.
 
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, pursuant to Rule 504 of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act, Trulite sold 1,134,725 shares of its Series A Preferred Stock to one investor, CCP, for an average cash consideration of $0.84 per share, for an aggregate investment of $950,000.
 
On April 13, 2006, pursuant to Rule 504 of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act, Trulite issued 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock and 1,000,000 warrants to purchase Common Stock, at an exercise price of $1.50 per share, to 12 accredited investors for an aggregate purchase price of $1,000,000.
 
In addition, in April 2006, the Company issued 300,000 shares of Common Stock and warrants to purchase 400,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share to Jelco and Boru and Boru’s designees, pursuant to each of their consulting agreements.
 
All purchasers of the Company’s securities represented in writing that they were accredited investors and acquired the securities for their own accounts. A legend was placed on the stock certificates stating that the securities have not been registered under the Securities Act and cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without an effective registration or an exemption therefrom.
 
On May 2, 2006, the holders of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock converted their shares of Series A Preferred Stock into 6,562,630 shares of Common Stock, and converted $129,973 in accrued dividends in the Series A Preferred Stock into 291,361 shares of Common Stock.
 
ITEM 5. INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS.
 
Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law provides that a corporation may indemnify directors and officers as well as other employees and individuals against expenses including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement in connection with various actions, suits or proceedings, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative other than an action by or in the right of the corporation, a derivative action, if they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, if they had no reasonable cause to believe their conduct was unlawful. A similar standard is applicable in the case of derivative actions, except that indemnification only extends to expenses including attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the defense or settlement of such actions and the statute requires court approval before there can be any indemnification where the person seeking indemnification has been found liable to the corporation. The statute provides that it is not exclusive of other indemnification that may be granted by a corporation's certificate of incorporation, bylaws, agreement, a vote of stockholders or disinterested directors or otherwise.

46


The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that it will indemnify and hold harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended from time to time, each person that such section grants us the power to indemnify.
 
The Delaware General Corporation Law permits a corporation to provide in its certificate of incorporation that a director of the corporation shall not be personally liable to the corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, except for liability for:
 
• any breach of the director's duty of loyalty to the corporation or its stockholders;
• acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;
• payments of unlawful dividends or unlawful stock repurchases or redemptions; or
• any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit.

The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, none of our directors will be personally liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director. Any repeal or modification of this provision will be prospective only and will not adversely affect any limitation, right or protection of a director of our company existing at the time of such repeal or modification.

47


TRULITE, INC.
 
INDEX to Financial Statements

 
Page
   
Interim Financial Statements:
 
   
Balance Sheets at June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005
F-2
   
Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006
 
and period from inception (July 15, 2004) through June 30, 2006
F-3
   
Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the period from inception
 
(July 15, 2004) through June 30, 2006
F-4
   
Statement of Cash Flows for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006
 
and period from inception (July 15, 2004) through June 30, 2006
F-8
   
Notes to Interim Financial Statements for the six months ended June 30, 2006
 
and 2005 and for the period from inception (July 15, 2004)
 
through June 30, 2006
F-9
   
Audited Financial Statements
 
   
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
F-20
   
Balance Sheets at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004
F-21
   
Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2005 and for the
 
period from inception (July 15, 2004) through December 31, 2005
F-22
   
Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the period from inception
 
(December 31, 2004) through December 31, 2005
F-23
   
Statements of Cash Flows for the year ended December 31, 2005 and for the
 
period from inception (July 15, 2004) through December 31, 2004
F-24
   
Notes to Financial Statements
F-25
 
 
F-1


TRULITE, INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
BALANCE SHEETS

           
   
June 30, 2006
 
December 31, 2005
 
   
(Unaudited)
 
Audited
 
ASSETS
             
               
CURRENT ASSETS
             
Cash and cash equivalents
 
$
337,626
 
$
235,982
 
Due from affiliate
   
27,083
   
23,773
 
Accounts receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $0)
   
-
   
16,667
 
Patent application fees
   
19,843
   
19,843
 
Advances to employees
   
10,000
   
-
 
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
   
26,501
   
7,844
 
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
   
421,053
   
304,109
 
               
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
             
Equipment
   
52,415
   
41,001
 
Less: accumulated depreciation
   
13,404
   
7,963
 
NET PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
   
39,011
   
33,038
 
               
TOTAL ASSETS
 
$
460,064
 
$
337,147
 
               
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
             
               
CURRENT LIABILITIES
             
Accounts Payable and accrued expenses
 
$
187,759
 
$
44,821
 
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
   
187,759
   
44,821
 
               
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
             
               
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
             
8% Cumulative Convertible, Series A Preferred Stock; $0.0001 par
value, 1,500,000 share authorized, 0 and 1,454,725 shares issued
and outstanding as June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005,
respectively. Liquidation value of $1.00 per share plus
preferred dividend per share of $0.0623 and an aggregate liquidation
of $1,545,354 as of December 31, 2005
   
-
   
90,843
 
Common stock; $0.0001 par value, 20,000,000 shares authorized,
11,785,491 and 3,631,500 shares issued and outstanding as of June
30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively
   
1,178
   
363
 
Additional paid-in-capital
   
9,091,510
   
1,905,094
 
Deficit accumulated during the development stage
   
(8,820,383
)
 
(1,703,974
)
TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
   
272,305
   
292,326
 
               
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 
$
460,064
 
$
337,147
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements

F-2

 
TRULITE, INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
 
                   
Period from
 
                   
Inception
 
                   
(July 15, 2004)
 
   
Three Months Ended
 
Six Months Ended
 
through
 
   
June 30,
 
June 30,
 
June 30,
 
   
2006
 
2005
 
2006
 
2005
 
2006
 
 
 
Unaudited
 
Unaudited
     
                       
SALES
 
$
-
 
$
-
 
$
8,333
 
$
-
 
$
26,750
 
 
                               
COST OF SALES
   
-
   
-
   
5,912
   
-
   
18,778
 
 
                             
GROSS MARGIN
   
-
   
-
   
2,421
   
-
   
7,972
 
                               
OPERATING EXPENSES
                               
Research and development
   
276,442
   
124,284
   
424,988
   
199,199
   
1,549,055
 
Depreciation
   
2,721
   
1,460
   
5,441
   
2,351
   
13,404
 
General and administrative
   
876,755
   
153,937
   
1,107,556
   
255,477
   
1,685,306
 
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
   
1,155,918
   
279,681
   
1,537,985
   
457,027
   
3,247,765
 
                                 
LOSS FROM OPERATIONS
   
(1,155,918
)
 
(279,681
)
 
(1,535,564
)
 
(457,027
)
 
(3,239,793
)
                                 
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)
                               
Interest expense
   
-
   
(345
)
 
(59
)
 
(345
)
 
(722
)
Interest income
   
2,735
   
807
   
3,206
   
807
   
8,535
 
Other
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
(4,411
)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME
   
2,735
   
462
   
3,147
   
462
   
3,402
 
                                 
LOSS BEFORE PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES
   
(1,153,183
)
 
(279,219
)
 
(1,532,417
)
 
(456,565
)
 
(3,236,391
)
                                 
INCOME TAXES
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
 
                                 
NET LOSS
   
(1,153,183
)
 
(279,219
)
 
(1,532,417
)
 
(456,565
)
$
(3,236,391
)
                                 
PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
   
(10,180
)
 
(23,172
)
 
(39,275
)
 
(32,202
)
     
Deemed dividend on conversion of common
           
stock to preferred stock
   
(1,586,150
)
 
-
   
(1,586,150
)
 
-
       
                                 
NET LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK
 
$
(2,749,513
)
$
(302,391
)
$
(3,157,842
)
$
(488,767
)
     
                                 
NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                 
Basic
 
$
(0.12
)
$
(0.07
)
$
(0.24
)
$
(0.13
)
     
Preferred and deemed dividends
   
(0.18
)
 
(0.01
)
 
(0.25
)
 
(0.01
)
     
Attributable to common shareholders
 
$
(0.30
)
$
(0.0 8
)
$
(0.49
)
$
(0.14
)
     
                                 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES:
                 
Basic
   
9,305,011
   
3,631,500
   
6,492,215
   
3,582,967
       
                                 
Diluted
   
9,305,011
   
3,631,500
   
6,492,215
   
3,582,967
       
                                 
 
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

F-3


TRULITE, INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION (JULY 15, 2004) THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006

   
8% Cumulative Convertible Series A Preferred Stock
 
Common Stock
 
Additional Paid-in
 
Accumulated
     
   
Shares
 
Amount
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
Capital
 
Deficit
 
Total
 
Cash issuances
                             
July 28, 2004, 100,000 shares @ $1.00 per share
   
100,000
 
$
10
   
-
 
$
-
 
$
99,990
 
$
-
 
$
100,000
 
                                             
November 5, 2004, 190,000 shares @ $1.00 per share
   
190,000
   
19
   
-
   
-
   
189,981
   
-
   
190,000
 
                                             
November 12, 2004, 10,000 shares @ $1.00 per share
   
10,000
   
1
   
-
   
-
   
9,999
   
-
   
10,000
 
                                             
Non cash issuances
                                           
July 22, 2004, 20,000 shares @ $1.00 per share for acquisition of Trulite Technology, LC based on fair value of the stock
   
20,000
   
2
   
-
   
-
   
19,998
   
-
   
20,000
 
                                             
July 22, 2004, 592,460 shares @ $1.00 per share for acquisition of Trulite Technology, LC based on fair value of the stock (post stock split, 2,962,300 shares)
   
-
   
-
   
2,962,300
   
296
   
592,164
   
-
   
592,460
 
                                             
July 28, 2004, 68,770 shares @ $1.00 per share for management services based on fair value of common shares (post stock split, 343,850 shares)
   
-
   
-
   
343,850
   
34
   
68,736
   
-
   
68,770
 
                                             
Accretion of dividends on 8% Cumulative convertible Series A preferred stock
   
-
   
6,624
   
-
   
-
   
(6,624
)
 
-
   
-
 
                                             

F-4

 

TRULITE, INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION (JULY 15, 2004) THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006
 
   
8% Cumulative Convertible Series A Preferred Stock
 
Common Stock
 
Additional Paid-in
 
Accumulated
     
   
Shares
 
Amount
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
Capital
 
Deficit
 
Total
 
Non cash issuances
                                           
                                             
Net loss for year ended December 31, 2004
   
-
         
-
   
-
   
-
   
(878,022
)
 
(878,022
)
                                             
Balance at December 31, 2004
   
320,000
   
6,656
   
3,306,150
   
330
   
974,244
   
(878,022
)
 
103,208
 
                                             
Cash issuances
                                           
February 1, 2005, 200,000 shares @ $1.00 per share
   
200,000
   
20
   
-
   
-
   
199,980
   
-
   
200,000
 
                                             
June 1, 2005, 934,725 shares @ $0.802375 per share
   
934,725
   
93
   
-
   
-
   
749,907
   
-
   
750,000
 
                                             
Non cash issuances
                                           
January 28, 2005, 65,070 shares @ $1.00 per share for management services based on fair value of common shares (post stock split, 325,350 shares)
   
-
   
-
   
325,350
   
33
   
65,037
   
-
   
65,070
 
                                             
Accretion of dividends on 8% cumulative Convertible Series A preferred stock
   
-
   
84,074
   
-
   
-
   
(84,074
)
       
-
 
                                             
Net loss for year ended December 31, 2005
                                 
(825,952
)
 
(825,952
)
                                             
Balance at December 31, 2005
   
1,454,725
   
90,843
   
3,631,500
   
363
   
1,905,094
   
(1,703,974
)
 
292,326
 
 
 
F-5


TRULITE, INC. (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
FOR THE PERIOD FROM INCEPTION (JULY 15, 2004) THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006
 
   
8% Cumulative Convertible Series A Preferred Stock
 
Common Stock
 
Additional Paid-in
 
Accumulated
     
   
Shares
 
Amount
 
Shares
 
Amount
 
Capital
 
Deficit
 
Total
 
Cash issuances
                                           
                                             
March 26, 2006, 1,000,000 shares @ $1.00 per share (inclusive of warrants to purchase 1,000,000 common shares)
   
-
   
-
   
1,000,000
   
100
   
999,900
   
-
   
1,000,000
 
                                             
Non cash issuances
                                           
April 26, 2006, 250,000 shares @ $0.88 per share for consulting services on the fair value of the common shares
   
-
   
-
   
250,000
   
25
   
219,975
   
-
   
220,000
 
                                             
April 26, 2006, 50,000 shares @ $0.88 per share for consulting services on the fair value of the common shares
   
-
   
-
   
50,000
   
5
   
43,995
   
-
   
44,000
 
                                             
April 26, 2006, 400,000 warrants issued for consulting services
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
-
   
173,230
   
-
   
173,230
 
                                             
May 2, 2006, Ac