**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C.  20549**

 

**FORM 10-Q/A**

**Amendment No. 1**

 

(Mark One)

 

| **x** | **Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934** |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | For the quarterly period ended September 30**,**2006 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|

or

 

| **o** | **Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934** |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**Commission File Number 1-12396**

 

**THE BEARD COMPANY**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

| **Oklahoma**                                                  |   | **73-0970298**                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation or organization) |   | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |

 

 

| **Enterprise Plaza, Suite 320****5600 North May Avenue****Oklahoma City, Oklahoma**                   **73112** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip Code)                                                                                                                               |

 

 

| Registrant's telephone number, including area code:   | **(405) 842-2333** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes x     No o

 

|   | Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Large accelerated filer   o | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer x |
|-----------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

 

|   | Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | Yes o   | No x |
|--------|-------------------|------|

 

|   | Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock as of****November 14, 2006**.** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Common Stock $.0006665 par value – 5,591,580

**EXPLANATORY NOTE**

 

**The purpose of this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q of The Beard Company is to amend the third paragraph of the Company’s disclosure in Item 1 under the subheading*****McElmo Dome Litigation*****and to amend the Section 302 certifications filed as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2.**

 

 

**THE BEARD COMPANY**

 

 

 

**PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION**

 

| **Item 1.** | **Legal Proceedings.** |
|-------------|------------------------|

 

*McElmo Dome Litigation.*  In 1996 we joined with other Plaintiffs in filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado a suit against Shell Oil Company, Shell Western E & P, Inc., Mobil Producing Texas and New Mexico, Inc. and Cortez Pipeline Company, a partnership (collectively, the “Defendants”).  Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged damages caused by Defendants’ wrongful determination of the value of CO2 produced from the McElmo Dome Field (the “Field”---see “Carbon Dioxide Operations” at pages 9-11 of our Form 10-K) and the corresponding wrongful underpayment to Plaintiffs.  

 

A Settlement Agreement was signed in 2001 (the “Settlement”).  The Settlement became final in 2003 and we received our share in three installments totaling $4,094,000 in 2003 and 2004**.**  The Settlement proceeds resulted in net income of $3,976,000, after alternative minimum taxes of $118,000.

 

Subsequent to the Settlement several issues have arisen concerning implementation of the Settlement Agreement that are currently in dispute which may result in additional money being owed to the Plaintiffs in the litigation.  A mediation held in Denver in March of 2005 was unsuccessful.  In July of 2005, the party who served as the court-appointed fairness expert in the McElmo Dome Litigation rendered his advisory opinion on the merits of several issues currently in dispute concerning implementation of the Settlement Agreement.  While this advisory opinion was favorable to the Plaintiffs, it was nonbinding and failed to resolve the matter.  In October 2005 the Plaintiffs initiated formal binding arbitration.  A hearing on the merits was concluded in Albuquerque on June 30, 2006.  By an Arbitration Opinion dated August 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs lost the arbitration*.*However, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Opinion on November 6, 2006.  Both the Court appointed Fairness Expert and Plaintiffs’ counsel believe reasonable grounds exist for vacating the Opinion.  If the Opinion is vacated, another arbitration will occur unless the dispute is earlier settled.

 

*Coalition Managers Litigation.*  In April of 2002 a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado (*Harry Ptasynski v. John M. Cogswell, et al*---Case No. 02-WM-0830 (OES) against the attorneys and managers (including our Chairman) of the CO2 Claims Coalition, LLC (the “Coalition”---one of the Plaintiffs in the preceding lawsuit which has now been settled).  We are not a defendant in the suit, which was initially brought by Ptasynski and another party which later dismissed itself from the action.  In this action Ptasynski is seeking to recover a share of the proceeds of the Coalition’s settlement against the Defendants in the McElmo Dome lawsuit despite the fact that he opted out of the lawsuit in order to pursue his own claims in a separate lawsuit against the Defendants inTexas.  Although his case was initially successful in Texas it was later overturned on appeal.

 

2

The Coalition held back $1 million of the Settlement proceeds to defend the costs of the Ptasynski suit (and any other suits that might develop) until such time as its outcome has been determined.  Presently approximately $619,000 remains in the defense fund.  Once the case has been resolved, any remaining funds net of costs will be distributed to the Coalition members, including us.  In March of 2004 the Court dismissed the claims against the attorneys and several of the claims against the managers but gave the Plaintiff the opportunity to make additional arguments as to why other claims should not be dismissed.  In April of 2004 Plaintiff asked the Court not to dismiss the remaining claims and moved to file a Second Amended Complaint against the managers and, for the first time, against the Coalition.  In May of 2004 the Defendants asked the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s new Complaint. 

On April 25, 2006, Magistrate Hagerty entered an Amended Scheduling Order in the civil action, pursuant to which discovery in this case was recommenced.  Motions for summary judgment were entered by the Defendants on August 31, 2006.  Unless a motion to dismiss is entered by the Judge or a settlement is reached in the meantime, a five-day trial is scheduled to commence on December 11, 2006.

We consider the Plaintiff’s claims to be without merit.  We will receive approximately 22% of the remaining funds, if any, once the suit has been resolved.  

*Visa Litigation**.*In May of 2003 our 71%-owned subsidiary, starpay.com, l.l.c., along with VIMachine, Inc. filed a suit in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division against Visa International Service Association and Visa USA, Inc., both d/b/a Visa (Case No. CIV:3-03-CV0976-L).  VIMachine is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 5,903,878 (the “VIMachine Patent”) that covers, among other things, an improved method of authenticating the cardholder involved in an Internet payment transaction.  In July of 2003, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The suit seeks damages and injunctive relief (i) related to Visa’s infringement of the VIMachine Patent; (ii) related to Visa’s breach of certain confidentiality agreements express or implied; (iii) for alleged fraud on the Patent Officebased on Visa’s pending patent application; and (iv) under California’s common law and statutory doctrines of unfair trade practices, misappropriation and/or theft of starpay’s intellectual property and/or trade secrets. In addition, Plaintiffs are seeking attorney fees and costs related to the foregoing claims.  If willfulness can be shown, Plaintiffs will seek treble damages.

 

In August of 2003 the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second, third and fourth claims.  Despite objections to such motion by the Plaintiffs, the Judge in February of 2004 granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action, and denied the motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the fourth cause of action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ fourth claim (misappropriation and/or theft of intellectual property and/or trade secrets) will continue to move forward. 

 

In February of 2004 Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.  In such filing Visa denied each allegation relevant to claim four.  Visa asked that the VIMachine Patent be declared invalid, and, even if it is found valid, Visa asked that they**be found not to infringe the VIMachine Patent.  Visa asked for other related relief based on**these two allegations.

 

In April and May 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Patent Infringement Contentions and a supplement thereto detailing Visa’s alleged infringement of the majority of the patent claims depicted in the VIMachine Patent.  Subsequently, in May 2004, Defendants filed Preliminary Invalidity Contentions requesting the VIMachine Patent be found invalid.

From May through October 2004, the Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted numerous filings related to interpretation of the terms and phrases set out in the VIMachine Patent claims.  A hearing regarding patent claim construction (a “Markman hearing”) was held in October of 2004, allowing both parties to present oral arguments before the Court regarding the claim construction issues.  On January 4, 2005, Magistrate Judge Sanderson filed a Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge addressing his findings and recommendations with respect to the claim constructions to be applied to the VIMachine Patent.  Judge Sanderson found that 24 of the 28 claims asserted by the Plaintiffs were valid.  Both parties have pursued modifications of the Magistrate’s recommendations in the form of an appeal to District Judge Lindsey and are awaiting the Court’s final rulingon claim construction issues. 

 

3

In July of 2005 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an *en**banc* decision in the patent case of *Phillips v. AWH Corp*. (the “Phillips Case”).  That is, instead of relegating the case to a three-judge panel, it was heard by the entire Federal Circuit bench.  The Federal Circuit attempted to explain how the operative language in patents is to be interpreted.  One key question before the Court was to which sources of information the trial court should refer when construing patent claims.

Subsequent to the Federal Circuit’s decision in July, Defendants requested and the Court ordered supplemental briefs to the Court addressing Magistrate Judge Sanderson’s Report and Recommendation respective to the Markman hearing in light of the Federal Circuit’s *en banc* decision in the Phillips Case.  Both parties filed their supplemental briefs in August 2005.  Oral arguments regarding these issues were held in November of 2005.  On January 19, 2006, Magistrate Judge Sanderson filed his final Report and Recommendation on the Markman issues to District Judge Lindsay who will in turn provide the Court’s final ruling on claim construction issues.  In his report Judge Sanderson found no reason to change any portions of his recommendations filed on January 4, 2005, in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in the PhillipsCase.  A final Markman ruling is expected to occur at any time. Thereafter, a revised Scheduling Order will be prepared setting out a new trial date.

During the first quarter of 2000 starpay’s trade secrets were relayed to Visa verbally in face-to-face conferences and telephone calls, as well as in correspondence by post and electronic mail.  After receiving starpay’s technology and ideas, Visa filed a series of provisional patent applications beginning in April of 2000 using starpay’s trade secrets.  At the same time, Visa wrongfully incorporated starpay’s trade secrets in to its Visa Payer Authentication Service, also known as Verified by Visa (“VPAS”).  VPAS infringes the VIMachine Patent.  From early 2000 until recently, starpay tried on several occasions to enter into meaningful negotiations with Visa to resolve their intellectual property concerns.  Visa has continually denied their infringement of the VIMachine Patent and starpay’s assertion that Visa has appropriated starpay’s trade secrets. 

 

In November of 2000 Visa publicly announced that it was testing VPAS.  In September of 2001 Visa stated that, once rolled out globally, it expected VPAS to reduce Internet payment disputes by at least 50%.  In an October 2004, news release, Visa depicted Verified by Visa as “the leading security standard for authentication of Internet transactions.”  In this release Visa announced that Verified by Visa had “recorded an increase of close to 200% in the number of transactions for the quarter ending in September 2004,” and that “total Verified by Visa card volume for the first nine months of 2004 was $5.4 billion.” In April of 2005 Visa announced that “transaction volume during the first quarter of 2005 had increased more than 230% over last year.”  Towards the end of 2005 Visa announced that Verified by Visa had “$7 billion in volume during thefirst half of the year......a 194% year-over-year increase.”  Since late 2005, Plaintiffs have not seen or received public information bearing on the transaction volume within the Verified by Visa system.  .  However, Visa’s current Verified by Visa Fact Sheet touts that “more than 110,000 merchants have adopted Verified by Visa and 10,000 banks have made the service available to over 395 million consumers globally” through implementation in more than 65 countries representing 99% of global e-commerce volume.  Other Visa documents state that “since Verified by Visa was implemented in 2003, there has been a 75% reduction in chargebacks on Verified by Visa compared with non-Verified by Visa transactions.”

 

Both sides anticipate filing dispositive motions during the spring of 2007.  Until Judge Lindsey rules regarding pending claim construction issues, there is no scheduling order in place.  Plaintiffs will push for a trial date in mid to late 2007.  

 

 

4

**Item 6.****Exhibits.**

 

|   | (a) | The following exhibits are filed with this Form 10-Q/A and are identified by the numbers indicated: |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 31 | *Rule 13a -14(a) / 15d-14(a) Certifications:* |
|----|-----------------------------------------------|

 

| 31.1 | Chief Executive Officer Certification required by Rule 13a – 14(a) or Rule 15d – 14(a). |
|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 31.2 | Chief Financial Officer Certification required by Rule 13a – 14(a) or Rule 15d – 14(a). |
|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

The Company will furnish to any shareholder a copy of any of the above exhibits upon the payment of $.25 per page.  Any request should be sent to The Beard Company, Enterprise Plaza, Suite 320, 5600 North May Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112.

 

5

**SIGNATURES**

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

 

|                                            | **(Registrant)**      **THE BEARD COMPANY**   |
|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Date)    November 22, 2006 | /s/ Herb Mee, Jr.Herb Mee, Jr., President andChief Financial Officer        |
|                                            |                                                                        |
| (Date)    November 22, 2006 | /s/ Jack A. MartineJack A. Martine, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |

 

 

| **INDEX TO EXHIBITS** |
|-----------------------|
|                  |   |   |   |   |
| **Exhibit No.**       |   | **Description** |   | **Method of Filing** |
|                  |   |   |   |   |
| 31.1                  |   | Chief Executive Officer Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).

  |   | Filed herewith electronically |
| 31.2                  |   | Chief Financial Officer Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a).

  |   | Filed herewith electronically |
|                  |   |   |   |   |

 

 

6