UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number 0-28685

VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

101 West Renner Road, Suite 300

Richardson, TX 75082

(Address of principal executive offices)

(972) 437-5200

(Registrant’s Telephone Number)

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¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).       

Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.):  Yes ¨ No x

As of August 14, 2013, the issuer had 999,035,151 shares of common stock, par value $0.00001, issued and outstanding.

PART I

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Consolidated Financial Statements

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to the unaudited consolidated financial statements.

(Continued on next page)

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to the unaudited consolidated financial statements.

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to the unaudited consolidated financial statements.

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Deficit

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to the unaudited consolidated financial statements.

Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to unaudited consolidated financial statements.

VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 1. Organization, Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies

The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (‘we”, “our”, the “Company” or “Vertical”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in Vertical’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, “our”, “we”, the “Company” or “VCSY”, as applicable). NOW Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertical currently maintains daily business operations, EnFacet, Inc. (“ENF”), Globalfare.com, Inc. (“GFI”), Pointmail.com, Inc. (“PMI”) and Vertical Internet Solutions, Inc. (“VIS”), each of which is a wholly-owned subsidiary and is inactive and Vertical Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“VHS”), SnAPPnet, Inc. (“SnAPPnet”), OptVision Research, Inc. (“OVR”), Taladin, Inc. (“Taladin”), and Vertical do Brasil, each of which has minor activities, are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of Vertical. Government Internet Systems, Inc. (“GIS”), an 84.5% owned subsidiary, and Priority Time Systems, Inc. (“Priority Time”), a 90% owned subsidiary, are entities with minor activities. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of financial position and the results of operations for the interim periods presented have been reflected herein. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. Notes to the consolidated financial statements which would substantially duplicate the disclosure contained in the audited financial statements as reported in the 2012 annual report on Form 10-K have been omitted.

Earnings per share

Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding during the period. “Diluted earnings per share” reflects the potential dilution that could occur if our share-based awards and convertible securities were exercised or converted into common stock. The dilutive effect of our share-based awards is computed using the treasury stock method, which assumes all share-based awards are exercised and the hypothetical proceeds from exercise are used to purchase common stock at the average market price during the period. The incremental shares (difference between shares assumed to be issued versus purchased), to the extent they would have been dilutive, are included in the denominator of the diluted EPS calculation. The dilutive effect of our convertible preferred stock and convertible debentures is computed using the if-converted method, which assumes conversion at the beginning of the year.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, common stock equivalents related to the convertible debentures, convertible debt and preferred stock and stock derivative liability were not included in the calculation of the diluted earnings per share as their effect would be anti-dilutive.

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior periods to conform to the current period presentation.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02 "Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income" (ASU 2013-02). ASU 2013-02 amends ASU 2011-05 and requires that entities disclose additional information about amounts reclassified out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) by component. Significant amounts reclassified out of AOCI are required to be presented either on the face of the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income or in the notes to the financial statements. The requirements of ASU 2013-02 are effective for fiscal years and interim periods in those years beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2013-02 to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Note 2. Going Concern

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 have been prepared assuming that we will continue as a going concern, and accordingly realize our assets and satisfy our liabilities in the normal course of business.

The carrying amounts of assets and liabilities presented in the consolidated financial statements do not purport to represent realizable or settlement values. As of June 30, 2013, we had negative working capital of approximately $12.7 million and defaulted on several of our debt obligations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our management is continuing its efforts to secure funds through equity and/or debt instruments for our operations, expansion and possible acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, and/or other business combinations as well as to generate additional revenue through our existing businesses, including the licensing of our intellectual property. We will require additional funds to pay down our liabilities, as well as finance our expansion plans consistent with our anticipated changes in operations and infrastructure. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to secure additional funds and that if such funds are available, whether the terms or conditions would be acceptable to us and whether we will be able to turn into a profitable position and generate positive operating cash flow. The consolidated financial statements contain no adjustment for this uncertainty.

Note 3. Notes Payable

The following table reflects our third party debt activity, including our convertible debt, for the six months ended June 30, 2013:

On January 9, 2013, NOW Solutions completed a financing transaction in the aggregate amount of $1,759,150, which amount was utilized to pay off existing indebtedness of the Company and NOW Solutions to Tara Financial Services and Robert Farias, an employee of the Company and all security interests granted to Tara Financial Services and Robert Farias were cancelled.

In connection with this financing, the Company and several of its subsidiaries entered into a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), dated as of January 9, 2013 with Lakeshore Investment, LLC (“Lakeshore”) under which NOW Solutions issued a secured 10-year promissory note (the “Lakeshore Note”) bearing interest at 11% per annum to Lakeshore in the amount of $1,759,150 payable in equal monthly installments of $24,232 until January 31, 2022. The Lakeshore Note contains provisions requiring additional principal reductions in the event sales by NOW Solutions exceed certain financial thresholds. The Loan Agreement contains provisions requiring certain additional principal prepayments toward the Lakeshore Note by the Company from any litigation or settlement proceeds regarding its SiteFlash technology less any attorney fees and direct costs (“Net Claim Proceeds”) and a 5% interest due to Lakeshore (as described below) and a 2% interest due to the inventor of SiteFlash.

Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, as amended, the Company also agreed to make certain principal payments toward the Lakeshore Note of (a) $90,000 by February 15, 2013, which was secured by 15% interest in the Company’s ownership of Priority Time and this payment was timely made to Lakeshore and (b) $600,000 by March 15, 2013, which was secured by 25% of the Company’s ownership interest in NOW Solutions and this payment was not made to Lakeshore.

The Lakeshore Note is secured by the assets of the Company’s subsidiaries, NOW Solutions, Priority Time, SnAPPnet, Inc. (“SnAPPnet”) and the Company’s SiteFlash technology and cross-collateralized. Upon the aggregate principal payment of $290,000 toward the Lakeshore Note, the Company has the option to have Lakeshore release either the Priority Time collateral or the SiteFlash collateral. Upon payment of the aggregate principal $590,000 toward the Lakeshore Note, Lakeshore shall release either the Priority Time collateral or the SiteFlash collateral (whichever is remaining). Upon payment of the aggregate principal $890,000 toward the Lakeshore Note, Lakeshore shall release the SnAPPnet collateral and upon full payment of the Lakeshore Note, Lakeshore shall release the NOW Solutions collateral.

As additional consideration for the loan, the Company granted a 5% interest in Net Claim Proceeds (less any attorney’s fees and direct costs) from any litigation or settlement proceeds related to the SiteFlash technology to Lakeshore. In addition, until the Note is paid in full, NOW Solutions agreed to pay a Lakeshore royalty of 6% of its annual gross revenues in excess of $5 million dollars up to a maximum of $1,759,150. Management estimated the fair value of the royalty to be nominal.

During the second quarter of 2013, the company borrowed $45,000 and $30,000 from a third party lender. The notes are unsecured, bear interest at 11% per annum and are due on demand.

During the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the Company made interest payments of $169,018 and $157,270, respectively.

For subsequent events involving the Loan Agreement with Lakeshore and additional financing, please see “Subsequent Events” in Note 9.

Note 4. Derivative liability and fair value measurements

Derivative liability

During 2008, one of our officers pledged 3,000,000 shares of common stock (through a company he controls) to secure the debt owed to a third party lender. In connection with the pledge of stock, we signed an agreement to replace these shares within one year. Subsequent to this agreement, 1,309,983 shares of this stock were sold to satisfy the debt owed to the lender. This contractual commitment to replace all of the pledged shares was evaluated under FASB ASC 815-40, Derivatives and Hedging and was determined to have characteristics of a liability and therefore constituted a derivative liability under the above guidance. Each reporting period, this derivative liability is marked-to-market with the non-cash gain or loss recorded in the period as a gain or loss on derivatives. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the fair value of the derivative liability was $37,990 and $31,440.

The aggregate change in the fair value of derivative liabilities was a loss of $6,550 and a gain of $11,135 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The valuation of our embedded derivatives is determined by using the VCSY stock price at June 30, 2013. As such, our derivative liabilities have been classified as Level 1.

Fair value measurements

FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. FASB ASC 820 also establishes a fair value hierarchy which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. FASB ASC 820 describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:

Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 – Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are financial instruments whose values are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant judgment or estimation.

If the inputs used to measure the financial assets and liabilities fall within more than one level described above, the categorization is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement of the instrument.

The following table provides a summary of the fair value of our derivative liabilities as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012:

The estimated fair value of short-term financial instruments, including cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities and deferred revenue approximates their carrying value due to their short-term nature. The estimated fair value of our long-term borrowings approximates carrying value since the related rates of interest approximate current market rates.

Note 5. Common and Preferred Stock Transactions

During the six months ended June 30, 2013, 550,000 common shares granted to employees of the Company and a consultant of the Company, valued at $10,225, vested.

For additional stock transactions concerning the Company’s common stock, please see “Subsequent Events” in Note 9.

As of the Date of this Report, we have determined that we currently have (i) the following shares of common stock issued, and (ii) outstanding shares of preferred stock which are convertible into the shares of common stock indicated below and a contractual commitment to issue the shares of common stock indicated below:

In addition, the Company has $30,000 in an outstanding convertible debenture that had been issued to a third party.

Accordingly, given the fact that the Company currently has 1,000,000,000 shares of common stock authorized, the Company could exceed its authorized shares of common stock by approximately 30,000,000 shares if all of the financial instruments described in the table above were exercised or converted into shares of common stock (excluding the $30,000 from the outstanding debenture noted above).

We have evaluated our convertible cumulative preferred stock under the guidance set out in FASB ASC 470-20 and have accordingly classified these shares as temporary equity in the consolidated balance sheets.

Note 6. Stock Options, Warrants and Restricted Stock Awards

Stock Options and Warrants

There are currently no outstanding common stock options or warrants.

Restricted Stock

A summary of the activity of the restricted stock for the three months ended June 30, 2013 is shown below.

As of June 30, 2013, there was $7,102 of total unrecognized compensation costs related to stock awards. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of less than 3 years.

Note 7. Related Party Transactions

In January 2013, the Company paid off all existing indebtedness of the Company and the underlying security interest granted to Mr. Farias was cancelled, including two promissory notes bearing interest at 10% per annum that were issued in the principal amount of $274,679 and $90,000, respectively. Mr. Farias serves as our Executive Vice-President of Business Development.

The following table reflects our related party debt activity for the six months ended June 30, 2013:

Note 8. Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following ongoing legal matters:

On November 18, 2009, we sued InfiniTek Corporation (“InfiniTek”) in the Texas State District Court in Fort Worth, Texas for breach of contract and other claims (the “Texas Action”) seeking equitable relief and unspecified damages when a dispute between the Company and InfiniTek was not resolved. All agreements with InfiniTek have been cancelled. On January 15, 2010, InfiniTek filed a counter-claim for non-payment of amounts billed. InfiniTek claimed it was owed $195,000 plus lost opportunity costs of not less than $220,000.

On April 7, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed by InfiniTek in the California Superior Court in Riverside, California seeking damages in excess of $76,303 for breach of contract and lost profit (the “California Action”). This lawsuit related to one of the causes of action and the same set of underlying facts, as those in the Texas legal action. On May 7, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this action. On July 14, 2010, the court denied our motion. On August 13, 2010, we filed an answer to InfiniTek’s complaint, including a denial and affirmative defenses.

On December 31, 2011, the Company and InfiniTek entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Texas Action and the California Action were both dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Vertical agreed to pay InfiniTek $82,500 in three equal installments with the last payment due by or before August 5, 2012. Upon full payment, InfiniTek shall transfer and assign ownership of the NAVPath software developed by InfiniTek for use with NOW Solutions emPath® software application and Microsoft Dynamics NAV (formerly Navision) business solution platform. The amounts in dispute were included in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities and have been adjusted to the settlement amount of $82,500 at December 31, 2011. The Company has made $37,500 in payments due under the settlement agreement as of November 16, 2012 and each party is alleging the other party is in breach of the settlement agreement. We are currently seeking to resolve all disputes with InfiniTek.

On November 15, 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Vertical Action”) against Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven"), LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). We sued the Defendants for patent infringement claims under United States Patent No. 6,826,744 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) and United States Patent No. 7,716,629 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) (collectively the “the Patents-in-Suit”), both of which are owned by the Company. We seek an award of monetary damages and other relief. The case is styled Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. v Interwoven, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00490.

On November 17, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed on October 14, 2010 by Interwoven in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Interwoven Action”). This lawsuit is a complaint for declaratory judgment, in which Interwoven is requesting that the court find that no valid and enforceable claim of either of the two patents referenced above has been infringed by Interwoven. The case is styled Interwoven, Inc. v Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. No. 3:10-CV-4645-RS.

On January 11, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate its lawsuit with the Interwoven Action. This case is styled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00189-RS. On June 13, 2013, LG and Samsung filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Vertical filed a brief in opposition to this motion on July 1, 2013. All parties have briefed the district court and the motion is pending.

On May 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Vertical’s renewed motion to transfer the Interwoven Action to the Eastern District of Texas and granted Vertical's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by Samsung in the Northern District of California to the Eastern district in Texas. On May 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Interwoven’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California with respect to Interwoven and denied Samsung’s motion to transfer its case to the Northern district.

On December 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a claims construction order in the Interwoven Action concerning the terms found in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an ex parte reexamination certificate of United States Patent No. 7,716,629.  In the ex parte reexamination certificate, Claims 21-36, 29, 30, and 32 were confirmed; Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 28 and 31 were determined to be patentable as amended, Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20, which were dependent on an amended claim, were determined to be patentable, and claims 7, 18 and 27 were not reexamined.

On October 25, 2012, the USPTO notified the Company of its intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate concerning the ex parte reexamination of United States Patent No. 6,826,744.  In the notice of intent to issue ex parte reexamination certificate, the USPTO notified that the prosecution on the merits is closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding and indicated that Claims 6, 8, 19, 22, 30, 32, 41, 44, 50, 51 were confirmed; Claims 1 and 26 were cancelled; Claims 12-17, 20, 34-39, 42 and 43 are not subject to reexamination; newly presented Claims 54-57 are patentable and continuation of patent claims amended: 2-5, 7, 9-11, 18, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 40, 45-49, 52 and 53.

On January 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment for unenforceability and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit in its entirety.

On July 17, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action ruled on Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment with respect to infringement and damages concerning the Patents-in-Suit. The court denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of direct infringement and granted summary judgment in favor of Interwoven with respect to infringement on the doctrine of equivalents and with respect to indirect infringement. The court also granted in part and denied in part Interwoven’s motion to exclude certain expert witness testimony.

Discovery has been completed. The trial date has been postponed and the parties are awaiting a trial date.

On July 8, 2011, we were served with a lawsuit in the Texas State District Court in Dallas, Texas by Clark Consulting Services, Inc. (“CCS”) for breach of contract and other claims.  CCS was seeking damages from us in excess of $133,750 plus attorney’s fees and interest.  On August 8, 2011, we filed an answer denying CCS’s claims and setting forth affirmative defenses.  In December 2011, the Company and CCS entered into a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay CCS $134,000, which was to be paid in installment payments. Due to the Company’s failure to make timely payments, an additional $60,000 was added to the outstanding balance. On October 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement under which we agreed to make monthly payments of $5,000 and pay the outstanding balance plus attorney’s fees and costs by February 1, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, the settlement amount of $149,000 is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. On January 31, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in February, March and April of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on May 1, 2013. In May 2013, the parties agreed to extend the date by which the Company has to pay off the balance of the settlement amount whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in May, June, July and August of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on September 1, 2013.  As of August 14, 2013, the Company has made payments of $70,000 and the outstanding settlement balance is $79,000.

On October 11 2012, Micro Focus (US), Inc. (“Micro Focus”) filed a lawsuit against NOW Solutions in the United States District Court for the southern division district of Maryland alleging breaches of its contractual obligations under an independent software agreement and copyright infringement. On January 28, 2013, NOW Solutions and Micro Focus entered into a settlement agreement whereby NOW Solutions agreed to pay Micro Focus $420,000, of which $25,000 was paid in January and the remaining $375,000 balance is to be paid under a promissory note bearing no interest and payable in three monthly installments of $15,000 beginning in February with the outstanding balance due on April 30, 2013. In connection with the settlement, the Company entered into a guaranty agreement with Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ obligations under the promissory note. The Company did not make the $375,000 payment due to Micro Focus. On May 1, 2013, NOW Solutions received a notice of default concerning its failure to pay the $375,000 balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus has a confession of judgment by NOW Solutions in connection with the promissory note for the outstanding balance due under the note, plus interest at 15% and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 15, 2013, Vertical was served with a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning the guaranty by Vertical to Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. On July 3, 2013, NOW Solutions was served with a lawsuit for a confessed judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus is seeking damages of $375,000, plus attorneys’ fees of $40,000, plus interest at 15% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed. We intend to resolve this matter with Micro Focus.

Note 9. Subsequent Events

In July 2013, the Company and Lakeshore amended its loan agreement. Pursuant to this amendment, the Company has an option to pay Lakeshore $750,000 for the return of 250 shares common stock of NOW Solutions in Lakeshore’s possession representing 25% ownership of NOW Solutions. The option expires on August 16, 2013. In consideration of this option and Lakeshore’s extension to make this payment, Now Solutions paid Lakeshore fees totaling $30,000 and agreed to pay 25% of any profits to Lakeshore from the period that runs from March 15, 2013 through August 16, 2013 which will be due no later than December 31, 2013. As additional consideration, the Company increased the interest payable to Lakeshore from Net Claim Proceeds (less any attorney’s fees and direct costs) from any litigation or settlement proceeds related to the SiteFlash technology from 5% to 8%. For details about the Loan Agreement with Lakeshore, please see “Notes Payable” in Note 3.

In August 2013, a third party lender loaned VHS $150,000. Pursuant to the loan agreement, VHS issued a promissory note bearing interest at 10% per annum to the lender in the amount of $150,000 payable in 90 days from the date VHS received funds. Under the terms of the agreement, VHS is obligated to pay a $5,000 commitment fee no later than the date the note becomes due. In consideration of the loan, the Company issued 5,000 shares of VHS Series B Preferred Stock and committed to issuing 500,000 shares of VCSY common stock at a future date to the lender.

For the period from July 1, 2013 through August 14, 2013, the Company cancelled 1,500,000 previously issued common shares and granted 1,500,000 common shares for services to consultants of the Company that vest on December 31, 2013 and are valued at $45,000.

For subsequent events involving litigation, please see “Legal Proceedings” in Note 8.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion is a summary of the key factors management considers necessary or useful in reviewing the Company’s results of operations, liquidity and capital resources. The following discussion and analysis should be read together with the accompanying Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements, and the cautionary statements and risk factors included below in Item 1A of Part II of this Report.

Critical Accounting Policies

Capitalized Software Costs

Software costs incurred internally in creating computer software products are expensed until technological feasibility has been established upon completion of a detailed program design. Thereafter, all software development costs are capitalized until the point that the product is ready for sale, and are subsequently reported at the lower of unamortized cost or net realizable value. The Company considers annual amortization of capitalized software costs based on the ratio of current year revenues by product to the total estimated revenues by the product, subject to an annual minimum based on straight-line amortization over the product’s estimated economic useful life, not to exceed five years. The Company periodically reviews capitalized software costs for impairment where the fair value is less than the carrying value.

During the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, $44,518 and $164,462 of internal costs were capitalized, respectively.

Revenue Recognition

Our revenue recognition policies are in accordance with standards on software revenue recognition, which include guidance on revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables and arrangements that include the right to use of software stored on another entity’s hardware.

In the case of non-software arrangements, we apply the guidance on revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables and wherein multiple elements are allocated to each element based on the element’s relative fair value. Revenue allocated to separate elements is recognized for each element in accordance with our accounting policies described below. If we cannot account for items included in a multiple-element arrangement as separate units of accounting, they are combined and accounted for as a single unit of accounting and generally recognized as the undelivered items or services are provided to the customer.

Consulting. We provide consulting services, primarily implementation and training services, to our clients using a time and materials pricing methodology. The Company prices its delivery of consulting services on a time and materials basis where the customer is either charged an agreed-upon daily rate plus out-of-pocket expenses or an hourly rate plus out-of-pocket expenses. In this case, the Company is paid fees and other amounts generally on a monthly basis or upon the completion of the deliverable service and recognizes revenue as the services are performed.

Software License. We sell concurrent perpetual software licenses to our customers. The license gives the customer the right to use the software without regard to a specific term. We recognize the license revenue upon execution of a contract and delivery of the software, provided the license fee is fixed and determinable, no significant production, modification or customization of the software is required and collection is considered probable by management. When the software license arrangement requires the Company to provide consulting services that are essential to the functionality of the software, the product license revenue is recognized upon the acceptance by the customer and consulting fees are recognized as services are performed.

Software licenses are generally sold as part of a multiple-element arrangement that may include maintenance and, under a separate agreement, consulting services. The consulting services are generally performed by the Company, but the customer may use a third-party to perform the consulting services. We consider these separate agreements as being negotiated as a package. The Company determines whether there is vendor specific objective evidence of fair value (‘‘VSOEFV’’) for each element identified in the arrangement, to determine whether the total arrangement fees can be allocated to each element. If VSOEFV exists for each element, the total arrangement fee is allocated based on the relative fair value of each element. In cases where there is not VSOEFV for each element, or if it is determined that services are essential to the functionality of the software being delivered, we initially defer revenue recognition of the software license fees until VSOEFV is established or the services are performed. However, if VSOEFV is determinable for all of the undelivered elements, and assuming the undelivered elements are not essential to the delivered elements, we will defer recognition of the full fair value related to the undelivered elements and recognize the remaining portion of the arrangement value through application of the residual method. Where VSOEFV has not been established for certain undelivered elements, revenue for all elements is deferred until those elements have been delivered or their fair values have been determined. Evidence of VSOEFV is determined for software products based on actual sales prices for the product sold to a similar class of customer and based on pricing strategies set forth in the Company’s standard pricing list. Evidence of VSOEFV for consulting services is based upon standard billing rates and the estimated level of effort for individuals expected to perform the related services. The Company establishes VSOEFV for maintenance agreements using the percentage method such that VSOEFV for maintenance is a percentage of the license fee charged annually for a specific software product, which in most instances is 18% of the portion of arrangement fees allocated to the software license element.

Maintenance Revenue. In connection with the sale of a software license, a customer may elect to purchase software maintenance services. Most of the customers that purchase software licenses from us also purchase software maintenance services. These maintenance services are typically renewed on an annual basis. We charge an annual maintenance fee, which is typically a percentage of the initial software license fee and may be increased from the prior year amount based on inflation or other agreed upon percentage. The annual maintenance fee generally is paid to the Company at the beginning of the maintenance period, and we recognize these revenues ratably over the term of the related contract.

While most of our customers pay for their annual maintenance at the beginning of the maintenance period, a few customers have payment terms that allow them to pay for their annual maintenance on a quarterly or monthly basis. If the annual maintenance fee is not paid at the beginning of the maintenance period (or at the beginning of the quarter or month for those few maintenance customers), we will ratably recognize the maintenance revenue if management believes the collection of the maintenance fee is imminent. Otherwise, we will defer revenue recognition until the time that the maintenance fee is paid by the customer. We normally continue to provide maintenance service while awaiting payment from customers. When the payment is received, revenue is recognized for the period that revenue was previously deferred. This may result in volatility in software maintenance revenue from period to period.

Cloud-based offering. We have contracted with third parties to provide new and existing customers with hosting facilities providing all infrastructure and allowing us to offer our currently sold software, emPath® and SnAPPnet™, on a service basis. However, a contractual right to take possession of the software license or run it on another party’s hardware is not granted to the customer. We refer to the delivery method to give functionality to new customers utilizing this service as cloud-based. Since the customer is not given contractual right to take possession of the software, the scope of ASC 350-40 does not apply. A customer using cloud-based software can enter into an agreement to purchase a software license at any time. We generate revenue from cloud-based offering as the customer utilizes the software over the Internet.

We will provide consulting services to customers in conjunction with the cloud-based offering. The rate for such service is based on standard hourly or daily billing rates. The consulting revenue is recognized as services are performed. Customers utilizing their own computer to access cloud-based functionality are charged a fee equal to the number of employees paid each month multiplied by an agreed-upon rate per employee. The revenue is recognized as the cloud-based services are rendered each month.

Allowances for Doubtful Accounts

The Company maintains allowances for doubtful accounts, for estimated losses resulting from the inability of its customers to make required payments. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in an impairment of their ability to make payments, additional allowances may be required. We review delinquent accounts at least quarterly to identify potential doubtful accounts, and together with customer follow-up, estimate the amounts of potential losses.

Deferred Taxes

The Company records a valuation allowance to reduce the deferred tax assets to the amount that management believes is more likely than not to be realized in the foreseeable future, based on estimates of foreseeable future taxable income and taking into consideration historical operating information. In the event management estimates that the Company will not be able to realize all or part of its net deferred tax assets in the foreseeable future, a valuation allowance is recorded through a charge to income in the period such determination is made. Likewise, should management estimate that the Company will be able to realize its deferred tax assets in the future in excess of its net recorded assets, an adjustment to reduce the valuation allowance would increase income in the period such determination is made.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense

We account for share-based compensation in accordance with the provisions of share-based payments, which require measurement of compensation cost for all stock-based awards at fair value on date of grant and recognition of compensation over the service period for awards expected to vest. The fair value of restricted stock and restricted stock units is determined based on the number of shares issued and the quoted price of our common stock. See Note 6 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of stock-based compensation.

Valuation of the Embedded and Warrant Derivatives

The valuation of our embedded derivatives is determined by using the Company’s quoted stock price. An embedded derivative is a derivative instrument that is embedded within another contract, which under a convertible note (the host contract) includes the right to convert the note by the holder, certain default redemption right premiums and a change of control premium (payable in cash if a fundamental change occurs). In accordance with the guidance on derivative instruments, embedded derivatives are marked-to-market each reporting period, with a corresponding non-cash gain or loss charged to the current period. The practical effect of this has been that when our stock price increases so does our derivative liability, resulting in a non-cash loss that reduces our earnings and earnings per share. When our stock price declines, we record a non-cash gain, increasing our earnings and earnings per share.

The fair value recorded for the derivative liability varies from period to period. This variability may result in the actual derivative liability for a period either above or below the estimates recorded on our consolidated financial statements, resulting in significant fluctuations in other income (expense) because of the corresponding non-cash gain or loss recorded.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02 "Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income" (ASU 2013-02). ASU 2013-02 amends ASU 2011-05 and requires that entities disclose additional information about amounts reclassified out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI) by component. Significant amounts reclassified out of AOCI are required to be presented either on the face of the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income or in the notes to the financial statements. The requirements of ASU 2013-02 are effective for fiscal years and interim periods in those years beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company does not expect the adoption of ASU 2013-02 to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Results of Operations

Three and six months ended June 30, 2013 Compared To Three and six months ended June 30, 2012

Total Revenues. We had total revenues of $1,454,611 and $1,405,032 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase in total revenues was $49,579 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 representing a 3.5% increase compared to the total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2012. Substantially all of the revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 were related to the business operations of NOW Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary. Revenue from SnAPPnet, Inc. was $33,646 or 2.3% of total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and $29,813 or 2.1% of total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2012.

Total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 primarily consist of fees derived from software licenses, consulting services, software maintenance and Cloud-based offerings. The revenue from new software licenses increased by $72,720 compared to that for the three months ended June 30, 2012, due to new license sales of our emPath® product during the second quarter of 2013. Software maintenance in the three months ended June 30, 2013 decreased by $23,130 or 2.0% from the same period in the prior year. The revenue decrease in software maintenance is primarily due to non-renewal of customer contracts and the effects of unfavorable currency rate changes on our Canadian maintenance revenue partially offset by contractual increases to existing customer maintenance agreements. Consulting revenue, in the three months ended June 30, 2013 increased by $17,841 from the same period in the prior year, which represents a 16.2% increase. This increase was due to additional consulting services for version upgrades and enhancements to existing customer accounts during the second quarter of 2013. Cloud-based revenues were $102,743 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 compared to $119,690 for the same period in the prior year, representing a $16,947 decrease or 14.2%. The decrease is primarily related to a customer rate adjustment and a customer user base adjustment during the 3 months ended June 30, 2013. Other revenue in the three months ended June 30, 2013 decreased by $905 or 4.2% from the same period in the prior year. Other revenue consists primarily of reimbursable travel expenses, currency gains and losses, and other miscellaneous revenues.

We had total revenues of $2,798,439 and $$2,794,792 in the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase in total revenues was $3,647 representing a 0.1% increase. Substantially all of the revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 were related to the business operations of NOW Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary. Revenue from SnAPPnet, Inc. was $67,687 or 2.4% for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and $58,113 or 2.1% for the six months ended June 30, 2012.

Total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 primarily consist of fees derived from software licenses, consulting services, software maintenance and cloud-based offerings. The revenue from new software licenses increased by $71,720 compared to that for the six months ended June 30, 2012 due to new license sales of our emPath® product during 2013. Software maintenance in the six months ended June 30, 2013 decreased by $73,923 or 3.2% from the same period in the prior year. The revenue decrease in software maintenance is primarily due to non-renewal of customer contracts and the effects of unfavorable currency rate changes on our Canadian maintenance revenue partially offset by contractual increases to existing customer maintenance. Consulting revenue, in the six months ended June 30, 2013 increased by $34,848 from the same period in the prior year, which represents a 17.1% increase. This increase was due to additional consulting services for version upgrades and enhancements to existing customer accounts during the first half of 2013. Cloud-based revenues were $221,811 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 compared to $256,767 for the same period in the prior year, representing a $34,956 decrease or 13.6%. The decrease is primarily related to a customer rate adjustment and a customer user base adjustment during the 6 months ended June 30, 2013. Other revenue in the six months ended June 30, 2013 increased by $5,958 or 13.9% from the same period in the prior year. Other revenue consists primarily of reimbursable travel expenses, currency gains and losses, and other miscellaneous revenues.

Cost of Revenues. We had direct costs associated with our revenues of $633,334 for the three months ended June 30, 2013, compared to $698,917 for the three months ended June 30, 2012. The decrease in cost of revenues of $65,583 represents a 9.4% decrease. The decrease in direct cost of revenues was primarily due to decreased royalty fees on senior secured debt and third party software licensing and decreased payroll and commissions, partially offset by increased outside consulting expenses. During the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, $38,644 and $78,833 of internal costs were capitalized, respectively.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, direct costs of revenues were $1,296,950 compared to $1,386,790 for the same period in 2012 resulting in a decrease of $89,840 or 6.5%. The decrease in direct cost of revenues was primarily due to decreased royalty fees on senior secured debt and third party software licensing, decreased payroll and commissions and lower travel expenses for consultants. During the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, $44,518 and $164,462 of internal costs were capitalized, respectively.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. We had selling, general and administrative expenses of $749,499 and $730,358 in the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The increase of $19,141 is 2.6% more than the same period in 2012. The increase is primarily due to increased legal fees to prosecute patent infringement on the company’s intellectual property partially offset by lower payroll expenses.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013 we had $1,573,359 compared to $1,449,523 for the six months ended June 30, 2012. The $123,836 or 8.5% increase is primarily due to increased legal fees to prosecute patent infringement on the company’s intellectual property partially offset by lower payroll expenses. Of the SG&A expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012, $268,000 and $336,000, respectively, represented business development expenses for various initiatives being undertaken including Vertical Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Priority Time Systems, Inc., and SnAPPnet, Inc.

Bad Debt Expense. We had bad debt expense $20,872 for the six months ended June 30, 2012. The expense related to the non-payment of a portion of one of NOW Solutions, Inc. customer invoices.

Gain (Loss) on Derivative Liability. The existing derivative liability is adjusted each quarter for changes in the market value of the Company’s common stock. In general, as our stock price increases, the derivative liability increases, resulting in a loss. As the stock price decreases, the derivative liability decreases, resulting in a gain. The loss on derivative liability was $13,100 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 compared to a gain of $10,087 for the same period in 2012. The loss on derivative liability was $6,550 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 compared to a gain of $11,135 for the six months ended June 30, 2012.

Interest Expense. We had interest expense of $159,708 and $163,194 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Interest expense decreased in 2013 by $3,486 representing a decrease of 2.1% compared to the same expense in the three months ended June 30, 2012. The decrease was primarily due to debt discounts recorded in the second quarter of 2012.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, we had net interest expense of $305,752 compared to $319,850 for the same period in 2012, representing a $14,098 or 4.4% decrease for the period. The decrease was primarily due to debt discounts recorded in the second quarter of 2012 and a lower interest rate on $1,759,150 of refinanced debt.

Loss on extinguishment of debt. We had loss on debt extinguishment of $15,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012. The expense related to payments made to extend the maturity date of a note payable.

Net Income(loss). We had a net loss of $114,205 and $208,669 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2013 was due to the factors discussed above for revenues, cost of revenues and selling, general and administrative expenses, which essentially gave us operating income of $58,603. This was reduced by interest expense and a loss on derivative liability, resulting in a net loss of $114,205 for the three months ended June 30, 2013. For the three months ended June 30, 2012, the operating loss of $40,562 was reduced by interest expense and increased by a gain on derivative liability resulting in a net loss of 208,669.

We incurred net losses of $411,445 and $418,002 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The changes were due to the reasons discussed above.

Dividends Applicable to Preferred Stock. We have outstanding Series A 4% convertible cumulative preferred stock that accrues dividends at a rate of 4% on a semi-annual basis. The Company also has outstanding Series C 4% convertible cumulative preferred stock that accrues dividends at a rate of 4% on a quarterly basis. The total dividends applicable to Series A and Series C preferred stock were $147,000 for both the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 and $294,000 for both the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012.

Net Loss Available to Common Stockholders. We had a net loss attributed to common stockholders of $226,330 and $335,926 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Net loss attributed to common stockholders was due to the factors discussed above.

We had a net loss attributed to common stockholders of $657,828 and $672,658 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Net loss available to common stockholders was due to the factors discussed above.

Net Loss Per Share. We had a net loss per share of $0.00 and $0.00 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At June 30, 2013, we had non-restricted cash-on-hand of $36,940 compared to $111,851 at December 31, 2012.

Net cash used in operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2013 was $141,923 compared to net cash used in operating activities of $306,637 for the six months ended June 30, 2012. For the six months ended June 30, 2013, we collected cash from our customers of $2,572,910. We used the cash to pay for salaries, benefits, payroll taxes and payroll fees of $1,132,847, attorney fees of $60,237, professional fees and consulting fees of $194,609, interest payments of $169,018, taxes (including sales tax and VAT) of $180,962, and other regular trade payables of $977,160. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, we collected cash from our customers of $2,803,999. We used the cash to pay for salaries, benefits, payroll taxes and payroll fees of $1,959,432, attorney fees of $36,443, professional fees and consulting fees of $174,784, interest payments of $257,270, taxes (including sales tax and VAT) of $352,717, and other regular trade payables of $344,990.

A large portion of our cash (and revenue) comes from software maintenance. When we bill and collect for software maintenance, we record a liability in deferred revenue and recognize income ratably over the maintenance period. Deferred revenue decreased $396,865 or 15.2% from the balance at December 31, 2012. The decrease was due to a higher number of customers on calendar year maintenance agreements which results in higher deferred revenue in December.

Our accounts receivable trade decreased from $440,195 (net of allowance for bad debts) at December 31, 2012 to $307,525 (net of allowance for bad debts) at June 30, 2013. The decrease is a result of seasonal fluctuations in the timing of billing for software maintenance which typically yields higher receivables in December compared to June.

The accounts payable and accrued liabilities went from $7,466,957 at December 31, 2012 to $7,993,240 at June 30, 2013. The increase is primarily related to unpaid executive payroll and payroll taxes. The resulting balance at June 30, 2013 is 26 times more than the balance in accounts receivable. This is one of the reasons why we do not have sufficient funds available to fund our operations and repay our debt obligations under their existing terms, as described below.

We used cash to invest in equipment and the development of software products for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 of $47,994 and $166,302, respectively. Most of the equipment was computer equipment and peripherals for upgraded network servers to increase the productivity of our software developers, and new personal computers for developers, consultants and sales personnel. Software development relates to the development of new products.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, we paid $1,830,141 of principal on notes payable and notes payable to related parties and had $1,834,150 of new debt funding in the same period. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, we paid $64,065 of principal on notes payable and notes payable to related parties and had $488,343 of new debt funding in the same period. We also paid $15,000 to a lender in order to extend the maturity date of a loan.

The total change in cash for the six months ended June 30, 2013 was a decrease of $74,911.

As of the date of the filing of this Report, we do not have sufficient funds available to fund our operations and repay our debt obligations under their existing terms. Therefore, we need to raise additional funds through selling securities, obtaining loans, renegotiating the terms of our existing debt and/or increasing sales with our new products. Our inability to raise such funds or renegotiate the terms of our existing debt will significantly jeopardize our ability to continue operations.

Following is the status of notes payable:

The carrying amounts of assets and liabilities presented in the financial statements do not purport to represent realizable or settlement values. We had a net loss of $411,445 and $418,002 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively and have historically incurred losses. Since December 31, 2009, we have used substantial funds in further developing our product line and in conducting present and new operations, and we need to raise additional funds and/or generate additional revenue through our existing businesses, including the licensing of our intellectual property, to accomplish our objectives. Additionally, at June 30, 2013, we had negative working capital of approximately $12.7 million (although this figure includes deferred revenue of approximately $2.2 million) and have defaulted on several of our debt obligations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our management is continuing its efforts to attempt to secure funds through equity and/or debt instruments for our operations, expansion and possible acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, and/or other business combinations as well as to generate additional revenue through our existing businesses, including the licensing of our intellectual property. We will require additional funds to pay down our liabilities, as well as finance our expansion plans consistent with our anticipated changes in operations and infrastructure. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to secure additional funds and if such funds are available, whether the terms or conditions would be acceptable to us and whether we will be able to turn into a profitable position and generate positive operating cash flow. The unaudited consolidated financial statements contain no adjustment for the outcome of this uncertainty.

Related Party Transactions

In January 2013, the Company paid off all existing indebtedness of the Company and the underlying security interest granted to Mr. Farias was cancelled, including two promissory notes bearing interest at 10% per annum that were issued in the principal amount of $274,679 and $90,000, respectively. Mr. Farias serves as our Executive Vice-President of Business Development.

The following table reflects our related party debt activity for the six months ended June 30, 2013:

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Not applicable.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Our management, principally our chief financial officer and chief executive officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, our management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report were not effective such that the information required to be disclosed by us in reports filed under the Exchange Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding disclosure. In particular, we have identified the following material weakness of our internal controls:

Management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting associated with our business is set forth on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed on April 16, 2013.

There have been no material changes in our internal control over financial reporting since our reporting on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following ongoing legal matters:

On November 18, 2009, we sued InfiniTek Corporation (“InfiniTek”) in the Texas State District Court in Fort Worth, Texas for breach of contract and other claims (the “Texas Action”) seeking equitable relief and unspecified damages when a dispute between the Company and InfiniTek was not resolved. All agreements with InfiniTek have been cancelled. On January 15, 2010, InfiniTek filed a counter-claim for non-payment of amounts billed. InfiniTek claimed it was owed $195,000 plus lost opportunity costs of not less than $220,000.

On April 7, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed by InfiniTek in the California Superior Court in Riverside, California seeking damages in excess of $76,303 for breach of contract and lost profit (the “California Action”). This lawsuit related to one of the causes of action and the same set of underlying facts, as those in the Texas legal action. On May 7, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this action. On July 14, 2010, the court denied our motion. On August 13, 2010, we filed an answer to InfiniTek’s complaint, including a denial and affirmative defenses.

On December 31, 2011, the Company and InfiniTek entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Texas Action and the California Action were both dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Vertical agreed to pay InfiniTek $82,500 in three equal installments with the last payment due by or before August 5, 2012. Upon full payment, InfiniTek shall transfer and assign ownership of the NAVPath software developed by InfiniTek for use with NOW Solutions emPath® software application and Microsoft Dynamics NAV (formerly Navision) business solution platform. The amounts in dispute were included in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities and have been adjusted to the settlement amount of $82,500 at December 31, 2011. The Company has made $37,500 in payments due under the settlement agreement as of November 16, 2012 and each party is alleging the other party is in breach of the settlement agreement. We are currently seeking to resolve all disputes with InfiniTek.

On November 15, 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Vertical Action”) against Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven"), LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). We sued the Defendants for patent infringement claims under United States Patent No. 6,826,744 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) and United States Patent No. 7,716,629 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) (collectively the “the Patents-in-Suit”), both of which are owned by the Company. We seek an award of monetary damages and other relief. The case is styled Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. v Interwoven, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00490.

On November 17, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed on October 14, 2010 by Interwoven in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Interwoven Action”). This lawsuit is a complaint for declaratory judgment, in which Interwoven is requesting that the court find that no valid and enforceable claim of either of the two patents referenced above has been infringed by Interwoven. The case is styled Interwoven, Inc. v Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. No. 3:10-CV-4645-RS.

On January 11, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate its lawsuit with the Interwoven Action. This case is styled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00189-RS. On June 13, 2013, LG and Samsung filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Vertical filed a brief in opposition to this motion on July 1, 2013. All parties have briefed the district court and the motion is pending.

On May 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Vertical’s renewed motion to transfer the Interwoven Action to the Eastern District of Texas and granted Vertical's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by Samsung in the Northern District of California to the Eastern district in Texas. On May 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Interwoven’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California with respect to Interwoven and denied Samsung’s motion to transfer its case to the Northern district.

On December 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a claims construction order in the Interwoven Action concerning the terms found in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an ex parte reexamination certificate of United States Patent No. 7,716,629.  In the ex parte reexamination certificate, Claims 21-36, 29, 30, and 32 were confirmed; Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 28 and 31 were determined to be patentable as amended, Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20, which were dependent on an amended claim, were determined to be patentable, and claims 7, 18 and 27 were not reexamined.

On October 25, 2012, the USPTO notified the Company of its intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate concerning the ex parte reexamination of United States Patent No. 6,826,744.  In the notice of intent to issue ex parte reexamination certificate, the USPTO notified that the prosecution on the merits is closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding and indicated that Claims 6, 8, 19, 22, 30, 32, 41, 44, 50, 51 were confirmed; Claims 1 and 26 were cancelled; Claims 12-17, 20, 34-39, 42 and 43 are not subject to reexamination; newly presented Claims 54-57 are patentable and continuation of patent claims amended: 2-5, 7, 9-11, 18, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 40, 45-49, 52 and 53.

On January 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment for unenforceability and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit in its entirety.

On July 17, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action ruled on Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment with respect to infringement and damages concerning the Patents-in-Suit. The court denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of direct infringement and granted summary judgment in favor of Interwoven with respect to infringement on the doctrine of equivalents and with respect to indirect infringement. The court also granted in part and denied in part Interwoven’s motion to exclude certain expert witness testimony.

Discovery has been completed. The trial date has been postponed and the parties are awaiting a trial date.

On July 8, 2011, we were served with a lawsuit in the Texas State District Court in Dallas, Texas by Clark Consulting Services, Inc. (“CCS”) for breach of contract and other claims.  CCS was seeking damages from us in excess of $133,750 plus attorney’s fees and interest.  On August 8, 2011, we filed an answer denying CCS’s claims and setting forth affirmative defenses.  In December 2011, the Company and CCS entered into a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay CCS $134,000, which was to be paid in installment payments. Due to the Company’s failure to make timely payments, an additional $60,000 was added to the outstanding balance. On October 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement under which we agreed to make monthly payments of $5,000 and pay the outstanding balance plus attorney’s fees and costs by February 1, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, the settlement amount of $149,000 is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. On January 31, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in February, March and April of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on May 1, 2013. In May 2013, the parties agreed to extend the date by which the Company has to pay off the balance of the settlement amount whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in May, June, July and August of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on September 1, 2013.  As of August 14, 2013, the Company has made payments of $70,000 and the outstanding settlement balance is $79,000.

On October 11 2012, Micro Focus (US), Inc. (“Micro Focus”) filed a lawsuit against NOW Solutions in the United States District Court for the southern division district of Maryland alleging breaches of its contractual obligations under an independent software agreement and copyright infringement. On January 28, 2013, NOW Solutions and Micro Focus entered into a settlement agreement whereby NOW Solutions agreed to pay Micro Focus $420,000, of which $25,000 was paid in January and the remaining $375,000 balance is to be paid under a promissory note bearing no interest and payable in three monthly installments of $15,000 beginning in February with the outstanding balance due on April 30, 2013. In connection with the settlement, the Company entered into a guaranty agreement with Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ obligations under the promissory note. The Company did not make the $375,000 payment due to Micro Focus. On May 1, 2013, NOW Solutions received a notice of default concerning its failure to pay the $375,000 balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus has a confession of judgment by NOW Solutions in connection with the promissory note for the outstanding balance due under the note, plus interest at 15% and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 15, 2013, Vertical was served with a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning the guaranty by Vertical to Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. On July 3, 2013, NOW Solutions was served with a lawsuit for a confessed judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus is seeking damages of $375,000, plus attorneys’ fees of $40,000, plus interest at 15% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed. We intend to resolve this matter with Micro Focus.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

A description of the risks associated with our business, financial condition, and results of operations is set forth on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed on April 16, 2013.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

During the six months ended June 30, 2013, 550,000 common shares granted to employees of the Company and a consultant of the Company, valued at $10,225, vested.

For the period from July 1, 2013 through August 14, 2013, the Company cancelled 1,500,000 previously issued common shares and granted 1,500,000 common shares for services to consultants of the Company that vest on December 31, 2103 and are valued at $45,000.

In August 2013, the Company committed to issuing 500,000 common shares in connection with borrowings from a third party lender of $150,000.

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities

None

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable

Item 5. Other Information

None

Item 6. Exhibits

The following documents are filed as part of this report:

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.