Document and Entity Information (USD $)	12 Months Ended
Document and Entity Information (USD $)	Dec. 31, 2011	Feb. 26, 2012	Jul. 03, 2011
Document and Entity Information [Abstract]
Entity Registrant Name	ULTRALIFE CORP
Entity Central Index Key	0000875657
Document Type	10-K
Document Period End Date	Dec. 31, 2011
Amendment Flag	false
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2011
Document Fiscal Period Focus	FY
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer	No
Entity Voluntary Filers	No
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Entity Filer Category	Accelerated Filer
Entity Public Float			$ 56,000,000
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		17,360,435

Consolidated Balance Sheets (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 5,320	$ 4,641
Restricted cash	166	464
Trade accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $683 and $490, respectively	19,903	34,270
Inventories	34,967	33,122
Due from insurance company	1,730	1,000
Deferred tax asset - current	161	208
Income taxes receivable	220	0
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	1,766	1,949
Total current assets	64,233	75,654
Property, plant and equipment, net	12,588	14,485
Other assets:
Goodwill	18,356	18,276
Intangible assets, net	5,533	6,150
Security deposits and other long-term assets	105	270
Total other assets	23,994	24,696
Total Assets	100,815	114,835
Current liabilities:
Current portion of debt and capital lease obligations	0	8,717
Accounts payable	13,766	16,338
Income taxes payable	11	54
Accrued compensation	1,394	1,701
Accrued vacation	784	681
Deferred revenue	1,786	2,887
Deferred tax liability - current	187	0
Other current liabilities	5,230	5,967
Total current liabilities	23,158	36,345
Long-term liabilities:
Debt and capital lease obligations	0	251
Deferred tax liability - long-term	4,170	3,906
Other long-term liabilities	261	538
Total long-term liabilities	4,431	4,695
Commitments and contingencies (Note 6)
Ultralife equity:
Preferred stock, par value $0.10 per share, authorized 1,000,000 shares; none issued and outstanding
Common stock, par value $0.10 per share, authorized 40,000,000 shares; issued - 18,716,921 and 18,639,683, respectively	1,874	1,865
Capital in excess of par value	172,309	171,020
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	(985)	(1,262)
Accumulated deficit	(92,280)	(90,200)
Total equity	80,918	81,423
Less -Treasury stock, at cost - 1,372,757 and 1,371,900 shares outstanding, respectively	7,658	7,652
Total Ultralife equity	73,260	73,771
Noncontrolling interest	(34)	24
Total shareholders' equity	73,226	73,795
Total Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity	$ 100,815	$ 114,835

Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) (USD $) In Thousands, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010
Consolidated Balance Sheets [Abstract]
Allowance for doubtful accounts	$ 683	$ 490
Preferred stock, par value	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Preferred stock, shares authorized	1,000,000	1,000,000
Preferred stock, shares issued
Preferred stock, shares outstanding
Common stock, par value	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Common stock, shares authorized	40,000,000	40,000,000
Common stock, shares issued	18,716,921	18,639,683
Treasury securities, common shares	1,372,757	1,371,900

Consolidated Statements of Operations (USD $) In Thousands, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010	Dec. 31, 2009
Consolidated Statements of Operations [Abstract]
Revenues	$ 139,386	$ 166,819	$ 154,295
Cost of products sold	103,993	120,163	118,986
Gross profit	35,393	46,656	35,309
Operating expenses:
Research and development (including $313, $409 and $448 of amortization of intangible assets, respectively)	8,595	8,755	9,451
Selling, general, and administrative (including $314, $408 and $496 of amortization of intangible assets, respectively)	24,323	26,039	29,407
Total operating expenses	32,918	34,794	38,858
Operating income (loss)	2,475	11,862	(3,549)
Other income (expense):
Interest income	5		21
Interest expense	(559)	(1,138)	(1,452)
Miscellaneous	171	145	(23)
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes	2,092	10,869	(5,003)
Income tax provision (benefit)-current	32	(557)	31
Income tax provision-deferred	496	258	171
Total income taxes provision (benefit)	528	(299)	202
Net income (loss) from continuing operations	1,564	11,168	(5,205)
Discontinued operations:
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax	(3,702)	(17,377)	(4,026)
Net income (loss)	(2,138)	(6,209)	(9,231)
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest	58	30	(10)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife	$ (2,080)	$ (6,179)	$ (9,241)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shareholders-basic
Continuing operations	$ 0.09	$ 0.65	$ (0.31)
Discontinued operations	$ (0.21)	$ (1.01)	$ (0.23)
Total	$ (0.12)	$ (0.36)	$ (0.54)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shareholders-diluted
Continuing operations	$ 0.09	$ 0.65	$ (0.31)
Discontinued operations	$ (0.21)	$ (1.01)	$ (0.23)
Total	$ (0.12)	$ (0.36)	$ (0.54)
Weighted average shares outstanding-basic	17,304	17,157	16,989
Weighted average shares outstanding-diluted	17,336	17,166	16,989

Consolidated Statements of Operations (Parenthetical) (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010	Dec. 31, 2009
Amortization of intangible assets	$ 627	$ 817	$ 944
Research and development
Amortization of intangible assets	313	409	448
Selling general and administrative
Amortization of intangible assets	$ 314	$ 408	$ 496

- Definition

The aggregate expense charged against earnings to allocate the cost of intangible assets (nonphysical assets not used in production) in a systematic and rational manner to the periods expected to benefit from such assets. As a noncash expense, this element is added back to net income when calculating cash provided by or used in operations using the indirect method.

+ References+ Details

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholder's Equity and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (USD $) In Thousands, except Share data, unless otherwise specified	Total	Common Stock	Noncontrolling Interest	Capital in excess of Par Value	Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) Foreign Currency Translation Adjustment	Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) Other Unrealized Net Gain (Loss)	Accumulated Deficit	Treasury Stock
Beginning balance at Dec. 31, 2008	$ 88,153	$ 1,815	$ 21	$ 167,259	$ (1,918)	$ (12)	$ (74,780)	$ (4,232)
Beginning balance, shares at Dec. 31, 2008		18,227,009
Comprehensive loss:
Net loss	(9,231)		10				(9,241)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Foreign currency translation adjustments	662				662
Unrealized loss on interest rate swap arrangements	12					12
Other comprehensive income (loss)	674
Comprehensive loss	(8,557)
Investment in India JV by noncontrolling interest	23		23
Short-swing profit recovery	6			6
Stock-based compensation related to stock options	964			964
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants, shares		7,756
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants	100			100
Shares purchased in connection with stock repurchase program	(3,326)							(3,326)
Shares issued in connection with acquisitions, shares		21,340
Shares issued in connection with acquisitions	136	2		134
Shares issued to directors, shares		46,339
Shares issued to directors	266	5		261
Shares issued under stock option and warrant exercises, shares		82,472
Shares issued under stock option and warrant exercises	349	9		340
Ending balance at Dec. 31, 2009	78,114	1,831	54	169,064	(1,256)	0	(84,021)	(7,558)
Ending balance, shares at Dec. 31, 2009		18,384,916
Comprehensive loss:
Net loss	(6,209)		(30)				(6,179)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Foreign currency translation adjustments	(6)				(6)
Other comprehensive income (loss)	(6)
Comprehensive loss	(6,215)
Stock-based compensation related to stock options	670			670
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants, shares		(27,535)
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants	(2)			92				(94)
Shares issued in connection with acquisitions, shares		200,000
Shares issued in connection with acquisitions	858	20		838
Shares issued to directors, shares		66,301
Shares issued to directors	315	13		302
Shares issued under stock option and warrant exercises, shares		16,001
Shares issued under stock option and warrant exercises	55	1		54
Ending balance at Dec. 31, 2010	73,795	1,865	24	171,020	(1,262)	0	(90,200)	(7,652)
Ending balance, shares at Dec. 31, 2010		18,639,683
Comprehensive loss:
Net loss	(2,138)		(58)				(2,080)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Foreign currency translation adjustments	277				277
Other comprehensive income (loss)	277
Comprehensive loss	(1,861)
Stock-based compensation related to stock options	946			946
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants, shares		(2,905)
Shares issued (cancelled) and compensation under restricted stock grants	(33)			(27)				(6)
Shares issued to directors, shares		61,643
Shares issued to directors	306	7		299
Shares issued under stock option exercises, shares		18,500
Shares issued under stock option exercises	73	2		71
Ending balance at Dec. 31, 2011	$ 73,226	$ 1,874	$ (34)	$ 172,309	$ (985)	$ 0	$ (92,280)	$ (7,658)
Ending balance, shares at Dec. 31, 2011		18,716,921

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2010	Dec. 31, 2009
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net loss	$ (2,138)	$ (6,209)	$ (9,231)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax	3,702	17,377	4,026
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) from continuing operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization of financing fees	3,692	3,705	3,866
Amortization of intangible assets	627	817	944
(Gain) loss on long-lived asset disposal and write-offs	76	(217)	79
Foreign exchange (gain) loss	(95)	(124)	49
Gain on litigation settlement			(1,256)
Non-cash stock-based compensation	1,225	1,077	1,330
Changes in deferred income taxes	496	258	171
Provision for loss on accounts receivable	237	(216)	188
Provision for inventory obsolescence	1,537	387	1,123
Provision for warranty charges	591	602	436
Provision for workers' compensation obligation	(217)	(303)	170
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	14,081	(3,096)	(125)
Inventories	(5,453)	2,113	5,527
Income taxes receivable	(220)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	232	(737)	(99)
Insurance receivable relating to fires	(1,730)
Income taxes payable	(43)	26	(554)
Accounts payable and other liabilities	(5,677)	(4,730)	(4,829)
Net cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations	10,923	10,730	1,815
Net cash provided by operating activities from discontinued operations	39	179	217
Net cash provided by operating activities	10,962	10,909	2,032
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Purchase of property and equipment	(2,362)	(1,762)	(1,820)
Proceeds from asset disposal	28	445
Change in restricted cash	298	(464)
Payment for acquired companies, net of cash acquired	(50)	(137)	(6,766)
Net cash used in investing activities from continuing operations	(2,086)	(1,918)	(8,586)
Net cash provided from (used in) investing activities from discontinued operations	87	(33)	(215)
Net cash used in investing activities	(1,999)	(1,951)	(8,801)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Net change in revolving credit facilities	(8,541)	(6,959)	15,500
Proceeds from issuance of common stock	73	55	349
Proceeds from issuance of debt			751
Principal payments on debt and capital lease obligations	(8)	(3,574)	(2,359)
Purchase of treasury stock			(3,326)
Short-swing profit recovery			6
Net cash used in financing activities from continuing operations	(8,476)	(10,478)	10,921
Net cash used in financing activities from discontinued operations	(128)	(151)	(160)
Net cash used in financing activities	(8,604)	(10,629)	10,761
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash	320	218	224
Change in cash and cash equivalents	679	(1,453)	4,216
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	4,641	6,094	1,878
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	5,320	4,641	6,094
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION
Cash paid for interest	413	845	1,289
Cash paid for income taxes	295	1	605
Noncash investing and financing activities:
Issuance of common stock for acquired companies		858
Purchase of property and equipment via capital lease payable		$ 303	$ 102

Summary of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Summary of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies and Supplemental Balance Sheet Information [Abstract]

Summary of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies

Note 1—Summary of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies

a.	Description of Business

We offer products and services ranging from portable and standby power solutions to communications and electronics systems. Through our engineering and collaborative approach to problem solving, we serve government, defense and commercial customers across the globe. We design, manufacture, install and maintain power and communications systems including: rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries, communications and electronics systems and accessories, and custom engineered systems and solutions. We sell our products worldwide through a variety of trade channels, including original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), industrial and retail distributors, national retailers and directly to U.S. and international defense departments.

b.	Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States and include the accounts of Ultralife Corporation, our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ultralife Batteries (UK) Ltd. (“Ultralife UK”), ABLE New Energy Co., Limited, and its wholly-owned subsidiary ABLE New Energy Co., Ltd. (“ABLE” collectively), RedBlack Communications, Inc. (“RedBlack”) and Ultralife Energy Services Corporation (“UES”), and our majority-owned subsidiary Ultralife Batteries India Private Limited (“India JV”). Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Investments in entities in which we do not have a controlling interest are accounted for using the equity method, if our interest is greater than 20%. Investments in entities in which we have less than a 20% ownership interest are accounted for using the cost method.

c.	Management’s Use of Judgment and Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at year end and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Key areas affected by estimates include: (a) reserves for deferred tax assets, excess and obsolete inventory, warranties, and bad debts; (b) profitability on development contracts; (c) various expense accruals; (d) stock-based compensation; and, (e) carrying value of goodwill and intangible assets. Our actual results could differ from these estimates.

d.	Reclassifications

Certain items previously reported in specific financial statement captions have been reclassified to conform to the current presentation.

e.	Cash and Cash Equivalents

For purposes of the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, we consider all demand deposits with financial institutions and financial instruments with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents. For purposes of the Consolidated Balance Sheet, the carrying value approximates fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments.

f.	Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

We extend credit to our customers in the normal course of business. We perform ongoing credit evaluations and generally do not require collateral. Trade accounts receivable are recorded at their invoiced amounts, net of allowance for doubtful accounts. We evaluate the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts quarterly. Accounts outstanding longer than contractual payment terms are considered past due and are reviewed individually for collectability. We maintain reserves for potential credit losses based upon our loss history and specific receivables aging analysis. Receivable balances are written off when collection is deemed unlikely.

Changes in our allowance for doubtful accounts during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	2011			2010			2009

Balance at beginning of year	$	490		$	1,024		$	1,086
Amounts charged (credited) to expense		237			(216	)		188
Amounts credited to other accounts		(2	)		(7	)		(42	)
Uncollectible accounts written-off, net of recovery		(42	)		(311	)		(208	)

Balance at end of year	$	683		$	490		$	1,024

g.	Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market with cost determined under the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. We record provisions for excess, obsolete or slow-moving inventory based on changes in customer demand, technology developments or other economic factors.

h.	Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Estimated useful lives are as follows:


Buildings		10 – 20 years
Machinery and Equipment		5 – 10 years
Furniture and Fixtures		3 – 10 years
Computer Hardware and Software		3 – 5 years
Leasehold Improvements		Lesser of useful life or lease term

Depreciation and amortization are computed using the straight-line method. Betterments, renewals and extraordinary repairs that extend the life of the assets are capitalized. Other repairs and maintenance costs are expensed when incurred. When disposed, the cost and accumulated depreciation applicable to assets retired are removed from the accounts and the gain or loss on disposition is recognized in operating income (expense).

i.	Long-Lived Assets, Goodwill and Intangibles

We regularly assess all of our long-lived assets for impairment when events or circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. For property, plant and equipment and amortizable intangible assets, this is accomplished by comparing the expected undiscounted future cash flows of the assets with the respective carrying amount as of the date of assessment. Should aggregate future cash flows be less than the carrying value, a write-down would be required, measured as the difference between the carrying value and the fair value of the asset. Fair value is estimated either through the assistance of an independent valuation or as the present value of expected discounted future cash flows. The discount rate used by us in our evaluation approximates our weighted average cost of capital. If the expected undiscounted future cash flows exceed the respective carrying amount as of the date of assessment, no impairment is recognized. As a result of this assessment, we recognized a non-cash impairment of $269 and $4,250 in property, plant and equipment and amortizable intangible assets, respectively, in the year ended December 31, 2010. (See Note 3 for additional information.) We did not record any material impairments of long-lived assets in the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2009.

In accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) guidance for goodwill and other intangible assets, we do not amortize goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives, but instead measure these assets for impairment at least annually, or when events indicate that impairment exists. We amortize intangible assets that have definite lives so that the economic benefits of the intangible assets are being utilized over their weighted-average estimated useful life.

The impairment analysis of goodwill consists first of a review of various qualitative factors of the identified reporting units to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, including goodwill. This review includes, but is not limited to, an evaluation of the macroeconomic, industry or market, and cost factors relevant to the reporting unit as well as financial performance and entity or reporting unit events that may affect the value of the reporting unit. If this review leads to the determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit is greater than its carrying amount, further impairment testing is not required. However, if this review cannot support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the reporting unit is greater than its carrying amount, or at our discretion, quantitative impairment steps are performed. This qualitative review is not applied to our other indefinite-lived intangible assets.

The quantitative impairment test for goodwill consists of a comparison of the fair value of the reporting unit with the carrying amount of the reporting unit to which it is assigned. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, a second step of the goodwill impairment test shall be performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The impairment test for intangible assets with indefinite lives consists of a comparison of the fair value of the intangible assets with their carrying amounts. If the carrying value of the intangible assets exceeds the fair value, an impairment loss shall be recognized in an amount equal to that excess. We determine the fair value of the reporting unit for goodwill impairment testing based on a discounted cash flow model. We determine the fair value of our intangibles assets with indefinite lives (trademarks) through the relief from a royalty income valuation approach.

As a result of this assessment, we recognized a non-cash impairment of $7,974 and $1,300 in goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives, respectively, in the year ended December 31, 2010. (See Note 3 for additional information.) There were no impairments of goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives in the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2009.

Based on the final valuations for amortizable intangible assets acquired in the AMTI acquisition during 2009, and the ABLE and McDowell acquisitions during 2006, we project our amortization expense will be approximately $496, $401, $308, $228 and $167 for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2012 through 2016, respectively.

j.	Translation of Foreign Currency

The financial statements of our foreign affiliates are translated into U.S. dollar equivalents in accordance with FASB’s guidance for foreign currency translation, with translation adjustments recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income. Exchange gains (losses) relate to foreign currency transactions included in net income (loss) for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $95, $124, and $(49), respectively.

k.	Revenue Recognition

Product Sales—In general, revenues from the sale of products are recognized when products are shipped. When products are shipped with terms that require transfer of title upon delivery at a customer’s location, revenues are recognized on the date of delivery. A provision is made at the time the revenue is recognized for warranty costs expected to be incurred. Customers, including distributors, do not have a general right of return on products shipped.

Services—Revenue from the sale of installation services is recognized upon customer acceptance, generally the date of installation. Revenue from fixed price engineering contracts is recognized on a proportional method, measured by the percentage of actual costs incurred to total estimated costs to complete the contract. Revenue from time and material engineering contracts is recognized as work progresses through monthly billings of time and materials as they are applied to the work pursuant to the terms in the respective contract. Revenue from customer maintenance agreements is recognized using the straight-line method over the term of the related agreements, which range from six months to three years.

Technology Contracts—We recognize revenue using the proportional effort method based on the relationship of costs incurred to date to the total estimated cost to complete the contract. Elements of cost include direct material, labor and overhead. If a loss on a contract is estimated, the full amount of the loss is recognized immediately. We allocate costs to all technology contracts based upon actual costs incurred including an allocation of certain research and development costs incurred.

Deferred Revenue—For each source of revenues, we defer recognition if: i) evidence of an agreement does not exist, ii) delivery or service has not occurred, iii) the selling price is not fixed or determinable, or iv) collectability is not reasonably assured.

l.	Warranty Reserves

We estimate future costs associated with expected product failure rates, material usage and service costs in the development of our warranty obligations. Warranty reserves, included in other current liabilities and other long-term liabilities as applicable on our Consolidated Balance Sheets, are based on historical experience of warranty claims. In the event the actual results of these items differ from the estimates, an adjustment to the warranty obligation would be recorded.

m.	Shipping and Handling Costs

Costs incurred by us related to shipping and handling are included in cost of products sold. Amounts charged to customers pertaining to these costs are reflected as revenue.

n.	Advertising Expenses

Advertising costs are expensed as incurred and are included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Such expenses amounted to $792, $1,200, and $1,090 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

o.	Research and Development

Research and development expenditures are charged to operations as incurred. The majority of research and development expenses pertain to salaries and benefits, developmental supplies, depreciation and other contracted services.

In 2011, we in entered into a collaboration agreement with The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”), to develop and demonstrate a large hybrid grid-connected energy storage system. As part of this agreement, we will construct and use a prototype energy storage system at our Corporate Headquarters in Newark, New York. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, NYSERDA will reimburse us for certain construction and project research and development costs. During the year ended December 31, 2011, recoveries from NYSERDA for construction costs and project research and development costs were $254 and $56, respectively, and are reflected in the property, plant and equipment, net line on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011 and the research and development line on our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2011, respectively.

p.	Environmental Costs

Environmental expenditures that relate to current operations are expensed or capitalized, as appropriate, in accordance with FASB’s guidance on environmental remediation liabilities. Remediation costs that relate to an existing condition caused by past operations are accrued when it is probable that these costs will be incurred and can be reasonably estimated.

q.	Income Taxes

The asset and liability method, prescribed by FASB’s guidance for the Accounting for Income Taxes, is used in accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between financial reporting and tax basis of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that are expected to be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse.

A valuation allowance is required when it is more likely than not that the recorded value of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. As of December 31, 2011, we continued to recognize a valuation allowance on our net deferred tax asset to the extent they are not able to be offset by future reversing temporary differences, based on a consistent evaluation methodology that was used for 2009 and 2010. The assessment of the realizability of the U.S. NOL was based on a number of factors including, our history of net operating losses, the volatility of our earnings, our historical operating volatility, our historical inability to accurately forecast earnings for future periods and the continued uncertainty of the general business climate as of the end of 2011. We concluded that these factors represent sufficient negative evidence and have concluded that we should record a full valuation allowance under FASB’s guidance on the accounting for income taxes. For the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010, we also recorded a valuation allowance on our net deferred tax asset. A valuation allowance was required for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 related to our U.K. subsidiary due to the history of losses at that facility. A valuation allowance was required for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 related to our ABLE subsidiary due to the history of losses at that facility. For the year ended December 31, 2011, we determined that it is more likely than not that we will fully utilize the NOL related to our ABLE subsidiary and therefore have removed the immaterial valuation allowance during 2011.

We have adopted the provisions of FASB’s guidance for the Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes. We have recorded no liability for income taxes associated with unrecognized tax benefits during 2009 and 2010. In 2011, we had unrecognized tax benefits related to uncertain tax positions which have been recorded as a decrease in our NOL. We have not recorded any interest or penalty in regard to any unrecognized benefit. Interest and penalties would begin to accrue in the period in which the NOL’s related to the uncertain tax positions are utilized. Our policy regarding interest and/or penalties related to income tax matters is to recognize such items as a component of income tax expense (benefit).

r.	Concentration Related to Customers and Suppliers

During the year ended December 31, 2011, we had one major customer, Harris Corporation which comprised 21% of our revenue. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we had two major customers, U.S. Department of Defense and Port Electronics Corp., which comprised 12% and 11% of our revenue, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we had two major customers, the U.S. Department of Defense and Harris Corporation, which comprised 29% and 11% of our revenue, respectively. There were no other customers that comprised greater than 10% of our total revenues during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009.

We have no customers that comprised greater than 10% of our trade accounts receivables as of December 31, 2011 and 2010.

Currently, we do not experience significant seasonal trends in our revenues. However, a downturn in the U.S. economy, such as the one that we recently experienced, or lower demand from the U.S., U.K. and other foreign governments could result in lower sales.

We generally do not distribute our products to a concentrated geographical area nor is there a significant concentration of credit risks arising from individuals or groups of customers engaged in similar activities, or who have similar economic characteristics. While sales to the U.S. Department of Defense have been substantial during 2011, 2010 and 2009, we do not consider this customer to be a significant credit risk. We do not normally obtain collateral on trade accounts receivable.

Certain materials and components used in our products are available only from a single or a limited number of suppliers. As such, some materials and components could become in short supply resulting in limited availability and/or increased costs. Additionally, we may elect to develop relationships with a single or limited number of suppliers for materials and components that are otherwise generally available. Although we believe that alternative suppliers are available to supply materials and components that could replace materials and components currently used and that, if necessary, we would be able to redesign our products to make use of such alternatives, any interruption in the supply from any supplier that serves as a sole source could delay product shipments and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have experienced interruptions of product deliveries by sole source suppliers in the past.

s.	Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures

The FASB guidance for fair value measurements provides a framework for measuring fair value and requires expanded disclosures regarding fair value measurements. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received for an asset or the exit price that would be paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. This accounting standard established a fair value hierarchy, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs, where available. The following summarizes the three levels of inputs required.


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; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or that we corroborate with observable market data for substantially the full term of the related assets or liabilities.

Level 3:		Unobservable inputs supported by little or no market activity that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities.

FASB’s guidance for the disclosure regarding fair value of financial instruments requires disclosure of an estimate of the fair value of certain financial instruments. The fair value of financial instruments pursuant to FASB’s guidance for the disclosure regarding fair value of financial instruments approximated their carrying values at December 31, 2011 and 2010. The fair value of cash, trade accounts receivable, trade accounts payable, accrued liabilities, and our revolving credit facility approximates carrying value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. The estimated fair value of other long-term debt and capital lease obligations approximates carrying value due to the variable nature of the interest rates or the stated interest rates approximating current interest rates that are available for debt with similar terms.

t.	Earnings (Loss) Per Share

On January 1, 2009, we adopted the provisions of FASB’s guidance for determining whether instruments granted in share-based payment transactions are participating securities. The guidance requires that all outstanding unvested share-based payment awards that contain nonforfeitable rights to dividends or dividend equivalents (such as restricted stock awards granted by us) be considered participating securities. Because the restricted stock awards are participating securities, we are required to apply the two-class method of computing basic and diluted earnings per share (the “Two-Class Method”). The retrospective application of the provisions of FASB’s guidance did not change the prior period earnings per share (“EPS”) amount.

Basic EPS is determined using the Two-Class Method and is computed by dividing earnings attributable to Ultralife common shareholders by the weighted-average shares outstanding during the period. The Two-Class Method is an earnings allocation formula that determines earnings per share for each class of common stock and participating security according to dividends declared and participation rights in undistributed earnings. Diluted EPS includes the dilutive effect of securities, if any, and reflects the more dilutive EPS amount calculated using the treasury stock method or the Two-Class Method. For the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, both the Two-Class Method and the treasury stock method calculations for diluted EPS yielded the same result.

The computation of basic and diluted earnings per share is summarized as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Years Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009
Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations attributable to Ultralife	$	1,622		$	11,198		$	(5,215	)
Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations attributable to participating securities (unvested restricted stock awards) (3,000, 18,000 and -0- shares, respectively)		—			(12	)		—

Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations attributable to Ultralife common shareholders (a)		1,622			11,186			(5,215	)
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
Convertible Notes Payable		—			—			—

Net Income (Loss) from continuing operations attributable to Ultralife common shareholders—Adjusted (b)	$	1,622		$	11,186		$	(5,215	)


Net Income (Loss) from discontinued operations attributable to Ultralife common shareholders (c)	$	(3,702	)	$	(17,377	)	$	(4,026	)
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
Convertible Notes Payable		—			—			—

Net Income (Loss) from discontinued operations attributable to Ultralife common shareholders—Adjusted (d)	$	(3,702	)	$	(17,377	)	$	(4,026	)


Average Common Shares Outstanding—Basic (e)		17,304			17,157			16,989
Effect of Dilutive Securities:
Stock Options / Warrants		32			9			—
Convertible Notes Payable		—			—			—

Average Common Shares Outstanding—Diluted (f)		17,336			17,166			16,989


EPS—Basic (a/e)—continuing operations	$	0.09		$	0.65		$	(0.31	)
EPS—Basic (c/e)—discontinued operations	$	(0.21	)	$	(1.01	)	$	(0.23	)
EPS—Diluted (b/f)—continuing operations	$	0.09		$	0.65		$	(0.31	)
EPS—Diluted (d/f)—discontinued operations	$	(0.21	)	$	(1.01	)	$	(0.23	)

There were 2,105,228 outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards as of December 31, 2011, that were not included in EPS as the effect would be anti-dilutive. The dilutive effect of 252,218 outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards were included in the dilution computation for the year ended December 31, 2011. There were 1,762,265 outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards as of December 31, 2010, that were not included in EPS as the effect would be anti-dilutive. The dilutive effect of 49,477 outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards were included in the dilution computation for the year ended December 31, 2010. There were 1,833,134 outstanding stock options, warrants and restricted stock awards as of December 31, 2009, that were not included in EPS as the effect would be anti-dilutive. We also had 236,919 shares of common stock at December 31, 2009 reserved under convertible notes payable, which were not included in EPS as the effect would be anti-dilutive. For the year ended December 31, 2009, diluted earnings (loss) per share was the equivalent of basic earnings (loss) per share due to the net loss.

u.	Stock-Based Compensation

We have various stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described more fully in Note 7. We follow the provisions of FASB’s guidance on share-based payments, which requires that compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements. The cost is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award, and is recognized as an expense over the employee’s requisite service period (generally the vesting period of the equity award).

v.	Segment Reporting

We report segment information in accordance with FASB’s guidance on Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. We have two operating segments. The basis for determining our operating segments is the manner in which financial information is used by us in our operations. Management operates and organizes itself according to business units that comprise unique products and services across geographic locations.

On January 1, 2011, we began to report chargers in the Battery & Energy Products segment, to better align the portfolio of chargers with customers for those products and with how we manage our business operations. Previously, we had reported chargers in the Communications Systems segment.

On March 8, 2011, our senior management, as authorized by our Board of Directors, decided to exit our Energy Services business, which previously was a stand alone business segment. See Note 2 in these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

w.	Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-08, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Goodwill for Impairment”. ASU No. 2011-08 permits entities to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test. An entity would not be required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless the entity determines that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. ASU No. 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for years beginning after December 15, 2011, with early adoption permitted. We adopted this standard during our annual impairment review process in the fourth quarter of 2011. Adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income”. ASU No. 2011-05 requires entities to present the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements of net income and other comprehensive income. ASU No. 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity, which is our current presentation. Further, in December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12 “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05.” This update defers the effective date of ASU No. 2011-05’s requirement to present on the face of the financial statements reclassification adjustments for each component of accumulated other comprehensive income in both net income and other comprehensive income so that the FASB can reconsider those requirements during calendar 2012. These standards will be effective retrospectively for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2011, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of the standards will only impact the presentation of our consolidated financial statements and is not expected to result in a material impact on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-29, “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations—a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”)”. ASU No. 2010-29 amends accounting guidance concerning disclosure of supplemental pro forma information for business combinations. If an entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination that occurred in the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The accounting guidance also requires additional disclosures to describe the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments. ASU No. 2010-29 became effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2010 and applies to business combinations completed on or after that date. The adoption of this pronouncement did not have a significant impact on our financial statements. The future impact of adopting this pronouncement will depend on the future business combinations that we may pursue.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-28, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts”. ASU No. 2010-28 modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test so that for those reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not based on an assessment of qualitative indicators that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. ASU No. 2010-28 became effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2010, and any impairment identified at the time of adoption was recognized as a cumulative-effect adjustment to beginning retained earnings. The adoption of this pronouncement did not have a significant impact on our financial statements.

In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-17, “Revenue Recognition—Milestone Method (Topic 605): Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition—a consensus of the FASB EITF”. ASU No. 2010-17 is limited to research or development arrangements and requires that this ASU be met for an entity to apply the milestone method (record the milestone payment in its entirety in the period received) of recognizing revenue. However, the FASB clarified that, even if the requirements in this ASU are met, entities would not be precluded from making an accounting policy election to apply another appropriate policy that results in the deferral of some portion of the arrangement consideration. The guidance in this ASU will apply to milestones in both single-deliverable and multiple-deliverable arrangements involving research or development transactions. ASU No. 2010-17 became effective for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The adoption of this pronouncement did not have a significant impact on our financial statements.

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements”, which provides additional guidance to improve disclosures regarding fair value measurements. ASU No. 2010-06 amends Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820-10 to add two new disclosures: (1) transfers in and out of Level 1 and 2 measurements and the reasons for the transfers, and (2) a gross presentation of activity within the Level 3 roll forward. ASU 2010-06 also includes clarifications to existing disclosure requirements on the level of disaggregation and disclosures regarding inputs and valuation techniques. ASU 2010-06 applies to all entities required to make disclosures about recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements. ASU No. 2010-06 became effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements, which became effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010. The partial adoption of ASU 2010-06, as of January 1, 2010, did not have a material impact on our financial statements. The adoption of the deferred portions of ASU 2010-06, as of January 1, 2011, did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements—a consensus of the FASB EITF”. ASU No. 2009-13 eliminates the residual method of accounting for revenue on undelivered products and instead, requires companies to allocate revenue to each of the deliverable products based on their relative selling price. In addition, this ASU expands the disclosure requirements surrounding multiple-deliverable arrangements. ASU No. 2009-13 became effective for revenue arrangements entered into for fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The adoption of this pronouncement did not have a significant impact on our financial statements.

Acquisitions and Dispositions & Exit Activities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Acquisitions and Dispositions & Exit Activities [Abstract]

Acquisitions and Dispositions & Exit Activities

Note 2—Acquisitions and Dispositions & Exit Activities

2011 Activity

Ultralife Energy Services Corporation

On March 8, 2011, our senior management, as authorized by our Board of Directors, decided to exit our Energy Services business, which included standby power and systems design, installation and maintenance activities. As a result of management’s ongoing review of our business segments and products, and taking into account the lack of growth and profitability potential of the Energy Services segment as well as its sizeable operating losses over the last several years, we determined it was appropriate to refocus our operations on profitable growth opportunities presented in our other segments, Battery & Energy Products and Communications Systems. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $13,793 to write-off the goodwill and intangible assets and certain fixed assets associated with the standby power portion of our Energy Services business.

The actions taken to exit our Energy Services segment resulted in the elimination of approximately 40 jobs and the closing of five facilities, primarily in California, Florida and Texas, over several months. As of the end of the second quarter of 2011, all exit activities with respect to our Energy Services segment were completed. As a result, the presentation of results herein excludes the Energy Services segment from the results of continuing operations. The following amounts have been reported as discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Years Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009
Net sales	$	3,891		$	11,758		$	17,814

Loss from discontinued operations		(3,702	)		(17,748	)		(3,837	)
(Provision) Benefit for income taxes		—			371			(189	)

Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax		(3,702	)		(17,377	)		(4,026	)

Included in the Loss from discontinued operations described above, we recorded the following exit charges:

		September 30,
	Year Ended
	December 31, 2011
Inventory and fixed asset write-downs	$	941
Employee related, including termination benefits		703
Lease termination costs		250
Other costs		1,030

Total Exit Costs	$	2,924

Cash Component	$	1,984

2009 Activity

We accounted for the following acquisition in accordance with the purchase method of accounting provisions of the revised FASB guidance for business combinations, whereby the purchase price paid to effect an acquisition is allocated to the acquired tangible and intangible assets and liabilities at fair value.

AMTI ^TM Brand

On March 20, 2009, we acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed substantially all of the liabilities of the tactical communications products business of Science Applications International Corporation. The tactical communications products business (“AMTI”), located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, designs, develops and manufactures tactical communications products including amplifiers, man-portable systems, cables, power solutions and ancillary communications equipment that are sold by Ultralife Corporation under the brand name of AMTI.

Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement for AMTI, the purchase price consisted of $5,717 in cash.

The results of operations of AMTI and the estimated fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed were included in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements beginning on the acquisition date. For the year ended December 31, 2010, AMTI contributed net sales of $14,001 and net income of $2,134. From the date of acquisition through December 31, 2009, AMTI contributed net sales of $11,354 and net income of $1,744. Pro forma information has not been presented, as it would not be materially different from amounts reported. The estimated excess of the purchase price over the net tangible and intangible assets acquired of $4,684 was recorded as goodwill in the amount of $1,033. The acquired goodwill has been assigned to the Communications Systems segment and is expected to be fully deductible for income tax purposes.

The following table represents the final allocation of the purchase price to assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the acquisition date:

		September 30,
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash	$	—
Trade accounts receivable, net		693
Inventories		2,534

Total current assets		3,227
Property, plant and equipment, net		339
Goodwill		1,033
Intangible Assets:
Trademarks		450
Patents and Technology		800
Customer Relationships		970

Total assets acquired		6,819


LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable		801
Other current liabilities		301

Total current liabilities		1,102
Long-term liabilities:
Other long-term liabilities		—

Total liabilities assumed		1,102


Total Purchase Price	$	5,717

Trademarks have an indefinite life and are not being amortized. The intangible assets related to patents and technology and customer relationships are being amortized as the economic benefits of the intangible assets are being utilized over their weighted-average estimated useful life of thirteen years.

Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Summary of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies and Supplemental Balance Sheet Information [Abstract]

Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

Note 3—Supplemental Balance Sheet Information

a.	Inventory

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market with cost determined under the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. The composition of inventories was:

		September 30,		September 30,
	December 31,
	2011		2010
Raw materials	$	20,097	$	18,250
Work in process		4,770		6,649
Finished products		10,100		8,223

	$	34,967	$	33,122

b.	Property, Plant and Equipment

Major classes of property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:

		September 30,		September 30,
	December 31,
	2011		2010
Land	$	123	$	123
Buildings and Leasehold Improvements		7,000		6,188
Machinery and Equipment		44,770		45,714
Furniture and Fixtures		1,894		1,702
Computer Hardware and Software		3,815		3,652
Construction in Progress		641		582

		58,243		57,961
Less: Accumulated Depreciation		45,655		43,476

	$	12,588	$	14,485

Estimated costs to complete construction in progress as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 was approximately $1,032 and $372, respectively.

Depreciation expense was $3,629, $3,768, and $3,929 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

c.	Impairment of Goodwill, Intangible Assets and Long-Lived Assets

We applied the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 820, including the early adoption of ASU 2011-08 described in Note 1, during the annual goodwill impairment analysis performed in October 2011. The first, optional, step of the goodwill analysis is to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of the identified reporting units exceeds the respective carrying value. This qualitative analysis includes but is not limited to, an evaluation of the macroeconomic, industry or market, and cost factors relevant to the reporting unit as well as financial performance and entity or reporting unit events that may affect the value of the reporting unit. We performed the qualitative assessment on four out of five of the identified reporting units noting that no further testing was indicated. If a reporting unit does not pass or is not subjected to the qualitative assessment, the fair value of the reporting unit is determined when performing the quantitative assessment. The fair value for our one reporting unit subjected to this quantitative test could not be determined using readily available quoted Level 1 inputs or Level 2 inputs that were observable in active markets. Therefore, we used an income approach, to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit, using Level 3 inputs. To estimate the fair value of the reporting unit, we used significant estimates and judgmental factors. The key estimates and factors used in the valuation model included revenue growth rates and profit margins based on internal forecasts, as well as industry and market based terminal growth rates, inputs to the weighted-average cost of capital used to discount future cash flows, and earnings multiples. As a result of the goodwill impairment test performed during 2011, no impairment was indicated. The fair value measurements of the reporting units included unobservable inputs defined above that are classified as Level 3 inputs.

During 2011, we also evaluated our indefinite lived intangible assets for impairment utilizing valuation methods that are classified as Level 3 inputs. Based upon the results of this evaluation, no impairment was indicated.

During 2011, we also evaluated certain fixed assets for impairment utilizing valuation methods that are classified as Level 3 inputs. Based upon the results of this evaluation, no material impairment was indicated.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, we completed an impairment analysis of the goodwill, intangible assets, and other long-lived assets associated with the standby power business included in the Energy Services segment. As a result of this analysis, in connection with the overall decrease in revenues in 2010 compared to 2009 and the declining gross margins over the last two years for the standby power business, we recognized a non-cash impairment charge of $13,793 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to fully write off the goodwill and intangible assets and partially write off certain fixed assets. In conjunction with the non-cash impairment charge, we impaired goodwill of $7,974, trademarks of $1,300, patents and technology of $431, customer relationships of $3,819 and fixed assets of $269.

During 2010, we also recognized non-cash impairments to indefinite lived and amortizable intangible assets. The impairment charges were calculated by determining the fair value of these assets. The fair value measurements were calculated using unobservable inputs including discounted cash flow analyses classified as Level 3 inputs.

We also recognized non-cash impairments of certain fixed assets during the year ended December 31, 2010. The impairment charges were calculated by determining the fair value of the fixed assets using unobservable inputs including market data for transactions involving similar assets. These inputs were classified as Level 3 inputs.

d.	Goodwill

The following table summarizes the goodwill activity by segment for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010:

		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Battery &		Communications			Discontinued
	Energy Products		Systems			Operations			Total

Balance at December 31, 2009	$	4,687	$	13,701		$	7,048		$	25,436

Adjustments to purchase price allocation		—		(183	)		926			743
Impairment charge		—		—			(7,974	)		(7,974	)
Effect of foreign currency translations		71		—			—			71


Balance at December 31, 2010		4,758		13,518			—			18,276

Effect of foreign currency translations		80		—			—			80


Balance at December 31, 2011	$	4,838	$	13,518		$	—		$	18,356

e.	Other Intangible Assets

The composition of intangible assets was:

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	December 31, 2011
			Accumulated
	Gross Assets		Amortization		Net

Trademarks	$	3,563	$	—	$	3,563
Patents and technology		4,492		3,440		1,052
Customer relationships		3,993		3,143		850
Distributor relationships		378		310		68
Non-compete agreements		396		396		—


Total intangible assets	$	12,822	$	7,289	$	5,533

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	December 31, 2010
			Accumulated
	Gross Assets		Amortization		Net

Trademarks	$	3,559	$	—	$	3,559
Patents and technology		4,474		3,108		1,366
Customer relationships		3,955		2,820		1,135
Distributor relationships		364		274		90
Non-compete agreements		395		395		—


Total intangible assets	$	12,747	$	6,597	$	6,150

Amortization expense for intangible assets was $627, $1,428, and $1,683 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

The change in the cost value of total intangible assets is a result of the effect of foreign currency translations.

Operating Leases

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Operating Leases [Abstract]

Operating Leases

Note 4—Operating Leases

We lease various buildings, machinery, land, automobiles and office equipment. Rental expenses for all operating leases were approximately $1,494, $1,479 and $1,334 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2011 are as follows:

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
2012	2013		2014		2015		2016 and beyond
$ 855	$	490	$	335	$	258	$	65

- Definition

The entire disclosure for operating leases of a lessor. This may inlcude a general description of lessor's leasing arrangements for operating leases, including the basis on which contingent rental payments are determined, the existence and terms of renewal or purchase options and escalation clauses, restrictions imposed by lease arrangements, such as those concerning dividends, additional debt, and further leasing, rent holidays, rent concessions, or leasehold improvement incentives and unusual provisions or conditions.

+ References+ Details

Debt and Capital Leases

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Debt and Capital Leases [Abstract]

Debt and Capital Leases

Note 5—Debt and Capital Leases

Credit Facilities

On February 17, 2010, we entered into a new senior secured asset based revolving credit facility (“Credit Facility”) of up to $35,000 with RBS Business Capital, a division of RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (“RBS”). The proceeds from the Credit Facility can be used for general working capital purposes, general corporate purposes, and letter of credit foreign exchange support. The Credit Facility has a maturity date of February 17, 2013 (“Maturity Date”). The Credit Facility is secured by substantially all of our assets. At closing, we paid RBS a facility fee of $263.

On February 18, 2010, we drew down $9,870 from the Credit Facility to repay all outstanding amounts due under our previous credit facility with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Our available borrowing under the Credit Facility fluctuates from time to time based upon amounts of eligible accounts receivable and eligible inventory. Available borrowings under the Credit Facility equals the lesser of (1) $35,000 or (2) 85% of eligible accounts receivable plus the lesser of (a) up to 70% of the book value of our eligible inventory or (b) 85% of the appraised net orderly liquidation value of our eligible inventory. The borrowing base under the Credit Facility is further reduced by (1) the face amount of any letters of credit outstanding, (2) any liabilities of ours under hedging contracts with RBS and (3) the value of any reserves as deemed appropriate by RBS. We are required to have at least $3,000 available under the Credit Facility at all times.

On January 19, 2011, we entered in a First Amendment to Credit Agreement (“First Amendment”) with RBS. The First Amendment amended the Credit Facility as follows:

(i)

Eligible accounts receivable under the Credit Facility (for the determination of available borrowings) now include foreign (non-U.S.) accounts subject to credit insurance payable to RBS (formerly, such accounts were not eligible without arranging letter of credit facilities satisfactory to RBS).

(ii)

Decreased the interest rate that will accrue on outstanding indebtedness, as set forth in the following table:

		September 30,
Excess Availability	LIBOR Rate Plus

Greater than $10,000		3.00	%

Greater than $6,000 but less than or equal to $10,000		3.25	%

Greater than $3,000 but less than or equal to $6,000		3.50	%

Interest currently accrues on outstanding indebtedness under the Credit Facility at LIBOR plus 3.00%. We have the ability, in certain circumstances, to fix the interest rate for up to 90 days from the date of borrowing.

In addition to paying interest on the outstanding principal under the Credit Facility, we are required to pay an unused line fee of 0.50% on the unused portion of the $35,000 Credit Facility. We must also pay customary letter of credit fees equal to the LIBOR rate and the applicable margin and any other customary fees or expenses of the issuing bank. Interest that accrues under the Credit Facility is to be paid monthly with all outstanding principal, interest and applicable fees due on the Maturity Date.

We are required to maintain a fixed charge ratio of 1.20 to 1.00 or greater at all times as of and after March 28, 2010. As of December 31, 2011, our fixed charge ratio was 3.41 to 1.00. Accordingly, we were in compliance with the financial covenants of the Credit Facility. All borrowings under the Credit Facility are subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions, including the absence of an event of default and accuracy of our representations and warranties. The Credit Facility also includes customary representations and warranties, affirmative covenants and events of default. If an event of default occurs, RBS would be entitled to take various actions, including accelerating the amount due under the Credit Facility, and all actions permitted to be taken by a secured creditor.

As of December 31, 2011, we had $-0- outstanding under the Credit Facility. At December 31, 2011, the interest rate on the asset based revolver component of the Credit Facility was 3.27%. As of December 31, 2011, the revolver arrangement had approximately $14,078 of borrowing capacity, including outstanding letters of credit. At December 31, 2011, we had $413 of outstanding letters of credit related to this facility.

Convertible Notes Payable

On November 16, 2007, under the terms of the stock purchase agreement for Stationary Power Services, Inc. (“SPS”), we issued a $4,000 subordinated convertible promissory note to be held by the previous owner of SPS for partial consideration of the purchase price. The $4,000 subordinated convertible promissory note carried a three-year term, bore interest at the rate of 5% per year and was convertible at $15.00 per share into 266,667 shares of our common stock, with a forced conversion feature at $17.00 per share. We evaluated the terms of the conversion feature under applicable accounting literature, including FASB’s guidance in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities and accounting for derivative financial instruments indexed to, and potentially settled in, a company’s own stock, and concluded that this feature should not be separately accounted for as a derivative. Effective March 28, 2009, we entered into Amended and Restated Subordinated Convertible Promissory Note (“Amended Note”) with William Maher, the former owner of SPS. The Amended Note reduced the principal amount under the original subordinated convertible promissory note (“Original Note”), as issued in connection with the SPS acquisition in November 2007, by $580 to $3,420. This reduction was an offset of amounts owed to SPS from WMSP Holdings, LLC (an entity wholly owned by William Maher). There were no other revisions to any of the other terms of the Original Note. In February 2010, in connection with the closing on the new credit facility with RBS, we made a prepayment of $129 on the outstanding principal balance of the Amended Note. In April 2010, we changed the name of Stationary Power Services, Inc. to Ultralife Energy Services Corporation. The Amended Note matured on November 16, 2010, with principal and accrued interest due in full, totaling $3,312. We paid the $3,312 amount primarily from cash on hand and cash generated from operations, in addition to borrowing from our credit facility.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 6—Commitments and Contingencies

a.	Indemnity

The Delaware General Corporation Law provides that directors or officers will be reimbursed for all expenses, to the fullest extent permitted by law arising out of their performance as our agents or trustees.

b.	Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2011, we have made commitments to purchase approximately $849 of production machinery and equipment.

c.	Royalty Agreements

Technology underlying certain of our products is based in part on non-exclusive transfer agreements. In 2003, we entered into an agreement with Saft Groupe S.A., to license certain tooling for battery cases. The licensing fee associated with this agreement is based on a percentage of the sales price of the individual battery case, up to a maximum of one dollar per battery case. The total royalty expense reflected in 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $5, $242 and $19, respectively. This agreement expires in the year 2017.

d.	Government Grants/Loans

In conjunction with the City of West Point, Mississippi, we applied for a Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) from the State of Mississippi for infrastructure improvements to our leased facility that is owned by the City of West Point, Mississippi. The CDBG was awarded and as of December 31, 2011, approximately $480 has been distributed under the grant. Under an agreement with the City of West Point, we agreed to employ at least 30 full-time employees at the facility, of which 51% of the jobs had to be filled or made available to low or moderate income families, within three years of completion of the CDBG improvement activities. In addition, we agreed to invest at least $1,000 in equipment and working capital into the facility within the first three years of operation of the facility. While we have yet to receive formal notice from the applicable government agency confirming the closure of the grant, we believe that both of these commitments were satisfied as of March 2011 and, therefore, have not recorded an accrual with respect to any potential liability for the grant amounts received under the CDBG.

In conjunction with Clay County, Mississippi, we applied for a Mississippi Rural Impact Fund Grant (“RIFG”) from the State of Mississippi for infrastructure improvements to our leased facility that is owned by the City of West Point, Mississippi. The RIFG was awarded and as of December 31, 2011, approximately $150 has been distributed under the grant. Under an agreement with Clay County, we agreed to employ at least 30 full-time employees at the facility, of which 51% of the jobs had to be filled or made available to low or moderate income families, within two years of completion of the RIFG improvement activities. In September 2010, we received an extension for this commitment to March 31, 2011. In addition, we agreed to invest at least $1,000 in equipment and working capital into the facility within the first three years of operation of the facility. While we have yet to receive formal notice from the applicable government agency confirming the closure of the grant, we believe that both of these commitments were satisfied as of March 2011 and, therefore, have not recorded an accrual with respect to any potential liability for the grant amounts received under the RIFG.

e.	Employment Contracts

We have an employment contract with Michael D. Popielec, our President and Chief Executive Officer, which stays in effect until terminated by either party. This agreement provides for a base salary of $450,000, as adjusted for increases at the discretion of our Board of Directors, and includes incentive bonuses based upon attainment of specified quantitative and qualitative performance goals. This agreement also provides for severance payments in the event of specified events of termination of employment. In addition, this agreement provides for a lump sum payment in the event of termination of employment in association with a change in control.

We have an employment contract with Peter F. Comerford, our Vice-President of Administration & General Counsel and Secretary, with automatic one-year renewals unless terminated by either party. This agreement provides for a minimum salary, as adjusted for annual increases, and may include incentive bonuses based upon attainment of specified management goals. This agreement also provides for severance payments in the event of specified termination of employment. In addition, this agreement provides for a lump sum payment in the event of termination of employment in association with a change in control.

Select key employees are required to enter into agreements providing for confidentiality and the assignment of rights to inventions made by them while employed by us. These agreements also contain certain noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions effective during the employment term and for varying periods thereafter depending on position and location. There can be no assurance that we will be able to enforce these agreements. All of our employees agree to abide by the terms of a Code of Ethics policy that provides for the confidentiality of certain information received during the course of their employment.

f.	Product Warranties

We estimate future costs associated with expected product failure rates, material usage and service costs in the development of our warranty obligations. Warranty reserves are based on historical experience of warranty claims and generally will be estimated as a percentage of sales over the warranty period. In the event the actual results of these items differ from the estimates, an adjustment to the warranty obligation would be recorded. Changes in our product warranty liability during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	2011			2010			2009

Balance at beginning of year	$	1,314		$	1,211		$	1,026
Accruals for warranties issued		591			602			436
Settlements made		(1,066	)		(499	)		(251	)

Balance at end of year	$	839		$	1,314		$	1,211

g.	Post Audits of Government Contracts

We had certain “exigent”, non-bid contracts with the U.S. government, which were subject to audit and final price adjustment, which resulted in decreased margins compared with the original terms of the contracts. As of December 31, 2011, there were no outstanding exigent contracts with the U.S. government. As part of its due diligence, the U.S. government has conducted post-audits of the completed exigent contracts to ensure that information used in supporting the pricing of exigent contracts did not differ materially from actual results. In September 2005, the Defense Contracting Audit Agency (“DCAA”) presented its findings related to the audits of three of the exigent contracts, suggesting a potential pricing adjustment of approximately $1,400 related to reductions in the cost of materials that occurred prior to the final negotiation of these contracts. In addition, in June 2007, we received a request from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Defense (“DoD IG”) seeking certain information and documents relating to our business with the Department of Defense. We cooperated with the DCAA audit and DoD IG inquiry by making available to government auditors and investigators our personnel and furnishing the requested information and documents. The DCAA Audit and DoD IG inquiry were consolidated and the US Attorney’s Office represented the government in connection with these matters. Under applicable federal law, we may have been subject up to treble damages and penalties associated with the potential pricing adjustment. In light of the uncertainty, we decided to enter into discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in April 2011 to negotiate a settlement that would be in the best interests of our customers, employees and shareholders. On April 21, 2011, we were advised by the government that there was a $2,730 settlement-in-principle to resolve all claims related to the contracts, subject to final approval by the Department of Justice. As a result, we recorded a $2,730 charge as a reduction in revenues for the first quarter of 2011. On June 1, 2011, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and on behalf of the Department of Defense that provides that we shall pay the U.S. $2,700 plus accrued interest thereon at the rate of 2.625% per annum from May 6, 2011, with principal payments of $1,000, $567, $567 and $566 being due on June 8, 2011, December 1, 2011, June 1, 2012 and December 1, 2012, respectively. Each principal payment will be accompanied by a payment of accrued interest. As of December 31, 2011, we have made the first two required payments.

h.	Legal Matters

We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of business. We believe that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Arista Power Litigation

On September 23, 2011, we initiated an action against Arista Power, Inc. (“Arista”) and our former senior sales and engineering employee, David Modeen, in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Wayne (Index No. 73379). In our Complaint, we allege that Arista recruited all but one of the members of its executive team from us, subsequently changed its business to compete directly with us by using our confidential information, and during the summer of 2011, recruited Modeen to become an Arista employee. We allege that, as a result of actions by Arista and Modeen: (i) Modeen has breached the terms of his Employee Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure, Non-Compete, Non-Disparagement and Assignment Agreement with us; (ii) Modeen has breached certain agreements, duties and obligations he owed us, including to protect and refrain from disclosing our trade secrets and confidential and proprietary information; (iii) Arista’s employment of Modeen will inevitably lead to the disclosure and use of our trade secrets by Arista, in violation of Modeen’s duties and obligations to us; (iv) Arista unlawfully induced Modeen to breach his agreements with and duties and obligations to us; and (v) Arista’s recruitment and employment of Modeen has breached a subcontract between Arista and us. We seek damages as determined at trial and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The defendants have answered the allegations set forth in the Complaint, without asserting any counterclaims. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.

On December 5, 2011, Arista served us with a Complaint it filed on November 29, 2011 in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Monroe (Index No. 11-13896) against us, our officers, several of our directors, and an employee. In its Complaint, Arista alleges that we and our named defendants have violated the terms of a Confidentiality Agreement with Arista and have unfairly competed against Arista by unlawfully appropriating Arista’s trade secrets and that as a result of such activity, Arista has incurred damages in excess of $60,000. Arista seeks damages, an accounting, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. We and our officers, directors and employee named in the Complaint have yet to answer the allegations set forth in the Complaint.

On December 21, 2011, we and our officers, directors and employee named in Arista’s Complaint filed a motion to dismiss Arista’s Complaint against our officers, directors and employee as Arista’s Complaint fails to state any cause of action against any of them and dismissing the claim of fraud against our officers, directors and employee. Subsequently, Arista filed an Amended Complaint alleging essentially the same causes of action but adding additional factual allegations against us and our officers, directors and employee. In addition, Arista filed a motion to disqualify our outside legal counsel representing us and our officers, directors and employee in both Arista’s Complaint and our Complaint against Arista. In response, we and our officers, directors and employee filed a new motion to dismiss Arista’s Complaint against us in its entirety and seeking dismissal of the fraud claim against us. Arista’s motion to disqualify our outside legal counsel was denied on February 10, 2012. On March 9, 2012, the Court issued its decision on our motion to dismiss, granting the motion to the extent of dismissing some claims against us, but denying the motion to dismiss the individuals from the lawsuit at this preliminary stage.

We initiated the September 23, 2011 Complaint against Arista Power to protect our customers, employees and shareholders from the unauthorized use and theft of our investments in intellectual property, trade secrets and confidential information by Arista and its employees. Protecting our collective intellectual property and know-how, developed at great cost to us to form our competitive position in the marketplace and create value for our shareholders, is a fundamental responsibility of all our employees.

We believe the November 29, 2011 Arista Complaint is retaliatory and without merit. Our development of the foundation for the new product concept for which Arista claims we allegedly used its trade secrets commenced in 2008, long prior to the departure of those individuals who now constitute the executive team of Arista. Furthermore, we believe the purported damage of $60,000 being claimed by Arista is based solely on the reduction in its market capitalization between November 2009 and the filing date of the Complaint. This market value loss is totally unrelated to any actions on account of us, and claims for recovery of this or any other amount are legally and factually baseless.

Accordingly, we will vigorously pursue our complaint against Arista and defend what we believe to be a meritless action on the part of Arista Power.

Energy Services Litigation

In May 2010, we were served with a summons and complaint by a customer of one of our subsidiaries that performed energy services. The complaint sought damages in an amount of at least $1,500 and included claims of breach of contract, negligent installation, and breach of warranty against us and breach of warranty against the manufacturer of the installed batteries. In January 2011, we settled all claims related to the litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, we agreed to pay the customer $1,100, of which, $1,075 was paid by our insurance providers.

9-Volt Battery Litigation

In July 2010, we were served with a summons and complaint filed in Japan by one of our 9-volt battery customers. The complaint alleges damages associated with claims of breach of warranty in an amount of approximately $1,100. We dispute the customer’s allegations against us and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. At this time, we have no basis for assessing whether we may incur any liability as a result of the lawsuit and no accrual has been made or reflected in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011.

Communications Systems Litigation

In October 2008, we filed a summons and complaint against one of our vendors seeking to recover at least $3,600 in damages, plus interest resulting from the vendor’s breach of contract and failure to perform by failing to timely deliver product and delivering product that failed to conform to the contractual requirements. The vendor filed an answer and counterclaim in November 2008 denying liability to us for breach of contract and asserting various counterclaims for non-payment, fraud, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and tortuous interference with contract and prospective economic advantage. In its answer and counterclaims, the vendor claims damages in excess of $3,500 plus interest and other incidental, consequential and punitive damages. In September 2009, we settled all claims related to the litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, we agreed to pay the vendor $1,500 of the $3,556 that we had previously reflected in the accounts payable line of our Consolidated Balance Sheets relating to this matter. We further agreed to issue an $800 credit on future purchases to our customer in this matter. This $800 credit was utilized in full during the fourth quarter of 2009. As a result, we have recognized a net gain on litigation settlement of $1,256, and which has been reflected in the cost of products sold line on our Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Battery & Energy Products Litigation

In January 2008, we filed a summons and complaint against one of our customers seeking to recover $162 in unpaid invoices, plus interest for product supplied to the customer under a Master Purchase Agreement (“MPA”). The customer filed an answer and counterclaim in March 2008 alleging that the product did not conform with a material requirement of the MPA. The customer claims restitution, cost of cover, and incidental and consequential damages in an approximate amount of $2,800. In June 2009, we received a jury verdict in our favor awarding us $162 in damages on our claim and finding no liability on the customer’s counterclaim. We received full payment from the customer on the award in June 2009, and in July 2009, the parties reached an agreement in which the customer agreed not to pursue an appeal from the jury verdict.

Environmental Matter

In conjunction with our purchase/lease of our Newark, New York facility in 1998, we entered into a payment-in-lieu of tax agreement, which provided us with real estate tax concessions upon meeting certain conditions. In connection with this agreement, a consulting firm performed a Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, which revealed the existence of contaminated soil and ground water around one of the buildings. We retained an engineering firm, which estimated that the cost of remediation should be in the range of $230. In February 1998, we entered into an agreement with a third party, which provides that we and this third party will retain an environmental consulting firm to conduct a supplemental Phase II investigation to verify the existence of the contaminants and further delineate the nature of the environmental concern. The third party agreed to reimburse us for fifty percent (50%) of the cost of correcting the environmental concern on the Newark property. We have fully reserved for our portion of the estimated liability. Test sampling was completed in the spring of 2001, and the engineering report was submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) for review. The NYSDEC reviewed the report and, in January 2002, recommended additional testing. We responded by submitting a work plan to the NYSDEC, which was approved in April 2002. We sought proposals from engineering firms to complete the remedial work contained in the work plan. A firm was selected to undertake the remediation and in December 2003 the remediation was completed, and was overseen by the NYSDEC. The report detailing the remediation project, which included the test results, was forwarded to the NYSDEC and to the New York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”). The NYSDEC, with input from the NYSDOH, requested that we perform additional sampling. A work plan for this portion of the project was written and delivered to the NYSDEC and approved. In November 2005, additional soil, sediment and surface water samples were taken from the area outlined in the work plan, as well as groundwater samples from the monitoring wells. We received the laboratory analysis and met with the NYSDEC in March 2006 to discuss the results. On June 30, 2006, the Final Investigation Report was delivered to the NYSDEC by our outside environmental consulting firm. In November 2006, the NYSDEC completed its review of the Final Investigation Report and requested additional groundwater, soil and sediment sampling. A work plan to address the additional investigation was submitted to the NYSDEC in January 2007 and was approved in April 2007. Additional investigation work was performed in May 2007. A preliminary report of results was prepared by our outside environmental consulting firm in August 2007 and a meeting with the NYSDEC and NYSDOH took place in September 2007. As a result of this meeting, the NYSDEC and NYSDOH requested additional investigation work. A work plan to address this additional investigation was submitted to and approved by the NYSDEC in November 2007. Additional investigation work was performed in December 2007. Our environmental consulting firm prepared and submitted a Final Investigation Report in January 2009 to the NYSDEC for review. The NYSDEC reviewed and approved the Final Investigation Report in June 2009 and requested the development of a Remedial Action Plan. Our environmental consulting firm developed and submitted the requested plan for review and approval by the NYSDEC. In October 2009, we received comments back from the NYSDEC regarding the content of the remediation work plan. Our environmental consulting firm incorporated the requested changes and submitted a revised work plan to the NYSDEC in January 2010 for review and approval. Upon approval from the NYSDEC, environmental remediation work was completed in July and August 2010. Our environmental consulting firm prepared a Final Engineering report which was submitted to the NYSDEC for review and approval in October 2010. Comments on the Final Engineering report and associated documents were received from the NYSDEC in December 2010. Our environmental consulting firm revised the Final Engineering report and submitted the report and associated documents to the NYSDEC for review and approval in January 2011. In May 2011, the NYSDEC administratively closed remedial activities associated with the approved work plan. In September 2011, the NYSDEC issued an Assignable Release and Covenant Not to Sue document. As a result, anticipated costs are not expected to exceed those currently reserved. Through December 31, 2011, total costs incurred have amounted to approximately $383, none of which has been capitalized. At December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had $8 and $22, respectively, reserved for this matter.

i.	Workers’ Compensation Self-Insured Trust

From August 2002 through August 2006, we participated in a self-insured trust to manage our workers’ compensation activity for our employees in New York State. All members of this trust had, by design, joint and several liability during the time they participated in the trust. In August 2006, we left the self-insured trust and obtained alternative coverage for our workers’ compensation program through a third-party insurer. In the third quarter of 2006, we confirmed that the trust was in an underfunded position (i.e. the assets of the trust were insufficient to cover the actuarially projected liabilities associated with the members in the trust). In the third quarter of 2006, we recorded a liability and an associated expense of $350 as an estimate of our potential future cost related to the trust’s underfunded status based on our estimated level of participation. On April 28, 2008, we, along with all other members of the trust, were served by the State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board (“Compensation Board”) with a Summons with Notice that was filed in Albany County Supreme Court, wherein the Compensation Board put all members of the trust on notice that it would be seeking approximately $1,000 in previously billed and unpaid assessments and further assessments estimated to be not less than $25,000 arising from the accumulated estimated under-funding of the trust. The Summons with Notice did not contain a complaint or a specified demand. We timely filed a Notice of Appearance in response to the Summons with Notice. On June 16, 2008, we were served with a Verified Complaint. Subject to the results of a deficit reconstruction that was pending, the Verified Complaint estimated that the trust was underfunded by $9,700 during the period of December 1, 1997 – November 30, 2003 and an additional $19,400 for the period December 1, 2003 – August 31, 2006. The Verified Complaint estimated our pro-rata share of the liability for the period of December 1, 1997 – November 30, 2003 to be $195. The Verified Complaint did not contain a pro-rata share liability estimate for the period of December 1, 2003-August 31, 2006. Further, the Verified Complaint stated that all estimates of the underfunded status of the trust and the pro-rata share liability for the period of December 1, 1997-November 30, 2003 were subject to adjustment based on a forensic audit of the trust that was being conducted on behalf of the Compensation Board by a third-party audit firm. We timely filed our Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses on July 24, 2008. In November 2009, the New York Attorney General’s office presented the results of the deficit reconstruction of the trust. As a result of the deficit reconstruction, the State of New York has determined that the trust was underfunded by $19,100 instead of $29,100 during the period December 1, 1997 to August 31, 2006. Our pro-rata share of the liability was determined to be $452. The Attorney General’s office proposed a settlement by which we could avoid joint and several liability in exchange for a settlement payment of $520. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we could satisfy our obligations by either paying (i) a lump sum of $468, representing a 10% discount, (ii) paying the entire amount in twelve monthly installments of $43 commencing the month following execution of the settlement agreement, or (iii) paying the entire amount in monthly installments over a period of up to five years, with interest of 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5% for the two, three, four and five year periods, respectively. We elected the twelve monthly installments option and on May 3, 2010, we received written notice from the Attorney General’s office that the Compensation Board had decided to proceed with the settlement, as proposed, and that payments would commence in June 2010. As of December 31, 2011, we have made all payments under this settlement and have no further obligations outstanding relating to this matter. On October 11, 2011, an order was filed with the Albany County Clerk wherein this lawsuit was discontinued against us.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

+ Details

Shareholders' Equity

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Shareholders' Equity [Abstract]

Shareholders' Equity

Note 7—Shareholders’ Equity

a.	Preferred Stock

We have authorized 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock, with a par value of $0.10 per share. At December 31, 2011, no preferred shares were issued or outstanding.

b.	Common Stock

We have authorized 40,000,000 shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.10 per share.

In February 2009, we issued 4,388 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $37. In May 2009, we issued 10,725 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76. In August 2009, we issued 11,881 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76. In November 2009, we issued 19,345 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $77.

In September 2009, we issued 21,340 shares of common stock to four members of the AMTI management team in accordance with the asset purchase agreement for AMTI, valued at $136.

In February 2010, we issued 19,346 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76. In May 2010, we issued 18,528 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $87. In August 2010, we issued 16,616 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76. In November 2010, we issued 11,811 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76.

On April 27, 2010, we entered into Amendment No. 2 to the USE asset purchase agreement. Under the terms of Amendment No. 2, we agreed to issue an aggregate of 200,000 shares of our unregistered common stock, valued at approximately $858, in full satisfaction of our outstanding obligations to the Selling Shareholders under the USE asset purchase agreement. Amendment No. 2 did not change our original assessment that the contingent payout of shares of common stock was related to the acquisition of the assets of USE. Accordingly, we reflected the payment as additional purchase price. This adjustment resulted in an increase to goodwill of $858.

In February 2011, we issued 11,276 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $77. In May 2011, we issued 17,036 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76. In August 2011, we issued 15,981 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $77. In November 2011, we issued 17,350 unrestricted shares of common stock to our non-employee directors, valued at $76.

c.	Treasury Stock

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had 1,372,757 and 1,371,900 shares, respectively, of treasury stock outstanding, valued at $7,658 and $7,652, respectively. The increase in treasury shares related to the vesting of restricted stock awards for certain key employees, a portion of which were withheld as treasury shares to cover estimated individual income taxes, since the vesting of such awards is a taxable event for the individuals.

In October 2008, the Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $10,000 to be implemented over the course of a six-month period. In April 2009, this share repurchase program expired. Repurchases were made from time to time at management’s discretion, either in the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The repurchases were made in compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines and were subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements, and other factors. We had no obligation under the program to repurchase shares and the program could have been suspended or discontinued at any time without prior notice. We funded the purchase price for shares acquired primarily with current cash on hand and cash generated from operations, in addition to borrowing from our credit facility, as necessary. Under this repurchase program, we made the following share repurchases:

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	2009				2008
Years Ended December 31,	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount

First Quarter		416,305	$	3,326		—	$	—
Second Quarter		—		—		—		—
Third Quarter		—		—		—		—
Fourth Quarter		—		—		212,108		1,815


Total		416,305	$	3,326		212,108	$	1,815

d.	Stock Options

We have various stock-based employee compensation plans, for which we follow the provisions of FASB’s guidance on share-based payments, which requires that compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statements. The cost is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award, and is recognized as an expense over the employee’s requisite service period (generally the vesting period of the equity award).

Our shareholders have approved various equity-based plans that permit the grant of stock options, restricted stock and other equity-based awards. In addition, our shareholders have approved the grant of stock options outside of these plans.

In June 2004, shareholders adopted the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) pursuant to which we were authorized to issue up to 750,000 shares of common stock and grant stock options, restricted stock awards, stock appreciation rights and other stock-based awards. Through shareholder approved amendments to the LTIP in 2006, 2008 and 2011, the total number of authorized under the LTIP increased to 2,900,000.

Stock options granted under the LTIP are either Incentive Stock Options (“ISOs”) or Non-Qualified Stock Options (“NQSOs”). Key employees are eligible to receive ISOs and NQSOs; however, directors and consultants are eligible to receive only NQSOs. Most ISOs vest over a three- or five-year period and expire on the sixth or seventh anniversary of the grant date. All NQSOs issued to non-employee directors vest immediately and expire on either the sixth or seventh anniversary of the grant date. Some NQSOs issued to non-employees vest immediately and expire within three years; others have the same vesting characteristics as options given to employees. As of December 31, 2011, there were 2,258,228 stock options outstanding under the LTIP.

On December 19, 2005, we granted our former President and Chief Executive Officer, John, D. Kavazanjian, an option to purchase 48,000 shares of common stock at $12.96 per share outside of any of our equity-based compensation plans, subject to shareholder approval. Shareholder approval was obtained on June 8, 2006. The stock option is fully vested and expires on June 8, 2013.

On March 7, 2008, in connection with his becoming employed by us, we granted our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Philip A. Fain, an option to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at $12.74 per share outside of any of our equity-based compensation plans. The option is fully vested and expires on March 7, 2015.

On June 9, 2009, in connection with his becoming employed by us, we granted our former Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, John C. Casper, an option to purchase 30,000 shares of common stock at $7.18 per share outside of any of our equity-based compensation plans. The option was to vest in annual increments of 10,000 shares over a three-year period commencing June 9, 2010. As a result of his resignation in November 2009, this option was forfeited.

On December 30, 2010, pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, we granted our President and Chief Executive Officer, Michael D. Popielec, options to purchase shares of common stock under the LTIP as follows: (i) 50,000 shares at $6.42, vesting in annual increments of 12,500 shares over a four-year period commencing December 30, 2011; (ii) 250,000 shares at $6.42, vesting in annual increments of 62,500 shares over a four-year period commencing December 30, 2011; (iii) 200,000 shares at $10.00, with vesting to begin on the date the stock reaches a closing price of $10.00 per share for 15 trading days within a 30-day trading period, with such vesting in annual increments of 50,000 shares over the four anniversary dates of that date; and (iv) 200,000 shares at $15.00, with vesting to begin on the date the stock reaches a closing price of $15.00 per share for 15 trading days within a 30-day trading period, with such vesting in annual increments of 50,000 shares over the four anniversary dates of that date. All such options in items (i) and (ii) shall expire on December 30, 2017. All such options in items (iii) and (iv) shall expire as of the later of December 30, 2017 and five years after the initial vesting commences, but in no event later than December 30, 2020. The options set forth in items (ii), (iii) and (iv) were subject to shareholder approval of an amendment to the LTIP, which approval was obtained on June 7, 2011.

On January 3, 2011, pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, we granted our President and Chief Executive Officer, Michael D. Popielec, an option to purchase 50,000 shares of common stock at $6.58 under the LTIP. The option vests in annual increments of 12,500 shares over a four-year period commencing December 30, 2011. The option expires on December 30, 2017.

In conjunction with FASB’s guidance for share-based payments, we recorded compensation cost related to stock options of $946, $670 and $964 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, there was $1,730 of total unrecognized compensation costs related to outstanding stock options, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.25 years.

We use the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate fair value of stock-based awards. The following weighted average assumptions were used to value options granted during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Years Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009

Risk-free interest rate		0.97	%		1.67	%		1.69	%
Volatility factor		61.62	%		80.61	%		67.75	%
Dividends		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%
Weighted average expected life (years)		3.78			3.56			3.55
Forfeiture rate		15.00	%		14.00	%		10.00	%

We use a Monte Carlo simulation option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of market performance stock-based awards. The following weighted average assumptions were used to value market performance stock options granted during the year ended December 31, 2011. There were no market performance stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2010 or 2009.

		September 30,
	Year Ended
	December 31,
	2011

Risk-free interest rate		2.74	%
Volatility factor		63.78	%
Dividends		0.00	%
Weighted average expected life (years)		5.51
Forfeiture rate		0.00	%

We calculate expected volatility for stock options by taking an average of historical volatility over the past five years and a computation of implied volatility. The computation of expected term was determined based on historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to the contractual terms of the stock-based awards and vesting schedules. The interest rate for periods within the contractual life of the award is based on the U.S. Treasury yield in effect at the time of grant. Forfeiture rates are calculated by dividing unvested shares forfeited by beginning shares outstanding. The pre-vesting forfeiture rate is calculated yearly and is determined using a historical twelve-quarter rolling average of the forfeiture rates.

The following table summarizes data for the stock options issued by us:

		September 30,			September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
Year Ended December 31, 2011
	Number of Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price Per Share		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term		Aggregate Intrinsic Value

Shares under option at beginning of year		1,794,694		$	9.71
Options granted		1,113,900			7.96
Options exercised		(18,500	)		3.94
Options cancelled		(533,866	)		12.30

Shares under option at end of year		2,356,228		$	8.34		5.02 years	$	25

Vested and expected to vest as end of year		2,077,030		$	8.74		4.89 years	$	22
Options exercisable at end of year		989,972		$	9.62		2.97 years	$	16

		September 30,			September 30,		September 30,			September 30,
	2010					2009
Year Ended December 31,	Number of Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price Per Share		Number of Shares			Weighted Average Exercise Price Per Share

Shares under option at beginning of year		1,805,107		$	10.99		1,651,007		$	12.33
Options granted		468,250			5.41		620,070			5.71
Options exercised		(14,000	)		3.91		(103,860	)		4.59
Options cancelled		(464,663	)		10.51		(362,110	)		9.86

Shares under option at end of year		1,794,694		$	9.71		1,805,107		$	10.99

Options exercisable at end of year		1,103,100		$	12.28		1,697,301		$	11.22

The following table represents additional information about stock options outstanding at December 31, 2011:

		September 30,xxxx		September 30,xxxx		September 30,xxxx		September 30,xxxx		September 30,xxxx
Options Outstanding							Options Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices	Number of Outstanding at December 31, 2011		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life		Weighted- Average Exercise Price		Number Exercisable at December 31, 2011		Weighted- Average Exercise Price
$3.91-$ 3.91		224,500		4.68	$	3.91		144,167	$	3.91
$ 4.41-$ 4.41		169,584		5.12	$	4.41		58,753	$	4.41
$ 4.42-$ 4.42		318,000		6.94	$	4.42		-0-	$	0.00
$ 4.70-$ 6.37		122,800		5.84	$	5.28		13,501	$	5.00
$ 6.42-$ 6.42		300,000		6.00	$	6.42		75,000	$	6.42
$ 6.58-$ 9.70		225,166		4.94	$	7.64		114,002	$	8.46
$ 9.84-$12.00		410,283		4.23	$	10.22		210,283	$	10.42
$ 12.18-$12.96		269,395		1.85	$	12.79		257,766	$	12.81
$ 13.22-$16.15		295,000		6.23	$	14.67		95,000	$	13.97
$ 17.12-$17.12		21,500		0.25	$	17.12		21,500	$	17.12

$ 3.91-$17.12		2,356,228		5.02	$	8.34		989,972	$	9.62

The weighted average fair value of options granted during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $2.04, $3.06 and $2.77. The total intrinsic value of options (which is the amount by which the stock price exceeded the exercise price of the options on the date of exercise) exercised during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $45, $43 and $390.

FASB’s guidance for share-based payments requires cash flows from excess tax benefits to be classified as a part of cash flows from financing activities. Excess tax benefits are realized tax benefits from tax deductions for exercised options in excess of the deferred tax asset attributable to stock compensation costs for such options. We did not record any excess tax benefits in 2011, 2010 or 2009. Cash received from option exercises under our stock-based compensation plans for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $73, $55 and $226, respectively.

e.	Warrants

On May 19, 2006, in connection with our acquisition of ABLE New Energy Co., Ltd., we granted warrants to acquire 100,000 shares of common stock. The exercise price of the warrants was $12.30 per share and the warrants had a five-year term. In January 2008, 82,000 warrants were exercised, for total proceeds received of $1,009. In January 2009, 10,000 warrants were exercised, for total proceeds received of $123. In May 2011, the remaining outstanding warrants to acquire 8,000 shares of common stock expired without being exercised.

f.	Restricted Stock Awards

No restricted stock was awarded during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010.

During 2009, we issued 16,286 time-vested restricted stock awards to our executive officers. The restrictions will lapse over a three-year period in equal installments, commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date (January 14, 2009). As of December 31, 2011, 7,364 of these shares had vested, and 7,704 of these shares were forfeited.

During 2009, we issued 6,000 time-vested restricted stock awards to our former Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, John C. Casper. The restrictions were to lapse over a two-year period in equal installments, commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date (June 9, 2009). As a result of his resignation in November 2009, this restricted stock award was forfeited.

During 2009, we issued 2,500 performance-vested restricted stock awards to our former Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, John C. Casper. The restrictions were to lapse only if we met or exceeded the same predetermined target for our operating performance for 2009 as used for determining cash awards pursuant to the non-equity incentive plan. As a result of his resignation in November 2009, this restricted stock award was forfeited.

Restricted stock grants awarded during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 had the following values:

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	Years Ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009
Number of shares awarded		—		—		24,786
Weighted average fair value per share	$	0.00	$	0.00	$	7.44
Aggregate total value	$	—	$	—	$	185

The activity of restricted stock grants of common stock for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 is summarized as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,
				Weighted Average
	Number of Shares			Grant Date Fair Value

Unvested at December 31, 2008		76,664		$	11.47
Granted		24,786			7.44
Vested		(31,093	)		11.60
Forfeited		(23,830	)		9.81

Unvested at December 31, 2009		46,527		$	11.42
Granted		—			0.00
Vested		(9,944	)		12.69
Forfeited		(27,535	)		10.80

Unvested at December 31, 2010		9,048		$	11.94
Granted		—			0.00
Vested		(4,925	)		12.01
Forfeited		(2,905	)		12.07

Unvested at December 31, 2011		1,218		$	11.33

We recorded compensation cost related to restricted stock grants of $(27), $92 and $100 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. During the third quarter of 2009, we determined that the performance measures for certain performance-based restricted stock grants would not be achieved. Therefore, these restricted stock grants did not vest, and we reversed the prior period recognized expense of $301 for these performance-based restricted stock grants. As of December 31, 2011, we had $1 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to restricted stock grants, which is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted average period of approximately 0.04 years. The total fair value of these grants that vested during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $32, $44 and $209, respectively.

g.	Reserved Shares

We have reserved 2,939,723, 2,065,366, and 2,106,617 shares of common stock under the various stock option plans, warrants and restricted stock awards as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for shareholders' equity, comprised of portions attributable to the parent entity and noncontrolling interest, if any, including other comprehensive income (as applicable). Including, but not limited to: (1) balances of common stock, preferred stock, additional paid-in capital, other capital and retained earnings; (2) accumulated balance for each classification of other comprehensive income and total amount of comprehensive income; (3) amount and nature of changes in separate accounts, including the number of shares authorized and outstanding, number of shares issued upon exercise and conversion, and for other comprehensive income, the adjustments for reclassifications to net income; (4) rights and privileges of each class of stock authorized; (5) basis of treasury stock, if other than cost, and amounts paid and accounting treatment for treasury stock purchased significantly in excess of market; (6) dividends paid or payable per share and in the aggregate for each class of stock for each period presented; (7) dividend restrictions and accumulated preferred dividends in arrears (in aggregate and per share amount); (8) retained earnings appropriations or restrictions, such as dividend restrictions; (9) impact of change in accounting principle, initial adoption of new accounting principle and correction of an error in previously issued financial statements; (10) shares held in trust for Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP); (11) deferred compensation related to issuance of capital stock; (12) note received for issuance of stock; (13) unamortized discount on shares; (14) description, terms, and number of warrants or rights outstanding; (15) shares under subscription and subscription receivables, effective date of new retained earnings after quasi-reorganization and deficit eliminated by quasi-reorganization and, for a period of at least ten years after the effective date, the point in time from which the new retained dates; and (16) retroactive effective of subsequent change in capital structure.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 235

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.4-08.(d),(e))

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6881521&loc=d3e23780-122690

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 4

-Subparagraph (SAB TOPIC 4.C)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187143-122770

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 6

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21506-112644

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)

-Number Topic 4

-Section C

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 310

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 2

-Subparagraph (SAB TOPIC 4.E)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6228006&loc=d3e74512-122707

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 3

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21475-112644

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 30

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6405834&loc=d3e23285-112656

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 11

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21564-112644

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.29-31)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 5

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21488-112644

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187085-122770

Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21484-112644

Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Glossary Preferred Stock

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6521494

Reference 14: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 505

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6928386&loc=d3e21463-112644

Reference 15: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher AICPA

-Name Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB)

-Number 12

-Paragraph 10

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 16: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Section 04

-Article 3

Reference 17: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Article 4

-Section 08

-Paragraph d

Reference 18: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher AICPA

-Name Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB)

-Number 43

-Chapter 1

-Section B

-Paragraph 7, 11A

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 19: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 129

-Paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 20: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Section 08

-Article 4

Reference 21: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 15

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 22: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Section 02

-Paragraph 29, 30, 31

-Article 5

Reference 23: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB)

-Number Topic 4

-Section E

+ Details

Income Taxes

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Income Taxes [Abstract]

Income Taxes

Note 8—Income Taxes

The provision for income taxes expense (benefit) consists of:

		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,
	December 31,		December 31,			December 31,
	2011		2010			2009

Current—Continuing Operations:
Federal	$	—	$	(582	)	$	17
State		32		25			14
Foreign		—		—			—


		32		(557	)		31


Current—Discontinued Operations:
Federal	$	—	$	—		$	—
State		—		2			—


		—		2			—


Deferred—Continuing Operations:
Federal		277		258			171
State		—		—			—
Foreign		219		—			—


		496		258			171


Deferred—Discontinued Operations:
Federal		—		(373	)		189
State		—		—			—


		—		(373	)		189

Total	$	528	$	(670	)	$	391

We reflected a tax expense of $528 for the year ended December 31, 2011. The 2011 tax provision is principally a result of the increase in the net deferred tax liability related to liabilities generated from goodwill and certain intangible assets that cannot be predicted to reverse for book purposes during our loss carryforward periods. In addition, we incurred state and foreign income taxes in 2011.

We reflected a tax benefit of $670 for the year ended December 31, 2010. The 2010 tax benefit is principally a result of our realization of a current tax benefit related to our election in 2010 to carry back the 2009 net operating loss to the prior five tax years. This amount was partially offset by state income taxes due for 2010. This election resulted in us receiving a refund of any alternative minimum taxes paid in the prior five years. In addition, we realized a deferred tax benefit as a result of the reassessment of the net required deferred tax liability. This reassessment was required due to the impairment of certain goodwill and other intangible assets by us in 2010.

We reflected a tax provision of $391 for the year ended December 31, 2009. The 2009 tax provision is principally a result of the increase in the net deferred tax liability related to liabilities generated from goodwill and certain intangible assets that cannot be predicted to reverse for book purposes during our loss carryforward periods. The current federal tax provision relates to additional 2008 income tax that was paid in 2009. We were not subject to the alternative minimum tax in the U.S. in 2009.

Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effect of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amount used for income tax purposes. Significant components of our deferred tax liabilities and assets are as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,
	December 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010
Deferred tax liabilities:
Property, plant and equipment	$	763		$	661
Intangible assets and other		4,437			3,789

Total deferred tax liabilities		5,200			4,450


Deferred tax assets:
Net operating loss carryforwards		17,578			16,146
Intangible assets		5,079			5,423
Accrued expenses, reserves and other		4,531			5,101
Investments		342			342

Total deferred tax assets		27,530			27,012

Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets		(26,526	)		(26,260	)

Net deferred tax assets		1,004			752


Net deferred tax liability	$	(4,196	)	$	(3,698	)

The $4,196 net deferred tax liability for the year ended December 31, 2011 is comprised of a current deferred tax liability of $187 and a long-term deferred tax liability of $4,170, offset in part by a current deferred tax asset of $161. The $3,698 net deferred tax liability for the year ended December 31, 2010 is comprised of a long-term deferred tax liability of $3,906, offset in part by a current deferred tax asset of $208.

In 2011, 2010 and 2009, in the U.S. and the U.K., we continue to report a valuation allowance for our deferred tax assets that cannot be offset by reversing temporary differences. This results from the conclusion that it is more likely than not that we would not utilize our U.S. and U.K. NOL’s that had accumulated over time. The recognition of a valuation allowance on our deferred tax assets resulted from our evaluation of all available evidence, both positive and negative. The assessment of the realizability of the NOL’s was based on a number of factors including, our history of net operating losses, the volatility of our earnings, our historical operating volatility, our historical inability to accurately forecast earnings for future periods and the continued uncertainty of the general business climate as of the end of 2011. We concluded that these factors represent sufficient negative evidence and have concluded that we should record a full valuation allowance under FASB’s guidance on the accounting for income taxes. In 2010 and 2009, we reported a valuation allowance for our deferred tax assets in China. As a result of our assessment at December 31, 2011, there is no longer a need to record a valuation allowance for the Chinese deferred tax assets as we determined that it is more likely than not that they will be realized. We are more likely than not to fully utilize the NOL in China and therefore have removed the immaterial valuation allowance during 2011. We continually assess the carrying value of this asset based on relevant accounting standards.

As of December 31, 2011, we have foreign and domestic NOL’s totaling approximately $57,977 available to reduce future taxable income. Foreign loss carryforwards of approximately $11,479 can be carried forward indefinitely. The domestic NOL carryforward of $46,498 expires from 2019 through 2031. The domestic NOL carryforward includes approximately $2,949 for which a benefit will be recorded in capital in excess of par value when realized.

We have determined that a change in ownership, as defined under Internal Revenue Code Section 382, occurred during 2005 and 2006. As such, the domestic NOL carryforward will be subject to an annual limitation estimated to be in the range of approximately $12,000 to $14,500. The unused portion of the annual limitation can be carried forward to subsequent periods. We believe such limitation will not impact our ability to realize the deferred tax asset. In addition, certain of our NOL carryforwards are subject to U.S. alternative minimum tax such that carryforwards can offset only 90% of alternative minimum taxable income. This limitation did not have an impact on income taxes determined for 2011, 2010 and 2009. The use of our U.K. NOL carryforwards may be limited due to the change in the U.K. operation during 2008 from a manufacturing and assembly center to primarily a distribution and service center.

For financial reporting purposes, income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes is as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	December 31,			December 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010			2009

United States	$	3,747		$	12,295		$	(2,353	)
Foreign		(1,655	)		(1,426	)		(2,650	)


Total	$	2,092		$	10,869		$	(5,003	)

There are no undistributed earnings of our foreign subsidiaries, at December 31, 2011 or December 31, 2010.

We have been granted a tax holiday in China. As a result of new legislation effective for 2008, ABLE’s corporate income rate increased to 9%, which was 50% of the 2008 tax rate of 18%. For 2009, ABLE’s corporate income rate increased to 10%, which was 50% of the normal 20% tax rate for the jurisdiction in which we operate. Thereafter, our tax rate in China will be phased in until ultimately reaching a rate of 25% in 2012. During the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we realized no tax benefits from the tax holiday due to taxable losses.

The provision for income taxes differs from the amount of income tax determined by applying the applicable U.S. statutory federal income tax rate to income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes as follows:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	December 31,			December 31,			December 31,
	2011			2010			2009

Provision/(benefit) computed using the statutory rate		34.0	%		34.0	%		(34.0	)%

Increase (reduction) in taxes resulting from:
State tax, net of federal benefit		1.0			(0.1	)		0.2
Foreign		26.8			4.4			11.0
Valuation allowance/deferred impact		(46.5	)		(42.8	)		17.0
Compensation		8.7			1.7			7.3
Other		1.2			0.1			2.5

Provision (benefit) for income taxes		25.2	%		(2.7	)%		4.0	%

In 2011, the provision for income taxes was higher than what would be expected if the statutory rate were applied to pretax income. This is due to the continuation of reflecting a full valuation allowance for our U.S. and U.K. deferred tax assets, and as a result of the mix of earnings in foreign jurisdictions.

In 2010, the benefit for income taxes was lower than what would be expected if the statutory rate were applied to pretax income. This is due primarily to three factors. The first factor is the continuation of reflecting a full valuation allowance for our U.S, U.K. and China deferred tax assets, resulting generally in no recognition of a tax benefit for the losses in 2010. The second factor is principally a result of our realization of a current tax benefit related to our election in 2010 to carry back the 2009 net operating loss to the prior five tax years. This election resulted in us receiving a refund of alternative minimum taxes paid in the prior five years. The third factor was that we realized a deferred tax benefit as a result of the reassessment of the net required deferred tax liability. This reassessment was required due to the impairment of certain goodwill and other intangible assets for us in 2010.

In 2009, the provision for income taxes was higher than what would be expected if the statutory rate were applied to pretax income. This is due to the continuation of reflecting a full valuation allowance for our U.S, U.K. and China deferred tax assets.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes

We have adopted FASB’s guidance for the Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes. As a result of the implementation of this guidance, there was no cumulative effect adjustment for unrecognized tax benefits, which would have been accounted for as an adjustment to the January 1, 2007 balance of retained earnings.

Our unrecognized tax benefits related to uncertain tax positions at December 31, 2011 relate to Federal and various state jurisdictions. The following table summarizes the activity related to our unrecognized tax benefits:

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	Years ended December 31,
	2011		2010		2009

Balance at beginning of the year	$	—	$	—	$	—
Increases related to the current year tax positions		6,779		—		—
Increases related to prior year tax positions		—		—		—
Decreases related to prior year tax positions		—		—		—
Expiration of statute of limitations for assessment of taxes		—		—		—
Settlements		—		—		—
Balance at the end of the year		—		—		—

	$	6,779	$	—	$	—

The total unrecognized tax benefit balance at December 31, 2011 is comprised of tax benefits that, if recognized, would result in a deferred tax asset and a corresponding increase in our valuation allowance. As a result, because the benefit would be offset by an increase in the valuation allowance, there would be no effect on the effective tax rate.

We are not required to accrue interest and penalties as the unrecognized tax benefits have been recorded as a decrease in our NOL. Interest and penalties would begin to accrue in the period in which the NOL’s related to the uncertain tax positions are utilized. We do not expect our unrecognized tax benefits to change significantly over the next twelve months.

As a result of our operations, we file income tax returns in various jurisdictions including U.S. federal, U.S. State and foreign jurisdictions. We are routinely subject to examination by taxing authorities in these various jurisdictions. Our U.S. tax matters for the years 1999 through 2011 remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) due to our NOL carryforwards. Our U.S. tax matters for the years 1999 through 2011 remain subject to examination by various state and local tax jurisdictions due to our NOL carryforwards. Our tax matters for the years 2006 through 2011 remain subject to examination by the respective foreign tax jurisdiction authorities. The IRS has completed the examination of our 2009 US Federal income tax return, with no resulting material effect to our financial position or results of operations.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for income taxes. Disclosures may include net deferred tax liability or asset recognized in an enterprise's statement of financial position, net change during the year in the total valuation allowance, approximate tax effect of each type of temporary difference and carryforward that gives rise to a significant portion of deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax assets, utilization of a tax carryback, and tax uncertainties information.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Section 08

-Paragraph h

-Article 4

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 109

-Paragraph 136, 172

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 109

-Paragraph 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 740

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 15

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6907707&loc=d3e32718-109319

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 740

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 9

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6907707&loc=d3e32639-109319

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 235

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.4-08.(h))

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6881521&loc=d3e23780-122690

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 740

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6907707&loc=d3e32537-109319

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 740

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 3

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6907707&loc=d3e32559-109319

+ Details

401(k) Retirement Benefit Plan

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

401(k) Retirement Benefit Plan [Abstract]

401(k) Retirement Benefit Plan

Note 9—Four Zero One(k) Retirement Benefit Plan

We maintain a defined contribution 401(k) plan covering substantially all employees. Employees can contribute a portion of their salary or wages as prescribed under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code and, subject to certain limitations, we may, at the Board of Directors discretion, authorize an employer contribution based on a portion of the employees’ contributions. Effective February 2004, the Board of Directors approved our matching of employee contributions at the rate of 50% of the first 4% contributed by an employee, or a maximum of 2% of the employee’s income. In November 2005, the employer match was suspended in an effort to conserve cash. In October 2007, the employer match was reinstated at the rate of 50% of the first 4% contributed by an employee, or a maximum of 2% of the employee’s income. During the fourth quarter of 2009, the employer match was temporarily suspended in an effort to conserve cash and control costs. In January 2010, the employer match was reinstated at the rate of 50% of the first 4% contributed by an employee, or a maximum of 2% of the employee’s income. For 2011, 2010, and 2009 we contributed $381, $379, and $333, respectively.

Business Segment Information

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Business Segment Information [Abstract]

Business Segment Information

Note 10—Business Segment Information

Segment information previously reported has been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

We report our results in two operating segments: Battery & Energy Products and Communications Systems. The Battery & Energy Products segment includes: lithium 9-volt, cylindrical and various other non-rechargeable batteries, in addition to rechargeable batteries, uninterruptable power supplies, charging systems and accessories, such as cables. The Communications Systems segment includes: power supplies, cable and connector assemblies, RF amplifiers, amplified speakers, equipment mounts, case equipment, integrated communication system kits and communications and electronics systems design. We believe that reporting performance at the gross profit level is the best indicator of segment performance. As such we report segment performance at the gross profit level and operating expenses as Corporate charges.

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Battery &
	Energy		Communications		Discontinued
2011	Products		Systems		Operations			Corporate			Total
Revenues	$	108,203	$	31,183	$	—		$	—		$	139,386
Segment contribution		25,169		10,224		—			(32,918	)		2,475
Interest expense, net									(554	)		(554	)
Miscellaneous									171			171
Income taxes-current									(32	)		(32	)
Income taxes-deferred									(496	)		(496	)
Loss from discontinued operations						(3,702	)					(3,702	)
Noncontrolling interest									58			58

Net income attributable to Ultralife												(2,080	)


Total assets		51,351		38,833		23			10,608			100,815
Capital expenditures		1,209		1,026		—			127			2,362
Depreciation and amortization		2,471		191		93			1,657			4,412
Stock-based compensation		70		6		1			1,148			1,225

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Battery &
	Energy		Communications		Discontinued
2010	Products		Systems		Operations			Corporate			Total
Revenues	$	105,126	$	61,693	$	—		$	—		$	166,819
Segment contribution		24,844		21,812		—			(34,794	)		11,862
Interest expense, net									(1,138	)		(1,138	)
Miscellaneous									145			145
Income taxes-current									557			557
Income taxes-deferred									(258	)		(258	)
Loss from discontinued operations						(17,377	)					(17,377	)
Noncontrolling interest									30			30

Net income attributable to Ultralife												(6,179	)


Total assets		59,790		38,898		6,184			9,963			114,835
Capital expenditures		1,182		195		54			384			1,815
Depreciation and amortization		2,537		115		211			2,487			5,350
Stock-based compensation		107		7		20			943			1,077

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Battery &
	Energy		Communications		Discontinued
2009	Products		Systems		Operations			Corporate			Total
Revenues	$	107,165	$	47,130	$	—		$	—		$	154,295
Segment contribution		21,379		13,930		—			(38,858	)		(3,549	)
Interest expense, net									(1,431	)		(1,431	)
Miscellaneous									(23	)		(23	)
Income taxes-current									(31	)		(31	)
Income taxes-deferred									(171	)		(171	)
Loss from discontinued operations						(4,026	)					(4,026	)
Noncontrolling interest									(10	)		(10	)

Net income attributable to Ultralife												(9,241	)


Total assets		54,559		48,305		18,341			9,961			131,166
Capital expenditures		1,042		163		215			615			2,035
Depreciation and amortization		2,540		189		170			2,828			5,727
Stock-based compensation		36		—		18			1,276			1,330

Geographical Information

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	Revenues						Long-Lived Assets
	2011		2010		2009		2011		2010		2009
United Kingdom	$	11,727	$	19,507	$	8,765	$	334	$	515	$	730
China		8,748		5,706		2,604		1,370		1,413		1,479
Hong Kong		484		1,255		1,242		—		—		—
India		104		356		384		52		65		65
Europe, excluding United Kingdom		8,091		11,665		9,389		—		—		—
Japan		1,440		1,232		1,190		—		—		—
Singapore		567		1,011		362		—		—		—
Canada		5,245		8,441		5,328		—		—		—
Australia		1,815		1,086		1,193		—		—		—
Other		5,357		4,980		3,337		—		—		—

Total Non-U.S.		43,578		55,239		33,794		1,756		1,993		2,274

United States		95,808		111,580		120,501		10,832		12,492		14,374


Total	$	139,386	$	166,819	$	154,295	$	12,588	$	14,485	$	16,648

Long-lived assets represent the sum of the net book value of property, plant and equipment.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for reporting segments including data and tables. Reportable segments include those that meet any of the following quantitative thresholds a) it's reported revenue, including sales to external customers and intersegment sales or transfers is 10 percent or more of the combined revenue, internal and external, of all operating segments b) the absolute amount of its reported profit or loss is 10 percent or more of the greater, in absolute amount of 1) the combined reported profit of all operating segments that did not report a loss or 2) the combined reported loss of all operating segments that did report a loss c) its assets are 10 percent or more of the combined assets of all operating segments.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8380-108599

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 12

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8595-108599

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 32

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8933-108599

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 33

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8971-108599

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 26

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8844-108599

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 131

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 34

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8981-108599

Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 35

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8984-108599

Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 42

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e9054-108599

Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 40

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e9031-108599

Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 31

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8924-108599

Reference 12: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 10

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8538-108599

Reference 13: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 30

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8906-108599

Reference 14: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 41

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e9038-108599

Reference 15: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 280

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 29

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6534315&loc=d3e8864-108599

+ Details

Fire at Manufacturing Facility

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Fire at Manufacturing Facility [Abstract]

Fire at Manufacturing Facility

Note 11—Fire at Manufacturing Facility

In June 2011, we experienced a fire that damaged certain inventory and machinery and equipment at our facility in China. The fire occurred after business hours and was fully extinguished quickly with no injuries, and the plant was back in full operation shortly thereafter with no significant disruption in supply or service to customers. We maintain adequate insurance coverage for this operation.

The total amount of the loss pertaining to assets and the related expenses was approximately $1,573. The majority of the insurance claim is related to the recovery of damaged inventory. As of December 31, 2011, we reflect a receivable from the insurance company relating to this claim of $1,441, which is net of our deductible of approximately $132. The deductible charge was expensed in the second quarter of 2011 and reflected as a component of cost of products sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Subsequent Events

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Subsequent Events [Abstract]

Subsequent Events

Note 12—Subsequent Events

On February 15, 2012, our senior management, as authorized by our Board of Directors, decided to divest our RedBlack Communications business. As a result of management’s ongoing review of our business portfolio, management had determined that RedBlack offers limited opportunities to achieve the operating margin thresholds of our new business model and decided to refocus our operations on profitable growth opportunities presented in the other product lines that comprise our business segments, Battery & Energy Products and Communication Systems. Since 2008, our RedBlack Communications business has incurred significant operating losses. We are seeking to sell our RedBlack business as a going concern and will be engaging appropriate professionals to assist in that effort. We anticipate that the actions taken to divest the RedBlack Communications business will result in the elimination of approximately 30 jobs and the transfer of the RedBlack facility located in Hollywood, Maryland in connection the divestiture. We cannot predict at this time when the closing of any divestiture transaction will occur. Commencing with the first quarter of 2012 and concluding with the ultimate closing of the transaction, the results of RedBlack operations and related divestiture costs will be reported as a discontinued operation.

We cannot at this time determine an estimate or a range of estimates of the extent of the restructuring charges we will incur in connection with the RedBlack divestiture.

Selected Quarterly Information (Unaudited)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Selected Quarterly Information (Unaudited) [Abstract]

Selected Quarterly Information (unaudited)

Note 13—Selected Quarterly Information (unaudited)

The following table presents reported net revenues, gross margin (net sales less cost of products sold), net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—continuing operations, net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—discontinued operations, net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common share—continuing operations, basic and diluted, and net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common share—discontinued operations, basic and diluted, for each quarter during the past two years:

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,		September 30,		September 30,
	Quarter ended
	April 3,			July 3,			Oct 2,		Dec 31,		Full
2011	2011			2011			2011		2011		Year
Revenues	$	28,456		$	43,555		$	36,006	$	31,369	$	139,386
Gross profit		4,538			11,797			9,639		9,419		35,393
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—continuing operations		(4,033	)		2,578			1,388		1,689		1,622
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—discontinued operations		(1,657	)		(2,139	)		—		94		(3,702	)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—continuing operations—basic		(0.23	)		0.15			0.08		0.10		0.09
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—discontinued operations—basic		(0.10	)		(0.12	)		0.00		0.00		(0.21	)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—continuing operations—diluted		(0.23	)		0.15			0.08		0.10		0.09
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—discontinued operations—diluted		(0.10	)		(0.12	)		0.00		0.00		(0.21	)

		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Quarter ended
	March 28,			June 27,			Sept 26,			Dec 31,			Full
2010	2010			2010			2010			2010			Year
Revenues	$	36,469		$	33,647		$	50,812		$	45,891		$	166,819
Gross profit		9,839			9,006			15,125			12,686			46,656
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—continuing operations		1,232			583			5,992			3,391			11,198
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife—discontinued operations		(945	)		(563	)		(1,466	)		(14,403	)		(17,377	)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—continuing operations—basic		0.07			0.03			0.35			0.20			0.65
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—discontinued operations—basic		(0.05	)		(0.03	)		(0.09	)		(0.84	)		(1.01	)
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—continuing operations—diluted		0.07			0.03			0.35			0.20			0.65
Net income (loss) attributable to Ultralife common shares—discontinued operations—diluted		(0.05	)		(0.03	)		(0.09	)		(0.83	)		(1.01	)

Our current monthly closing schedule is a 4/4/5 weekly-based cycle for each fiscal quarter, as opposed to a calendar month-based cycle for each fiscal quarter. Prior to January 1, 2011, we utilized a 5/4/4 weekly-based cycle for each fiscal quarter. While the actual dates for the quarter-ends will change slightly each year, we believe that there are not any material differences when making quarterly comparisons.

Quarterly and year-to-date computations of per share amounts are made independently; therefore, the sum of per share amounts for the quarters may not equal per share amounts for the year.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for the quarterly financial data in the annual financial statements. The disclosure may include a tabular presentation of financial information for each fiscal quarter for the current and previous year, including revenues, gross profit, income or loss before extraordinary items and earnings per share data. It also includes an indication if the information in the note is unaudited, comments on the aggregate effect of year-end adjustments, and an explanation of matters or transactions that affect comparability or are pertinent to an understanding of the information furnished.

+ References+ Details

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts [Abstract]

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,		September 30,
	Additions
	December 31, 2010		Charged to Expense		Charged to Other Accounts			Deductions		December 31, 2011
Allowance for doubtful accounts	$	490	$	237	$	(2	)	$	42	$	683
Inventory reserves		3,781		1,537		1,074			1,233		5,159
Warranty reserves		1,314		591		—			1,066		839
Deferred tax valuation allowance		26,260		496		—			231		26,525

		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Additions
	December 31, 2009		Charged to Expense			Charged to Other Accounts			Deductions			December 31, 2010
Allowance for doubtful accounts	$	1,024	$	(216	)	$	(7	)	$	311		$	490
Inventory reserves		3,990		387			(10	)		586			3,781
Warranty reserves		1,211		602			—			499			1,314
Deferred tax valuation allowance		25,775		(115	)		—			(600	)		26,260

		September 30,		September 30,		September 30,			September 30,			September 30,
	Additions
	December 31, 2008		Charged to Expense		Charged to Other Accounts			Deductions			December 31, 2009
Allowance for doubtful accounts	$	1,086	$	188	$	(42	)	$	208		$	1,024
Inventory reserves		2,850		1,123		17			—			3,990
Warranty reserves		1,026		436		—			251			1,211
Deferred tax valuation allowance		23,605		360		—			(1,810	)		25,775