|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
3 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2011
|
|
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] |
Note 4. Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Matters
The Company, from time to time, is involved in legal matters arising in the ordinary course of its business including matters involving proprietary technology. While management believes that such matters are currently not material, there can be no assurance that matters arising in the ordinary course of business for which the Company is or could become involved in litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.
Employment Agreements
As of June 30, 2011, the Company had employment agreements in place with five of its key executives. The agreements provide, among other things, for the payment of six to twenty-four months of severance compensation for terminations under certain circumstances. With respect to these agreements, at June 30, 2011, potential severance amounted to $1,918,000 and aggregated annual salaries amounted to $1,360,000.
Commercial Agreements
On May 8, 2007, and June 11, 2007, the Company entered into separate commercial agreements with two unrelated customers granting such customers the exclusive right to sell the Company’s products in specified territories and/or for specified uses. Both customers are required to maintain certain minimum levels of purchases of the Company’s products in order to maintain the exclusive right to sell the Company’s products. Nonrefundable up-front payments amounting to $625,000 were paid under these agreements and were recorded as deferred revenue. On April 16, 2010, the Company terminated the exclusive agreement with one of the customers. Accordingly, during the three months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded as revenue the remaining balance of the unamortized upfront fees which amounted to $210,000. For the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, the Company recorded revenues of $7,000 and $217,000, respectively, related to the non-refundable upfront payments. These amounts were included in product revenue in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations.
On January 28, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with a distributor in China to sell specific Company products into the People’s Republic of China. Pursuant to the agreement, the distributor paid a $350,000 non-refundable upfront payment for which they were given exclusivity to sell these products for the first contract year. The upfront fee will be amortized on a straight line basis over the first contract year. During the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded revenue of $89,000 related to the upfront fee which is included in product revenue in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations. In order to maintain exclusivity in subsequent years, the distributor will need to meet minimum purchase requirements each contract year. The initial term of the contract is for five years and the contract is cancellable if certain conditions are not met.
Agreements with Related Party
On January 26, 2009, the Company entered into a commercial agreement with VetCure, Inc., a California corporation, to market and sell its Vetericyn products. VetCure, Inc. later changed its name to Vetericyn, Inc., which, at the time, remained wholly-owned by Mr. Robert Burlingame. This agreement was amended on February 24, 2009 and on July 24, 2009. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company provides Vetericyn, Inc. with bulk product and Vetericyn, Inc. bottles, packages, and sells Vetericyn products. The Company receives a fixed amount for each bottle of Vetericyn sold by Vertericyn, Inc. At the time of each of these 2009 transactions, Vetericyn was wholly-owned by Mr. Burlingame, who was also a Director at the time. Mr. Burlingame resigned from the Board on February 10, 2010. After his resignation, Mr. Burlingame continued to own a significant portion of the Company’s stock from a transaction in 2009. To the Company’s knowledge, he ceased being a holder of 5% of its common stock in 2010. The agreement was further amended on June 1, 2010 and November 1, 2010.
On September 15, 2009, the Company entered a commercial agreement with V&M Industries, Inc., a California corporation, to market and sell its Microcyn over-the-counter liquid and gel products. At the time of the 2009 transaction, V&M Industries, Inc. was wholly-owned by Robert Burlingame, who was also our Director at the time. Mr. Burlingame resigned from the Company’s Board on February 10, 2010. After his resignation, Mr. Burlingame continued to own a significant portion of the Company’s common stock from a transaction in 2009. To the Company’s knowledge, he ceased being a holder of 5% of the Company’s common stock in 2010. V&M Industries, Inc. subsequently changed their name to Innovacyn, Inc. On June 1, 2010, September 1, 2010, and November 1, 2010, the Company amended this agreement granting Innovacyn, Inc. the exclusive right to sell certain of its over-the-counter products.
Additionally, beginning July 1, 2011, the Company will share profits related to Vetericyn and Microcyn over-the-counter sales. During the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, the Company recorded revenue related to these agreements in the amounts of $563,000 and $361,000, respectively. The revenue is recorded in product revenues in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. At June 30, 2011 and March 31, 2011, the Company had outstanding accounts receivable of $211,000 and $118,000, respectively, related to Innovacyn.
Other Matters
On September 16, 2005, the Company entered into a series of agreements with QP, a Mexico-based company engaged in the business of distributing pharmaceutical products to hospitals and health care entities owned or operated by the Mexican Ministry of Health. These agreements provided, among other things, for QP to act as the Company’s exclusive distributor of Microcyn to the Mexican Ministry of Health for a period of three years. In connection with these agreements, the Company was concurrently granted an option to acquire all except a minority share of the equity of QP directly from its principals in exchange for 150,000 shares of common stock, contingent upon QP’s attainment of certain financial milestones. The Company’s distribution and related agreements were cancelable by the Company on thirty days’ notice without cause and included certain provisions to hold the Company harmless from debts incurred by QP outside the scope of the distribution and related agreements. The Company terminated these agreements on March 26, 2006 without having exercised the option.
Due to its liquidity circumstances, QP was unable to sustain operations without the Company’s subordinated financial and management support. Accordingly, QP was deemed to be a variable interest entity in accordance with FIN 46(R) and its results were consolidated with the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the period of September 16, 2005 through March 26, 2006, the effective termination date of the distribution and related agreement, without such option having been exercised.
Subsequent to having entered into the agreements with QP, the Company became aware of an alleged tax avoidance scheme involving the principals of QP. The audit committee of the Company’s Board of Directors engaged an independent counsel, as well as tax counsel in Mexico to investigate this matter. The audit committee of the Board of Directors was advised that QP’s principals could be liable for up to $7,000,000 of unpaid taxes; however, the Company is unlikely to have any loss exposure with respect to this matter because the alleged tax omission occurred prior to the Company’s involvement with QP. The Company has not received any communications to date from Mexican tax authorities with respect to this matter.
Based on an opinion of Mexican counsel, the Company’s management and the audit committee of the Board of Directors do not believe that the Company is likely to experience any loss with respect to this matter. However, there can be no assurance that the Mexican tax authorities will not pursue this matter and, if pursued, that it would not result in a material loss to the Company.
|