NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Organization and Business

Scio Diamond Technology Corporation (the “Company”) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada as Krossbow Holding Corp. on September 17, 2009.  The original business plan of the Company was focused on offsetting C02 emissions through the creation and protection of forest-based carbon “sinks.” The Company has since abandoned its original business plan and restructured its business to focus on man-made diamond technology development and commercialization.

On July 13, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Company resolved to authorize a 2-for-1 forward split of its issued and outstanding common shares, whereby every one (1) old share of common stock was to be exchanged for two new shares of the Company’s common stock, effective on August 5, 2011. As a result, the issued and outstanding shares of common stock increased from 3,200,000 prior to the forward split to 6,400,000 following the forward split.  The forward split shares are payable upon surrender of certificates to the Company’s transfer agent.  The accompanying financial statements and notes give retroactive effect to the forward split for all periods presented.

Going Concern

The Company has not generated any significant revenue to date and consequently its operations are subject to all risks inherent in the establishment of a new business enterprise.  For the period from inception, September 17, 2009, through June 30, 2012, the Company has accumulated losses of ($3,925,456).

These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management has responded to these circumstances by taking the following actions:

·                  Focused efforts on the construction and start-up of its state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in South Carolina in order to begin production and generate revenues.

·                  Ongoing solicitation of investment in the Company in the form of a private placement of common shares (and warrants to acquire common shares) to accredited investors.

·                  Responded to potential customer contacts in order to meet potential orders immediately upon production start-up.

In the opinion of management, these actions will be sufficient to provide the Company with the liquidity it needs to meet its obligations and continue as a going concern.  There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will successfully implement these plans.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

Accounting Basis

The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Scio Diamond Technology Corporation (formerly Krossbow Holding Corp.) (referred to herein as “the Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 and the results of operations and cash flows for the three month interim periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 and for the period September 17, 2009 (from inception) through June 30, 2012.  All interim amounts have not been audited, and the results of operations for the interim periods herein are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations to be expected for the year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Form 10-K Annual Report of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Development Stage Company

The financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of GAAP for development-stage companies.  A development-stage company is one in which planned principal operations have not commenced or if its operations have commenced, there have been no significant revenues therefrom.

Basic and Diluted Net Loss per Share

Net loss per share is presented under two formats: basic net loss per common share, which is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period, and diluted net loss per common share, which is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, and the weighted average dilutive potential common shares outstanding, computed using the treasury stock method. Currently, for all periods presented, diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share as the inclusion of weighted average shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options and warrants would be anti-dilutive.

The following table summarizes the number of securities outstanding at each of the periods presented, which were not included in the calculation of diluted net loss per share as their inclusion would be anti-dilutive:

Property, Plant and Equipment

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment is on a straight line basis beginning at the time it is placed in service, based on the following estimated useful lives:

Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the lesser of the remaining term of the lease or the life of the asset (generally three to five years).

Expenditures for major renewals and betterments that extend the useful lives of property and equipment are capitalized. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred.  Equipment has not been placed into service as of June 30, 2012.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets, such as acquired in-process research and development costs, are considered to have an indefinite useful life until such time as they are put into service at which time they will be amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their economic or legal useful life.  Management evaluates indefinite life intangible assets for impairment on an annual basis and on an interim basis if events or changes in circumstances between annual impairment tests indicate that the asset might be impaired. The ongoing evaluation for impairment of its indefinite life intangible assets requires significant management estimates and judgment.  Management reviews definite life intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. There were no impairment charges as of June 30, 2012.

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy prescribed by the accounting literature contains three levels as follows:

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 can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

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

In addition, GAAP requires the Company to disclose the fair value for financial assets on both a recurring and non-recurring basis.  On August 31, 2011, the Company issued Apollo Diamond Inc. (“ADI”)  subscription rights valued at $11,040,000 for the purchase of ADI assets disclosed in Note 2 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.  The fair value of the ADI subscription rights was determined based on an appraisal which used the Black-Scholes model whose assumptions were considered by management to be a level 3 input. At June 30, 2012, the Company had issued Apollo Diamond Gemstone Corporation (“ADGC”)  subscription rights valued at $790,000 for the purchase of ADGC assets disclosed in Note 2 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.  The fair value of the ADGC subscription rights was determined using the Black-Scholes model whose assumptions were considered by management to be a level 3 input.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company had 445,014 warrants outstanding with exercise prices of $0.70 per share. The warrants expire in 2016 and 2017.  The warrants were issued by the Company as compensation for consulting work, placement agent services and cash discounts on facility rent and are valued at $0.52 per warrant using the Black-Scholes model.

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents including restricted cash, accounts receivable, other assets and trade accounts payable approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, Guidance on Testing Goodwill for Impairment.  ASU 2011-08 gives entities testing goodwill for impairment the option of performing a qualitative assessment before calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test.  If entities determine, on the basis of qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying amount, the two-step impairment test would be required.  Otherwise, further testing would not be needed.  ASU 2011-08 will be effective for fiscal and interim reporting periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2011.  The adoption of this accounting standard did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements.

In July 2012 the FASB issued ASU No. 2012-02, Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard).  The revised standard is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of testing indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill for impairment.  It allows companies to perform a “qualitative” assessment to determine whether further impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test.  The revised standard is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted.  The Company will adopt this new standard in 2013.

There are currently no other accounting standards that have been issued that will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows upon adoption.

NOTE 2 — ASSET PURCHASES

The Company purchased certain assets from ADI on August 31, 2011, consisting primarily of diamond growing machines and certain intellectual property related thereto.  The purchase price consisted of an aggregate of $2,000,000 in a combination of cash and a promissory note bearing interest at 4.00% annually and due and owing in full on September 1, 2012, plus the subscription rights for certain current and former stockholders of ADI to acquire approximately 16 million shares of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share (the “ADI Offering”).  The Company has estimated the fair value of these ADI subscription rights to acquire shares of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share to be $0.69 per right.  At the date of the transaction, the fair value of the subscription rights was $11,040,000, and this amount was credited to additional paid-in capital. The fair value of the ADI subscription rights was determined using the Black-Scholes model with the following assumptions: estimated volatility of 100%, risk free interest rate of 0.1%, and an expected life of 1 year.

The following table reflects our purchase price allocation of the assets:

The Company completed a third-party valuation to determine the fair value of the assets acquired.  The final amounts allocated to the ADI assets acquired are based upon the results of that valuation appraisal.

On June 5, 2012, the Company acquired certain of the assets of ADGC (the “ADGC Asset Purchase”), consisting primarily of cultured diamond gemstone-related know-how, inventory, and various intellectual property, in exchange for $100,000 in cash and the right for certain current and former stockholders of ADGC that are accredited investors to acquire up to approximately 1 million shares of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share (the “ADGC Offering”) with the intent that the ADI Offering be conducted substantially concurrently with the ADGC Offering (collectively, the “ADI/ADGC Stockholder Offering”).  The Company intends to fund the $100,000 cash portion of the ADGC Asset Purchase concurrently with the closing of the Offerings and includes it as part of accounts payable at June 30, 2012.  The ADI/ADGC Stockholder Offering began in June and is expected to close on or about August 30, 2012.  The Company has estimated the fair value of such subscription rights to be $0.79 per right.  At the date of the transaction, the aggregate fair value of such subscription rights was $790,000, and this amount was credited to additional paid-in capital. The fair value of such rights to acquire shares of common stock of the Company was determined using the Black-Scholes model with the following assumptions: estimated volatility of 100%, risk free interest rate of 0.1%, and an expected life of 3 months.

The following table reflects our preliminary purchase price allocation of the assets:

The Company will obtain appraisals of the assets acquired and adjust the purchase price allocation no later than December 31, 2012, as necessary.

NOTE 3 — INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Intangible assets consist of the following:

NOTE 4 — NOTES PAYABLE

In conjunction with the purchase of certain assets from ADI on August 31, 2011, the Company entered into a promissory note bearing interest at 4.00% annually and due and payable in full on September 1, 2012.  As of June 30, 2012, $75,000 of the promissory note to ADI remained unpaid.

NOTE 5 — CAPITAL STOCK

The authorized capital of the Company is 75,000,000 common shares with a par value of $ 0.001 per share.

In December 2009, the Company issued 2,000,000 shares of common stock, at a price of $0.002 per share, for total cash proceeds of $4,000.

In January through March 2010, the Company issued 4,400,000 shares of common stock, post 2-for-1 forward split, at a price of $0.005 per share for total cash proceeds of $22,000.

During the three months ended September 30, 2011, the Company issued 18,717,570 shares of common stock.  On August 5, 2011, 3,200,000 shares were issued in a 2-for-1 forward split from Krossbow Holding Corp. shareholders.  As part of a private placement, 2,517,570 shares were issued at a price of $0.70 per share for total cash proceeds, net of fees, of $1,679,064.  13,000,000 shares were issued at a market value price of $0.02 per share purchasing the name “Scio Diamond Technology Corporation” (the “Scio name”) for a total purchase price of $260,000.  The Company purchased the Scio name from a privately-held Nevada corporation, Private Scio, that also had the Scio name.  The Company and Private Scio are entities under common control.  Accounting Standards Codification 805-50-30-5 states that when accounting for a transfer of assets between entities under common control, the entity that receives the asset shall initially measure the recognized asset at the carrying amount in the accounts of the transferring entity at the date of the transfer.  As the Scio name acquired had no carrying value, the value of the shares given to purchase the Scio name were recorded as a deemed distribution so that the accounting basis of the Scio name remained at zero.  In addition, the Company issued 17 million subscription rights with an exercise price of $0.01 per share to certain current and former stockholders of ADI and ADGC as part of the ADI and ADGC asset purchases discussed in Note 2.

During the three months ended December 31, 2011, the Company issued 3,908,000 shares at a price of $0.70 per share for total cash proceeds, net of fees, of $2,672,059.  The Company had 25,825,570 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2011.

During the three months ending June 30, 2012, Company issued 2,538,750 units, each consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant for the purchase of a share of common stock at a price of $1.60 per warrant, for a unit price of $0.80 for total net cash proceeds of approximately $1,998,920.  The Company had 28,551,820 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of June 30, 2012

As of June 30, 2012, the Company had 445,014 warrants outstanding with exercise prices of $.70 per share.  The warrants expire in 2016 and 2017.  The warrants were issued by the Company as compensation for consulting work, placement agent services and cash discounts on facility rent and are valued at $.52 per warrant using the Black-Scholes model.

The Company had 30,466,817 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of the date of this filing.

NOTE 6 — SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

On May 7, 2012, the Company granted to five key management personnel options to purchase a total of 4,660,000 shares of the Company’s stock at $0.70 per share, which is equal to the estimated fair value of the stock on the date of grant.

1,310,000 of the options vested immediately on the date of the grant.  The remaining 3,350,000 options are to be earned based upon specific management objectives including machine delivery, inventory production, profitability and positive cash flow.

Management anticipates that the average term of the options will be three years.  Management has reserved a pool of shares to be issued when the options are exercised.

Using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, management has determined that the options issued in May 2012 have a value of $0.43 per option.  Total compensation costs of $996,955 have been recognized for 2,315,000 options representing those granted in May 2012 which vested immediately and those the objectives for which were determined by management as of the date of this filing to be reasonably probable to occur.  Compensation cost for the remaining 2,345,000 options will be immediately recognized when management determines that the relevant objectives have become reasonably probable to occur.   There is no service period requirement.

For the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized $996,955 and $0, respectively, as compensation cost, and recorded related deferred tax asset of $0 and $0, respectively.

The assumptions used and the calculated fair value of the options are as follows:

At June 30, 2012, unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested awards was $1,008,350.

The following is an analysis of options to purchase shares of the Company’s stock issued and outstanding:

The intrinsic value of options outstanding and of options exercisable at June 30, 2012 was $0 and $0, respectively.

NOTE 7 — RELATED PARTIES

The Company incurred expenses of $38,248 for professional and consulting services provided by AdamsMonahan, LLP, a firm in which our board members, Edward S. Adams and Michael R. Monahan, are partners, for the three months ended June 30, 2012.  For the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company did not incur expenses for professional and consulting services provided by AdamsMonahan, LLP.

On August 5, 2011, the Company executed the Scio Asset Purchase Agreement with another privately-held Nevada corporation that also had the name “Scio Diamond Technology Corporation,” Private Scio.  Under the terms of the Scio Asset Purchase Agreement, the Company purchased the name “Scio Diamond Technology Corporation” and acquired other rights from Private Scio for 13,000,000 newly issued shares of common stock of the Company.  Our directors Edward S. Adams and Michael R. Monahan were directors of Private Scio and Joseph D. Lancia was an officer of Private Scio, and they owned 31.5%, 31.5% and 15.4%, respectively, of Private Scio.  At the time that the Scio Asset Purchase Agreement was executed, our directors Edward S. Adams and Michael R. Monahan had control of the Company.  Edward S. Adams and Michael R. Monahan each acquired, directly or indirectly, 4,100,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to the Scio Asset Purchase Agreement, and Joseph D. Lancia acquired 2,000,000 shares pursuant to the Scio Asset Purchase Agreement.

The Company purchased certain assets from ADI on August 31, 2011, consisting primarily of diamond growing machines and intellectual property related thereto.  The purchase price consisted of an aggregate of $2,000,000 in a combination of cash and a promissory note bearing interest at 4.00% annually and due and owing in full on September 1, 2012, plus the right for certain current and former stockholders of ADI to acquire approximately 16 million shares of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share.  These rights were valued at $11,040,000 in total using the Black-Scholes model.  Both Mr. Adams, in an executive role, and Mr. Monahan previously served in various capacities with ADI through early 2011.

On June 5, 2012, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of ADGC, consisting primarily of cultured diamond gemstone-related know-how, inventory, and various intellectual property, in exchange for $100,000 in cash and the opportunity for certain current and former stockholders of ADGC that are accredited investors to acquire up to approximately 1 million shares of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share.  These rights were valued at $790,000 in total using the Black-Scholes model.  The ADI Offering and the ADGC Offering began in June and are expected to close on or about August 30, 2012.  Mr. Adams and Mr. Monahan served in various capacities with ADGC through early 2011.

NOTE 8 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On July 24, 2012, the Company announced that it had signed a purchase order with an international supplier of precision diamond cutting tool products pursuant to which the Company will be providing CVD single crystal diamond in specified wafer sizes.  The purchase order calls for near term Company sales of an estimated minimum of $1,000,000, with such sales to occur in the second and third fiscal quarters of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, and under certain circumstances and depending upon, among other things, ongoing demand as estimated by the end product manufacturer, could produce aggregate sales by the Company of up to an estimated $5,000,000 during the first 24 months of the order.

On August 3, the Company entered into amended and restated employment agreements under a stock option plan and change in control agreements with our executive officers.  In addition, the Company authorized equity compensation arrangements for our executive officers and adopted an amended and restated Code of Ethics and Business Conduct.

The Company, certain directors and others were served with a complaint in August 2012 filed by a former shareholder of ADI. The complaint alleges certain security and other law violations in connection with the ADI Asset Purchase (see note 2). The claimant seeks damages to be established at trial and has not specified monetary damages.   In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Since June 30, 2012, the Company achieved specified performance milestones that triggered the funding of $1,100,000 in net proceeds under subscription agreements that were entered into in May of 2012 with respect to the sale of units, each unit consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant for the purchase of a share of common stock at a price of $1.60 per warrant, for a unit price of $0.80.  A total of 1,375,000 units were issued in connection with this performance-milestone-related funding, which represented the final commitment to acquire units under certain subscription agreements.  In addition to the foregoing, since June 30, 2012 the Company has sold an additional 540,000 units for aggregate net proceeds of $423,840.

On August 13, 2012, the Company named Bernard M. McPheely to the Board of Directors.  As of August 13, 2012, the Company’s understanding is that Mr. McPheely was the beneficial owner of 500,000 shares (1.7%) of the Company’s common stock (which beneficial ownership includes shares underlying currently exercisable warrants that have an exercise price of $1.60) and that the trust that designated Mr. McPheely to serve on the board was the beneficial owner of 5,000,000 shares (15.6%) of the Company’s common stock (which beneficial ownership includes shares underlying currently exercisable warrants that have an exercise price of $1.60).

Going Concern

The Company has not generated any significant revenue to date and consequently its operations are subject to all risks inherent in the establishment of a new business enterprise.  For the period from inception, September 17, 2009, through June 30, 2012, the Company has accumulated losses of ($3,925,456).

These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management has responded to these circumstances by taking the following actions:

·                  Focused efforts on the construction and start-up of its state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in South Carolina in order to begin production and generate revenues.

·                  Ongoing solicitation of investment in the Company in the form of a private placement of common shares (and warrants to acquire common shares) to accredited investors.

·                  Responded to potential customer contacts in order to meet potential orders immediately upon production start-up.

In the opinion of management, these actions will be sufficient to provide the Company with the liquidity it needs to meet its obligations and continue as a going concern.  There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will successfully implement these plans.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

Accounting Basis

The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Scio Diamond Technology Corporation (formerly Krossbow Holding Corp.) (referred to herein as “the Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the Company’s financial position as of March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012 and the results of operations and cash flows for the three month interim periods ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 and for the period September 17, 2009 (from inception) through June 30, 2012.  All interim amounts have not been audited, and the results of operations for the interim periods herein are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations to be expected for the year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Form 10-K Annual Report of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Development Stage Company

The financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of GAAP for development-stage companies.  A development-stage company is one in which planned principal operations have not commenced or if its operations have commenced, there have been no significant revenues therefrom.

Basic and Diluted Net Loss per Share

Net loss per share is presented under two formats: basic net loss per common share, which is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period, and diluted net loss per common share, which is computed using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding, and the weighted average dilutive potential common shares outstanding, computed using the treasury stock method. Currently, for all periods presented, diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share as the inclusion of weighted average shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options and warrants would be anti-dilutive.

The following table summarizes the number of securities outstanding at each of the periods presented, which were not included in the calculation of diluted net loss per share as their inclusion would be anti-dilutive:

Property, Plant and Equipment

Depreciation of property, plant and equipment is on a straight line basis beginning at the time it is placed in service, based on the following estimated useful lives:

Leasehold improvements are depreciated over the lesser of the remaining term of the lease or the life of the asset (generally three to five years).

Expenditures for major renewals and betterments that extend the useful lives of property and equipment are capitalized. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred.  Equipment has not been placed into service as of June 30, 2012.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets, such as acquired in-process research and development costs, are considered to have an indefinite useful life until such time as they are put into service at which time they will be amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their economic or legal useful life.  Management evaluates indefinite life intangible assets for impairment on an annual basis and on an interim basis if events or changes in circumstances between annual impairment tests indicate that the asset might be impaired. The ongoing evaluation for impairment of its indefinite life intangible assets requires significant management estimates and judgment.  Management reviews definite life intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. There were no impairment charges as of June 30, 2012.

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy prescribed by the accounting literature contains three levels as follows:

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 can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

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

In addition, GAAP requires the Company to disclose the fair value for financial assets on both a recurring and non-recurring basis.  On August 31, 2011, the Company issued Apollo Diamond Inc. (“ADI”)  subscription rights valued at $11,040,000 for the purchase of ADI assets disclosed in Note 2 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.  The fair value of the ADI subscription rights was determined based on an appraisal which used the Black-Scholes model whose assumptions were considered by management to be a level 3 input. At June 30, 2012, the Company had issued Apollo Diamond Gemstone Corporation (“ADGC”)  subscription rights valued at $790,000 for the purchase of ADGC assets disclosed in Note 2 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.  The fair value of the ADGC subscription rights was determined using the Black-Scholes model whose assumptions were considered by management to be a level 3 input.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company had 445,014 warrants outstanding with exercise prices of $0.70 per share. The warrants expire in 2016 and 2017.  The warrants were issued by the Company as compensation for consulting work, placement agent services and cash discounts on facility rent and are valued at $0.52 per warrant using the Black-Scholes model.

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents including restricted cash, accounts receivable, other assets and trade accounts payable approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, Guidance on Testing Goodwill for Impairment.  ASU 2011-08 gives entities testing goodwill for impairment the option of performing a qualitative assessment before calculating the fair value of a reporting unit in Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test.  If entities determine, on the basis of qualitative factors, that the fair value of a reporting unit is more likely than not less than the carrying amount, the two-step impairment test would be required.  Otherwise, further testing would not be needed.  ASU 2011-08 will be effective for fiscal and interim reporting periods within those years beginning after December 15, 2011.  The adoption of this accounting standard did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial statements.

In July 2012 the FASB issued ASU No. 2012-02, Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard).  The revised standard is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of testing indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill for impairment.  It allows companies to perform a “qualitative” assessment to determine whether further impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test.  The revised standard is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted.  The Company will adopt this new standard in 2013.

There are currently no other accounting standards that have been issued that will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows upon adoption.