NOTE 1 — ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Organization and Business

Scio Diamond Technology Corporation (referred to herein as the “Company”, “we”, “us” or “our”) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada as Krossbow Holding Corp. on September 17, 2009. The Company’s focus is on man-made diamond technology development and commercialization.

Going Concern

The Company has generated very little revenue to date and consequently its operations are subject to all risks inherent in the establishment and commercial launch of a new business enterprise.

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:

·         On-going solicitation of investment in the Company in the form of private placements of common shares, secured and unsecured debt to accredited investors;

·         Focused efforts on new business development opportunities to generate revenues and diversify our customer base;

·         Enhanced efforts on optimizing production for existing manufacturing capabilities; and

·         Continued to explore strategic joint ventures, technology licensing agreements and dedicated contract manufacturing to expand company revenue and cash flow, including our recently agreed to joint venture in China.

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 financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, provision for doubtful accounts, sales returns, provision for inventory obsolescence, fair value of acquired intangible assets, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, employee stock options, and contingencies and litigation, among others. The Company generally bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual amounts recorded could differ materially from those estimates

In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 323, Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures, the Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments in corporate joint ventures for which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence but does not control and is not the primary beneficiary. Significant influence typically exists if the Company has a 20% to 50% ownership interest in the venture unless predominant evidence to the contrary exists. Under this method of accounting, the Company records its proportionate share of the net earnings or losses of equity method investees and a corresponding increase or decrease to the investment balances. Cash payments to equity method investees such as additional investments, loans and advances and expenses incurred on behalf of investees, as well as payments from equity method investees such as dividends, distributions and repayments of loans and advances are recorded as adjustments to investment balances. When the Company’s carrying value in an equity method investee is reduced to zero, no further losses are recorded in the Company’s financial statements unless the Company guaranteed obligations of the equity method investee or has committed additional funding.  When the equity method investee subsequently reports income, the Company will not record its share of such income until it equals the amount of its share of losses not previously recognized.  The Company evaluates its equity method investments for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such investments may not be recoverable.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents,  accounts payable and notes payable approximate their fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Company considers highly liquid financial instruments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents.  At March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company held no cash equivalents.

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:

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

An allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable is maintained for estimated losses from customers’ failure to make payment on accounts receivable due to the Company. Management determines the estimate of the allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable by considering a number of factors, including: (1) historical experience, (2) aging of accounts receivable and (3) specific information obtained by the Company on the financial condition and the current credit worthiness of its customers. The Company also maintains a provision for estimated returns and allowances based upon historical experience.  The Company has determined that an allowance was not necessary at March 31, 2014 or 2013.

Other Receivables

As of March 31, 2014, the Company considered a pending insurance settlement over the actions of a Company supplier of $89,192 as an other receivable.  This settlement was agreed to but not paid at March 31, 2014.

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of average cost or market. The carrying value of inventory is reviewed and adjusted based upon slow moving and obsolete items. Inventory costs include material, labor, and manufacturing overhead and are determined by the “first-in, first-out” (FIFO) method.  The components of inventories are as follows:

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, we recorded a lower cost of market write down for inventory of $100,557 due to expected selling prices being lower than cost.  The estimation of the total write-down involves management judgments and assumptions, including assumptions regarding future selling price forecasts, the estimated costs to complete and disposal costs.

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 seven 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. Manufacturing equipment was placed into service beginning July 1, 2012.  The Company incurred total depreciation expense of $700,690 and $490,136 for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company closed its operations in Hudson, Massachusetts.  With this closing the Company recognized a loss of $129,308 for the disposal of certain fixed assets at the location.  Concurrent with the closing of the Hudson facility, the Company re-evaluated the useful life of certain fixed assets acquired from Apollo Diamond in 2012 and decided that an impairment reserve related to these assets of $381,798 was appropriate.

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 are no impairment charges during the years ended March 31, 2014 or 2013.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred income taxes reflect the tax consequences on future years of differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities and their financial reporting amounts. Valuation allowances are provided against deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that an asset will not be realized in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740, Accounting for Income Taxes.

Management has evaluated the potential impact in accounting for uncertainties in income taxes and has determined that it has no significant uncertain income tax positions as of March 31, 2014 or 2013.  Income tax returns subject to review by taxing authorities include March 31, 2010 through March 31, 2014.

Stock-based Compensation

Stock-based compensation for the value of stock options is estimated on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes model takes into account implied volatility in the price of the Company’s stock, the risk-free interest rate, the estimated life of the equity-based award, the closing market price of the Company’s stock on the grant date and the exercise price. The estimates utilized in the Black-Scholes calculation involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management judgment.

Concentration of Credit Risk

During the year ended March 31, 2014 the Company had 27 different customers.  One customer accounted for 58% of our total product revenue.  For the year ended March 31, 2013, one customer accounted for 84% of total revenues for the Company and purchased substantially all of the Company’s production output. The second customer purchased a substantial portion of the Company’s by-product inventory and accounted for 11% of total revenues for the Company.

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. During June 2012, the Company issued to certain current and former stockholders of Apollo Diamond Gemstone Corporation (“ADGC”) that are accredited investors subscription rights valued at $770,000 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.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize product revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery of products has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured. For our Company, this generally means that we recognize revenue when we or our fabrication vendor has shipped finished product to the customer. Our sales terms do not allow for a right of return except for matters related to any manufacturing defects on our part.  The Company recognizes licensing and development revenues in accordance with the contractual terms of the agreements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2012-02, Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard). Under the amendments in this updates, a company has the option first to assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicates that the it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible assert is impaired as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the qualitative impairment test in accordance with Topic 350.  The more likely than not threshold is defined as having a likely-hood of more than fifty percent.  If after assessing the qualitative factors, a company determines it does not meet the more likely than not threshold, a company is required to perform the quantitative impairment test by calculating the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset and comparing the fair value with the carrying amount of the asset.  The Amendments in this update are effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. The Company adopted this new standard in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 and the adoption did not have a significant impact on its financial statements.

In July 2013, the FASB issued ASC 2013-11, “Income Taxes — Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax benefit When a Net Operation Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists”  (“ASU 2013-11”) which is part of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740: Income Taxes.  The new guidance requires and entity to present an unrecognized tax benefit and an NOL carryforward, a similar tax loss or a tax credit carryforward on a net basis as part of a deferred tax asset, unless the unrecognized tax benefit is not available to reduce the deferred tax asset component or would not be utilized for that purpose, then a liability would be recognized.  ASU 2013-11 is effective for annual and interim periods for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2013.  The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the April 1, 2014 adoption of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-9 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” This guidance requires an entity to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and early adoption is not permitted. The Company will adopt this standard in fiscal year 2018. The Company has not yet determined the effect, if any, that the adoption of this standard will have on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

There are currently no other accounting standards that have been issued but not yet adopted by the Company that will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows upon adoption.

NOTE 2 — ASSET PURCHASES

On June 5, 2012, the Company acquired certain of the assets of ADGC (the “ADGC Asset Purchase”), consisting primarily of lab-created 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 qualifying as 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 paid the $100,000 cash portion of the ADGC Asset Purchase during the month of December 2012. The ADI/ADGC Stockholder Offering began in June and was completed in March 2013. At the date of the transaction, the Company estimated the fair value of such subscription rights to be $0.79 per right and the aggregate fair value of such subscription rights was $790,000.  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. Subsequent to the date of the transaction, the Company obtained a third-party valuation to support the fair value of the assets acquired. This valuation determined a slightly lower value of $770,000 for the subscription rights and adjusted the purchase price allocation between inventory and in-process research and development.  Adjustments were made in the March 31, 2013 financial statements to reflect this modification of final purchase price and asset allocation.  The final amounts allocated to the ADGC assets acquired are based upon the results of that valuation appraisal and the following table reflects our final purchase price allocation of the assets:

The ADI/ADGC Stockholder Offering was completed in March 2013 and resulted in the issuance of an aggregate of 16,766,773 shares of the Company’s common stock.

NOTE 3 — INTANGIBLE ASSETS

During the year ended March 31, 2014, the Company evaluated its patent portfolio and allocated $601,000 of the previously acquired in-process research and development from the ADGC Asset Purchase to specific patents related to the gemstone market that are being used by the Company for its commercial operations. These patents were considered placed in service by the Company during the quarter ended June 30, 2013.  During the year ended March 31, 2013, the Company evaluated its patent portfolio and allocated $7,534,063 of the previously acquired in-process research and development to specific patents that are being used by the Company for its manufacturing operations. The assigned values of all patents considered in service by the Company are being amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining effective lives of the patents.

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.

Intangible assets consist of the following:

Total amortization expense during the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 was $775,011 and $369,847, respectively.

Total annual amortization expense of finite lived intangible assets is estimated to be as follows:

NOTE 4 — NOTES PAYABLE

On June 21, 2013, the Company entered into a loan agreement (the “Original Loan Agreement”) with Platinum Capital Partners, LP (“Platinum”) providing for a $1 million secured revolving line of credit that the Company may draw on to fund working capital and other corporate purposes.  Borrowings under the loan agreement accrue interest at the rate of 18% per annum, payable monthly on or before the last calendar day of each month.  The Original Loan Agreement also provides for payment of an accommodation fee of up to 10% of the commitment amount as provided in the loan agreement, and payment of a monthly collateral monitoring fee of $2,000 per month for the first six months and $1,000 per month for the last six months of the term of the loan agreement.  The Original Loan Agreement contains a number of restrictions on the Company’s business, including restrictions on its ability to merge, sell assets, create or incur liens on assets, make distributions to its shareholders and sell, purchase or lease real or personal property or other assets or equipment.  The Original Loan Agreement also contains affirmative covenants and events of default.  The Company may prepay borrowings without premium or penalty upon notice to Platinum as provided in the Original Loan Agreement.  Under a security agreement entered into in connection with the loan agreement, the Company granted Platinum a first priority security interest in the Company’s inventory, equipment, accounts and other rights to payments and intangibles as security for the loan.

On October 11, 2013, the Company entered into a First Amendment to Loan Agreement (the “First Amendment”), dated October 11, 2013, with Platinum, which amends the Original Loan Agreement (as amended by the First Amendment, the “Amended Loan Agreement”) to provide for an additional $500,000 of borrowing capacity (the “Additional Loan” and, together with the original Loan, the “Loan”) under the existing $1 million secured revolving line of credit established under the Original Loan Agreement.  The Company may draw on the line to fund working capital.  On October 11, 2013, $280,750 was drawn on the Additional Loan, $30,750 of which was retained by Platinum to cover applicable fees.

Borrowings accrue interest at the rate of 18% per annum, payable monthly on or before the last calendar day of each month. An interest reserve of $133,500 has been set aside from the proceeds of the New Note to make required payments of interest, provided that interest billed to the Company will first be deducted from a $90,000 reserve established under the Original Note for payments of interest on the Original Note, until that reserve has been exhausted. The Amended Loan Agreement also provides for payment of an accommodation fee of $25,000 and a closing fee of $3,250, the amounts of which were retained by Platinum out of amounts drawn on the Additional Loan on October 11, 2013.  The Company’s obligations under the Amended Loan Agreement are not guaranteed by any other party.  The Company may prepay borrowings without premium or penalty upon notice to Platinum as provided in the Amended Loan Agreement.  The Loan is secured by a security agreement, under which the Company grants Platinum first priority security interest in the Company’s inventory, equipment, accounts and other rights to payments and intangibles as security for the Loan.  The New Note provides for monthly interest payments commencing November 2013 and for repayment of all amounts drawn, together with accrued interest, on June 20, 2014.

The Company has utilized funds drawn on the Original Loan and the Additional Loan to fund its ongoing operations.  The Company has capitalized financing costs related to the Platinum loans of $150,750 that are being amortized over the life of the loans.  The Company recognized $90,917 in amortization expense related to capitalized financing costs during the year ended March 31, 2014.  At March 31, 2014, the total due Platinum including all accrued fees was $1,412,060 and the Company was compliant with all financial debt convents.  At March 31, 2014 the total due Platinum consisted of $1,160,000 in principal borrowings, $121,310 in interest paid with loan advances and $130,750 in commitment and other loan fees.

The Platinum notes matured on June 20, 2014 and the Company went into default status. In default status, Platinum could foreclose on the loan and has the right to take possession of the collateral including the Company’s fixed assets and intellectual property.  In addition, in default status, Platinum has the right to increase the interest rate on the note by 3% upon 30 day notice to the Company.  To date, Platinum has not taken any action related to this default, including adjusting the interest rate, as the Company continues to pursue additional financing alternatives.

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.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 the Company had the following issuances of capital stock:

·         The Company issued 1 million subscription rights with an exercise price of $0.01 per share to certain current and former stockholders of ADGC as part of the ADGC asset purchases discussed in Note 2.

·         The Company issued 4,891,250 units, each consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant for the purchase of a share of common stock at a strike price of $1.60 at a unit price of $0.80 for total net cash proceeds of $3,913,000.

·         The Company issued 16,766,773 shares of common stock under the ADI and ADGC subscription rights.

·         The Company issued 46,250 shares of common stock in lieu of cash payments to certain vendors.

·         The Company issued 19,469 shares upon exercise of certain outstanding warrants;

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014 the Company had the following issuances of capital stock:

·         The Company issued 1,000,000 shares of common stock for the indemnification of a legal settlement to two members of our Board of Directors.

·         The Company issued 527,500 shares of common stock as partial compensation to three firms in connection with capital raising activities.

·         The Company issued 1,000,000 shares of common stock in lieu of cash payments of $164,000 for previous legal services provided to the Company.

·         The Company issued 375,000 shares of common stock to Theo Strous, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors for his participation on a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors

·         The Company issued 100,000 shares of common stock to Laurence Zipkin, an unaffiliated third party for his participation on a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors

The Company had 50,739,312 shares of common stock issued and outstanding as of March 31, 2014 of which 1,000,000 were held in treasury.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company had 5,566,795 warrants outstanding.  425,545 warrants have exercise prices of $.70 per share and expire in 2016 and 2017.  The warrants were issued by the Company as compensation for consulting work, placement agent services, and in exchange for cash discounts on facility rent and are valued at $0.52 per warrant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.  The Company had 4,891,250 of warrants outstanding with exercises prices of $1.60 that expire in 2015.  These warrants were issued as part of the units issued during the year ended March 31, 2013.  In addition, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, the Company issued 200,000 warrants which remain outstanding with an exercise price of $1.60 that expire in 2018 in exchange for consulting services and are valued at $0.57 per warrant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.  During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company issued 50,000 warrants at an exercise price of $0.37 that remain outstanding and which expire in 2018 in exchange for consulting services and are valued at $0.28 per share using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

NOTE 6 — SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

The Company currently has one equity-based compensation plan under which stock-based compensation awards can be granted to directors, officers, employees and consultants providing bona fide services to or for the Company.  The Company’s 2012 Share Incentive Plan was adopted on May 7, 2012 (the “2012 Share Incentive Plan” or “Plan”) and allows the Company to issue up to 5,000,000 shares of its common stock pursuant to awards granted under the 2012 Share Incentive Plan.  The Plan permits the granting of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted or unrestricted stock awards, phantom stock, performance awards, other stock-based awards, or any combination of the foregoing.  The only awards that have been issued under the Plan are stock options.  Because the Plan has not been approved by our shareholders, all such stock option awards are non-qualified stock options.  The following sets forth the options to purchase shares of the Company’s stock issued and outstanding as of March 31, 2014:

The intrinsic value of options outstanding and of options exercisable at March 31, 2014 and 2013 was $0 and $299,900, respectively.

A summary of the status of non-vested shares as of March 31, 2014 and changes during the year ended March 31, 2014 is presented below.

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding by price range as of March 31, 2014:

On March 25, 2013, the Board of Directors authorized the issuance of 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to Edward S. Adams, former Chairman of the Board, and 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to Michael R. Monahan, a former member of the Board, to indemnify Messrs. Adams and Monahan under applicable law and the Company’s charter documents for shares of Company common stock transferred by them in May 2012 to certain individuals in settlement of a complaint filed by such individuals against Messrs. Adams and Monahan, their respective spouses, the law firm of Adams Monahan LLP, Mr. Joseph Lancia (our former President and Chief Executive Officer), the Company, and, as a nominal defendant, Private Scio.  The Company valued the shares issued to Messrs. Adams and Monahan at the then market value of $0.83 per share and recognized $830,000 as professional and consulting fees related to this authorization for indemnity during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.  These shares were issued by the Company during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On September 25, 2013, the Company granted nine non-executive employees options to purchase a total of 500,000 shares of the Company’s stock.  These options vest based on the Company meeting various operating metric and cash flow targets.  The exercise price of $0.33 per share is equal to the closing price of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.  Using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, management has estimated the options issued on September 25, 2013 had a value of $0.21 per option on the date of the grant.  The Black-Scholes model assumptions used were: Expected dividend yield, 0.00%; Risk-free interest rate, 0.66%; Expected life in years, 3.0; Expected volatility, 102.3%.  None of these options were vested upon issuance.  Subsequent to issuance, a portion of these options have vested and the Company has recognized $5,312 in compensation costs for these options in the fiscal year ending March 31, 204.

On October 1, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the issuance of options to purchase 68,750 shares of common stock to each of our former board members Messrs. Adams, Linares, and Strous for their services to date through calendar 2013.  Each grant is in accordance with the Company’s director compensation program that provides for the grant of options to purchase 6,250 shares of common stock to each director for each Board meeting held.  All 206,250 options issued have an exercise price of $0.42 that reflects the Company’s closing stock price on the date of grant.  Using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, management has determined the options issued on October 1, 2013 had a value of $0.26 per option on the date of grant.  The Black-Scholes model assumptions used were: Expected dividend yield, 0.00%; Risk-free interest rate, 0.66%; Expected life in years, 3.0; Expected volatility, 102.3%.  Total compensation costs of $54,429 have been recognized for these options during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

For the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company recognized $193,150 and $1,996,426, respectively, as compensation cost for options issued, and recorded related deferred tax asset of $0 for all periods.

At March 31, 2014, unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested awards was $1,120,222.  This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.85 years.  The total fair value of shares vested during the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 was $258,512 and $1,873,609, respectively.

NOTE 7 — OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSE

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company recognized $161,439 in interest expense related to its outstanding note payable.

The Company recognized $12,522 in other income for the forgiveness of interest expense for the period ended March 31, 2013.

NOTE 8 — OPERATING LEASES

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company leased office space at locations in Hudson, Massachusetts and Greenville, South Carolina. Under the terms of the leases, the Company is obligated to pay escalation rentals for certain operating expenses and real estate taxes. The Company’s lease in Hudson, Massachusetts expired in January 2014 and the Greenville, South Carolina lease expires in March 2019.  The Company leases electrical equipment in its production facility in South Carolina with these leases expiring during the 2016 fiscal year. The Company also leases two automobiles with lease expirations in fiscal 2015.

The Company recognizes lease expense on a straight-line basis and recognized $421,038 and $426,023 in lease expense for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  The Company has other liabilities consisting of deferred rent payable of $84,144 and $50,195 at March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  Minimum future rental payments under the leases are summarized as follows:

NOTE 9 — RELATED PARTIES

The Company incurred expenses of $19,658 and $106,229 for professional and consulting services provided by Adams Monahan, LLP, a firm in which our former board member, Edward S. Adams and Michael R. Monahan were partners, for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.  The Company and Adams Monahan LLP terminated their professional relationship on June 30, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, the Board of Directors retained two then directors, Mr. Michael Monahan and Mr. Theo Strous, to provide consulting services for the Company at a total cost of $11,000 and $4,000 respectively, per month.  The Company recognized $15,000 in consulting expense for these services during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 and $45,000 during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. These consulting service agreements with both Messrs. Monahan and Strous were terminated effective June 30, 2013.

On March 25, 2013, the Board of Directors reviewed the facts of previous litigation that was settled in May 2012 and agreed that the Company should accept liability for the settlement and authorized the following to indemnify Messrs. Adams and Monahan, then members of the Board, under applicable law and the Company’s charter documents for expenses incurred and shares of Company common stock and cash transferred by them in settlement of the litigation:  (i) the issuance of 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to each of Messrs. Adams and Monahan, (ii) the payment of $90,000 to Mr. Adams for amounts paid by him to settle the complaint, and (iii) any other amounts and expenses paid in connection with stockholder litigation matters involving certain current and former stockholders of the Company.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, the Company recognized $946,555 in expense related to the foregoing indemnification.  Of this amount, $830,000 represents non-cash expenses related to the value of the Company common stock to be issued.  On May 21, 2013, the Company issued the 1,000,000 shares previously allocated for indemnification of Messrs. Adams and Monahan and on July 2, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with Mr. Adams to pay out remaining indemnification related liabilities of $117,305.93 at $7,500 per month through October 2014.

On May 14, 2013, the Board of Directors created a special committee consisting of then board member Mr. Theo Strous to evaluate a report to the Board of Directors by former counsel to the Company and certain actions of a former member of the Board of Directors and former company officers. The report was completed at the end of June 2013. The Board of Directors approved the payment of $25,000 to Mr. Strous as compensation for his service on the special committee.

On January 6, 2014, the Board of Directors created a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) to consider the merits of shareholder allegations made in ongoing litigation.  The Board appointed the current board member Mr. Theo Strous and Mr. Laurence Zipkin, an unaffiliated third party, to the SLC.  Each member of the committee received at their election a one-time payment of $50,000 plus 100,000 shares of common stock or shares in lieu of such cash and share amount in the amount of 375,000 shares upon completion of the investigation.  The SLC delivered their report to the Board of Directors on March 25, 2014.  Mr. Strous elected to receive his payment in company stock while Mr. Zipkin elected to receive $50,000 in cash plus 100,000 shares.  During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company recognized $93,750 in consulting expense for the shares issued to Mr. Strous and $168,750 in total consulting expenses for the SLC.

As of March 31, 2104, the Company had $215,306 in related party liabilities.

NOTE 10 — INCOME TAXES

There was no current or deferred tax expense (benefit) for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013.

The deferred tax asset (liability) at March 31, 2014 and 2013 consists of the following types of temporary differences and their related tax effects:

The Company recorded a valuation allowance against its net deferred tax asset at March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013, as the Company believes that it is more likely than not that this asset will not be realized.

The Company had federal and state net operating loss carry-forwards (“carry-forward”) of $10,231,000 and $5,646,000 at March 31, 2014 and 2013 respectively.  These carry-forwards start to expire in the year 2031.

NOTE 11 — INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE

On September 16, 2013, the Company entered into a series of agreements with SAAMABA, LLC (“SAAMABA”) and S21 Research Holdings (the “Grace Rich Agreements”) to form a joint venture with operations in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) to deploy a minimum of 100 Company designed diamond growing machines.  Through the Grace Rich Agreements, the Company owns 30% of Grace Rich LTD, a corporation duly established pursuant to the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC that is an investment and holding company for the factory and distribution center to be formed pursuant to the laws of the PRC as a wholly foreign owned enterprise.

Under the Grace Rich Agreements, the Company has agreed to license its proprietary technology for the manufacture of diamond gemstones of agreed upon specifications.  In exchange for the license, the Company will receive licensing revenue and 30% ownership in the joint venture.  In addition to the licensed technology, the Grace Rich Agreements include obligations for the Company to provide and be compensated for technology consulting services to the joint venture to support the start-up of operations.

The initial ownership interests in Grace Rich Limited are as follows:  SAAMABA LLC- 60%; Scio Diamond Technology Corporation — 30% and S21 Holdings- 10%.  The capital contributions required to finance Grace Rich LTD are requirements of SAAMABA, and the Company is not required to make any on-going funding contributions to the joint venture and its ownership stake cannot be reduced from 30%.

The Company is licensing a portion of its patented technology to Grace Rich LTD and is not directly contributing any of its intellectual property.  The license agreement calls for the Company to receive $250,000 in licensing fees and $750,000 in development fees between October 2013 and June 2014.  In addition, once operations of Grace Rich LTD have commenced, the Company will receive $250 per machine per month in licensing fees with a minimum monthly payment of $25,000 until the joint venture starts to distribute cash to its partners.

The Company has determined the fair value of the license agreement does not exceed the value of the expected returns from the joint venture and accordingly has established an initial investment value of $0 and has not recorded any gains related to its contribution to the joint venture.  The Company joint venture was in its development stage through March 31, 2014 and did not have any revenues.  Expenses incurred by the joint venture were for planning and startup expenses.  The total loss of the joint venture from inception through March 31, 2014 was $1,043, 945. The Company’s corresponding 30% share of these losses was $313,184.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company has not guaranteed obligations of the joint venture nor has it committed to provide additional funding. Therefore, the Company’s share of the joint venture’s net loss for the year ended March 31, 2014 were not recognized because the initial carrying value of the Company’s ownership interest in the joint venture was zero.

Rollforward of the Company’s ownership interest in the joint venture for the year ended March 31, 2014:

Selected financial results for Grace Rich LTD from inception through March 31, 2014 are as follows:

The Company recognized $625,000 in revenues from Grace Rich during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. The Company incurred $151,359 of joint venture related expenses during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014 that were reimbursed by the Grace Rich LTD.  These reimbursements were offset against the Company’s related operating expense.

NOTE 12 — LITIGATION

On July 26, 2013, Bernard M. McPheely, Trustee for the Bernard M. McPheely Revocable Trust Dated May 25, 2012, Thomas P. Hartness, Trustee for the Thomas P. Hartness Revocable Trust Dated July 31, 2010, Brian McPheely and Robert Daisley (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), derivatively and on behalf of the Company, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of South Carolina, County of Greenville against Edward S. Adams (then our Chairman), Michael R. Monahan (a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors), Robert Linares (a then current member of the Board), Theodorus Strous (a then current member of the Board) and the law firm of Adams Monahan, LLP (collectively, “Defendants”), and the Company, as a nominal defendant (the “Scio Derivative Complaint”).  Bernard M. McPheely is a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors.

The Scio Derivative Complaint alleged (i) against Defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment; (ii) against Messrs. Strous and Linares and Adams Monahan LLP, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) against Messrs. Adams and Monahan, civil conspiracy; (iv) against Messrs. Adams, Monahan and Linares, breach of fiduciary duty — controlling shareholder; and (v) against Mr. Strous and Adams Monahan LLP, aiding and abetting a breach of controlling shareholder duty.  The allegations relate to, among other things, certain actions allegedly taken by defendants in connection with: the acquisition by the Company of certain assets of ADI (the “ADI Asset Purchase”); the ADGC Asset Purchase discussed in Note 2 above; the Company’s agreement to provide certain current and former stockholders of ADI and ADGC the opportunity to acquire up to approximately 16 million and 1 million shares, respectively, of common stock of the Company for $0.01 per share (collectively, the “ADI/ADGC Offering”); the provision of legal services by Adams Monahan LLP to the Company; certain equity issuances by the Company following the ADI/ADGC Offering; certain bonuses and other payments paid to members of the Board of Directors; and certain indemnification obligations undertaken by the Company in favor of Messrs. Adams and Monahan.

Plaintiffs were seeking direct and consequential damages sustained by the Company in an amount to be established through proof at trial, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; appropriate equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the Company incurred in prosecuting the action; and other relief as deemed by the court to be just and proper.

Defendants removed the Scio Derivative Complaint to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division (the “Federal Court”) and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 4, 2013.  On December 16, 2013, the Federal Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, in part based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing, and the remaining claims were dismissed by the court without prejudice in favor of mandatory arbitration proceedings.  As of March 31, 2014, arbitration proceedings had not commenced.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiff Mark P. Sennott, as Trustee of the Sennott Family Charitable Trust, (“Sennott”) filed a complaint derivatively, on behalf of ADI, in the Federal Court, against Edward S. Adams (our then Chairman), Michael R. Monahan (a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors), the law firm of Adams Monahan, LLP, Loblolly, Inc., which was formerly known as Scio Diamond Technology Corporation, and the Company (collectively, “Sennott Defendants”).  This derivative complaint on ADI’s behalf (the “ADI Derivative Complaint”) alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud and unjust enrichment.  The allegations in the ADI Derivative Complaint are duplicative of the Scio Derivative Complaint allegations concerning ADI, which were dismissed by the Federal Court’s December 16, 2013 order in the Scio Derivative Complaint and repeat almost verbatim the allegations from earlier lawsuits filed and dismissed in 2012 against the Defendants, which were previously disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the nine months ended December 31, 2012 and Form 10-K for fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.  Sennott is seeking direct and consequential damages sustained by Sennott in an amount to be established through proof at trial, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; appropriate equitable relief to remedy the allegedly wrongful acts; reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the action; and other relief as deemed by the court to be just and proper.

Both the Scio Derivative Complaint and the ADI Derivative Complaint were effectively settled on June 23, 2014 as detailed in NOTE 13- SUBSEQUENT EVENTS below.

On May 16, 2014 the Company received a subpoena issued by the SEC ordering the provision of documents and related information concerning various corporate transactions between the Company and its predecessors and other persons and entities.  The Company is fully cooperating with this inquiry.

NOTE 13 — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On April 8, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company adopted and approved effective April 8, 2014, the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Scio Diamond Technology Corporation. The Amended and Restated Bylaws amend and restate the Company’s bylaws in their entirety.

At the request of the Board of Directors, the Company entered into an agreement, effective April 12, 2014, with Mr. Joseph Cunningham to provide consulting services to the Company.  Under this agreement, the Company agreed to provide Mr. Cunningham $4,000 and 20,000 shares of common stock per month in exchange for his professional services to the Company.  Through June 30, 2014, the Company had issued 60,000 shares to Mr. Cunningham.  These shares were valued at an average of $0.44 and the Company will recognize $26,200 in expense for these shares.

On April 15, 2014, Scio Diamond Technology Corporation (the “Company”) entered into a Rights Agreement between the Company and Empire Stock Transfer Inc., as Rights Agent (as amended from time to time, the “Rights Agreement”) that was previously approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.

In connection with the Rights Agreement, a dividend was declared of one common stock purchase right (individually, a “Right” and collectively, the “Rights”) for each share of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), of the Company outstanding at the close of business on April 25, 2014 (the “Record Date”).  Each Right entitled the registered holder thereof, after the Rights become exercisable and until April 15, 2017 (or the earlier redemption, exchange or termination of the Rights), to purchase from the Company one share of Common Stock of the Company at a price of $1.20 per share of Common Stock (the “Purchase Price”).  Until the earlier to occur of (i) the close of business on the tenth business day following a public announcement that a person or group of affiliated or associated persons has acquired, or obtained the right to acquire, beneficial ownership of 17% or more of the Common Stock (an “Acquiring Person”) or (ii) the close of business on the tenth business day (or such later date as may be determined by action of the Board of Directors prior to such time as any person or group of affiliated or associated persons becomes an Acquiring Person) following the commencement or announcement of an intention to make a tender offer or exchange offer the consummation of which would result in the beneficial ownership by a person or group of affiliated or associated persons of 17% or more of the Common Stock (the earlier of (i) and (ii) being called the “Distribution Date”), the Rights will be evidenced, with respect to any of the Common Stock certificates outstanding as of the Record Date, by such Common Stock certificates, or, with respect to any uncertificated Common Stock registered in book entry form, by notation in book entry, in either case together with a copy of the Summary of Rights attached as Exhibit B to the Rights Agreement.  Under the Rights Agreement, synthetic ownership of Common Stock in the form of derivative securities counts towards the 17% ownership threshold, to the extent actual shares of Common Stock equivalent to the economic exposure created by the derivative security are directly or indirectly beneficially owned by a counterparty to such derivative security.

The Rights Agreement provided that any person who beneficially owned 17% or more of the Common Stock immediately prior to the first public announcement of the adoption of the Rights Agreement, together with any affiliates and associates of that person (each an “Existing Holder”), shall not be deemed to be an “Acquiring Person” for purposes of the Rights Agreement unless an Existing Holder becomes the beneficial owner of one or more additional shares of Common Stock (other than pursuant to a dividend or distribution paid or made by the Company on the outstanding Common Stock in Common Stock or pursuant to a split or subdivision of the outstanding Common Stock).  However, if upon acquiring beneficial ownership of one or more additional shares of Common Stock, the Existing Holder does not beneficially own 17% or more of the Common Stock then outstanding, the Existing Holder shall not be deemed to be an “Acquiring Person” for purposes of the Rights Agreement.  On June 22, 2014, the Board of Directors accelerated the expiration date of the Rights to June 22, 2014 and the Rights effectively terminated.

On May 27, 2014, the Board of Directors appointed Mr. James Korn and Mr. Gerald McGuire as independent members to the Board.  Each of Messrs. Korn and McGuire were provided 250,000 shares of restricted stock upon their appointment to the Board.

On June 12, 2014, the Board of Directors decided to terminate without cause the employment of Chief Executive Officer, Michael McMahon and Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan Pfohl.  The Board named then Board Member Gerald McGuire as interim Chief Executive Officer and appointed Douglas Walker as interim Chief Financial Officer.  The Board also named Michael Laub as Chief Restructuring Officer.

On June 16, 2014, the Board of Directors appointed Bruce Likly as a member of Board and further appointed Mr. Likly to serve as the Co-Chairman of the Board.  Mr. Likly was provided with a restricted share grant of 4,000,000 shares upon his appointment to the Board.

On June 20, 2014, the Board of Directors granted restricted stock grants to Mr. Michael Laub of 50,000 shares for previously performed services rendered to the Company.  The Company does not anticipate recognizing any expense for this restricted stock grant since it was in exchange for expenses previously accrued by the Company.

In addition, on June 20, 2014, the Company’s $1.5 million loan facilities with Platinum went into default status.  In default status, Platinum could foreclose on the loan and has the right to take possession of the collateral including the Company’s fixed assets and intellectual property.  In addition, in default status, Platinum has the right to increase the interest rate on the note by 3% upon 30 day notice to the Company.  To date, Platinum has not taken any action related to this default, including adjusting the interest rate, as the Company continues to pursue additional financing alternatives.

On June 23, 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) by and among Edward Adams, Michael Monahan, Gerald McGuire, James Korn, Bruce Likly, Theodorus Strous, and Robert C. Linares, their present and past affiliates, such as Apollo Diamond, Inc., Apollo Diamond Gemstone Corporation, Adams Monahan LLP, Focus Capital Group, Inc. and Oak Ridge Financial Services Group, Inc., family members and spouses (the “Adams Group”), and Thomas P. Hartness, Kristoffer Mack, Paul Rapello, Glen R. Bailey, Marsha C. Bailey, Kenneth L. Smith, Bernard M. McPheely, James Carroll, Robert M. Daisley, Ben Wolkowitz, Craig Brown, Ronnie Kobrovsky, Lewis Smoak, Brian McPheely, Mark P. Sennott, the Sennott Family Charitable Trust, and their affiliates (the “Save Scio Group”),  pursuant to which the Company and the Save Scio Group settled the previously pending consent contest for the election of directors. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, on June 23, 2014, Messrs. Adams, Strous, Linares and McGuire resigned as directors effective immediately; the Board expanded the size of the Board to 7 directors and appointed Messrs. McPheely, Wolkowitz, Smoak and Leaverton (the “Save Scio Nominees”) to fill all sbut one of the resulting vacancies. In addition, the Company agreed to nominate each of Messrs. Korn and Likly (the “Adams Group Nominees”) and the Save Scio Nominees for election to the Board at the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of stockholders. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Adams Group and the Save Scio Group must vote their shares of Common Stock for the other’s nominees for the next three years, and will also have replacement rights in the event these nominees are unable to serve as directors.

The Settlement Agreement contains various other terms and provisions, including with respect to the transfer of one million shares of Common Stock to the Save Scio Group by the Adams Group, a portion of which is allocated for reimbursement of the Save Scio Group’s out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the nomination of the Save Scio Nominees and past litigation involving certain members of the Adams Group and the Save Scio Group (the Scio Derivative Complaint and the ADI Derivative Complaint collectively known as the “Litigation”), the Save Scio Group’s withdrawal of the Litigation, termination of the Save Scio Group’s consent solicitation, and accelerated expiration of the Company’s stockholder Rights Agreement adopted on April 15, 2014. Also included in the settlement is the forfeiture of one million shares of common stock by Messrs. Edward Adams and Michael Monahan for cancellation by Scio.

Concurrent with the Settlement Agreement, the equity granted to Messrs. Korn, Likly, and McGuire for their service on the Board of Directors consisting of 250,000, 4,000,000 and 250,000 restricted shares, respectively was returned to the Company.  In addition, all equity granted and contemplated to be granted to Messrs. McGuire, Walker and Laub for their services as executive officers of the Company was effectively returned to the Company.  The Company does not plan to recognize any expense for the restricted shares granted and returned to the Company since none of the grants had vested at the time of their return to the Company.

In addition, the Settlement agreement provides for the release of all liabilities amongst the parties.  The Company estimates that this will result in the reversal of over $340,000 of past accrued liabilities and expenses due to the settling parties for board fees, management committee fees, consulting services, indemnification of board members and legal expenses.

On June 24, 2014, the Board of Directors named Mr. Bernard M. McPheely Chairman and Bruce Likly Vice-Chairman.

On July 11, 2014, the Board of Directors named Gerald McGuire, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the of the Company.

On July 15, 2014, the Board of Directors approved the Company pursue a Regulation D offering of up to 2,000,000 shares of common stock to accredited investors at a price of $0.30.  The Company may raise up to $600,000 from this offering and does not anticipate incurring any material expenses related to the offering.  Through August 8, 2014, the Company has issued 750,000 shares under this offering and raised $225,000.

Going Concern

The Company has generated very little revenue to date and consequently its operations are subject to all risks inherent in the establishment and commercial launch of a new business enterprise.

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:

·         On-going solicitation of investment in the Company in the form of private placements of common shares, secured and unsecured debt to accredited investors;

·         Focused efforts on new business development opportunities to generate revenues and diversify our customer base;

·         Enhanced efforts on optimizing production for existing manufacturing capabilities; and

·         Continued to explore strategic joint ventures, technology licensing agreements and dedicated contract manufacturing to expand company revenue and cash flow, including our recently agreed to joint venture in China.

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 financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, provision for doubtful accounts, sales returns, provision for inventory obsolescence, fair value of acquired intangible assets, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, employee stock options, and contingencies and litigation, among others. The Company generally bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual amounts recorded could differ materially from those estimates

In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 323, Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures, the Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments in corporate joint ventures for which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence but does not control and is not the primary beneficiary. Significant influence typically exists if the Company has a 20% to 50% ownership interest in the venture unless predominant evidence to the contrary exists. Under this method of accounting, the Company records its proportionate share of the net earnings or losses of equity method investees and a corresponding increase or decrease to the investment balances. Cash payments to equity method investees such as additional investments, loans and advances and expenses incurred on behalf of investees, as well as payments from equity method investees such as dividends, distributions and repayments of loans and advances are recorded as adjustments to investment balances. When the Company’s carrying value in an equity method investee is reduced to zero, no further losses are recorded in the Company’s financial statements unless the Company guaranteed obligations of the equity method investee or has committed additional funding.  When the equity method investee subsequently reports income, the Company will not record its share of such income until it equals the amount of its share of losses not previously recognized.  The Company evaluates its equity method investments for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such investments may not be recoverable.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents,  accounts payable and notes payable approximate their fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Company considers highly liquid financial instruments purchased with an original maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents.  At March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company held no cash equivalents.

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:

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

An allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable is maintained for estimated losses from customers’ failure to make payment on accounts receivable due to the Company. Management determines the estimate of the allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable by considering a number of factors, including: (1) historical experience, (2) aging of accounts receivable and (3) specific information obtained by the Company on the financial condition and the current credit worthiness of its customers. The Company also maintains a provision for estimated returns and allowances based upon historical experience.  The Company has determined that an allowance was not necessary at March 31, 2014 or 2013.

Other Receivables

As of March 31, 2014, the Company considered a pending insurance settlement over the actions of a Company supplier of $89,192 as an other receivable.  This settlement was agreed to but not paid at March 31, 2014.

Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of average cost or market. The carrying value of inventory is reviewed and adjusted based upon slow moving and obsolete items. Inventory costs include material, labor, and manufacturing overhead and are determined by the “first-in, first-out” (FIFO) method.  The components of inventories are as follows:

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, we recorded a lower cost of market write down for inventory of $100,557 due to expected selling prices being lower than cost.  The estimation of the total write-down involves management judgments and assumptions, including assumptions regarding future selling price forecasts, the estimated costs to complete and disposal costs.

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 seven 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. Manufacturing equipment was placed into service beginning July 1, 2012.  The Company incurred total depreciation expense of $700,690 and $490,136 for the years ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, the Company closed its operations in Hudson, Massachusetts.  With this closing the Company recognized a loss of $129,308 for the disposal of certain fixed assets at the location.  Concurrent with the closing of the Hudson facility, the Company re-evaluated the useful life of certain fixed assets acquired from Apollo Diamond in 2012 and decided that an impairment reserve related to these assets of $381,798 was appropriate.

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 are no impairment charges during the years ended March 31, 2014 or 2013.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred income taxes reflect the tax consequences on future years of differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities and their financial reporting amounts. Valuation allowances are provided against deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that an asset will not be realized in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740, Accounting for Income Taxes.

Management has evaluated the potential impact in accounting for uncertainties in income taxes and has determined that it has no significant uncertain income tax positions as of March 31, 2014 or 2013.  Income tax returns subject to review by taxing authorities include March 31, 2010 through March 31, 2014.

Stock-based Compensation

Stock-based compensation for the value of stock options is estimated on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The Black-Scholes model takes into account implied volatility in the price of the Company’s stock, the risk-free interest rate, the estimated life of the equity-based award, the closing market price of the Company’s stock on the grant date and the exercise price. The estimates utilized in the Black-Scholes calculation involve inherent uncertainties and the application of management judgment.

Concentration of Credit Risk

During the year ended March 31, 2014 the Company had 27 different customers.  One customer accounted for 58% of our total product revenue.  For the year ended March 31, 2013, one customer accounted for 84% of total revenues for the Company and purchased substantially all of the Company’s production output. The second customer purchased a substantial portion of the Company’s by-product inventory and accounted for 11% of total revenues for the Company.

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. During June 2012, the Company issued to certain current and former stockholders of Apollo Diamond Gemstone Corporation (“ADGC”) that are accredited investors subscription rights valued at $770,000 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.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize product revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery of products has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured. For our Company, this generally means that we recognize revenue when we or our fabrication vendor has shipped finished product to the customer. Our sales terms do not allow for a right of return except for matters related to any manufacturing defects on our part.  The Company recognizes licensing and development revenues in accordance with the contractual terms of the agreements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2012-02, Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (the revised standard). Under the amendments in this updates, a company has the option first to assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicates that the it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible assert is impaired as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the qualitative impairment test in accordance with Topic 350.  The more likely than not threshold is defined as having a likely-hood of more than fifty percent.  If after assessing the qualitative factors, a company determines it does not meet the more likely than not threshold, a company is required to perform the quantitative impairment test by calculating the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset and comparing the fair value with the carrying amount of the asset.  The Amendments in this update are effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. The Company adopted this new standard in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 and the adoption did not have a significant impact on its financial statements.

In July 2013, the FASB issued ASC 2013-11, “Income Taxes — Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax benefit When a Net Operation Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists”  (“ASU 2013-11”) which is part of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740: Income Taxes.  The new guidance requires and entity to present an unrecognized tax benefit and an NOL carryforward, a similar tax loss or a tax credit carryforward on a net basis as part of a deferred tax asset, unless the unrecognized tax benefit is not available to reduce the deferred tax asset component or would not be utilized for that purpose, then a liability would be recognized.  ASU 2013-11 is effective for annual and interim periods for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2013.  The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the April 1, 2014 adoption of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-9 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” This guidance requires an entity to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 and early adoption is not permitted. The Company will adopt this standard in fiscal year 2018. The Company has not yet determined the effect, if any, that the adoption of this standard will have on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

There are currently no other accounting standards that have been issued but not yet adopted by the Company that will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows upon adoption.

Rollforward of the Company’s ownership interest in the joint venture for the year ended March 31, 2014:

Selected financial results for Grace Rich LTD from inception through March 31, 2014 are as follows: