NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LITIGATION

a) On May 15, 2002, Walt Disney World Co. commenced action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against the Company and a former wholly-owned subsidiary (WALT DISNEY WORLD CO. V. POLLUTION RESEARCH AND CONTROL CORP. AND DASIBI ENVIRONMENTAL CORP. (Case No. BC 274013 Los Angeles Superior Court) for amounts due in connection with unpaid rent. A judgment was entered for $411,500. No amounts have been paid in connection with the judgment. As of December 31, 2011, $411,500 has been accrued.

b) A. Sean Rose, Claire F. Rose and Mark Rose v. Universal Detection Technology, fka Pollution Research and Control Corporation (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, North Central District, Case No. EC042040)

On or about April 16, 2004, Plaintiffs commenced an action against the Company (Case No. EC 038824) for amounts allegedly due pursuant to four unpaid promissory notes.  On August 2, 2004, the parties executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Releases (the “Agreement”).  On December 30, 2005, Plaintiffs commenced the above-referenced action against the Company, alleging the Company breached the Agreement and seeking approximately $205,000 in damages. A judgment was entered on April 11, 2006.  The Company has accrued for this settlement.  The Company entered into a settlement agreement in the third quarter of 2004 with each of these three parties.  Pursuant to this agreement, at June 30, 2005, the Company was required to pay an additional $80,000 as full payment of our obligations.  The Company did not make this payment and are in default of these notes.  As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, The Company has $610,621 and  $559,303 accrued for including interest relating to this matter.

c) On June 2, 2006, Plaintiff Trilogy Capital Partners instituted an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Trilogy Capital Partners v. Universal Detection Technology, et. al., Case No. SC089929) against the Company. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged damages against UDT for breach of an engagement letter in the amount of $93,449.  Also, Plaintiff alleged that UDT had failed to issue warrants to it pursuant to a written agreement. After completing the initial stages of litigation and conducting extensive mediation, Plaintiff and UDT reached a settlement wherein commencing December 15, 2006, UDT would make monthly payments to Plaintiff of $2,000 until a debt of $90,000 plus accrued interest at six percent per annum was fully paid.  In exchange, Plaintiff would release all of its claims against UDT. UDT has been current on all of its agreed payments to Plaintiff.  As of December 31, 2011, $28,098 was due under the agreement and included in accounts payable in the accompanying balance sheet as of December 31, 2011.

d) On November 15, 2006, Plaintiff NBGI, Inc. instituted an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court (NBGI, Inc.  v. Universal Detection Technology, et. al., Case No. BC361979) against the Company. NBGI, Inc.’s Complaint alleged breach of contract, and requested damages in the amount of $111,014 plus interest at the legal rate and for costs of suit.  A Summary Judgment was granted in NBGI’s favor and Judgment has been entered.  No payments have been made on this judgment and no actions to enforce the judgment have been taken against the Company.

e) On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff Meyers Associates, L.P. commenced an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, entitled Meyers Associates, L.P. v. Universal Detection Technology ("UDT"), case No. 108321/10.  The complaint alleges breach of contract and damages related to performance by Meyers Associates, L.P. ("Meyers") of an investment banking services agreement dated December 22, 2005 and UDT's alleged failure to compensate Meyers for such services under the terms of the agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of approximately $116,000 plus an award of court costs and attorneys fees.  In October 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for Default Judgment against UDT and filed a Request for Judicial Intervention in connection therewith. The Company has not received any further communication regarding this action and does not know if a default judgment was granted.

f) On November 1, 2010 the accounting firm of A.J. Robbins, P.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado, seeking recovery of fees allegedly owed for accounting services performed during 2004 to 2008. The claims have been asserted against the Company, a second corporate defendant, and our CEO, as a result of a personal guarantee. On December 15, 2010, Defendants filed an Answer which asserted several defenses. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures, and the matter has been set for trial commencing on December 5, 2011. On August 3, 2011 the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Defendants in the case will jointly pay $85,000 to the plaintiffs and the Company will issue $45,000 of the Company’s stock to the plaintiffs.  The cash payments will be made in equal monthly payments over 7 months commencing on August 31, 2011.  In consideration of the settlement, the parties have executed a mutual release and have agreed to withdraw the lawsuit. The releases and withdrawal are contingent upon the Company's full performance of the settlement agreement terms.  The Company issued stock with a fair market value of $36,000 on the date of the agreement in full payment of the stock portion of the settlement agreement.  $70,331 is included in the accounts payable in the accompanying balance sheet as of December 31, 2011, for the settlement agreement.

From time to time, the Company is a party to a number of lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's operations, cash flows or financial position.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

In September 2001, the Company entered into an employment agreement with its President and Chief Executive Officer.  Under the agreement, base salary is $250,000 to be adjusted on an annual basis.  The Company granted options to purchase 5,750 shares of its common stock exercisable at $60 per share.

On August 23, 2004, the Company entered into an amendment of the employment agreement with its President and Chief Executive Officer. The amendment provides that $100,000 of the Officer's annual salary shall be accrued as payable until such time as the Company has the financial resources to pay any or all of the accrued amount. The agreement also provides for salary increases of 5% per year commencing January 1, 2006, and an extension of the term of the agreement until December 31, 2012. In addition, automobile cost is limited to a maximum of $2,500 per month and the Company will reimburse the officer for individual life insurance premiums up to $1,000 per month and for health insurance premiums and related expenses.

The Company is obligated to make certain minimum salary payments as follows:

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,

2012	$	335,024
	$	335,024

LICENSE AGREEMENT

On September 30, 2003, the Company entered into a license agreement with CalTech whereby CalTech granted the Company an exclusive, royalty-bearing license to make, use, and sell all products that incorporate the technology that was developed under the Technology Affiliates Agreement with JPL and is covered by related patents. In addition, the grant includes a nonexclusive, royalty-bearing license to make derivative works of the technology. The Company is required to make quarterly royalty payments to CalTech, ranging from 2% to 4% of net revenues for each licensed product made, sold, licensed, distributed, or used by the Company and 35% of net revenues that the Company receives from sublicensing the licensed products. A minimum annual royalty of $10,000 was due and paid to CalTech on August 1, 2005 and each anniversary thereof. The minimum royalty will be offset by the above mentioned royalty payments, if any.

To maintain its license with Cal Tech, a minimum annual royalty of $10,000 was due Caltech on August 1, 2005, and is due on each anniversary thereof, regardless of product sales.  Any royalties paid from product sales for the 12-month period preceding the date of payment of the minimum royalty will be credited against the annual minimum.  Pursuant to the terms of the license, the Company must pay four percent royalties on product sales in countries where a patent is issued and two percent royalties on product sales in countries where a patent is not issued, as well as 35 percent of net revenues received from sub-licensees.  As of the date of this report the Company has not paid the $10,000 royalty due Caltech on August 1, 2007.  The Company and Caltech entered into a second amendment to the Company’s license agreement, dated December 1, 2006, and which provides that the overdue amounts shall be paid to Caltech in ten monthly installments of $8,631,85.  To date, the Company has made four of the monthly installments called for in the second amendment to its license agreement with Caltech. On June 23, 2009, Caltech sent a letter to the Company asserting certain breaches by the Company of the License Agreement between Caltech and the Company and attempting to terminate the Agreement. The Company disagrees with the various assertions made by Caltech in the letter and has requested that Caltech submit to arbitration all matters in dispute. To date, no further action has been taken and the Company does not continue to perform under the License Agreement.

OPERATING LEASES

On June 1, 2009, the Company entered into a lease agreement to lease office space commencing June 1, 2009 through May, 31, 2012.

Minimum annual lease payments under this lease are as follows:

2012		34,479
	$	34,479

Rent expense was $79,059 and $87,024 for 2011 and 2010, respectively.