7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 7 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company was involved in the following litigations:

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 June 30, 2012, $411,500 has been accrued.

b)

A. Sean Rose, Claire F. Rose and Mark Rose v. Universal Detection Technology, 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 June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 the Company has $636,275 and $610,621, respectively, accrued for including interest relating to this matter which is part of notes payable and accrued interest in the accompanying balance sheet as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

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.  As of September 30, 2011, $28,098 was due under the agreement and is included in the accounts payable in the accompanying balance sheet as of June 30, 2012.

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.  No payments have been made on this judgment and no actions to enforce the judgment have been taken against UDT.

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.

As of November 16, 2012, out of the cash payments that the Company was responsible for under the settlement agreement, $8,520.82 is still owed and unpaid. This balance due is for part of the February 28, 2012 payment. Plaintiff has the right to get a judgment for $175,000 minus the payments that were made, if we fail to perform under the terms of the settlement agreement and if they serve us with a notice of default, which they have not.