A. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and applicable rules and regulations. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. In management’s opinion, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows have been included and are of a normal, recurring nature. The results of operations for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the full fiscal year or any future periods.

You should read the financial statements and these notes, which are an integral part of the financial statements, together with our audited financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 (“2011 Annual Report”). The accounting policies used to prepare the financial statements included in this report are the same as those described in the notes to the consolidated financial statements in our 2011 Annual Report unless otherwise noted below.

Reclassifications

Certain items previously reported in our prior year’s consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform with the current year’s presentation. The reclassifications had no effect on previously reported total assets, stockholders’ equity, or net income.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standard Update (ASU) 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The amendments in this update are the result of the work of the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to develop common requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. There was no significant impact to our consolidated financial statements as a result of our adoption of this amendment during the third quarter of fiscal 2012.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income. ASU 2011-05 requires all non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but continuous statements. If presented in two separate statements, the first statement should present total net income and its components followed immediately by a second statement of total other comprehensive income, its components and the total comprehensive income. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05. ASU 2011-12 defers those changes in ASU 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassification adjustments. The FASB has deferred those changes in order to reconsider whether to present on the face of the financial statements the effects of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income for all periods presented. ASU 2011-12 does not impact the requirement of ASU 2011-05 to report comprehensive income either in a single continuous financial statement or in two separate but consecutive financial statements. ASU 2011-05 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2011, which will be the first quarter of our fiscal 2013. ASU 2011-05 concerns disclosures only and will not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

Net Income per Common Share

We compute net income per common share using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period, and diluted net income per common share using the additional dilutive effect of all dilutive securities. The dilutive impact of stock options account for the additional weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for our diluted net income per common share computation. We calculated basic and diluted net income per common share as follows (in thousands, except per share data):


	Three Months Ended March 31,				Nine Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011		2012		2011
Numerator
Net income	$	1,068	$	181	$	3,381	$	1,947
Denominator
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding		6,969		7,118		6,984		7,112
Dilutive effect of stock options		10		4		9		9

Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding		6,979		7,122		6,993		7,121

Basic net income per common share	$	0.15	$	0.03	$	0.48	$	0.27

Diluted net income per common share	$	0.15	$	0.03	$	0.48	$	0.27

Shares related to stock options representing the right to acquire 220,000 shares of common stock for the three months ended March 31, 2012, and 443,917 shares for the nine months ended March 31, 2012, were excluded from the calculation of diluted net income per common share, as the effect of their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.

Shares related to stock options representing the right to acquire 616,750 shares of common stock for the three months ended March 31, 2011, and 569,500 shares for the nine months ended March 31, 2011, were excluded from the calculation of diluted net income per common share, as the effect of their inclusion would have been anti-dilutive.

Revenue Recognition

To recognize revenue, four basic criteria must be met: 1) there is evidence that an arrangement exists; 2) delivery has occurred; 3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and 4) collectability is reasonably assured. Revenue from sales transactions where the buyer has the right to return the product is recognized at the time of sale only if (1) the seller’s price to the buyer is substantially fixed or determinable at the date of sale; (2) the buyer has paid the seller, or the buyer is obligated to pay the seller and the obligation is not contingent on resale of the product; (3) the buyer’s obligation to the seller would not be changed in the event of theft or physical destruction or damage of the product; (4) the buyer acquiring the product for resale has economic substance apart from that provided by the seller; (5) the seller does not have significant obligations for future performance to directly bring about resale of the product by the buyer; and (6) the amount of future returns can be reasonably estimated. We recognize revenue upon determination that all criteria for revenue recognition have been met. The criteria are usually met at the time title passes to the customer, which usually occurs upon shipment. Revenue from shipments where title passes upon delivery is deferred until the shipment has been delivered.

We also enter into arrangements whereby revenues are derived from multiple deliverables. In these arrangements, we record revenue as separate elements if the delivered items have value to the customer on a standalone basis, and if the arrangement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered item, delivery or performance of the undelivered items is considered probable and substantially in the seller’s control. Arrangement consideration should be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method that is based on a three-tier hierarchy. The relative selling price method allocates any discount in the arrangement proportionally to each deliverable on the basis of each deliverable’s estimated selling price. Applicable revenue recognition criteria are also considered separately for separate units of accounting. Revenues from multiple-element arrangements involving license fees, up-front payments and milestone payments, which are received and/or billable in connection with other rights and services that represent our continuing obligations, are deferred until all applicable revenue recognition criteria are met for each separable element. Contract interpretation is normally required to determine the appropriate accounting, including whether the deliverables specified in a multiple element arrangement should be treated as separate units of accounting for revenue recognition purposes, and if so, how the price should be allocated among the multiple-elements, when to begin to recognize revenue for each element, and the period over which revenue should be recognized.

We record reductions to gross revenue for estimated returns of private label contract manufacturing products and branded products. The estimated returns are based on the trailing six months of private label contract manufacturing gross sales and our historical experience for both private label contract manufacturing and branded product returns. However, the estimate for product returns does not reflect the impact of a potential large product recall resulting from product nonconformance or other factors as such events are not predictable nor is the related economic impact estimable.

We currently own certain U.S. patents, and each patent’s corresponding foreign patent applications. All of these patents and patent rights relate to the ingredient known as beta-alanine, marketed and sold under the CarnoSyn® trade name. We have sold this ingredient to customers for use in a limited market, and since March 2009 have had an agreement with Compound Solutions, Inc. (CSI) under which we have agreed to grant a license of certain of our patent rights to customers of CSI who purchase beta-alanine from CSI. Before October 1, 2011, we received a fee from CSI that varied based on the amount of net sales of beta-alanine sold by CSI less CSI’s costs and other agreed upon expenses. As of October 1, 2011, we receive a fee from CSI that varies based on the quantity of beta-alanine sold by CSI and the source of such beta-alanine.

In June 2011, we entered into a license and supply agreement with Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) under which we agreed to grant an exclusive license to Abbott for the use of beta-alanine in certain medical foods and medical nutritionals. Under the terms of the agreement, Abbott paid an initial license fee of $300,000, an additional fee of $300,000 in January 2012, and had the right to terminate the agreement at any time up to March 31, 2012, at which time, if not terminated, Abbott was required to pay the initial installment of additional license fees in the amount of $708,334. In exchange for the payment of $354,167 by Abbott to NAI, the agreement was amended effective as of February 20, 2012, to grant Abbott an extension, until July 31, 2012, of Abbott’s termination rights and the due date of the remaining $354,167 of the initial installment. The agreement, as amended, is for a term of 10 years but Abbott may terminate the agreement at any time up to July 31, 2012. Unless sooner terminated by Abbott, in addition to the remaining installment due, the agreement requires Abbott to pay to NAI (i) upon achievement of certain milestones, additional license fees to NAI of $150,000 on or before July 31, 2012; and (ii) additional license fees in the amount of $3.5 million in five annual payments beginning on March 31, 2013. Subject to certain other conditions set forth in the agreement, after August 1, 2012 and until terminated by either party, Abbott is required to purchase certain material exclusively from NAI and make royalty payments to NAI upon Abbott’s sale of products subject to the agreement. Because Abbott may terminate the agreement at any time up to July 31, 2012, there is no assurance NAI will receive any of the additional license fees or royalty payments described above. No additional royalty payments were received during the three or nine months ended March 31, 2012.

We recorded royalty income as a component of revenue in the amount of $2.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and $4.1 million during the nine months ended March 31, 2012. We recorded royalty income as a component of revenue in the amount of $720,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and $1.3 million during the nine months ended March 31, 2011. These royalty income amounts resulted in royalty expense paid to the original patent holders from whom NAI acquired its patents and patent rights. We recognized royalty expense as a component of cost of goods sold in the amount of $181,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and $551,000 during the nine months ended March 31, 2012. We recognized royalty expense as a component of cost of goods sold in the amount of $112,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and $236,000 during the nine months ended March 31, 2011.

Stock-Based Compensation

We have an omnibus incentive plan that was approved by our Board of Directors effective as of October 15, 2009 and approved by our stockholders at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on November 30, 2009. Under the plan, we may grant nonqualified and incentive stock options and other stock-based awards to employees, non-employee directors and consultants. Our prior equity incentive plan was terminated effective as of November 30, 2009.

We estimate the fair value of stock option awards at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. Option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions. Black-Scholes uses assumptions related to volatility, the risk-free interest rate, the dividend yield (which we assume to be zero, as we have not paid any cash dividends) and employee exercise behavior. Expected volatilities used in the model are based mainly on the historical volatility of our stock price. The risk-free interest rate is derived from the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect in the period of grant. The expected life of stock option grants is derived from historical experience.

Our net income included stock based compensation expense of approximately $53,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and approximately $167,000 for the nine months ended March 31, 2012. Our net income included stock based compensation expense of approximately $69,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and approximately $179,000 for the nine months ended March 31, 2011.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., the “exit price”) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. We use a three-level hierarchy for inputs used in measuring fair value that maximizes the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs by requiring that observable inputs be used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from independent sources. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect our assumptions about the inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability and are developed based on the best information available under the circumstances.

The fair value hierarchy is broken down into three levels based on the source of inputs. In general, fair values determined by Level 1 inputs use quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access. We classify cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities balances as Level 1 assets. Fair values determined by Level 2 inputs are based on quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active and models for which all significant inputs are observable or can be corroborated, either directly or indirectly by observable market data. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability, and include situations where there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability. These include certain pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies and similar techniques that use significant unobservable inputs.

Our financial statements include the following Level 1 financial instruments: cash equivalents, accounts receivable, short-term investments, accounts payable, and accrued expenses. We believe the carrying amounts of these assets and liabilities in the financial statements approximate the fair values of these financial instruments at March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2011. We classify derivative forward exchange contracts as Level 2 assets. The fair value of our forward exchange contracts as of March 31, 2012 was $773,000. The fair value of our forward exchange contracts as of June 30, 2011 was $15,000. As of March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2011, we did not have any financial assets or liabilities classified as Level 3.