SecProbe.io

Filing text and metadata
Intelligence Terminal Search Probe Scores Topics IPO Watchlist Monthly Activity About API

SEC Company Response from AVITAR — Mar 24, 2005

AVITAR INC /DE/ (CIK 0000814008)
Date: March 24, 2005 · CIK: 0000814008 · Accession: 0000943763-05-000028

AI Filing Summary & Sentiment

Referenced dates: March 11, 2005, March 4, 2005

Date
March 24, 2005
Author
/s/ Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
Form
CORRESP
Company
AVITAR INC /DE/ (CIK 0000814008)

Letter

AVITAR, INC. 65 DAN ROAD CANTON, MA 02021 March 24, 2005 Gary Todd Reviewing Accountant United States Securities and Exchange Commission Mail Stop 0306 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 02509

Re: Review of Avitar, Inc. Form 10-KSB/A for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004 (SEC File No. 1-15695)

Dear Mr. Todd:

The following is our response to your letter dated March 11, 2005 containing comments on the review of our Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 (references are to numbered paragraphs in your letter). The amended Form 10-KSB/A-2 and Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, including amended Consolidated Financial Statements referred to in our responses, have been filed.

Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004

Item 6. Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation

Results of Operations

1. Charges for the replacement of products that were included in cost of sales covered defective ORALscreen products in the Company's inventory that were never sold to customers. Charges for replacement of products included in selling, general and administrative expenses covered defective ORALscreen products that were sold to customers and were replaced under the Company's warranty for these products. The unit cost adjustments were necessary to reflect the increased direct cost of the ORALscreen drug tests replaced under the warranty during the year. In the future, the Company will treat these costs as cost of sales and will reclass prior year amounts to conform.

2. The Company has a warranty reserve for product warranties. The amount maintained in this reserve is based on estimated warranty costs for general product replacements and a specific reserve for quantities of products sold to customers that have been determined to be defective and will need to be replaced. Below is a reconciliation of the product warranty reserves for Fiscal 2004:

Beginning Balance 9/30/03 $274,549 Additions to Reserves-During FY2004 42,629 Adjustments to reflect increased product costs for preexisting warranties 81,600 Replacement of products (366,606) Ending Balance 9/30/04 $ 42,103

The Company will include this disclosure in future filings, if material.

3. As stated in our earlier letter dated March 4, 2005, in 2002 the Company notified the supplier that the supplier failed to perform its obligations under the agreement as specified in the Development Program. The Development Program, contained in Appendix A of the Oral Fluid Product Development Agreement dated as of February 1, 1999 (the "Agreement"), required the supplier to develop a single oral fluid drug test strip that would be used in a three-test panel and a five-test panel. These strips were to be developed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Development Program and to be suitable for use in clinical trials in order to obtain FDA approval. While the supplier had commenced the Development Program, the supplier failed to meet the product performance specifications and the schedule set forth in the Development Program.

The Compensation Terms for the supplier (set forth in Appendix B of the Agreement and in Section III-E) consisted of (a) monthly service fees of $10,000, subsequently increased to $20,000; (b) specified prices for each component delivered and (c) 2.5% royalty payments on sales of covered Products, provided however that the 2.5% royalty payments would be payable only if the Development Program was satisfactorily completed. Accordingly, while the Company had no legal obligation to pay the 2.5% royalty unless and until the Development Program was satisfactorily completed, the Company had reserved $242,000 as an estimated future obligation for these royalty payments in expectation that the Development Program would be satisfactorily completed. However, in 2002 and 2003 the Company could not prudently reverse this reserve because the supplier was arguing its entitlement to the royalties and demanding payment.

Toward the end of Fiscal 2002, the supplier repeatedly demanded payment of the royalty payments allegedly due, and threatened legal claims. The Company responded by repeatedly advising the supplier that the royalty payments were not due because, in the Company's opinion, the performance specifications and schedule were not met, and therefore the Development Program was not satisfactorily completed. No legal proceedings were in fact commenced by either party. In the following fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the supplier did not commence any legal proceedings in connection with the royalties or otherwise. Furthermore, the supplier made no attempt to cure its failure to complete the Development Program (even assuming that such failure was curable). The Company also learned in 2004 that the supplier had dedicated its resources to another product development of a competing oral fluid drug testing product--a development which was in the Company's opinion in direct violation of the Agreement. This development made it even less likely, indeed in the Company's opinion impossible, that the supplier would be in any position to attempt to cure its failure to complete the Development Program. After the lapse of time over two years under all the above circumstances, including the inability of the supplier to cure its failure to complete the Development Program, which is the prerequisite for the royalty payments, the Company deemed the reversal appropriate.

4. Form 10-KSB/A and Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 have been amended to provide information regarding the Company's progress with the plan accepted by AMEX in March 2004.

Item 8A. Controls and Procedures

5. Form 10-KSB/A and Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 have been amended to include that the officers' conclusions that controls and procedures in place are effective as that term is contemplated by Item 307 to Regulation S-B.

If you have questions regarding the responses contained herein, please contact me at (781) 821-2440, extension 139.

Sincerely,
/s/ Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.

Show Raw Text
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>CORRESP
<SEQUENCE>1
<FILENAME>filename1.txt
<TEXT>
                                  AVITAR, INC.
                                   65 DAN ROAD
                                CANTON, MA 02021

March 24, 2005

Gary Todd
Reviewing Accountant
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 0306
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 02509

         Re:  Review of Avitar, Inc. Form 10-KSB/A for the Fiscal Year Ended
                 September 30, 2004 (SEC File No. 1-15695)

Dear Mr. Todd:

The  following is our  response to your letter  dated March 11, 2005  containing
comments on the review of our Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended  September
30, 2004  (references  are to numbered  paragraphs in your letter).  The amended
Form  10-KSB/A-2  and Form  10-QSB/A  for the quarter  ended  December 31, 2004,
including  amended   Consolidated   Financial  Statements  referred  to  in  our
responses, have been filed.

Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004

Item 6.  Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation

             Results of Operations

1.   Charges for the replacement of products that were included in cost of sales
     covered defective  ORALscreen products in the Company's inventory that were
     never sold to customers.  Charges for  replacement of products  included in
     selling,  general and administrative  expenses covered defective ORALscreen
     products that were sold to customers and were replaced  under the Company's
     warranty for these products.  The unit cost  adjustments  were necessary to
     reflect the increased  direct cost of the  ORALscreen  drug tests  replaced
     under the warranty  during the year. In the future,  the Company will treat
     these  costs as cost of sales  and  will  reclass  prior  year  amounts  to
     conform.

2.   The Company  has a warranty  reserve  for  product  warranties.  The amount
     maintained in this reserve is based on estimated warranty costs for general
     product replacements and a specific reserve for quantities of products sold
     to customers that have been  determined to be defective and will need to be
     replaced.  Below is a reconciliation  of the product warranty  reserves for
     Fiscal 2004:

       Beginning Balance 9/30/03                            $274,549
       Additions to Reserves-During FY2004                    42,629
       Adjustments to reflect increased
                 product costs for preexisting
                 warranties                                   81,600
       Replacement of products                              (366,606)
       Ending Balance 9/30/04                               $ 42,103

     The Company will include this disclosure in future filings, if material.

3.   As stated in our earlier  letter  dated March 4, 2005,  in 2002 the Company
     notified the supplier that the supplier  failed to perform its  obligations
     under  the  agreement  as  specified  in  the  Development   Program.   The
     Development  Program,  contained  in  Appendix A of the Oral Fluid  Product
     Development  Agreement  dated as of  February  1, 1999  (the  "Agreement"),
     required  the  supplier to develop a single oral fluid drug test strip that
     would be used in a  three-test  panel and a five-test  panel.  These strips
     were to be developed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the
     Development  Program and to be suitable for use in clinical trials in order
     to obtain FDA approval.  While the supplier had  commenced the  Development
     Program, the supplier failed to meet the product performance specifications
     and the schedule set forth in the Development Program.

     The  Compensation  Terms for the  supplier  (set forth in Appendix B of the
     Agreement and in Section  III-E)  consisted of (a) monthly  service fees of
     $10,000,  subsequently  increased to $20,000; (b) specified prices for each
     component  delivered  and (c) 2.5%  royalty  payments  on sales of  covered
     Products,  provided however that the 2.5% royalty payments would be payable
     only if the Development Program was satisfactorily completed.  Accordingly,
     while the Company had no legal  obligation  to pay the 2.5% royalty  unless
     and until the Development Program was satisfactorily completed, the Company
     had reserved  $242,000 as an estimated future  obligation for these royalty
     payments   in   expectation   that  the   Development   Program   would  be
     satisfactorily  completed.  However, in 2002 and 2003 the Company could not
     prudently  reverse  this  reserve  because  the  supplier  was  arguing its
     entitlement to the royalties and demanding payment.

     Toward the end of Fiscal 2002, the supplier  repeatedly demanded payment of
     the royalty  payments  allegedly  due, and  threatened  legal  claims.  The
     Company  responded by  repeatedly  advising  the supplier  that the royalty
     payments were not due because,  in the Company's  opinion,  the performance
     specifications  and schedule were not met, and  therefore  the  Development
     Program was not satisfactorily completed. No legal proceedings were in fact
     commenced by either party. In the following fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the
     supplier did not  commence any legal  proceedings  in  connection  with the
     royalties or otherwise.  Furthermore,  the supplier made no attempt to cure
     its failure to complete the  Development  Program (even  assuming that such
     failure was  curable).  The Company  also learned in 2004 that the supplier
     had dedicated its resources to another  product  development of a competing
     oral fluid drug testing  product--a  development which was in the Company's
     opinion in direct violation of the Agreement. This development made it even
     less likely, indeed in the Company's opinion impossible,  that the supplier
     would be in any  position to attempt to cure its  failure to  complete  the
     Development  Program.  After the lapse of time over two years under all the
     above  circumstances,  including  the inability of the supplier to cure its
     failure to complete the Development Program,  which is the prerequisite for
     the royalty payments, the Company deemed the reversal appropriate.

4.   Form 10-KSB/A and Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  December 31, 2004 have
     been amended to provide  information  regarding the Company's progress with
     the plan accepted by AMEX in March 2004.

     Item 8A. Controls and Procedures

5.   Form 10-KSB/A and Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  December 31, 2004 have
     been amended to include that the  officers'  conclusions  that controls and
     procedures in place are effective as that term is  contemplated by Item 307
     to Regulation S-B.

If you have questions regarding the responses  contained herein,  please contact
me at (781) 821-2440, extension 139.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.

Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>