NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS [Abstract]

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

NOTE 13 – NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income” (“ASU 2011-05”). This ASU amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“Codification”) to allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. The amendments to the Codification in the ASU do not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income.  ASU 2011-05 should be applied retrospectively. For public entities, the amendments will be effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not expect the adoption of this ASU to be significant to its consolidated financial statements.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-29, “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations” (“ASU 2010-29”). The amendments in this Update were effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010.  The adoption of this guidance was not significant to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-17, “Revenue Recognition - Milestone Method (Topic 605): Milestone Method of Revenue Recognition” (“ASU 2010-17”). ASU 2010-17 provides guidance on defining a milestone and determining when it may be appropriate to apply the milestone method of revenue recognition for certain research and development transactions. Under ASU 2010-17, a company can recognize as revenue consideration that is contingent upon achievement of a milestone in the period in which it is achieved, only if the milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive.  ASU 2010-17 was effective on a prospective basis for milestones in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010.  The adoption of the guidance was not significant to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements-a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force.” This ASU provides amendments to the criteria for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements. The amendments in this ASU replace the term "fair value" in the revenue allocation guidance with "selling price" to clarify that the allocation of revenue is based on entity-specific assumptions rather than assumptions of a marketplace participant, and they establish a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable. The amendments in this ASU eliminate the residual method of allocation and require that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method, and they significantly expand the required disclosures related to multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The amendments in this ASU were effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2010. The adoption of the guidance was not significant to the Company's consolidated financial statements.