COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
6 Months Ended | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun. 30, 2019 | |||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased certain shares of the Company’s common stock for a total investment of $16 thousand. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1.3 million were restated to $1.1million, a reduction of $0.2 million) and restated goodwill as $1.9 million (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company’s stock price “fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share.” Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a “consolidated amended complaint” on September 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company’s reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying part the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on October 3, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw Mr. Schuck as Lead Plaintiff and to substitute Jane Ish as new Lead Plaintiff. This motion was granted by the Court. On July 2, 2019, the Court entered a final order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. However, various shareholder derivative suits and complaints have been filed which are premised on the same event as the Complaint (which has now been dismissed with prejudice). These derivative suits are stayed and were waiting the outcome of the Complaint. Management intends to vigorously defend these allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.
On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements were contained in financial filings that led to stock price fluctuations and resulting financial harm. Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018 suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company’s efforts to secure patent protection had been “finally rejected” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust filed a “consolidated amended complaint”. On March 5, 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss the action. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations. Since no discovery has been conducted and the case remains stayed, an estimate of the possible loss or recovery cannot be made at this time. Various shareholder derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same event as the already-pending case. These are stayed pending the outcome of the securities class action case.
In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by us under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.
|