Commitments

The Company has non-cancelable operating leases, which expire through 2017. The leases generally contain renewal options ranging from 1 to 3 years and require the Company to pay costs such as real estate taxes and common area maintenance. The following table provides the Company’s lease commitments at March 31, 2017:

The Company incurred rent expense of $130,884 and $139,382 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The Company has two supply arrangements in place with European farmers to supply raw material in future years, for which the Company has contractual rights for the growth and processing of hemp oil for delivery through October 2018 under both contracts. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company purchased $9,060 and $2,977, respectively, in relation to these supply agreements. We do not intend to purchase any inventory under these supply agreements from the 2017 crop and/or 2018 crop.

Also in March 2017, the Board amended the Employment Agreements for two members of senior management, such that upon a Liquidity Event (as defined below), Mr. Mona shall receive four percent (4%) and Mr. Mona III shall receive two percent (2%) of the Gross Closing Proceeds (as defined below), subject to an aggregate cap of $750,000,000. A “Liquidity Event” means and include (A) a licensing of the CBD Drug Product or any other intellectual property asset of the Company, or (B) (i) the direct or indirect sale or transfer, in a single transaction or a series of related transactions, by the stockholders of the Company of voting securities, in which the holders of the outstanding voting securities of the Company immediately prior to such transaction or series of transactions hold, as a result of holding Company securities prior to such transaction, in the aggregate, securities possessing less than twenty percent (20%) of the total combined voting power all outstanding voting securities of the Company or of the acquiring entity immediately after such transaction or series of related transactions, (ii) a merger or consolidation in which the Company is not the surviving entity, except for a transaction in which the holders of the outstanding voting securities of the Company immediately prior to such merger or consolidation hold as a result of holding Company securities prior to such transaction, in the aggregate, securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of all outstanding voting securities of the surviving entity (or the parent of the surviving entity) immediately after such merger or consolidation, (iii) a reverse merger in which the Company is the surviving entity but in which the holders of the outstanding voting securities of the Company immediately prior to such merger hold as a result of holding Company securities prior to such transaction, in the aggregate, securities possessing less than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of all outstanding voting securities of the Company or of the acquiring entity immediately after such merger, or (iv) the sale, transfer or other disposition (in one transaction or a series of related transactions) of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, except for a transaction in which the holders of the outstanding voting securities of the Company immediately prior to such transaction(s) receive as a distribution with respect to securities of the Company, in the aggregate, securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of all outstanding voting securities of the acquiring entity immediately after such transaction(s). “Gross Closing Proceeds” means and include all cash sums payable to the Company or its stockholders in connection with a Liquidity Event at the closing of a transaction constituting a Liquidity Event, and not including any deferred payments, earnouts, ongoing royalty payments or other contingent or deferred compensation.

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 325 shares of the Company’s common stock for a total investment of $15,791. 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 $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (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. Defendant Stuart Titus was served with the Summons & Complaint in the case and he has recently completed briefing his motion to dismiss, through separate counsel. No hearing date has been set by the Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

On March 17, 2015, stockholder Michael Ruth filed a shareholder derivative suit in Nevada District Court alleging two causes of action: 1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and 2) “Gross Mismanagement.” The claims are premised on the same event as the already-pending securities class action case in New York discussed above – it is alleged that the Form 8-K filings misstated goodwill and sales of the Company, which when corrected, lead to a significant drop in stock price. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on June 29, 2015. Instead of opposing the Company’s motion, Mr. Ruth filed an amended complaint on July 20, 2015. Thereafter, Mr. Ruth and the Company agreed to stay the action pending the outcome of the securities class action case in New York discussed above.  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.

On October 21, 2016, Dun Agro B.V. (“Dun Agro”) filed a complaint against the Company in the District Court of the North Netherlands, location Groningen, The Netherlands (the “District Court”), alleging non-performance under a contract, seeking compensatory damages of approximately 2,050,000 euros, excluding interest and costs. The plaintiff alleges that the Company was obligated to perform under that certain supply agreement between the Company and Dun Agro dated December 19, 2013, and to purchase 1,000,000 kilograms of harvested raw material related to the 2016 crop. The Company filed a reply to the complaint on March 29, 2017 which is now under review by the District Court. Management intends to vigorously defend the complaint allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time.

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, condensed consolidated results of operations or financial condition.