Note 10 – Contingencies

On October 17, 2016 the Company was served with a notice that Pulse Health LLC (“Pulse”) filed a lawsuit against the Company on September 30, 2016 in United States Federal District Court, District of Oregon, alleging a breach of contract under the settlement agreement entered into by the Company and Pulse on April 8, 2011 which settled all claims and disputes between the Company and Pulse arising from a previously executed Technology Development Agreement entered into by the Company and Pulse and damages resulting from said alleged breach. Additionally, Pulse alleges false advertising and unlawful trade practices in connection with the Company’s sales activities related to the Company’s OxiChek™ products.

The Company filed a series of motions with the Court seeking (1) to dismiss the Pulse complaint for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, transfer the matter to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage and (2) to dismiss the unfair competition claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Oral arguments on these motions were heard by the Court on March 10, 2017.

The Court decided by order dated April 14, 2017 in favor of the Company and has dismissed with prejudice the claims brought by Pulse for unfair competition (both federal and state counts). The court decided against the Company in its motions for transfer of venue and for lack of jurisdiction. As such, the case shall proceed in the District Court of Oregon.

The Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 24, 2018. On June 21, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of the Company on some issues and determined that other issues warranted a trial. As part of its ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court held “While it seems likely that Plaintiff did suffer some amount of damages, Plaintiff has so far failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation from which the trier of fact could reasonably calculate the value of its injury.”  The Court stated that it was “reasonably certain that Plaintiff suffered some damage” and found that Pulse Health “may be entitled to nominal damages.”  The Court further determined that equitable relief, such as an injunction, “may be warranted.” Following such rulings, the Company discovered certain deficiencies in its discovery responses and is taking the appropriate steps to supplement the record and correct these deficiencies. In addition, the Court has ordered a settlement conference in front of a U.S. magistrate to be held on August 31, 2018. Trial has been set for November 13, 2018 in Portland, Oregon.

On or about June 15, 2018, certain parties brought certain class action lawsuits against the Company.

Faulkner v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10521 (D.N.J.)

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed a class action complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences, Inc. (“Akers”), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch (“Individual Defendants”) (together with Akers, “Defendants”) on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in its first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017 10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses. On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a stipulation that Defendants are not required to respond to the complaint until the court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the class, and then after the lead plaintiff chooses whether to file an amended complaint or whether to designate the complaint as the operative complaint.

Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.)

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences, Inc. (“Akers”), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch (“Individual Defendants”) (together with Akers, “Defendants”) on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in its first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017 10-K that: (1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses. No Defendant has been served yet, and no response is due at this time.

Other class action lawsuits have been threatened against the Company and may be filed shortly. Although there are currently two separate actions pending, we anticipate that the two actions will be consolidated into one action.

The Company maintains D&O liability insurance coverage, insuring both the Company and the Directors and Officers for covered defense and indemnification, and has noticed these matters thereunder.

Additionally, a former executive has threatened to sue the Company, Board members, and executives under CEPA over the termination of his employment. That statute prohibits any retaliatory action against an employee who discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public entity any activity, policy or practice of the employer that is a violation of a law, or a rule or regulation. Remedies may include a counter claim for back pay, reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees if appropriate. The Company will vigorously defend any litigation brought by this former executive.

The Company intends to establish a rigorous defense of all claims. The Company is unable to assess the potential outcome, so no accrual for losses was made as of June 30, 2018. All legal fees were expensed as and when incurred.