Note 8 – Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

The Company leases its facility in West Deptford, New Jersey under an operating lease (“Thorofare Lease”) with annual rentals of $132,000 plus common area maintenance (CAM) charges. The lease, which took effect on January 1, 2008, reduced the CAM charges allowing the Company to reach their own agreements with utilities and other maintenance providers. On January 7, 2013, the Company extended its lease agreement for a term of 7 years, expiring December 31, 2019. Rent expense for the Thorofare Lease, including related CAM charges for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018 totaled $40,956 and $40,926, respectively and $123,277 and $124,070 for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively. On November 11, 2019, the Company entered into an extension of the Thorofare Lease extending the term to December 31, 2021 and effective January 1, 2020, providing for an early termination option of the lease with a 150 day notice period.

The Company entered into a 24-month lease for a satellite office located in Ramsey, New Jersey (“Ramsey Lease”) with annual rents of $25,980 plus common area maintenance (CAM) charges. The lease took effect on June 1, 2017 and ran through May 31, 2019. Rent expenses for the Ramsey Lease, including related CAM charges totaled $0 and $6,522 for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and $12,990 and $19,512 for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The Company entered into a 29-month lease for warehouse space located in Pitman, New Jersey (“Pitman Lease”) with annual rents of $40,839. The lease took effect on August 1, 2017 and runs through December 31, 2019. Rent expenses for the Pitman Lease totaled $10,516 and $10,210 for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, and $30,936 and $30,035 for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively. A security deposit of $4,950 is included in other assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Company entered into a 60-month operating lease for equipment with annual rentals of $6,156 on September 29, 2014. The lease commenced on October 21, 2014 upon the delivery of the equipment.

The schedule of lease commitments is as follows:

Litigation and Settlements

ChubeWorkx

On August 17, 2016, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with ChubeWorkx Guernsey Limited (“ChubeWorkx”), which settled all pending claims between the Company and ChubeWorkx. Specifically, the Company and ChubeWorkx agreed to voluntarily dismiss (i) the action in the United States Federal Court, District of New Jersey brought by the Company against ChubeWorkx for outstanding amounts due to the Company under a promissory note and (ii) the action in The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Commercial Court, Royal Courts of Justice, United Kingdom brought by ChubeWorkx against the Company arising from an exclusive licensing agreement between ChubeWorkx and the Company (“Licensing Agreement”).

In return for the Company regaining the full rights to sell breath technology products, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, ChubeWorkx is entitled to receive a royalty of 5% of the Company’s gross revenues (the “ChubeWorkx Royalty”) until ChubeWorkx has earned an aggregate $5,000,000, after which point ChubeWorkx will no longer be entitled to receive any royalties from the Company and the Company shall have no further obligation to ChubeWorkx. The Settlement Agreement further allows the Company to retain 50% of the ChubeWorkx Royalty until the full $549,609 cash component of the monies owed by ChubeWorkx to the Company as described above has been satisfied. The Company recorded royalty expense/(credit) of $21,903 and $(17,353) for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, and $76,707 and $41,418 for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, which are included in sales and marketing expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. As of September 30, 2019, the Company owed ChubeWorkx royalties of $10,951 which is included in trade and other payables within the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Other terms of the Settlement included: 1) the pledge as security of all earned but unpaid royalties by the Company to ChubeWorkx all Company assets, worthy to satisfy its obligations, including all inventory and receivables, with the exception of (i) distribution contracts of the Company or any of its affiliates, (ii) customer lists, (iii) manufacturing processes (including all intellectual property required to use those processes and exploit products made thereby), and (iv) all equipment required to perform said manufacturing processes and other equipment; 2) the pledge as security of the settlement sum which remains unpaid by the Company to ChubeWorkx all Company (i) distribution contracts of the Company or any of its affiliates, (ii) customer lists, (iii) manufacturing processes (including all intellectual property required to use those processes and exploit products made thereby), and (iv) all equipment required to perform said manufacturing processes and other equipment; and 3) the grant of voting proxy by ChubeWorkx to the Company which allows the Company to vote ChubeWorkx’s shares for corporate formalities under certain conditions.

The pledged assets are only at risk in the event that the Company cannot satisfy any outstanding royalty payment obligations subject to various cure periods and/or through a restructuring and/or liquidation under the United States Bankruptcy laws of the Company in favor of payment of said obligation.

Litigation and Settlements

Pulse Health LLC v Akers Biosciences, Inc. No.: 3:16-cv-01919-HZ

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 alleged 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 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 proceeded 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. 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 took appropriate steps to supplement the record and correct these deficiencies.

On September 17, 2018, the Company and Pulse entered into a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement reached between Pulse and the Company, on October 9, 2018 the Company paid $930,000 to Pulse. The Company has also agreed to a permanent injunction and not to make, use, sell or offer to sell the BreathScan OxiChek™ product, any product that detects aldehydes or oxidative stress in exhaled human breath or breath condensate using either basic fuchsin or sodium metabisulfite or any form, analog or equivalent thereof, and the BreathScan Lync device, or any equivalent thereof, as part of a test for aldehydes or oxidative stress in human exhaled breath or breath condensate. There was no material impact on our revenues as a result of the withdrawal of the BreathScan OxiChek™ product from sale. The Settlement Agreement does not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.

Litigation and Settlements

Faulkner v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10521 (D.N.J.) and Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.)

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed a class action complaint alleging securities violations against the Company, John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch (“Individual Defendants”) (together with the Company, “Defendants”) on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018 (the “Faulkner Action”). The complaint alleged 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 alleged 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 June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action complaint under the caption Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.) based on the same allegations and causes of action (the “Gleason Action”). On November 21, 2018, the Faulkner and Gleason Actions were consolidated under the Faulkner Action docket. The parties conducted a mediation on January 10, 2019, and agreed to a settlement in principle disposing of the consolidated action as to all Defendants, including the Individual Defendants. On March 8, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement, subject to approval by the Court, whereby the Company agreed to pay $2,250,000 in exchange for full releases and discharge of all claims against the Company. On the same day, Plaintiffs Tim Faulkner and David Gleason filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and to establish notice procedures. On July 3, 2019, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval and scheduled a final settlement hearing for November 8, 2019. On or about July 24, 2019, the Company’s D&O insurer sent the settlement payment of $2,250,000 to the settlement agent for the class. On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ request to adjourn the final settlement hearing and scheduled a final settlement hearing for December 20, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. On October 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Tim Faulkner and David Gleason filed motions for final approval of the proposed settlement and award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses, and award to Plaintiffs Tim Faulkner and David Gleason to be heard at the final settlement hearing on December 20, 2019.

Litigation and Settlements

Watts v. Gormally, et al., No. 2:18-15992 (D.N.J.) and Chan v. Gormally, et al., No. 2:19-cv-4989 (D.N.J.)

On November 9, 2018, Cale Watts (“Watts Plaintiff”) filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on alleged material weaknesses in controls, management, and documentation (the “Watts Action”). On January 14, 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Watts Action that included corporate reforms and a payment of attorneys’ fees of $200,000. The parties finalized a Stipulation of Settlement on March 4, 2019. On February 7, 2019, Tiffany Chan, Jasmine Henderson, and Don Danesh (“Chan Plaintiffs”) filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the same circumstances as the Watts Action (the “Chan Action”). The Chan Action further alleged that the Company should not have settled the Watts Action because the Watts Action plaintiffs lacked standing and the settlement would cause irreparable harm to the Company and its shareholders. On March 22, 2019, the Watts Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, approving the proposed form and method of providing notice of the settlement, scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement (“Watts Motion for Preliminary Approval”). On April 1, 2019, the Chan Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval and a Motion to Intervene and Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Intervene and Stay”). After multiple extensions of the Watts Motion for Preliminary Approval and the Chan Motion to Intervene and the defendants’ opposition to the Motion to Intervene, the Watts Plaintiff, Chan Plaintiffs, and the defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the Watts and Chan Actions that included corporate reforms and a payment of attorneys’ fees of $325,000. On October 2, 2019, the Watts Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement (the “Omnibus Motion for Preliminary Approval”). The court set a motion date for the Omnibus Motion for Preliminary Approval of November 4, 2019. The motion remains pending.

Faulkner, Gleason, Watts and Chan Matters

With respect to the Faulkner, Gleason, Watts and Chan matters, the Company maintains D&O liability insurance coverage, with a company retention of $500,000. The D&O liability insurance coverage provides insurance coverage to both the Company and the Directors and Officers for covered defense and indemnification. Through December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a cumulative charge of $500,000, representing the insurance carrier retention requirement. The insurance carrier has provided notice that it has reserved certain rights, and through the date of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company may incur additional costs related to these matters, the amounts of which are not able to be determined at this time.

Typenex Medical, LLC v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 1450005929

On November 15, 2018, Typenex Medical LLC (“Typenex”), a telemarketing entity with whom the Company had entered into a marketing and commission agreement dated September 30, 2016 (the “Marketing Contract”), filed an arbitration against the Company before JAMS ADR (the “Arbitration”), and an arbiter was appointed to the Arbitration on December 14, 2018. In the Arbitration, Typenex stated that it was seeking “at least” $220,500 based on the allegation that the Marketing Contract entitles Typenex to a commission on sales of certain of the Company’s heparin-related products in the period two years from the Marketing Contract’s expiration, and in the alternative, Typenex was seeking relief for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and/or unjust enrichment. On July 19, 2019, the Company and Typenex executed a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay Typenex $50,000 in cash and to issue 40,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. An amount of $68,120 was recorded in trade and other payable in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2019.

NovoTek Therapeutics Inc. and NovoTek Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Akers Biosciences, Inc.

On June 21, 2019, the Company received a complaint, filed by Novotek Therapeutics Inc., and Novotek Pharmaceuticals Limited (collectively, “Novotek”), Beijing-based entities, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Novotek is seeking, among other things, damages in the amount of $1,551,562, plus interest, disbursements and attorneys’ fees. The Company vigorously disputes the allegations in the complaint and has retained counsel to defend it. On September 16, 2019, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully submitted as of November 4, 2019. The Company is not yet able to determine the amount of the Company’s exposure, if any.

Litigation and Settlements

Neelima Varma v. Akers Biosciences, Inc. and St. David’s Healthcare Partnership, L.P., LLP CAUSE NO: D-1-GN-19-004262

On July 25, 2019, the Company was notified that on July 23, 2019, a complaint was filed by Neelima Varma, against the Company and St. David’s Healthcare Partnership, L.P., LLP (“St. David’s”), in the district court of Travis County, Texas, alleging, among other things, negligence, gross negligence and strict product liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, with respect to a medical device which the Company had sold through one its distributors to St. David’s. Ms. Varma is seeking aggregate monetary relief from the Company and St. David’s in excess of $1,000,000. On September 20, 2019, the Company filed the original answer to plaintiff’s original petition and on October 1, 2019, the Company received from plaintiff their first interrogatories and request for production of documents. The Company carries product liability insurance. The insurance carrier has provided notice that it has reserved certain rights. The Company and its insurance carrier will contest this complaint vigorously. The Company believes that its product liability insurance coverage will be adequate to cover the potential exposure for this matter.

Douglas Carrara v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., John Does 1-10, and XYZ Corp. 1-10, Docket No. ESX-L-5272-19 (N.J. Super. Ct., Essex County):

Douglas Carrara, a former executive, has sued the Company over the termination of his employment. The executive seeks contractual severance pay in the amount of $200,000. The executive asserts that the termination was without cause within the meaning of his employment agreement, which provides for severance of one year’s salary in the event of termination without cause. The executive also seeks indemnification for approximately $10,000 in attorneys’ fees that he contends he incurred in regard to company business. On August 29, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint and the parties have exchanged documents and interrogatories as part of the discovery process. No trial date or discovery cutoff has been set. With regard to both claims, the executive seeks to recover his attorneys’ fees under a fee-shifting provision in his employment agreement. With respect to the matter, the Company believes that the ultimate liability from the resolution of this matter will not be material to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Other

A former executive has threatened to sue the Company over the termination of the executive’s employment. The executive contends that the termination was in retaliation for complaints to the employer protected under the California whistleblower protection laws. The executive also contends that the Company failed to pay a bonus in violation of an employment contract. The Company’s management and legal counsel believes it is too early to determine the probable outcome of this matter.

The Company intends to establish a rigorous defense of all claims. All legal fees were expensed as and when incurred.