Note 11 – 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 years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 totaled $164,996 and $161,807, respectively.

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 runs through May 31, 2019. Rent expenses for the Ramsey Lease, including related CAM charges totaled $25,980 and $25,980 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. The Company posted a security deposit of $4,330 which is included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Company entered into a 29-month lease for warehouse space located in Pitman, New Jersey (“Pitman Lease”) with annual rents of $39,650. The lease took effect on August 1, 2017 and runs through December 31, 2019. Rent expenses for the Pitman Lease totaled $40,245 and $16,670 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. A security deposit of $4,950 is included in other assets on the 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:

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 expenses of $59,584 and $202,126 for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, which are included in sales and marketing expenses on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. As of December 31, 2018, the Company owed ChubeWorkx royalties of $9,083 which is included in trade and other payables.

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

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 took the appropriate steps to supplement the record and correct these deficiencies. In addition, the Court had ordered a settlement conference in front of a U.S. magistrate that was held on August 31, 2018.

On September 17, 2018, the Company and Pulse entered into a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement reached between the Plaintiff and the Company, the Company accrued $930,000 payable to Pulse as of September 30, 2018, which was paid on October 9, 2018. The Company has also agreed to a permanent injunction and will not 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. The Company does not anticipate a material impact on 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.

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 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 “Faulkner Action”). 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 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, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and to establish notice procedures.  That motion remains pending. 

Watts v. Gormally, et al., No. 2:18-15992 (D.N.J.)

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff Cale Watts 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 March 22, 2019, Plaintiffs 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.  That motion remains pending.

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

On February 7, 2019, Tiffany Chan, Jasmine Henderson, and Don Danesh 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 further alleges 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. Defendants must respond to the Chan Action by April 9, 2019.

Faulkner, Gleason, Watts and Chan Matters

As of December 31, 2018, with regard to the Faulkner, Gleason, Watts and Chan matters, the Company believes that other than the Company’s retention requirement under its D&O liability insurance coverage of $500,000, the Company has no additional liability. The D&O liability insurance coverage provides insurance coverage to both the Company and the Directors and Officers for covered defense and indemnification. Furthermore, during the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a charge of $500,000, representing the full amount of such retention requirement. Therefore, assuming that the settlements are approved, as discussed above, the Company believes it has no further liability with respect to these matters.

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 has stated that it seeks “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 seeks relief for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and/or unjust enrichment. The Company vigorously opposes Typenex’s interpretation of the Marketing Contract and will continue to defend this action in the Arbitration.

Other

A former executive has threatened to sue the Company and executives over the termination of executive’s employment and for contractual severance pay. The executive asserts that the Company terminated the executive for using sick leave in violation of New Jersey law and that the termination was without cause within the meaning of an employment agreement which provides for severance of one year’s salary in the event of termination without cause. With respect to this matter, the Company believes that the ultimate liability from the settlement of this matter will not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Subsequent to December 31, 2018, a former executive 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.