COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | ' |
NOTE 11: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
|
Lease Commitments |
|
The future minimum lease payments due subsequent to June 30, 2014 under all non-cancelable operating leases are as follows: |
|
Year Ending December 31, | | Amount | |
2014 (remainder of the year) | | $ | 177,561 | |
2015 | | | 480,007 | |
2016 | | | 464,771 | |
2017 | | | 105,894 | |
Total minimum lease payments | | $ | 1,228,233 | |
|
Affymetrix Purchase Commitment |
|
In September 2013, the Company entered into an “OwnerChip Program Agreement” with Affymetrix, Inc, a manufacturer of GeneChip Systems, where Affymetrix has agreed to loan a GeneChip System 3000Dx v.2 (“instrument”) to the Company if it purchases and takes delivery of a minimum thirty GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 (30-pack) arrays at $21,590 per 30 pack for the next three years for a total purchase obligation of $647,700 with a minimum purchase of ten 30-pack arrays per contract year. At the end of the three year contract, upon fulfillment of the purchase commitment, the instrument title and ownership transfer to the Company at no additional cost. In addition to the GeneChip Human Genome, the Company must purchase a two year service contract for $51,600 to cover maintenance of the instrument during the contract period. The Company placed an initial order for four 30-pack arrays during 2013 for $94,723. The Company is obligated to purchase 26 additional arrays during the next three year contract term. |
|
A5 Software Development Commitment |
|
On June 10, 2013 the Company entered into an irrevocable license and service agreement with A5 Genetics KFT, Corporation, pursuant to which the Company received the world-wide (other than the European Union) exclusive license to the software used in the NextCYTE test. The Company has the right to prosecute patents related to this software, two of which the Company has filed in the United States. The patent applications have been assigned to the Company. The Company paid a one-time fee of $100,000 to A5 Genetics in 2013 and in March 2014 the Company completed software validation and paid an additional $100,000 to A5 Genetics. The Company is obligated to pay up to an additional $1.2 million to A5 Genetics upon the achievement of future milestones. The Company must also pay a royalty of $50 for each NextCYTE Test performed and $65 as a service fee for each NextCYTE Test performed. The agreement terminates on the later of the ten year anniversary of the agreement or the expiration of the latest to expire patent covering the software. |
|
Contingencies |
|
On June 30, 2011, Robert Kelly, the Company’s former President, filed a counterclaim against the Company in an arbitration proceeding, alleging breach of contract in connection with the termination of a consulting agreement between Mr. Kelly (dba Pitslayer LLC) and the Company that was entered into in July 2010 in connection with his resignation from the Company as President and a director. The consulting agreement was terminated by the Company in September 2010. Mr. Kelly seeks $450,000 in compensatory damages, which is the amount he claims would have been earned had the consulting agreement been fulfilled to completion. |
|
On December 11, 2012, Mr. Kelly filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Western Division of Washington seeking compensatory damages, interest and attorneys’ fees related to the termination of Mr. Kelly’s consulting contract and the rescission of shares issued to him in July 2010 in connection with his resignation from the Company as President and a director. The specific amount of damages sought is to be proven at trial and is not specified. On July 8, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of these claims and therefore this action was stayed pending resolution of the arbitration of the claims; however, Mr. Kelly has not initiated arbitration of those claims. |
|
On February 26, 2013, Mr. Victor Cononi filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Western Division of Washington seeking compensatory damages, interest and attorneys’ fees related to the rescission of shares issued to him in July 2010 in connection with Mr. Kelly’s resignation from the Company as President and a director. Mr. Cononi is the father of Mr. Kelly’s paramour. The specific amount of damages sought is to be proven at trial and is not specified. In August 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration of these claims and therefore this action was stayed pending resolution of the arbitration of the claims; however, Mr. Cononi has not initiated arbitration of those claims. |
|
A hearing in the arbitration has been held in abeyance to accommodate other third party civil and federal criminal proceedings alleging securities and wire fraud that have been brought against Mr. Kelly with respect to his prior employment and predating his service with the Company. On March 11, 2014 a press release was issued by the FBI stating that Mr. Kelly had pled guilty in Manhattan federal court to securities and wire fraud charges related to his employment as CEO of Wwebnet. Mr. Kelly also agreed to forfeit $2,111,600 and, separately, pay $2,111,600 in restitution. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2014. |
|
The Company is reasonably confident in its defenses to Mr. Kelly’s and Mr. Cononi’s claims. Consequently, no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of June 30, 2014. However, it is at least reasonably possible that the Company’s estimate of liability may change in the near term. Any payments by reason of an adverse determination in this matter will be charged to earnings in the period of determination. |
|
On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of the Company’s directors and officers and the underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering’s registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount. |
|
On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the “Levi Group”) as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014. |
|
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims as of June 30, 2014. The costs associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of the Company’s business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management’s view of these may change in the future. |
|
FDA Warning Letter |
|
On February 21, 2013, the Company received a Warning Letter (“Warning Letter”) from the FDA regarding its Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) System and MASCT System Collection Test (together, the “System”). The Warning Letter arises from certain FDA findings during a July 2012 inspection, to which the Company responded in August 2012. In that response, the Company explained why the Company believed it was in compliance with applicable regulations and/or was implementing changes responsive to the findings of the FDA inspection. The FDA alleges in the Warning Letter that following 510(k) clearance of the MASCT System, the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 510(k) notification to the FDA. Specifically, the FDA stated that the Instructions For Use (IFU) in the original 510(k) submission stated that the user must “Wash the collection membrane with fixative solution into the collection vial…” while the current IFU states “…apply one spray of Saccomanno’s Fixative to the collection membrane…” and that “this change fixes the NAF specimen to the filter paper rather than washing it into a collection vial.” At the time that the changes were made the Company determined and documented that the change could not significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the MASCT System, and thus, that a new 510(k) was not required in accordance with the FDA’s guidance document entitled, “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device.” The Warning Letter also identified certain issues with respect to the Company’s marketing of the System and the Company’s compliance with FDA Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations, among other matters. The Company responded to the Warning Letter on March 13, 2013, and identified the corrective actions that had been made, or were otherwise underway. The Company also filed a new 510(k) application for the MASCT System which was withdrawn in August 2013 after receiving feedback from the FDA. |
|
On October 4, 2013, the Company initiated a voluntary recall of the system to address FDA’s concerns regarding the modifications identified in the Warning Letter. As a result of this recall, this product is currently not being marketed or distributed in the U.S. The Company submitted a new premarket notification, or 510(k) application, with the FDA on December 23, 2013 that covers the collection, preparation, and processing of NAF specimens and includes the spray method of fixing specimens to the collection membrane. We received a request from the FDA on February 28, 2014 to submit additional information in support of the application. We have until August 20, 2014 to respond to the FDA. We cannot market or distribute the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator within the United States until we receive clearance for this device from the FDA. |
|
On March 14, 2014, the FDA completed a follow up inspection at the Company’s Seattle facility. A Form 483 was provided to the Company at the conclusion of the inspection. In the FDA's most recent Form 483, five inspectional observations were identified regarding the Company’s quality management system. The FDA inspector also orally identified five additional discussion points related to the Company’s product labeling prior to the recall of the MASCT System; sufficiency of the content of the Company’s pending 510(k) submission for the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator; and other compliance issues. On March 26, 2014, the Company submitted a response to the FDA, which included its proposed corrective actions to address the FDA's observations and discussion points. Whether the FDA will accept the Company’s response is uncertain, particularly in light of the similar nature of certain of the current inspectional observations to previous inspectional observations. If the FDA does not agree with the Company’s proposed corrective actions, or accepts them but finds that the Company has not implemented them adequately, or if the Company otherwise is found to be out of compliance with applicable regulatory requirements at a later date, the FDA could initiate additional warning letters, or initiate without further notice an enforcement action, fines and penalties. The FDA also may not clear our pending 510(k) for the ForeCYTE Breast Aspirator or our other devices and services under development. Any of the foregoing would have a material adverse effect on our business. |
|
The Company recorded a product recall liability of $211,493 on December 2013; as of June 30, 2014, the Company has $12,028 remaining in product recall liabilities and has incurred $390,812 in actual expenses related to the costs of the recall, including the estimated costs of pursuing the additional 510(k) clearance. The recall and 510(k) process may take longer than expected and the Company may incur costs that it has not anticipated. Accordingly, the actual amount of the loss contingency may be higher than the Company currently expects. |
| | | | |