COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Notes to Financial Statements | ' |
NOTE 7 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | ' |
TCA Litigation |
|
On May 21, 2014, the Company, along with several other entities, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, against TCA for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Company alleges in the Complaint that TCA loaned $1 million to the Company pursuant to a Credit Agreement that provided for a revolving credit facility of up to $5 million. As alleged in the Complaint, the Credit Agreement provides that all of the Company’s revenues are to be re-directed to a lock-box account controlled solely by TCA. TCA would then pay itself fees and interest, and distribute the remaining revenues to the Company. The Company alleges that TCA breached the Credit Agreement by failing to distribute any of the lock-box revenues collected. The Company further alleges that TCA breached the Credit Agreement by unreasonably withholding approval of an acquisition target and failing to disburse $1.3 million in funds earmarked for the acquisition. The Company seeks damages, return of the moneys owed to the Company, and costs against TCA. On July 1, 2014, TCA filed a separate action against the Company, two officers of the Company, and its wholly owned subsidiaries, claiming that the Company has defaulted on the note, and seeking at least $901,142 (and perhaps as much as $1,112,983) in damages, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs, foreclosure on associated collateral, and the proceeds from any sale of that collateral. The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously. The Company has filed a Motion to consolidate the two lawsuits relating to the TCA Credit Agreement. |
|
JMJ Litigation |
|
On May 29, 2014, Justin Keener d/b/a JMJ Financial (“JMJ”) filed a Complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. In the Complaint, JMJ alleges that the Company breached a convertible promissory note dated June 17, 2013, pursuant to which JMJ provided $150,000 to the Company on or about June 19, 2013, and an additional $50,000 to the Company on or about December 12, 2013. JMJ alleges that on February 4, 2014, it agreed to accept $280,000 in satisfaction of the note. JMJ alleges that the Company paid $186,667 to JMJ on February 19, 2014. JMJ alleges that the Company has breached the promissory note by failing to repay the purported outstanding amount of the note either through conversion into the Company’s common stock or through cash payment, and seeks an award of damages (including but not limited to purported lost profits and opportunity costs relating to an inability to convert and thereafter sell the Company’s shares), interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On July 21, 2014, the Company filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim against JMJ. As affirmative defenses, the Company asserts, among others, that JMJ is not entitled to the relief requested because the promissory note at issue charges usurious interest rates in violation of Florida’s usury laws, and because JMJ’s claims for lost profits are speculative. The Company also asserts counter-claims for Declaratory Relief (seeking an order that the promissory note is usurious under Florida law and the entire debt and conversion rights thus are unenforceable) and for usury (seeking damages for all moneys paid pursuant to the promissory note, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs). The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously. |
|
Prime Time Medical Litigation |
|
After assuming control of the acquisition of Prime Time in August 2013, the Company discovered that the Seller of Prime Time (“Miklos”) failed to disclose that there were on-going audits with respect to Prime Time’s Medicare and Medicaid billings for periods prior to the consummation of the transaction. These audits have escalated and, as a result, Prime Time can no longer invoice Medicare and Medicaid for any products or services and be paid for such products and services until the outcome of the audits which could last at least two years. Also, as a result of other Medicare and Medicaid audits for periods prior to the consummation of the transaction, Medicare and Medicaid are demanding payments for products that Prime Time was paid prior to the closing of the transaction that were improper. It is estimated that Prime Time may owe Medicare and Medicaid up to $500,000 in improper payments and at least another $500,000 in accounts receivable that will not be paid to Prime Time pending the outcome of the audits. On March 13, 2014, after discovering numerous material differences between financial statements reproduced by the Company and the financial statements provided by Miklos in connection with the Stock Purchase Agreement, coupled with the foregoing events and Medicare and Medicaid’s constraint on Prime Time’s business and payment stream, the Board of Directors of the Company determined that the business could no longer survive and thus opted to pursue a rescission of the completed transaction with Prime Time. |
|
As a result of discoveries of fraud and misrepresentations in the acquisition of Prime Time described above, on March 18, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Mark R. Miklos in Miami-Dade County, Florida Case No.14007055CA01, alleging breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and damages. The company is seeking judgment against the Seller, restitution, rescission of the Purchase Agreement and Employment Agreement and return of all moneys paid to the Seller. |
|
On March 19, 2014 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed by Mark Miklos against the Company and Anovent, Inc. in Hillsborough County, Florida Case No. 14-CA-2520 DIV K, alleging the following: breach of the Employment Agreement entered into with the Company; improper notice of termination; breach of the Short Term Note for $850,000; breach of Promissory Notes A and B for $500,000 each, and further includes an action to foreclose a security interest in personal property and intangibles as a result of the alleged defaults of the Notes and rights under the Security Agreement. The Company believes there is no merit to Mr. Miklos’ lawsuit and intends to defend itself aggressively. |
|
Exergen Litigation |
|
On May 21, 2013, Exergen Corporation commenced legal action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, alleged infringement of certain intellectual property through the Company’s sale of the Caregiver Thermometer, as well as the Company's prior sales of its talking non-contact thermometer. Exergen is seeking various types of relief, including damages and an injunction against further alleged infringement of the intellectual property. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to Exergens’ complaint and asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses for non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. The Company believes the alleged claim of infringement is without merit and will vigorously defend its rights to market and sell the thermometers. |
|
Other Litigation |
|
From time to time, the Company may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm its business. |