14. Legal Proceedings The Company, and certain of its subsidiaries, are parties to various legal actions as either plaintiff or defendant. In the Company’s opinion , these proceedings will not have a material adverse affect on its financial position, its cash flows or its overall trends in results. The estimate of the potential impact on its financial position, its overall results of operations or its cash flows for these proceedings could change in the future. On April 7, 2000, the Company and Intellesale filed a counterclaim against David Romano and Eric Limont, the former owners of Bostek, Inc. and Micro Components International Incorporated, two companies acquired by Intellesale in June 1999, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for, generally, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Messrs. Romano and Limont had filed their claim generally alleging that their earnout payment from Intellesale was inadequate. In July 2000, the Company and Intellesale amended its counterclaim in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to seek damages for, among other things, securities law violations. In addition, on May 19, 2000, Intellesale and two of its subsidiaries, Bostek, Inc. and Micro Components International Incorporated, filed suits against Messrs. Romano and Limont in Superior Court of Massachusetts to recover damages. In July 2000, Messrs. Romano and Limont amended their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to add a claim for $10 million for the $10 million payment not made to them. As of January 16, 2001, the Company, Intellesale, Bostek, Inc. and Micro Components International Incorporated settled all claims with Messrs. Romano and Limont. As part of the settlement agreement, Messrs. Romano and Limont agreed to invest up to $6 million in shares of the Company’s common stock and to indemnify the Company against various other litigation filed against Bostek, Inc. The settlement agreement provides for Messrs. Romano and Limont to purchase 3.0 million shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company has issued the common stock pending the closing of the transaction, which as of November 14, 2001, had not yet been consummated. As a condition of settlement, the 3.0 million shares were required to be included on a registration statement with an effective date on or before June 15, 2001. The Company was successful in meeting the June 15, 2001 deadline. On June 28, 2000, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with South Seas Data, Inc. Prior to completion of the transaction, the Company became aware of significant shortfalls in the earnings of South Seas and terminated the agreement. South Seas has filed a complaint alleging that we breached the agreement and demanding specific performance. The Company has asserted affirmative defenses and has filed a counterclaim against South Seas and a third-party complaint against an agent of South Seas. Trial has been set for November, 2001. The Company believes the claims made by South Seas are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. On June 8, 2001, three individuals filed suit against the Company and four of its officers in the United States District Court for Delaware seeking equitable relief and damages. The plaintiffs had acquired stock in the Company when the company in which they were shareholders, Computer Equity Corporation, was merged into one of the Company’s subsidiaries in 2000. The suit alleged,inter alia, that, because of asserted violations of federal and state securities laws and breach of a contract by us, the merger transaction should be rescinded. The suit was not served until August 6, by which time, a First Amended Complaint had been filed. As amended, the suit now has eight plaintiffs, all of whom had formerly owned stock in Computer Equity Corporation, and no longer seeks rescission. The various counts of the complaint assert violations of federal and state securities laws for the Company’s alleged failure to register timely the shares issued in connection with the merger; breach of contract by us for allegedly failing to comply with a Registration Rights Agreement regarding the shares; and breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from the same matters. In addition, in two counts the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that any future payments due to them under the merger agreement, so called “earnout” payments, due on or before September 30, 2001 and 2002, must be made in cash instead of through issuance of stock, as is permitted in the agreement, because of our alleged failures with regard to registration of shares in the past. The damages sought are those which allegedly arose because of the claimed delay in the registration of the stock issued in connection with the merger in 2000 and are described in the First Amended Complaint as being “not less than $1 million.” On October 18, 2001, the eight plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint adds Computer Equity Corporation as a defendant. It continues to assert claims for violation of federal securities law, breach of contract for failure to comply with a Registration Rights Agreement, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The proposed second amended complaint adds a breach of contract claim for failure to make the September 30, 2001 “earnout” payment. All other claims were eliminated. Plaintiffs seek over $10 million in damages and rescission, as they ask the Court to return the shares of Computer Equity Corporation. The Court has not ruled on whether it will permit plaintiffs to file the second amended complaint. Computer Equity Corporation has replaced four members of its management team, who are John Ballenger, Fred Henschel, David Schaumburg and Christopher Ballenger, among the plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation, and has filed suit against them in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax, Virginia. The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief. The Company believes the claims made by these individuals are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. 19 |