Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Nov. 30, 2015
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
NOTE 15 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company has employment agreements in place for certain members of management. These employment agreements which include severance arrangements, are for periods ranging from one to two years and contain certain provisions for severance payments in the event of termination or change of control.
The Company entered into a ten-year lease in April 2004 for its 17,600 square foot cGMP/cGTP compliant corporate headquarters in Oldsmar, Florida for rent of approximately $141,000 per year for each of the first two years and escalating thereafter. The lease effectively commenced during October 2004, and the Company moved into this facility in November 2004. This facility contains the Company’s executive offices, its conference and training center, its laboratory processing and cryogenic storage facility and its scientific offices.
On June 7, 2006, the Company entered into a lease amendment, which amended the Company’s lease for its principal offices in Oldsmar, Florida. The original lease covered approximately 17,600 square feet of space. Under the amendment, the Company leased an additional 9,600 square feet of space at the same location, beginning on August 1, 2006 and ending with the termination of the lease in 2013. The Company’s rent for the additional space was $11,032 per month through July 31, 2009, with annual increases thereafter through the entire lease term to a maximum of $13,176 per month for the additional space.
In June 2013, the Company signed an amendment to terminate the building lease on the additional 9,600 square feet that was entered into during June 2006. The termination fee was $150,000 and is reflected, net of rent paid for May and June 2013, in selling, general, and administrative expenses. The Company also extended the main lease through December 31, 2015 for the 17,600 square foot space.
In January 2016, the Company extended the main lease through December 31, 2018 for the 17,600 square foot space.
Rent charged to operations was $260,272 and $256,546 for the fiscal years ended November 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and is included in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income.
The future minimum rental payments under the operating lease are as follows:
The Company entered into a one-year lease in November 2013 for an additional 800 square feet of office space in Miami, Florida for annual rent of approximately $27,120. The lease commenced during December 2013. In December 2015, the Company extended the lease through December 31, 2016.
On November 13, 2013, Plantiff Ki Yong Choi filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Complaint names as defendants all of the members of the Company’s current Board of Directors, as well as former director Anthony Atala. The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant only. The complaint alleges that, since the election of the Company’s Board of Directors in August 2011, the Company’s Co-CEOs have pursued their own enrichment and entrenchment at the expense of the Company and its shareholders. The complaint asserts claims against the Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment and seeks, among other things, rescission of certain transactions between the Company and the co-CEOs and damages from the Board of Directors. On February 14, 2014, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to make a pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors or to establish that demand should be excused, as required by Delaware law. A hearing took place on July 9, 2014, and on July 28, 2014, the Court has dismissed the case.
On December 3, 2015, a complaint styled Gary T. Brotherson, M.D., et al. v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., Case No. 15-007461-CI, Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida, was served on the Company, naming it as defendant and alleging, among other things, that the Company breached certain agreements with plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of $15,000, the jurisdictional amount of the court in which the action is pending. On January 12, 2016, the Company served its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and it intends to contest the action vigorously. At this time, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the loss or the range of possible loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome, as the ultimate resolution of the complaint is uncertain at this time. No amounts have been accrued as of November 30, 2015.
On January 20, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company (Case No. 11915-VCG). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and is seeking appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against defendants that a certain provision of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through September 22, 2014 is in violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Company believes the litigation is without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company’s maximum deductible under its Directors and Officers insurance policy for this claim is $500,000.
On February24, 2016, a complaint styled Charles D. Nyberg and Mary J. Nyberg and as trustees of the CDMJNyberg Family Trust v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., Case No. 8:16CV408t30, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Hillsborough County, Florida, was served on the Company, naming it as defendant and alleging, among other things, that the Company breached certain agreements with plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of $15,000, the jurisdictional amount of the court in which the action is pending. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and it intends to contest the action vigorously. At this time, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the loss or the range of possible loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome, as the ultimate resolution of the complaint is uncertain at this time. No amounts have been accrued as of November 30, 2015.
In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to proceedings, lawsuits, contract disputes and other claims in the normal course of its business. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of current matters should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. It is possible, however, that there could be an unfavorable ultimate outcome for or resolution which could be material to the Company’s results of operations for a particular quarterly reporting period. Litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company does not include an estimate of legal fees and other related defense costs in its estimate of loss contingencies.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef