Note 7 – Legal Proceedings

On February 25, 2011, a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, styled: Charles D. Nyberg; Mary J. Nyberg; and Red Rock Partners, an Arizona general partnership vs. Cryo-Cell International, Inc, Case No. 8:11-CV-399-T-30AEP. The Complaint was amended on May 25, 2011 and served on the Company on May 26, 2011. The Complaint alleged that the Company had underpaid amounts owed to plaintiffs’ Florida and Texas Revenue Sharing Agreements with the Company. The Complaint did not specify the amount claimed, other than stating that it was more than $75,000 which is the jurisdictional amount of the court the complaint was filed in.

On November 15, 2013, the parties came to a final settlement on this action. The terms of the settlement are confidential. Upon completion of the settlement, the claims in the lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice. In December 2013, the Company paid $525,000 in full settlement. The Company recorded an accrual of $525,000 which is reflected in accrued expenses on the accompanying consolidated financial statements as of November 30, 2013.

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 is scheduled for July 9, 2014.

On October 11, 2013, a Complaint was filed by the Company in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, styled: Cryo-Cell International, Inc. v. Dilworth Paxson LLP et al, Case No. 13-CA-D09980. The Complaint alleged that Dilworth Paxson LLP and a partner for the firm were negligent and breached the duty of reasonable care owed to the Company. The Complaint alleges the defendant’s negligence led to the cancellation of the license agreement with Cryo-Cell de Mexico. The Company lost profits and income that would have been earned under the original agreement and was forced to renegotiate the terms of the agreement with terms far less lucrative to the Company. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida as permitted because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. The case now bears a case number of 8:13-Civ-2639-T-33AEP. On June 2, 2014, a confidential settlement was executed by both parties.

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.