Commitments and Contingencies
|3 Months Ended|
Jan. 31, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
On August 21, 2015, Knoll Capital Management L.P. (“KCM”) filed a complaint against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint alleges the existence of an oral agreement for the purchase by Knoll from the Company of 1,666,666.67 shares of Company stock at a price of $3.00 per share. KCM alleges that the Company breached this alleged agreement and seeks specific performance or, alternatively, money damages for breach of contract. KCM served the Company with the complaint on August 31, 2015, and then served an amended complaint on October 16, 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 26, 2015 and that motion was denied on January 29, 2016. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint on February 12, 2016. The parties are currently in the process of producing document discovery. A bench trial has been set for November 7, 2017. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
Larkin and Bono
On August 20, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed by a purported Company shareholder in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey styled David Bono v. O’Connor, et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-006326-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2015) (the “Bono Action”). The complaint is based on general allegations related to certain stock options granted to the individual defendants and generally alleges counts for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The complaint also alleges additional claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for waste of corporate assets. The complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified amount, disgorgement of compensation obtained by the individual defendants, and injunctive relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bono Action. On May 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and unjust enrichment claim against the three members of the Compensation Committee, but dismissed without prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the other eight individual defendants. The court dismissed without prejudice the Section 14(a) disclosure claim and waste claims against all defendants. On October 5, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its May 23 order.
At this stage of the proceeding, the Company does not express any opinion as to likely outcome, but the Company intends to defend the action vigorously.
The Company is from time to time involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these claims and proceedings against it is likely to have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.
The Company’s corporate offices are currently located at 305 College Road East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
Future minimum payments of the Company’s operating leases are as follows:
Year ended October 31,
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef