Commitments and Contingencies
|9 Months Ended|
Jul. 31, 2017
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
On August 21, 2015, Knoll Capital Management L.P. filed a complaint against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In lieu of continuing to unnecessarily incur litigation expenses, on April 27, 2017, the Company settled the matter for a non-material amount, predominately reimbursed by the Company’s insurance, and the parties entered into a definitive confidential settlement agreement. The Company expressly denies any admission or wrongdoing and the settlement was entered into solely for the purpose of avoiding the burden, inconvenience, and expense of further litigation. On May 11, 2017, following resolution of the matter by the parties, the Court granted a Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice.
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. Specifically, 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 [O’Connor, Khleif, McKearn, Patton, Bonstein, Mauro, Mayes, and Petit]. 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. On April 13, 2017, the parties advised the Court that they had reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle the action, which is still subject to negotiating an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel and a stipulation of settlement, and, ultimately, Court approval.
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.
At July 31, 2017 future minimum lease payments by fiscal year of the Company’s operating leases are as follows:
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef