Commitments and contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Concentration, commitments and contingencies [Abstract]

Concentrations, commitments and contingencies

Note 8. Commitments and contingencies:

Employment commitments:

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has employment agreements with three officers providing aggregate annual minimum commitments totaling $780,000. The agreements automatically renew at the end of each year unless terminated by either party and contain customary confidentiality and benefit provisions.

Contingencies:

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.) et al., Case No. CV10 7365 ("Wolfe Suit"). This federal securities purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of the Company during the period between February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive. The complaint named as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during such period. The complaint included allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in development. On the Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January 21, 2011. The action was assigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT. On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel. On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the United States District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants without prejudice. On September 14, 2012, the court entered Final Judgment without prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against all plaintiffs in the Wolfe Suit. The Order to dismiss the action found in favor of the company and all of the individual defendants. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order granting the motion to dismiss and of the Final Judgment in the Wolfe Suit. The plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 1, 2013. The Company filed its answering brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 8, 2013. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, have vigorously defended against these claims, and intend to continue to do so.

On January 4, 2011, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado captioned Frank Trpisovsky v. Pusey, et al, Civil Action No. 11-cv-00023-PAB-BNB, that purports to be a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company against thirteen individual current or former officers and directors. The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 14a-9, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On motion of the Company and the individual defendants, the U.S. District Court has stayed this derivative action by order dated March 15, 2011. On October 18, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, reporting on updates in the Wolfe Suit and stating that the stay should remain in place at this time and that a further status report should be submitted after the appeal in the Wolfe Suit has been resolved. On October 25, 2012, the magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the case be administratively closed, subject to reopening for good cause. The U.S. District Court on November 14, 2012, accepted the recommendation and ordered this action administratively closed, subject to reopening for good cause.

In the ordinary course of business and in the general industry in which the Company is engaged, it is not atypical to periodically receive a third party communication which may be in the form of a notice, threat, or 'cease and desist' letter concerning certain activities. For example, this can occur in the context of the Company's pursuit of intellectual property rights. This can also occur in the context of operations such as the using, making, having made, selling, and offering to sell products and services, and in other contexts. The Company makes rational assessment of each situation on a case-by-case basis as such may arise. The Company periodically evaluates its options for trademark positions and considers a full spectrum of alternatives for trademark protection and product branding.

We are not a party to any other legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which would, in our management's opinion, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.