Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingent Liabilities
Note 8 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Operating Leases On March 13, 2013, the Company gave notice of early termination for a lease agreement for a corporate apartment dated May 31, 2011. Accordingly, the lease expired on March 31, 2013. The Company did not incur any penalties related to the early termination of the lease agreement. During the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded aggregate rent expense of $45,719 and $52,457, respectively. Litigation On February 9, 2012, two of our former stockholders, Rock Castle and Jason Smith (“Plaintiffs”), filed suit against the Company in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the Company had breached the terms of certain stock options the Company granted to the Plaintiffs in connection with the Company’s now-terminated oral consulting arrangements with the Plaintiffs, by among other things, refusing Plaintiffs’ purported exercise of options to purchase 233,332 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.00 per share in December 2011. Plaintiffs have requested that, among other things, the court require the Company to permit the exercise of the 233,332 options. Plaintiffs have also provided an expert report indicating damages of $2.086 million. Also named as defendants were two individuals, Michael Peppel and Gary Singer, whom Plaintiffs claim acted as agents for the Company in connection with its purchase of shares of its common stock from Plaintiffs in September 2011. On April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs dismissed Mr. Singer from the lawsuit. Trial of the case is currently scheduled for April of 2014. The Company denies all of the Plaintiffs’ claims and intends to contest this matter vigorously. On October 9, 2012, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. brought legal action against the Company in the Boone County, Kentucky Circuit Court. The action seeks to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account in the amount of $87,029, plus interest and costs. The Company filed an answer in November 2012. This litigation was resolved on July 10, 2013 by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013. On November 5, 2012, HD Smith, Inc., one of the Company’s vendors, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the Company alleging that it breached its vendor credit agreement. The Plaintiff is seeking damages of $170,316 plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. This litigation was resolved on January 25, 2013, as amended on June 20, 2013, by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013. On March 13, 2013, a former vendor filed suit against the Company in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the Company had breached its contract. The plaintiff is seeking damages of $17,800 plus pre-judgment interest and other costs and expenses. The Company answered the complaint and trial was set for June 2014. This matter was resolved by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013. On March 20, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by two shareholders of the Company, HWH Lending, LLC and Milfam I L.P., seeking to compel the holding of an annual meeting of stockholders for the election of directors under Delaware law. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 13, 2013, the Company publicly announced that the Board of Directors had set the date for the Company’s next annual meeting of stockholders as August 15, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. In lieu of further litigation, on July 18, 2013, the parties submitted to the court a proposed order confirming August 15, 2013 as the annual meeting date and establishing certain procedures related to the annual meeting. On July 18, 2013, the court entered the proposed order providing that (i) the Company shall notice and hold its annual meeting on August 15, 2013 for the election of directors and for the transaction of any other business properly brought before the meeting, and the date of the meeting shall not be adjourned, continued or postponed prior to the election of directors absent an order of the court; (ii) the shares of the Company’s stock represented at the annual meeting, either in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote thereat shall constitute a quorum for purposes of the meeting, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Company’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws, and (iii) the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting is July 1, 2013, and if the annual meeting noticed for August 15, 2013 is adjourned, continued or postponed prior to the election of directors pursuant to an order of the court, the Company may set a new record date in accordance with the Company’s bylaws. In accordance with the Court order, the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders was held on August 15, 2013 at which time Lalit Dhadphale, Youssef Bennani, Joseph Savarino, and Ambassador Ned Siegel each received a plurality of the total votes cast at the annual meeting and each was elected as a director by the stockholders of the Company. On September 24, 2013, this action was dismissed without prejudice by a joint stipulation of dismissal. On April 23, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Committee, chaired by Youssef Bennani, a director and Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee, to investigate certain stockholder demands. Since March 1, 2013, the Company has received three letters from stockholders alleging certain breaches of fiduciary duties by directors of the Company and demanding that the Company commence investigations of the alleged conduct. On March 1, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of the holders of the Company’s Series B Preferred Stock (“Preferred Holders”) alleging that a convicted felon appears to be a consultant to the Company, owes the Company money, and exercises control over the Company. On March 8, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of stockholder Wayne Corona alleging that two directors, Matthew Stecker and John Backus, breached their fiduciary duties and demanding that the Company investigate legal claims against those directors. The letter alleges that the director designee of the holders of the Company’s Series B Preferred Stock and the director designee of New Atlantic Ventures Fund III, L.P. (“NAV”) acted in concert to attempt to scuttle the Company’s recent financing plan. The letter also alleged that the director designee of the Preferred Holders and the director designee of NAV sought to prevent the Company from paying back its lenders in 2010 and 2011. On March 18, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of the two directors denying the allegations and stating there was no proper basis for launching an investigation. On March 27, 2013, a letter on behalf of Messrs. Backus and Stecker, in their capacities as directors and stockholders, demanded that the Company (i) investigate alleged breaches of confidentiality and fiduciary duties by the Company’s President and CEO and two other directors in connection with the purported stockholder demand letter of Mr. Corona dated March 8, 2013, and (ii) assert related claims against those individuals. The letter also asserted that the director constituting the special committee, Youssef Bennani, is subject to alleged conflicts of interest that disqualify him from serving on any proposed special committee to evaluate the pending stockholder demands. The Special Committee has retained an independent law firm to conduct the investigation and advise the Special Committee. On April 30, 2013, a purported class-action complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company sent an unsolicited advertising fax to Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, the named plaintiff, and other recipients. The complaint alleges that such a fax violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois common law. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per fax for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 for knowing or willful violations. At the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class of persons and entities who were sent advertising faxes by the Company which did not contain an opt out notice. On June 19, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint which withdrew the two counts for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law tort of conversion. The amended complaint eliminates claims for damages under Illinois law and leaves only a single count for an alleged violation of the TCPA. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint on July 8, 2013 contesting class certification and liability. The District Court has not established or recognized any class. This litigation was resolved on September 24, 2013. The settlement amount is deemed to be de minimis. On May 7, 2013, a putative stockholder derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain directors and the chief executive officer of the Company and against the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, entrenchment and corporate waste arising out of the alleged failure to conduct annual meetings, SEC filing obligations, advances to a former employee and a $500,000 secured loan to the Company which the entire board of directors approved. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the allegations stated in the complaint are without merit and they intend to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations. The individual director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 22, 2013 and filed an opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss on August 2, 2013. The Company joined in the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on September 16, 2013. Instead of filing a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, on September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants alleging two claims for breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste and deleting the claim for entrenchment. The claims in the amended complaint arise out of allegations regarding a failure to conduct stockholder annual meetings, a failure to comply with SEC filing obligations, a lack of internal controls and unauthorized advances to a former employee and a $500,000 secured loan approved by the Company’s entire board. The Company and the individual defendants continue to believe the allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the allegations. On October 3, 2013, the individual director defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the Company joined in the motion to dismiss. Under a briefing schedule approved by the court, defendants’ brief on the motion to dismiss is due by November 4, 2013, plaintiff’s answering brief is due by December 13, 2013, and defendants’ reply brief is due by January 10, 2014. On May 15, 2013, a former consultant filed suit in Boone County, Kentucky Circuit Court alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for unpaid consulting fees and expenses of approximately $27,000. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on July 22, 2013 and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. On August 9, 2013, two shareholders of the Company, HWH Lending, LLC and Milfam I L.P., filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a verified complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking to prevent the Company from including a 10.5% block of shares held by a stockholder in the vote count at the Company’s upcoming annual meeting of stockholders scheduled for August 15, 2013. The complaint alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer did not follow proper procedures in issuing the shares to the stockholder and caused those shares to be issued in violation of Delaware law. Following an expedited briefing schedule, the court held a hearing on August 14, 2013 and denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. On August 21, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. On October 11, 2013, two former directors of the Company sent a letter demanding payment of $80,766 in legal fees and expenses pursuant to certain Company indemnification and advancement provisions. The Company is evaluating the demand and has requested additional information. In the normal course of business the Company may be involved in legal proceedings, claims and assessments arising in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Legal fees for such matters are expensed as incurred and we accrue for adverse outcomes as they become probable and estimable. Currently, other than discussed above, the Company is not involved in any such material matters. Settlement Agreement On February 22, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with a counterparty for amounts owed related to the return of expired goods and inventory and the Company wrote down the accounts receivable to the settlement amount as of December 31, 2012. On February 28, 2013, the Company received $50,000 in connection with the agreement in complete satisfaction of all outstanding and past due accounts receivable from the counterparty, such that there was no balance due to the Company as of March 31, 2013.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Commitments And Contingent Liabilities

Note 8 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Operating Leases

On March 13, 2013, the Company gave notice of early termination for a lease agreement for a corporate apartment dated May 31, 2011. Accordingly, the lease expired on March 31, 2013. The Company did not incur any penalties related to the early termination of the lease agreement.

During the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded aggregate rent expense of $45,719 and $52,457, respectively.

Litigation

On February 9, 2012, two of our former stockholders, Rock Castle and Jason Smith (“Plaintiffs”), filed suit against the Company in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the Company had breached the terms of certain stock options the Company granted to the Plaintiffs in connection with the Company’s now-terminated oral consulting arrangements with the Plaintiffs, by among other things, refusing Plaintiffs’ purported exercise of options to purchase 233,332 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.00 per share in December 2011. Plaintiffs have requested that, among other things, the court require the Company to permit the exercise of the 233,332 options. Plaintiffs have also provided an expert report indicating damages of $2.086 million. Also named as defendants were two individuals, Michael Peppel and Gary Singer, whom Plaintiffs claim acted as agents for the Company in connection with its purchase of shares of its common stock from Plaintiffs in September 2011. On April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs dismissed Mr. Singer from the lawsuit. Trial of the case is currently scheduled for April of 2014. The Company denies all of the Plaintiffs’ claims and intends to contest this matter vigorously.

On October 9, 2012, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. brought legal action against the Company in the Boone County, Kentucky Circuit Court. The action seeks to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account in the amount of $87,029, plus interest and costs. The Company filed an answer in November 2012. This litigation was resolved on July 10, 2013 by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013.

On November 5, 2012, HD Smith, Inc., one of the Company’s vendors, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against the Company alleging that it breached its vendor credit agreement. The Plaintiff is seeking damages of $170,316 plus pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. This litigation was resolved on January 25, 2013, as amended on June 20, 2013, by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013.

On March 13, 2013, a former vendor filed suit against the Company in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the Company had breached its contract. The plaintiff is seeking damages of $17,800 plus pre-judgment interest and other costs and expenses. The Company answered the complaint and trial was set for June 2014. This matter was resolved by a negotiated settlement. Such amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013.

On March 20, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by two shareholders of the Company, HWH Lending, LLC and Milfam I L.P., seeking to compel the holding of an annual meeting of stockholders for the election of directors under Delaware law. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 13, 2013, the Company publicly announced that the Board of Directors had set the date for the Company’s next annual meeting of stockholders as August 15, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. In lieu of further litigation, on July 18, 2013, the parties submitted to the court a proposed order confirming August 15, 2013 as the annual meeting date and establishing certain procedures related to the annual meeting. On July 18, 2013, the court entered the proposed order providing that (i) the Company shall notice and hold its annual meeting on August 15, 2013 for the election of directors and for the transaction of any other business properly brought before the meeting, and the date of the meeting shall not be adjourned, continued or postponed prior to the election of directors absent an order of the court; (ii) the shares of the Company’s stock represented at the annual meeting, either in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote thereat shall constitute a quorum for purposes of the meeting, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Company’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws, and (iii) the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting is July 1, 2013, and if the annual meeting noticed for August 15, 2013 is adjourned, continued or postponed prior to the election of directors pursuant to an order of the court, the Company may set a new record date in accordance with the Company’s bylaws. In accordance with the Court order, the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders was held on August 15, 2013 at which time Lalit Dhadphale, Youssef Bennani, Joseph Savarino, and Ambassador Ned Siegel each received a plurality of the total votes cast at the annual meeting and each was elected as a director by the stockholders of the Company. On September 24, 2013, this action was dismissed without prejudice by a joint stipulation of dismissal.

On April 23, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Committee, chaired by Youssef Bennani, a director and Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee, to investigate certain stockholder demands. Since March 1, 2013, the Company has received three letters from stockholders alleging certain breaches of fiduciary duties by directors of the Company and demanding that the Company commence investigations of the alleged conduct. On March 1, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of the holders of the Company’s Series B Preferred Stock (“Preferred Holders”) alleging that a convicted felon appears to be a consultant to the Company, owes the Company money, and exercises control over the Company. On March 8, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of stockholder Wayne Corona alleging that two directors, Matthew Stecker and John Backus, breached their fiduciary duties and demanding that the Company investigate legal claims against those directors. The letter alleges that the director designee of the holders of the Company’s Series B Preferred Stock and the director designee of New Atlantic Ventures Fund III, L.P. (“NAV”) acted in concert to attempt to scuttle the Company’s recent financing plan. The letter also alleged that the director designee of the Preferred Holders and the director designee of NAV sought to prevent the Company from paying back its lenders in 2010 and 2011. On March 18, 2013, the Company received a letter on behalf of the two directors denying the allegations and stating there was no proper basis for launching an investigation. On March 27, 2013, a letter on behalf of Messrs. Backus and Stecker, in their capacities as directors and stockholders, demanded that the Company (i) investigate alleged breaches of confidentiality and fiduciary duties by the Company’s President and CEO and two other directors in connection with the purported stockholder demand letter of Mr. Corona dated March 8, 2013, and (ii) assert related claims against those individuals. The letter also asserted that the director constituting the special committee, Youssef Bennani, is subject to alleged conflicts of interest that disqualify him from serving on any proposed special committee to evaluate the pending stockholder demands. The Special Committee has retained an independent law firm to conduct the investigation and advise the Special Committee.

On April 30, 2013, a purported class-action complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the Company sent an unsolicited advertising fax to Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, the named plaintiff, and other recipients. The complaint alleges that such a fax violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois common law. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per fax for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 for knowing or willful violations. At the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class of persons and entities who were sent advertising faxes by the Company which did not contain an opt out notice. On June 19, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint which withdrew the two counts for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law tort of conversion. The amended complaint eliminates claims for damages under Illinois law and leaves only a single count for an alleged violation of the TCPA. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint on July 8, 2013 contesting class certification and liability. The District Court has not established or recognized any class. This litigation was resolved on September 24, 2013. The settlement amount is deemed to be de minimis.

On May 7, 2013, a putative stockholder derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain directors and the chief executive officer of the Company and against the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, entrenchment and corporate waste arising out of the alleged failure to conduct annual meetings, SEC filing obligations, advances to a former employee and a $500,000 secured loan to the Company which the entire board of directors approved. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the allegations stated in the complaint are without merit and they intend to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations. The individual director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 22, 2013 and filed an opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss on August 2, 2013. The Company joined in the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss was due on September 16, 2013. Instead of filing a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, on September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants alleging two claims for breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste and deleting the claim for entrenchment. The claims in the amended complaint arise out of allegations regarding a failure to conduct stockholder annual meetings, a failure to comply with SEC filing obligations, a lack of internal controls and unauthorized advances to a former employee and a $500,000 secured loan approved by the Company’s entire board. The Company and the individual defendants continue to believe the allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the allegations. On October 3, 2013, the individual director defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the Company joined in the motion to dismiss. Under a briefing schedule approved by the court, defendants’ brief on the motion to dismiss is due by November 4, 2013, plaintiff’s answering brief is due by December 13, 2013, and defendants’ reply brief is due by January 10, 2014.

On May 15, 2013, a former consultant filed suit in Boone County, Kentucky Circuit Court alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for unpaid consulting fees and expenses of approximately $27,000. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on July 22, 2013 and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

On August 9, 2013, two shareholders of the Company, HWH Lending, LLC and Milfam I L.P., filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a verified complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking to prevent the Company from including a 10.5% block of shares held by a stockholder in the vote count at the Company’s upcoming annual meeting of stockholders scheduled for August 15, 2013. The complaint alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer did not follow proper procedures in issuing the shares to the stockholder and caused those shares to be issued in violation of Delaware law. Following an expedited briefing schedule, the court held a hearing on August 14, 2013 and denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. On August 21, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

On October 11, 2013, two former directors of the Company sent a letter demanding payment of $80,766 in legal fees and expenses pursuant to certain Company indemnification and advancement provisions. The Company is evaluating the demand and has requested additional information.

In the normal course of business the Company may be involved in legal proceedings, claims and assessments arising in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Legal fees for such matters are expensed as incurred and we accrue for adverse outcomes as they become probable and estimable. Currently, other than discussed above, the Company is not involved in any such material matters.

Settlement Agreement

On February 22, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with a counterparty for amounts owed related to the return of expired goods and inventory and the Company wrote down the accounts receivable to the settlement amount as of December 31, 2012. On February 28, 2013, the Company received $50,000 in connection with the agreement in complete satisfaction of all outstanding and past due accounts receivable from the counterparty, such that there was no balance due to the Company as of March 31, 2013.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details