Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

In July 2007, we signed a four-year lease, commencing August 1, 2007, for 4,366 square feet of office and laboratory space in Bothell, Washington at an initial rental rate of $6,367 per month. We are also responsible for paying a proportionate share of property taxes and other operating expenses as defined in the lease.

In November 2008, we signed an amended five-year lease to gain 5,798 square feet of additional clean room space for manufacturing in a facility adjacent to our corporate office facility leased in Bothell, Washington at an initial rental rate of $14,495 per month. Included in this amendment is the exercise of the renewal option for our current office and laboratory space to make the lease for such space coterminous with the new facility five-year lease period.

The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments required under the facility leases as of December 31, 2011:

Year Ending
December 31
2012	$	285,049
2013		296,451
2014		77,077
Total	$	658,577

Rental expense for this facility lease for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 totaled $368,273 and $345,404, respectively. These amounts include the Company’s proportionate share of property taxes and other operating expenses as defined by the lease.

Employment agreements

We have employment agreements with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company which automatically renews for successive one year periods in the event either party does not send the other a “termination notice” not less than 90 days prior to the expiration of the initial term or any subsequent term. The agreements provide for certain minimum compensation per month and incentive bonuses at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Under certain conditions, we may be required to continue to pay the base salary under the agreement for a period of up to two years.

Litigation

On February 7, 2007, Kristi Snyder, a former employee of the Company filed a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Broome, against the Company alleging a breach of an employment agreement and seeking damages of up to $300,000 plus attorneys’ fees. This case currently is in discovery. The Company is vigorously defending its position.

On April 6, 2007, the Company was served with a complaint filed by John G. Baust, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and President, and thereafter, until January 8, 2007, the Chairman, Sr. Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Tioga, against the Company seeking, among other things, damages under his employment agreement to be determined upon trial of the action plus attorneys’ fees, a declaratory judgment that he did not breach his fiduciary duties to the Company, and that his covenant not to compete is void as against public policy or unenforceable as a matter of law, and to enjoin the Company from commencing an action against him in Delaware courts seeking damages for breaches of his fiduciary obligations to the Company. The parties have engaged in extensive motion practice. By decision of December 18, 2009, Justice Tait rejected Plaintiff Baust’s efforts to obtain partial summary judgment. This case currently is in discovery. The Company is vigorously defending its position.

On June 15, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Tioga against Cell Preservation Services, Inc. (“CPSI”) and Coraegis Bioinnovations, Inc. (“Coraegis”), both of which are owned and/or controlled by John M. Baust, a former employee of the Company and the son of John G. Baust, both of whose employment with the Company was terminated on January 8, 2007.

On March 15, 2004, the Company had entered into a Research Agreement with CPSI, pursuant to which CPSI took over the processing of the Company’s existing SBIR grants, on behalf of the Company was to apply for additional SBIR grants and, in each case, was to perform the research with respect to such grants. In connection therewith, the Company granted to CPSI a limited license to use the Company’s technology (“BioLife’s Technology”), including the Company’s proprietary cryopreservation solutions (collectively, “Intellectual Property”), solely for the purpose of conducting the research pertaining to the SBIR grants, and CPSI agreed to keep confidential all Company confidential information disclosed to CPSI (“Confidential Information”). On January 8, 2007, the Company informed CPSI that the Research Agreement would not be extended and would terminate in accordance with its terms on March 15, 2007.

The lawsuit states various causes of action, including, (1) repeated violations of the Research Agreement by CPSI by improperly using BioLife’s Technology, Intellectual Property and Confidential Information for its own purposes, (2) the unlawful misappropriation by CPSI and Coraegis of the Company’s trade secrets, (3) unfair competition on the part of CPSI and Coraegis through their unlawful misappropriation and misuse of BioLife’s Technology, Intellectual Property and Confidential Information, and (4) the conversion of BioLife’s Technology, Intellectual Property and Confidential Information by CPSI and Coraegis to their own use without the Company’s permission.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, (1) to enjoin CPSI from continuing to violate the Research Agreement, (2) damages as a result of CPSI’s breaches of the Research Agreement, (3) to enjoin CPSI and Coraegis from any further use of the Company’s trade secrets, (4) damages (including punitive damages) as a result of CPSI’s and Coraegis’ misappropriation of the Company’s trade secrets, (5) to enjoin CPSI and Coraegis from any further use of BioLife’s Technology, Intellectual Property and Confidential Information, (6) damages (including punitive damages) as a result of CPSI’s and Coraegis’ unfair competition against the Company, and (7) damages (including punitive damages) as a result of CPSI’s and Coraegis’ conversion of BioLife’s Technology, Intellectual Property and Confidential Information to their own use. On September 30, 2008, Justice Jeffrey Tait issued a Letter Decision and Order which provides for a multi-phase process for discovery concerning contested discovery disclosures. The parties are awaiting Justice Tait’s decision on the initial process to be used concerning these contested discovery issues. The parties have engaged in extensive motion practice. By decision of December 18, 2009, Justice Tait denied the attempt of the Defendants to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. This case currently is in discovery. The Company is vigorously pursuing its position.

On December 4, 2007, John M. Baust, the son of John G. Baust, filed a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Tioga, against the Company and Michael Rice, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, alleging, among other things, a breach of an employment agreement and defamation of character and seeking damages against the Company in excess of $300,000 plus attorneys fees. This case currently is in discovery. The Company is vigorously defending its position.

We have not made any accrual related to future litigation outcomes as of December 31, 2011 or 2010.