COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER MATTERS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER MATTERS

[1]   Operating leases: The Company leases office and R&D/production facilities in New Jersey under a 2 year, non-cancellable operating leases. In November 2017, the Company extended the lease for the New Jersey facility through December 31, 2019.

The future minimum rent due in 2018 and 2019 is $32,000 each year. At December 31, 2017, the future minimum rental payments under these operating leases are as follows:

2018	$	32,000
2019		32,000
	$	64,000

Rent expense was $46,000 in Fiscal 2017 and $44,000 in Fiscal 2016.

[2]         Employment agreements: The Company has an employment agreement in place with its Chief Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer, Melissa Waterhouse. The employment agreement with Ms. Waterhouse provides for a $160,000 annual salary and is for a term of one year. It automatically renews unless either party gives advance notice of 60 days. The employment agreement contains severance provisions; in the event the Company terminates Ms. Waterhouse’s employment for any reason other than cause (which is defined under the employment agreement), Ms. Waterhouse would receive severance pay equal to 12 months of her base salary at the time of termination, with continuation of all medical benefits during the twelve-month period at the Company’s expense. In addition, Ms. Waterhouse may tender her resignation and elect to exercise the severance provision if she is required to relocate more than 50 miles from the Company’s New York facility as a continued condition of employment, if there is a substantial change in the responsibilities normally assumed by her position, or if she is asked to commit or conceal an illegal act by an officer or member of the board of directors of the Company. In the case of a change in control of the Company, Ms. Waterhouse would be entitled to severance pay equal to two times her base salary under certain circumstances.

[3]          Legal:

ABMC v. Premier Biotech, Inc., Todd Bailey, et al.

In February 2017, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Columbia County against Premier Biotech Inc., Premier Biotech Labs, LLC and its principals, including its President Todd Bailey (“Bailey”), and Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc. (together the “Defendants”).Bailey formerly served as the Company’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing and as a sales consultant until December 23, 2016. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions and a temporary restraining order against Bailey (for his benefit or the benefit of another party or entity) related to the solicitation of Company customers as well as damages related to any profits and revenues that would result from actions taken by the Defendants related to Company customers.

In March 2017, the complaint was moved to the federal court in the Northern District of New York. In April 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, to which the Company responded on April 21, 2017.

In July 2017, the Company was notified that it was not awarded a contract with a state agency for which it has held a contract in excess of 10 years. The contract in question is included in the February 2017 complaint. The Company believes that the Defendants actions related to this customer and a RFP that was issued by the state agency resulted in the loss of the contract award to the Company and the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech. This contract historically accounted for 10-15% of the Company’s annual revenue. The Company continued to hold a contract with the agency through September 30, 2017. The Company did protest the award of the contract to Peckham and Premier Biotech, and the state agency advised the Company on July 26, 2017 that they denied the Company’s protest of the award.

The Company amended its complaint against the Defendants to show actual damages caused by the Defendants and to show proprietary and confidential information (belonging to the Company) used by the Defendants in their response to the RFP. This confidential information belonging to the Company enabled the Defendants to comply with specifications of the RFP. The Defendants filed a response to the court opposing the Company’s supplemental motion and the Company filed reply papers to the Defendants response on November 2, 2017.

In January 2018, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss (that was filed by the Defendants in April 2017). The court found that there was jurisdiction over Bailey only. In the Company’s opinion, this ruling does not diminish its standing in the case against Bailey, who again in the Company’s opinion, has always been the primary defendant. The court did not rule on the other motions before them. In February 2018, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve a supplemental/amended complaint. The new filing asks for reconsideration in the jurisdiction ruling regarding Premier Biotech Inc. and addresses the Company’s intent to further supplement its complaint based on additional (subsequent) damage alleged by ABMC on the part of Bailey and Premier Biotech, Inc. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case.

Todd Bailey v. ABMC

On October 20, 2017, the Company received notice that Bailey, its former Vice President of Sales & Marketing and sales consultant (and the same “Bailey” discussed above) filed a complaint against the Company in the State of Minnesota seeking deferred commissions of $164,000 that Bailey alleges is owed to him by the Company. On November 2, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Removal in this action to move the matter from state to federal court. On November 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative to transfer venue and consolidate, the Bailey complaint with our litigation filed previously against Bailey and others.

In January 2018, the judge in the Minnesota case requested additional briefing on the impact of ruling in the New York case that determined there was personal jurisdiction over Bailey. The Company filed the requested briefing as requested by the court. Given the stage of the litigation, management is not yet able to opine on the outcome of the case. As of the date of this report, the action in Minnesota has been stayed while the New York motions are decided.

[4]       Financial Advisory Agreement: The Company has entered into a Financial Advisory Agreement with Landmark Pegasus, Inc. (‘Landmark”). Under the Financial Advisory Agreement, Landmark provides certain financial advisory services to the Company for a minimum period of 6 months (which period originally commenced on January 17, 2014 and through a number of extensions and agreements, was extended through May 31, 2018. As consideration for these services within this latest extension, the Company paid Landmark a retainer fee consisting of 485,437 restricted shares of common stock and the Company will pay Landmark a “success fee” for the consummation of each and any transaction closing during the term of the Financial Advisory Agreement and for 24 months thereafter, inclusive of a sale or merger, between the Company and any party first introduced to the Company by Landmark, or for any other transaction not originated by Landmark but for which Landmark provides substantial support in completing during the term of the Agreement. For certain transactions, the success fee will be paid part upon consummation of a transaction and part paid over a term of not more than five years; all other transactions would be paid upon consummation of the transaction.

As a result of the retainer fees being paid in restricted shares and the resulting percentage of common share ownership, Landmark filed a Schedule 13G in October 2016 related to its ownership of the Company’s common stock and its principal John Moroney has continued to file required Section 16(a) forms; with the latest being filed on February 14, 2018. Apart from his status as a shareholder and with respect to the Agreement, there is no material relationship between the Company and Landmark