XML 45 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Subsequent Events
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Subsequent Events [Abstract]  
Subsequent Events
Subsequent Events
The Company evaluated subsequent events through the date on which these financial statements were issued, and other than the sale of New Jersey state net operating losses for approximately $1,126,000 as disclosed in Note 15 Income Taxes (FASB ASC 740 Income Taxes) And Subsequent Event and the Company's transactions related to the ATM noted below, determined that no subsequent event constituted a matter that required disclosure or adjustment to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013.
For the period January 1, 2014 through March 1, 2014, the Company has sold approximately 10,654,356 shares pursuant to the ATM that has resulted in net cash proceeds of approximately $4,788,000 after commissions paid to Maxim for approximately $148,000.

On February 7, 2014, Charles T. Bernhardt III (“Bernhardt”) filed a Complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas asserting that under an employment agreement dated December 6, 2011, the Company currently owes Bernhardt certain wages, fringe benefits and severance payments by reason of his recent resignation from employment as Chief Financial Officer from the Company. The claims against the Company include breach of contract, violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Protection Collection Law (“WPCL”) and anticipatory breach of the employment agreement. The suit also asserts claims against Dr. William A. Carter, Thomas K. Equels, Esquire, Dr. Iraj Eqhbal Kiani, Dr. William M. Mitchell and Peter W. Rodino, in their capacity as corporate officers and/or directors of the Company, for violation of the WPCL and for anticipatory breach of the employment agreement. In addition to compensatory damages on all counts, Bernhardt’s claim includes a demand for attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages under the WPCL. On February 27, 2014, the Defendants filed preliminary objections to Bernhardt’s Complaint challenging the legal sufficiency of the Complaint for various reasons including that the Complaint did not properly state claims under the WPCL, nor did it assert a right to severance benefits. The preliminary objections further seek to strike certain improper allegations contained in the Complaint. The Company awaits Bernhardt’s required response thereto.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending against these claims by Bernhardt as unjustifiable. There is currently no projection as to the likely outcome of the case.
On March 3, 2014, the jury in the MidSouth Capital, Inc. v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. case returned a verdict in favor of the Company and against MidSouth on all claims. We cannot predict whether MidSouth may seek a new trial or appeal from the adverse judgment.