Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

v3.19.2
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

Legal Proceedings

 

The Company has become involved in certain legal proceedings and claims which arise in the normal course of business. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.

  

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Ohr”) and several current and former officers and directors, alleging that they violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, they seek to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. Ohr and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike exhibits appended to the motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed by the parties prior to proceeding on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 10, 2019, the Court entered an order concluding that it is unable to decide the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike independently of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and will consider the motions together. Briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss has now concluded, and the parties are awaiting further ruling of the Court. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of the Company’s common stock.

 

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Adele J. Barke, derivatively on behalf of Ohr, commenced an action against certain former directors of the Company, including Michael Ferguson, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, June Almenoff and Jason Slakter in the Supreme Court, State of New York, alleging that the action was brought in the right and for the benefit of Ohr seeking to remedy their “breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment that occurred between June 24, 2014 and the present.” It does not quantify any alleged damages. Ohr and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Such litigation has been stayed pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, which has been so ordered by the court, pending a decision in the Southern District case on the motion to dismiss, but that status could change. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of the Company’s common stock.

 

Following the filing on March 8, 2019 with the SEC of Ohr’s preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus, on March 18, 2019, the Gomez Action was filed by an individual shareholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ohr and former members of its board of directors. The plaintiff in the Gomez Action alleges that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement contained false and misleading statements and omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, the Barke Action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) claims against former members of Ohr’s board of directors and additionally naming Legacy NeuBase and Ohr Acquisition Corp., but not Ohr, as defendants. On March 20, 2019, the Wheby Action was filed in the United States District Court for District of Delaware asserting similar claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) and naming as defendants Ohr and former members of its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase, and Ohr Acquisition Corp. The complaint in the Wheby action has not been served on, nor was service waived by, any of the named Defendants in that action. On March 20, 2019, the Lowinger Action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware asserting a breach of fiduciary duty claim against former members of Ohr’s board of directors arising out of the same facts and circumstances regarding certain alleged omissions in the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement. On April 4, 2019, the Garaygordobil Action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) claims against Ohr and its board of directors.

 

Each of the Gomez, Barke, Garaygordobil, and Lowinger Actions have been dismissed, and on July 12, 2019, Ohr and Legacy NeuBase consummated the Merger. The sole remaining action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses.

 

Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s resources and attention, which could harm the Company’s business and the value of the Company’s common stock.