Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

v3.10.0.1
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
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 the Company and several current and former officers, 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 our stock during the putative class period and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike exhibits appended to the motion to dismiss. A decision on the motion to strike is pending, and the motion to dismiss will then be fully briefed based on a schedule to be determined by 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 the Company, commenced an action against 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. The Company 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.

 

In September 2018, plaintiff John Tomson, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, commenced an action against Michael Ferguson, Sam Backenroth, Irach Taraporewala, Orin Hirschman, Thomas M. Riedhammer, June Almenoff and Jason Slakter in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the action was brought in the right and for the benefit of Ohr seeking to remedy their various breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate waste and unjust enrichment that occurred between April 4, 2014 through January 4, 2018. Thereafter, the complaint largely summarized the allegations of the amended complaint filed in the securities class action described above. It does not quantify alleged damages. The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Such litigation is currently stayed pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, which has been so ordered by the court, pending a decision in the Southern District 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.

 

Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from the ongoing litigation 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.